Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c83.79

v2.c83.79

41 In Mammaṭa’s much criticised definition of poetry, therefore, the *alaṃkāra* is taken as an accident, not as an essential; and though technically the phrase *analaṃkṛti punaḥ kvāpi* is open to the objections brought forward by Viśvanātha and Jagannātha, the views of the latter on be taken to indicate any tendency to minimise its importance, for Ānandavardhana himself admits that poetry depends on it for its operation (*kāvya-vṛttes tadāśrayāt*). But the *alaṃkāra* is accepted only in connexion with the *aṅgin* or the principal element in poetry, which in most cases takes the form of *rasa*; and *alaṃkāras*, other than such, which are devoid of or unconnected with the suggestion of *rasa* and therefore unpoetic, are in Ānanda’s opinion, mere *vāg-vikalpas*, and should be included in the *citra-kāvya*, which is no poetry but an imitation thereof. The authors of the *Dhvanyāloka* ignored these because their system had no place for them; but the poet may sometimes intend not to awaken the *rasa* or anything else unexpressed, but to produce mere strikingness of expression in the form of a poetic figure. Such cases, therefore, should be acknowledged and analysed. We shall see that followers of the *dhvani*-system like Ruyyaka realised this deficiency in the treatment of the Dhavanikāra and tried to supply it by admitting the significance of such figures for poetry and analysing their content after the indication given by Kuntala.