Blaming the messenger: a controversy in late Sanskrit poetics and its implications

Bronner, Yigal; Tubb, Gary A.

doi:10.1017/s0041977x08000050

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…176 In between there were other such pairs, as Gerow (1977, p. 233) has already noted. On this last pair, see Bronner and Tubb 2008. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Question of Priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Daṇḍin Debate

Bronner

2011

J Indian Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As has been obvious to anyone who has looked at them, there is a special relationship between the two earliest extant works on Sanskrit poetics: Bhāmaha's Kāvyālam : kāra (Ornamenting Poetry) and Dan : d : in's Kāvyādarśa (The Mirror of Poetry). The two not only share an analytical framework and many aspects of their organization but also often employ the selfsame language and imagery when they are defining and exemplifying what is by and large a shared repertoire of literary devices. In addition, they also betray highly specific disagreements regarding the nature and aesthetic value of a set of literary phenomena. It has thus long been clear to Indologists that the two are in conversation with one another, but the nature of the conversation and its directionality have never been determined: Was Bhāmaha responding to Dan : d : in's Kāvyādarśa? Was Dan : d : in making a rejoinder to Bhāmaha's Kāvyālam : kāra? Were the two authors contemporaries who directly interacted with one another? Or was their interaction indirect and mediated through other texts that are no longer extant? Determining the nature of the interrelations between the two authors and their texts may teach us a great deal about the origins of Sanskrit poetics, the direction in which it developed during its formative period, and the way in which some of the disagreements between Dan : d : in and Bhāmaha metamorphosed in later time. By reviewing existing scholarship, considering new evidence, and taking a fresh look at some of the passages that have long stood at the center of this debate, this article sets out to answer the question of the texts' relationship and relative chronology.

show abstract

“…176 In between there were other such pairs, as Gerow (1977, p. 233) has already noted. On this last pair, see Bronner and Tubb 2008. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Question of Priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Daṇḍin Debate

Bronner

2011

J Indian Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…iti cet, vya _ ngya-bhedes : v iti gr : hān : a. nahi vya _ ngya-bhedāh : sarve 'py a-paramitā alam : kāra-prakāra-gos : pade 'ntarbhāvayitum : sakyante. For a similar controversy involving these two scholars see Bronner and Tubb (2008). be inserted as an additional category of rasa, an innovation that had been urged by the Vais : n : ava Goswamins and others.…”

Section: Fearless Observer Fierce Participantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vastutas tu: Methodology and the New School of Sanskrit Poetics

Tubb

Bronner

2008

J Indian Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognizing newness is a difficult task in any intellectual history, and different cultures have gauged and evaluated novelty in different ways. In this paper we ponder the status of innovation in the context of the somewhat unusual history of one Sanskrit knowledge system, that of poetics, and try to define what in the methodology, views, style, and self-awareness of Sanskrit literary theorists in the early modern period was new. The paper focuses primarily on one thinker, Jagannā tha Pan : d : itarā ja, the most famous and influential author on poetics in the seventeenth century, and his relationship with his important sixteenth-century predecessor, Appayya Dīks : ita. We discuss Jagannā tha's complex system of labeling of ideas as ''new'' and ''old,'' the new essay style that he used to chart the evolution of ideas in his tradition, his notion of himself as an independent thinker capable of improving the system created by his predecessors in order to protect its essential assets, and the reasons his critique of Appayya was so harsh. For both scholars what emerges as new is not so much their opinions on particular topics as the new ways in which they position themselves in relation to their system.

show abstract

Appayya Dīkṣita

Bronner

2022

Hinduism and Tribal Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blaming the messenger: a controversy in late Sanskrit poetics and its implications

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

A Question of Priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Daṇḍin Debate

A Question of Priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Daṇḍin Debate

Vastutas tu: Methodology and the New School of Sanskrit Poetics

Appayya Dīkṣita

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About