Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.21

v2.c85.21

But from the theoretical point of view, Mammaṭa’s definition of poetry has been subjected to much vigorous criticism. Viśvanātha, for instance, undoubtedly takes Mammaṭa’s work as the basis (*upajīvya*) of his own, but begins his *Sāhitya darpaṇa* with a trenchant attack on his definition. He points out, in the first place, that the *guṇas* being merely properties of the *rasa*, should not have been logically included in the definition of essentials. He shows next that if only faultless compositions be called poetry, some of the best poems will have to be given up, inasmuch as it is almost impossible to keep clear of all blemishes. Nor could it be said that faults mar only those particular words or their meanings in which they occur; for if they are faults at all, bearing relation to the underlying sentiment in the composition, they must mar the whole poem. Lastly, he maintains that no reference to poetic figures ought to have been made in the definition, as they are admittedly non-essential. Jagannātha’s criticism is more fundamental, although he agrees with Viśvanātha as to the impropriety of including a reference to *guṇa*, *doṣa*, and *alaṃkāra* in the definition. He objects that a word and its sense are not what is denoted by the term ‘poetry’; for the universal use of such expressions as ‘a poem is read but its meaning is not understood’ shows clearly that a particular kind of words only is what is meant. If it is said that the essence of poetry lies in its capability of producing a mood (*rasa*), and that inasmuch as a word and its sense have this capability, both constitute poetry, then it may be replied that, according to this too wide view, musical tones and theatrical gestures will have to be called poetry.