Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.33

v2.c84.33

But he justifies the *alaṃkāra* as such only when it involves the *vaicitrya*, *vicchitti* or *vakratva* and becomes a phase of *vakrokti*. He admits that the poetic figures are particular forms of speech, aspects of the expressed denotation (*abhidhā-prakāra-viśeṣāḥ*), in which one need not suppose any connexion with the unexpressed, but he supposes at the same time a specific differentia in it which consists in a peculiar turn of expression resulting in a characteristic strikingness (*vaicitrya* or *vicchitti*) and depending upon an act of imagination on the part of the poet (*kavi-pratibhā-nirvartita*). Thus the so-called *alaṃkāras* of orthodox Poetics are admissible when they are found on analysis to possess these characteristics of peculiar charm imparted to them by the fertile imagination of the poet; and these therefore constitute the elements which go to make up the being of a poetic figure¹⁵. Kuntala in this way not only supplies a remarkable deficiency in the teaching of the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana, but also justifies the existence and fixes the conception of a poetic figure as distinguished from a mere speech-figure. It is no wonder, therefore, that later followers of the Dhvani school, who form the bulk of post-dhvani writers on Poetics, readily accept Kuntala's analysis, and regard the two characteristics, viz., vicchitti and kavi-vyāpāra, as forming the ultimate test of a poetic figure. Mammaṭa lays down that where there is no suggested rasa, the poetic figures simply result in ukti-vaicitrya or charmingness of expression, and states generally that alaṃkāra is charmingness itself (vaicitryam alaṃkāraḥ). We shall see that Ruyyaka was the first writer who accepts Kuntala's test of a poetic figure and applies it systematically to a detailed examination and classification of individual poetic figures.