Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.69

v2.c84.69

In the same way, it can be easily shown that the influence of the Alaṃkāra school, as represented by Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa, is not very marked in this work. The śabdālaṃkāras are, with some modification, developed, no doubt, on the general lines of Daṇḍin's treatment, but the arthālaṃkāras do not strictly conform to the orthodox classification or definition. The *Agni-purāṇa* gives eight varieties of the latter, viz. *svarūpa* (or *svabhāva*), *sādṛśya*, *utprekṣā*, *atiśaya*, *vibhāvanā*, *virodha*, *hetu*, and *sama* (343, 2-3); the figures *upamā*, *rūpaka*, *sahokti*, and *arthāntara-nyāsa* being included separately under *sādṛśya* (343, 5), and mention being made of eighteen kinds of *upamā* embracing most of Daṇḍin’s numerous sub-varieties of that figure (343, 9 f.). The *Agni-purāṇa* is also one of the earliest known works which add a separate chapter on the *ubhayālaṃkāras* (not recognised by earlier writers), and this includes six varieties, viz. *praśasti*, *kānti*, *aucitya*, *saṃkṣepa*, *yāvad-arthatā* and *abhivyakti* (344, 2), some of which would come under *guṇas* of other writers²⁵. Indeed, the classification and definition of the *guṇas* and *alaṃkāras*, which are not differentiated very clearly, would appear crude and unsystematic, when compared to the elaborate critical treatment of the Rīti and the Alaṃkāra schools.