Chapter 26.1 - Poetics (Alankara-Shastra) and Dramaturgy (Natya-Shastra)

The Vedic literature itself is enlivened by a plethora of poetic flourishes, and a number of trappings of ornate poetry. Particulaly noteworthy in this connection are the hymns to dawn in the Rgveda. In one of them four similes figure consecutively: abhrateva pumsa eti pratici gartarug iva sanaye dhananam/ jayeva patya usati suvasah usa hasreva ni rinite apsah// (1.124.7) Another Mantra furnishes a beautiful example of Atisayokti : dva suparna sayuja sakhaya samanam vrksam parisasvajate/ tayor anyah pippalam svady atti anasnann anyo abhicakasiti (1.164.20) Like the Samhitas, the Upanisads are also marked by the use of apt Similes. No doubt they do not have such sophisticated figures of speech as Dipaka, Vyatireka but they do have more common figures of speech like Utpreksa and Drstanta, proving thereby that the figures of speech had begun to come handy for lending embellishment to poetry, fairly early. Simile being the bedrock of figures of speech Non Dwhich they rest, its use was

more common. Yaska in his Nirukta has explained Upama, Simile under the authority of his predecessor Gargya as athata upama yad atat tatsadrsam iti Gargyah, " from now on (we take up the words) that denote similarity. Anything that is different from the other one but is similar to it is the meaning of similarity. That is how Gargya explains it." The further elaboration of it could be that though basically something is different it shares with the other many of its characteristics, tadbhinnatve sati tadgatabhuyodharmavattvam. The rhetorician Mammata explained it as sharing the same characteristics though different, sadharmyam upama bhede. If the difference is omitted and both the things are equated it would be Rupaka, Metaphor. The similarity, explains Yaska, could be in both ways, something inferior is compared with the superior on account of superior quality like the boy is a lion, simho manavakah, or vice versa (III.3.14). All this shows that even before Yaska a discussion on the basic features of the figures of speech and their illustrations had begun. The Nighantu lists in III.13 twelve words that denote similarity like iva, yatha, na, cit, nu, a. The Astadhyayi of Panini has words like upamita, upamana, samanyadharma which shows that the basic feature of the figures of speech, the similarity, was known to the grammarians. Coming to Dramaturgy we find that Panini mentions Bhiksusutras and Nata-sutras composed by Acaryas like Parasarya, Silali, Karmanda, Krsasva and so on. The earliest available work on Poetics and Dramaturgy is the Natyasastra of Bharata with which these two disciplines seem to have assumed a systematic shape, though their existence before the Natyasastra is proved by the mention therein of ealier authorities like Suvarnanabha, Nandikesvara, Kucumara and so on as also reference to them in the Kamasutra of Vatsyayana, a point that gets endorsement from the statement in the Abhinavabharati, the commentary on the Natyasastra, that some of the Aryas in the Natyasastra are drawn from the works of New Delhi. Digitized by $3 Foundation USA.

. earlier authorities. We also get to know from it of some names of the ealier Acaryas. Bhamaha and Dandin quote some of them in their works, the former Medhavin and the latter Kasyapa, Vararuci, Brahmadatta and Nandisvamin (Nandikesvara) along with some others. The works of all these earlier authorities are lost now except that of Nandikesvara. Rajasekhara in his Kavyamimamsa refers to Nandikesvara as an authority on Rasa: rasadhikarikam Nandikesvarah. Ramakrishna Kavi is of the view that Nandikesvara had written a work called the Nandisvarasamhita which is lost except that portion of it which deals with dramatic characters. The present Abhinayadarpana might have been this very section. Bharata might have got inspiration/help for compiling the Natyasastra from Nandikesvara. Says the Natyasastra that Tandu, also called Nandikesvara had instructed Bharata in enacting the Angaharas, Karanas and Recakas. A comparative study of the subject matter of the Natyasastra and the Abhinayadarpana proves the latter's antiquity. The Natyasastra is a thesaurus of all the fine arts, drama, music, prosody, figures of speech. About its date there is no unanimity. Macdonell places it in the 6 th cen. A.D., Haraprasada Sastri in the 2 nd cen. B.C., S.K. De in 500 A.D. P.V. Kane sets the upper limit for it the beginning of the Christian era and the lower limit the period of Kalidasa. Coming to Poetics the Natyasastra records four Alaakaras, figures of speech, Rupaka, Metaphor, Upama, Simile, Dipaka, Illuminator, Yamaka, Repetition of words or syllables similar in sound, ten Gunas, (poetic) qualities and thirty six Laksanas , characteristics of poetry. Bharata gives utmost importance to Rasa. His Rasa-sutra, the aphorism about Rasa ( =flavour, sentiment, enjoyment) vibhavanubhavasancarisamyogad rasanispattih has attracted wide notice. The word nispatti in it has given rise to different theories on the basis of its different interpretations by different rhetoriciansgitized by S 3 Foundation USA

After Bharata the notable rhetorician is Bhamaha. He wrote the Kavyalankara wherein he pronounced the poetic charm, camatkara as the essence of poetry, a point that Panditaraja Jagannatha seems to echo: cetascamatkrtipada kaviteva ramya, a beautiful poem charms the mind (Bhaminivilasa , 3.16). He divides his work in sections called Paricchedas. The prose narratives he divides into two, the Katha and the Akhyayika. Of the ten Gunas, the poetic qualities he accepts only three, madhurya, prasada and ojas. He accords prominence to alankaras, figures of speech and vakrokti, equivocation/insinuation. He also wrote a commentary on the Prakrtaprakasa of Vararuci. Udbhata, the court-poet of Jayapida (779-819 A.D.) wrote a commentary Bhamahalamkaravivarana on the Kavyalankara of Bhamaha. Another work of his in line with the work of Bhamaha is the Alankarasarasangraha which mainly deals with, as the title itsef shows, the alankaras, the figures of speech in its six Paricchedas, chapters. He has on the basis of Dhvani accepted three Vrttis, Upanagarika, Gramya and Parusa. He is the only Acarya afrer Bharata who has laid great emphasis on Rasa and is the first one who has included Santa among the Rasas. His was commented upon by Pratiharenduraja, the pupil of Mukulabhatta around 950 A.D. In the middle of the 9 th cen. A.D. Anandavardhana gave a new turn to Poetics by introducing the theory of Dhvani. Not that he was the first to propound it, he himelf refers to a number of his predecessors who had dealt with it which shows that the discussion about the theory had started much earlier. His Dhvanyaloka has 129 Karikas which are divided in four sections called Uddyotas. It carries an auto-commentary by Anandavardhana. Some scholars are of the view that the author of the Dhvanyaloka and its commentary are two different persons. The general view, however, sisunthatuit was Anandavardhana himself who had commented upon his work. Well

The peculiarity about the Dhvanyaloka is that for purposes of illustrations its author (Anandavardhana) has drawn largely on his own works, the Devisataka, the Arjunacaritamahakavya, the Visamabanalila and the Haravijaya. Of these it is only the Devisataka which is available at present. The last two were in Prakrit. Abhinavagupta of 1000 A.D. wrote a commentary on the Dhvanyaloka under the title Dhvanyalokalocana. He had learnt Dhvani from Induraja and Natyasastra from Bhatta Tauta. He was also the propounder of the Pratyabhijna philosophy. It is said that on Dhvani, Natyasastra and the Pratyabhijna he had written forty one works. Besides these he had also written commentaries on some of the Saivite Stotras. He had written a commentary on the Natyasastra, the most authorative at that, to which reference has already been made. The Dhvani School has the privilege of having two of the great authorities on Poetics as its proponants, Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. The latter had written a commentary on Bhatta Tauta's Kavyakautuka which is extinct now and is known through quotations from it in later works on Poetics. During the period of the prominence of the Dhvani theory there had appeared scholars who laid emphasis on the Rasa theory. The more well-known among them were Bhatta Lollata (700-800 A.D.), Sankuka (840 A.D.), Bhatta Nayaka (900 A.D.), Abhinavagupta (1000 A.D.). This period also saw the appearance of some of the rhetoricians who refuted the Dhvani theory. Kuntaka (differently spent Kuntala) (1000 A.D.) was one such who propounded Vakrokti to be the soul of poetry, vakroktih kavyajivitam. To him both Rasa and Dhvani are subordinate to Vakrokti. Another rhetorician to refute the Dhvani theory was Mahimabhatta (1050 A.D.) who through his work the Vykativiveka propounded the Anumana theory. This period also saw the appearance of as of the rhetoricians as keeping themselves away from controversies wrote their works on Poetics which carry on them the imprint of Rasa and CC-0. Prof. Satya Vrat-Shastri Collection

Dhvani. Rudrata was the first among the rhetoricians to present a scientific arrangement of the figures of speech . He authored the work Kavyalankara in sixteen chapters where while dealing with the Ritis, styles of writing, he added from his side a new one Lati to the three Vaidarbhi, Gaudi and Pancali enumerated by his predecessors Dandin and Vamana along with the scientificc treatment and categorization of the figures of speech referred to above. The Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara (900 A.D.) is an important work on Poetics, particularly the Kavirahasya section of it, that focuses on the requirements of a poet. Only eight chapters of it are available now. One, Rudrabhatta (before 1000 A.D.) in his work, the Srngaratilaka, discusses Rasa only according the status of Rasa to Santa as well. Dhananjaya, the court-poet of Munja (874-884 A.D.) of Dhara, wrote Dasarupaka, a work on Dramaturgy comprising 300 Karikas (verses) divided in four sections called Prakasas wherein he discusse the theme, the hero and the sentiments (Rasas) excluding Santa which he did not accept as Rasa, it not going well with a play. The work carries a commentary called Avaloka by his younger brother Visnuputra Dhanika which was written after the death of Munja. With Avaloka the Dasarupaka gained great fame as an authoritative monograph on Sanskrit Dramaturgy. In his Avaloka Dhanika refers to his other work the Kavyanirnaya which is not available at present. Bhoja (1005-1054 A.D.), the king of Dhara, wrote two great works on Sanskrit Poetics the Sarasvatikanthabharana and the Srngaraprakasa. In its five chapters, Paricchedas the Sarasvatikanthabharana discusses the (poetic) merits, the demerits, the figures of speech, the styles (Ritis) and the sentiments. To Rudrata's four styles he adds two the Avanti and the Magadhi. Bhoja quotes liberally the earlier authorities. The Srigaraprakasa has thirty six Paricchedas which cover everything about Dramaturgy and Poetics. Ratnesvara wrote a commentary Called Ratharnava on its first three chapters. Vrat Shastri Collection, New Delhi. Digitized by S 3 Foundation USA

Ksemendra (11 th cen. A.D.), the wellknown pupil of Abhinavagupta, wrote two works the Aucityavicaracarca and the Kavikanthabharana of which the former is a critical work which accepts Propriety, aucitya as the soul of poetry. To make his point Ksemendra gives illustrations from a number of earlier works as also from his own. Many of these works are extinct now. So are his. The 11 th cen. saw the emergence of a great rhetorician of the name of Mammata whose all-comprehensive work the Kavyaprakasa has attained unique popularity in India. Of its ten chapters, Ucchvasas, the portion beyond the discussion on Parikara in the 9 th chapter is written by one Allata or Alaka. It carries on its Karikas a commentary by himself. It is the only work in the field of Sanskrit Poetics that has attracted the maximum number of commentaries, old and new. The figure of even the old ones goes up to seventy! Mammata is also reported to have written a work on Saba-saktis, the powers of words under the title Sabdavyaparavicara. He belonged to a family of learned scholars. The great grammarian Kaiyata who wrote the commentary Pradipa on the Mahabhasya of Patanjali was his younger brother. Kashmir has contributed significantly to various disciplines in Sanskrit. To the contribution to Poetics also it carries the palm. Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Lollata, Sankuka, Nayaka, Rudrata, Kuntaka, Ksemendra, Mammata were all Kshmirians. To this list can be added the name of Rajanaka Ruyyaka or Rucaka (the first half of the 12 th cen. A.D.) who wrote the work Alankarasarvasva which is in two parts, Sutra, aphorisms and Vitti, commentary. Some scholars are of the opinion that Ruyyaka wrote only the Sutra part while the Vrtti was written by his pupil Mankha while others credit the authorship of both to Ruyyaka. He adopted a scientific system of analyzing and explaining the figures of speech. Apart from the works noticed above, he authored a number of other works on S 3 Foundation USA

Poetics such as Sahrdayalila, Alamkaranusarini, Sahityamimamsa, Natakamimamsa and Alamkaravarttika. He also wrote a number of commentaries like the Vyaktivivekavicara on the Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta, the Kavyaprakasasanketa on the Kavyaprakasa of Mammata, the Harsacaritavarttika on the Harsacarita of Bana. His work the Alamkarasarvasva was commented upon by Alaka, Jayaratha, Samudrabandha, Vidyacakravartin and so on. The Jain writer of the Svetambara sect Somaputra Vagbhata (the first half of the 12 th cen. A.D.) wrote the work Vagbhatalankara where in its five chapters, Paricchedas, he discussed poetry, the form of it, the poetic expression, the poetic qualities, the figures of speech, the Rasas and the poetic conventions (kavisamaya). Towards the middle of the 12 nd cen A.D. the well-known grammarian and rhetorician Hemacandra, the Jain Acarya, wrote the Kavyanusasana to which he added his own Vrtti the Alankaracudamani and the commentary (tika) the Viveka. The work is a sort of a compendium noticing all the topics connected with Poetics and Dramaturgy. In the 12 th cen. A.D. itself Jayadeva wrote the well-known work the Candraloka which discusses Poetics but not Dramaturgy. Saradatanaya (1250 A.D.) wrote the Bhavaprakasana in ten chapters. The work carries a deep imprint of Bharata though it notes the views of other rhetoricians also. Saradatanaya accepts Rasa as the soul of poetry.He is influenced by Bhoja in his treatment of the SrngaraRasa. In the last part of the 13 th cen. A.D. Jain writer of the name of Vagbhata, son of Nemikumara, wrote in Sutra-style the work the Kavyanusasana in five chapters on which he himself wrote the commentary the Alankaratilaka. About the same time Anandayogin wrote the Alankarasangraha which deals with the Alankaras, the figures of speech in extenso. This century also saw the appearance of the Kavitarahasya CCO, Prof. Satya Vrat Shastri Collection, New rahasya atention USA the Kavyakalpalata of Amarasimha and his pupil Amaracandra, the Kavikalpalata

of Devesvara and the Natakalaksanaratnakosa of Sagaranandin. A Reddy Prince Simhabhupala (approx. 1400 A.D.) wrote the Rasarnavasudhakara which in its three chapters treats Rasa and Dramaturgy. About the same time Bhanudatta discussed Rasa in his works the Rasamanjari and the Rasatarangini. In the first half of this very century (14 th cen.) Visvanatha Kaviraja of Odisha wrote the Sahityadarpana, quite a popular work which treats elaborately Poetics and Dramaturgy in its ten chapters. He did not seem to get along well with his predecessor Mammata whom he refers by the term kascit, some one in rejecting his definition of kavya finding fault with each component of it. While drawing upon earlier works for illustration he has chosen to draw on his own works too. The Reddy prince of the Kondabidu family Vemabhupala (1420 A.D.) wrote the Sahityacintamani which in its thirteen chapters treats both the types of figures of speech of word and meaning, the Sabdalankaras and Arthalankaras. In the 16 th cen. A.D. Rupagosvamin wrote the work Ujjvalanilamani that carries illustrations in praise of Lord Krsna. Jivagosvamin wrote a commentary on it under the title Locanarocani. A great devotee, Rupagosvamin added another Rasa, the tenth one, the Bhakti-Rasa, the sentiment of devotion to the list of nine Rasas. In this very century Kesavamisra wrote the Alankarasekhara, the Karika portion of which as per his own admission is by Suddhodani. The same century saw the rise of the star of Poetics Appayadiksita who enriched the discipline of Poetics by his three works the Kuvalayananda, the Citramimamsa and the Vrttivartika of which the former, the best and the most well-known, is based on the fifth chapter of Jayadeva's Candraloka, while the second one is refuted by work the Panditaraja Jagannatha through his Citramimamsakhandana and the third, available at present upto the second chapter only, deals with the Sabdasaktis, the powers of words of Rajacudamanidiksita again of this century, wrote igitized by S 3 Foundation USA

Kavyadarpana on which he himself wrote the commentary Alankaracudamani. The brightest star of this century (1590- 1665 A.D.) is the Telang Brahmana Jagannatha, the favourite of Mughal Emperor Shahjahan who honoured him with the title Panditaraja that got so attached to his name as to become a part of it. He was a poet, the celebrated author of such beautiful works as the Bhaminivilasa, the Gangalahari and so on, a grammarian and a rhetorician all rolled into one. His most noted work is the Rasagangadhara which is treated as one of the most learned of the treatises on Poetics. The beginning of the 18 th cen. A.D. saw the appearance of two works on treatment of Alankaras, the Alankarakaustubha and the Alankarakarnabharana. The Sanskrit literature on Poetics also contains such works wherein their authors have used as illustrations the verses they had composed in praise of their patrons. The Ekavali of Vidyadhara (1300 A.D.) is one such work which was composed by him as an eulogy of his patron Narasimha, the ruler of Utkala and Kalinga. The other works of the same ilk are the Prataparudriyayasobhusana of Vidyanatha with illustrations in praise of the Warangal King Prataparudra; the Camatkaracandrika of Visvesvara with those in praise of Simhabhupala (1400 A.D.), Alankararatnakara of Yajnesvara with those in praise of Raghunatha (1400 A.D.) of Tanjore; the Nanjarajayasobhusana of Abhinava Kalidasa Nrsimhakavi with those in praise of Nanjaraja (second half of the 18 th cen. A.D.), the Ramavarmayasobhusana of Sadasivamakhin (second part of the 18 th cen. A.D.) with those in praise of the Travancore King Ramavarman.