Abstract
Throughout its history of almost a millennium and a half, Sanskrit kāvyaśāstra was resolutely obsessed with the task of unravelling the ontology kāvya (literary prose and poetry). Literary theoreticians in Sanskrit, irrespective of their spatio-temporal locations, unanimously agreed upon the fact that kāvya was a special mode of expression (distinctly different from the ordinary form of speech) characterized by the presence of certain unique linguistic elements. Nonetheless, this did not imply that kāvyaśāstra was an intellectual tradition unmarked by disagreements. The real point of contention among the practitioners of Sanskrit literary theory was the prioritization of certain formal elements as the ‘soul’ of literature. This strong sense of intellectual disagreement on the question of what constituted the soul of kāvya eventually paved the way for the emergence of new frameworks of criticism and extensive scrutiny of the existing categories, thus playing a vital role in keeping this tradition alive and new.
But towards the turn of the 20th century, Sanskrit kāvyaśāstra tradition underwent an epistemic rupture primarily because of a change in the way the idea of literariness was understood. During this phase, the traditional Formalistic notions about literature (to which Sanskrit kāvyaśāstra conformed) underwent a radical transformation, and the style and language of literature eventually became similar to everyday speech. This trend played an important role in severing Sanskrit kāvyaśāstra’s natural tie with literature. Eventually, the vigour in which new treatises in Sanskrit literary poetics were produced also dwindled. This did not mean that the scholarship (pāṇḍitya) in Sanskrit poetics vanished. Scholars in Sanskrit poetics continued to flourish in India, but in a different form and shape. In other words, the focus of scholars in Sanskrit poetics slowly got shifted from the production of new treatises in Sanskrit poetics to the creation of the intellectual history of this field and the application of these theories to evaluate the literary merit of modern literary texts. Though these two approaches played a vital role in disseminating the knowledge about Sanskrit poetics in modern times, they were caught up in an ontological certitude. In other words, neither of these two directions attempted to study these theoretical positions from a standpoint other than that of literary theory. To borrow a Barthian terminology, these two approaches treated Sanskrit poetics as a ‘work,’ instead of a ‘Text.’ This paper aims to intervene in this lacuna of scholarship by proposing the Derridian idea of ‘play’ as a methodological framework to unearth the potentialities lying dormant in these theories and to move beyond the ontological certitude traditionally imposed on these theoretical positions. The new methodological praxis that I put forward in this paper is further exemplified through a non-canonical reading of Ānandavardhana’s avivakṣita-vācya-dhvani (dhvani where the literal meaning is not intended).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Hemacandra in Kāvyānuśāsana observed that it is the presence of four components such as śabda (word), artha (meaning), guṇa (poetic quality) and alaṅkāra (figures of speech) that constitutes a kāvya (I.22). Vāgbhaṭa II delimited the ambit of kāvya by defining it as a composition of śabda (word) and artha (meaning) marked by the absence of doṣas and the presence of guṇas and alaṅkāras (14). Mammaṭa observed that kāvya is composed of flawless words and sense adorned with merits and excellences of style (I.4). In Candrāloka, Jayadeva also set the limit of poetic expression by defining kāvya as a verbal icon characterized by the absence of doṣas and the presence of lakṣaṇā (deviant utterance), rīti (diction or style; literally means ‘path’), guṇa, alaṅkāra, rasa (aesthetic emotion) and vṛtti (linguistic modality) (I.7). Vidyānātha in Pratāparudrīya saw kāvya as a special composition of both gadya (prose) and padya (poetry) bereft of doṣas and adorned by guṇa, alaṅkāra, śabda and artha (II.1). Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka talked about three crucial components that were conspicuously absent in other uses of language and present only in kāvya. According to him, these three elements were abhidhāyakatva (denotative function), bhāvakatva (ability to evoke aesthetic experience) and bhogakṛttva (the experience of aesthetic emotion). In his commentary on Dhvanyāloka, Abhinavagupta reproduced this view of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka (Locana 2.4 L). Kuntaka opined that the figurative deviation of speech (vakrokti) makes kāvya different from ordinary expression and the use of language in śāstras (291). According to Bhoja, although poetry is called the combination of word and meaning, not all compositions of word and meaning could claim the status of a kāvya. In Śṛṅgāraprakāśa, Bhoja made a clear distinction between kāvya and other linguistic genres based on the nature of language employed in them. According to Bhoja, workaday language is the explicit language of science and daily life. On the other hand, kāvya was the deviant language found in texts teeming with aesthetic pleasure (I;221). We can see this view of kāvya as a special linguistic category with complex literary conventions and elaborate metrical schemes, unchangingly going down the line till the end of the active phase in Sanskrit literary culture in the seventeenth century, with Jagannātha observing that kāvya is a special combination of word and meaning, with beautiful words denoting noble significations (ramaṇīyārthapradipādakaḥ śabdaḥ kāvyaṃ; 4).
gatoऽstamarko bhātīnduryānti vāsāya pakṣiṇaḥ| ityevamādi kim kāvyaṃ vārtāmenāṃ pracakṣate|| (Ibid. II.87).
saiṣā sarvaiva vakroktiranayārtho vibhāvyate| yatnoऽsyāṃ kavinā kāryaḥ koऽlaṅkāroऽnayā vinā|| (Kāvyālaṅkāra 2.85). Ānandavardhana in Dhvanyāloka repeats this idea. See (Dhvanyāloka 3.36).
rītirātmā kāvyasya | (Kāvyālaṅkārasūtravṛtti I.2.6).
Ānandavardhana is indirectly criticizing literary theoreticians like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana who opine that kāvya is primarily a combination of śabda and artha (sound and sense). For detailed reading, see Bhāmaha (I.16), Daṇḍin (I.10) and Vāmana (I.1).
asphuṭasphuritam kāvyatattvametadyathoditam |
aśaknuvadbhirvyākartum rītayaḥ saṃpravartitāḥ || (Dhvanyāloka III.46 K)
śabrarthau sahitau vakrakavivyāpāraśālini|bandhe vyavasthitau kāvyam tadvidāhlādakāriṇi (Vakroktijīvita I.7).
vakroktiḥ prasiddhābhidhānavyatirekiṇī vicitraivābhidhā| (Ibid. kārikā on I.10).
ubhau dvāvapyetau śabdārthāvalaṅkāryāvalaṅkaraṇīyau kenāpi śobhātiśayakāriṇālaṅkaraṇena yojanīyau| kim tat tayoralaṅkaraṇamityabhidhīyate—tayoḥ punaralaṅkṛtiḥ | tayordvitvasaṅkhyāviśiṣṭayorapyalaṅkṛtiḥ punarekaiva yayā dvāvapyalaṅkriyete| kāsau—vakroktireva | vakroktiḥ prasidhābhidhānavyatirekiṇī vicitraivābhidhā|| (Ibid. I.10)
I would like to point out the two opposing views regarding the evolution of Sanskrit poetics. While scholars like Kane and De follow the classification of Sanskrit poetics along the lines of guṇa and rīti, McCrea (2008) rejects it. For Kane and De’s views, see respectively History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 372 and History of Sanskrit Poetics Vol II, 32. For McCrea’s view, see The Teleology of Poetics In Medieval Kashmir, pp. 30–31.
iha viśiṣṭau śabdārthau kāvyam| tayośca vaiśiṣtyam dharmamukhena, vyāpāramukhena, vyaṅgyamukhena, vā iti trayaḥ pakṣāḥ| ādyeऽpyaalaṅkārato guṇato vā iti dvaividhyam| dvitīyeऽpi bhāṇītivaicitryeṇa bhogakṛttvena vā iti dvavidham| iti pañcaṣu pakṣeṣvādya udbhaṭādibhirāṅgīkṛtaḥ, dvitīyo vāmanena, tritīyo vakroktijīvitakāreṇa, caturtho bhaṭṭanāyakena, pañcama ānandavardhanena| (Samudrabandha, commentary on Alaṅkārasarvasva 4). Samudrabandha, a twelfth century Sanskrit critic from Kerala, is known for his commentary on Ruyyaka’s Alaṅkārasarvasva.
For a detailed reading of the debate between navyas and prācīnas, see “Vastutas tu: Methodology and the New School of Sanskrit Poetics” by Bronner and Tubb.
Highlighting the popularity of Kāvyaprakāś, Maheśvara (17 C.E.), the author of Kāvyaprakāśādarśana, says that although a commentary of Kāvyaprakāśa is prepared in almost all houses, it still escapes the grasp of intellectuals by its innovative nature (Jhalakikar 39). For a detailed reading of commentarial tradition, see The Kāvyaprakāśa in the Benares-Centered Network of Sanskrit Learning by Cummins (2020).
For a review of all the works in Sanskrit poetics ever published in India, see An Annotated Bibliography of the Alaṃkāraśāstra by Timothy C. Cahill. A note of warning should be sounded now: though Sanskrit kāvyaśāstra texts continued to get produced in the 19th century, the amount of original thought that went into these texts remains to be determined. Any categorical observation about the originality of these texts in terms of their interaction with the tradition requires a great amount of work. However, one thing we can say for certain is that none of these texts composed during the colonial period could become landmarks in the history of Sanskrit poetics as Jagannātha’s Rasagaṅgādhara or Appayya Dīkṣita’s Kuvalayānanda could do in the previous epoch.
For detailed reading of modern works in Sanskrit, especially of those from the 19th and 20th century, read Radha Vallabh Tripathi’s “Modern Writings in Sanskrit: A Resume.” Tripathi notes that “Modern Sanskrit writers made a departure from their age-old literary traditions by the way to looking towards vernaculars and European languages also” (169).
guṇadoṣānaśāstrajñaḥ kathaṃ vibhajate janaḥ| kimandhasyādhikāroऽsti rūpabhedopalabdhiṣu||(Kāvyādarśa I.8).
na vidyate yadyapi pūrvavāsanā
guṇānubandhi pratibhānamadbhutam|
śrutena yattena ca vāgupāsitā dhruvam karotyeva kamapyanugraham|| (Ibid. I.104).
śabdābhidheye vijñāya kṛtvā tadvidupāsanaṃ|
vilokyānyanibandhāmśca kāryaḥ kāvyakriyādaraḥ|| (Kāvyālaṅkāra I.10).
sa doṣaguṇālaṅkārahānādānābhyāṃ|
sa khalvalaṅkāro doṣahānāt guṇālaṅkārādānācca sampādyaḥ kaveḥ || śāstrataste || te doṣaguṇālaṅkārahānādāne śāstrādasmāt||
śāstrato hi jñātvā doṣāñjahyāt guṇālaṅkārāṃscādadīta|| (Kāvyālaṇkārasūtravṛtti I.1.3-4).
śāstrapūrvakatvāt kāvyānāṃ pūṛva śāstreṣvabhiniviśeta | nahyapravrtitapradipāste tavārdhasārdhamadhyakṣyanti|(Rājaśekhara, Kāvyamīmāṃsa 20)
K.C Anthappayi’s Bhāṣānāṭakapariśodhana is a case in point. In this work, Anthappayi criticizes the predilection of Malayalam playwrights for Sanskrit dramas. He also opines that critics should do away with the guṇanirūpaṇam (analysis of literary merits) of Malayalam dramas based on the parameters of literariness set by Sanskrit poetics.
Ontological certitude is the act of reducing the identity of an entity to a set of fixed assumptions.
vyañjakatvam hi kvacit vācakatvāśrayeṇa vyavatiṣṭhate| yathā vivakṣitānyaparavācye dhvanau| kvacittu guṇavṛttyāśrayeṇa| yathā avivakṣitānyaparavācye dhvanau| tadubhayāśrayatvapratipādanāyaiva ca dhvaneḥ prathamataram dvau prabhedāvupanyastau. (Ibid., p. 427).
See the complete verse from Dhvanyāloka. gaganam ca mattamekham dhārālulitarjunāni ca vanāni |
nirahaṅkāramṛgāṅkā haranti nīlā api niśāḥ || (273).
ayamapi na doṣaḥ| yasmāt avivakṣitavācyo dhvaniḥ guṇavṛttimārgāśrayoऽpi bhavati, na tu guṇavṛttirūpa eva| guṇavṛttirḥ vyañjakatvaśūnyāpi dṛśyate| (432).
Ānandavardhana cites a lot of examples where dhvani does not occur even in the presence of gauṇavṛtti (secondary usage). A case in point is the word lāvaṇya. Ānanda observes, “Words such as lāvaṇya, which are used idiomatically in a sense other than their proper (etymological) sense, are never instances of dhvani” (184). rūḍhā ye viṣayeऽnyatra śabdāḥ svaviṣayādapi | lāvaṇyādyāḥ prayuktāste na bhavanti padam dhvaneḥ || (Ibid., p. 147).
ata eva vācakatvāttasya viśeṣḥ vācakatvam hi śabdaviśeṣasya niyata ātmā, vyulpattikālādārabhya tadavinābhāvena tasya prasiddhatvāt | sa tvaniyataḥ aupādhikatvāt | prakaraṇādyavacchedena tasya pratīteḥ itarathā tvaprātīteḥ |(436-437)
kintu tadeva kevalam aparimitaviṣayasya dhvanivyavahārasya na prayodanakam avyāpakatvāt | tathā darśitabhedatrayarūpam tālparyeṇa dyotyamānam abhiprāyarūpam anabhiprāyarūpam ca
sarvameva dhvanivyavahārasya prayojakamiti yathoktavyañjakatvaviśeṣedhvanilakṣaṇe nātivyāptiḥ na
cāvyāptiḥ. (443).
References
Abhinavagupta. (1990). Locana. In D. Ingalls, J. Masson, & M. V. Patwardhan, (Trans. and Eds.), The Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Ānandavardhana. (1990). Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta (D. Ingalls, J. Masson, & M. V. Patwardhan, Trans. and Eds.). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Ashcroft, B., & Tiffin, H. (2002). The empire writes back. New York: Routledge.
Bhāmaha. (1998). Kāvyālaṅkāra. (B. N. Sarma & Baldeva Upadhyay Eds.). Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Bronner, Y. (2002). What is new and what is Navya. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 305(5), 441–462.
Barthes, R. (1986). From work to text. In The rustle of language (R. Howard, Trans.) (pp. 56–64). New York: Hill and Wang.
Daṇḍin. (1962). Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍin (P. Tarkabagisa, Ed.). Culcutta: Royal Asiatic Society.
Derrida, J. (1997). Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In K. M. Newton (Ed.), Twentieth-century literary theory. New York: Palgrave.
Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary theory: An introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gerow, E. (1977). Indian poetics (A history of Indian literature). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
George, K. M. (1973). Literary criticism in Malayalam. Indian Literature 16(3), 1973.
Jagannātha. (1888). The Rasagaṅgādhara of Jagannātha Paṇḍita with the commentary of Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa. D. Prasad, & K. P. Parab, Eds. Bombay: The Nirnaya Sagara Press.
Krishnamoorthy, K. (1977). Vakroktijīvita by Kuntaka. Dharwad: Karnatak University.
Mammaṭa. (1966). Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa, G. Jha, Ed. Bharathiya Vidya Prakashan.
Pollock, S. (2001). New intellectuals. Indian Economic and Social History, 38(1), 1–16.
Rājaśekhara. (2000). Kāvyamīmāṃsā. (D. K. Sadhana Parashar, Ed.). New Delhi: Print World.
Royle, N. (2003). The uncanny. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Samudrabandha. (1915). Alaṅkārasarvasva of Rājānaka Ruyyaka with the commentary of Samudrabandha, (Ganapathy Sastri Ed.). Trivandrum: Travancore Government Press.
Sreenath, V. S. (2017). Avivakṣita-vācya-dhvani and the deterritorialization of signifier: A liberating experience for author and reader. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 45(5), 817–836.
Satchidananda, K. (2014). Dilemmas of Indian literary criticism. Frontline, March 21, 2014.
Vāmana. (2000). Kavyalankarasutravrtti, E. Nambootiri, Ed. Kerala Bhasha Institute.
Secondary Works
Kane, P. V. (1951). History of Sanskrit Poetics. Banaras: Motilal Banarsidass.
McCrea, Lawrence, J. (2008). The teleology of poetics in medieval Kashmir. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pathak, R. S. (1982). The Indian Theory of vakrokti in relation to the stylistic concept of deviance. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 63(1), 195–211.
Pollock, Sheldon. (2016). The rasa reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pollock, Sheldon. (Ed.) (2010). What was Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka Saying: The Hermenuetical Transformation of Indian Aesthetics. In Epic and Argument in Sanskrit Literary Theory, (pp. 143–184). New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
Pollock, S. (2001). Death of Sanskrit. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, 43(2), 392–426.
Pollock, Sheldon. (Ed.). (2003). Sanskrit Literary Culture from the Inside Out. In Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. London: University of California Press.
Ravishankar, Chinya V. (2018). The Sons of Sarasvatī. Suny Press, 2018.
Reich, James D. (2018). Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and the Vedanta Influence on Sanskrit Literary Theory. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 138(2), 533–557.
Rayan, K. (1965). Rasa and the Objective Correlative. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 5(3), 246–260.
Sastry, P. S. (1988). Indian Poetics and New Criticism. In M.S Kushwaha (Ed.) Indian Poetics and Western Thought: Argo Publishing House.
Sivarudrappa, G. S., & Seshagiri Rao, S. L. (1985). An Essay from ‘Kavyartha Chintana’: Literary Criticism in Indian Poetics. Indian Literature 28, (5): 67-78.
Tripathi, R. (2016). Modern Writings in Sanskrit: A Resume. Indian Literature, 60(1), 168–183.
Vaghbhata II. (1915). Kavyanusasana of Vaghbhata with His Own Gloss. Edited by Pandit Sivadatta. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar.
Vaidyanatha. (1933). Prataparudriya. Edited by K. S Ramamurthi and S. R Matha. Oriental Research Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sreenath, V.S. What To Do with the Past?: Sanskrit Literary Criticism in Postcolonial Space. J Indian Philos 49, 129–144 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09466-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09466-1