Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.89

v2.c80.89

is not accepted by all, and Mammaṭa maintains that *anvaya* (connexion) and *vyatireka* (disconnexion or contrast) must form the test, which consists in considering whether the particular figure does or does not bear a change of synonymous words (*parivṛtti-sahatva*). If the figure disappears with the change of the word by its synonym, it is a verbal figure or *śabdālaṃkāra*; if not, it is an ideal figure or *arthālaṃkāra* The number of independent *śabdālaṃkāras* has never been large, the largest being probably the twenty-four mentioned by Bhoja The ancient writers pay, as a rule, greater attention to this class, which apparently afforded ample scope to decadent classical poets for mere verbal jugglery; but more recent writers like Ānandavardhana or Mammaṭa do not deal with it with so much care, on the ground that though such word play brings about variety or *vaicitrya* of expression to some extent, it does not help, but only retards, the comprehension of the *rasa* in a composition by entirely engrossing the reader's mind. The *arthālaṃkāras*, on the other hand, have always engaged more care and attention, and the favourite refining process has been systematically and untiringly pursued in this sphere. Their number, however, has always been subject to fluctuations; but it can be generally stated that while in the older writers the number is limited, in comparatively recent authors the multiplication is more marked. On the one hand, Bharata speaks only of four *arthālaṃkāras*; Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana deal with about thirty to forty different figures; the number reaching its maximum perhaps in Rudraṭa's sixty-eight. In Bhoja, Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka there is a reaction towards restriction and decrease; but in the latest stage of our history, the *Candrāloka* gives about one hundred, while the *Kuvalayānanda* adds a score more. Daṇḍin, himself a great sinner in this respect, very early protested against such endless differentiation, and Ānandavardhana agrees with him; but it appears to have afforded endless scope to the scholastic ingenuity of later theorists, who, after the time of Ānandavardhana, having hardly had anything to systematise in respect of the essentials of theory, occupied themselves in elaborating the details.