2023-03-29 18:09:29 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
16
by beauty. The manifest, finished metaphor is an example of the poetic
imagination. Metaphor in general defines the limit and possibility of
poetic imagination; the figures are the structure of that possibility.
This has been recognized by Jacobi, who says: "Dadurch beansprucht
thatsächlich dieser Teil der Poetik eine wohlausgearbeitete Formenlehre
des dichterischen Ausdrucks zu sein." 17 But the conclusions drawn
therefrom by De are of considerably diminished import, for he says of
the ālamkārikas: "This formal treatment affords their works the general
appearance of technical manuals comprising a collection of definitions,
illustrations, and empirical canons elaborated for the benefit of the aspir-
ing poet. Poetry is regarded, more or less, as a mechanical series of
verbal devices. A desirable sense must prevail, diversified by means of
various tricks of phrasing ... consisting of the so-called poetic figures." 18
Though this is true, the notion is taken in so pejorative a sense that the
implications of such a poetic are never taken seriously enough to be
examined.
INTRODUCTION
(c) The Notion of Alamkāra
Having situated the poetic problem in a formalistic context, we must
now pose the question (following the Indian tradition): What is the specific
characteristic of poetic usage, its višeşana? If poetry shares its forms
with other rational discourse, there must be a criterion of application,
of usage which restricts the form and demonstrates it poetry. Indian
writers, from the beginning, conceived their problem as that of 'poetic
differentia', the višeṣaṇa, which both establishes the poetic genre as a
proper subject matter and which, by normative application, distinguishes
the finest examples of poetry. Since the forms of the poetic genre are
borrowed from logic and grammar, the question of poetic distinction is
of course crucial and in fact is reduced to the problem of application: Is
there a recognizably poetic exemplification of the standards of utterance?
The problem of the expressive characteristics peculiar to poetic speech
is not an easy one to deal with. The very first writers realized that they
were confronted with infinite modes and indefinite usages.19 In fact
17 Jacobi, Introduction to his translation of the Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., p. 392.
18 De, SPSA, p. 28. De continues his devastating, but misplaced, attack on the figura-
tionists throughout chapter 2; he is so intent on belittling expressionism that he appears
at times to question the need for expression itself. His is a caricature of the "aesthetic"
doctrine. Croce, far subtler, insists on the inseparability of expression and intuition,
and in effect makes the same point as Raghavan. Breviario, p. 45.
19
Anandavardhana, in Dhvanyaloka 3.37 (p. 210), is often quoted: "ananta hi
by beauty. The manifest, finished metaphor is an example of the poetic
imagination. Metaphor in general defines the limit and possibility of
poetic imagination; the figures are the structure of that possibility.
This has been recognized by Jacobi, who says: "Dadurch beansprucht
thatsächlich dieser Teil der Poetik eine wohlausgearbeitete Formenlehre
des dichterischen Ausdrucks zu sein." 17 But the conclusions drawn
therefrom by De are of considerably diminished import, for he says of
the ālamkārikas: "This formal treatment affords their works the general
appearance of technical manuals comprising a collection of definitions,
illustrations, and empirical canons elaborated for the benefit of the aspir-
ing poet. Poetry is regarded, more or less, as a mechanical series of
verbal devices. A desirable sense must prevail, diversified by means of
various tricks of phrasing ... consisting of the so-called poetic figures." 18
Though this is true, the notion is taken in so pejorative a sense that the
implications of such a poetic are never taken seriously enough to be
examined.
INTRODUCTION
(c) The Notion of Alamkāra
Having situated the poetic problem in a formalistic context, we must
now pose the question (following the Indian tradition): What is the specific
characteristic of poetic usage, its višeşana? If poetry shares its forms
with other rational discourse, there must be a criterion of application,
of usage which restricts the form and demonstrates it poetry. Indian
writers, from the beginning, conceived their problem as that of 'poetic
differentia', the višeṣaṇa, which both establishes the poetic genre as a
proper subject matter and which, by normative application, distinguishes
the finest examples of poetry. Since the forms of the poetic genre are
borrowed from logic and grammar, the question of poetic distinction is
of course crucial and in fact is reduced to the problem of application: Is
there a recognizably poetic exemplification of the standards of utterance?
The problem of the expressive characteristics peculiar to poetic speech
is not an easy one to deal with. The very first writers realized that they
were confronted with infinite modes and indefinite usages.19 In fact
17 Jacobi, Introduction to his translation of the Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., p. 392.
18 De, SPSA, p. 28. De continues his devastating, but misplaced, attack on the figura-
tionists throughout chapter 2; he is so intent on belittling expressionism that he appears
at times to question the need for expression itself. His is a caricature of the "aesthetic"
doctrine. Croce, far subtler, insists on the inseparability of expression and intuition,
and in effect makes the same point as Raghavan. Breviario, p. 45.
19
Anandavardhana, in Dhvanyaloka 3.37 (p. 210), is often quoted: "ananta hi