Poetry

Poetry, it is admitted by every body, is one of the fine arts. Tolstoy takes the definition of art as the external manifestation, by means of lines, colours, movements, sound or words, of emotions felt by man’ given by Veron and adds that it must be effective as well. This is comprehensive enough to include every one of the fine arts of which dance, music and poetry are of one category, in that they may not have a permanent form. Poetry was originally sung and heard but not written and read. Man, as that great philosopher Aristotle says, is a social animal and the most essential requisite for a social life is the communication of feelings and ideas to one another. That could be done in three ways, when writing was not yet known, namely, by bodily signs including facial expressions, by various cries with tonic modulations and by the use of words. There is an increase in range though a decrease in depth, from the former to the latter, in their capacity as modes of expression. That is to say the facial expression, as a frown, or the bodily movement, as a shrug, can be useful only when the parties are very near, and even then, they are expressive of only a limited number of primary and simple emotions. On the other band, the cries would be effective to even a distance and can reveal a wider range of emotions. Words, of course, with their conventional meanings, have the widest range. Thus each latter is more extensive in its operation than the former. But at the same time it may be noted that what is gained in extension is lost in intension. The facial expression is a better index, than the cry, of an emotion, because possibly it is more universal. Of the three, the word is the least universal as it is dependent upon the knowledge of the particular language or the conventional system. Of these three means of expression of emotion, the first two were already in use even in the animal life, and man is the inventor of the last one. The advantage of the word is that it is, among other things, the best, if not the only, means for the communication of knowledge, which consists primarily of ideas, as distinct from feelings and emotions. Art is, as we have seen, the effective transmission of emotions and feelings, as opposed to the communication of ideas, which is the province of science. In other words, it is emotional and not intellectual; it is concerned with the heart and not so much with the head. Again it is not mere intimation but infection, if one may use that word. That is where it differs from the ordinary business. In Art, the emotion is not intended to be intellectually perceived, but it is intended to be sympathetically lived. Now then, when the transmission of a feeling is done through a word, as in poetry, there is first the transformation of the ‘feeling’ into ‘idea’, which is expressed through a sound symbol, which is decoded again at the other end. It is a long process and the feeling would lose much of its freshness and intensity by the time it reaches the other end. That is why, in many cases, it is proving unable to recall the experience in the hearer. But in the case of music, the emotion flows out, without much of an intellectual intervention of the voluntary (human) agency, and acts directly upon the heart, the seat of emotions, without the necessity of passing through the medium of the hearer’s head, as the message is not sent in code. That is to say, music speaks in the language of the beast, and poetry in the language of the head. So it is that, as an art, music is more effective and quick in action in kindling emotions than poetry; and this absolute truth is clearly noticed by the ancient seers, who announced,

Sangitam atha Sahityam
Sarasvatyah stanadvayam;
Ekam apatamadhuram
Anyad alochanamrutam.’

For one, the medium is Nada or sound, and for the other, Pada or word.

Before a discussion of poetry is taken up, I like to say one or two things about music. It is given the status of a Veda as Gandharva and it is called ‘Sangitam’ by the Oriental scholars. ‘Sangitam’ etymologically means well-sung. It is said to be a synonym of Tauryatrika which literally means the triune with the Turiya. The lexicographer Amarasimha says “Tauryatrikam nrutta giro vadyam Natyamidam Trayam”that is to say that Tauryatrika is the triune of dance, song and orchestra, the three organs relating to a drama. But this interpretation appears to be a development long after the advent of Bharata, who established the dramatic art–Natya–which comprehended not only Music Sangitam, and Dance Nrutyam, but also poetry. The original meaning of the term Sangita appears to be the triune of vocal song with the accompaniment of Tambour and drum representing the Raga, Tana (Sruti) and Tala (Laya) aspects respectively. This can be gathered from Kalidasa’s Meghasamdesam 1.60 which runs thus:

Sabdayante madhuram anilaih kichakah puryamanah
Samsaktabhi stripuravijaye giyate kinnaribhih
Nirhrada ste muraja iva chef kandareshu dhvani ssyat
Sangitardho nanu Pasupateh tatra bhavi samagrah.

Here there is no reference to dance, the three things mentioned being Kichakadhvani, Murajadhvani and the Gitam. Therefore, I venture to say, with all respect for the wide learning of the great Mallinatha, that he might have fallen into the popular error that was current from the days of Amarashnha, when he comments ‘Pasupateh nithyam Sannihitasya Sivasya–Nrutyata iti seshah’. Dance is a quite distinct art from music and poetry and was developed from the physical expression as the other two were developed from tonal and verbal expressions. It is called Nritya as distinct from Natya which is a dramatic performance.

‘Chaturvidhai rabhinayaih satvikangikapurvakaih
Dhirodattadyavasthanukrutir natyam rasasrayam
Bhavasrayamtu nrutyam syat nruttam talalayanvitam’

says Prataparudra Yasobhushanam. (See the commentary of Kumaraswami also). But in course of time dance itself was begun to be called, obviously erroneously, as Natya, as when a performance in ‘Bharata Natyam’ is announced. So also here a mistake has crept into the terminology or rather into the explanation of the term. It was only after the development of the three modes of expression into the three different arts of dancing Nrutyam, music Sangitam, and poetry Sahityam, that it was found to be more effective to unite them into one comprehensive Art of Dramaturgy, Natyam. Art is skill and the different means of transmission of emotions which arise out of social necessity were skillfully handled by capable persons, so as to yield the maximum effect, so as to recall the same emotions in the recipient and not merely to give an intimation of them, turned into art to adorn the life; and the latest of them is poetry.

Now, what is poetry? It is an art in words or a literary art. ‘It takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility’, says Wordsworth, but Mill appears to differ from him when he says ‘What is poetry, but the thoughts and words in which emotion spontaneously embodies itself’. But the difference is only apparent, because Wordsworth has not completed his sentence but continues, ‘the emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquility gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind.’ Thus even according to Wordsworth, the poet, at the time of writing, has to lose his tranquillity and has to work himself up to the original emotion and has to be, in the words of Mill, ‘possessed by the feeling.’ A poet is thus one who is inspired and poetry is nothing but the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings,’ as Wordsworth puts it, in words. The general notion of the English critic is that poetry has always the form of verse or the aid of meter and is something other than prose. Thus it is that Shelley proclaims that ‘the language of poets has ever affected a certain uniform and harmonious recurrence of sound, without which it were not poetry.’ Leigh Hunt also says that ‘Verse is the final proof to the poet that his mastery over the art is complete.’ Here, it may be noted that the viewpoint of the Sanskrit critic is quite different, for he says that prose is the touchstone of poetry (Gadyam Kavinam Nikasham Vadant–Vamana). However, in what Leigh Hunt says, there is an implied acceptance of prose as also poetry. But the popular use of the terms prose and poetry, in juxtaposition to each other, points our the general trend of equating poetry with verse. But, when Carlyle says, that ‘Whatsoever is not sung is properly no poem’, he should not be taken to be echoing the popular error, because what he actually means is something different, as is evident from the rest of the sentence which runs ‘but a piece of prose cramped into jingling lines.’ He means merely that poetry is spontaneous and he puts the same in clearer terms when he says ‘Poetic creation, what is this too, but seeing the thing sufficiently! The word, that will describe the thing, flows of itself from such clear intense sight.’ Wordsworth, as has been noticed already, speaks of ‘contemplation’, and Carlyle speaks of ‘seeing’. They are thinking of two distinct sources of inspiration for the poet. The stimulus may be objective or subjective, either to be ‘seen’, or to be ‘contemplated’, but one thing is sure, namely that the poet has got to react and give himself up to the emotion, has got to be ‘possessed’ by it and to live the experience and be filled with it, before we can expect any overflow from him, which can really thrill us. The words may come in measured feet or not, that does not matter. But one thing can be asserted, that the more probable it is, that it takes some form of rhythmical flow, that the words would play in measured feet, would dance, so to say. For, as has been already stated, music has the advantage of directly affecting the heart, and as such, the words set to tune would naturally, ‘without passing through the judgment, gain the heart, and all its end at once gained’-pope. There lies the nucleus of truth around which grew the popular fallacy. Thus, though the meter or the musical element has its own part in the poetic art, the importance of the ‘word’ should not be subordinated, lest it may cease to be poetry and become music. Poetry, is essentially an art in words.

The Sanskrit Alankarikas included both prose and verse in the term poetry when they defined it either as ‘ Sahrudaya h,udayahladakari sabdarthamayatvameva kavyalakshanam’ as ‘Rasatmakam vakyam kavyam’ as ‘Ramaniyarthapratipadakah sabdah kavyam’ and when they finally categorised it into verse, prose and mixed types. Even when it is said that the emotion must overflow, it only means that it should be very intensive and not that the poet should absolutely lose his control. If the emotion takes the upper hand–becomes uncontrolled–the expression would necessarily be music, and not poetry, emotional sounds and not meaningful words. Therefore in poetry there is always an element of will. But the greater the control, the more it is likely, that the form it takes is prose. Nevertheless true poetry must embody itself ‘in symbols which are the nearest possible representations of the feeling’ as Mill has it, and the words, which are mere symbols as their meanings are but conventional, are to be so used as to lead on to the feeling proper over and beyond the convention. This is done by ‘suggestion’ or hinting at the associated ideas something akin to the process of a conditioned reflex. This is what is called Vyangya by the Sanskrit Alankarikas and it came to reign supreme in the field of literary criticism from the day it was established by Anandavardhana.

According to Anandavardhana Dhwani or Vyangya or suggestion is the Sahrudaya hrudayahladakari kavyatatvam and it is of three types Vastu, Alamkara and Rasabhavadi, that is to say, incident, ornament (figure of speech) and sentiment (emotion and feeling). He asserts in many places, that of these three, the last variety is the best, which point was taken up and developed in his theory of literary art by Viswanadha. As poetry is the effective expression of emotion in words, it is but meet to think that the suggestion of sentiment is alone poetry. But still Anandavardhana could not boldly state so. His commentator, Abhinavagupta, tries to find a reason for the statement of Ananda, that suggestion in general is the soul of poetry, in the following words: ‘Tena rasa eva vastuta alma. vastvalankara dhvaneetu sarvadha rasam prati paryavasyete iti vachya dutkrustau tavityabhiprayena dhwanih kavyasyatmeti samanyenoktam. But as a matter of fact it does not appear to be the correct explanation. It is true that for a drama, sentiment or emotion alone was held to be the essence and so Bharata, who was mainly concerned with the dramatic art, could say that the emotion is the soul of art (drama). But Ananda was concerned with Sargabandha more and the authors there of were not always dealing with emotion alone as he himself puts it ‘Sargabandhestu rasatatparye yadharasam auchityam anythatu kamacharah; dvayorapi margayoh sargabandha vidhayinam darsanat.’ There we find the real reason for his definition in a general and wider strain. He wanted to include the Vastu Kavya as well as Bhava Kavya in his definition of poetry, though he was neither logical nor rational in that. Anyway, it may be noted that this idea, of suggestion being the central principle, is accepted by the Western critics. Martin Gilkes says, in his book entitled ‘A Key to Modern English Poetry’, that the old idea of representation has given place to the new theory of communication in poetry and accordingly, the old method of direct presentation has been replaced by the new technique of indirect suggestion. ‘We all know how one thing suggests another. That is the technique of evocation’ says the same critic at one place, and at another he says, ‘Logically, therefore, we may observe, the ideal poem would, consist of a single word, supposing you could find one, which would fulfill the necessary condition of suggesting both the subject of the poem and the whole range of associations which the mind connects with it.’ Of course it should be that the subject is expressed and the associations suggested; these are two distinct functions of the word as is clearly noticed by the Sanskrit critic.

Now, as to the content of poetry, the later Sanskrit critics were unanimous on this point, namely, that emotion is the essence of poetry. The emotion is of two types: primary and secondary; or permanent and transcendent. The permanent emotion is given the technical name of Sthayi Bhava and the transient emotions are called Sanchari Bhavas. The ideal of a poet is to represent or communicate the Sthayi Bhava by depicting the appropriate associate transient emotions. Mill also endorses this view when he says that the poetry of poets ‘is little else than a pouring forth of the thoughts and images that pass across the mind while some permanent state of feeling is occupying it’. Thus it can be said that any poetic piece has got to have not only a unity of plot or incident but also a unity of emotion or sentiment as Anandavardhana puts it ‘Karyamekam yatha vyapi prabandhasya vidhiyate tatha rasasyapi vidhe virodho naiva vidyate.’ The emotion is only suggestible and not expressible. Having been suggested, it conjures up in a sympathetic hearer, a similar emotion which would give relish. In this, in the words of T. G. Williams, ‘Each member of the audience will bring his own conscious or sub-conscious memories to help.’ This is exactly what Kalidasa has suggested in the lines ‘Tat chetasa smarati nunam abodhapurvam bhavasthirani jananan tara sauhrudani.’ The Rasa as thus enjoyed, is relish and as represented, is relishability, and the production of that relish is the typical feature of poetry.

What then are the essentials of a true poet? It is again Mill, that divides poets into two classes, namely the poets of nature and the poets of culture, and says that the former are superior to the latter. This corresponds to the discussion of the same topic by Jagannadhapandita. Even Dandi hints at this when he writes ‘Na vidyate yadyapi purvavasanagunanubandhi prathibhanam adbhutam srutena yatnena cha vagupasita dhruvam karotyeva kamapyanugraham.’ Note the significance of cha which makes study and practice together one course and Eva and Kamapi which indicate that it, in any way, makes only a second rate poet. Anandavardhana also expresses a similar opinion when treating of Sakti or Pratibha and Vyutpatti. Bhatta Tonta is said to have stated that ‘Darsanat varnana chchatha rudha loke kavi srutih’ and it means that a poet must have the insight, leading to the heights of emotion and the expression, reaching to the depths of feeling. The one is a gift and the other is an acquisition. So a perfect poet is one who has in him both these qualities developed to the full. If he were to lack the former, his work would be wanting in the spirit of poesy, and if he lacks the latter, it would be devoid of the look of poetry.

Then, finally, coming to the end of poetry. The general view of the Western critic is that it is nothing but the production of joy or delight. Some have said that poetry is to delight and to teach. It is, of course, Wordsworth who affirms that the purpose of poetry is ‘to describe objects,’ and utter sentiments, of such a nature, and in such connection with each other, that the understanding of the reader must necessarily be in some degree enlightened, and his affections strengthened and purified.’ This is quite similar to the estimate of the Eastern critic who, in the words of Bhamaha, proclaims the purposes of poetry as ‘Chaturvargabhidhanepi bhuyasarthopadesakrit.’ The aim of every activity according to oriental thought is to elevate humanity, i.e., to instruct, and the art of poetry is no exception to the rule. The special feature of it lies only in the method it adopts which is described by Mammata in the words ‘kantasammitataya Upadesayuje.’It is not to delight and to teach but to teach through delight. ‘Visvasreyah Kavyam’ exclaims the great poet and Sreyah is clearly distinguished from Preyah by the Kathopanishad and it is that, that is the end of all poetry.