Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.81

v2.c84.81

Bhoja modifies the *Agni-purāṇa*’s classification of the *guṇas* by dividing them, according as they relate to *śabda* and *artha*, into external (*bāhya*) and internal (*ābhyantara*), on the one hand, and specific (*vaiśeṣika*) *guṇas* on the other. By the last he understands those which are *guṇas* in spite of their being essentially *doṣas* or faults (i 60 f). He carries the differentiation and multiplication of *guṇas* still further, and enumerates twenty-four *śabda-guṇas* and as many *artha-guṇas*, again, of identical names. Like the *Agni-purāṇa*, Bhoja is not very precise or critical in his definitions of individual *guṇas*, and he assigns to some *guṇas* properties which are ascribed to *alaṃkāras* by other writers. It is curious to note that the *artha-guṇa* *kānti* is defined, after Vāmana, as *dīpta-rasatvam* (i 81), including *rasa* therein; and in the *śabda-guṇa* *gāmbhīrya* (i 73) is incorporated the concept of *dhvani*. At the same time, *rasa* is taken elsewhere as a fundamental aesthetic concept, and the idea of *dhvani* is omitted from his treatment. Bhoja, however, does not pay any homage to Vāmana’s classification of *rīti*, the elaboration of which he carries still further. He adds two more types of *rītis*, viz. *āvantikā* and *māgudhī* (ii 32), to the four mentioned by the *Agni-purāṇa*, the former of these being an intermediate kind between *vaidarbhī* and *pāñcālī*, and the latter forming only a *khaṇḍa-rīti*, i.e. defective or incomplete type. It is also noteworthy that some of the *upamā-doṣas*, such as *hīnatva* and *adhikatva*, are included in the general discussion of *doṣas* as *hīnopamā* and *adhikopamā*, and not mentioned, in the usual manner, in connexion with the figure *upamā* itself.