2023-03-29 18:09:29 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
THE PROBLEM
13
constitute an original problem of Indian poetics, but are a continuing
preoccupation within the tradition. With few exceptions, the figures
have been the major problem for every poetician from Bhảmaha tô
Jagannatha. Even those writers-especially those of the dhvani school"
-who question the primordinacy of figuration appear obliged to establish
their alternative vis-à-vis the figures, so authoritative is that point of
view. By its creative persistence, this concern with figuration cannot be
dismissed as a primitive survival. Rather it is indicative of a radically
different view as to the kind of discipline poetics is.
(b) Poetic as Rhetoric
The emphasis on figuration in the early Indian poetic has suggested to
De and others an analogy with Western rhetoric: "Bhāmaha attempts to
classify poetic expression into fixed rhetorical categories and, from this
point of view, his work possesses the general appearance of a technical
manual, comprising a collection of definitions with illustrations and
empirical canons for the benefit of the artist desirous of externalizing
his ideas."¹0 A disdain for figuration as such leads the same writer to
the remarkable conclusion that the most important single exponent of
the early alamkāra theory, Rudrata, is not a writer on poetics at all.
"Indeed, the practical nature and scope of his work, like that of Udbhaţa's,
leave hardly any room for discussion of general principles or of speculative
aspects of the questions involved. Rhetoric rather than Poetics appears
to be his principal theme, as it is of most writers of this system who con-
cern themselves entirely with the elaboration of rhetorical categories in
which they suppose the whole charm of poetry lies."11
Jacobi has warned against considering the alamkāraśāstra a rhetoric,
pointing out that the subject matter of Indian poetics is consistently
determined in the best examples of ornate kävya, rather than in the arena
of debate and public persuasion.¹2 An insistance on separating the dis-
cussion of the categories of figuration from their exemplification raises
# The oldest and most recent significant representatives of the alamkāra tradition,
from the 7th and 17th centuries respectively.
# Dhvani 'tone' or 'suggestion'; a syncretistic school of criticism (9-10th century)
whose reappraisal of the older alamkāra tradition is still authoritative today. We will
deal with this important transition more fully later; pp. 78 ff.
10 De, HSP, II, p. 47.
11 De, HSP, II, p. 66.
¹2 H. Jacobi, trans., "Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka", Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, LVI, p. 392, n. 1.
13
constitute an original problem of Indian poetics, but are a continuing
preoccupation within the tradition. With few exceptions, the figures
have been the major problem for every poetician from Bhảmaha tô
Jagannatha. Even those writers-especially those of the dhvani school"
-who question the primordinacy of figuration appear obliged to establish
their alternative vis-à-vis the figures, so authoritative is that point of
view. By its creative persistence, this concern with figuration cannot be
dismissed as a primitive survival. Rather it is indicative of a radically
different view as to the kind of discipline poetics is.
(b) Poetic as Rhetoric
The emphasis on figuration in the early Indian poetic has suggested to
De and others an analogy with Western rhetoric: "Bhāmaha attempts to
classify poetic expression into fixed rhetorical categories and, from this
point of view, his work possesses the general appearance of a technical
manual, comprising a collection of definitions with illustrations and
empirical canons for the benefit of the artist desirous of externalizing
his ideas."¹0 A disdain for figuration as such leads the same writer to
the remarkable conclusion that the most important single exponent of
the early alamkāra theory, Rudrata, is not a writer on poetics at all.
"Indeed, the practical nature and scope of his work, like that of Udbhaţa's,
leave hardly any room for discussion of general principles or of speculative
aspects of the questions involved. Rhetoric rather than Poetics appears
to be his principal theme, as it is of most writers of this system who con-
cern themselves entirely with the elaboration of rhetorical categories in
which they suppose the whole charm of poetry lies."11
Jacobi has warned against considering the alamkāraśāstra a rhetoric,
pointing out that the subject matter of Indian poetics is consistently
determined in the best examples of ornate kävya, rather than in the arena
of debate and public persuasion.¹2 An insistance on separating the dis-
cussion of the categories of figuration from their exemplification raises
# The oldest and most recent significant representatives of the alamkāra tradition,
from the 7th and 17th centuries respectively.
# Dhvani 'tone' or 'suggestion'; a syncretistic school of criticism (9-10th century)
whose reappraisal of the older alamkāra tradition is still authoritative today. We will
deal with this important transition more fully later; pp. 78 ff.
10 De, HSP, II, p. 47.
11 De, HSP, II, p. 66.
¹2 H. Jacobi, trans., "Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka", Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, LVI, p. 392, n. 1.