The role of social context in Saskrit poetics

You’re free to go wandering, holy man.
The little dog was killed today
by the fierce lion making its lair
in the thicket on the banks of the Goda river.



Sheldon Pollock's article "Social Aesthetic and Sanskrit Literary Theory" makes some very insightful points regarding the social fabric as a crucial source for understanding the subtle and complex meanings in Sanskrit poetry. In this self sufficient quatrain that stands without any other context for explanation he details the historical interpretation through centuries of peotic theorists. Beginning with Anandavardhana in his Dhavanayaloka where he introduces the subtle theory of the analysis of dhvani aesthetic suggestion a theory that writers used as the basis for further theory and aesthetic analysis for hundred of years.

Pollocks article however highlights the fact that dispite the remarkable intricacy and subtlety of his theory one important area, that of social discourse, crucial to the theory of suggestion was almost entirely overlooked. Fundamental to the understanding of the implicit meaning (and the true significance) which is inseperable from social context. For example in the above poem the vastudhavani, commands and prohibitions [where the command is in fact a prohibition] the knowledge of the society, its mores and social conventions are the key to understanding the meaning of the contradiction and is not accessible to anyone unfamiliar with the social conventions traditionalized in Prakrit poetry.

These social complexities are clearly described by Pollock by an historical summary of the confusion in interpretation of this poem through the explanation of some of the most prominent Sanskrit poetic theorists through many centuries. To begin he clarifies that in the poem itself there is nothing to tell us this is a woman speaking, that the thicket is a place of rendezvous, that the point of the vers is to keep the mendicant away or any explanation why a lion would be less threatening than a dog.

Based on Anandavardhana's premise other interpretations followed such as Abhinavagupta, Anada's commentator who claimed "these are the words of a certain woman spoken in order to save a trysting place...fromthe intrusions of a mendicant...His waling in that place is a natural activity that has been inhibited by fear of a dog." Abhinava's contemporary Bhoja explains the difference between the implied and implicit meaning as "you are free to wander" is explicit, a prohibition is understood: 'There is a lion in that thicket and since you are afraid even of a dog, don't go there.' The prohibition implies the speaker's rendevous with someone in the thicket by the river' and is understood by the reader.

Mahimabhatta of the next generation of theorists explained more fully in his Vyaktiviveka tht eh logical procedures of inference are entirely adequate to explain the phenomenon of suggestion ant that therefore dhvani was unnecessary. He explains 'A certain woman, hungry for the sweet pleasure of undisturbed lovemaking, has made a rendezvous with some lucky fellow in a deserted forest spot alive with bees attracted by the sweet smelling flowers. There is an ascetic who wanders there to pick the flowers and she percieves his coming to her spot as an impediment to her plans. Being clever, she acts like a simple girl in mentioning to him only the absence of any reason to fear through the death of the dog-though of course she knows full well that lions are vicious creatures-in hope of giving him some good news. And thus by means of a command she brings about a prohibition of his wandering (leaving the issue of where all this knowledge was derived from unsolved).

In Hemacandra (ca 1175) in his Kavyanausasana he interprets the poem as "A certain loose woman is always leaving her house, under the pretext of fetching water fromthe river, in order to meet her lover in a thicket on the bank of the Godavari river. She regards a mendicant as an obstacle inthat he destroys the thicket by gathering flowers [for his worship]. And though she is a clever woman she speaks here like an ingenue: "the dog" that used to harass you whenever you entered our compound was careless and to our good fortune was 'killed" or slaughtered today by "the" well known fierce lion...the lion will not bother you here [in the village] since it is "making its liar" or constantly staying in a thicket on the banks of the Godavari. You may therefore continue to wander without worry...

Here the prohibition is that the mendicant may go to one place but not another a dicussion carried out later by Kamalakara in the 17th c.

All of these examples of historical interpretation are used by Pollock to build his argument for the importance, relevance and necessity to reestablish the importance of social context for the discovery of the true meaning in Sanskrit poetics. Even with the detailed breakdown of the theory of pragmatics such as tone of voice, time, place, persons and so on we are still missing the source of the context in which the poem was rooted. An understanding of the culture through this social context is essential to understand the implied meaning of the verse.

In conclusion on this topic Pollock makes two interesting points. One that despite the great sophistication of the poetic theories in regard to revealing the mechanisms of implication and suggestion they do not make available the information necessary to understand them. In other words regardless of the complexity the pure theory of language such as vrtti offered by Ananda, what is missing is social particulars that would explain what is socially meant in this time and place by the thicket, the illicit rendevous, the attitude in this society towards adultery and so on. It is in terms of this larger social world with its gender pardigms for exampla it was only the woman who organizes adultery therefore the female voice as trickster that the reader becomes the "insider" and confidant of the speaker and the satisfaction of knowing the implied meaning is discovered. This understanding is located in the "permanence predictability the common-sense of the social world that is made all the more permanent, predictable and commonsensical through the poetry."

The final interesting and perhaps debatable point that Pollock makes is that for readers like Ananda the sphere of social or literary convention was one they inhabited too deeply to see." The poetry was understandable through that world but it is a world occluded to theory because it is too far inside consciousness to be rendered an object of consciousness. That literary suggestion is social and sequesters the social from critical inspection. It is on this last point that I would suggest a rousing debate could take place. Particularly in the modern world of intense self analysis and disection of our social and cultural mores it seems almost cavalier to dismiss this area of reality from a fruitful analysis of its parts to derive details of specific characteristics of this society, its values and practices that would lend even greater sophistication to the poetic theory.