Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.86

v2.c81.s1.86

It may, however, be noted that some of the broad principles enunciated by the Rīti school have been tacitly recognised by later theorists. The importance of *rīti* or diction, as such, became established as a stock-idea in Poetics; but it was accepted with grave modifications. It was accepted by the Dhvani school in so far as it contributed to the development of the *rasa-dhvani*, and its chief characteristic was supposed to consist in an arrangement or disposition of words or letters for that purpose³¹. This modification naturally diminished the value of all discussion and elaborate classification of the *rītis* into different types, and the function of the three *rītis* of Vāmana was made practically equivalent to the three *guṇas* admitted by the authors of the *Dhvanyāloka*; but they do not yet appear to have lost all interest with later theorists. Even those writers, who do not subscribe to the doctrine either of the Rīti school or of the Dhvani school, pay considerable attention to this question. Thus Rudraṭa adds *lāṭi* to the enumeration of the three *ritis* of Vāmana, although by *riti* Rudraṭa means a definite usage of compound words. The *Agni-purāṇa* accepts this fourfold classification, but the distinction is supposed to lie not only in the length or shortness of the sentences but also in the qualities of ‘softness’ or ‘smoothness’, as well as in the prominence of metaphorical expression (*upacāra*). Bhoja, who carries the elaboration still further, adds two more types of *riti* to the *Agni-purāṇa’s* four, viz., *māgadhī* and *āvantikā*, the former being an intermediate style between *vaidarbhī* and *pāñcālī*, and the latter forming only a *khaṇḍa-riti*, i. e. a defective or incomplete type. Rājaśekhara in his *Kāvya-mīmāṃsā* gives us the same three *ritis* as Vāmana does, but in his *Karpūra-mañjarī* he appears to speak of three *ritis*, respectively named *vacchomi* (from Vatsagulma), *māahī* (*māgadhī*) and *paṃcāliā* (*pāñcālī*). The older Vāgbhaṭa mentions only two *ritis*, viz., *pāñcālī* and *lāṭiyā*, the one having some compound words and the other having none; but the younger Vāgbhaṭa accepts the three *ritis* of Vāmana and classifies them on the basis of the three excellences, *mādhurya*, *ojas* and *prasāda*, which were the only three *guṇas* recognised since Mammaṭa’s time. The Dhvanikāra does not discuss this question, but Ānandavardhana appears to assign equal functional value to the three *vṛttis* of Udbhaṭa and the three *ritis* of Vāmana, a view which Mammaṭa enunciates thus : *etās tisro vṛttayo vāmanādīnām mate vaidarbhī-gauḍī-pāñcālyākhyā ritayo matāḥ*².