Photo by Álvaro Serrano on Unsplash

There was a time when discussions on poetics were limited to a discussion of technical issues i.e. what should be the treatment of poetry and literature? What should be its basic elements? And how should its limits be defined? But to encounter these issues, matters of eloquence were mostly discussed. Studies on prosody were focused and reflective themes were sidelined, as though the limits of poetics were almost fixed. In studies of prose, poetics found limited space. This is the reason that in ancient manuscripts, artistic skills were taken in account rather than ideas. But as time kept on changing, meaning and connotation of poetics kept on expanding. It is a matter of dispute now to determine its domain. In “The new encyclopedia of poetry and poetics”* by Alex Preminger* and T. V. F. Brogan*, the elucidation of Western and Eastern poetics are placed in separate sections. It is written in the entry of Western poetics that poetics* i.e. the poetics of West now comprises any such act that a human being commits and thus its domain becomes the domain of theory. The works of writers are looked at through this lens. One example is from Fyodor Dostoevsky* that those points were raised in debates on his writings which have the stature of principle*. It means that they are related principally to principles. It is not written herein that what is the scope of these principles? But here, there is a word implicit* and the meaning of this word is that it should be perfect to the extent that it can be trusted but in its implications tacitly some particular element is expressed. Thus along with conviction, supplementary points have been included in its domain as well. It can be assessed then that debate on poetics has been liquefied in the West now. Now it is related to the extrinsic* as well as the intrinsic* regulation. This means that it can be or have been debated between the two but sometimes it is expressed in clear words that poetics is a literary theory which is paving the path for literary discourse. It seems that this point of view is more credible in the West. But in every respect, the importance of the word literary can be understood which means that if ideas are discussed, even then it is not possible to forget their literary side. It is obvious that here a tendency of differentiating between literary and nonliterary is becoming evident. This implies that if theory is related more to the literary, only then poetics can be elucidated. But there are certain critics who are not willing to differentiate between nonliterary and literary. The current situation is such that the involvement of texts has also started which can be related to the verbal or the nonverbal and have the concept of a lesson inherent to it. Writer of the entries of poetry says that Aristotle had the same concept and he placed the foundations of his poetics on drama. And now in the twentieth century, Jakobson* is considered to be the protagonist of this theory. Actually this concept started with the downfall of genres which were of much importance in the West and now are marginalized. It is the result of such debates that now Turkish poetics are being discussed. Northrop Frye* writes that, “Poetics is actually a theory of criticism, elucidation of which can be found in Anatomy 22.” Thus the directions of literary theory are determined from here. However, this has also been made clear that whatever may be the situation, poetics is in actuality a theory of poetry. From here its estrangement from prose arises but now when prose writings are also being placed in the category of poetics, then the scope of poetry in interpretations will have to be expanded. The concepts of Northrop Frye will also have to be amended. But under any circumstances, one word that has been used is literary*. A longer discussion is required to explain it which is not needed here. Everyone knows about Aristotle that he was an Idealist and his Idealism did not mean more than what metrical forms* meant in debate on poetics. In his works, the concept of mimesis* becomes central, but he does not leave this imitation on its own and considers it essential as being a near to life element of drama. If this was not the case, why would he have started discussion on mimesis? Such texts which are metrical but which do not reflect any motive, then they may be considered as being outside the domain of poetry. Thus he calls Empedocles* as metrical History, not poetry. Therefore for him, according to his concepts, poetry has a clear motive which has little relation with Forms*It will be discussed in detail later where Aristotle’s theory of poetics will be debated on. However, everyone knows that as far as poetry is concerned, Aristotle is bestowed with some power. Therefore both Sidney and Shelley emphasize on it that poetry can be done in prose (we should keep today’s prose poetry in mind). The problem here is that such prose should be of the stature that it can compete with real poetry. That is why a large treasure of poetry devoid of poetic elements has been excluded from poetry. They writer of these entries also pointed out that for Wallace Stevens*, poetry is not crafted by poetic language only but it is something else. But Longinus never forgets the flight of imagination along with new insights of poetic concepts. Such prose which has a place of thought and imagination along with poetic feelings, though it may be prose but it will be considered as poetry. I am quoting an excerpt of English below which will clear some concepts of Western poetics. It is a long excerpt but inevitable:

“The opposing view is that verse form matters, that form makes an irrevocable difference to poetry. The 5th-c Sophist, Gorgias, in the defense of Helen, holds that poetry is but one language use among several for persuasion (or delusion): the differentia is the verse form. Subsequent critics who take verseform to be not ornamental but constitutive have included Scaliger, Coleridge, Jakobson, and the Rus, and Am, formalists (see verse and prose). Such critics recognize the additional resources afforded for expression of transcendent thought, imagination, or insight by increased pattern or design, in aural prosody, and by strategies of deployment is visual prosody. Jakobson in his 1958 white paper on ‘Linguistics and p. ‘asserts that p. ‘deals primarily with the question. ‘what makes a verbal message a work of art?’ ‘His answer, which is the Rus. Formalist answer, is that self- referentiality-the ‘poetic function’ –is the one characteristic of poetic lang. Admittedly, this function also operates in other patterned forms of speech such as political slogans and advertising jingles (‘I like Ike’). But in other lang-use, sound patterning is secondary, whereas in poetry it is made’ the constitutive device of the sequence’ (see Prosody). Prose, ‘where there is no dominant figure of sound, ‘Jakobson likens to ‘transitional’ linguistic forms. Pace Aristotle, the overwhelming majority of critics and readers in the history of the world’s poetries have believed that verse form is an essential differentia of poetry which enables effects not otherwise obtainable in prose.

P., then, is in the most specific sense a systematic theory of poetry. It attempts to define the nature of poetry, its kinds and forms, its resources of device and structure, the principles that govern it, the functions that distinguish it from other arts. The conditions under which it can exist, and its effects on readers and auditors. The term itself derives from the title of Aristotle’s work on verbal making, peri piotike-fragmentary and perhaps only lecture notes to begin with-which is the prototype of all later treatises on the art of poetry, formal or informal (e.g. Horace, Dante, Sidney, Shelly, Valery).

There have been two formal models produced within the past half-century which pertain to p. the most comprehensive taxonomy, given by Abrams in 1953 (see poetry, theories of),posits a model which has four orientations poetic theories may take: toward the work itself (objective or formalist theories). toward the audience (pragmatic or affective theories), toward the world (mimetic of realistic theories), and toward the poetic creator (expressive or romantic theories). All literary theorists recognize these orientations; they only disagree about their respective valuations. The communication model mapped by Jakobson, more complex but not essentially different in its premises from Abrams’, identifies six components of any verbal discourse: the transactional continuum of course runs from speaker (poet) through message (text) to audience (auditor, reader), but the text itself must also comprise the context, contact type, and code (lang). which makes it possible. For Jakobson like most others it is the nature of the code which is the major issue: it is lang. which has been the model and trope for the major intellectual inquiries in the 20th c.”* [1]

It is not worth explaining anymore that poetics is such a theory of poetry which has to be organized and coherent. Here P stands for poetics. But Western poetics adopted many new perspectives and through amalgamation of many new theories of evolutionary states, have instilled changes in the constitution of poetics. Now West does not seem to be moving in one direction only. Newer concepts and thoughts have adopted newer forms of expression and narration. Therefore the scope of theory of poetics is getting expanded. The onslaught of theory has created many new moulds of thoughts and ideas. Now poetics has to keep its relation intact with these moulds as well. Therefore its fluid condition is becoming intense day by day. It can be said that involvement of subjectivism has also started in Western poetics, though it has tried to sustain its temperament of objectivism. There is a collision of two schools of thought here as well. One is that which strives to bring poetry to the level of science. In this regard, there are linguists as well along with people of classical temperament who insist on its objectivity for example Russian formalists or American structuralists or people of other places who are related to linguistics and structuralism. Whereas critics of the other school of thought, for instance I. A. Richards or proponents of neo-criticism do not want that poetics should be treated as science. They are of the view that when any idea becomes an experiment only then it enters or can enter the realm of poetry.

Now one problem arises as regards to poetry and also poetics, that if there is any final elucidation or explanation of any piece of poetry possible?  Can its meaning and connotation be determined once and for all? Can different readers extract the same meaning after reading a couplet or a poem? Will poetry carry the same meaning to every reader? Answer to this is probably no. Now the thing that is emphasized is the fluid state of word and meaning and this state is not the same for all readers. A couplet can produce diverse interpretations for different circles, people and times (or the same era and time) and this is also about everyday experience and observation. In these circumstances, it is now not so meaningful that any principle of poetics would stay permanent and unshakeable. And now, structuralism, post-structuralism as well as postmodern literary trends has changed the world of Western poetics altogether and this change is impacting different languages and literatures in different ways around the globe. This will be discussed in detail in later arguments.

Now it is to be seen that what has been the concept of poetics in the East? In this regard, I am turning towards Eastern scholars. I have TN Srikantaiah* book “Indian Poetics”* in view which is translated into English by N. Bala Subrahmanya*. It is written in the introduction* that Ramayana by Valmiki is the first poem written in Sanskrit, though Indian poetry started long before that. There were many poems in view of Aryans which narrate eulogy for gods. Not only this, but Upanishad is also an example of good poetry. Shreekantaiya has quoted an excerpt of Sanskrit which means that Shiva taught poetry to sixty four students including Brahma and Vishnu. 

Kavia Pursh, who was Saraswati’s child, was Brahma’s student. He gave awareness to those who had poetic virtue about 18 sections of poetry. Sahasraksha* is amongst them and he emphasized on the importance of mysticism in poetry. Uktigarbha* explained the importance of the relation between word and meaning, whereas Suvarna Nabha* gave instructions on style. Prachetayana*, Chitrangada* and Sesha* elaborated many elements of eloquence. In a similar fashion, Pulastya*, Arupa Kayana* and Parasara*, as well as Utathya* also gave details of some matters related to eloquence. Kubera* elaborated on rhetorical devices. Kamadev* taught civilized citizens about essentials of recreation. Bharata* gave awareness about bliss of dramatics. Nandikesvara* attempted to give awareness of richness. Dhishana* and Upamanyu* elucidated on many aspects of defects and craft respectively. Kuchamara* told about different ways to worship. It is assessed by these details that what was the ancient concept about poetics and there were so many aspects which remained part and parcel of Eastern poetics, especially Sanskrit poetics. It means that on one hand, in debate on poetics, mysticism is discussed and on the other hand, relation of word and meaning also stays in mind. Not only that style and manner were also discussed but also nearly all important crafts of eloquence were highlighted through different norms. I feel that debates of poetics in the East have been very worthy and today as well, despite many changes by ancient scholars, many principles and rules not only stayed in our mind but also they were followed. Because Sanskrit poetics has remained the backbone of Indian languages, therefore it is important to keep debates of ancient scholars in view regarding meaning and connotation of poetics. It is evident by the affairs that have been pointed out above that what are the limits of Eastern poetics? And through which angles ancient scholars wanted to view them? Obviously from amongst the points that have been stated above, many are still being discussed, for example the mysticism of poetry, mutual relation of word and meaning and style and manner. These are the clauses of poetics even today. It can be said that wherever special emphasis will be given to Sanskrit poetics, it will be inevitable to go in its details. Although I feel that if Urdu, Persian and Arabic are separated, then the basis of other Indian languages is the same poetics which is inspired by Sanskrit poetics. Though changes have been taking place according to time and circumstances, which were inevitable. 

Here I want to draw attention towards Kama Sutra* by Vatsyayana*. He compiled a list of crafts from which he elaborated symbols of sixty four. For this purpose, lexicon* and prosody* were considered a part of composing poetry. Here it is evident that to an extent, poetry is taken as science of nature in Kama Sutra. Here I just want to add that the word kriya kalpa is used. Its continuance does not seem to break and evidence of its usage can be found till Christian era.

In Sanskrit poetics, Ocular* is also discussed which is called Rupaka* and natak [2] is one of its forms. Metaphors and similes will be discussed later. Here I just want to say that in poetics it has been emphasized since the beginning. All including Bhamaha*, Udbhata*, Vamana* and Rudrata* use it. These will also be discussed in detail in debates on Sanskrit poetics. Anyhow it is clear that some principles of Sanskrit poetics kept on being used in other languages of India despite the change of era. Thus Sanskrit poetics is now known as Indian poetics. Although in this regard, the realm of Urdu and Persian poetics has remained separate which will be discussed in detail shortly. But there are some aspects which reached as tradition to other languages passing through Sanskrit poetics and assisted in shaping their poetics. They were also related to Western thought, which we will discuss at some other time. 

I was saying that poetics of Urdu, Persian and Arabic remained different from the expressions of Sanskrit poetics, although some similarities can be and have been found in both. In new circumstances, there is such amalgamation that East and West are becoming one in manner and sensibility of poetics. But it cannot be said that their essence is becoming one. Even then there are some things that should be kept in mind. In the formation of Eastern and Western poetics, their own assets as well as other external factors were effective. And it cannot be decided about both which poetics will be preferred or will be considered better according to its value. Shams-ur-Rehman Farooqi wrote incidentally in the first volume of “Sher-e-Shor Angaiz” that stages have been discussed in structuralism and also in ancient Sanskrit and Arabic poetics.

Ananda Vardhan and Tadaraf both agree that the function of words is of many types. A saying by structuralist critics that poetics is actually a “theory of reading”*, resembles the concept by ancient Arabs that there can be many ways of reading a text. He has pointed out that Western scholars have written a lot about meaning. Many of those have also been stated by Jurjani, Skaki, Anand Verdhan and others. I will discuss these matters where a few examples of comparative poetics will be presented. I feel that what Gopi Chand Narang has written about eloquence, semantics and narration with regards to “Behr-ul-Fasahat”, is the backbone of Eastern criticism, especially with reference to Arabic, Urdu and Persian. I am quoting an excerpt from his book “Sakhtiyat, Pas-e-Sakhtiyat or Mashriqi Sheriyat.[3]

In many books of poetics, knowledge and meaning have secondary value and some writers did not even bother to debate on it separately. In “Behr-ul-Fasahat” which is a comprehensive rather encyclopedic book of poetics in Urdu, the first section is about prosody which discusses six parts. Second section is on rhyming which comprises five parts. Semantics is debated upon in the third section and this section is actually also on eloquence and expression. One section is on semantics, second is about narration and third one is about rhetorical devices. In short semantics is discussed after nearly three hundred and fifty pages of technical debates on prosody and rhyming. The main reason for secondary status of semantics is on one hand is the hegemony of technical issues related to prosody and rhyming in Eastern tradition and on the other hand traditionally all implication of semantics has remained a part of eloquence. Although some scholars have kept semantics to simple words and debates on meaning of sentence or poetic meanings has been spread in rhetoric. However this is evident that debates on semantics have not been given such importance which has been given to prosody, rhyming or eloquence and rhetoric. [4]

The debates that arise about the Eastern and Western concepts of poetics are based on these points. Firstly, what is poetry and what is its essence? What is its relation with human beings? And apart from feelings and emotions, what is its relation with other such virtues? What is imagination? What is experiment and observation? What are the features of poetry i.e. how imagination, words and other such aspects take the form of poetry? Can poetry be defined? If it is possible then which aspect has been emphasized till now? What is the purpose of poetry? Where does its soul lie? What is its relation with aesthetics? What is its generalization? What is tradition and what is the meaning of poetic innovation? What is the reality of elements of craft? Are these permanent or can these be permanent? These are the elements of poetics and also this question to what extent falsehood, plagiarism and other negative elements can interfere in poetry? A clear concept of poetics arises by throwing light on these aspects. In the next pages when discussion will be carried out on poetics of different Western and Eastern languages, details of the mentioned writers will be shared. This brief narration is actually the first step towards understanding poetics.