Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.78

v2.c84.78

In conformity to this definition, which mentions rather uncritically all the requisite elements, Bhoja deals in the first chapter with the *doṣas* and *guṇas* and devotes the next three chapters respectively to the consideration of poetic figures (*alaṃkāras*) of *śabda*, of *artha*, and of both *śabda* and *artha*. In the last chapter is given a detailed treatment of *rasa*, for Bhoja thinks that *rasókti* is essential in poetry (v 8). But like the author of the *Agni-purāṇa*, Bhoja is not explicit with regard to the question of correlating this aesthetic element with other elements of poetry, and his conception of *rasa* bears resemblance to that of the *utpattivādins* whose causal theory, as Abhinavagupta points out, is accepted by earlier authors like Daṇḍin. No doubt, in one verse (i 158), Bhoja is apparently of opinion that a poem is relished only if it contains the *guṇas*, even though it may possess various kinds of poetic figures; for even excellent poetic figures in a composition without the *guṇas* present an ugly aspect, as the form of a woman, destitute of youth, looks ugly even though she wears excellent ornaments. But this verse is only an unacknowledged quotation from Vāmana (III. 1. 2, *vṛtti*), and must be taken as an instance of eulogistic statements, not unusual in Sanskrit writers, made for the purpose of simply emphasising a point, or as a characteristic of the uncritical and confused nature of the work itself; for otherwise we cannot reconcile this dictum with others of a similar nature made in connexion with *rasa* or *alaṃkāra*.