2023-03-29 18:09:33 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
25
(b) The Criteria of Differentiation
40
In early discussions, the structure of figuration was overshadowed by a
number of problems. The first was the elaboration, definition and collec-
tion of the subject matter. Bhāmaha, the earliest writer on the figures
whose text has survived, was still primarily concerned with blocking out
the main elements of the figurative universe. His text is a "collection"
par excellence; the figures are arranged in arbitrary groups (which may
have had a basis in different text traditions) and are almost entirely
devoid of subvarieties. Bhämaha and his follower Udbhata appear to
this extent somewhat primitive, but it is not possible to treat the entire
tradition as though it had not progressed beyond this stage. It is precisely
in the direction of greater order, greater systematization and greater
understanding of the implications for the system of the categories and
the definitions of figuration, that the tradition has evolved. The great
advance of Dandin over Bhämaha is in his arrangement, whenever pos-
sible, of the figures according to the canon of subordination. Nevertheless,
Bhāmaha and Dandin use and implicitly recognize much of the definitional
apparatus which is not explicitly stated until later with Rudraţa and
Ruyyaka. Daṇḍin does not even mention the distinction between artha
and sabda, though he groups his figures in such a way as to suggest that
he is aware of its importance.
Bhāmaha's definition of kavya, "sabdarthau sahitau kävyam", which is
discussed most frequently as if it meant 'kävya is word and sense joined'
-a rather self-evident proposition at best-seems from the context
clearly to recognize the distinction not between meaning and grammatical
form, but between types of figures. Dandin and Bhāmaha are both
** The relative priority of Bhämaha and Dandin is still a point highly disputed.
The passages upon which the intricate textual argument is based are given in P. V.
Kane, History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 102-133. To us, the textual argument is incon-
clusive; we accept the priority of Bhamaha on the premise that he is less concerned.
with system than Dandin. For opposing arguments, cf. A. B. Keith, SL, pp. 375 ff.
and De, HSP, I, p. 62.
The arthālamkāra in Kāvyādarśa, chap. 2; the rest in chaps. 1 and 3.
43 Kävyālamkāra, 1.16.
The preceding line from Bhamaha (1.15) is translated by De (HSP, II, p. 38):
"We, however, accept two kinds of ornaments, referring respectively to word and sense".
No trace of the import of this distinction is apparent in De's discussion of 1.16:
"Sabdārthau sahitau kāvyam" (in SPSA, pp. 18-20), where he seems to take it in the
truistic sense of the literal words themselves: "But mere sahitya of sabda and artha is not
poetry; it is grammatical fact, common to all speech" D. T. Tatacharya, expressing
the transition from 1.15 to 1.16 (in his learned modern commentary to Bhāmaha,
the Udyānavṛtti) says "nanu sariram tävat prathamam kāvyasyābhidhīyatām yasya
bhavatā dvividho 'lamkāra işyate / ucyate ..." But Bhāmaha is probably not discussing
the sarira ("body") of poetry at all; cf. below, pp. 29ff.
25
(b) The Criteria of Differentiation
40
In early discussions, the structure of figuration was overshadowed by a
number of problems. The first was the elaboration, definition and collec-
tion of the subject matter. Bhāmaha, the earliest writer on the figures
whose text has survived, was still primarily concerned with blocking out
the main elements of the figurative universe. His text is a "collection"
par excellence; the figures are arranged in arbitrary groups (which may
have had a basis in different text traditions) and are almost entirely
devoid of subvarieties. Bhämaha and his follower Udbhata appear to
this extent somewhat primitive, but it is not possible to treat the entire
tradition as though it had not progressed beyond this stage. It is precisely
in the direction of greater order, greater systematization and greater
understanding of the implications for the system of the categories and
the definitions of figuration, that the tradition has evolved. The great
advance of Dandin over Bhämaha is in his arrangement, whenever pos-
sible, of the figures according to the canon of subordination. Nevertheless,
Bhāmaha and Dandin use and implicitly recognize much of the definitional
apparatus which is not explicitly stated until later with Rudraţa and
Ruyyaka. Daṇḍin does not even mention the distinction between artha
and sabda, though he groups his figures in such a way as to suggest that
he is aware of its importance.
Bhāmaha's definition of kavya, "sabdarthau sahitau kävyam", which is
discussed most frequently as if it meant 'kävya is word and sense joined'
-a rather self-evident proposition at best-seems from the context
clearly to recognize the distinction not between meaning and grammatical
form, but between types of figures. Dandin and Bhāmaha are both
** The relative priority of Bhämaha and Dandin is still a point highly disputed.
The passages upon which the intricate textual argument is based are given in P. V.
Kane, History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 102-133. To us, the textual argument is incon-
clusive; we accept the priority of Bhamaha on the premise that he is less concerned.
with system than Dandin. For opposing arguments, cf. A. B. Keith, SL, pp. 375 ff.
and De, HSP, I, p. 62.
The arthālamkāra in Kāvyādarśa, chap. 2; the rest in chaps. 1 and 3.
43 Kävyālamkāra, 1.16.
The preceding line from Bhamaha (1.15) is translated by De (HSP, II, p. 38):
"We, however, accept two kinds of ornaments, referring respectively to word and sense".
No trace of the import of this distinction is apparent in De's discussion of 1.16:
"Sabdārthau sahitau kāvyam" (in SPSA, pp. 18-20), where he seems to take it in the
truistic sense of the literal words themselves: "But mere sahitya of sabda and artha is not
poetry; it is grammatical fact, common to all speech" D. T. Tatacharya, expressing
the transition from 1.15 to 1.16 (in his learned modern commentary to Bhāmaha,
the Udyānavṛtti) says "nanu sariram tävat prathamam kāvyasyābhidhīyatām yasya
bhavatā dvividho 'lamkāra işyate / ucyate ..." But Bhāmaha is probably not discussing
the sarira ("body") of poetry at all; cf. below, pp. 29ff.