History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.56

Language: English

c6.56.1

रस primarily means ‘taste’ or ‘flavour’ or ‘savour’, or ‘relish’ but metaphorically it means ‘the emotional experience of beauty in poetry and drama’. Mammaṭa speaks of the poet’s work as ‘hlādaikamayī’ (comprising pleasure or delight alone). It thus emphasizes the effect of poetry on the reader. Sanskrit writers also were aware of the fact that literature can be divided into two classes as De Quincey said viz. ‘literature of knowledge’ and ‘literature of power’. The former teaches while the latter moves. The two kinds may be often mixed up in the same work but it is possible to keep them entirely separate. Literary criticism, whether in Sanskrit works or elsewhere, is mainly concerned with works of the second of the two classes mentioned above. No question of being right or wrong arises as regards the 2nd class of literature, which mainly comprises Poetry, Drama and Fiction. There is a distinction between intuitive consiousness and consiousness arrived at by reasoning. रुद्रट (on p. 253) makes the position clear that no question of being right or wrong arises as to the suggested sense of poetry ‘काव्यविषये च व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यनिरूपणस्याप्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरव्यापारपरीक्षा उपहासायैव संपद्यते’. The relation of rasas to poetry in general was not systematically dealt with till the Dhvanyāloka was composed. But it would not be correct to say that writers on Poetics were not at all cognisant of the employment of or importance of rasas. The Kāvyādarśa I.

c6.56.2

62 says ‘कामं सर्वोप्यलङ्कारो रसमयं निषिध्नति । तथाप्यग्राम्यतैवैनं भारं वहति भूयसा ॥’. In II. 280-292 the काव्यादर्श describes how the figure रसवद् is dependent on one of the eight rasas and they further show that Daṇḍin was quite aware of the difference between स्थायिभाव and रस. Vide काव्यादर्श I. 51, 64 also. Bhāmaha III. 6 (रसवद् दर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसं यथा ।) shows that he was aware of rasas, but did not treat them as the most essential element in poetry. He says in I. 21 that a mahākāvya should be endowed with rasas (युक्तं लोकस्वभावेन रसैश्च विविधैः पृथक्). वामन also says ‘दीप्तरसत्वं कान्तिः ।’ III. 2. 24. Both Daṇḍin (I. 31) and Bhāmaha (I. 24) leave out of account dramas (which they regard as a kind of kāvya) and refer the curious reader to other works for rules about them. It appears that in ancient times poems and dramas ordinarily were looked upon as separate compartments. Writers on Poetics did not at first include a treatment of rasas in their works. रुद्रट is the first extant writer to treat of *rasa* in a work called काव्यालङ्कार. The शिशुपालवध 14.50 (composed about a hundred years before रुद्रट) speaks of *rasas* in connection with dramas.¹ Even in Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, *rasa* is not the principal subject treated of, but it is dealt with therein because of its relation to dramatic representation.

c6.56.3

The business of the drama was to evolve *rasa* in the spectator by means of the four kinds of *abhinaya*.² The नाट्यशास्त्र says that without *rasa* nothing can be done in drama (नहि रसादृते कश्चिदर्थः प्रवर्तते । नाट्यशास्त्र G. O. S. vol. I. p. 274) and the अ. भा. remarks that one *rasa* runs like a thread in a dramatic representation (एक एव तावत्परमार्थतो रसः सूत्रस्थानीयत्वेन रूपके प्रतिभाति । अ. भा. vol. I. p. 273). In the नाट्यशास्त्र the largest portion is devoted to matters specially concerning the dramatist and the actor, while the analysis of the emotional effect desired to be produced and actually produced on the audience is dealt with mainly in chapters 6 and 7. It may be noted here that according to the काव्यमीमांसा p. 1 (quoted on p. 1 above) Bharata dealt with *rūpakas* and Nandikeśvara with *rasas*. But the present Nāṭyaśāstra deals with both these subjects and no ancient work of Nandikeśvara on *rasas* has come down to us. In my last edition I said that the theory of *rasa* has a semi-physiological and semi-psychological basis and that it tries to explain how human feelings and emotions are worked upon and roused by drama and poetry. But I did not go into the psychological basis. I should like here to indicate briefly the psychological aspect of the theory.