CRITIC AND CRITICISM IN SANSKRIT
P.
SRIRAMAMURTI, M. A.
Lecturer
in Sanskrit,
“The
experience of the hero, the poet, and the hearer or reader or spectator is
(should be) similar.” If love is the feeling experienced ordinarily by the
hero, the poet visualises the same in a different
manner and he gives expression to it in an artistic form and then the reader,
with the help of the artistic creation, feels the same love, in an aesthetic
manner which is now given a new designation–Rasa. The experience of the hero is
actual and has got the limitations of space and time.
It is, or course, characterised by its intensity and
loftiness which inspire the poet. The poet then, with the help of his creative
faculty, transforms the same, investing it with a general and permanent
character and gives a spontaneous expression to it in a suitable art form. The
critic, then, endowed with appreciative imagination, works himself up into the
same experience as that of the poet. This may be illustrated by the anecdote of
the Krauncha pair in Ramayana, where
the sorrow of the surviving Krauncha bird, rousing a feeling of sympathy in the heart of the
poet, Valmiki, spontaneously given expression to by
him, becoming a poem and helping the realisation of an aesthetic state of
experience, in the hearts of the Sahridayas
termed as Karuna Rasa. Thus the
equation suggested by Bhatta Tauta
has got to be understood in this light.
The Poet and the
Critic
There
is a general concept in Indian poetics that the poetic and the critical are not
two different faculties. In fact poetic genius and critical genius are the two
facets of the same and the success of poetry is due to a natural blending of
the two into one inseparable reality. In common parlance also we come across
cases of many a poet being very critical in judgment and refined in taste and
many a critic exhibiting poetic talent of no mean order. Only the one has specialised in creation and other in criticism. The
critic is popularly known Sahridaya in
Sanskrit. One of similar heart, that is, one having, a
heart that is capable of experiencing the emotional moods delineated by the
poet in an aesthetic form, that is, one who has aesthetic sensibilities. The
definition of Sahridaya given in Locana is as follows. A Sahridaya
is one whose heart is in tune with the heart of the poet, who has the
fitness to identify himself with the subject matter of poetry, in his
mirror-like heart. This shows the fundamental unity of experience of the poet
and the critic. If the poet’s activity is designated as
creative activity that of the critic is appreciative.
Generally
speaking what makes a poet is the threefold equipment of inborn genius,
extensive and exact learning and constant practice. These are known as Pratibha, Vyutpatti and
Abhyasa. In the same manner the
equipment of the critic too can be said to be threefold–Pratibha,
Vyutpatti and Abhyasa.
But the nature of the equipment required for them is not identical. Pratibha is of two kinds–creative genius and
critical acumen or aesthetic sensibility. One helps the production of the
artistic piece and the other helps its critical appreciation. Both are the
products of the varied experiences of previous births and are in the form of
latent propensities of, or impressions in, the mind. One forms part of the
equipment of the poet and the other of the critic. Learning, especially of Alankara Sastra, and
ancillary subjects, is a common requisite of the poet and the critic. There is
nothing under the sun that cannot be treated in art by the poet and thus the
knowledge of everything is helpful to the poet. But there are certain
disciplines of study which are more intimately connected with poetic creation
and critical appreciation such as Grammar, Alankara
Sastra, Metrics–the
knowledge of which has to form part of their equipment. Lastly, practice, or Abhyasa, is what helps in the actual process
of creation or appreciation. Naturally, the practice differs required according
to the nature of the art, of creation or criticism. The poet should repeatedly
be composing poems so as to attain perfection in his art whereas the critic
should be constantly contemplating the poetry of the master poets to render his
heart mirror-like so as to reflect the experience of the poet exactly. Thus
this threefold equipment makes a good poet and a good critic according to the concensus of opinion of Indian literary critics. \
Creation and Criticism
Always
criticism follows literary production. From the appreciation of the
masterpieces of poetry principles of criticism have been deduced for the
guidance of both the poets and the critics. The long history of literary
criticism in Sanskrit bears ample testimony to this fact. Unfortunately an
immense variety and extent of the literature is lost irrevocably and that
causes doubt in the minds of certain people. But a careful examination of the
extant works of criticism, and the literature we have, does reveal the fact of
how criticism also grew with the growth and appreciation of the available
literature and its re-evaluation.
Criticism
in Sanskrit has been both descriptive and prescriptive. There are some poets
who have tried to introduce various elements in a poem noticed in works on
criticism incoherently and thus failed to achieve the right purpose. Some
critics have tried to imagine the possibilities of certain subdivisions of
poetic conceits and have tried to improvise illustrations thereto. Though this
method is fruitful in adding to the number of the figures of speech noticeable
in literature, it would be desirable to cite illustrations from masterpieces of
poetry in preference to their own compositions.
In
general, Sanskrit criticism kept pace with the growth of literature and its
re-evaluation. All the varieties of drama–Rupakas and
Uparupakas–mentioned in Bharata
and other works do not find examples in the available literature. Still the
growth in variety of literary forms can be observed. Prekshanaka–a type of
Uparupaka–seems to be a later one.
Many minor poems–Kshudra kavyas–like Udaharana
kavya–are certainly late in origin and
hence find a place only in the later treatises on poetics. Champu
as a regular composition came into vogue at a later stage. The definitions
of Katha and Akhyayika
show an evolution as per the dates they are found to have been in vogue.
Minor varieties of figures of speech came to be added by many authors of
Alankara treatises. Santha
Rasa in poetry is accepted and then it got admission into drama
too–theoretically and also practically–at a later stage. Thus the production of
new literature and the re-evaluation of the existing literature resulted in the
steady growth of literary criticism in Sanskrit. While Anandavardhana
considered Valmiki and Vyasa
as the first and the best among the poets and applied his profound theory to Ramayana
and Mahabharata by way of illustration, Rajasekhara
considered Veda also as literature and demonstrated how the knowledge of the principles
of literary criticism helps the interpretation of Vedas as well.
Achievements of
Criticism
There
is a twofold purpose of the theory of criticism. On the one hand it effects
refinement of taste and helps the correct appreciation of poetry and its right
appraisal. On the other hand it instructs the would-be poet to avoid flaws and
to produce good pieces of poetry showing him clearly how to select his subject
matter and how to utilise the same in the best manner
possible. How far has this been achieved in the case of Sanskrit criticism?
After the universal success of the Dhuani theory,
the authors have certainly put forth conscious effort in producing their works
according to the principles laid down in treatises like Dhuanyaloka
and Locana. Also a host of
commentaries on literary works came into being attempting a correct evaluation
of the literary works. Many commentators were satisfied with the explanation of
grammatical points, quoting authorities on grammar, explaining obscure words
with quotations from lexicons, and remarking on other points of interest
referring to other Sastras, explanation of figures of
speech noticed in the famous treatises on Alankara
and so on. It is very sad to note the absence of a thorough commentary of
any artistic piece taken as a whole on the model of the one illustrated in Dhvanyaloka by Anandavardhana.
There are certain laudable attempts made in respect of the Muktaka
kauyas. For example, the commentaries of Vemabhupala on Amaru sataka and Saptasati
sara constitute attempts
at applying the principles of Dhuani theory
to interpret them. But how each part of a great poem or drama is conducive to
the suggestion of the main sentiment, how a figure of speech or a turn of
expression is suggestive of the main Rasa of the poem–this has not been
attempted by any commentator so far.
Lack of Applied
Criticism Deplored
This
utter lack of practical criticism is a sad omission on the part of Sanskrit
writers. This has led to the recent tradition of studying only portions of Maha kavyas and
never looking at them as single artistic pieces. Hence we were unable to get at
the spirit of the poem, much less to receive the message intended to be
conveyed by the immortal poets of our literature. With the advent of the
historical and comparative methods of approach, the Sanskrit criticism has
taken a new turn but is simply satisfied with giving historical details
regarding the author and the work and passing a few remarks on comparison with
other writers and other works. But this will not do. To do justice to the great
masters of Sanskrit literature–and especially to the
great critics like Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta–one
should apply their rules to the criticism of Sanskrit literature which alone
results in the correct appraisal of the value of the work. Unless and until
this is done the purpose of the work of Sanskrit poeticians
will not be served fully.
There
is another great task before the Sanskritists. The
principles of criticism evolved by our Alankarikas
are not restricted to one literature alone, that is, Sanskrit literature
only. The successful application of these principles to Prakrit
literature is well known. We do also know how all the vernacular writers
have adopted these theories to the criticism of their respective literatures
with great success. Further there is a tendency to adopt the English critical
principles to both Sanskrit and vernacular literatures. In the same way the
universal principles of criticism evolved by Sanskrit writers need to be
applied to all literatures under consideration. The success of such an attempt
proves the validity and profoundness of the theory.
The
plea that a work of art should be judged by its own standards is what has been
advocated by Anandavardhana. The aesthetic appeal, Rasa,
is the pivot around which all other elements of artistic beauty should be
revolving. The success of the artist depends on how he brings about a happy
coordination of all of these factors. This great theory of art is likely to
receive universal approval when it is also proved to be applicable to all forms
of art of all nations and climes.