372. 374 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

374 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

उन्दट; दएडी, रुद्रट and प्रतीहारेन्दुराज may also be held to belong to this school. It is not to be supposed that they were unaware of the theory of rasa. Vide p. 341 above. उद्धट defines रसवत् as - (IV), in which he refers to the technical terms स्थायिभाव, विभाव, सञ्चारि (or व्यभिचारि) भाव and in the next verse names the nine rasas. दएडी also defines रसवत् and ऊजस्वि and says 'मधुरं रसवद्वाचि वस्तुन्यपि रसस्थिति: ।' (I. 51). He is quite aware of the eight rasas and their स्थायिभावS 'इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसवत्ता स्मृता गिराम्' (1I. 292); 'प्राकू प्रीतिदर्शिता सेयं रतिः शक्गारता गता' (II. 281): vide also काव्या० II. 283, 285, 287. रुद्रट says 'तस्मात्तत्कतव्यं यत्नेन महीयसा रसैर्युक्तम्' (XII. 2). These writers were well aware of the existence of rasa, but they had not found out how to apply the theory to kāvya in general. To them alankāras seemed to be the most important part in kāvyas, so much so that they made rasas subordinate to alankaras and defined such figures as रसवत्. भामह and दएडी hardly mnade any distinction between अलक्कारs and gunas. Both भामह and दएडी regard भाविक as a guna (भाविकत्वमिति प्राङ्ड: प्रबन्धविषयं गुरं' III. 52 and काव्यादर्श II. 364); while दएडी regards the ten Tus as alankaras when the word is used in a wide sense (काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलक्कारान् प्रचक्षते। ... काश्चिन्मार्गविभागार्य- मुक्ता: प्रागप्यलङूक्रियाः।' II. 1 and 3). दएडी in काव्यादर्श II. 367 states that the (64) angas of the sandhis in a drama, the (16) angas of vrttis and the (36) laksanas described in another tradition (viz. dramaturgy in the नाट्यशास्त्र) are all looked upon by him as alankaras (यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्त्यङ्गलक्षणद्यागमान्तरे। व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टमलक्वारतयव नः ॥). The अलं. स. (p.3 and p. 9) says 'इह तावद्ग्ाम- होद्दटप्रभृतयश्चिरन्तनालक्कारकारा: प्रतीयमानमर्थ वाच्योपस्कारक तयालक्वारपक्षनिचिप्तं मन्यन्ते। ... उद्भ्टादिभिस्तु गुणालङ्काराणां प्रायशः साम्यमेव सूचितम् । .. तवेव- मलकूरा एव काव्ये प्रधानमिति प्राच्यानां मतम्।'. The तरल says 'भभाव एव ध्वनेरिति भामहप्रभृतयो मन्यन्ते' (p. 24). This may lead one to think that भामह is ध्वन्यभाववादिन्. But this is not entirely correct. भामह, दएडी and others were no doubt not aware of the theory that प्रतीयमान sense is the soul of poetry and they do not employ the words. ध्वनि and गुणीभूतव्यक्ञय in their works. But they do refer to प्रतीयमान sense. In their definitions of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, समासोक्ति, भाच्तेप, they included a good deal of प्रतीयमान sense (i. e. गुणीभूतव्यंग्य of ध्वन्यालोक) e. g. यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषयः। सा समासोकि:' (भामह II. 79). All the rest of ध्वनि they would have