Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81: III. Dandin And Vamana

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81

Language
English

Contents

III. Dandin And Vamana

( The Riti System )

v2.c81.s1.1

( 1 )

v2.c81.s1.2

Daṇḍin comes chronologically after Bhāmaha, and Vāmana, who comes after Daṇḍin, was contemporaneous with Bhāmaha's commentator Udbhaṭa; but the *rīti*-system, which Daṇḍin and Vāmana represent in Poetics, was probably older in tradition than Bhāmaha himself, who half-contemptuously rejects the distinction between *vaidarbha* and *gauḍa kāvya*. It can be traced back to the time of Bāṇabhaṭṭa (first-half of the 7th century) who tells us that the Gauḍas were already notorious for *akṣara-ḍambara*, to which fact Daṇḍin also alludes in his depreciation of the *gauḍa mārga*. It would be seen that although the terms *mārga* or *rīti* in the technical sense might not have been very ancient, both Daṇḍin and Vāmana themselves indicate that some such system as they advocate was traditionally existent; and they appear to refer to and sometimes actually quote from unknown expositors of the past¹. It is probable that the Rīti school, if we use this term to separate those writers who put an emphasis on *rīti* as the most important element of poetry, had an independent origin and history, and existed for a long time side by side with the sister schools, which threw into prominence the elements of *rasa*, *alaṃkāra* or *dhvani* respectively.

v2.c81.s1.3

¹ c. g. under Vāmana I. 2. 11, 12-13; 3. 15, 21; III. 1. 9, 25; IV. 1. 7 etc.

v2.c81.s1.4

We have already stated that Daṇḍin is influenced, to some extent, by the teachings of the Alaṃkāra school, and as such stands midway in his view between the *alaṃkāra*-system of Bhāmaha and the *rīti*-system of Vāmana. At the same time, there can be no doubt that in theory he allies himself distinctly with the views of Vāmana. In Vāmana, however, we find the system in its completely self-conscious form; and here we have nothing of that vagueness or indefiniteness which characterises the rival *alaṃkāra*-system of Udbhaṭa. With a clear-cut scheme and a definite central principle, Vāmana proceeds to set forth his system in the brief but succint *sūtra*-form; and whatever may be the value of his speculations, there can be no doubt that Vāmana was the first writer to enunciate a definite theory which, before the Dhvanikāra, must have had great influence on the study of Poetics.

v2.c81.s1.5

With regard to the commonplaces of poetic speculation, Daṇḍin’s standpoint does not differ much from that of Bhāmaha; and both start with the same notion of embellishing sound and sense, which, in their opinion, should constitute the ‘body’ of poetry. The classification of poetry into species of composition like the *sarga-bandha* (*mahākāvya*) etc., is almost identical², the only remarkable divergence occurring.

v2.c81.s1.6

² Under verse, Daṇḍin mentions *sarga bandha* (= *mahākāvya*), *muktaka* (single verse), *kulaka* (five verses), *koṣa* (unconnected verses of different authors), and *saṃghāta* (unconnected verses of the same author); under prose, he speaks

v2.c81.s1.7

as already noted, in the case of *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā*, which rigid distinction is not admitted by Daṇḍin³. Poetry is classified, according to its form, into prose, verse and mixed (*miśra*), while language furnishes another *fundamentum divisionis* yielding four distinct groups, viz., *saṃskṛta*, *prākṛta*, *apabhraṃśa*⁴ and *miśra*, the last kind in both these divisions not being mentioned by Bhāmaha. The effect of combining these two principles of classification gives us four species of composition, viz., *sarga-bandha* (*mahākāvya*) *kathā*, *ākhyāyikā* and *campū*. Vāmana gives two divisions of both prose and verse, viz., *nibaddha* and *anibaddha* (connected and unconnected). He thinks that verse is of various kinds, but divides prose into three varieties, *vṛtta-gandhi* (savouring of verse), *cūrṇa* (having no long compounds and possessing sweet vocables), and *utkalikā-prāya* which is the opposite of *cūrṇa* (1. 3. 21-26).

v2.c81.s1.8

³ See above p. 57. The varieties of *kathā* mentioned by Hemacandra are *ākhyāna*, *nidarśana*, *pravahlikā*, *matallikā*, *maṇikulyā*, *parikathā*, *khaṇḍakathā*, *sakalakathā* and *upakathā* (pp. 338 f). The last three are also admitted by Ānandavardhana (p. 141) and defined by Abhinava. The *Agni-purāṇa* 337, 20 defines *kathānikā*.

v2.c81.s1.9

⁴ It is not known what Bhāmaha signifies by the term *apabhraṃśa*, but Daṇḍin gives to it a definite connotation as the language of the Abhīras and others in the *kāvya*, as distinguished from the *śāstra* where it is the name applied to all languages other than Sanskrit. Nami-sādhu sententiously says : *prākṛtam eva apabhraṃśaḥ*. Hemacandra adds to Apabhraṃśa another kind called *grāmyâpabhraṃśa*. Cf Bharata xvii 49, which makes it clear that the Apabhraṃśa was a *jāti-bhāṣā* and not a *deśa-bhāṣā*. The Abhīras were ancient settlers in the land and are mentioned by Patañjali (i 252). See *IA*, 1918, p. 26.

v2.c81.s1.10

in Sanskrit, *skandhaka* in Prakrit, *osara* in Apabhraṃśa, and *nāṭaka* in mixed languages, although it is not thought necessary to deal with them all in detail. The old division into *śravya* and *prekṣya* *kāvya*⁵, according as a composition appeals to the eye or the ear, is also referred to in i 39; but regarding *prekṣya kāvya*, by which dramatic composition is generally meant, Dandin summarily refers to specialised treatises on the subject.

v2.c81.s1.11

⁵ This division occurs again in Hemacandra, who divides *prekṣya kāvya* into *pāṭhya* and *geya*.

v2.c81.s1.12

These speculations, of course, constitute the common stock-in-trade of Poetics, and find themselves repeated in a more or less similar form in most writers irrespective of the school or tradition to which they belong. Thus Vāmana also gives us preliminary chapters on the divisions of poetry (*kāvya-viśeṣa*), on the auxiliary aids or sources of poetry (*kāvyāṅga*), on the persons entitled to study the science (*adhikāri-nirūpaṇa*). Although belonging to a different school, Rudraṭa in the same way devotes two chapters (i and xvi) to these general topics of Poetics.

v2.c81.s1.13

But in respect of the attention which Daṇḍin pays to the elaboration of poetic figures, his sympathy obviously allies him with the standpoint of the Alaṃkāra school. He shares the views of this school in his general opinion that a good *kāvya* should be embellished by those decorative devices which go by the name of *alaṃkāra*. At the same time, it is important to note that while Daṇḍin believes, with all early writers, in the theory of embellishment, he differs in his view as to the means by which this embellishment should be realised; for he apparently holds that it is not the poetic figures only but the several literary excellences, the *guṇas* (which are also designated *alaṃkāras* by him), that constitute the essence of the poetic manners (*mārgas*) or poetic diction, in the realisation of which alone the secret of poetry lies. Indeed, the marked emphasis laid on the *mārga*, which is almost equivalent to Vāmana's *rīti*⁶, and on its constituent excellences, known as *guṇas*, to which the Alaṃkāra school is apparently indifferent, is a distinct feature of Daṇḍin's work, and places Daṇḍin in his fundamental theoretic attitude in the Rīti school. Although he does not go so far as Vāmana in setting up the *rīti* as the essence of poetry, there can be no doubt that he attaches special importance to its literary value. It is true that Daṇḍin never uses the term *rīti* throughout his work, but his employment of the term *mārga* (i 9, 40, 42, 67, 75, 101) or *vartman* (i 42, 92), implying 'mode', 'manner', or style in the objective sense, may be taken as almost synonymous. His general definition of poetry, or rather its 'body' or frame-work, as *iṣṭārtha-vyavac-chinnā padāvalī* (i 10)—a series of words characterised by an agreeable sense or idea—naturally leads him to consider, first of all, the question of appropriate expression of appropriate ideas, or in other words, to discuss the suitable arrangement of sound and sense for the purpose of producing poetic effect, which is technically denoted by the term *mārga* or *rīti*. Speech, he says, is diversified in its mode of expression (*vicitra-mārga*, i 9), and he is aware of the fine distinctions which mark off one mode from another (i 40) and result in a multifarious variety of modes. All these he broadly divides into two clearly distinguishable types, called the *vaidarbha* and the *gauḍa*, to the critical study of which his whole work is avowedly devoted. This classification is probably not Daṇḍin's own but derived from some recognised tradition (i 40), although Bharata, who mentions the *kāvya-guṇas*, does not refer to *mārga* or *rīti*, and Bhāmaha's analysis of the two types 7 (as well as of the *guṇas*) is somewhat different. Of the two types, Daṇḍin gives preference to the *vaidarbha mārga*, which, in his opinion, results from a harmonious unification of the ten *guṇas* or excellences of composition, the *gauḍa* being the exactly opposite type.

v2.c81.s1.14

⁶ Vāmana also uses the term *mārga* in III. I. 12.

v2.c81.s1.15

The ten *guṇas*, which are spoken of as the *prāṇāḥ* or life-breath of the *vaidarbha mārga* and which are non-existent in the *gauḍa*, are therefore essential in a good composition. They are thus enumerated by Daṇḍin:

v2.c81.s1.16

⁷ Bhāmaha does not use the terms *mārga* or *rīti* but distinguishes between the *vaidarbha* and the *gauḍa kāvya* as two types of poetry obtaining in two different places. Bāṇa has already told us that people of different places liked different poetic devices (*Harṣa-carita* I *śl.* 7), with which statement Daṇḍin's remarks regarding the partiality of the Gauḍas to certain tricks and excellences agree. As Vāmana distinctly says, the *rītis*, which took their names from localities, were probably analysed empirically from the styles which prevailed in these localities. With regard to *guṇas*, Bhāmaha mentions them independently of the *rīti*. They are *mādhurya* and *prasāda* marked by the absence of compounds, and *ojas* by their presence. They would thus correspond to the *rītis* of Rudraṭa. Bharata mentions ten *guṇas* only as essential to a good *kāvya*, and not in relation to *rīti*.

v2.c81.s1.17

(i) *śleṣa*, the quality of being well knit, the opposite being *śithila* or looseness,

v2.c81.s1.18

(ii) *prasāda*, or lucidity, the opposite being *vyutpanna* or far-fetchedness,

v2.c81.s1.19

(iii) *samatā*, or evenness (in the grouping of word-sounds), the opposite being *vaiṣamya* or unevenness,

v2.c81.s1.20

(iv) *mādhurya*, or elegance, consisting of alliteration of similar sounds (*śrutyanuprāsa* 8) and absence of vulgarity (*agrāmyatva*)⁹, respectively termed *vāg-rasa* and *vastu-rasa*. The name of the opposite of *mādhurya* is not given, but the opposite of *śrutyanuprāsa* is *varṇāvṛtti* (i 35) and that of *agrāmyatva* is *grāmyatva*, the latter rejected in both the *mārgas*.

v2.c81.s1.21

⁹ For the meaning of the terms *grāmyatva* and *rasa* occurring in this definition, see below ch. IV.

v2.c81.s1.22

(v) *sukumāratā*, or absence of harshness due to the use of soft vocables, the opposite being termed *dipta*,

v2.c81.s1.23

(vi) *artha-vyakti*, or explicitness of sense (common to both the *mārgas*, the opposite *neyatva* being rejected in both),

v2.c81.s1.24

(vii) *udāratva*, or elevation consisting of the expression of some high merit (common to both the *mārgas*),

v2.c81.s1.25

⁸ The *śrutyanuprāsa* is the name given to the grouping of similar sounds which exist between letters belonging to the same *sthāna*, such as *kaṇṭha*, *tālu*, *mūrdhan*, *danta* etc. It is thus distinguished from *varṇānuprāsa*. The subdivisions of *anuprāsa* are infinite : but Bhoja (ch. ii) gives an elaborate scheme of classification containing six main varieties, viz, *śruti*, *vṛtti*, *varṇa*, *pada*, *nāma-dvirukti*, and *lāṭa*.

v2.c81.s1.26

(viii) *ojas*, or force due to the presence of compounds (common to both the *mārgas*, but the Vaidarbha attempts a simpler kind of prose, while the Gauḍa attempts a peculiar style both in prose and in verse, long compounds prevailing in the latter case),

v2.c81.s1.27

(ix) *kānti*, or agreeableness due to conformity to general usage : in other words, absence of the unnatural, the exaggerated or the grotesque, the opposite being *atyukti*,

v2.c81.s1.28

(x) *samādhi*, or transference of the qualities or actions of one thing to another, i. e. metaphorical expression generally (common to both the *mārgas*).

v2.c81.s1.29

It will be noticed that the above enumeration of the literary excellences of diction, which differs greatly from that of Bharata¹⁰, is neither exhaustive nor strictly logical. The *artha vyakti*, for instance, may well be included in the *prasāda*. The definition of *udāratva* is rather vague, so also is that of *kānti*, in both of which Dandin apparently admits subjective valuations not clearly indicated. Again, the *mādhurya*, though defined primarily as a particular mode of word-arrangement, is regarded more or less as a subtle excellence which defies analysis¹¹. A similar indefinable psychological factor is apparently admitted in the *samādhi*, the definition of which makes it difficult to distinguish from it poetic figures like *rūpaka* or metaphor, where there is also poetic superimposition of an object or its qualities on another. It is quite possible that from Daṇḍin’s point of view, the difference between the *samādhi-guṇa* and the *rūpaka-alaṃkāra* may consist in the fact in the *guṇa* there is a transference only of the qualities or actions of one thing to another, while in the *alaṃkāra* either one *dharmin* itself is substituted for another, or the new *dharma* entirely supplants the existing *dharma*. But this process of poetic transference is essentially a mode of figurative expression resting finally on *lakṣaṇā*, and Vāmana would regard Daṇḍin’s definition of the *samādhi-guṇa* as constituting the figure *vakrokti*, which, in his opinion, consists in a similar transference based on resemblance.

v2.c81.s1.30

¹⁰ See above pp. 15f.

v2.c81.s1.31

¹¹ Daṇḍin's treatment implies that he considers it both as a *śabda-guṇa* (illustrated in i 53) and as an *artha-guṇa* (illustrated in i 64), although this distinction is not mentioned by him (but cf the word *vibhakta* in i 68).

v2.c81.s1.32

It must also be pointed out that some of Daṇḍin’s *guṇas* refer to *śabda* (word), some to *artha* (sense), while others to both these elements. The *mādhurya* and *sukumāratā* are primarily *śabda-guṇas*, depending on the use of specific vocables, while between themselves, the *mādhurya* requires sound-alliteration, and *sukumāratā* the prevailing use of tender vocables. But the use of words or syllables suggesting a vulgar sense must be avoided in *mādhurya*, a fact which precludes us from taking it strictly as a *śabda-guṇa*. Daṇḍin does not make a hard-and-fast distinction between *śabda-guṇas* and *artha-guṇas*, as his successor Vāmana does; but taking his definitions as they stand, it would appear that he probably regards some of them (e. g., *śleṣa*, *samatā*, *sukumāratā* or ojas, all of which refer to sound-effects) as constituting what later theorists would call *śabda-guṇas*, and others (e. g., *prasāda*, *artha-vyakti*, *udāratva*, *kānti* or *samādhi*) as constituting *artha-guṇas*; while *guṇas* like *mādhurya* he would in the same way classify as belonging both to *śabda* and *artha*. Daṇḍin himself was perhaps conscious of the defective nature of his classification, and consequently added (i 101-102) that in the midst of a general agreement regarding the usage of *guṇas*, there always exist differences between writers and writers as regards the emotional value of their composition or their artistic presentation.

v2.c81.s1.33

After dealing with the *guṇas* in relation to the two opposite types of *mārga*, Daṇḍin begins (ch. ii) the treatment of those poetic embellishments which are specifically called *alaṃkāras* or poetic figures. It must be distinctly understood that the word *alaṃkāra* is used by Daṇḍin in the general sense of that which causes beauty in poetry, *kāvya-śobhākārān dharmān alaṃkārān pracakṣate*, ii 1. It appears to include in its wide scope both *guṇas*, and *alaṃkāras* properly so called. Referring to his own discussion of the *guṇas* in the previous chapter, in relation to the *vaidarbha mārga* of which they constitute the essence, Daṇḍin speaks of them in ii 3 as *alaṃkāras*, and goes on to mention the figures as *sādhāraṇam alaṃkāra-jātam*. In other words, poetic figures are *alaṃkāras* common to both the *mārgas* (*sādhāraṇa*), while *guṇas* are *alaṃkāras* belonging exclusively to the *vaidarbha*. He says, therefore, at the outset of his treatment of the poetic figures (ii 3) :

v2.c81.s1.34

*kāścin mārga-vibhāgārtham uktāḥ prag* *apyalaṃkriyāḥ|* *sādhāraṇam alaṃkāra-jātam adya pradarśyate||*

v2.c81.s1.35

"For the purpose of classifying the *mārgas*, some *alaṃkāras* have been already spoken of (by me in the previous chapter) ; now are shewn those *alaṃkāras* which are common (to both the *mārgas*)". Taruṇavācaspati rightly comments on this verse ¹² : "The *śleṣa* and the like are already spoken of as the ten *guṇas*. If it is objected, therefore, that they cannot also be called *alaṃkāras*, the reply is that the characteristic of an *alaṃkāra* consists in its capacity of embellishing, and that on account of this characteristic they (*guṇas*) are also *alaṃkāras*. The learned teachers have already said that the *guṇas* are indeed *alaṃkāras*. Hence the *alaṃkāras*, like the *śleṣa*, which are essentially *guṇas*, were mentioned before to indicate the difference between the (two) *mārgas*; but now are enumerated those *alaṃkāras* which are common to the two *mārgas*." Daṇḍin, it may be pointed out, uses the word *alaṃkriyā* in same general sense in iii 137 (or iv 14 in Madras ed.). From what is said above it follows that Daṇḍin does not make a fundamental theoretic distinction between the *guṇa* and the *alaṃkāra* as such (as later writers from Vāmana downwards do), but apparently regards them both essentially as *alaṃkāra*, taking the word in its wider sense of that which embellishes; the *guṇas* being of primary importance as essentials of a good style, and the *alaṃkāras* (i. e. poetic figures) of subsidiary value as constituents of styles, both good and bad. It is noteworthy that Daṇḍin never makes a confusion in the use of the two terms, but invariably applies the former term to denote (except in one case in ii 364) the literary excellences of diction (i 42, 76, 81, 100), and the latter to designate the poetic figures to which the name is traditionally restricted (ii 7, 116, 214, 220, 268, 300, 340, 359; iii 141, *alaṃkāratā* in ii 237, 287, 367). In this way he practically foreshadows, if he does not theoretically develop, the rigid differentiation of the *guṇa* and the *alaṃkāra* of the Riti school.

v2.c81.s1.36

¹² *pūrvam śleṣādayo daśa guṇā ityuktam. Katham te-'laṃkāra ucyante iti cet, śobhākaratvam hi alaṃkāra-lakṣaṇam, tallakṣaṇa-yogāt te'pyalaṃkārāḥ........guṇā alaṃkāra eva ityācāryāḥ.....tataḥ śleṣādayaḥ guṇātmakālaṃkārāḥ. pūrvam mārga-prabheda-pradarśanāya uktāḥ, idānīm tu mārga-dvaya-sādhāraṇā alaṃkāra ucyante.*

v2.c81.s1.37

The subsidiary *alaṃkāras*, consisting of poetic figures, are dealt with by Daṇḍin in two chapters (ii and iii), devoted respectively to the treatment of the verbal (*śabda-*) and ideal figures (*artha-alaṃkāras*). He does not expressly state this distinction, which is implied in his treatment, but he gives his general opinion that verbal tricks like those of *yamaka* are not especially attractive (*naikānta-madhuram*). He deals with them, however, in greater detail than his predecessor Bhāmaha. The *prahelikā* (conundrum), for instance, which is merely alluded to in one verse by Bhāmaha, is elaborately discussed and illustrated by Daṇḍin (iii 96-124) who mentions sixteen different kinds of this figure. He also gives a detailed treatment of *yamaka*, and defines with illustrations such difficult tricks as *gomutrikā*, *ardha-bhrama* and *sarvatobhadra*³

v2.c81.s1.38

To the *arthālaṃkāras*, however, Daṇḍin naturally pays greater attention. He mentions by name (ii 4-7) only thirty-five poetic figures⁴; but the special feature of his treatment, as contrasted with those of Bhāmaha and Vāmana, consists in his attempt to make a large number of subordinate varieties, the most remarkable instance being that of *upamā*, which has thirty-two subdivisions, of which eight at least have the value of independent figures to later writers.

v2.c81.s1.39

13 Some *prahelikās* are already mentioned by Bāṇa. Bhāmaha in a somewhat obscure verse states that a *prahelikā* is a serious composition possessing varied constituent meanings as well as the tricks of *yamaka*, and is so called in Rāmaśarman's *Acyutottara*. Rudraṭa, like Daṇḍin, deals with the *prahelikā* as well as the *citra-bandhas* in some detail. Some of the *citra-bandhas* are mentioned by Bāṇa and Māgha. Under the general designation of citra-poetry, they are discredited by Ānandavardhana, and their importance diminished in later Poetics. They became the subject of specialised treatises like the *Vidagdha-mukha-maṇḍana* of Dharmadāsa Sūri (vol I pp. 297-98).

v2.c81.s1.40

14 The figures dealt with in their order of treatment are: *svabhāvokti*, *upamā*, *rūpaka*, *dīpaka*, *āvṛtti*, *ākṣepa*, *arthāntaranyāsa*, *vyatireka*, *vibhāvanā*, *samāsokti*, *atiśayokti*, *utprekṣā*, *hetu*, *sūkṣma*, *leśa* (or *lava*), *yathā-saṃkhya* (or *saṃkhyāna* or *krama*), *preyas*, *rasavat*, *ūrjasvin*, *paryāyokta*, *samāhita*, *udātta*, *apahnuti*, *śleṣa*, *viśeṣokti*, *tulyayogitā*, *virodha*, *aprastuta-praśaṃsā*, *vyājastuti*, *nidarśanā*, *sahokti*, *parivṛtti*, *āśīs*, *saṃkīrṇa* and *bhāvika*. The verses ii 4-7, which give a prefatory list of figures, are suspected to be an interpolation, but the list substantially agrees with the poetic figures dealt with in ch. ii.

v2.c81.s1.41

Daṇḍin also anticipates Udbhaṭa in pointing out the importance of *śleṣa* as the cause of special charm in other figures (ii 362), and agrees with Bhāmaha in holding that the *atiśayokti* is essential in all poetic figures (ii 220). The term *vakrokti* is used only once and is reserved by him as a collective name of all poetic figures (with the exception of the *svabhāvokti*). According to Daṇḍin’s scheme (as indicated in ii 362), the whole realm of poetic figures can be divided into two distinct parts, consisting of *svabhāvokti*, on the one hand, and *vakrokti*, on the other. By the former, which he characterises as the first or primary figure (*ādyā alaṃkṛtiḥ*), he implies a plain and direct description of things belonging to a genus (*jāti*), or of an action (*kriyā*), of a quality (*guṇa*), or of an individual (*dravya*)¹⁵. In this ‘natural’ description, there is apparently no scope for any artificial or ingenious mode of expression, and it should, therefore, be distinguished from all other poetic devices, figurative or otherwise, collectively designated as the *vakrokti*¹⁶. Among other figures, defined by Daṇḍin for the first time, may be mentioned the *āvṛtti*, *leśa* (= *vyājokti* or *vyāja-stuti*), *sūkṣma* and *hetu* (the last included by Udbhaṭa in his *kāvyaliṅga*). He does not define *ananvaya* and *sasaṃdeha*, calling them *asādhāraṇopamā* and *saṃśayópamā* respectively, and includes *upamā-rūpaka* and *utprekṣāvayava* under *rūpaka* and *utprekṣā* respectively. With Bhāmaha, he alludes to *vārttā* (i 85), which is illustrated by Bhaṭṭi, but which disappears from later Poetics, being included perhaps in the scope of *svabhāvokti*. The *prativastūpamā* is not an independent figure in Daṇḍin but a variety of *upamā*, while the *samāhita* of Daṇḍin is different from the same figure of Udbhaṭa and Vāmana. These few instances would indicate that, compared with the work of his predecessor, Daṇḍin's work attempts to present many new ideas. Possessing great inventive powers and a gift of lucid exposition, as well as a notable degree of scholastic acumen, he endeavoured not only to refute and correct in many places the earlier views, but sometimes gave a new shape to them.

v2.c81.s1.42

¹⁵ These terms are to be taken in the sense they have in grammar (and not as they have in philosophy).

v2.c81.s1.43

¹⁶ This interpretation is supported by Daṇḍin’s commentators (see Madras ed. pp. 201-2). We have already dealt with the question in our Introd. to *Vakrokti-jīvita* pp. xv f. See above pp 6ef.

v2.c81.s1.44

It will be convenient to examine here briefly the doctrine of *doṣa*, which forms a counterpart of the doctrine of *guṇa* enunciated by the Rīti school. Daṇḍin mentions, after Bharata, ten flaws or *doṣas* of literary composition (ch. iii 125f, or ch. iv Madras ed.), but he defines them differently in most cases. They are in name and substance identical with Bhāmaha's first list of *doṣas* noted above¹⁷, with the only exception of the eleventh fault of defective logic, which is recognised by Bhāmaha but vigorously rejected by Daṇḍin as a fault difficult to judge and unprofitable to discuss. But even with reference to this fault, Daṇḍin agrees with Bhāmaha in the enumeration of its six subdivisions. With regard to Bhāmaha's second list of faults, which concern the inner essence of poetry, they would correspond in general to the *doṣas* (or rather the opposites of *guṇas*) which Daṇḍin mentions as being absent in the *vaidarbha mārga* and as characterising the opposite *gauḍa mārga*. We have noted that some of these are expressly named by Daṇḍin. They are (i) the opposite of *śleṣa*, called *śithila* (ii) the opposite of *prasāda*, called *vyutpanna* (iii) the opposite of *samatā*, called *vaiṣamya* (iv) the opposite of *suku-māratā*, called *dīpta* (v) the opposite of *kānti*, called *atyukti* (vi) the opposite of *artha-vyakti*, called *neyatva* (vii) the opposite of *mādhurya* (unnamed). These form seven faults as against ten of Bhāmaha, but Daṇḍin speaks of the excellences *udāratva*, *samādhi* (and probably *ojas*) as having no opposites (or corresponding faults), inasmuch as they are common to both the *mārgas*.

v2.c81.s1.45

¹⁷ See above pp. 11-12. See also Jacobi in *Sb. der preuss. Akad.* xxiv, 1922, pp. 222-3.

v2.c81.s1.46

But Daṇḍin does not enter into the question first raised by Bharata as to whether the *doṣas* in Poetics are positive entities or mere negations of *guṇas*. Bharata holds that *guṇas* signify nothing more than the negative condition of *doṣābhāva*, so that *doṣas* are, in his opinion, positive entities, from which the *guṇas* are known by implication. It is clear from Daṇḍin’s treatment, however, that he mentions in ch. iv the external faults apparently as positive entities, after the manner of Bhāmaha; while the essential faults are taken as negations of some of the *guṇas* of the *vaidarbha mārga* and consequently as positive characteristics of the *gauḍa mārga*. He attempts to avoid the controversy by making use of the distinction of the two opposite types of diction, making the so-called *guṇas* the characteristics of the *vaidarbha* type and some of the so called doṣas the characteristics of the gauḍa type. Vāmana, on the other hand, in conformity to his clear-cut theory of rīti, goes directly against the opinion of Bharata and expressly makes the guṇas positive entities, defining the doṣas as opposites of guṇas and as known from the latter by implication (guṇa-viparyātmano doṣāḥ, arthatas tad-avayamaḥ). But he adds that the doṣas should be dealt with separately for the sake of clear understanding. He therefore divides the doṣas into four classes (i) defects of words (pada-doṣas) (ii) defects of the meaning of the words (padārtha-doṣas) (iii) defects of sentences (vākya-doṣas) (iv) defects of the meaning of sentences (vākyārtha-doṣas)¹⁸

v2.c81.s1.47

18 Rudraṭa, apparently accepting both guṇas and doṣas as independent entities, enumerates and classifies doṣas on a different principle. Taking śabda and artha as the two elements of poetry, he mentions in two series (1) śabda-doṣas or defects of words (2) artha-doṣas or defects of sense. The first series includes nine faults, viz. (i) pada-doṣas like asamartha, apratīta, visaṃdhi, viparīta-kalpanā, grāmya and deśya (6 kinds) (ii) vākya-doṣas, such as saṃkīrṇa, garbhita, and gatārtha (3 kinds). The second series comprehends (besides four upamā-doṣas) nine faults again, viz.; apahetu, apratīta, nirāgama, bādhayat, asaṃbaddha, grāmya, virasa, tadvat and atimātra. After the advent of the dhvani-theorists, the doṣa (like the guṇa) came to be related to the rasa, the poetic mood in a composition, and began to be defined as that which depreciates or hinders the awakening of rasa. The doctrine of doṣa was taken along with the doctrine of guṇa, of which it formed the counterpart, and was considered from the standpoint of rasa alone. They were no longer absolute entities, but attributes or absence of attributes relative to the development of rasa, and must therefore be Vāmana’s work¹⁹, in comparison with Daṇḍin’s, shows further progress and elaboration of the ideas discussed above. Indeed, what is vague and unsystematic in Daṇḍin appears fully developed and and carefully set forth in Vāmana, who may thus be fittingly regarded as the best representative of the rīti-system. To Vāmana belongs the credit of governed by the theory of aucitya or propriety which these theorists put forward in their treatment of rasa. The doṣas came to be defined generally as rasūpakarṣaka (Viśvanātha): but specific rasa-doṣas also came to be defined and discussed. The question whether the doṣa is nitya or anitya (already raised by Bhāmaha and Rudraṭa) is solved by supposing that a doṣa may sometimes become a guṇa if it helps (and not hinders) the development of the rasa. Mammaṭa and most later theorists accept the distinction of doṣas relating to pada, vākya and artha; but they speak also of rasa-doṣas and alaṃkāra-doṣas. The later opinion regarding the respective character of guṇa and doṣa appears to be that each of them conveys a positive meaning, in spite of the fact that some doṣas approach the condition of guṇābhāvas and some guṇas approach the condition of doṣābhāvas. Even Daṇḍin in ch. iv separately mentions ten doṣas which he does not regard as constituting the opposite of any of his guṇas.

v2.c81.s1.48

19 Instead of having adhyāyas first and adhikaraṇas thereunder, Vāmana reverses the order of older sūtra-writers and divides his work into five adhikaraṇas, each of which consists of two adhyāyas (excepting the first and the fourth which contain three each), the whole work thus having five adhikaraṇas and twelve adhyāyas. The arrangement of these adhikaraṇas is as follows. I. śarīra : dealing with the object of poetry, persons qualified to receive instructions in being the first writer on Poetics, who, before the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana, gave us a well thought-out and carefully outlined scheme of Poetics, no longer naive or tentative, which, in spite of its theoretic defects, is in some respects unique and valuable.

v2.c81.s1.49

The enquiry as to what is the ‘soul’ or essence of poetry is for the first time definitely posed and systematically worked out by Vāmana; his predecessors, to whom the ‘body’ of poetry is more important, never having troubled themselves with this question. Vāmana lays down in clear terms: *rītir ātmā kāvyasya*, ‘the *rīti* is the soul of poetry’ (I. 2. 6); and working out this figurative description he points out (*vṛtti* on I. 1. 1) that the word (*śabda*) and its sense (*artha*) constitute the ‘body’, of which the soul is the *rīti*. He defines the *rīti* as *viśiṣṭa-pada-racanā* or particular arrangement of words. This particularity (*vaiśiṣṭya*) of arrangement, again rests upon certain definite combination of the different *guṇas* or fixed excellences of composition. For instance, of the three kinds of *rīti* proposed by Vāmana, the *vaidarbhī* unites all the ten *guṇas*, the *gauḍī* abounds in *ojas* and *kānti*, the *pāñcālī* is endowed with *mādhurya* and *saukumārya*. This is how Vāmana the subject, the *rīti* and its subdivisions, the subsidiary aids and divisions of poetry. II. *doṣa darśana*: treating of the defects or flaws of composition. III. *guṇa-vivecana*: considering the *guṇas* or excellences of composition. IV. *ālaṃkārika*: devoted to the definition and illustration of poetic figures. V. *prāyogika*: setting forth the poetic conventions and propriety of poetic usages, and *śabda śuddhi*: (corresponding to the last chapter of Bhāmaha’s work), explaining grammatical solecism.

v2.c81.s1.50

would distinguish the different *rītis* from one another. On these three *rītis* poetry takes its stand, just as painting has its substratum in the lines drawn on the canvas (*vṛtti* on I. 2. 13). The *vaidarbhī* is of course recommended as containing all the excellences ; and as the genius of each diction is peculiar to itself, Vāmana rejects the view that the other two inferior dictions ought to be practised as steps leading up to the *vaidarbhī*; for he argues that the proper diction cannot be attained by one who begins with the improper. If the weaver practises weaving with jute, he does not attain proficiency in the weaving of silk. It will be seen from this analysis of the three kinds of diction that the *vaidarbhī* is the complete or ideal one which unifies all the poetic excellences, whereas the other two encourage extremes. The one lays stress on the grand, the glorious or the imposing, the other on softness and sweetness, whereby the former loses itself often in bombast, the latter in prolixity. It will be noticed also that the names of the different *rītis* are derived from those of particular countries, and Vāmana expressly says in this connexion (I. 2. 10) that the names are due to the fact of particular excellence of diction being prevalent in the writings of particular countries. This makes it probable that the theory of diction, peculiar to this school, originally arose from the empirical analysis of the prevailing peculiarities of poetic expression in different places, and furnishes another proof of the general *a posteriori* character of the science itself²⁰.

v2.c81.s1.51

²⁰ In the absence of proper data, it is impossible to determine when the distinction between the Eastern and

v2.c81.s1.52

It should be observed that the term *rīti* is hardly equivalent to the English word ‘style’, by which it is often rendered but in which there is always a distinct subjective valuation. Although *artha* (i. e. sense or idea) is admitted as an element by Sanskrit writers, the *rīti* consists essentially in the objective beauty of representation (of the intended idea), arising from a proper unification of certain clearly defined excellences, or from an adjustment of sound and sense. It is, no doubt, recognised that appropriate ideas should find appropriate expression; or in other words, the outward expression should be suitable to the inward sense. Bharata goes further and formulates that in the drama the expression should also be in keeping with the temperament and character of the speaker to whom it is attributed. But at the same time, the *rīti* is not, like the style, the expression Southern styles—Gauḍa and Vaidarbha—was first recognised. We have already noted that Bāṇa speaks of people of different localities affecting different tricks of style, some putting stress on sound, some on sense, while others indulging in a play of fancy. In Daṇḍin’s time the distinction must have been fully established. Jacobi (*Mahārāṣṭrī*, pp. xvf) suggests that the simpler Vaidarbha style was a reaction against the older and more ornate Gauḍa-style (which Daṇḍin disfavours), and that it came into existence probably in the 3rd century A. D., being known to us from Hāla’s *Saptaśataka* (467 A. D.). It is possible to argue, on the contrary, that the Gauḍa-style itself is a sign of further development or decadence, exhibiting a tendency to a more elaborate style (as opposed to an earlier and plainer Vaidarbha-style), which we find, as a matter of practice, asserting itself more and more in later decadent Sanskrit *kāvya*. Cf Keith, *Classical Sanskrit Literature* p. 50.

v2.c81.s1.53

of poetic individuality, as it is generally understood by Western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation of its beauty called forth by a harmonious combination of more or less fixed literary ‘excellences’. Of course, the excellences are supposed to be discernible in the sense or import, as much as in the verbal arrangement, but this subjective content is not equivalent to the indefinable element of individuality which constitutes the charm of a good style. If we accept the nomenclature of a modern analyst of style¹, we may say that the Sanskrit authors admit what he would call the ‘mind’-in-style, as a subject of technical formulation, but not the ‘soul’-in-style, which is elusive and which they leave to individual writers to evolve in their own way.

v2.c81.s1.54

¹ Walter Pater’s essay on Style in his *Appreciations*.

v2.c81.s1.55

Vāmana, therefore, teaches that the *guṇas* are essential in poetry, as they go to make up the *rīti*, which is the ‘soul’ of poetry. The objection of the author of the *Ekāvalī* (p. 51) that to conceive the *guṇas*, on the one hand, as the principal element and therefore as something fit to be adorned (*upaskārya*) and to call them, on the other hand, properties that adorn poetry (*upaskāraka*) involve contradiction in terms, raises only a scholastic quibble which does not bear serious examination. The *guṇas* are, no doubt, spoken of as *śabdārthayor dharmāḥ*, but this, as the commentator points out, is a loose or popular use of the term; for, strictly speaking, they are concerned directly with *rīti* (*guṇa vastuto rīti-niṣṭhā api, upacārāc chabda-dharmā ityuktam* p. 69, ed. Benares), which is described as *guṇātmā*. To the objection that these entities have no absolute existence, Vāmana replies that their existence is vouched by their cognition as such by men of taste (*samvedanatvāt* III. 1. 26, on which comm. *sahṛdaya-samvedanasya viṣayatvāt*), and that these excellences are not found in all cases of recitation but depend upon the presence or absence of certain well-defined characteristics (III. 2. 28 and *vṛtti*).

v2.c81.s1.56

Like Daṇḍin, Vāmana enumerates the *guṇas* as ten, which appears to have been the standard number from Bharata's time, but he really doubles the number by clearly differentiating between the *śabda-guṇas* and the *artha-guṇas*, and regarding each *guṇa* as belonging respectively to *śabda* and *artha*. In other words, each *guṇa* is looked at from two different points of view, and the distinction thus proposed between verbal and ideal excellences comes in, as technically put, according as the word or the idea is the denoter (*vācaka*) or the denoted (*vācya*). This sharp distinction, no doubt, clears away some of the vagueness surrounding Bharata's and Daṇḍin's definitions of individual *guṇas*; and Vāmana, though widely differing from his predecessors in the peculiar connotation he attaches to some of them, is careful in distinguishing the allied *guṇas* from one another. In most essentials, Vāmana undoubtedly continues and expands Daṇḍin's somewhat unsystematic scheme, but his definitions bear in some cases an altogether different complexion, and justify us in presuming that Vāmana develops his ideas from elsewhere, as he himself often supports his analysis by verses quoted from unknown sources (e. g., under III. 1. 9, 25 ; 2. 15 etc.).

v2.c81.s1.57

His scheme of the *guṇas* may be tabulated thus :

v2.c81.s1.58

| Śabda-guṇa | Artha-guṇa |
| i. *ojas*, or compactness of word-structure (*gāḍha-bandhatva*, where *bandha* = *pada-racanā*, III. 1. 4) | i. *ojas*, or maturity of conception (*arthasya prauḍhiḥ*) |
| ii. *prasāda*, or laxity of structure (*śaithilya*) | ii. *prasāda*, clearness of meaning (*artha-vaimalya*) |
| iii. *śleṣa*, or coalescence of words resulting in smoothness (*masṛṇatva*, yasmin sati *bahunyapi* padānyekavad *bhāsante*) | iii. *śleṣa*, or coalescence or commingling of many ideas (*ghaṭanā*) |
| iv. *samatā*, or homogeneity of manner, i. e., relinquishment of proper construction (*margā-bhedaḥ, yena mārgeṇópa-kramas tasyátyāgaḥ*) | iv. *samatā*, or non-sequence of ideas (*prakra-mābheda*) |
| v. *samādhi*, or symmetry due to orderly ascent and descent, i. e., when the heightening effect is toned down by softening effect, and vice versa (*ārohāvaroha-krama*) | v. *samādhi*, or grasping of the original meaning arising from concentration of the mind (*artha-dṛṣṭiḥ, samādhi-kāraṇatvāt*) |
| vi. *mādhurya*, or distinctness of words (*pṛthak-padatva*) | vi. *mādhurya*, or strikingness of utterance (*ukti-vaicitrya*) |
| vii. *saukumārya*, or | vii. *saukumārya*, or |

v2.c81.s1.59

freedom from harshness (ajaraṭhatva)

v2.c81.s1.60

viii. udāratā, or liveliness in which the words seem as if they are dancing (yasmin sati nṛtyantiva padāni)

v2.c81.s1.61

ix. artha-vyakti, or explicitness of words whereby the meaning is easily apprehended (jhaṭity-artha-pratipatti-hetutva)

v2.c81.s1.62

x. kānti, or brilliance, i.e. richness of words (aujjvalya)

v2.c81.s1.63

freedom from disagreeable or inauspicious ideas (apāruṣya)

v2.c81.s1.64

viii. udāratā, or delicacy i. e. absence of vulgarity (agrāmyatva)

v2.c81.s1.65

ix. artha-vyakti, or explicitness of ideas which makes the nature of things clear (vastu-svabhāva-sphuṭatva)

v2.c81.s1.66

x. kānti, or prominence of the rasas (dīpta-rasatva)

v2.c81.s1.67

It will be seen from this brief enumeration that Vāmana’s guṇas differ considerably from those of Bharata or Daṇḍin. Vāmana’s ojas, for instance, would correspond to Daṇḍin’s śleṣa, while Daṇḍin’s mādhurya is split up into pṛthak-padatva and agrāmyatva. Vāmana brings in the idea of rasa in the artha-guṇa kānti (cf Bharata’s kānti), thereby admitting it in one of the essentials of poetry, while Daṇḍin acknowledges it in some of the non-essential poetic figures. Vāmana’s artha-guṇa arthavyakti would be regarded by Daṇḍin as an instance of svabhāvokti-alaṃkāra. But it must be observed that Vāmana’s scheme, while being more systematic and thus marking an advance on the speculation of Daṇḍin’s is hardly satisfactory as a whole. The somewhat pedantic classification of guṇas, into external and internal, verbal and ideal, is in itself open to objections and has been controverted by later theorists²². The distinctions are sometimes unconvincing, and it is natural to suspect that they are made for the sake of symmetry of having two sets each of ten excellences. Taking the individual *guṇas*, it appears that Vāmana himself was perhaps conscious of the defective nature of some of his definitions, although he must have elaborated the ten *guṇas* according to some fixed convention. For instance, his *śabda-guṇa prasāda* is merely a negation of his *ojas*; Vāmana himself admits this and adds the qualification that the *prasāda* is an excellence when appearing along with *ojas* and not by itself, for when it appears by itself it is clearly a defect. If it is objected that there cannot be a combination of two such contradictory *guṇas*, Vāmana replies that such a combination is a fact of common experience. Vāmana’s *śleṣa* is rejected by Mammaṭa as an independent excellence, inasmuch as it is only a particular form of *ojas*. In the same way, the *saukumārya* is not admitted by later theorists on the ground that it is merely the negation of the defect of harshness, just as Vāmana’s *udāratā* is a negation of vulgarity (*grāmyatva*). His *samādhi* as an *artha-guṇa* is different from Daṇḍin’s *samādhi*, but it is hardly an ‘excellence’. It is supposed to consist in comprehending the original meaning, but this happens in the case of all compositions, for there can hardly be any poetry, worth the name, of which the meaning is not comprehended. These and other objections are brought forward by Mammaṭa and his followers, who protest against this needless multiplication and differentiation of the *guṇas*, and who sum up the literary ‘qualities’, which they admit as an embellishment of the principal sentiment (*rasa*) of the composition, under three broad categories, differentiated on entirely psychological grounds, viz., *ojas* (energy), *prasāda* (lucidity) and *mādhurya* (sweetness).

v2.c81.s1.68

²² e. g. Mammaṭa viii, Hemacandra pp. 195-200, Māṇikyacandra pp. 191f, Jagannātha pp. 62 f etc.

v2.c81.s1.69

It is also noteworthy that the *rīti*-system assigns to some of the *guṇas* functions which other systems assign to *alaṃkāras* or poetic figures. Vāmana’s *artha-guṇa kānti* corresponds to figures like *rasavat* of the *alaṃkāra*-system²³, while Daṇḍin’s *samādhi* in some cases will be equivalent to the *rūpaka* and analogous metaphorical figures. Vāmana’s *artha-guṇa artha-vyakti* is nothing more than the *svabhāvokti* of Daṇḍin, and Daṇḍin’s *kānti* only defines the limit, as Hemacandra puts it, to the figure *atiśayokti* (*śeyam atiśayokter yantraṇā, na punar guṇāntaram*). On the basis of Bhāmaha’s *vakrokti*, the later writers of the Alaṃkāra school, we shall see, postulate *ukti-vaicitrya* as the fundamental principle of all figurative expression, but this is comprehended merely as one of the excellences by Vāmana’s definition of the *artha-guṇa mādhurya*.

v2.c81.s1.70

²³ For this reason Vāmana does not define the *rasavat* as a figure.

v2.c81.s1.71

It will be clear from the above, as well as from Hemacandra’s (pp. 195-200) and Māṇikyacandra’s (pp. 191f) elaborate review of the *guṇa*-doctrine. that the writers of the Rīti school, especially the followers of Daṇḍin and Vāmana, differ widely in their attempts at defining and classifying the guṇas, and that such attempts are open to criticism. Some of Bharata's definitions, on the other hand, do not always agree with those either of Daṇḍin or Vāmana. For instance, Bharata's ojas, which consists in the use of high-sounding compound words of varied strikingness, may correspond to Daṇḍin's ojas, but Hemacandra states that the essence of this guṇa consists in imparting loftiness to an object which is low or treated with contempt. Again, Bharata's prasāda, corresponding to Daṇḍin's samādhi, is a metaphorical mode of expression, which Vāmana would include in his peculiar definition of the vakrokti-figure, and which comes generally under lakṣaṇā or upacāra of later theorists. Bharata's udāra differs considerably from Vāmana's udāratā which does not comprehend, as Bharata's udāra does, the rasas and bhāvas in its scope; but it corresponds partially to Vāmana's artha-guṇa kānti. At the same time, it would seem that, in spite of such minor discrepancies, Bharata's scheme of the guṇas as a whole is developed to its furthest possibilities by Vāmana. That there are inevitable differences in the definition of particular guṇas in the earlier writers on the subject, and that the whole doctrine, despite the care of its exponents, is still unsatisfactory, only indicate the fruitlessness of the efforts of early theorists in comprehending all the literary excellences of a composition within the hard-and-fast limits of a few categories, on the interpretation of which they spend so much ingenuity but on which they cannot in the nature of things arrive at any absolute agreement.

v2.c81.s1.72

Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra in their review of this doctrine cite the opinion of an authority²⁴, called Maṅgala who, we are told agrees with Bharata in his definition of *ojas* and maintains with Vāmana that Daṇḍin is not right in emphasising it in the *gauḍī rīti*, inasmuch as it is common to all *rītis*. The only other reference to this writer is made by Rājaśekhara, who cites some opinions of this writer agreeing substantially with those of Vāmana, and quotes at p.14 a dictum from Maṅgala which occurs in a slightly different form in Vāmana I. 2. 1. From these citations by Rājaśekhara it appears that Maṅgala, if he is not earlier in date than Vāmana, belongs most probably to the same school of opinion. There can hardly be any doubt that the system existed even before Vāmana gave a definite form to it; and Vāmana's systematic formulation certainly obtained for it a large number of adherents and followers, so that important later authors like Rājaśekhara, Hemacandra and Jayaratha cite with respect the opinions of the Vāmanīyas, just in the same way as they cite the Audbhaṭas, the followers of Vāmana's contemporary and rival Udbhaṭa.

v2.c81.s1.73

²⁴ Vāmana himself quotes some verses giving us ancient definitions of the various *śabda-guṇas* (under III. I 25).

v2.c81.s1.74

After the *guṇas*, Vāmana deals with the poetic figures or *alaṃkāras* as elements of subsidiary importance. At the outset Vāmana states, no doubt, that poetry is acceptable from embellishment (*alaṃkāra*); but he is careful to explain embellishment, not in the narrow sense of poetic figures, but in the broad and primary sense of beauty or charm (*kāvyam grāhyam alaṃkārāt, saundaryam alaṃkāraḥ*). He also points out that it is only in the secondary instrumental sense that the term *alaṃkāra* or embellishment is applied to simile and other poetic figures (*alaṃkṛtir alaṃkāraḥ, karaṇa-vyutpattyā punar alaṃkāra-śabdo'yam upamādiṣu vartate*). In this view, Vāmana apparently develops logically Daṇḍin's teaching; but Vāmana does not make the presence of poetic figures a necessary condition. What makes poetry acceptable, in his opinion, is the presence of charm or beauty, which he does not define and which is in some respects undefinable. The *rīti* and its constituent *guṇas* come in as a *sine qua non* in the production of this beauty, but the poetic figures only contribute to its heightening. This distinction between the *guṇa* and the *alaṃkāra* as to their respective position in a formal scheme of Poetics, which is vaguely hinted at by Daṇḍin, is fully developed by Vāmana (III. 1. 1-3). The *guṇas*, being essential to the *rīti*, are defined as those characteristics which create the charm of poetry (*kāvya-śobhāyāḥ kartāro dharmāḥ*)—a function which is assigned to both *guṇas* and *alaṃkāras* by Daṇḍin—but *alaṃkāras* are such ornaments as serve to enhance the charm already so produced (*tad-atiśaya-hetavaḥ*). The *guṇas* are said to be *nitya* (permanent), implying that the *alaṃkāras* are *anitya* (*punar alaṃkārā anityā iti gamyate eva*, Kāmadhenu com. p. 71), for there can be charm of poetry without the *alaṃkāras* but no charm without the *guṇas* (*tair vinā kāvya-*)

v2.c81.s1.75

śobhānupapatteḥ). In other words, the *guṇa* stands to poetry in the *samavāya*-relation (see *Kāmadhenu* on III. 1. 4), while the *alaṃkāra* in *saṃyoga*-relation, *saṃyoga* being explained as mere conjunction and *samavāya* implying inseparable connexion or inherence (*nitya-sambandha*)²⁵. To put it in the usual figurative language, the *guṇa* is related to the ‘soul’ of poetry (viz., *rīti*), while the *alaṃkāra* rests merely on the ‘body’ (viz., *śabda* and *artha*). The *alaṃkāra*, without the *guṇa*, cannot of itself produce the beauty of a poem, but the latter can do so without the former. But Vāmana justifies at the same time the existence of the *alaṃkāra* as an element of poetry, and supports a phase of poetry, which is indeed admitted by Ānandavardhana but not properly understood by him, and which is elaborated only by his follower Ruyyaka who, however, takes his inspiration on this point from the *Vakroktijīvita-kāra*.

First 75 of 96 passages. Read on

Linked texts (12)