Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.9

v2.c85.9

It is important, however, to note that although this new school (navyāḥ, arvācināḥ) accepts in main the general position of the Dhvani school, it is yet not entirely free from the influence of older schools. It betrays a sneaking regard for older writers and brings back, rightly or wrongly, some of the old ideas into the elaboration of its own theory of poetry. It is difficult, for this reason, to take these writers in a lump and affiliate them directly to the Dhvani school. Mammaṭa’s definition of poetry, for instance, is not altogether free from the influence of the views of such older writers as Vāmana; Ruyyaka follows Udbhaṭa and Kuntala extensively in his detailed analysis of poetic figures; Viśvanātha clearly betrays the influence of the Rasa school on his own system; while Jagannātha revives in a new form the old definition of poetry given by Daṇḍin. It is remarkable that most of these writers attempt to arrive at a precise definition of poetry, a task which was wisely left alone by the Dhvanikāra; but in doing so, they probably meant to find out a comprehensive formula to cover the old ideas as well as the new, although it must be said that they succeed less often than they involve themselves in hopeless inconsistencies. This reactionary tendency, however, is interesting as indicating that they were not unconscious of the importance of earlier views as they were not entirely content with the clear-cut scheme of the Dhvanyāloka; a fact which would go to demonstrate, to some extent, that want of originality is a charge which cannot be brought in its entirety against these followers of the finally dominant Dhvani system.