2023-03-29 18:09:39 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
44
maha's conditional nor Dandin's categorical acceptance of svabhāvokti
(to which term vakrokti is several times opposed as the fundamental
alternative) is thereby made coherent or comprehensible. De notes that
Daṇḍin (2.8) refers to svabhävokti as "adyālamkṛtiḥ" ("the first or primary
figure'), but does not appear troubled by this non sequitur vis-à-vis his
own theory.
The nub of the problem is indeed a misunderstanding of the term
vakrokti. Bhāmaha means by it not so much an "essence" (if is under-
stood by that concept a generative or constituent principle defining the
manner of coming into being) ¹05 as a genus-a term which describes in a
general way the fundamental characteristic of all modes of poetic dic-
tion-their systematic deviation from a literal norm. Utterance which is
literal both in intent and form is not properly poetical. But Bhamaha is
nevertheless aware of certain borderline problems-most acutely, those
occasioned by language which is deviant (by the above definition) but
which in its deviation has already become conventional: idioms, clichés,
and the like.106 The figures lesa and sūkşma (2.86) are specifically rejected
because the vakrokti involved has been transformed into a calculus of
inference whereby from one thing said or done, another thing can be
understood. The grammarians refer to such an utterance, a type of
signification, as lakṣaṇā; the word stands as a token secondary marker
for the sense intended and has its meaning because the primary sense is in
fact unintelligible in that context: "the grandstands are cheering." 107
But more appositely, Bhämaha objects to the of cause and effect
(hetu) as a poetic figure, deeming it overly conventionalized. His own
example illustrates a cliché-ridden usage (2.87): "gato'stam arko bhātindur
INTRODUCTION
105 "The Indian theorists have almost neglected an important part of their task, viz.,
to find a definition of the nature of the subject of a poem as the product of the poet's
mind...". De, ed., Kuntaka, Vakroktijivita, Introduction, p. xix, n. 19. This inter-
pretation of Bhamaha derives ultimately from the dhvani theorists, notably Ananda-
vardhana: cf., Dhv. 3,37 and Comm., p. 208, where Bhamaha 2.85 is cited.
105 The "conventionality" of Sanskrit literature-a topic much discussed: Keith,
SL, p. 343 ff. for a typical view. The stereotypy of theme and style of the ornate poetry
has struck all modern commentators, and it has usually been opposed, pejoratively, to
a more individualistic ideal-presumably more characteristic of Western poetry since
the Renaissance. So Keith, ibid., pp. 345-346, and D. D. Kosambi, ed. Subhāṣitara-
trakoşa, Introduction (= Harvard Oriental Series, 42), pp. xlv-lxii. The latter states
the stylistic opposition in the ludicrous dress of Marxist social categories. The Indian
writers of the classical period were no less aware of the stereotype (a point which
should be made more often), but of course were far less unanimous in disapproving
of it. We note several cases below, and try to show here how the notion of convention
itself was understood poetically.
107 Cf. Mammaţa, Kävyaprakāśa, śloka 9.
maha's conditional nor Dandin's categorical acceptance of svabhāvokti
(to which term vakrokti is several times opposed as the fundamental
alternative) is thereby made coherent or comprehensible. De notes that
Daṇḍin (2.8) refers to svabhävokti as "adyālamkṛtiḥ" ("the first or primary
figure'), but does not appear troubled by this non sequitur vis-à-vis his
own theory.
The nub of the problem is indeed a misunderstanding of the term
vakrokti. Bhāmaha means by it not so much an "essence" (if is under-
stood by that concept a generative or constituent principle defining the
manner of coming into being) ¹05 as a genus-a term which describes in a
general way the fundamental characteristic of all modes of poetic dic-
tion-their systematic deviation from a literal norm. Utterance which is
literal both in intent and form is not properly poetical. But Bhamaha is
nevertheless aware of certain borderline problems-most acutely, those
occasioned by language which is deviant (by the above definition) but
which in its deviation has already become conventional: idioms, clichés,
and the like.106 The figures lesa and sūkşma (2.86) are specifically rejected
because the vakrokti involved has been transformed into a calculus of
inference whereby from one thing said or done, another thing can be
understood. The grammarians refer to such an utterance, a type of
signification, as lakṣaṇā; the word stands as a token secondary marker
for the sense intended and has its meaning because the primary sense is in
fact unintelligible in that context: "the grandstands are cheering." 107
But more appositely, Bhämaha objects to the of cause and effect
(hetu) as a poetic figure, deeming it overly conventionalized. His own
example illustrates a cliché-ridden usage (2.87): "gato'stam arko bhātindur
INTRODUCTION
105 "The Indian theorists have almost neglected an important part of their task, viz.,
to find a definition of the nature of the subject of a poem as the product of the poet's
mind...". De, ed., Kuntaka, Vakroktijivita, Introduction, p. xix, n. 19. This inter-
pretation of Bhamaha derives ultimately from the dhvani theorists, notably Ananda-
vardhana: cf., Dhv. 3,37 and Comm., p. 208, where Bhamaha 2.85 is cited.
105 The "conventionality" of Sanskrit literature-a topic much discussed: Keith,
SL, p. 343 ff. for a typical view. The stereotypy of theme and style of the ornate poetry
has struck all modern commentators, and it has usually been opposed, pejoratively, to
a more individualistic ideal-presumably more characteristic of Western poetry since
the Renaissance. So Keith, ibid., pp. 345-346, and D. D. Kosambi, ed. Subhāṣitara-
trakoşa, Introduction (= Harvard Oriental Series, 42), pp. xlv-lxii. The latter states
the stylistic opposition in the ludicrous dress of Marxist social categories. The Indian
writers of the classical period were no less aware of the stereotype (a point which
should be made more often), but of course were far less unanimous in disapproving
of it. We note several cases below, and try to show here how the notion of convention
itself was understood poetically.
107 Cf. Mammaţa, Kävyaprakāśa, śloka 9.