365bet娱乐

The history of the concept of Riti has three stages: first, when it was a living geographical mode of literary criticism; second, when it lost the geographical association and came to be stereotyped and standardised with reference to subject; and third, its re-interpretation by Kuntaka, the only Sanskrit Alamkarika, who with his fine literary instinct and originality as evidenced on many other lines also, related the Riti to the character of the poet and displaced the old Ritis by new ones. Like national characteristics, there are also provincial characteristics in manners. These are studied by Bharata in the concept of Pravrtti as part of the complete understanding of the world in its infinite variety, of which Natya is an Anukara. The concept of Pravrtti in manners is Riti in speech, in literature. Riti is literary manner." We first hear of it in Bana. In the introductory verses at the beginning of his Harsacarita, Bana remarks that certain parts of the country produce literature marked by certain characteristics. slesaprayamudicyesu praticyesvarthamatrakam | 1 utpreksa daksinatyesu gaudesvaksaradambarah || See my paper on Lokadharmi, JOR., Madras, VIII, pp. 63-64. Rajasekhara works out this relation between Pravrtti and Riti in his mythological manner in his Kavya Purusa's marriage with Sahityavidya. [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] Edition, pp. 8-9.

There is no absurdity in such a geographical study; it is natural. With the Orient and India in particular, the western writers associate opulence, extravagance, colour and exaggeration. These strike them as the eastern manner in life and literature. So also, Bana, speaking of the different parts of this country, remarks that the northerners write nothing but double entendre, the westerners, the bare idea; the southerners roll in imaginative conceits while the Gaudas (easterners) make a display of wordy tumult.' But immediately 1 Bana says in this verse that it is the westerners who write the bare idea with the least flourish. The bare idea, Arthamatra, has its opposite in Pallava. Bald idea is the flaw called Apusta and similarly, too much Pallava is a flaw at the other extreme. Beautiful Pallava, says Ratnesvara in his commentary on the Sarasvatikanthabharana (S. K. A.) II. p.157, is the essence of poetry. He quotes here two anonymous verses, according to which it is not the westerners (as said by Bana) but the Northerners, Udicyas, as contrasted with the Daksinatyas or Vaidarbhas, that give the bare idea. 66 pallavapratisthaiva hi sarasvati sahrdayanavarjayati | vakyapratitimatrartham upattesu pedesu yah | upaskarah padairanyaih pallavam tam pracaksate || apalavam tu yadvakyam kavibhyastanna rocate | prayujyate tathabhutamudicyaih kavigarhitam || " The Vaidarbhas or Daksinatyas enrich their expressions. Excess of Pallava would however merit criticism at Bhamaha's hands in the words viruddhapadamasvartha bahupuranamakulam and Mahima would condemn it as Avakara. Ratnesvara refers only to the beautiful Pallava which keeps within limits as in the Vaidarbhas' expression. Ratnesvara considers the Vaidarbhas as experts fit to sit in judgment on this subject. daksinatya vaidarbhimahuh | paravaranaste hi visistariti zaganqurfad gefa p. 28. S. K. A. Vya. It is the vicious Pallava which has prolix words and little idea that Sriharsa describes as the poison of speech. Fewest words for the greatest effect is, in Sriharsa's view, the climax of style. 1 nil fire: aaa-efmaa, fu驴i a are a aai fe arfinar i Naisadha, IX, 8.

Bana thinks that the best writer combines all these four qualities in the best manner. navo'rtho jatiramgramya sleso'klistah sphuto rasah | vikataksarabandhasca krtsnamekatra durlabham || The bare idea is stale but a novel turn given to the idea makes it striking Navo'rthah. The natural description of things as they are, Jati, can be effective, if the discription is not bald and ordinary, Gramya. The Slesa of the Udicyas is welcome but it should be 'Aklista', not forced. The Aksaradambara of the Gaudas has its own beauty but, all this has any beauty only if Rasa is transparent in the piece, sphuto rasah. It is very difficult to combine these virtues; but when one achieves it, he is a great writer indeed. In these two verses, Bana has spoken of four different styles, each definite and distinct, with its own emphasis on one particular feature, but has voted for casting away an over-emphasis on each of these four characteristics and for moderately and appropriately combining them into one good style which looks like the Nisyanda of the four. When first have We some record of the habits of literary criticism, we find two names, Vaidarbhi and Gaudi, characterising two styles of composition. The north and the west of the verse of Bana are lost. Two main distinguishable styles had stayed, the other two having lost their individuality. The Daksinatyas of Bana are the representatives of the Vaidarbhi and his Gaudas represent the Gaudi style. We have it as a tradition in Sanskrit literature that the Vidarbha country is the home of grace and beauty. Bharata speaks of the beauty, Saukumarya, of the southerners in his Daksinatya. '

Pravrtti.' Though most of the provinces in the south are included by Bharata under Daksinatya, the chief place of the Kaisiki vrtti and the Daksinatya pravrtti is Vidarbha. The conception of the Daksinatya composition as abounding in Utpreksas found in Bana had changed and the Vaidarbhas had developed a graceful style. The Gaudas who were playing with sonorous sound in Bana's time developed their style on the same lines, with their love for Aksaradambara embracing high-wrought ornate figures also. Thus in course of time, circles of literary critics, Kavya Gosthis, discussed poems and writings in terms of the two Ritis, the Vaidarbhi and the Gaudi. There was prevalent a dislike for the latter, since it abounded in excesses of sound effects and figure effects. In this time appear Bhamaha's views on the two Ritis, disapproving of the method of criticism based on the two Ritis which called the Vaidarbha good and the Gaudiya, bad. It must be accepted that the Vaidarbha had many graceful features, was simple and sweet, with restraint in adornment, while the Gaudiya which began as a style distinguished by ornament, overdid it and deteriorated. Bhamaha said: one need not condernn the Gaudi, nor praise the Vaidarbhi. They are two styles of writing, each characterised by certain distinguishing features. Provided the writings in either style have well developed thought expressed in fine turns, not vulgar or insipid, and uninvolved, both are acceptable. Without these general features of good poetry, it will not be acceptable even if it is Vaidarbhi. 鈥� If 1 tatra daksinatya bhaved bahugitanrtyavadya kaisikipraya caturamadhuralalitangabhinaya Bharata, N. S'. p. 147. [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] Edition Kuntaka refers to the natural sweetness of southern music. na ca daksinatyagitavisaya mustraratadidhvaniramaniyakavat tasya svabhavikatvam vaktum paryate | p. 46. De's Edition V. J. Cf. also the Vaidarbha-vivaha-nepathya referred to by Kalidasa at the end of the Malavikagnimitra.

these good features are present, it is acceptable, no matter if it is Gaudi. That is, Bhamaha wants to end indiscreet literary criticism led as if by the nose by these two names, Vaidarbha and Gaudiya. Both styles have features which can be overdone; consequently both have their vicious counterparts. Thus the sweetness, simplicity and the unadornedness of the Vaidarbhi can easily deteriorate into cloying liquids and nasals, and bare idea of insipid ordinariness. This is what Bhamaha says and it is but a sane view : 4 apustarthamavakrokti prasannamrju komalam | bhinnam geyamivedam (vedarbha ) tu kevalam srutipesalam || alankaravadagramyam arthya nyayyamanakulam | | gaudiyamapi sadhiyah, vaidarbhamiti (mapi ) nanyatha || I. 34-35. The Vaidarbha need not adorn itself very much; but a minimum of Vakrata is needed to avoid Gramyata. When one has to praise a thing, it is neither enough nor beautiful to simply say, without adopting telling turns of expressions, very much' etc. Says Bhamaha : na nitantadimatrena jayate caruta giram ' | vakrabhidheyasabdoktirista vacamalankrtih || 1. 36. Thus, accepting the current habit of distinguishing writing into two styles, Bhamaha would argue that both are acceptable, if they do not overdo their distinguishing features and possess 'the more general and necessary virtues of all good composition. He points out the possibility of a good handling of the ' na nitantadimatrena is not understood by D. T. Tatacharya Siromani, in his Sanskrit gloss on Bhamaha called Udyanavrtti. See p. 17. kimidam nitantadimatreneti | tanna budhyamahe | pathantarena tu bhavyam ! Then he tries to give some explanation.

Gaudi and similarly the possibility of a bad Vaidarbhi. He would not stress these two catchwords very much but would emphasise more the other features of greater importance which all good composition [should have, vis., alankaravattvam, agramyatvam, ardhyatvam, nyayatvam and anakulatvam . From this, we can now pass to consider the final position of Bhamaha. As one who emphasises the above given features of all good poetry, Bhamaha does not propose to accept unthinkingly the differentiation of writing into Vaidarbha and Gauda at all. His is a double protest. First, it is against the partiality for the Vaidarbhi and the aversion for the Gaudi. He says: a lay and blind world repeats what one has said, praises the Vaidarbhi and condemns the Gaudi, even when the Gaudi is good and has good idea, sadartham api. Thus pleading for the possibility of a good Gaudi with the auxiliary argument of the possibility of a bad Vaidarbhi, Bhamaha says that, personally, he would not attach much importance to the two names Vaidarbhi and Gaudi. As one who cares for the greater virtues of good poetry in general, he says that he accepts such composition as possesses those good qualities. He says that he cannot distinguish two styles and that such a thing is nonexistent. But his opponents point out that, as for instance, the Kavya (lost) called the Asmakavamsa is Vaidarbhi. His reply is, "All right, call it whatever you please; one gives names as he pleases and that does not matter much. There is no special kind of poetry called Vaidarbhi. All poetic writing is accepted because it is adorned by Vakrokti. yuktam cakrasvabhavoktya sarvamevaitadapyate || vaidarbhamanyadastiti manyante sudhiyo'pare | tadeva ca kila jyayah sadarthamapi naparam ||

gaudiyamidametattu vaidarbhamiti kim prthak | gatanugatikanyayat nanakhyeyamamedhasam || nanu casmakavamsadi vaidarbhamiti kathyate | kamam tathastu prayena samjnecchato vidhiyate || 137 I. 30-33. From these verses of Bhamaha on the two styles, we can gather that in his time, some writers had held the Vaidarbhi as the better style and the Gaudi as the worse. Of the Vai darbhi also we glean that anatiposa, anativakrokti, prasada, arjava, komalatva and srutipalesalatva were considered by those writers as the distinguishing features. Vide sl. 34. If these ideas are stuck to too much, Vaidarbhi deteriorates: If the Artha is entirely Apusta, Avakra and Prasanna, it is insipid as ordinary talk. If it is very much addicted to the habit of giving a sense of sweetness to the ear alone, it is only like some song, heard and forgotten. karne gatam susyati karna eva sangitakam saikatavariritya || Nilakantha Diksita in his Sivaliilarnava, Canto I. 17. gayanti vina api venavo'pi jananti balah pasavo'pi cedam || Ibid., Canto I. 14.. In a similar manner we can also glean from Bhamaha's remarks what features were attributed by writers of his time to the Gaudi, by writers who condemned it. These features can be gathered from verse 35 and they are Atyalamkara, akulatva etc. The Gaudi they condemned had too much Aksaradambara and was Akula, at the sacrifice of idea, Anarthya. This current of criticism against the Gaudi continued to flow, despite Bhamaha's efforts to stop it. The good Gaudi envisaged by Bhamaha was however not demonstrated, in all

probability, by the representatives of the Gaudi and so the Gaudi came to mean a bad style, with excess of Sabda and Artha Alamkara, poor in idea, hyperbolic and involved in expression. It is this Gaudi that is the antithesis in the first pariccheda of the Kavyadarsa of Dandin. By this time, the names had not yet become non-geographical; for Dandin often refers only to the people of the east and the south, while referring to the two styles and not, like later writers, to the stereotyped modes of style without any geographical significance. It is often said that Dandin represents a school called the 'Guna school.' In Bhamaha, at the beginning of chapter II, we find three Gunas, Prasada, Madhurya and Ojas, the former two going together as features of an Asamasa-sanghatana and the third, standing against both Prasada and Madhurya, as the Guna of Dirgha-samasa-sammghatana. While speaking of the two Margas, Bhamaha mentions Komalatva, Sruti pesalatva, and Prasannatva regarding the Vaidarbhi; and while commending the good Gaudi, he says that it must be Anakula, which means that there must not be very long compounds. Besides this implied and traceable connection between the Gunas and the two Margas, there is no definite mention, in Bhamaha, of Gunas as the constituting elements of a Marga. Dandin expounds in the first chapter the Vaidarbha Marga which was considered the best style. It was so considered because of the presence in it of ten Gunas which constitute its life. Dandin generally says that the reverses of these ten Gunas are seen in the Gaudi which means bad poetry. A critical examination of these ten Gunas has been made elsewhere by the present writer.' Suffice it here to point out that some 1 See my thesis Bhoja's Srngara Prakasa, Vol. I, Part 2, Ch. on History of Gunas, pp. 282-293.

Gunas are given by Dandin himself as excellences of both Margas.' Dandin mentions the ten Gunas as the life not of poetry as such, but of the style called Vaidarbhi. If, on the basis of Dandin's formulation of Gunas, one says that he belongs to the Guna school, one can as well say that Dandin belongs to the Riti school. Really Dandin belongs to the Alamkara school, much more than Bhamaha. For, to Dandin, Gunas, Rasas, Sandhyanga, Vrttyanga, Laksana,-all are Alamkara. Apart from the word poetry, there is only one word for Dandin, viz., Alamkara. The full development of Dandin, as seen in two directions in Bhoja and well as of Bhamaha, is Kuntaka. 2 In poetic expression there is always a finally analysable scheme of two definite styles, the simple and the grandiloquent, the plain and the elevated, the unadorned and the figurative. In the former, natural description of emotion, men and things is given with minimum artificial decoration. Svabhavokti and Rasokti, to borrow Bhoja's classification, predominate in it. Colour, ornament,-Vakrokti dominates the latter. These two correspond to Dandin's two styles; only the Gaudi is Vakrokti run riot. Kuntaka's Sukumara Marga, which emphasises Vakrokti less, belongs to the former class. Kuntaka's Vicitra marga marks an emphasis on the Vaicitrya that Vakrokti imparts. Aristotle also gives only two styles, the good and the bad, the good being so by any sort of virtue, i.e., good not only because of virtues of simplicity, elegance etc., but by virtues of vigour etc., also. $6 1 His bad Dr. S. K. De wrongly says in his Skr. Poetics II, p. 100 : The ten Gunas are non-existent in the Gauda." 2 * See my Bhoja's Srngara Prakasa, Vol. I. Part 1, p. 123; Part 2, p. 417.

style is the frigid style, resembling exactly Dandin's Gaudi, a style which overshoots its mark. The plain and elegant style of Demetrius corresponds to the Vaidarbhi of Dandin and the Sukumara of Kuntaka. The elevated and the forcible of Demetrius resembles the Vicitra Marga of Kuntaka and the good Gaudi envisaged by Bhamaha. , It is said that what we call Riti is not anything similar to what is called in English 'style.' Dr. S. K. De says in his Skr. Poetics, II, p. 115: "It should be observed that the term Riti is hardly equivalent to the English word style, by which it is often rendered, but in which there is always a distinct subjective valuation." Again on p. 116: "But, at the same time, the Riti is not, like the style, the expression of poetic individuality as is generally understood by western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation of its beauty called forth by a harmonious combination of more or less fixed 'literary excellences'." The word 'style in English is not easily felt to be equivalent to the Sanskrit Riti mainly on two grounds: (i) It is said that while the English Style in all-comprehensive, the Sanskrit Riti comprises only a fixed set of Gunas. (ii) Ritis as expounded by Sanskrit are only two or three or four or six, and are related to certain kinds of subjects or themes whereas the English Style is related to the author's character. It is proposed to make plain in the course of this study of Riti that it is neither impossible nor incorrect to render Riti by the English word Style, that Riti comprehends not only Gunas, but Alankaras and Rasas also, that Ritis are not so few as two or six but really as infinite as poets and that at least one or two Alankarikas and poets have related Riti to the poet. It shall also be shown that there are always two conceptions of Riti, a higher and a larger one and a lower and a narrower one, a subjective

one and an objective one, in relation to the poet and in relation to theme; and that this is true of the English Style also, as can be seen from its history in western literary criticism from Aristotle downwards. Actually, certain western writers find it not only possible but quite sensible and useful too, not only to classify style into a certain number of styles but also to relate these classified and standardized styles to subject or theme. As observed above, though Bhamaha does not definitely give in so many words the relation of Gunas and Riti, we can clearly see that his verses imply the theory of Riti as based on the Gunas. For he speaks of Komalatva, Prasannatva and Srutipesalatva regarding the Vaidarbhi. But Bhamaha does not stop here. He speaks further of Arthaposa, Vakrokti, Arthyatva, Nyayyatva and Anakulatva as features of a style of acceptable poetry. Certainly these are comprehensive features and stand for the very complete manner of writing. When we analyse Dandin, we see that not only Gunas but Alankaras. also go to distinguish the Ritis. He says that the Gauda marga is characterised by Anuprasa which is a Sabdalamkara. The flaw of Saithilya, the reverse' of the Slesa of the Vaidarbhi, is a result of Anuprasa. anuprasadhiya gaudaistadistam bandhagauravat | 1. 44. Again, speaking of the reverse of the Guna called Samata, in Gauda marga, Dandin says: ityanalocya vaisamyamarthalankaradambaram | aveksamana kamaton aga dire $1493 fa: || 1. 50. Madhurya involves Srutyanuprasa. 'In his article on the Gaudi Riti in Theory and Practise in I.H.Q., III, 1927, Mr. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya renders 'Viparyaya' as misconception about or misapplication of the essentials of style.

tadrupa hi padasattih sanuprasa rasavaha | I. 52. Anuprasa in its Ulbana varieties is specialised in by the Gaudas. itidam natam gaudairanuprasastu tatpriyah | I. 54. As a matter of fact, Dandin treats of the Sabdalankaras only here. He treats of the Anuprasa here and keeps over the Yamaka for the third chapter. The only difference is that the Anuprasas of the Vaidarbhas are mild while those of the Gaudas are wild. ityanuprasamicchanti natidurantarasrutim | na tu ramamukhambhojasadrsascandrama iti || 1. 58. ityadi bandhaparusyam saithilyam ca niyacchati | ato nainamanuprasam daksinatyah prayunjate || 1. 60. The Guna called Udara is no feature of the collocation like Slesa. It relates to thought and the mode of its expression. When a noble and exalted description suggests a noble and exalted quality of the person or object described, it is called Udara Guna. This way of saying, so as to make the thing intended to be said deliver itself by implication or suggestion- utkarsavan gunah kascidyasminnukte pratiyate | is something beyond Guna and Alamkara. Nor is the second variety of Udara-Slaghyavisesana,-on a par with Slesa. The Guna of Kanti is similarly of a superior nature. It refers to that method of expression wherein the author shows restraint and moderation and avoids hyperboles. The Gaudas, on the other hand, love hyperboles.

idamatyuktirityuktametadgaudopalalitam | 1. 92. 143 Similarly Samadhi Guna brings in its train Samasokti Alamkara. Thus, an examination of Dandin shows that the Margas are characterised not merely by a set of fixed features which pertain to collocation alone. The Gunas mean much more than what they seem to. The Gunas themselves must be clearly understood. Riti cannot be demeaned by simply saying that it is called forth by a set of more or less fixed literary excellences. Vamana began grandly by declaring Riti as the soul of poetry. He however defined Riti as Padaracana, but qualified it with the word Visista. Vamana is the first writer to give a classification of Gunas into those of Sabda and those of Artha. The mere excellences of Bandha are Sabda gunas; Riti there is at its lower level. The Arthagunas lift up Riti to the higher position. The Arthagunas are comprehensive and reach up to Rasa. The Arthaguna Ojas, Praudhi of various kinds, Madhurya which is Uktivaicitrya, Slesa which is Ghatana of various kinds, Kanti which is brilliancy of Rasas-these comprehend poetic expression in all aspects. Vamana himself emphasises the Arthagunas: tasyam arthagunasampadasvadya | sapiyamarthagunasampad vaidarbhityucyate || I. 2. 20, 22. Thus these so-called Gunas comprehend Bandhagunas, Alamkaras and Rasas. Demetrius, while describing each style, gave each certain Bandhagunas, certain kinds of Alamkaras and certain emotional features also. Vamana defined his Gunas in such a way as to enable us to take them as characteristics of the best style of poetry. Gunas

which would pertain only to another Marga were not brought in by him. So, he could define the Vaidarbhi as the best style by reason of the fullness of all these Gunas in it, Guna sakalya. So it is that he says that Paka or maturity of expression in Kavya is the clear and full presence, Sphutatva and Sakalya, of these Gunas. This view Vamana could hold by changing the meaning of some Gunas. To the two Ritis, Vaidarbhi and Gaudi, Vamana first added a third, the Pancali, another intriguing geographical name. The Gaudi in Vamana is not the bad style in Dandin. It is a good style in which all the Gunas. of the Vaidarbhi are present; only it sheds some sweetness and delicateness and attains vigour and forcefulness. The Madhurya and Saukumarya of the Vaidarbhi are replaced by Samasabahulya and Ulbanapadas, with a greater degree of Ojas and Kanti. The Pancali is the Vaidarbhi devoid of Ojas and Kanti.' Of these three, Vamana asks poets to practise and achieve the Vaidarbhi style of poetry. tasam purvagrahya, gunasakalyat, na punaritare stokagunatvat | I. 2, 14-18. From the three Ritis in Vamana, we pass to the four in Rudrata. Rudrata mentions the Vaidarbhi and the Pancali with a certain kinship which is found even in Vamana. Rudrata however adds a fourth style to go along with the Gaudiya. This new fourth Riti is the Latiya, another geographical name. The four are thus given in two sets and are, for the first time definitely dissociated from any poets of 'It is noteworthy how the Alankaradambara of the Gaudas mentioned by Bana has not changed at all. Analyzi gaudiyamapi gayanti | turafa af Vamana. For the contradiction here on the concept of Ojas and a full examination of Vamana's Gunas, see my Srigara Prakasa, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 293-299.

any parts of the country which their names refer to. Rudrata relates them to the theme: vaidarbhipancalyau preyasi karune bhayanakadbhutayoh | latiyagaudiye raudre kuryadyathaucityam || While tracing the history of Riti, we can clearly see how no writer ever missed the idea that the Vaidarbhi stood for a certain sweetness while the Gaudi was characterised by force and vigour. When the geographical significance of the Vaidarbhas alone favouring sweetness and its allied Gunas and the Gaudas alone practising Aksaradambara, Ojas etc., was lost, and all the Ritis were practised by all poets of all places, the sweetness of the one and the vigour of the other were thought of in connection with the theme by the same poet who commanded both ways of writing. Visaya-aucitya began to regulate the nature of Riti in the several parts of a poem. The Rasas and the Arthas pertaining thereto have their own quality of sweetness, vigour etc. These were studied by Bharata, and by others following him, in the concept of Vrtti. The Vrtti was applied from Drama to poetry. Kaisiki is the Vrtti of Syngara and Arabhati of Raudra, Vira, Bhayanaka and Bibhatsa Rasas. To this Vrtti, the Riti came to be related. The sweetness and delicateness associated with the Vaidarbhi made it possible to link it to the Kasiki Vrtti and the Srngara Rasa. Srngara, Kasiki Vrtti and the Vaidarbhi Riti went together always. The Gaudi easily linked itself to Arabhati Vrtti and Rasas like Raudra. The Pancali and the Latiya occupied middling positions, the former leaning more to the Vaidarbhi and the latter more to the Gaudi. Thus the emotional situation came to determine the mode of expression. Hence 'See below chapter on the history of Vrtti in Kavya. 10

Bhoja treats of Ritis and Vrttis under Anubhava. The Vrtti differs from Riti as more intimately connected with Rasa and its ideas. To the Rasa, Riti was related on the basis of the verbal expression, the Sabadsanghatana. In this stage, the Gunas, Madhurya etc., which were still the constituents of Riti, become mere Sanghatanadharmas. We find the Locana saying while stating the Purvapaksa : 6 tacchabdenatra madhuryadayo gunah | tesam ca samucitavrttyarpane yadanyonyamelanaksamatvena panaka iva gudamaricadirasanam sanghatarupatagamanam dipta-lalita-madhya-varnaniya visayam gaudiya - vaidarbha- pancaladesahevakapracuryadrsa tadeva trividham ritirityuktam | " P. 6. As Anandavardhana says, expression appropriate to Rasa is Vrtti; the expression of Artha is the Vrtti of Kaisiki etc.; the expression of Sabda is the Vrtti of Upanagarika etc. These Sabda Vrttis Upanagarika etc. are the Ritis. 66 rasadyanugunatvena vyavaharo'rthasabdayoh | aucityavanyasta eva vrttayo dvividhasthitah || III. 33. tatra rasanugunah aucityavan vacyasrayo vyavaharah, ta eva kaisikyadya vrttayah | vacakasrayasca upanagarikadyah | " ibid., vrtti. sabdatattvasrayah kascit arthatattvayujo'parah | vrttayo'pi prakasante jnate'sminkavyalaksane || 11. 53. Mammata says under Anuprasa jatis : madhuryavyanjakairvanaih upanagarikesyate | ojah prakasakaistaistu parusa, - komala paraih || IX 3. K. Pra.

etastisro vrttayah ( upanagarika, parusa, komala ca ) vamanadinam mate vaidarbhigaudiyapancalyakhya ritaya ucyante | ibid., vrtti. Singabhupala defines Riti as Pada-vinyasa-bhangi, and has three Ritis Komala, Kathina and Misra,-other names of Vaidarbhi, Gaudi and Pancali. A late work called Syngarasara (Madras MS.) follows Singaphupala completely, defines Riti as Padavinyasabhamgi, accepts three varieties of it, Vaidarbhi, Gaudi and Pancali, which it calls Komala, Kathina and Misra. Rajasekhara's main chapter, the third, on Riti, called Ritinirnaya, is lost. Still we gather some of his ideas on Riti in his description of the legendary Kavyapurusa's Avatara in the beginning of his Kavya mimamsa, as also from his dramas. In his Kavyamimamsa, Rajasekhara speaks of three Ritis in the description of which he introduces a new distinguishing feature, viz., the use of Yogavrtti in abundance, the same to a less extent, and the use of Upacara. These are the features Rajasekhara attributes to the three': Gaudi Pancali AAJA isadasamasa anuprasa yogavrttiparampara isadanuprasa upacara Vaidarbhi asamasa FATAIZATA yogavrtti These three Ritis, Rajasekhara relates to the Desas whose names they bear. He considers the Vaidarbhi as the best form of poetic style. For he says that when the spouse of Sahityavidya spoke to the Kavyapurusa in the Gauda style, he was absolutely indifferent; when she talked in the Pancali style, he was ' Vide my article on Riti and Guna in the Agni Purana in I.H.Q. X, iv, 767-779.

captivated only to a small extent, Isadvasamvadikrta; but when both reached the Daksinadesa and she spoke in the Vaidarbhi, he became 'Atyartham vasamvada. Rajasekhara pays his tribute to Vaidarbhi poetry by making the Kavyapurusa and Sahityavidya celebrate their nuptials in the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma. tatrasti manojanmano devasya kridavaso vidarbhesu vatsagulmam nama nagaram | tatra sarasvateyasta maumeyim gandharvavatparininaya | P. 10. | In the mangalasloka to his Karpuramanjari, Rajasekhara speaks of three Ritis, Vacchomi, Magadhi and Pancali. This Vacchomi is the Prakrt form' of Vatsagulmi, a name for Vaidarbhi given after the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma. Why the Gaudi has been substituted here by the Magadhi is not known. In his Balaramayana, Rajasekhara speaks of the Vaidarbhi twice. In Act III, he says that the quality of Madhurya is supreme in the Vaidarbhi and in Act X, that the Vaidarbhi is characterised by Madhurya and Prasada and that Rasa is dominant in it. (a) vagvaidarbhi madhurimagunam syandate srotralehyam | III. 14. (b) kathamayam krathakaisikadhipatih- vagdevata vasati yatra rasaprasutih lilapadam bhagavato madanasya yacca | 'Instead of thus deriving Vacchomi meaning Vaidarbhi from Vatsagulmi, Vasudeva, author of the commentary on the Karpuramanjari says: chaicchavacchomisabdau 'dadhadayo bahulam ' iti vidagdhavaidarbhisabdayossadhu | P. 3. [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] Edition

prenkhadvidagdhavanitancitarajamarga tatkundinam nagaramesa vibhurbibharti || III. 50. (c) yatksemam tridivaya vartma, nigamasyangam ca yatsaptamam, svadistham ca yaksavadapi rasat, caksusca yadvanmayam | tadyasminmadhuram prasadi rasavat kantam ' ca kavyamrtam 149 so'yam subhru puro vidarbhavisayah sarasvatijanmabhuh || X 74. Dhanapala ( first half of the 11 th cent.) says in the Tilakamanjari vaidarbhimiva ritinam 鈥� " adhikamudbhasamanam | [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] edn. p. 130. Sriharsa says in his Naisadha : and again : dhanya'si vaidarbhi gunairudaraih | 111. 116. gunanamasthanim nrpatilakanariti viditam rasasphitamantah tava ca tava vrtte ca kavituh | bhavitri vaidarbhimadhikamadhikantham racayitum parirambhakridacaranasaranamanvahamayam || XIV, 91. Nilakanthadiksita waxes eloquent upon Vaidarbhi and its country in his Nalacarita nataka, Act III: sarasvati - santvajnah santu budhah santu pumamsah striyasva va santu | sa sa rasikah kaviradhuna jajne yo yo jano vidarbhesu || savitri - prageva khalu te vidarbha ityeva hrdayam prakrstamutkanthate | kim punah anumataya iva bhagavatapi | yatra sa vaidarbhi ritih | 1 It is not known if by this word Kanta, Rajasekhara means the guna Kanti in Dandin or uses it only in a general manner.

adisvadusu ya para kavayatam kastha yadarohanam 1 ya te nissvasitam, navapi ca rasa yatra svadantetaram | pancaliti paramparaparicito vadah kavinam param vaidarbhi yadi saiva vaci kimitah svarge'parge'pi va || To return to Rajasekhara, he has the following additional remarks about the literary habits of the poets of different places : 1 tatra dayitasuvrttayo vidarbhah | vallabhasamasavrttayo gaudah | priya- taddhita daksinatyah | krtprayogarucaya udicyah | abhistatibvrttayassa- rve'pi santah | Kavyamimamsa, p. 22. The basis of each of these statements is not exactly known. We know only, from Dandin, that the Gaudas loved Samasa and that the remark about the Daksinatyas' love for Taddhita is borrowed from Patanjali. Further, we do not exactly know what Rajasekhara means by mentioning separately Vaidarbhas and Daksinatyas. Perhaps, the latter are people further south or those in the south other than the Vaidarbhas. In a verse on poet Bana and poetess Silabhattarika, Rajasekhara gives a new definition of the Pancali, the basis for which is also not known. He says in it that the Pancali is the style in which Sabda and Artha are evenly matched. sabdarthayossamo gumphah pancali ritirisyate | silabhattarikavaci banoktisu ca sa yadi || In Act X of the Balaramayana, Rajasekhara ascribes a peculiar style to Mithila. Thus he speaks of a Maithili style : (i) yatrarthatisayo'pi sutritajaganmaryadaya modate (ii) sandarbhasca samasamasalavadaprastaravistaritah |

(iii) uktiyagapamraparaparicita kavyesu caksusmatam 151 sa ramya navacampakamgi bhavatu tvannetrayoh pritaye || sl. 95. The Maithili is here said to be characterised by three qualities: (i) arthatisaye'pi jaganmaryadanatikramanam .., avoiding Atyuktis or flat hyperboles. This is Dandin's and Bhoja's Kanti of the Vaidarbhi: kantam sarvajagatkantam lauki- karthanatikramat | (ii) This seems to be sparse use of compounds. (iii) Yogaparampara' which is given in his [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] as characterising the Gaudi. The country of Mithila is nowhere mentioned in connection with the Ritis, except perhaps by one writer, Sripada, quoted by Kesava in Alamkarasekhara, who says that the Maithili has, like the Vaidarbhi, few compounds. 1 tadetatpallavayanti sripadah- gaudi samabhuyastvat vaidarbhi ca tadalpatah | anayossamkaro yastu magadhi sa ( na ?) tivistara || gaudiyaih prathama, madhya vaidarbhah maithilaistatha | anyaistu carama ritih svabhavadeva sevyate | P. 6. [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] 50. p. Vide Appendix on Riti in the Agnipurana. The use of the feature Yogavrtti, Upacara etc., in distinguishing styles is found in Rajasekhara, Bhoja, Agnipurana and Bahurupamisra. The last says in his commentary on the Dasarupaka (Mad. MS.): "garai catasrnam ca ritinam (1) samasataratamyat ( 2 ) upacarataratamyat ( 3 ) bandhasaukumaryadi - taratamyat ( 4 ) anuprasabhedat ( 5 ) yogadibhedacca parasparabheda ityanusandhatavyamiti | " The Sahitya mimamsa ([Trivandrum Sanskrit Series] 114) refers to the distinction of the Ritis on the basis of these four features, but rejecting these, accepts only the feature of Samasa, the first, as the basis of the distinction, a view which follows Rudrata (p. 87). The work notes also that Bhamaha has no fancy for the Ritis.

From this remark of Sripada, we understand that the Maithili is the Magadhi,' the Magadhi which, along with the Pancali and the Vaidarbhi (Vacchomi), is mentioned by Rajasekhara in his mangalasloka to the Karpuramanjari. Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharana gives an absurd definition of Magadhi as a Khandariti, formed when the Riti begun is left off! purvariteh anirvahah khandaritistu magadhi | This Maghadhi may or may not have been mentioned in the lost Riti chapter of the Kavyamimamsa. But in the available portion, Rajasekhara accepts only three Ritis and they are the Vaidarbhi, Gaudiya and Pancali. He says again on p. 31, of his [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay]: azig露fufa q露fazifta | aa faur fifaauuga | azig: 1 aqui nistai qandi afa Nauftaa: 1 asu ca saksannivasati sarasvati tena laksyante || Bhoja added two more Ritis to Rudrata's four, the Avantika and the Magadhi. The latter, as found in Rajasekhara, Sripada and Bhoja, has been noticed already. It is only the Avanti that is absolutely new. The classification and description of these in Bhoja (S. K. A.) are very mechanical, arbitrary and unreal. It seems to be idle to examine Bhoja's Latiya, Magadhi and Avanti. Why this complacent creation of geographical names was in fashion amongst these writers. cannot be guessed." 2 'It may be suggested that the mention of Magadhi is due to the author being a Buddhist; Buddha spoke in Magadhi bhasa. The following is a summary of the views of other minor writers on Riti. The older Vagbhata accepts only the Vaidarbhi and the Gaudi, one without any compounds and the other with compounds ([Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] Edition p. 61). The younger Vagbhata recognises the three Ritis, Vaidarbhi, Gaudiya and Pancali and defines them as dominated respectively by the three Gunas, Madhurya, Ojas and Prasada (p. 31). Singabhupala (R. A. S.) accepts the Vai., the Gau.,

The treatment of style on the basis of theme is not absent from western criticism. Aristotle says that style should vary and thus be in accordance with emotion. "But the style expressive of feeling suppose the case be one of assault in the style of a man in passion;-" "A style of exultation for praise; a style and the Pan. He borrows from Dandin for defining the Vaidarbhi; the two differences here are that he makes the 'Rasa' in Dandin's ngi wazifa, the 9 Rasas and takes the first case of Udara as Dhvani. He calls the Vaidarbhi, Komala: Gaudi, Kathina; and the Pancali, Misra. Leaving the Misra, he contrasts the other two; Komala X Kathina; Asamasa XDirghasamasa; Prasada X Asphutabandha; Anisthuraksara X Nisthuraksara; Prthakpadatva X Granthilatva. Under Misra Ritis, he recognises a Riti for every province, Andhra, Lati, Saurastri etc. (p. 69). The Camatkaracandrika of Visvesvara (Mad. MS.), who wrote in Singa's court, casts away the old names, defines Riti as Padaghatana and gives four kinds of it, the only feature of differentiation accepted being Samasa-Asamasa, Madhyasamasa, Atidirghasamasa and Misra (p. 61. Mad. MS.). This position corresponds to Rudrata's which distinguishes Ritis on Samasa only, gives Vaidarbhi as the Riti of the collocation free from compounds and gives three Ritis, Pancali, Latiya and Gaudiya for the collocations with Laghu, Madhya and Ayata Samasas. (II, 3-6). Vidyanatha considers Riti as 'Fatcaafof the Kavya. See also Sahityakaumudi of Arkasuri, Mad. MS. R. 2391, p. 11, quiafa fifafu: | Tippabhupala, at the end of his commentary on Vamana, considers Riti as the life-breath of poetry : a: p. 193. V. V. Edition The only later writer, who still called Riti the Atman of poetry following Vamana, even when Rasa and Dhvani were ruling for long, is Amrtanandayogin who says: faraisa ch. 5. Alamkara Samgraha. This author treats of Rasa and Dhvani also. Keilhorn's Central Provinces' Catalogue, p. 104, mentions a work called Riti vrtti laksana" by Vitthalesvara or Vitthaladiksita, which would be the only post-Ananda work of its kind, if it is a complete work by itself and is devoted exclusively to a consideration of Riti along with the allied Vrtti. Even then this tract must have dealt with Riti and Vrtti only as accepted in the scheme of Rasa and Dhvani. Simhadevagani, commentator on the Vagbhatalamkara, speaks, in three verses at the end of his commentary, of Lati (Hasya), Pancali (Karuna and Bhayanaka), Magadhi (Santa), Gaudi (Vira and Raudra), Vacchomi (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi

" with submission if in pity." "But compound words and plurality of epithets and foreign idioms are appropriate chiefly to one who speaks under the excitement of some passionThis style of a man in passion and a situation of assault, in which Aristotle mentions compound words as proper is an Ojas-dominated Riti, like Dandin's Gaudi, Samasabhuyistha. Aristotle says elsewhere that "of various kinds of words, the compounds are best adapted to dithyrambs," which are hymns to Bacchus, the wine-god, enthusiastic, wild and boisterous. Samasa gives the necessary Ojas to such a style. i Speaking of the style called 'the Elevated', Demetrius says that there are certain subjects with the quality of elevation to which that style is thence suited. Such are subjects like scenes of battle. Surely these cannot be treated in the styles called the Plain' and 'the Elegant'. They must be rendered in the styles called 'the Elevated' and 'the Forcible'. Demetrius speaks of the Varnadhvani of Ananda in this connection, of how Srutidusta, Sa, Sa, Ra etc., is promotive of Raudra rasa. Demetrius remarks that though violence (Srutidusta) is a fault of composition, it is a necessary feature of the (Srngara). We do not know how Vacchomi is different from Vaidarbhi and how Vacchomi is suited to Bibhatsa and Adbhuta. In the next verse he gives, following Rudrata, the Pancali as having two or three words in a compound, Lati five or seven and Gaudi as many words as possible in a compound. The last verse is very puzzling :-prathamapada vatsomi trisampada ca magadhi bhavati | ubhayorapi vaidarbhi muhurmuhuhh a Hamsamitthu's Hamsa vilasa (Geak edn. lxxxi) speaks of the Lati (Hasya), Pancali (Karuna and Bhayanaka), Magadhi (Santa), Gaudi (Vira and Bhayanaka), Vatsoma desodbhava (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi (Srngara). (ch. 46, p. 269). The expression Vatsoma-desodbhava is quite correct and the editor need not have added a query here; it means the Vacchomi which Rajasekhara's Karpuramanjari mentions; but the Hamsa vilasa is wrong when it speaks of a Vaidarbhi in addition, for the Vacchomi is the same as the Vaidarbhi; and it is also wrong to assign to the Vacchomi the Rasas Bibhatsa and Adbhuta.

" Forcible style, since "words hard to pronounce are forcible as uneven roads are forcible." Even as the Sanskrit Alamkarikas speak of the Vaidarbhi for Srngara rasa, Demetrius gives the Elegant as the style for elegant and graceful subjects like Srngara. He says: "The materials of grace are the gardens of nymphs etc., etc." One of the two deciding factors in the Grand style', M. Murry says, is the theme, the other factor being vocabulary. In connection with the theme, "the nature of the plot or muthos", he observes that the Grand style is adopted if superhuman or majestic figures are involved. If the characters of the plot are superhuman and majestic, it seems more or less necessary that their manner of speech should differ from that of ordinary dramatic poetry by being more dignified." (p. 140, Problem of Style.) "The poet heightens the speech of his superhuman characters in order that they may appear truly superhuman." (p. 1+1). This is clearly a case of theme being a Niyamaka of style, a case of standardised style, "a technical poetic device for a particular end" as Murry says of the Grand style. Thus, the linking of style to theme is not absent from western criticism. It is remarkable that there should be many points of similarity between western writers on the subject of style and Sanskrit Alamkarikas. M. Murry says in his Problem of Style : "In the course of the approach, I examined two qualities of style which are not infrequently put forward as essential, namely, the musical suggestion of the rhythm and the visual suggestion of the imagery, and I tried to show that these were subordinate. On the positive side, I tried to show that the essential quality of style was precision that this precision was not intellectual, not a precision of definition, but of emotional suggestion. .." p. 95. The musical qualities of rhythm etc., in the word-structure come under Sabdaguna and

Sabdalamkara and the visual suggestion of imagery is Arthaguna and Arthalamkara. These two, of the realm of Vacya vacaka, are but the means, the vehicle, i.e., subordinate as Murry says. The emotional suggestion of Murry is Rasadhvani and precision thereof is served by Rasaucitya. The second Madhurya of Dandin, viz., Anuprasa - varnavrttiranuprasah padesu ca padesu ca | I, 55. yaya kayacicchrutya yat || etc. corresponds to the fourth point mentioned by R. L. Stevenson in his essay on the Technical Elements of Style, viz., 'contents of the phrase.' He makes a detailed study and analysis and tabulates the consonantal sound effects of many passages. He gives this as a quality. of a master of style. Dandin says that when this Srutyanuprasa is left and Ulbananuprasa is resorted to by the Gaudas, harshness, Bandhaparusya and another flaw, Saithilya, result. The concatenation becomes hardly pronounceableKrcchrodya. sithilam malatimala lolalikalila yatha || agaraftan niewafzu azuntzara 11 vaidarbhairmalatidama langhitam bhramarairiti | I, 43-44. ityadibandhaparusyam saithilyam ca niyacchati | ato nainamanuprasam daksinatyah prayunjate || ibid. 60. diptamityaparairbhumna krcchrodyamapi badhyate | nyaksena ksapitah paksah ksatriyanam ksanaditi || ibid., 72. Stevenson thus concludes his section on contents of the phrase: "To understand how constant is this pre-occupation of good writers, even where its results are least obstrusive, it is only necessary to turn to the bad. There indeed you will find cacaphony supreme, the rattle of incongruous consonants

only relieved by jaw-breaking hiatus, and whole phrases not to be articulated by the powers of man." R. L. Stevenson speaks. in this essay of his, of Samata, Vaisamya, Prasada and Caville, i.e., the Anarthakapadas or Aprayojaka padas of Vamana which hinder Prasada (ardhasya vaimalyam prayojakamatrapadaparigrahe prasadah III, iii, 3.) and Mahiman's Avakara. Ideas found in Pater's exposition of style also have correspondences with ideas on Guna, Alamkara and Alamkaraucitya found in Sanskrit works. Schopenhauer has an essay on Authorship and Style, where, while dealing with the latter subject, he gives certain concrete good features of a good style of writing, judged to be good by reason of the presence of those features. According to him thoughts must get their clearest, finest and most powerful expression; thus, three qualities are emphasised by him, clarity and beauty, the sum total of these two, the power. In clarity is comprehended chiefly the virtue of simplicity which means the expression of thoughts "as purely, clearly, definitely and concisely as ever possible." This is secured by the use of words which are precise and which mean neither more nor less, which neither mean the thing vaguely nor mean something different. Grammatical precision and enough words are necessary. Clarity and grammar must not be sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Says Schopenhauer: "On the other hand one should never sacrifice clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for the sake of being And this is precisely what false brevity nowadays in vogue is trying to do, for writers not only leave out words that are to the purpose, but even grammatical and logical essentials." Compare Dandin's Guna, Arthavyakti, which he defines as Aneyarthatva. It is a grammatical and logical necessity. In its absence, in the absence of words grammatically and logically essential, we have the Dosa called Neyarthatva. brief. 鈥� 鈥�

arthavyaktiraneyatvamarthasya harinoddhrta | bhuh ksuraksunnanaga saglohitadudadheriti || nedrsam bahumanyante margayorubhayorapi | na hi pratitissubhaga sabdanyaya vilamghini || K. A. I, 73-75. Not saying what must be said, out of a mistaken sense of brevity, is a kind of ' Vacyavacana' according to Mahimabhatta. Similarly, simplicity and precision are lost by adding things. and words which are unnecessary. This is Mahiman's Avacyavacana. ityatra samasantargatena vadanasabdena ekenaiva vadane vacye yada bahubhih sabdaih tasya vacanam so'vacyavacanam dosah | P. , [Trivandrum Sanskrit Series] edn. These words are surplusage and are due to proverty of thought or an ambition to write a grand style. These merely fill so much of space still vacant in a verse, Padapurana. Schopenhauer says: "If words are piled up beyond this point they make the thought that is being communicated more and more obscure. To hit that point is the problem of style and a matter of discernment; for every superfluous word prevents its purpose being carried out." This is exactly what Vamana means by his Arthaguna Prasada which is the use of words exactly sufficient for conveying the idea. arthavaimalyam prasadah | arthasya vaimalyam prayojakamatrapadaparigrahe prasadah | yatha - savarna kanyaka rupayauvanarambhasalini | ' viparyayastu upastam hasto me vimalamanikancipadamidam ' | kancipadamityanenaiva nitambasya laksitatvat visesanasya aprayojakatvamiti | III, ii, 3. Other Sanskrit writers also have dealt with Aprayojaka epithets and words which do not nourish the idea but are

mere verbiage affected for attaining a grandiose style and adopted to cover one's poverty of idea and imagination. For, these words, Mahiman calls apratibhodbhava and avakara . To Mahiman, these out-of-place words are the literary Apasabdas. asman prati punah avisaye prayujyamanah sabdah apasabda eva " p. 121. [Trivandrum Sanskrit Series] edn. Schopenhauer condemns indefiniteness, vague words and enveloping trivial ideas in the most outlandish, artificial and rarest phrases. 'vyutpannamiti gaudiyairnatirudhamapisyate ' says Dandin ; that Prasada is the use of well-known words which easily give their sense that as against this, certain writers think that they must look learned and, in the words of Schopenhauer, 'resent the idea of their work looking too simple and resort to lexicographical rarities. Schopenhauer speaks of two styles, one good and the other bad, the former being characterised mainly by simplicity, clarity and precision, and the latter by prolixity, vagueness and word-pomp. He seems to describe only Dandin's Vaidarbhi and Gaudi. Of those who favour the latter, Schopenhauer says that they 'delight in bombast', that their writing is generally 'in a grand puffed up (Dipta of Dandin), unreal, hyperbolic (Dandin's Atyukti, the reverse of the Saukumarya Guna) and acrobatic style.' (Prahelikapraya says Bhamaha). Dandin condemns not only Ulbana Anuprasa (Sabdalamkara) and Yamaka which is Duskara and 'Naikanta madhura', but also Arthalamkara dambara. He prefers delicateness, fineness and natural grace which give poetry a power which no rhetorical ornament can ever impart to it. ityanurjita evarthah nalankaro'pi tadrsah | sukumaratayaivaitad arohati satam manah || Compare Schopenhauer: "An author should guard against using all unnecessary rhetorical adornment, all useless amplification,

and in general, just as in architecture, he should guard against an excess of decoration, all superfluity of expression,-in other words, he should aim at chastity of style. Everything redundant has a harmful effect. The law of simplicity and naivete applies to all fine art, for it is compatible with what is most sublime." It shall be considered now whether the linking of Riti to the poet and his character and the idea of the infinity of Riti is or is not present in Sanskrit Alamkara literature. Aristotle described only one good style and its qualities and contrasted it with a bad style called the Frigid which overdid ornamentation. He refuted also others who spoke of different styles such as the Agreeable. He argued that there was no end when one began attributing to styles all sorts of ethical qualities like restraint etc. An emphasis on the relation of style to the author makes it impossible to speak of style in general or define its features. Only a few concrete qualities related to the actual Sabdas, the Sanghatana, Padas and Varnas, and to the theme can be considered while defining or classifying style. Thus, previous to Aristotle, some had spoken of the Agreeable style. After Aristotle, some were speaking of three styles, Grave, Medium and Attenuate, to suit the threefold purpose. of oratory, moving, pleasing and pleading. Just before Demetrius wrote, some held styles to be two, the Plain and the Elevated. Demetrius added two more, the Elegant and the Forcible. Plainness stood against elevation. A style is specially decorated for effect or is plain. From another point of view, styles can be classified into two, the Elegant (or graceful) and the Forcible. It is not one principle of classification that gives us these four styles. The Plain may be elegant or forcible; the elevation given to a style may be elegant or forcible. But naturally, plainness and elegance go

sadharanah " RITI 161 together and so also elevation and force. The Plain and the Elegant of Demetrius are represented by Vaidarbhi in Sanskrit. The Elevated and the. Forcible correspond to the good Gaudi found envisaged in Bhamaha, the Frigid and the Affected styles in Demetrius being the bad Gaudi in Dandin. The two correspond to Sukumara and the Vicitra Margas in Kuntaka. Saukumarya and Ojas-Plainness and Elegance, Elevation and Force these finally give us two Ritis. Bhatta Nrsimha, a commentator on Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharana (Madras MS.) says that of the Gunas of Dandin, two are important, Saukumarya and Ojas, as being the Asadharana gunas of the two Margas. " tesu (gunesu ) atra saukumaryam ojasca dvayorapyasadharanah gunah | itare tu prayasah AAR: " | p. 11. Mad. MS. This final analysis of style into two is neither impossible nor absurd. While treating of the Formal Element in Literature in Ch. IV of his work 'Some Principles of Literary Criticism', Winchester has the following: "But while individuality is not to be classified, it may be said that there are, in general, two opposite tendencies in personal expression on the one hand to clearness and precision; on the other to largeness and profusion. The difference between the two may be seen by comparing such poetry as that of Mathew Arnold with that of Tennyson or such prose as that of Newman with that of Jeremy Taylor. Minds of one class insist on sharply divided ideas, on clearness of image, on temperance, and precision of epithet. Their style we characterise as chaste or classic. The other class have a great volume of thought, but less well-defined; more fervour and less temperance of feeling, more abundant and vivid imagery, more wealth of colour, but less sharpness of definition. Their thoughts seem to move through a haze of emotion and often through a lush growth of imagery. They tend to be ornate and profuse in manner, eager in temper; they often produce larger and deeper effects, but they lack restraint and suavity. It is a contrast not peculiar to literature, but running through all 11

forms of art. 鈥� 鈥� " The one makes upon you the impression of greater delicacy, temperance, charm: the other, the impression of greater mass, complexity, power. We are not called upon to pronounce either manner absolutely better than the other; The last sentence here echoes Bhamaha's attitude towards the distinction of style into Vaidarbhi and Gaudi and the claim of superiority for the former. From this passage, it is also seen that despite the infinite variety of writers' personality, it is yet possible and sensible too to find two broad divisions, one favouring virtues of subdued beauty and the other, exhuberance; that a subjective and personal basing of style does not preclude the possibility of a classification or definition of style. In this passage of Winchester again, it seems as if Kalidasa's style is described and contrasted with that of Bhavabhuti and Bana; it looks as if good Vaidarbhi and a good handling of the Gaudi are considered here; we are clearly reminded of Kuntaka's two Margas, the Sukumara and the Vicitra, the one dominated by beauty that is mainly natural, Sahajasobha, and the other by ornamentation, Aharyasobha, the one in Svabhava-ukti and Rasa-ukti, and the other in Vakrokti, the one displaying greater Sakti and the other, greater Vyutpatti. While the former style is a rare gift, it is very difficult to be successful in the latter; for the path of ornamentation and elevation has many pitfalls, and frigidity, artificiality and ornateness are easily committed. Says Kuntaka : so'tidussancaro yena vidagdhakavayo gatah | mo 1 khadgadharapatheneva subhatanam manorathah || V. J. I. 43. Strangely enough, Padmagupta calls the Vaidarbhi the sword-edge-path,' f tatvaskrsaste kavayah puranah sribhartrmenthapramukha jayanti | nistrimsadharasadrsena yesam vaidarbhamargena girah pravrttah || Navasahasannkacarita, I. 5.

Vide Vrtti also p. 58. Hence it is that critics do not favour it. It is the deterioration of Vicitramarga that is Dandin's Gaudi. It is because of this difficulty that Demetriuss Elevated and Forceful styles become, in the hands of lesser artists, the Frigid and the Affected styles. Hence it is that the critics always prefer the former. Says Winchester: "But it would seem that, in literature at least, the classic manner is the culmination of art. Precision, in the wide sense, must be the highest virtue of expression; and it is this precision, combined with perfect ease, that constitutes the classic manner." Individual tastes may justly differ; but the ultimate verdict of approval will be given to that style in which there is no overcolouring of phrase, no straining of sentiment; which knows how to be beautiful without being lavish, how to be exact without being bald; in which you never find a thicket of vague epithet." It is of this style, called by him Sukumara, that Kuntaka says: " sukumarabhighasso'yam yena satkavayo gatah | margenotphullakusumakananeneva satpadah || V. J, I. 29. Kuntaka is the greatest exponent of the Riti. That it comprehends all aspects of expression has been well realised by him. He casts off the old names which have geographical associations, dead for a long time, and forges new nomenclature on the basis of a fundamental classification of the manners of expression, on the basis of the more prevailing tendencies among masters in Sanskrit literature. He also shows how each Marga or Riti or style is characterised not by certain Bandhagunas only, but by a certain attitude in using Alankaras and delineating Rasas also. Above all, he is the only Sanskrit writer who realised very strongly the final basis

of style in the character of the poet and consequently related Riti to the writer. Kuntaka first refers to the geographical Ritis, Vaidarbhi, Gaudi and Pancali. He says that old writers give these three Ritis and call them Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. This point of view Kuntaka objects to, for styles of poetry dependent for their origin on poetic genius and craftsmanship, upon Sakti and Vyutpatti in poets, cannot be spoken of like certain kinds of Desacara' like marriage, permissible or obtaining in certain parts of the land. 4 na ca visistaritiyuktatvena kavyakaranam matuleyabhagini vivahabad desadharmataya vyavasthapayitum sakyam | desadharmo hi vrddhavyavaharaparamparamatra- saranah sakyanusthanatam nativartate | tathavidhakavyakaranam punah saktyadi- karanakalapasakalyamapeksya (ksa ) manam na sakyate yathakathancidanusthatum | na ca daksinatyagitavisaya susvarata didhvaniramaniyakavattasya svabhavikatvam vaktum paryate | tasminsati tathavidhakavyakaranam sarvasya syat | kinca saktau vidyamanayamapi vyutpattyadih aharyakaranasampat pratiniyatadesavisayataya na vyavatisthate, niyamanibandhanabhavat, tatra adarsanadanyatra ca darsanat | P. 46 Then Kuntaka criticises the view that holds these three Ritis as Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. If the Gaudi and the Pancali are not good, why treat of them in the Sastra? na ca ritinam uttamadhamamadhyamatvabhedena traividhyamavasthapayitum nyayyam | yasmat sahrdayahladakarikavyalaksanaprastave vaidarbhisadrsa saundarya - sambhavat madhyamadhamayorupadesavaiyarthyamayati | pariharyatvenapyupadesah na yuktatamalambate, teraiva anabhyupagamat | na ca agatikaga tinyayena yatha- sakti daridradanadivat kavyam karaniyatam arhatam ( ? ) arhati | P. 46.

If however the names Vaidarbhi etc., are meant only as names and do not mean any geographical connection with poetry, Kuntaka has no objection. tadevam nirvacanasamakhyamatrakaranakaranatve desavisesasrayanasya vayam na vivadamahe | 1 Kuntaka then gives his idea of Riti that it is based on the character of the poet, Kavisvabhava. He accepts that this Kavisvabhava is infinite, but generally speaking, he says that there can be indicated three main types. yadyapi kavisvabhavabhedanibandhanatvad anantabheda bhinnatvamanivarya tathapi parisamkhyatum asakyatvat samanyena traividhyamevopapadyate | P. 47. The three styles thus indicated by him are the graceful, the striking and the mixed, Sukumara, Vicitra and Madhyama. The Sukumara is the style of certain poets of a similar temperament and it is suited to certain situations. Similarly the Vicitra. The third combines the features of both the styles. All the three are beautiful and have their own charm. is absurd to suppose that one is good, the other bad or the third passable. It tatha ca ramaniyakavyaparigrahaprastave svabhavasukumarastavedako rasih, tadvyatiriktasya aramaniyasya anupadeyatvat | tadvyatireki ramaniyaka- visisto vicitra ityucyate | tadetayordvayorapi ramaniyatvad etadiyacchaya- 1 This paragraph is concluded by Kuntaka in the words : tadalamanena nissaravastuparimalanavyasanena . On the basis of this, Dr. S. K. De says on p. 386 of his Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics Vol. II that Kuntaka was an advocate of the Alamkara school and meant to make light of the Riti. For a correct statement of the Kuntaka's view on Riti, however, see the same writer's Introduction to his Edition of the Vakrokti Jivita. pp. xxxii-xxxiii.

dvitayopajivino'sya ramaniyatvameva nyayopapannam paryavasyati | tasmadetesam askhalitasvaparispandamahimna tadvidahladakaritvaparisamapteh na kasyacinyu- nata | P. 47. Raleigh, in his book on Style, speaks of the 'soul' in style. He quotes Pater who says "As a quality of style, soul is a fact." What is this soul? Raleigh interprets it as 'spirit'. He says in this connection: 'Ardent persuasion and deep feeling enkindle words, so that the weakest take glory.' This is the quality of sincerity he speaks of earlier. Analysed, this resolves into an emphasis on Rasa and the writer's attention to its supreme expression. There is another sincerity which is artistic perfection and which sometimes modifies the sincerity of emotion. In the former case, the poet is true to Rasa and Bhava, and only to them. In the latter case, he thinks of how best to present that feeling in a setting of words. This anxiety for artistic perfection calls forth style, figures etc. Those who are impelled by the latter, the artistic sincerity, are followers of the Vicitra Marga. Those that are absorbed in the Rasa and Bhava and present them in their own glory are followers of the Sukumara Marga. Ideas and words for these sprout out of an ever fresh imagination; there is always an enough ornament which is effortless; the natural beauty of things has been preferred there for artificial adornment; at every step establishing an emotional appeal, it is of unpremeditated grace. amlanapratibhodbhinnanavasabdarthabandhurah | ayatnavihitasvalpamanoharivibhusanah || bhavasvabhavapradhanyanyakkrtaharyakausalah | rasadiparamarthajnamanassamvada sundarah ||

avibhavitasamsthanaramaniyakaranjakah | vidhivaidagdhyanippanna nirmanatisayopamah || yatkincanapi vaicitryam tatsarvam pratibhodbhavam | saukumaryaparispandasyandi yatra virajate || sukumarabhidhasso'yam yena satkavayo gatah | margenotphullakusumakananeneva satpadah || V. J. I. 25-29. 167 The main feature of this style is that whatever beauty it possesses is all natural, Sahaja; poetic genius and imagination and not pure craftsmanship and scholarship form the basis of this style. The things of the world and Rasa and Bhava are given in all the beauty of their very nature and this firstinstance-expression is not refashioned in the workshop of figure. That such a definition of style is all-comprehensive need not be pointed out. But Kuntaka also speaks of certain Gunas as characterising his Margas. Of the Sukumara Marga he says, Madhurya is the first Guna. It is defined as the un-compounded use of words and a certain grace of the Sabda and Artha- padanamasaprastatvam and sabdartharamaniyataya vinyasa vaicitryam . The insistence on Madhurya as the use of Asamastapadas' is for securing clarity of the idea. The words of emphasis, heightenings and lowerings, in a sentence can have their point only if the words remain separate; their emphasis is lost when they are huddled into a compound. Samasa always hampers understanding. Says Mahimabhatta: vinotkarsapakarsabhyam svadante'rtha na jatucit | tadarthameva kavayo'lankaranparyupasate || ' Cf. Vamana, III. 1. 20. prthakapadatvam madhuryam | . param caitat | p. 79. V. V. Press Edition samasadairghyaninivrtti- 鉁�

at fadurgarrafaaaaaaraat | sa samase'stamayatityasakrtpratipaditam || ata eva ca vaidarbhiritirekaiva sasyate | yatassamasasamsparsastatra naivopapadyate || sambandhamatramarthanam samaso hyavabodhayet | notkarsamapakarsa va - V. V., p. 53. 2 > The next Guna of the Sukumara Marga is Prasada, the quality by virtue of which the idea is given to us without any difficulty. This Prasada refers to both Rasa and the idea or Artha which forms its vehicle. The idea may be expressed with Vakrata to give point to it but such turn or deviation adopted should not obscure the idea or take it into the dark.' Here also the use of the uncompounded words and words of which meanings are well known, padanam asamastatvam and prasiddhabhi are the primary means. The third Guna is Lavanya, which refers more to the Sabdas and the Varnas, which should have an indescribable beauty floating over them. Any kind of Sabdalamkara adopted for this purpose should have been done with ease and done with moderation. Ere the words as messengers of ideas deliver their meanings to the mind, their Lavanya affects the sensibilities of the responsive reader. Similar in nature and borrowed from the same field is the fourth Guna given by Kuntaka, Abhijatya. A certain softness of texture and delicateness of words making the mind feel them form this quality of Abhijatya, a quality pre-eminently realisable only by the Sahrdaya and hardly describable in so many words. 1 V. J., I. 31. 2 ' Cf. Dandin. prasadavatprasiddhartham and Bhamaha, II. 1. madhuryamabhi- vanchantah prasadam ca sumedhasah | samasavanti bhuyamsi na padani prayunjate ||

The Vicitra Marga of Kuntaka is a style dominated by Vakrata. It is a flashy style, gleaming all over with gold dust. It is intricately worked and wrought with design and gem. Alamkara leads to Alamkara; ere one effect is off our mind, another is on. alamkarasya kavayo yatralankaranantaram | asantusta nibadhnanti haradermanibandhavat || V. J., I. 35. , A style which reminds us of Valmiki's description of Ravana's Puspaka - 'na tatra kincinna krtam prayatnatah and tatasta- tastulyavisesadarsanam ', every bit worked with care and craft and at every step equally striking with some speciality.' The description of this Marga also, as made by Kuntaka, is allcomprehensive, referring to every aspect of expression. (V. J., 1, 34-43, pp. 56-66). He says Though Kuntaka has indicated two major varieties of style, he is fully aware that style is not classifiable. that Marga or style is infinite in variety and subtle in difference; for it is based on the poet's nature. kavisvabhavabheda nibandhanatvena kavyaprasthanabhedah samanjasatam gahate | sukumarasvabhavasya kaveh tathavidhaiva sahaja saktih samudbhavati, saktisakti- matorabhedat | tatha ca tathavidhasaukumaryaramaniyam vyutpattimabadhnati | tabhyam ca sukumaravartmanabhyasatatparah kriyate | tathaiva caitasmad vicitrah svabhavo yasya kaveh tasya kacid vicitraiva tadanurupa saktissamullasati | V. J., p. 46. 1 Adopting a Sanskritic comparison, we can say that the Sukumara Marga is like the beautiful Kulangana, and the Vicitra Marga like the brilliant Ganika.

yadyapi kavisvabhavabheda nibandhanatvadanantabhedabhinnatvamanivarya, tathapi parisamkhyatumasakyatvat samanyena traividhyamevopapadyate | Ibid., p. 47. Though character is subtle and infinite, differing with each person, it is possible to say that there are three classes, the Sukumara and the Vicitra types and that of those who have both in varying proportions. The Sukumara nature of a writer affects this Vyutpatti and practice of writing which becomes stamped with that quality. Vyutpatti and Abhyasa bring out his Svabhava. The poet's Svabhava is clearly expressed in the writing. Is this not the expression of the writer's personality, his soul? What else does Kuntaka say in the words: astam tavat kavyakaranam, visayantare'pi sarvasya kasyacid ana - divasanabhyasadhivasitacetasah svabhavanusarinaveva vyutpattyabhyasau pravartete | tau ca svabhavabhivyanjanenaiva saphalyam bhajatah | V. J., p. 47. Again Kuntaka emphasises the infinite variety of style and its basis in the author's nature. He takes the well-known poets and assigns them to the different styles. Matrgupta, Mayuraja and Manjira are exponents of the third combined Marga. Their poetry has a natural grace which they have rendered attractive with some decoration also. Kalidasa and Sarvasena (the author of the Harivijaya, mentioned by Ananda in Ud. III) are masters in the Sukumara Marga, their poetry being the product of natural genius and appealing by their natural beauty. Banabhatta is the greatest representative of the Vicitra Marga and Bhavabuti and Rajasekhara also belong to this class. atra gunodaharanani parimitatvat pradarsitani pratipadam punah chayavaicitryam sahrdayaissvayamevanusartavyam | anusaranadikupradarsanam punah kriyate |

yatha matrguptamayurajamanjiraprabhrtinam saukumaryavaicitryasamvalitaparispandaspa- ndini kavyani sambhavanti | tatra madhyamamargasamvalitam svarupam vicaraniyam | evam sahaja saukumaryasubhagani kalidasasarvasenadinam kavyani drsyante | tatra sukumaramargasvarupam carcaniyam | tathaiva ca vicitravakratvavijubhitam harsacarite prayuryena bhattabanasya vibhavyate bhavabhutirajasekhara viracitesu bandhasaundarya- subhagesu muktakesu (?) paridrsyate | tasmatsahrdayaissarvatra sarvamanusartavyam | evam margatritayalaksanam dinmatrameva pradarsitam | na punassakalyena satkavikausalaprakaranam kenacidapi svarupamabhidhatum paryate | V. J., p. 71. Similar is the view of Dandin also. He describes two Margas that can clearly be distinguished, for, he says, Ritis are infinite and their differences very subtle. So subtle is the character of one's writing from that of another that it is as difficult to point out their differences as to describe in so many words the difference between various kinds of sweetness, of sugarcane, milk etc. Dandin says: astyaneko giram margah suksmabhedah parasparam | tatra vaidarbhagaudiyau vayate prasphutantarau || I. 40. iti margadvayam bhinnam tatsvarupanirupanat | tadbhedastu na sakyante vaktum pratikavisthitah || iksuksiragudadinam madhuryasyantaram mahat | tathapi na tadakhyatum sarasvatyapi sakyate || 1. 101-2. Saradatanaya says on Riti in his Bhavaprakasa : prativacanam pratipurusam tadavantarajatitah pratipriti | anantyat samksipya prokta kavibhiscaturvaiva || Ch. I, pp. 11-12, lines 21-24

ta evaksaravinyasasta eva padapanktayah | pumsi pumsi visesena kapi kapi sarasvati || As explained by Bhoja, Ibid., p. 12, lines 1-2. rin gataviti dhatossa vyutpattya ritirucyate | S. K. a., II. 17. Riti is the characteristic way of a writer. The other words used as synonyms are Gati, Marga, Panthah and Prasthana. In Tamil and especially while our Rasikas appreciate our musicians, we hear of the particular Pantha, Vali or Nadai of each artist. All these words mean style. A poet of mark has a style. To posses a distinct style is to be a poet of mark. satyarthe satsu sabdesu sati caksaradambare | sobhate yam vina noktih sa pantha iti ghupyate | 1. 10. andhaste kavayo yesam panthah ksunnah parairbhavet | paresam tu yadakrantah panthaste kavikunjarah || 1. 17. - Nilakantha Diksita, Gangavatarana Kavya.