Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.67

v2.c84.67

On the other hand, although treatment is accorded to rīti (ch. 339) and guṇa (ch. 345), the Agni-purāṇa does not follow the tenets of the Rīti school, as represented by Daṇḍin and Vāmana. Daṇḍin classifies rīti, which he calls mārga, into two extreme types, vaidarbhī and gauḍī, to which Vāmana adds pāñcālī as an intermediate type; but the classification, according to both, depends upon the presence or absence of certain fixed excellences of diction, known as guṇas. To this enumeration Rudraṭa adds lāṭī, but by rīti he means a definite arrangement of sentences with reference to the use of compound words of variable length. The Agni-purāṇa accepts this four-fold classification, but the distinction is supposed to lie not only in the length or shortness of compound words, but also in the qualities of softness or smoothness, as well as in the prominence or otherwise of metaphorical expression (*upacāra*). The *guṇas*, again, are regarded as fundamental characteristics both by Daṇḍin (i 42) and Vāmana (i. 2. 6-8), who take them as forming the essence of *rīti*, and distinguish them carefully from *alaṃkāras*, which, in the opinion of Daṇḍin, form the general characteristics of both the *mārgas*, and, in the opinion of Vāmana, are merely accidental characteristics enhancing the charm of poetry already brought out by the *guṇas*. The *Agni-purāṇa*, however, defines the *guṇas*, which are nowhere connected directly with *rīti*, simply as those characteristics which reflect great beauty on poetry (*yaḥ kāvye mahatīṃ chāyām anugṛhṇātyasau guṇaḥ*, 345, 3), a definition which hardly distinguishes them from *alaṃkāras*, the definition of which is here almost the same, *kāvya-śobhākarān dharmān alaṃkārān pracakṣate* (341, 17) ²⁴, and is, strangely enough, merely copied uncritically from Daṇḍin, ii 1. The classification of *guṇas* themselves, again, in this work is peculiar to itself. Ordinarily, the *guṇas* are classified as either *śabda-guṇas* or *artha-guṇas*, and this procedure is sanctioned by Vāmana. The *Agni-purāṇa* brings in finer distinctions (345, 3 f.). The *guṇas* are here said to be of two kinds, specific (*vaiśeṣika*) and general (*sāmānya*), the former apparently confining itself to any specific part or feature of a composition, the latter existing as common to its several component parts. The sāmānya guṇa, again, is in its turn classified into three subdivisions, according as it appertains to śabda, artha, or both; the Agni-purāṇa admitting for the first time, so far as we know, this threefold classification. An altogether different scheme of enumeration of these guṇas then follows. Vāmana mentions in all ten guṇas, making each of these a śabda-guṇa as well as an artha-guṇa. The śabda-guṇas, according to the Agni-purāṇa, are seven in number, viz. śleṣa, lālitya, gāmbhīrya, saukumārya, udāratā, satyā, and yaugikī; the artha-guṇas are six, viz. mādhurya, saṃvidhāna, komalatva, udāratā (?), prauḍhi, and sāmayikatā; the śabdārtha-guṇas are again, six, viz. prasāda, saubhāgya, yathāsaṃkhya, praśastatā, pāka, and rāga. The characteristics of some of these guṇas are not very clearly marked; and in guṇas like saṃvidhāna and yathāsaṃkhya are included ideas which are credited by other writers to the alaṃkāras. It is curious, also, that although not enumerated as such, Daṇḍin's ojas is reproduced (345, 10 = Daṇḍin i 80) in the course of the definition of individual śabda-guṇas.