The Kings of Court Epics: The “Free-Poet” vs. The “Conventionally-Tied Poet”

I never thought of court-epic poetry in such depth until this week. I was fully aware of the poet’s genius in the ability to create something that in some way transcends time and place, but unaware of the intricate details that point too much more. For example, the ability fro the poet to write an original poem that stay within the conventions of poetry, the astute awareness of the poet to choose words that do not only fit into his genius work, but also answers back to other poets, and finally the complicated reflection of history, time and place within mahakavya itself. On the three things I have just pointed out the one word that should be mentioned and which allows the poets to complete such complicated tasks is: SANSKRIT. Grammar within Sanskrit studies is one of the most “prestigious occupations” because of its ability to achieve so much in a 50-verse poem.

Smith focuses in on Ananda’s theory of dhvani because this is central to the art of poetry. He argues that poets focused on rasa, as it was well known and each took their own take on it. He shows how Ananda made it clear that rasa was used in both non-dramatic and dramatic poetry, but is used differently in both cases. Most poets choose to focus in on rasa, and they tend to lose the art of dhvani. Anada does on to say that very few have accomplished this through focusing in on the sentiment and developing their sentences around it through the use of dhvani instead of going into it blindly. Smith discusses how Anada looked down upon poets of the New School because they went into poetry blindly as they were filled with feeling and taste or in his words “cultured critics”. I believe that this suggests the great shift of the meaning of aesthetic experience as experienced through an art form as opposed to a religious experience experienced through a poets culture. According to Ananda’s view, poetry is appreciated as an art form because of the composition of the poem through the use of dhvani. In this instance, I believe that the only experience one can gain form this is an aesthetic experience, defined as enjoyment of art form. In contrast, mahakavya’s according to Ananda lack the genius of dhvani, as most “new” poets go into poetry attached to their culture, or having some sort of feeling or taste attached to their being. In my opinion, because of this the authors feelings and culture is expressed through the poem giving rise to something more than just an art form, it becomes an art form imbued with cultural symbols and religious philosophies. As a result the aesthetic experience is no longer an enjoyment of art, but rather an enjoyment of culture and religion. In short, for those versed in the tradition it becomes nothing short of a religious experience.

To conclude, the major point Smith makes is that poets were bound to the conventions of poetry and focused on his work that his own experiences were devalued. His poetry is the works of others, about others with little or no freedom to step outside of these conventions and create something different. In this instance the word universalism is revised. Sanskrit poetry was universal in a limited sense; it applied to the world of poets who were tied to conventions as opposed to universalism in the broader sense, in which poetry is accessible to everyone by virtue of the fact that they are human beings who experienced the major themes (love) to some extent.

There is so much more to discuss in this week readings, but I will leave that for class since this is only suppose to be 500 words.