Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.15

v2.c80.15

Although Bhāmaha is the oldest representative of this system whose work has survived, he was, as we have stated more than once, by no means its originator. The system, as we find it set forth in his work, is certainly not primitive, but indicates the firm existence of a developed teaching on the subject. Rājaśekhara, we have seen⁵, gives us a long list of mythical names with which he identifies the original treatment of the various topics relating principally to the poetic figures. He assigns the elaboration of the poetic figures *anuprāsa*, *yamaka* and *citra*, *śabda-śleṣa*, *vāstava*, *upamā*, *atiśaya*, *artha-śleṣa*, and *ubhayālaṃkāra* respectively to Pracetāyana, Citrāṅgada, Śeṣa, Pulastya, Aupakāyana, Pārāśara, Utathya and Kubera. While the antiquity of the distinction between *śabdālaṃkāras* and *arthālaṃkāras* generally (in spite of the above passage of Bhāmaha’s) and of *śabda-śleṣa* and *artha-śleṣa* in particular may be seriously doubted, some of these poetic figures may be allowed to have been very early recognised, as Bharata mentions some of them and Bhāmaha acknowledges nearly all (excepting *citra* which we find in Daṇḍin and *vāstava* which we find in Rudraṭa). Medhāvin, cited by Bhāmaha, probably belonged to this school, and his is the only authentic name of an early exponent of this system.