Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c83.2

v2.c83.2

The origin of the Dhvani school, like that of other schools of Poetics, is lost in obscurity; but the first clear formulation of its theory of *dhvani* as a whole is to be found in the memorial verses of the Dhvanikāra, whose date is unknown but who could not have been very far removed from the time of his commentator Ānandavardhana.¹ It is possible, however, that the Dhvanikāra himself is following a much older tradition. The fact that he shows himself conversant with some theory of *rasa*, *alaṃkāra* and *rīti* need not be cited to the credit or discredit of this conjecture; for these systems themselves cannot be traced back to any definite period of time, and there is also no conclusive evidence that the Dhvanikāra was aware of the particular views of Bharata, Bhāmaha or Daṇḍin, with whom we begin the historic period of growth of these systems. But the very first line of the first verse of the *Dhvanyāloka* itself states that the theory that *dhvani* is the essence of poetry was traditionally maintained by earlier thinkers (*kāvyasyātmā dhvanir iti budhair yaḥ samāmnāta-pūrvaḥ*). Accepting this statement of the Dhvanikāra, it is difficult, however, to explain why the *dhvani*-theory did not in the least, as the *rasa*-theory did to a certain extent, influence such early writers on Poetics as Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin or Vāmana. It is easy to maintain, on the other hand, that the *vyañjanā* as a function must have been evolved by the school which set up a theory of *vyaṅgya artha* or *dhvani*, as this function is not traceable in philosophers or philosophical grammarians before the time of Ānandavardhana. Bhāmaha², Vāmana (iv. 3. 8) and other early theorists discuss or show themselves cognisant of such a ‘suggested sense’ in general; but they never use the terms *vyañjanā*, or *vyaṅgya artha* or *dhvani*, as they probably would have done if it had been so universally known or accepted as the Dhvanikāra’s statement would apparently imply. But this non-recognition by other schools need not be taken as a serious argument, as it admits of several reasonable explanations. It is well known that the philosophers refuse to recognise the *vyañjanā* as a *vyāpāra sui generis*³, and even after it was put forward by the Ālaṃkārikas, they would explain it by another recognised function as *anyathā-siddha*; it is not surprising, therefore, that orthodox grammarians or philosophers should entirely ignore it. The absence of any direct reference to *dhvani* in early writers on Poetics may be explained by the not unlikely supposition that probably the Dhvanikāra himself, who summed up and uttered the theory in a definite form, was contemporaneous with these writers, as we cannot put him much later if we are to leave sufficient margin between him and his commentator, as well as make room for intermediate scholastic activity evidenced by the recapitulation-stanzas cited by Ānandavardhana in his *vṛtti*⁴. Even leaving aside this conjecture, the cases of such non-recognition are actually explained by the Dhvanikāra himself, in the verse we have already cited, as constituting really cases of *half-recognition*; for he seems to indicate that these early writers were cognisant of *dhvani*, but not having understood its nature they naively and uncritically looked at it from other points of view, some comprehending it in other elements of poetry, some thinking it incomprehensible, and others (like the poet Manoratha cited by Ānandavardhana) going to the extreme of denying its existence altogether. One of the objects of the Dhvanikāra in this statement was, no doubt, to indicate that he was not putting forward something entirely new, and to find an authority for his procedure in the implied attitude (real or imaginary) of certain older writers ; but, apart from this, it is clear that although there is nothing explicit in the older writers, one can never affirm that some kind of ‘suggested sense’ was not known to them.