2023-03-29 18:09:29 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
15
without additional embellishments; but this is not the rhetorical point:
conviction and persuasion are functions of opinion; they are not the
same thing as the truth, and, as ends superadded to the truth and often
conflicting with it, require different and additional means-viz., the
figures. Moreover, the figures tend to be selected and defined on the basis
of their ability to further conviction, and since this latter is often con-
ceived in contradistinction to the truth, the figures seem to pullulate in
precisely those areas where language is a tour de force, where language
becomes so grammatically striking that its Pracht is substituted by the
audience for the content of the assertion.
THE PROBLEM
But there is some doubt whether this framework can be applied in
dealing with the figures as poetry. Poetry, although it also conveys a
truth, has no end beyond the entire comprehension of its own sense;
the figures, far from being extrinsic, constitute the very form of its ex-
pression and are the very means through which poetry is distinguished
and becomes voll Gesinnung. From the figures of speech derives that
special charm which is the innermost mark of the poetic apprehension.
Furthermore, the non-existence of Indian rhetoric as a discipline vis-à-vis
poetic reinforces our view that the figures were conceived as essential in
expression: the crucial subject matter of poetics.
Alone among contemporary Indian critics, V. Raghavan of Madras
appreciates the formalist view: "So poetry requires not only fact and
feeling but a beautiful form also; it has not only to be useful, but primarily
attractive". And "poetry is not mere thought... It will be easier to
dissociate love from its physical aspect than to keep the concept of poetry
aloof from its form."14 This "form", in which the notion of poctic beauty
is resumed, is the subject of study of the alamkarikas¹5 in the widest
sense. In attempting to do justice to the notion of figuration, Rāghavan
states the sense in which the figures, as forms of poetic expression, are a
proper subject matter for poetics: "If we try to arrive at a clear definition
of poetry with an objective differentia, certainly the definition will revolve
round the concept of Alañkāra ... the beautiful in poetry, the beautiful
form-saundaryam alańkāraḥ." The form of poetic beauty is not only
inseparable but, in the context of poetic language, it defines what we mean
14 V. Raghavan, chap. entitled "The Use and Abuse of Alankara in Sanskrit Liter-
ature", in his Studies on Some Concepts of Alankara Šāstra (Adyar Library, 1942),
pp. 48, 50. Cf. W. Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (Meridian Books, 1960), pp.
268-69.
15 Alamkārikas, those concerned with alamkāra; the figurative school.
10 Rāghavan, p. 50; Rāghavan quotes Vāmana, Kävyālamkārasüūtrāṇi, 1.1.2.
without additional embellishments; but this is not the rhetorical point:
conviction and persuasion are functions of opinion; they are not the
same thing as the truth, and, as ends superadded to the truth and often
conflicting with it, require different and additional means-viz., the
figures. Moreover, the figures tend to be selected and defined on the basis
of their ability to further conviction, and since this latter is often con-
ceived in contradistinction to the truth, the figures seem to pullulate in
precisely those areas where language is a tour de force, where language
becomes so grammatically striking that its Pracht is substituted by the
audience for the content of the assertion.
THE PROBLEM
But there is some doubt whether this framework can be applied in
dealing with the figures as poetry. Poetry, although it also conveys a
truth, has no end beyond the entire comprehension of its own sense;
the figures, far from being extrinsic, constitute the very form of its ex-
pression and are the very means through which poetry is distinguished
and becomes voll Gesinnung. From the figures of speech derives that
special charm which is the innermost mark of the poetic apprehension.
Furthermore, the non-existence of Indian rhetoric as a discipline vis-à-vis
poetic reinforces our view that the figures were conceived as essential in
expression: the crucial subject matter of poetics.
Alone among contemporary Indian critics, V. Raghavan of Madras
appreciates the formalist view: "So poetry requires not only fact and
feeling but a beautiful form also; it has not only to be useful, but primarily
attractive". And "poetry is not mere thought... It will be easier to
dissociate love from its physical aspect than to keep the concept of poetry
aloof from its form."14 This "form", in which the notion of poctic beauty
is resumed, is the subject of study of the alamkarikas¹5 in the widest
sense. In attempting to do justice to the notion of figuration, Rāghavan
states the sense in which the figures, as forms of poetic expression, are a
proper subject matter for poetics: "If we try to arrive at a clear definition
of poetry with an objective differentia, certainly the definition will revolve
round the concept of Alañkāra ... the beautiful in poetry, the beautiful
form-saundaryam alańkāraḥ." The form of poetic beauty is not only
inseparable but, in the context of poetic language, it defines what we mean
14 V. Raghavan, chap. entitled "The Use and Abuse of Alankara in Sanskrit Liter-
ature", in his Studies on Some Concepts of Alankara Šāstra (Adyar Library, 1942),
pp. 48, 50. Cf. W. Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (Meridian Books, 1960), pp.
268-69.
15 Alamkārikas, those concerned with alamkāra; the figurative school.
10 Rāghavan, p. 50; Rāghavan quotes Vāmana, Kävyālamkārasüūtrāṇi, 1.1.2.