Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.35

v2.c80.35

Bhāmaha, however, appears (i 31-35) to be indifferent to the literary value of *riti* (roughly, ‘diction’), to which Daṇḍin and his followers of the Rīti school attach so much importance. He thinks that the distinction made by the *riti*-theorists between *vaidarbha* and *gauḍa* is meaningless; and though he does not use the terms *mārga* (Daṇḍin) or *riti* (Vāmana), his statement would imply that he is speaking of *vaidarbha* and *gauḍa-kāvyas* respectively, in which some had apparently seen differences of manner and treatment. As a necessary corollary apparently to this view, he does not think it worth while to devote much attention to the *guṇas*, which the *riti*-theorists take as forming the constituent excellences of *riti*, and summarily mentions in another context (ii 1-3) only three *guṇas*, viz., *mādhurya*, *ojas* and *prasāda*, apparently rejecting Bharata's ten orthodox excellences. He does not, however, connect them with the *rīti*, and thinks that they are distinguished according to the presence or absence, in varying degrees, of compound words.