2023-03-29 18:09:47 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
69
of view adopted by the Indian writers has kept them from discussing
imagination in the modern sense. Nevertheless, recent literature abounds
with attempts to turn bhāvika and similar notions into substitutes for
Western critical categories, into steps in the progress of the Indian mind
to profounder awareness of beauty.¹
167
Bhāvika is far from being a characteristic of all poetry: it is limited as
prabandhavişayo gunaḥ-a quality whose scope is the work. It is not met
with, according to Dandin, in those many poetic works which are not
wholes: the collections, anthologies, the isolated verses which were
characteristic of the classical poetic product. In the systems of the
ālamkārikas, bhāävika is a notion of secondary, though considerable,
importance, which was best accounted, in their precise terminology, a
figure, most likely of sabda, whose grammatical reference was that span
of utterance longer than that which would ordinarily be defined in the
grammar and which had no specifically grammatical means of indica-
tion.158 If bhāvika is a śabdālamkāra, then its reference is to the language
itself as a means of expression: it explains matters pertaining to arrange-
ment and not to expression; given the complexity and length of certain
poems, it tells how to state the appropriate "togetherness" of that mul-
tiplicity. Certain poetic works, without in any way augmenting or
diminishing their status as poetic works, do have a unity of theme or a
coherence of purpose which requires special notice, as differing from both
colloquial utterance and from the manner of existence of the events
referred to. Within this unity, the imagination of the poet could be said to
be working as a limiting factor comprehending and relating the discrete
content of the work: in the same way, the poet, composing alliterations,
can be relied upon not to break off in the middle with some harsh or
irrelevant sound. The imagination as a quality of the whole is an alamkāra
of repetition in much the same sense: it is (or is testimonial of) an ex-
pression of unity not otherwise present, imposed upon an aspect of the
linguistic continuum which is not ordinarily so formed. Life is not made
up of coherent or dramatic events as a rule. The classical critics were far
from thinking of this "quality of the [whole] work" as the psychological
157
"Nevertheless, the aberrations are at the same time attempts to reach the truth;
and in the midst of unlifted shadows one does often perceive a running thread of silver
lining", De, SPSA, p. 79.
158 "Bhävikālamkāras tu mahākāvyeşv eva niyamenāvasthitaḥ" (anon. Comm. "Hrda-
yañgama" to Kävyādarša 2.364-366 [p. 215]). I would like to think, for the sake of
completeness, that bhavika was not considered an arthālamkāra at all, since it does not
formulate the possibility of any concrete poetic expression or idea. Dandin, however,
does treat it at the end of his second chapter (on arthālamkāra), after samsrsti.
69
of view adopted by the Indian writers has kept them from discussing
imagination in the modern sense. Nevertheless, recent literature abounds
with attempts to turn bhāvika and similar notions into substitutes for
Western critical categories, into steps in the progress of the Indian mind
to profounder awareness of beauty.¹
167
Bhāvika is far from being a characteristic of all poetry: it is limited as
prabandhavişayo gunaḥ-a quality whose scope is the work. It is not met
with, according to Dandin, in those many poetic works which are not
wholes: the collections, anthologies, the isolated verses which were
characteristic of the classical poetic product. In the systems of the
ālamkārikas, bhāävika is a notion of secondary, though considerable,
importance, which was best accounted, in their precise terminology, a
figure, most likely of sabda, whose grammatical reference was that span
of utterance longer than that which would ordinarily be defined in the
grammar and which had no specifically grammatical means of indica-
tion.158 If bhāvika is a śabdālamkāra, then its reference is to the language
itself as a means of expression: it explains matters pertaining to arrange-
ment and not to expression; given the complexity and length of certain
poems, it tells how to state the appropriate "togetherness" of that mul-
tiplicity. Certain poetic works, without in any way augmenting or
diminishing their status as poetic works, do have a unity of theme or a
coherence of purpose which requires special notice, as differing from both
colloquial utterance and from the manner of existence of the events
referred to. Within this unity, the imagination of the poet could be said to
be working as a limiting factor comprehending and relating the discrete
content of the work: in the same way, the poet, composing alliterations,
can be relied upon not to break off in the middle with some harsh or
irrelevant sound. The imagination as a quality of the whole is an alamkāra
of repetition in much the same sense: it is (or is testimonial of) an ex-
pression of unity not otherwise present, imposed upon an aspect of the
linguistic continuum which is not ordinarily so formed. Life is not made
up of coherent or dramatic events as a rule. The classical critics were far
from thinking of this "quality of the [whole] work" as the psychological
157
"Nevertheless, the aberrations are at the same time attempts to reach the truth;
and in the midst of unlifted shadows one does often perceive a running thread of silver
lining", De, SPSA, p. 79.
158 "Bhävikālamkāras tu mahākāvyeşv eva niyamenāvasthitaḥ" (anon. Comm. "Hrda-
yañgama" to Kävyādarša 2.364-366 [p. 215]). I would like to think, for the sake of
completeness, that bhavika was not considered an arthālamkāra at all, since it does not
formulate the possibility of any concrete poetic expression or idea. Dandin, however,
does treat it at the end of his second chapter (on arthālamkāra), after samsrsti.