History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.53.1

c6.53.1

काव्यादर्श I. 10; ‘इष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ना पदावली । काव्यं स्फुटलङ्कारं गुणवद्दोषवर्जितम् ॥’ अग्निपुराण 336. 6-7; ‘रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम्’ रसगङ्गा० (p. 4); *vide* also चन्द्रालोक (I. 7). On the whole Jagannātha’s definition is preferable, as it avoids all reference to debatable points and ध्व. I p. 8 also gives a similar definition in one place viz. ‘सहृदयहृद्याह्लादिशब्दार्थमयत्वमेव काव्यलक्षणम्’. These latter definitions emphasize one of the aspects of poetry, viz. that, though poetry may employ the words of the current language, it differs from the everyday speech of people in the choice of words, in the diction that it employs which is chosen with an eye to beauty. But these definitions are very defective in one respect. If, as Daṇḍin says, words are the body of poetry, it may be asked (to continue that metaphor) : ‘what is the soul of Poetry ?’ To this question various answers have been given by several schools.¹ The रस school of भरत made रस the soul of poetry (dramatic), while the school of आनन्दवर्धन (called the ध्वनि school) extends the conception underlying the rasa theory and lays down that व्यंग्य sense is the soul of poetry. Some of the definitions dominated by the rasa school and ध्वनि school are ‘आस्वादजीवातुः पदसन्दर्भः काव्यम्’ चण्डीदास in काव्यप्रकाशदीपिका (p. 13); काव्यं रसादिमद्वाक्यं श्रुतं सुखविशेषकृत् शौदोदनि in अलङ्कारशेखर (p. 2); ‘वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यं’ साहित्यदर्पण; निर्दोषं गुणवत्काव्यमलङ्कारैरलङ्कृतम्।