History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.90.3

c6.90.3

यतः समासोक्तिव्याजस्तुत्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसालङ्कारनिरूपणेन कियन्तोऽपि गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यभेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः । अपरश्च सर्वोऽपि व्यङ्ग्यप्रपञ्चः पर्यायो-क्तकौ निक्षिप्तः । न ह्यनुभवसिद्धोऽर्थो बलेनाप्यपह्नोतुं शक्यते । ध्वन्यादिशब्दैः परं व्यवहारो न कृतः । न ह्येतावताऽनङ्गीकारो भवति ।’ रसगङ्गा० pp. 414-415. Though भामह and दण्डी did not speak of ध्वनि (or व्यङ्ग्य) as the pervading element of poetry, they spoke of वक्रोक्ति or अतिशयोक्ति as all important and as lying at the root of all figures; vide भामह II. 85 (सैषा सर्वैव०) and ‘अलङ्कारान्तराण्यप्येकमाहुः परायणम् । वागीशमहिता-मुक्तिमिमामतिशयाख्याम् ॥’ काव्या. II. 220. For the meaning of वक्रोक्ति, vide section 12 below. रुद्रट defined a figure भाव (vide p. 145 above), in which there is some वस्तु (matter of fact) that is व्यङ्ग्य. He cites an example of implied उत्प्रेक्षा (IX. 13). Therefore he also was not unaware of व्यङ्ग्य sense. The prominence given to alaṅkāras by दण्डी and भामह (who says I. 13 न कान्तमपि निर्भषं विभाति वनितामुखम् ।) persisted, though in a lesser degree, even in later times. Even though मम्मट is a thorough-going follower of the ध्वन्यालोक his treatment of alaṅkāras is longer than that of any other topic in his work. The number of alaṅkāras separately named by various writers exceeds two hundred. Vide I. A. vol. 41 for 1912 p. 204-208 for further information about alaṅkāras, Annals B. O. R. I. vol. I. pp. 87-98 (on ‘History and significance of alaṅkāras’ by Prof. Sovani); Annals B. O. R. I. vol. II. pp.