2023-03-29 18:09:34 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
29
11
the atman or 'soul' of poetry. "The enquiry as to what is the 'soul' or
essence of poetry is for the first time definitely posed and systematically
worked out by Vamana 59 This seems a rather heavy load to put
upon what was probably a loose analogy. It is at least clear from Vāmana's
extremely short definition, "ritir ātmā kavyasya", that ātman is the predi-
cate, the višeşaṇa, and rīti the subject and višeşya. De's statement is, on
grammatical grounds, incorrect, for he apparently takes ātman to be the
subject of investigation, as if it were said: "the soul of poetry is riti..."
A small difference, but a crucial one, for we are in fact establishing
Vamana's subject matter: Vämana is not discussing the soul of poetry
at all. By this slight reinterpretation of Vamana's intent, De is able to
put forward what is in fact a remarkable theory of historical evolution,
according to which Vāmana's predecessors discussed only the 'body'
of poetry-that is, the figures and other formalistic categories: "... earlier
authors like Bhamaha and Dandin propose to confine themselves chiefly
to what they call the kāvyaśarīra or the body of poetry", as distinguished
from its ātman, its 'soul' or animating principle."
"61 This is demonstrably
and textually false and shows how easily analogies of 'soul' and 'body'
can get out of hand and eventually replace in discussion the subjects they
were originally meant merely to explicate. There are two references to the
'body' of poetry in Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha, and both are embarrassing
for De's historical assumptions. Bhāmaha 1.23 concerns a discussion
of the hero (nayaka). In 1.22 the inappropriateness of portraying this
hero's death has been asserted and a reason follows: 'But if it is not the
intention [of the poet] to make him coextensive with the body of the poem,
and not to show him participating in prosperity, then it is pointless to
mention him in praise at the beginning' (1.23). Whatever "kavyaśarīra"
may mean in such a context, it clearly has nothing to do with the opposi-
tion of soul and body. It appears to signify the poem as a work, as a
composition having a certain scope and bulk, and to imply that the hero
must be present throughout the work in order to be a hero; he cannot
be killed off before the end. Dandin likewise refers to a "sarira" (1.10) in
discussing the origins of poetry: "The inspired sages of old, aware that
poetry itself was not enough, and intending the mental formation of
their descendants, composed treatises in the form of precepts, relating
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
59 De, HSP, II, p. 90. Cf. also pp. 36 and 103, and SPSA, pp. 30-31.
60
The use of atman in the sense of 'chief topic' or 'basic principle' is well attested in
the săstraic literature, cf. Vacaspatimiśra's commentary on Samkhyakārikā 12 (topic
99) (= Poona Oriental Series, 10). As here, Vāmana's definition could be expressed
"kävyam rityātmakam". His own gloss is "ritir nämeyam ātmā kavyasya".
HSP, II, p. 34.
61
11
the atman or 'soul' of poetry. "The enquiry as to what is the 'soul' or
essence of poetry is for the first time definitely posed and systematically
worked out by Vamana 59 This seems a rather heavy load to put
upon what was probably a loose analogy. It is at least clear from Vāmana's
extremely short definition, "ritir ātmā kavyasya", that ātman is the predi-
cate, the višeşaṇa, and rīti the subject and višeşya. De's statement is, on
grammatical grounds, incorrect, for he apparently takes ātman to be the
subject of investigation, as if it were said: "the soul of poetry is riti..."
A small difference, but a crucial one, for we are in fact establishing
Vamana's subject matter: Vämana is not discussing the soul of poetry
at all. By this slight reinterpretation of Vamana's intent, De is able to
put forward what is in fact a remarkable theory of historical evolution,
according to which Vāmana's predecessors discussed only the 'body'
of poetry-that is, the figures and other formalistic categories: "... earlier
authors like Bhamaha and Dandin propose to confine themselves chiefly
to what they call the kāvyaśarīra or the body of poetry", as distinguished
from its ātman, its 'soul' or animating principle."
"61 This is demonstrably
and textually false and shows how easily analogies of 'soul' and 'body'
can get out of hand and eventually replace in discussion the subjects they
were originally meant merely to explicate. There are two references to the
'body' of poetry in Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha, and both are embarrassing
for De's historical assumptions. Bhāmaha 1.23 concerns a discussion
of the hero (nayaka). In 1.22 the inappropriateness of portraying this
hero's death has been asserted and a reason follows: 'But if it is not the
intention [of the poet] to make him coextensive with the body of the poem,
and not to show him participating in prosperity, then it is pointless to
mention him in praise at the beginning' (1.23). Whatever "kavyaśarīra"
may mean in such a context, it clearly has nothing to do with the opposi-
tion of soul and body. It appears to signify the poem as a work, as a
composition having a certain scope and bulk, and to imply that the hero
must be present throughout the work in order to be a hero; he cannot
be killed off before the end. Dandin likewise refers to a "sarira" (1.10) in
discussing the origins of poetry: "The inspired sages of old, aware that
poetry itself was not enough, and intending the mental formation of
their descendants, composed treatises in the form of precepts, relating
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
59 De, HSP, II, p. 90. Cf. also pp. 36 and 103, and SPSA, pp. 30-31.
60
The use of atman in the sense of 'chief topic' or 'basic principle' is well attested in
the săstraic literature, cf. Vacaspatimiśra's commentary on Samkhyakārikā 12 (topic
99) (= Poona Oriental Series, 10). As here, Vāmana's definition could be expressed
"kävyam rityātmakam". His own gloss is "ritir nämeyam ātmā kavyasya".
HSP, II, p. 34.
61