Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.90

v2.c80.90

As to the classification of the ideal figures (*arthālaṃkāras*) according to their essential characteristics, Daṇḍin divides all figures into *svabhāvokti* and *vakrokti*, Vāmana makes an early attempt to take *aupamya* as the central principle, while Rudraṭa groups them systematically under *vāstava*, *aupamya*, *atiśaya* and *śleṣa*⁸. Mammaṭa has no definite principle of classification. Ruyyaka suggests one based on (i) *aupamya* (comparison) (ii) *virodha* (incongruity) (iii) *śṛṅkhalā* (linked succession) (iv) *nyāya* (logical reason) (v) *gūḍhārtha-pratīti* (understanding of a secret sense) (vi) combination of figures (*saṃsṛṣṭi* or *saṃkara*). Vidyādhara and Viśvanātha substantially follow this classification, only splitting up *nyāya* into *tarka-nyāya*, *vākya-nyāya* and *loka-nyāya*; but Vidyānātha substitutes the word *sādharmya* for *aupamya* (or *sādṛśya*), and speaks of *adhyavasāya* (complete identification) and *viśeṣaṇa-vaicitrya* (strikingness of adjectives or attributes) as two other bases of classification. Perhaps none of these classifications would be regarded as strictly scientific, for they mix broad heads indicating psychological factors (like similarity, contrast or contiguity) with mere formal bases of classification as *gūḍhārtha-pratīti* or *apahnava*.