Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c82.s1.22

v2.c82.s1.22

apparently designates the *rasa* as the essence or 'soul' of poetry, without, however, setting up an aesthetic system on its basis. But the verse is quite out of place in the context in which it occurs¹¹, and in the text published by the Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, it is wanting, although given as a quotation (with a *tad āhuḥ*) in the accompanying commentary of Pratihārendurāja (p. 77). Misled by Jacob’s text, Jacobi supposed¹² that Udbhaṭa was the first writer to consider the question as to what constitutes the ‘soul’ of poetry and to regard the *rasa* as such. It is clear, however, that the verse in question is not Udbhaṭa’s, and cannot be reconciled either with its immediate context or with Udbhaṭa’s general standpoint, as well as with his definition of *rasavat*. It cannot be denied at the same time that Udbhaṭa betrays a closer acquaintance with some theory of *rasa* and its technicalities, using terms like *vibhāva*, *sthāyin*, *sañcārin* (iv 4) and *anubhāva* (iv 2), and enumerating, after Bharata, the eight orthodox *nāṭya-rasas* with the addition of a ninth *rasa* (viz., *śānta*) in the category. But Udbhaṭa takes all this into account as an embellishment of an expressed figure like *rasavat*; the *rasa* is not considered on its own account, but because it helps to emphasise or constitute the charm of a particular figure. Hence Pratihārendurāja remarks that the question as to the nature of illustration, which is given in the verse vi 18 next after the verse in question. If Col. Jacob’s text is accepted, then the verse *rasûdyadhiṣṭhitam* (vi 17) would be abruptly thrust in between the definition of *kāvyaliṅga* and its illustration. As a matter of fact, it occurs in Pratihārendurāja’s commentary on *kāvyaliṅga* and is erroneously incorporated in Udbhaṭa’s text by the editor.