Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c83.76

v2.c83.76

in mere strikingness of expression (vaicitrya); and sometimes when the *rasa* is existing, they do not help it’. The *alaṃkāras*, therefore, have only an indirect relation to the *rasa* through their capacity of embellishing the expressed *śabda* and *artha*, and add to its excellence only secondarily. They can exist without the *rasa* in the form of mere strikingness of expression (*ukti-vaicitrya*); and even when the *rasa* is present, the poetic figures are not invariably necessary³⁹. As to how the *alaṃkāra* may sometimes help the *rasa*, the question is discussed by the Dhvanikāra in ii 19-20, and the four possible circumstances may occur (1) when the poet, not dealing with it as the main point, intends its subordination to the main theme, e. g. the *rasa*, (*tatparatvena, naṅgitvena*), (2) when he accepts or rejects it as suiting the occasion (*kāle graha-tyāgayoḥ*), (3) when he does not want to carry it out effectively to the end (*nāti-nirvāhe*), and (4) when accomplished effectively, it is still made subservient (*nirvāhe’ pyaṅgatve*⁴⁰). The comparatively subsidiary position thus assigned to the *alaṃkāra*⁴¹ must not, however,