2023-04-06 02:50:29 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
xiii
forms of poetry. To say that the spirit of classicism
lies in subservience to certain fixed canons of poetry is
to ignore certain fundamental facts. In classical poetry,
as also in romantic poetry, certain rules have to be
observed. Such obedience to the rules is involuntary
and unconscious, just as in an orderly State obedience
to Law by the citizens is an inherent factor in the civic
life of the State and not something superimposed upon
the population. The only difference is that in clas-
sicism, the rules have been defined and formulated,
whereas in romanticism, they are only implied and
understood.
If a modern reader purges his mind of all tempora-
ry obsessions of the superiority of his own age, if he
approaches classical poetry with an impartial mind, in a
sympathetic attitude, he will be able to appreciate clas-
sical poetry at least to the extent of conceding that
it gave pleasure and enjoyment to the cultured mind
of that day, that it satisfied the æsthetic needs of a
nation that had a very high standard of culture and
refinement. Thus much for classical literature in general.
Coming to Sanskrit literature there is an additional pre-
judice that stands in the way of a proper and sympathe-
tic understanding. Matters that are recognised as an
adornment to European literature do not get the same
favourable judgment when they are associated with the
Sanskrit literature. I consider here only two points
which I have already raised in this foreword.
The long-drawn-out, never ending descriptions seen
in Sanskrit epics, descriptions which are often far astray
forms of poetry. To say that the spirit of classicism
lies in subservience to certain fixed canons of poetry is
to ignore certain fundamental facts. In classical poetry,
as also in romantic poetry, certain rules have to be
observed. Such obedience to the rules is involuntary
and unconscious, just as in an orderly State obedience
to Law by the citizens is an inherent factor in the civic
life of the State and not something superimposed upon
the population. The only difference is that in clas-
sicism, the rules have been defined and formulated,
whereas in romanticism, they are only implied and
understood.
If a modern reader purges his mind of all tempora-
ry obsessions of the superiority of his own age, if he
approaches classical poetry with an impartial mind, in a
sympathetic attitude, he will be able to appreciate clas-
sical poetry at least to the extent of conceding that
it gave pleasure and enjoyment to the cultured mind
of that day, that it satisfied the æsthetic needs of a
nation that had a very high standard of culture and
refinement. Thus much for classical literature in general.
Coming to Sanskrit literature there is an additional pre-
judice that stands in the way of a proper and sympathe-
tic understanding. Matters that are recognised as an
adornment to European literature do not get the same
favourable judgment when they are associated with the
Sanskrit literature. I consider here only two points
which I have already raised in this foreword.
The long-drawn-out, never ending descriptions seen
in Sanskrit epics, descriptions which are often far astray