377. 380 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

380 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the opposites or absence of the ten gunas (except अर्थव्यक्ति, उदारता and समाधि which are required by the partisans of both styles) 'इति वैदर्भमार्गस्य प्राणा दश गुणाः स्मृताः । एषां विपर्ययः प्रायो दृश्यते गौडवत्मनि ॥ (काव्या. I. 42); vide also I. 75, 76, 100. It must be remembered that भोज: was required in prose even in वैदर्भी, but not in पद्; while the गौडीयमार्ग regards भोज: as highest even in पद्य. He speaks of the guna समाधि (अन्यधर्मस्ततोन्यत्र लोकसीमानुरोधिना। सम्यगाधीयते यत्र स समाधि: स्मृतो यथा ॥ 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 rhetori- cal. भामह does not accept that there are two distinct dictions like वैदर्म and गौडीय (I. 31-33). वामन boldly asserts that riti is the soul of poetry, that riti consists in the special arrangement or combination of words and that the specialty lies in the possession of gunas (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य । विशिष्टा पदरचना रीतिः। विशेषो गखात्मा । काव्या. सू. I. 2.6-8). He speaks of three ritis वैदभी, गौडीया and पाळन्चाली and says that the वैदभी style is endowed with all the ten gunas while the Gaudiya specially affects ओज: and कान्ति, and पान्चाली is specially characterised by माधुर्य and सौकुमार्यं (I. 2. 11-13). He cites 'गाहन्तां महिषा' (शाकुन्तल II. 6), दोर्दएडा- न्चित० (महावीरचरित I. 54) and ग्मेऽस्मिन् पथिकाय (अमरु० 131) as respectively the examples of the three styles. He clearly ex- plains why the styles were so named (विदर्भादिषु दृष्टत्वात्तत्समाख्या' काव्या. सू. I. 2.10; 'विदर्भगौडपान्चालेु देशेषु तत्रत्यैः कविभिर्यथास्वरूपमुपल- ब्धत्वाद्देशसमाख्या। न पुनर्देशैः किन्चिदुपक्रियते काव्यानाम्' वृत्ति). It must be observed that there is considerable difference between the definitions of the various gunas given by the नाट्य०, दएडी 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: भोज: is defined by the नाट्य (16. 99) as 'समासवद्धिर्वि विधैरविचित्रेश्च पदैयुंतम्। सा तु स्वरै (सानुस्वारै ?) रुदारैश्च तदोजः परिकीत्यते ।"1 and by दएढी as 'शज: समासभूयस्त्वम्'; while वामन defines as 'गाढबन्धत्वमोजः (III. 1.5.) and 'अथस्य प्रोढिरोज:'. (III. 2.2). समाधि is defines by she नाट्य as अभियुक्तविशेषस्तु योर्थस्यैवोपलभ्यते। तेन चार्थन सम्पन्नः समाधि: परिकीत्यते॥ (16. 97), but वामन defines it as 'आरोहावरोहक्रमः

1. This is the definition in the old K. M. ed. of 1894; the Chowkhambha edition defines ओजः as अविगीताविद्दीनोपि स्यादु- दात्तानुभावकः। यत्र शब्दार्थसंपत्तिस्तदोज: परिकीर्तितम्॥17. 103.