History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.95

Language: English

c6.95.1

II The Rīti School. Vāmana is the foremost representative of this school. दण्डी also devotes considerable space to what are called rītis by others and most later writers on alaṅkāras have to say something about them. वामन in his own way made a distinction between guṇas and alaṅkāras (p. 376 above). Vāmana speaks of ten guṇas of word and the same ten guṇas of sense, viz. ओजः, प्रसाद, श्लेष, समता, समाधि, माधुर्य, सौकुमार्य, उदारता, अर्थव्यक्ति, कान्ति. दण्डी mentions ten guṇas under the same names, but makes no difference between guṇas of word and those of sense. The doctrine of guṇas was an ancient one. It was shown above that the inscription of रुद्रदमन (150 A. D.) refers to some guṇas such as माधुर्य, कान्ति, उदारता and कौटिल्य also spoke of certain गुणs. It may be noted that कौटिल्य in II. 9. mentions six गुणs of a royal writing (शासन) or order viz. अर्थक्रम, सम्बन्ध, परिपूर्णता, माधुर्य, औदार्य, स्पष्टता, while the नाट्यशास्त्र names ten which include माधुर्य and उदार or उदात्त. This shows that कौटिल्य is much earlier than रुद्रदमन and the नाट्यशास्त्र in the theory and practice of Poetics. That poets of certain regions cultivated certain poetic features is made clear in his हर्षचरित by Bāṇa who is earlier than any extant writer on poetics (except भरत). ‘श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येषु प्रतीच्येष्वर्थमात्रकम् । उत्प्रेक्षा दाक्षिणात्येषु गौडेष्वाक्षरडम्बरः ॥ (हर्षचरित Intro. verse 7). Here we have two important words, दाक्षिणात्य and गौड.

c6.95.2

Bāṇa was not a दाक्षिणात्य and hence he cannot be charged with any local patriotism or partiality for दाक्षिणात्यs. दण्डी does not employ the word रीति at all. Instead, he uses the word मार्ग throughout (काव्यादर्श I. 9, 40, 67, 75, 101). He expressly says that there are several dictions distinguished from each other by nice distinctions, but that he will describe only two, वैदर्भ and गौडीय, because the points of distinction between the two are very clear. It is interesting to note that he refers to गौडीय मार्ग or पद्धति as पौरस्त्य and employs the word डम्बर found in बाण as regards गौडs (इत्यनालोच्यवैषम्यमर्थालङ्कारडम्बरौ । अवेक्षमाणा ववृधे पौरस्त्या काव्यपद्धतिः ॥ I. 50). Vide also काव्यादर्श I. 83 for पौरस्त्य. On the other hand he applies the word दाक्षिणात्य to वैदर्भमार्ग (अतो नैवमनुप्रासं दाक्षिणात्याः प्रयुञ्जते ॥ I. 60). In I. 92 he employs the word वर्त्म and states that the Gauḍas are very fond of अत्युक्ति. Even the काव्यमी. chap. VII. (p. 30) employs the word मार्ग ‘किमर्थं पुनरुपदेश्योर्ब्रह्मपरमेश्वरयोर्वाक्यमार्गयोरुपन्यासः—इत्याचार्याः:.’ The सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण states that the different ways such as Vaidarbha are known as mārga ‘वैदर्भादिकृतः पन्थाः काव्ये मार्ग इति स्मृतः । रीतिरिति धातोः सा व्युत्पत्त्या रीतिरुच्यते ॥ II. 27th कारिका (Nir. ed. of 1934). The ध्व. (III. 52 p. 290) remarks: ‘एतद्ध्वनिवर्धनेन निर्णीतं काव्यतत्त्वमस्फुटस्फुरितं सदशक्रनुवद्भिः प्रतिपादयितुं वैदर्भी गौडी पाञ्चाली चेति रीतयः प्रवर्तितः’. This is probably a reference to वामन.

c6.95.3

The ध्वन्यालोक makes little of Ritis. Instead it says a good deal on वृत्तिs and सङ्घटना. The नाट्यशास्त्र (17. 96) enumerates the same ten guṇas. In the नाट्यशास्त्र guṇas and alaṅkāras occupy a subordinate position (17. 108). Vide नाट्यशास्त्र K. M. ed. 16. 97-108 and A.B. vol.II (GOS) p.334 chap.16. 96-112 for ten guṇas. They are described in the 17th chap. along with 36 other ornaments of poetry, while rasa occupies a prominent place in the नाट्यशास्त्र. दण्डिन gives guṇas great prominence (I. 40-101) and the treatment of guṇas and alaṅkāras takes up almost the whole of his work; his work, however, assigns the most prominent place to alaṅkāras of śabda and artha and practically makes no distinction between guṇas and alaṅkāras (vide p. 374), while वामन differentiates between them. दण्डी thinks that the ten guṇas are the essence of the vaidarbha style or way or diction (मार्ग or रीति), while the gauḍī style generally presents the opposites or absence of the ten *guṇas* (except अर्थव्यक्ति, उदारता and समाधि which are required by the partisans of both styles) ‘इति वैदर्भमार्गस्य प्राणा दश गुणाः स्मृताः । एषां विपर्ययः प्रायो दृश्यते गौडवर्त्मनि ॥ (काव्या. I. 42); vide also I. 75, 76, 100. It must be remembered that ओजः was required in prose even in वैदर्भी, but not in पद्य; while the गौडीयमार्ग regards ओजः as highest even in पद्य. He speaks of the *guṇa* समाधि (अन्यधर्मस्ततोऽन्यत्र लोकसीमाऽनुरोधिना । सम्यागाधीयते यत्र स समाधिः स्मृतो यथा ॥

c6.95.4

कुमुदानि निमीलन्ति etc.) as the all-in-all of poetry. But this does not mean that समाधि was the soul of poetry according to him. The words are more or less rhetorical. भामह does not accept that there are two distinct dictions like वैदर्भ and गौडीय (I. 31-33). वामन boldly asserts that *rīti* is the soul of poetry, that *rīti* consists in the special arrangement or combination of words and that the specialty lies in the possession of *guṇas* (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य । विशिष्टा पदरचना रीतिः । विशेषो गुणात्मा । काव्या. सू. I. 2. 6-8). He speaks of three *rītis* वैदर्भी, गौडीया and पाञ्चाली and says that the वैदर्भी style is endowed with all the ten *guṇas* while the Gauḍīyā specially affects ओजः and कान्ति, and पाञ्चाली is specially characterised by माधुर्य and सौकुमार्य (I. 2. 11-13). He cites ‘गाइन्तां महिषा’ (शाकुन्तल II. 6), दोर्दण्डाञ्चित० (महावीरचरित I. 54) and ग्रामेऽस्मिन् पथिकाय (अमरु० 131) as respectively the examples of the three styles. He clearly explains why the styles were so named (‘विदर्भदिषु दृष्ट्वात्तत्समाख्या’ काव्या. सू. I. 2. 10; ‘विदर्भगौडपाञ्चालेषु देशेषु तत्रत्यैः कविभिर्यथास्वरूपमुपलभ्यत्वाददेशसमाख्या । न पुनर्दशैः किञ्चिदुपक्रियते काव्यानाम्’ वृत्ति). It must be observed that there is considerable difference between the definitions of the various *guṇas* given by the नाट्य०, दण्डी and वामन, though there is agreement in some. For want of space it is not possible to go into details. To take one or two examples: ओजः is defined by the नाट्य० (16.

c6.95.5

99) as ‘समासवद्विर्विविधैर्विचित्रैश्च पदैर्युतम् । सा तु स्वरै (सानुस्वारै ?) रुदारैश्च तदोजः परिकीर्त्यते ॥’¹ and by दण्डी as ‘ओजः समासभूयस्त्वम्’; while वामन defines as ‘गाढबन्धत्वमोजः’ (III. 1. 5.) and ‘अर्थस्य प्रौढिरोजः’. (III. 2. 2). समाधि is defines by she नाट्य० as ‘अभियुक्तैर्विशेषस्तु योर्थस्यैवोपलभ्यते । तेन चार्थेन सम्पन्नः समाधिः परिकीर्त्यते ॥ (16. 97), but वामन defines it as ‘आरोहावरोहक्रमः