Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.32

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.