Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.52

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.