2023-03-29 18:09:49 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
THE ADEQUACY OF THE "ĀLAMKĀRIKA" POETIC
75
the drama and not, strictly speaking, poetic, for it deals with matters as
diverse as the construction of the theater and the use of make-up. It is
certainly allied to the purāṇa in style and is not the work of a single author
despite the eponymic attribution.
For criticism, the dramatic problem presented itself in a different light,
and Bharata's treatise attests this difference decisively; the drama is not
a creation of the word alone, or even of the word primarily. Of course
the language spoken on the stage is an essential element in the drama,
but the drama is, in addition and more importantly, a visual spectacle; the
language is but one element in the technical materials available to the
dramatist. If he imitates human actions and events, he first of all rep-
resents (or can represent) human actions and events directly by means of
characters, gestures, actions; the realm of immediacy is made available
through the actor, a crutch upon which the verbal poet is unable to de-
pend.
The communal character of the dramatic representation also contributed
to its distinctiveness. An audience was an essential part of the produc-
tion, a material in which an effect or an imprint was to be produced and
whose formation in this sense constituted the end of drama. Although the
kävya literature may have been recited, and historically may have been a
lineal descendant of bardic, epic poetry,168 in its developed form it was
far too complicated and polished to be enjoyed only viva voce; its audience
was more abstract: the learned, often an assemblage of other poets.169
The dramatic production was also determined in a different kind of time,
due largely to its dependence on a real audience. The kävya work could
be indefinitely long, for its unity was aggregate and ad libitum both for
14 Though few direct links have been discovered which would mediate the enormous
differences in style between the developed forms. Portions of the Rāmāyaṇa have
often been suggested as links. Cf. Dasgupta and Dey [De], HSL, p. 13.
189 The proper audience for poetry is first extensively discussed in the dhvani literature:
cf. "tena brūmaḥ sahrdayamanaḥpritaye tatsvarūpam™ (Dhvanyāloka 1.1), and the
commentary "sahṛdayahṛdayāhlādiśabdārthamayatvam eva kāvyalakṣaṇam" attributed
to a pūrvapakşin. The audience as the locus of the dramatic experience becomes doubly
important to Abhinavagupta, who analogized that experience to religious ecstasy:
below, p. 77. Again, this concern with the audience on the part of the dhvani theorists
testifies to the syncretistic character of their doctrine, for they were faced with the
problem of relating two genres whose audiences were in principle distinct, and whose
distinction was self evident. Abhinava's definition of the sahrdaya has often been
quoted "yeşām kāvyānušilanābhyāsavaśād višadībhūte manomukure varṇaniyatan-
mayibhavanayogyata te hrdayasamvādabhājaḥ sahrdayāḥ" (Locana on Dhv. 1.1, p. 11.
Cf. De, SPSA, pp. 54ff.). These connoisseurs may, as the tradition asserts, have
gathered occasionally to form a semi-permanent kavisabhā, in order to pass judgement
on the poetical works presented to them. The Tamil sangam is the most illustrious
case.
75
the drama and not, strictly speaking, poetic, for it deals with matters as
diverse as the construction of the theater and the use of make-up. It is
certainly allied to the purāṇa in style and is not the work of a single author
despite the eponymic attribution.
For criticism, the dramatic problem presented itself in a different light,
and Bharata's treatise attests this difference decisively; the drama is not
a creation of the word alone, or even of the word primarily. Of course
the language spoken on the stage is an essential element in the drama,
but the drama is, in addition and more importantly, a visual spectacle; the
language is but one element in the technical materials available to the
dramatist. If he imitates human actions and events, he first of all rep-
resents (or can represent) human actions and events directly by means of
characters, gestures, actions; the realm of immediacy is made available
through the actor, a crutch upon which the verbal poet is unable to de-
pend.
The communal character of the dramatic representation also contributed
to its distinctiveness. An audience was an essential part of the produc-
tion, a material in which an effect or an imprint was to be produced and
whose formation in this sense constituted the end of drama. Although the
kävya literature may have been recited, and historically may have been a
lineal descendant of bardic, epic poetry,168 in its developed form it was
far too complicated and polished to be enjoyed only viva voce; its audience
was more abstract: the learned, often an assemblage of other poets.169
The dramatic production was also determined in a different kind of time,
due largely to its dependence on a real audience. The kävya work could
be indefinitely long, for its unity was aggregate and ad libitum both for
14 Though few direct links have been discovered which would mediate the enormous
differences in style between the developed forms. Portions of the Rāmāyaṇa have
often been suggested as links. Cf. Dasgupta and Dey [De], HSL, p. 13.
189 The proper audience for poetry is first extensively discussed in the dhvani literature:
cf. "tena brūmaḥ sahrdayamanaḥpritaye tatsvarūpam™ (Dhvanyāloka 1.1), and the
commentary "sahṛdayahṛdayāhlādiśabdārthamayatvam eva kāvyalakṣaṇam" attributed
to a pūrvapakşin. The audience as the locus of the dramatic experience becomes doubly
important to Abhinavagupta, who analogized that experience to religious ecstasy:
below, p. 77. Again, this concern with the audience on the part of the dhvani theorists
testifies to the syncretistic character of their doctrine, for they were faced with the
problem of relating two genres whose audiences were in principle distinct, and whose
distinction was self evident. Abhinava's definition of the sahrdaya has often been
quoted "yeşām kāvyānušilanābhyāsavaśād višadībhūte manomukure varṇaniyatan-
mayibhavanayogyata te hrdayasamvādabhājaḥ sahrdayāḥ" (Locana on Dhv. 1.1, p. 11.
Cf. De, SPSA, pp. 54ff.). These connoisseurs may, as the tradition asserts, have
gathered occasionally to form a semi-permanent kavisabhā, in order to pass judgement
on the poetical works presented to them. The Tamil sangam is the most illustrious
case.