Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.72

v2.c80.72

Daṇḍin, who himself enumerates a very large number of poetic figures, very sagely remarks that if for some slight difference, a different figure is to be defined, there would be hardly any end to their infinite multiplication. This remark partly applies to Rudraṭa whose general scheme, as well as particular definitions, is open to such an obvious objection. One of the curious results of rigorously following this classification is that the same figure reappears as an *alaṃkāra* under different groups. Thus *sahokti* and *samuccaya* have two aspects, based respectively on *vāstava* and *aupamya*, while the figure *utprekṣā* appears similarly under *aupamya* and *atiśaya* respectively. Some of Rudraṭa's figures have been abandoned by later writers, while some have changed their names or have been modified³³, later speculation inclining rather towards the more orthodox expositions of Udbhaṭa, or even of Daṇḍin; yet the general merit of Rudraṭa's analysis and definitions, testified to by the more or less implicit acceptance by later theorists like Mammaṭa³⁴, cannot be denied. They not only indicate a considerable advance in scholastic activity on Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa, but also remarkable independence, and consequent divergence, of treatment in several notable cases.