2023-03-29 18:09:34 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
30
to speech and its various styles" (1.9). In other words, they established the
poetics at the same time as the poetry. He continues: "taiḥ śarīram ca
kāvyānām alamkārāś ca daršitāḥ" ("the sages propounded both the body
and the figures of poems"). "šarīram tāvad iṣṭārthavyavacchinnä padāvalī"
("now, by "body" I mean a string of words distinguished by a desired
meaning'). Clearly Daṇḍin is distinguishing between the poetic 'body'
and the figures of speech. In the succeeding kārikās, he treats of that
body (1.11-39), discussing such matters as meter, language, and genres
of composition (epic poem, drama, etc.) and their typical content, making
clear that he intends by that term, reference to the extrinsic, descriptive
categories of poetry (which, as language, poetry may share with other
kinds of expression), categories of importance but not relating to the
proper expressive power of poetry, its višeşana. The alamkāras indeed
are precisely that topic and signify, if the contrast with śarīra is to
be forced at all, the 'soul' of the discussion. I point this out to show
that not only is it false to say that Dandin is preoccupied exclusively
with the body of poetry (on the level of textual interpretation), but that,
if his own use of the word is to be given any credence, he apparently
wishes to distinguish from the kávyaśarīra precisely that category of
discussion (the figures) which De claims constituted its essence. I do not
think we need to push Daṇḍin into an espousal of a doctrine of kävyātman.
Even if the alamkāras are distinguished from the body of poetry, there is
probably nothing more intended than the distinction between language
(those categories, including meter, which pertain to poetry because it is
language and does convey meanings) and poetic language (those categories
pertaining to the specific capacities of poetry, in one way or another
based on a notion of non-literalism). In this sense, śarīra would mean
something like 'content' or 'corpus'. The easy verbal analogy of 'body'
and 'ornament" was too much to resist.
INTRODUCTION
Under the influence of the dhvani theory, the gunas were resuscitated,
again analogically, and assigned a relation to the rasa, which had become
in its turn the "soul' of poetry ("dhvanir ātmā kāvyasya"); the gunas are to
dhvani (the spirit of poetry) as qualities of character (e.g., courage) are
to the human soul. This makes considerably more sense than Vāmana's
formulation (though it has been confused with it). In a poem whose
basic mood is vīra (the heroic), a stylistic quality such as ojas ('vigor',
Taken up in Dandin's two remaining chapters. Cf. M. Winternitz, Geschichte
der Indischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1920), III, pp. 12-14.
Dhvanyaloka, 1.1.
44 Ibid., 2.7 and Comm.
to speech and its various styles" (1.9). In other words, they established the
poetics at the same time as the poetry. He continues: "taiḥ śarīram ca
kāvyānām alamkārāś ca daršitāḥ" ("the sages propounded both the body
and the figures of poems"). "šarīram tāvad iṣṭārthavyavacchinnä padāvalī"
("now, by "body" I mean a string of words distinguished by a desired
meaning'). Clearly Daṇḍin is distinguishing between the poetic 'body'
and the figures of speech. In the succeeding kārikās, he treats of that
body (1.11-39), discussing such matters as meter, language, and genres
of composition (epic poem, drama, etc.) and their typical content, making
clear that he intends by that term, reference to the extrinsic, descriptive
categories of poetry (which, as language, poetry may share with other
kinds of expression), categories of importance but not relating to the
proper expressive power of poetry, its višeşana. The alamkāras indeed
are precisely that topic and signify, if the contrast with śarīra is to
be forced at all, the 'soul' of the discussion. I point this out to show
that not only is it false to say that Dandin is preoccupied exclusively
with the body of poetry (on the level of textual interpretation), but that,
if his own use of the word is to be given any credence, he apparently
wishes to distinguish from the kávyaśarīra precisely that category of
discussion (the figures) which De claims constituted its essence. I do not
think we need to push Daṇḍin into an espousal of a doctrine of kävyātman.
Even if the alamkāras are distinguished from the body of poetry, there is
probably nothing more intended than the distinction between language
(those categories, including meter, which pertain to poetry because it is
language and does convey meanings) and poetic language (those categories
pertaining to the specific capacities of poetry, in one way or another
based on a notion of non-literalism). In this sense, śarīra would mean
something like 'content' or 'corpus'. The easy verbal analogy of 'body'
and 'ornament" was too much to resist.
INTRODUCTION
Under the influence of the dhvani theory, the gunas were resuscitated,
again analogically, and assigned a relation to the rasa, which had become
in its turn the "soul' of poetry ("dhvanir ātmā kāvyasya"); the gunas are to
dhvani (the spirit of poetry) as qualities of character (e.g., courage) are
to the human soul. This makes considerably more sense than Vāmana's
formulation (though it has been confused with it). In a poem whose
basic mood is vīra (the heroic), a stylistic quality such as ojas ('vigor',
Taken up in Dandin's two remaining chapters. Cf. M. Winternitz, Geschichte
der Indischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1920), III, pp. 12-14.
Dhvanyaloka, 1.1.
44 Ibid., 2.7 and Comm.