2023-03-29 18:09:41 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
51
"anantā hi vāgvikalpaḥ" the variations of speech are unlimited'.128 More
recently, De commented: "... the poetic intuition differs in each poet ...
and there are bound, therefore, to be endless kinds of individual and
concrete expression which have their own standards and spheres in each
case, and which cannot repeat themselves." Yet it is just the task of
describing this futility which De sets before the alamkārikas: it [such
endless differentiation] appears to have afforded endless scope to the
scholastic ingenuity of later theorists who ... finding hardly anything to
systematize in respect of the essentials of theory, occupied themselves in
elaborating the details."129
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
12
1
130
In dealing with the so-called infinitude of the figures, two questions
are easily confused. One relates to the form, our chief concern in this
Introduction, which we contend was the prime object of the studies of
the alamkārikas; the other derives from the application, the concrete
manifestation of the form, in other words, the poetry itself. Evidently
here, as in logic or any other formal discipline, the exemplification of
science is endless, resting as it does on principles which are not pertinent
to the science (observation, etc.). The older writers were aware of this
problem and carefully restricted their consideration to the form. Dandin,
defining the figures as properties conveying the beauty of poetry, says:
"te cădyāpi vikalpyante kas tān kārtsnyena vakṣyati" now they [the figures]
are to be discriminated; who will propound them all?' (2.1). Daṇḍin, by
not making clear whether he refers to the figures per se or to their exem-
plification, appears to offer justification to those who would deny the
theoretic urgency of his task: if the figures cannot be described in their
entirety, then why describe them at all? Of course, as in many of these
short, indeed laconic kārikās, more than one interpretation is possible.
To what does "entirety" refer? The intent of the author is often only the
reading attributed to Dandin by later commentators, all of whom were
writing under the burden of the dhvani theory, which held that the figures
were occasional aspects of the poetic work and were therefore arbitrary
in principle and definable ad libitum; anantā hi vāgvikalpāḥ.¹
130
Before attributing this view to the ālamkārikas themselves, it would
appear appropriate to investigate possible alternatives. The verb vik!p-,
which Dandin uses in the passive of the causative vikalpyante, does indeed
mean 'discriminate', 'render into the form of an alternative* (vikalpa
'kind'). But it just as strongly conveys the connotation of 'clothing in
www
Dhvanyaloka 3.37 (Commentary), p. 210.
De, SPSA, p. 77; HSP, II, p. 73.
Cf. De, SPSA, p. 15.
"anantā hi vāgvikalpaḥ" the variations of speech are unlimited'.128 More
recently, De commented: "... the poetic intuition differs in each poet ...
and there are bound, therefore, to be endless kinds of individual and
concrete expression which have their own standards and spheres in each
case, and which cannot repeat themselves." Yet it is just the task of
describing this futility which De sets before the alamkārikas: it [such
endless differentiation] appears to have afforded endless scope to the
scholastic ingenuity of later theorists who ... finding hardly anything to
systematize in respect of the essentials of theory, occupied themselves in
elaborating the details."129
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
12
1
130
In dealing with the so-called infinitude of the figures, two questions
are easily confused. One relates to the form, our chief concern in this
Introduction, which we contend was the prime object of the studies of
the alamkārikas; the other derives from the application, the concrete
manifestation of the form, in other words, the poetry itself. Evidently
here, as in logic or any other formal discipline, the exemplification of
science is endless, resting as it does on principles which are not pertinent
to the science (observation, etc.). The older writers were aware of this
problem and carefully restricted their consideration to the form. Dandin,
defining the figures as properties conveying the beauty of poetry, says:
"te cădyāpi vikalpyante kas tān kārtsnyena vakṣyati" now they [the figures]
are to be discriminated; who will propound them all?' (2.1). Daṇḍin, by
not making clear whether he refers to the figures per se or to their exem-
plification, appears to offer justification to those who would deny the
theoretic urgency of his task: if the figures cannot be described in their
entirety, then why describe them at all? Of course, as in many of these
short, indeed laconic kārikās, more than one interpretation is possible.
To what does "entirety" refer? The intent of the author is often only the
reading attributed to Dandin by later commentators, all of whom were
writing under the burden of the dhvani theory, which held that the figures
were occasional aspects of the poetic work and were therefore arbitrary
in principle and definable ad libitum; anantā hi vāgvikalpāḥ.¹
130
Before attributing this view to the ālamkārikas themselves, it would
appear appropriate to investigate possible alternatives. The verb vik!p-,
which Dandin uses in the passive of the causative vikalpyante, does indeed
mean 'discriminate', 'render into the form of an alternative* (vikalpa
'kind'). But it just as strongly conveys the connotation of 'clothing in
www
Dhvanyaloka 3.37 (Commentary), p. 210.
De, SPSA, p. 77; HSP, II, p. 73.
Cf. De, SPSA, p. 15.