Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.39

v2.c84.39

¹⁷ Later writers and commentators, however, unwilling to depart from the authority of the "ancients", attempt to explain the problem of *rasavat* in various ways by a method of ingenious interpretation, which keeps to the letter but changes the spirit of the old dictum. Most these views are discussed by Viśvanātha. One school holds that the designation *alaṃkāra*, given to figures like *rasavat* merely because they help the development of *rasa*, is a purely secondary application of the term (*bhākta*), for they are not really *alaṃkāras* but should be accepted as such in deference to the practice of ancient writers (*rasūdyupakāra-mātreṇālaṃkṛti-vyapadeśo bhāktaś cirantana-prasiddhyṅgīkārya eva*). These theorists admit a difference between *rasavat*, on the one hand, and *alaṃkāras* properly so called (such as *upamā*), on the other : for in the one case the *rasa* directly embellishes another *rasa*, while in the other case, the *rasa* is indirectly embellished through the form of word and sense. But they maintain at the same time that there is one thing in common between the two kinds, viz, that both of them embellish the *rasa*, either directly or indirectly, by being subservient to it. On account of this similarity of function, the designation *alaṃkāra*, which is properly applicable to such