________________
Classification of Poetry
783 should cater to different tastes. By 'prthak’ is meant "a-sankirna-vrttibhih". as explained by Tatacarya (pp. 10, ibid). He puts it as : "a-samkirna-vrttibhih ity arthah. ekatra yasya-kasya-cid ekasya prādhānyam itareşām angatvam ity avirodhena mitha upakāryopakāraka-bhāvena vinivesitaiḥ na tu punar ekatra eva sama-prādhānyena dvābhyām bahubhir vā vinivesitair iti." - i.e. it is to abound in different styles and dictions but these should be practiced in a way in which only one style dominates at a time and the rest should look subordinate. All styles should not be used having equal predominance at a time. The idea seems to be that the styles should vary with the moods and emotions depicted in a given situation. The total impression that emerges from this description/definition of the large composition is that it should treat such theme and in such a style that it caters to the taste of the cultured. The hero has to be kept in centre and his triumph over his enemies or opposing forces should be the central effect.
It may be noted that the concepts of samdhis or junctures and rasa or relish are central to dramaturgy also. But we cannot say on oath whether dramaturgy preceded literary criticism for eventhough the earliest available document is the Nātya-śāstra of Bharata which deals with the art of acting, it cannot be said that concepts in dramaturgy necessarily preceded the same in literary criticism because Bharata, at a number of places recommends the use of different devices such as guna or excellence, laksana or marks, alamkāra or figures of speech etc., in viewof "kāvya-rasa” i.e, with reference to the 'rasa' or aesthetic value prevailing in kāwa i.e. poetic composition. So, it is safe not to make bold statements, as is done by the great scholar such as G. T. Deshpande and others, suggesting that poetics or literary criticism was only an off-shoot of dramaturgy.
Having discussed the nature of a big literary composition in verse, Bhämaha picks up prose compositions such as ākhyāyikā and kathā (I. 25, and I. 28). But prior to this he also mentions, what he calls as compositions for representation on stage through acting - i.e. abhineyártha, and the varieties enumerated are 'nātaka', 'dvi-padi, 'samyā', 'vāsaka', 'skandhaka', etc. He leaves aside discussing the nature of these varieties that are meant for acting on the stage, with the words - "ukto'nyais tasya
tarah”- the varieties and sub-varieties of these compositions made for acting, are discussed by others (elsewhere). Obviously Bhāmaha seems to keep away from considering what may be called "drsya-kavya" i.e. poetry to be seen or represented on the stage, and suggests that others - may be Bharata and his likes - have discussed the same and he is in no mood to discuss the same. Perhaps he wants to keep away from dramaturgy though of course, drama also for him, is a variety of ‘kāvya'.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
