A History of Sanskrit Literature c25.s2.31

c25.s2.31

As opposed to Daṇḍin we find in Bhāmaha's *Kāvyālaṃkāra*¹ a decided preference for a system which insists on the figures as the essential feature of the poetry whose body is word and sense. Bhāmaha definitely rejects outright the distinction of two styles, and the qualities which he does recognize are connected generally with poetry, not with any special style. Moreover, he shows the reduction of qualities to three, which is characteristic of later thought, though he does not specifically deal with the matter as do the later writers, who reduce Daṇḍin's ten to their categories. He mentions, however, as sweet, a poem which is agreeable to hear and has not too many compounds, and a clear poem is one which can be understood by even women and children; strength he understands as usual as connected with long compounds, and he implies that this is incompatible with clearness as well as sweetness. He has, however, no clear marking line between qualities and figures; he mentions clearness and sweetness in close proximity to his account of figures, and he describes Bhāvikatva as a figure or quality indifferently. He definitely insists on the distinction of figures into those of sound and sense, and he more or less vaguely is conscious of the doctrine which regards the essential feature of poetry to be figurative expression, Vakrokti. For the two-fold division of subject-matter of poetry favoured by Daṇḍin, which recognizes traditional matter and invention, he substitutes one admitting also foundation on the arts or sciences. His division of classes of poetry is five-fold, the Sargabandha, drama, Ākhyāyikā, Kathā, and detached verses, and he defends the distinction between Kathā and Ākhyāyikā on quite worthless grounds. But he insists that there is a common element in all poetry, Vakrokti, while he denies, accordingly, to Svabhāvokti the right to be styled a figure at all. This figurative expression he identifies with hyperbole, which is explained as an expression surpassing ordinary usage, meaning no doubt a poetical conception as opposed to the prosaic everyday conception of facts. Bhāmaha examines the various figures from this point of view, and his work in this regard was carried on by Udbhaṭa, the contemporary of Vāmana, whose *Alaṃkārasaṃgraha*¹ deals with forty-one figures, including three varieties of alliteration. His *Bhāmahavivaraṇa* is lost, and from Pratīhārendurarāja, pupil of Mukula, who wrote *c.* 950, and commented on Udbhaṭa, we learn little of importance. Of no historical importance is Bhāmaha's treatment of defects, in which he gives a new list of ten additional to the tradition alone (Book iv), while in Books v and vi he describes logical and grammatical errors in poetry.