Assignment: Paper E-C- 205.

Topic: What is Comparative Literature? A Comparative Study of 'Natyashastra' and 'Poetics'.

Students Name: Pooja N. Trivedi,

Roll No – 20,

M. A. Part – I, Semester –II,

Batch Year – 2010-2011,

Submitted To –  Dr. Dilip Barad

                          Department of English,

                          Bhavnagar University,

                           Bhavnagar.

             Comparative literature is inherently a difficult term to define. The difficulty arises from the vast and uncertain territory the discipline is covering and from the already controversial nature of the two words constituting its name. It can be and often is an extremely confusing term. Its constitutions alone are prone to many controversies concerning their meaning. Essentially “to compare is a kind if day-to-day activity in which one involves without being aware of that. It is the act of putting together two or more object and revealing their resemblances and difference. On the other hand, any literary analysis is essentially the same. Hence every literary study is necessarily “corporatist” to some extent.

               However, many scholars and corporatist have tried to set certain view points, and definitions of comparative literature. They all agree on one point that comparative literature implies a study of literature which use comparison as it s main instrument. The question confronts here are. What is comparative study? What is the object of study? How can comparison be the object of anything what might a comparative cannot be what to compare? It is discipline?

              The simplest answer is what given by Susan Bassnet in her essay ‘what is comparative literature today?’ in her book ‘Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction’ [1993].

 “Comparative Literature involves the study of texts acres cultures that is interdisciplinary and that is concerned with the pattenrs of connection in literature across both time and place.”

            Comparative Literature endeavors in the first place, to discover general laws which transcend any one literature, such as the development of types and forms under the progressive relationship of different literatures. In the second place, it seeks to reveal relation of affinity within two or more literatures. Finally, though the discovery of similarities and differences by means of comparison, it endeavors to explain the inception and growth of individual works. That is like all scientific studies of literature.

            One step ahead and Henry Remark propounds to widen the horizons and tells about the  scope of comparing literature with other disciplines. As he puts in,

            “Comparative literature is the study of literature beyond the confines of one particular country, and the study of the relationship between literature on one hand and other areas of knowledge and belief such as the arts, the sciences, religion etc.”

            However, the surfeit of practice of comparative literature, the most essential aspect, to such an extent that a critic like Henry Levin complained “we spend far much of our energy talking about comparing the literature”, Hence following this view and taking into consideration some distinct view points in the assignment. I have tried to present a comparative study of two different literary theories. The principal aim is to confront the rival theories of criticism WESTERN AND INDIAN with a view to drawing conceptual parallel and difference s between them with special reference to Bharat Muni’s ‘Natyashashtra’ and Aristotle’s  poetics.  

            In the assignment I have tried to some compare two different books of literary theories from Western and Indian poetics. To start with, literary criticism in India is often traced back to the earliest known works in Sanskrti like the Vedas or the Itihasas, but a system atic exposition of the principles of poetics is said to being with works like Bharat Muni’s Natyasastra . Literary criticism in the West similarly may be tracced  back to the earliest Homeric hymans, while a systematic study starts with the writings of Plato and Aristothe . Thus it may be said that in both place the period of its development covers more than two thousand years.

A comparative study of these two traditions reveals Three types of relationship.

1.Similarities and Parallelisms

2.Divergences and Contradictions

3.Differences which can be mutually complementary.

  Among the similarities , in both Indian and western systems, very often both Indian and western systems, very often the concepts and terms used in certicism are adapted from religion or ethics or metaphysics . ‘ Natyasastra’ holds that the dramatic art was invented by the creator of the world , that is , brahma In the same way one cannot understand the full implications of Aristotle ‘s writings without taking into account the various systems of Greek philosophy .This interconnectedness is a basic point of similarity . In fact the very dialogue from  used both in Indian and in Western works reveal active involvement .’Poetics’ is aesthetics in relation to poetery or literature in general.’Natyasastra’too is basically concerned with the fundamentals of art , although it devotes some attention to the details of the process.

The Greek word poet means maker and goes well with the Sanskrit notion of a poet as prajapati. The prophetic power associated with the poet in such expressions as ‘ Kavi Kantadarsi and ‘ nanrishi kavi’ is also convered by the Latin word for the poet , Vates , meaning seer of forser. Thus ,this notion of the poet as semi-divine is same if both theories.

Secondly,Western classical critics have held that the function of poetry is to provide pleasure along with moral in struction for instance Dryden speaks,

“Delight is the chief yet not only the function of literature”.

They believe that ‘Poesy is an art of imitation , for so Aristotle term art of imitation , for so Aristotle term in the word Mimesis , is ,a representing figuring forth to speak metaphoricaly a speaking picture; with this end, to teach and delight’.

On the subject of the funcation of poetery,Indian aestheticians too have the same refrence .Natyasastna says that drama or natya which presents the gods , demons , kings of other people enhances our knowledge and will give enterainment.

“Uttamadmamamadhynam

Naranam Karmasamrayam

Hitopadesajanam

Natyametat bhavisyati

-------------

Dukharttnam sramarttanam

Sokarttanam tapasvinam

Visrantijnanam kale

Natyametat bhavisyati.”

           In Indian poetics the concepts of Hitopadesajnanam[instruction]and visrantijananam[relief]along with Vinodajananam[entertainment]seem to continue the aim end function of art.

            The dramatic theory in the ‘poetics’ can be said to consist of four principals of ancient classificatory system. First, the concept of mimesis, which is common to all arts; secondly the treatment of various genres of poetry, Thirdly the division of tragedy and Fourthly, catharsis upheld by western critical  tradition  as principal of Aristotelian aesthetics.

            In the Natyashashtra, there is a verse, in sixth chapter which can be referred as Bharat Muni’s own summary of his dramatic theory.

            “ Rasa bhava hybhinayah dharma vrttipravrnayah siddhih svarasthatodyam gaman rangasca sangrahah.

            The combination called natya is a mixture of rasas,bhavas, abhinayas, dharmas, vrttis ,pravrttis,svaras, etc.

            The use of the term mimesis by Aristotle and the term anukaranam by Bharata has been elaborately commended on Both words convey the idea of imitation but something more or less than simple imitation.

            But in spite of this commonness of purpose, the distinctiveness of the Greek and Indian experience of life as a whole, must have found some expression in the dramatic theory of each culture those features of their theories that set them apart and distinctive quality of their vision.

            The theory of literature as reflection of life arose from this belief . The basically humanist approach to truth, viewing man as an end in himself as the ultimate value, has led to a notion of time as clock measured each individual is a self contained entity: hence death is a finality. This notion lies at the back of western tragedy.

            In Indian drama, there is neither comedy nor tragedy in the western sense, because death is seen only as a passage to another form of existence. ‘Swargaorohana’ or ‘moksa’ is of time as an endless continuum is related to the view that good and evil are both essential to the cyclical process of life; they are like oxygen and carbon dioxide.

            It may be noted that in  their magnitude and content the ‘poetics’ and the ‘natyashashtra’ are diagonally different.

            The most important difference which has remained unnoticed is, that the poetics was written well after the best had been achieved in classical Greek theatre, where as the ‘Natyashashtra’ was known much before the extent plays came to be written. The poetics while stating the general features of tragedy and comedy also provides a stance on literary criticism and instances of the best plays. The Natyashashtra on the contrary avoids all references to plays. It is primarily concerned with formulating principles of performance  and not with examining examples of literary excellence. There is another major difference of approach between them. As Bharat Gupt points out in his book.

            ‘Dramatic Concepts Greek and Indian’[ A study of the poetics and the Natyashashtra.’

            “Whereas Aristotle has taken up the whole subject of poetics and dealt with theater as one part of poetics, Bharat Muni has taken up theater and dealt with poetry, literary forms as part of natya.”

            In a nutshell, After analyzing connection between ‘Poetics’ and ‘Natyashashtra’ the words of Mathew Arnold prove to true here:

            “Everywhere there is connection everywhere there is illustuction.

            No single event, no single literature is adequately comprehended

            Except  in relation to other events to other literature.”

            Hence, Among the differences between the Indian and Western traditions of literary criticism some are of a mutually complementary nature. Because the intellect acquires critical acumen by familiarity with different traditions. One does not really understand everything merely by following one’s reasoning as Bharathari said. At this point argument can be made that while these differences are natural, there is no reason why one system should not learn from the other.

            Comparative aesthetics should make it possible for a modern scholar in the west to benefit from an understanding of the principles of Indian poetics especially those which are not there in Western criticism, just as some of the scholars in Indian in recent times have found an application of certain concepts of West in study of  Indian literature. While slavish imitation of everything foreign is bed, selective adaptation of whatever is substantial in itself and useful for the Indian context and viseversa.