Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.77

v2.c81.s1.77

Vāmana’s treatment of the poetic figures is in some respects peculiar to himself in its general outline, as well as in the specific definition of individual figures. Vāmana is the only old writer who deals with the smallest number of poetic figures²⁶. He recognises only two kinds of *śabdālaṃkāra*, viz., *yamaka* (rhyming) and *anuprāsa* (alliteration). With regard to the *arthālaṃkāras*, he lays down in general terms that the *upamā* or comparison lies at the root of all poetic figures, which are defined in relation to it and to which is given the collective names of *upamā-prapañca*²⁷. The importance of *upamā*, involved in other figures, is recognised from Bhāmaha’s time; and consequently this figure, which is the source of all the figures grouped together by later writers as *sādṛśya-mūla* or *aupamya-garbha alaṃkāras*, is always given a place of honour at the beginning of most treatises on Sanskrit Poetics²⁸; but Vāmana goes to the extreme of defining all figures with reference to the idea of comparison, or in terms of the relation of the *upamāna* and the *upameya*. On account of this fundamental postulate, his definitions of some of the figures differ widely from those given by other writers; and he has also to exclude such figures as *paryāyokta*, *preyas*, *rasavat*, *ūrjasvin*, *udātta*, *bhāvika* and *sūkṣma* which he does not define. He gives a peculiar definition of the figure *vakrokti* as a mode of metaphorical expression. His *viśeṣokti* would correspond to the *rūpaka* of Jagannātha, and his *ākṣepa* to the *pratīpa* or *samāsokti* of some later writers. Vāmana defines *apahnuti* as the concealment of one thing by a similar thing with a view to impose the character of the later on the former ; in other words, the *upameya* is denied its nature and the *upamāna* is established in its place. Daṇḍin states that the denial of something and the representing of some other thing in its place constitute the figure which need not be based on *aupamya* ; and following him, some later writers (e. g. Viśvanātha) speak of a second variety of *apahnuti* in which there is no *gamyamāna aupamya* or implied comparison²⁹.