Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.76

v2.c80.76

Regarding arthālaṃkāras, Rudraṭa mentions only four upamā-doṣas (xi 24), in contradistinction to seven of Bhāmaha and Medhāvin and six of Vāmana³⁵, viz., *vaiṣamya*, *asaṃbhava*, *aprasiddhi* and *sāmānya-śabda-bheda*, the last defect including all cases of change of a word signifying common property (as construed with the *upamaya* and the *upamāna*), due to the difference of *liṅga*, *vacana*, *kāla*, *kāraka* and *vibhakti*. We have already noted that Udbhaṭa enters rather minutely into the grammatical subdivisions of *upamā*, but this finds no place in Rudraṭa’s treatment, which includes them in a lump in *samāsópamā* and *pratyayópamā*. Again, Bhāmaha positively rejects *hetu* as a poetic figure, although Daṇḍin speaks of it as *vācām uttama-bhūṣaṇam*, including it under *kāvyaliṅga* (*kāraka-hetu*) and *anumāna* (*jñāpaka-hetu*). Udbhaṭa recognises only *kāvyaliṅga*, calling it also *kāvya-hetu* and distinguishing it from *dṛṣṭānta* which he calls *kāvya-dṛṣṭānta*. It is Rudraṭa (vii 82) who first defines and fixes its characteristics as finally accepted in Poetics. It is needless to cite any more instances; but what is said above will be enough to indicate, in the first place, that there is a considerable divergence of view between Rudraṭa and his predecessors with regard to the nature and scope of individual figures and their classification; and what is more important to note, it is easy to demonstrate that most of these differences are fundamental. We can reasonably assume, therefore, that Rudraṭa, possessed as he is of great inventive powers, either follows a system of classification and definition peculiar to himself, or follows a tradition of opinion different in some respects from that of Bhāmaha and his followers, although in general theory he belongs to a common school.