Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.75

v2.c80.75

Taking the verbal figures, Rudraṭa's vakrokti, based on paronomasia (śleṣa) and intonation (kāku), has nothing in common with that of his predecessors. The intonational vakrokti is indeed not accepted by some of his successors (e. g. Rājaśekhara p. 31 and Hemacandra p. 234), inasmuch as it is supposed to depend on mere peculiarities of reading (pāṭhadharmatvāt) : but on the whole, Rudraṭa's definition of the figure replaced that of Vāmana's metaphorical vakrokti, survived Kuntala's broader interpretation of vakrokti, and firmly established itself as the only recognised figure in later literature from Mammaṭa downwards. Again, Rudraṭa's classification of anuprāsa is somewhat different from that of Udbhaṭa, the former basing it on the five vṛttis of letters (varṇa), viz., madhurā, paruṣā, prauḍhā, lalitā and bhadrā, and the latter admitting only three vṛttis (paruṣā, upanāgarikā and grāmyā or komalā) only in connexion with one of his three kinds of anuprāsa, viz., vṛttyanuprāsa. The later writers follow Udbhaṭa on this point. Udbhaṭa, again, omits the treatment of yamaka, in spite of the examples of Bharata and Bhāmaha before him, and in spite of the fact that Daṇḍin had already given one of the fullest treatments of that figure in the whole realm of Alaṃkāra literature. Rudraṭa perhaps ranks next to Daṇḍin in the fulness of his treatment, though there is considerable divergence in the details of classification in the treatments of these two writers. In the same way, there is no reference to citra in Bharata, Bhāmaha or Udbhaṭa, although Māgha says (xix 41) that it was in his time a figure indispensable in a mahākāvya. Daṇḍin dilates upon some of its varieties, but Rudraṭa gives a much fuller exposition, and it is noteworthy that although Mammaṭa does not attach much value to such verbal ingenuity, yet in his discussion of this figure he quotes almost all the illustrations from Rudraṭa. In connexion with the faults concerning verbal figures, Rudraṭa points out several cases (vi 29-33) where punarukta or tautology is not a fault; Udbhaṭa, as Nami-sādhu also notes, includes all these cases in the figure punaruktavadābhāsa or ‘semblance of tautology’. Udbhaṭa, again, speaks of śleṣa apparently as an arthālaṃkāra, and divides it into śabda-śleṣa and artha-śleṣa, which correspond respectively to abhaṅga- and sabhaṅga-śleṣa of later writers. Rudraṭa, on the other hand, speaks of śleṣa as a śabdālaṃkāra which he carefully distinguishes (ii 13) from the arthālaṃkāra of the same name, which he deals with separately in ch. x and which forms the basis of twelve independent figures. The verbal figure śleṣa, on the contrary, is elaborately classified according as it relates to varṇa, liṅga, prakṛti, pratyaya, vibhakti and vacana (iv 12), Rudraṭa thus avoiding the controversy carried on by later theorists as to whether the śleṣa is a figure of śabda or of artha.