History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.95.4

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.