Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c69: Conclusion

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c69

Language
English

Conclusion

v1.c69.1

This is followed by a comparatively brief but important period of extraordinary fertility and creative genius, beginning with Bhāmaha and ending with Ānandavardhana, in which we find most of the fundamental problems of Sanskrit Poetics discussed and settled in their general outlines. We have, on the one hand, Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and Rudraṭa, devoting themselves to the consideration of those decorative devices of poetic expression known as *alaṃkāras* (poetic figures), and confining themselves chiefly to an external art or theory of adornment, from which the science itself takes its name and its original tradition. Daṇḍin and Vāmana, on the other hand, emphasise in poetry the objective beauty of representation realised by means of what they call *mārga* or *rīti* (roughly 'diction') and its constituent excellences, the ten *guṇas*. Both these systems, which emphasise respectively the elements of *alaṃkāra* and *rīti* in poetry, content themselves with the working out of the outward forms of expression, the advantages of which were considered sufficient for poetry. They point out the faults to be avoided and the excellences to be attained, and describe the poetical embellishments which should enhance its beauty, insomuch so that the whole discipline came to receive the significant designation of Alaṃkāra-śāstra or the Science of Poetical Embellishment.

v1.c69.2

Side by side with these early writers, however, we have the commentators on Bharata (like Loḷḷaṭa, Śaṅkuka and others) who were bringing into prominence the aesthetic importance of *rasa*, the consideration of the moods, sentiments and feelings, which we find reacting upon and influencing even the theorists of rival persuasion (e.g. Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana and Rudraṭa) who betray themselves more and more alive to the significance of this element in poetry. But the discussion of *rasa* appears to have been, so far, confined chiefly to the sphere of the dramatic art, and its bearings on poetry were not fully realised until the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana had come into the field.

v1.c69.3

These new theorists, headed by Ānandavardhana, maintain that no system of Poetics, like no system of Dramaturgy, can entirely ignore the moods, feelings and sentiments, as essential factors in poetry, and must therefore find an important place for *rasa* in its scheme. What was thus already established Mammaṭa was taken up in settling precisely the details of the new system, which was raised to almost exclusive recognition by the final text-book of Mammaṭa. Its success was so complete that the new concept of *dhvani* was unquestionably accepted by most later writers, and the systems which emerged after Mammaṭa could no longer be strictly regarded as entirely independent systems.

v1.c69.4

But a new theory, however systematic or comprehensive, is never accepted without some opposition. Ānanda's system, no doubt, absorbed and overshadowed in course of time all the earlier systems; but in the interval between Ānandavardhana and Mammaṭa, while it was still striving for supremacy, we find a few vigorous but short-lived reactionary movements which refused to accept Ānandavardhana's new interpretation. Thus we have Kuntala who strove to make Bhāmaha's concept of *vakrókti* elaborate and comprehensive enough to include the new ideas, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka who raised his voice on behalf of the *rasa*-systems against their acceptance, and Mahimabhaṭṭa who attempted to settle the new concept of *dhvani* with the technical process of logical inference. All these writers, however, do not deny the newly established doctrine of *dhvani*, but they try to explain it in terms of already recognised ideas. In spite of these non-conformist schools, however, whose feeble opposition languished for want of support even in the time of Mammaṭa, the system of Poetics, as finally outlined by Ānandavardhana and worked out in detail by Mammaṭa and his followers, was established without question in almost all writings from the 12th century downwards. Here and there we have some surviving exponents of some old tradition, like the Vāgbhaṭas or the followers of Bhoja, as well as specialised departments which stood apart like the school of *kaviśikṣā*-writers or the erotic *rasa*-writers; but in the main, the creative days of the science were over, and no new theory forthcoming, the system of Ānandavardhana, as represented by Mammaṭa, reigned supreme, even influencing, to an obvious extent, the writers who would pretend to stand apart.

v1.c69.5

These considerations, which will become clearer as we proceed in our study of details in the next volume, will enable us to fix the rough outlines of the history of Sanskrit Poetics and divide it, for convenience of treatment, into several periods in conformity to chronology and the stages of development through which its doctrines passed. The dim beginnings of the science, like the beginnings of most other departments of Indian speculation, are hidden from us, until it issues forth in the works of Bharata and Bhāmaha in a more or less self-conscious form. Then starts a period, ending with Ānandavardhana, which may be characterised as the most creative stage in its history, a stage in which the dogmas and doctrines of the different systems were formulated and settled in their general outlines, giving us at least four different systems which emphasise respectively the theories of *rasa*, of *alaṃkāra*, of *rīti* and of *dhvani* in poetry. To this period belong Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and Rudraṭa, Daṇḍin and Vāmana, the commentators on Bharata (Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka and others), the *Agni-purāṇa*, and lastly, the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana. Between Ānandavardhana and Mammaṭa, we have a third definitive period which ends with the ultimate standardisation of a complete scheme of Poetics, with the *dhvani*-theory in its centre, in which the divergent gleams of earlier speculations are harmonised into a focus, and which finds itself finally set forth in a well-defined and precise form in the text-book of Mammaṭa. To this period also belong the reactionary theorists, like Kuntala and Mahimabhatta, as well as Bhoja who carries on the tradition of the *Agni-purāṇa*, and Dhanañjaya who writes on Dramaturgy. The period which follows this is necessarily a scholastic period of critical elaboration, the chief work of which consists in summarising and setting forth in a systematic form (generally after Mammaṭa) the results of these final speculations, and also in indulging in fine distinctions and hair-splitting refinements on minute questions. This stage, therefore, is marked by great scholastic acumen, if not by remarkable originality or creative genius; but at the same time it denotes a progressive deterioration of the study itself. The branching-off of some specialised and practical groups of writers from the main stem is to be explained as due rather to this degenerate spirit of the times than to any real split in the domain of poetic theory or to any desire for independent thinking. It is also the age of numberless commentators, and commentators on commentators, who busied themselves with the hardly inspiring task of explanation, of expansion or restriction of the already established rules. We have also now a number of popular writers who wanted to simplify the science for general enlightenment, the lowest stage being reached when we come to the manuals and school-books of quite recent times.

v1.c69.6

We may, therefore, conclude here by broadly indicating the bearings of the chronological results of this volume on our study in general, in the light of which (as well as in the light of what follows in the next volume) we may tentatively put forward a rough division of the different periods of our history, noting the different groups of writers comprised in them, with a view to facilitate the study of the problems which will confront us in the next volume:

v1.c69.7

I. From the unknown Beginnings to Bhāmaha. (Formative Stage).

v1.c69.8

II. From Bhāmaha to Ānandavardhana. *Circa* middle of the 7th to the middle of the 9th century. (Creative Stage).

v1.c69.9

(1) Bhāmaha,, Udbhaṭa and Rudraṭa (*alaṃkāra-theory*)

v1.c69.10

(2) Daṇḍin and Vāmana (*rīti-theory*)

v1.c69.11

(3) Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and others (*rasa*-theory)
(4) The *Agni-purāṇa*
(5) The Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana (*dhvani*-theory).

v1.c69.12

III. From Ānandavardhana to Mammaṭa. *Circa* middle of the 9th to the middle of the 11th century. (Definitive Stage).
(1) Abhinavagupta
(2) Kuntala
(3) Mahimabhaṭṭa
(4) Rudrabhaṭṭa and Dhanañjaya
(5) Bhoja.

v1.c69.13

IV. From Mammaṭa to Jagannātha. *Circa* middle of the 11th to the 18th century. (Scholastic Stage).
(1) Mammaṭa, Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha (including Hemacandra, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha, Jayadeva, Appayya and others)
(2) The Vāgbhaṭas
(3) The writers on *rasa*, especially *śṛṅgāra*: Śāradātanaya, Siṅgabhūpāla, Bhānudatta, Rūpa Gosvāmin and others.
(4) The writers on *kavi-śikṣā*: Rājaśekhara, Kṣemendra, Arisiṃha and Amaracandra, Deveśvara and others.
(5) Jagannātha.

v1.c69.14

Looking at the question from another point of view, we may classify the systems of Poetics broadly into (1) Pre-dhvani (2) Dhvani and (3) Post-dhvani systems, taking the *dhvani*-theory as the central landmark. In the Pre-dhvani group, we include all writers (flourishing before Ānandavardhana), mentioned in groups I and II above, with the exception of the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana, with whose names the Dhvani-system is associated. In the Post-dhvani systems may be comprised the followers of the Dhvani-system from Mammaṭa to Jagannātha, together with reactionary or unorthodox authors like Kuntala or Mahimabhatta, as well as the writers on *śṛṅgāra* and on *kavi-śikṣā*. On the other hand, the systems of Poetics have been grouped, on the basis of the particular theory emphasised by a particular group of writers, into (1) the Rasa School (2) the Alaṃkāra School (3) the Rīti School and (4) the Dhvani School¹. The convenience of this classification tion is obvious, but it is doubtful whether we may safely apply the term "School" to indicate affiliation to a particular system of opinion, when we consider that one has to admit a great deal of mutual and (to a certain extent) inevitable contamination of the different "schools", which makes the existence of any particular school *by itself* almost impossible. Thus the "Dhvani School" admits *rasa* and *alaṃkāra* as important factors of poetry, which are thus not exclusively monopolised by the so-called Alaṃkāra and Rasa Schools. It is doubtful, again, if a Rasa School, properly so-called was at all founded by Bharata, who is taken as its original exponent, or a similar Alaṃkāra School by Bhāmaha. All that we can

v1.c69.15

¹ I Sovani in *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume* pp. 387f. Reliance has been placed on Ruyyaka's review of previous opinions and Samudrabandha's classification. But Ruyyaka only takes the concept of *dhvani* or *pratīyamāna artha* as the starting point and considers how far it was accepted, explicitly or implicitly, by his predecessors. Samudrabandha, commenting on this passage, speaks of five *pakṣas* or theses, including the *dhvani*-theory (which he calls the last *pakṣa*) with which his author identifies himself. His classification is based upon the conventional theory that poetry consists of a "special" disposition of word and its sense (*viśiṣṭa śabda and artha*). This speciality, in his opinion,

v1.c69.16

may be realised by putting emphasis on their (1) *dharma* (inherent characteristic) (2) *vyāpāra* (operation) and (3) *vyaṅgya* (suggestiveness). In the first case, the *dharma* may proceed from *alaṃkāra* and *guṇa* (i.e. *rīti*). In the second case, the *vyāpāra* may consist of *bhaṇiti-prakāra* or *bhogīkaraṇa*. Thus we get five standpoints associated respectively with the names of Udbhaṭa, Vāmana, Kuntala, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Ānandavardhana. This classification, though very significant, is obviously overlapping and historically incorrect. The *vyañjanā*, it may be objected, which is taken as one of the bases of differentiation, is admittedly as much a *vyāpāra* as *bhaṇiti* postulated by Kuntala. Besides, Kuntala, as a matter of fact, developes Bhāmaha’s idea of *vakrôkti* as *bhaṇiti-vaicitrya*, and therefore may be properly included among those who put emphasis on *alaṃkāra*. Similarly Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka describes *bhoga* as a peculiar function (*dharma*) or process by which *rasa* is said to be realised; and therefore he is in reality an exponent of the *rasa*-theory as an interpreter of Bharata’s dictum.

v1.c69.17

say is that Bharata and Bhāmaha laid stress on the elements of *rasa* and *alaṃkāra* which became in course of time established ideas in the realm of Poetics. As a rule, each great writer who puts forward, consciously or unconsciously, a new theory, takes over from his predecessors those ideas which have stood the test of criticism and which he can combine in a self-consistent system of his own. In this way, really valuable ideas have been generally adopted, although sometimes other ideas, perhaps of the same author, have by common consent been rejected. This is illustrated by the case of the Varkôkti-jīvita-kāra, whose theory of *vakrókti* was universally rejected, although the main principle for which he was contending is accepted by Ruyyaka and others. It is not maintained here that the history of Sanskrit Poetics consists of only *one* stream of development, and that within it we have mere currents and counter-currents. The latter were indeed very important, but they never succeeded in forming into separate rivers; and the different channels originating independently or breaking away from the main course ultimately unite into one dominant and clear stream.

Linked texts (27)