Critic and Criticism in Sanskrit

P. SRIRAMAMURTI, M. A.
Lecturer in Sanskrit, Andhra University

Similarity of Experience

“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 Kraunchapair in Ramayana, where the sorrow of the surviving Kraunchabird, 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 Sahridayastermed 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 Sahridayain 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 Sahridayagiven in Locanais as follows. A Sahridayais 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.

The Equipment of the Poet and the Critic

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, Vyutpattiand Abhyasa. But the nature of the equipment required for them is not identical. Pratibhais 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

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.

General Trend of Sanskrit Criticism

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–atype of Uparupaka–seemsto be a later one. Many minor poems–Kshudra kavyas–like Udaharana kavya–arecertainly late in origin and hence find a place only in the later treatises on poetics. Champuas a regular composition came into vogue at a later stage. The definitions of Kathaand Akhyayikashow an evolution as per the dates they are found to have been in vogue. Minor varieties offigures of speech came to be added by many authors of Alankaratreatises. 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 Dhuanitheory, the authors have certainly put forth conscious effort in producing their works according to the principles laid down in treatises like Dhuanyalokaand 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 Alankaraand 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 Dhvanyalokaby 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 Dhuanitheory 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.

Scope of Application and Development

There is another great task before the Sanskritists. The principles of criticism evolved by our Alankarikasare not restricted to one literature alone, that is, Sanskrit literature only. The successful application of these principles to Prakritliterature 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.