Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.74

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-*)