354. 392 20 CHAPTER VII

392 20 CHAPTER VII

Bhamaha does not refer to it. The earliest authority, to which he refers, is the one, according to which there were only five1 poetic figures. Bharata is apparently an earlier authority than this, because, according to him, there are only four poetic figures2. Thus, it is evident that Bhamaha deals with the 'poetic conception' (Kavyalaksma) of poeticians and not that of the dramaturgists3. Hence Rasa, the treatment of which is the primary concern of the dramaturgist, has no place in Bhamaha's work. In any case Rasa is not, according to him, the Soul of poetry. On the contrary; he maintains that a poetic composition, though delineating Rasa, is often as bad as a raw fruit of wood-apple4. No doubt he talks of Rasa in poetry (Kavyarasa) as Bharata does5 of Rasa in drama (Nātyarasa) as also of all Rasas as essentials of a Mahākāvya6, still Rasa is not so important a thing in his eyes as it is in those of Bharata or the post-Abhinava poeticians.

BHAMAHA'S CONCEPTION OF POETRY. His conception of poetry is substantially the same as that of Dandin, though a little differently worded. Undoubtedly, the latter's presentation of the concept is more accurate than that of the former. According to Bhamaha, words and meanings together form poetry. This definition of poetry, however, is too wide, because it can apply equally to all linguistic productions. He, therefore, after enumera- ting the various kinds of poetic production, maintains that the mode of presentation of ideas in7 words, which gives æsthetic pleasure to those who are possessed of æsthetic 1. K.A. 8. 2. N.S. 206. 3. K A. 48. 4. K.A. 38. 5. K. A., 32. 6. K. A., 3. 7. K. A., 4.