2023-03-29 18:09:36 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
33
however, the gunas were not even considered proper to differentiate
styles (that is, to permit judgement of the poetic quality of the styles)
and so lost their operational significance. Vaidarbha märga, which, in
the total effect of its ten gunas, falls softly on the ear, may, according to
Bhämaha (1.34), be too enervated to be poetic; but a poem, even if
gaudīya in vigor and complexity, will be properly honored if it is well
figured and avoids excesses (1.35). The gunas, categories pertaining to
the poetic context, to the manner of poetry and not to its form and essence,
are of little value in discriminating poetry. Insofar as the guṇas can be
made precise and refer to varieties of deviant usage, they will become
figures of verbal effect-kinds of alliteration or degrees of compounding
(Rudraţa 2.3).70
The discussion of the qualities belongs properly to the prolegomena of
poetics, in which is treated the history, aims, and rewards of poetry as
well as matters pertaining to the content (sarira) and conditions of its
execution. The gunas must have originally been grouped (as the very
name implies) with the doşas ('defects', 'sins')-expressive factors which
run counter to and vitiate the desired poetic effect. The dosas form a
topic in most books on poetics, beginning with Bharata and Bhamaha,72
and their relevance seems clear, if peripheral: despite the peculiarly
expressive form of language which defines and constitutes poetry (named
vakrokti by Bhämaha), poetry still remains indissolubly bound to the
general forms and properties of language (nouns, verbs, intonations,
" It is probably in this sense that the laconic and indeed cryptic remark which Dandin
appends to his discussion of the alamkāras (2.366, ed., Tatacharya) is to be taken: "*yac ca
sandhyangavṛttyañgalakṣaṇādy ägamāntare । vyāvarṇitam idam ceşṭam alankāratayaiva
nah" ("And as for that described in the other sästra [viz. the Nāṭyaśāstra]—the san-
dhyañgas, etc.-this we also wish to understand as alamkara"). Whether this is just
a sop to the already well-established dramatic school of criticism or whether he really
means it is hard to decide. The remark, in the manner of a closing aside, is not
adequately explained; indeed, it is difficult to conceive how the notion of figuration
can be extended to cover such concepts as the five necessary moments in the development
of a plot, and the like. Bharata, supposed author of the Naṭyaśāstra, is careful to
distinguish alamkāras from lakṣaṇas and other properly dramatic concepts. That
Dandin, whose faculty of discrimination is perhaps the most highly developed of any
ālamkārika, should wish to annul such distinctions is improbable. The observation
may simply be intended in the sense of wishing Bharata well: "We do not wish here
to appear to detract from the dramatists' study of their own proper conceptual
terminology, which, taking the term in the broad sense of 'ornament', may collectively
be called the alamkāras of their discipline." Compare Vamana's broad dictum "saunda-
ryam alamkāraḥ" (1.1.2).
71 And indeed, as we have remarked above, it is in just this context that Dandin
discusses the guņas.
7ª Bharata, Nāṭyaśāstra, 16.88-95; Bhāmaha, Kāvyālamkāra, 1.47ff; chap. 4.
33
however, the gunas were not even considered proper to differentiate
styles (that is, to permit judgement of the poetic quality of the styles)
and so lost their operational significance. Vaidarbha märga, which, in
the total effect of its ten gunas, falls softly on the ear, may, according to
Bhämaha (1.34), be too enervated to be poetic; but a poem, even if
gaudīya in vigor and complexity, will be properly honored if it is well
figured and avoids excesses (1.35). The gunas, categories pertaining to
the poetic context, to the manner of poetry and not to its form and essence,
are of little value in discriminating poetry. Insofar as the guṇas can be
made precise and refer to varieties of deviant usage, they will become
figures of verbal effect-kinds of alliteration or degrees of compounding
(Rudraţa 2.3).70
The discussion of the qualities belongs properly to the prolegomena of
poetics, in which is treated the history, aims, and rewards of poetry as
well as matters pertaining to the content (sarira) and conditions of its
execution. The gunas must have originally been grouped (as the very
name implies) with the doşas ('defects', 'sins')-expressive factors which
run counter to and vitiate the desired poetic effect. The dosas form a
topic in most books on poetics, beginning with Bharata and Bhamaha,72
and their relevance seems clear, if peripheral: despite the peculiarly
expressive form of language which defines and constitutes poetry (named
vakrokti by Bhämaha), poetry still remains indissolubly bound to the
general forms and properties of language (nouns, verbs, intonations,
" It is probably in this sense that the laconic and indeed cryptic remark which Dandin
appends to his discussion of the alamkāras (2.366, ed., Tatacharya) is to be taken: "*yac ca
sandhyangavṛttyañgalakṣaṇādy ägamāntare । vyāvarṇitam idam ceşṭam alankāratayaiva
nah" ("And as for that described in the other sästra [viz. the Nāṭyaśāstra]—the san-
dhyañgas, etc.-this we also wish to understand as alamkara"). Whether this is just
a sop to the already well-established dramatic school of criticism or whether he really
means it is hard to decide. The remark, in the manner of a closing aside, is not
adequately explained; indeed, it is difficult to conceive how the notion of figuration
can be extended to cover such concepts as the five necessary moments in the development
of a plot, and the like. Bharata, supposed author of the Naṭyaśāstra, is careful to
distinguish alamkāras from lakṣaṇas and other properly dramatic concepts. That
Dandin, whose faculty of discrimination is perhaps the most highly developed of any
ālamkārika, should wish to annul such distinctions is improbable. The observation
may simply be intended in the sense of wishing Bharata well: "We do not wish here
to appear to detract from the dramatists' study of their own proper conceptual
terminology, which, taking the term in the broad sense of 'ornament', may collectively
be called the alamkāras of their discipline." Compare Vamana's broad dictum "saunda-
ryam alamkāraḥ" (1.1.2).
71 And indeed, as we have remarked above, it is in just this context that Dandin
discusses the guņas.
7ª Bharata, Nāṭyaśāstra, 16.88-95; Bhāmaha, Kāvyālamkāra, 1.47ff; chap. 4.