Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.54

v2.c80.54

In his treatment of these poetic figures, Udbhaṭa follows Bhāmaha very closely, enumerating the figures in the same order and even borrowing literally the definitions of a large number of them. In the case of a few particular poetic figures, however, Udbhaṭa enters into distinctions which were probably unknown to Bhāmaha. Thus, he speaks of four forms of the *atiśayokti*, which Bhāmaha does not mention, but which agrees substantially with the four out of the five varieties of that figure recognised by later writers. Bhāmaha spoke (ii 6-8) of only two kinds of *anuprāsa*, viz., *grāmyānuprāsa* and *lāṭiyānuprāsa*, which classification, Pratihārendurāja thinks, is based on a tacit admission of the two *vṛttis*, viz., *grāmyā* and *upanāgarikā*. Udbhaṭa, on the other hand, distinguishes three varieties of *anuprāsa*, called *chekānuprāsa*, *lāṭānuprāsa* and *vṛttyanuprāsa*, the last of which appears to be classified again on the basis of the three *vṛttis*, viz., *grāmyā* (or *komalā*), *paruṣā* and *upanāgarikā*. These *vṛttis*, which consist primarily of suitable sound-adjustment with a view to alliteration, appear to have been first recognised, as Abhinavagupta points out, by Udbhaṭa, and from him known to Ānandavardhana (pp. 5-6). We shall see presently that Rudraṭa mentions five *vṛttis* (ii 19 f); but we find Udbhaṭa’s views accepted by later theorists like Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka who, however, consider the whole question from the point of view of *rasa*²⁵. Again, the grammatical basis of the divisions of *upamā* (of which there is only a hint in Bhāmaha ii 31-33) first appears in Udbhaṭa (i 35-40) in a form which establishes itself in later theory. It is true that Udbhaṭa does not in the present treatise devote, as Bhāmaha does, a special chapter to the question of grammatical correctness, nor does he allude to the theories regarding functions of words already hinted at by Bhāmaha (vi 6 f), yet in deference to the grammatical analysis of speech, he discusses at some length the various subdivisions of *upamā*, due to suffixes like *vat*, *kyac*, *kyaṅ*, *kvip*, *kalpap* and the like, indicative of resemblance; and this analysis became almost standardised in later literature. Regarding definitions of individual figures, minor differences, as well as further elaboration, are noticeable. Thus Udbhaṭa’s *tulyayogitā* corresponds to that of Mammaṭa, but Bhāmaha’s figure of the same name is perhaps equivalent to Mammaṭa’s *dīpaka*. The figures *dṛṣṭānta* and *kāvyaliṅga* (also called *kāvya-dṛṣṭānta* and *kāvya-hetu* respectively) are omitted by Bhāmaha, but defined and illustrated by Udbhaṭa for the first time. But Udbhaṭa is the only older writer who entirely omits the treatment of *yamaka*. Again, Bhāmaha recognises *śleṣa* involved in *sahokti*, *upamā* and *hetu*, and Daṇḍin speaks of *śleṣa* as coming in and increasing the charm of all figures. But the well-known controversy regarding the division of *śleṣa* into *śabda-śleṣa* and *artha-śleṣa*, together with the question of its relations to other poetic figures in which it may appear, seems to have started, as Ruyyaka notes, from Udbhaṭa’s time; for Udbhaṭa declares that in cases of combination, the *śleṣa* is stronger than the other figures to the extent even of dispelling their apprehension. We shall also see that Udbhaṭa is certainly more advanced in recognising *rasa* and defining its place in the poetic figures, if not in poetry as a whole; and he even goes so far as using the technical terms *bhāva* and *anubhāva*, which can not be traced in Bhāmaha. The *saṃsṛṣṭi* of two or more independent poetic figures is found indeed in Bhāmaha and Bhaṭṭi (as also in Daṇḍin and Vāmana), but Udbhaṭa does not refer to the two cases of such *saṃsṛṣṭi* mentioned by Daṇḍin (ii 360) and distinguishes it definitely from