85. 82 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

82 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

verses are in the sloka metre except a few at the end of each परिषछेद and a few in the body of the work. In the first परिच्छेद, after saluting Särva, he states the purposes of poetry, the quali- fications of a poet, the definition of काव्य and divisions of काव्य from different points of view into गद् and पद्, into संस्कृत, प्राकृत and भपभरंश; he divides काव्य into वृत्तदेवादिचरितशंसि, उत्पाद्यवस्तु, कलाश्रय and शाख्ाश्रय and again into five सर्गबन्ध, श्रभिनेयार्थ, भराख्यायिका, कथा, अनिवद्ध. He then defines सर्गबन्ध, omits the treatment of अभिनेयार्थ (dramas, rasakas &c.) because it has been dealt with by others, distinguishes between कथा and आख्यायिका, refers to the वैदर्भ and Te styles and remarks that the distinctions drawn between the two styles by some are meaningless; and then speaks of some faults such as नेयार्थ, सिष्ट etc. In the 2nd परिच्छेद he speaks of three gunas, माधुयं, प्रसाद and शज: and begins the treatment of Alankaras which ends with the third परि०. The अलंकारs defined by him are (in order), अनुप्रास (refers to ग्राम्यानुप्रास and लाटीया- नुप्रास of others), यमक (five varieties), रूपक (of two varieties), दीपक, उपमा (with its seven दोषs), प्रतिवस्तूपमा (as a variety of उपमा), भाक्षेप (of two kinds), अर्थान्तरन्यास, व्यतिरेक, विभावना, समासोक्ति, अरतिश- योक्ति, यथासंख्य, उत्प्रेक्षा, स्वभावोक्ति (according to some), प्रेयस्, रसवत्, ऊर्जस्वि, पर्यायोक्त, समाहित, उदात्त (of two sorts), क्रिष्ट, अपह्नुति, विशेषोक्ति, विरोध, तुल्ययोगिता, श्रप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति, निदर्शना, उपमारूपक, उपमेयो- पमा, सहोक्ति, परिवृत्ति, ससन्द्ेह, अ्रनन्वय, उत्प्रेक्षावयव, संसृष्टि, भाविक, आशीः (according to some). He denies the status of अलंकारs to हेतु, सूक्ष्म and लेश (which must have been defined before him as figures by some writer on Poetics), as there is no वक्रोक्ति in them. After saying (in II. 83) that there can be no अलंकार without वक्रोक्ति he states that हेतु, सूच्म and लेश are not accepted (by him) as अलंकारS because there is no वक्रोकि in them (II. 86). Then in II. 87 he refers to some people speaking of araf as an alankāra and giv- ing as an instance of it the words गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पचियः and asks 'do such words constitute Kāvya (his obvious meaning being that they do not). Then aHT says that some speak of स्वमावोकि as an alankara, defines it as अथस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वभावोभिहितो यथा (II. 93) and gives an illustration (II. 94 भाक्रोश- आ्रह्यन्रन्यानाधावन्मएडलनुदन्। गा वारयति दएडेन डिम्भ: शस्यावतारणीः) ॥. In order to make even a mere natural description as स्वभावोकि alankāra, there must be some charm or strikingness as in the description of the boy preventing cows from entering into a field of growing crops, viz. he raised a hue and cry, called others