SANSKRIT POETRY: A HISTORICAL RETROSPECT 5
the most varied character has never ceased to be produced in it.
The second point which the above story signifies is of far more importance to my present purpose. The occasion which gave birth to the sloka to which I have alluded was one of intense pathos and by placing it at the head of his Ramayana Valmlki indicates to us what he considered to be the central theme of his poem. For the first time, so far as our knowledge goes, emotion was deliberately adopted as the subject-matter of poetry ; and as Valmlki became the pattern for all future time in poetic matters Sanskrit writers turned their attention more and more from describing nature or the outward activities of man to the rendering of inward feeling. If we bear in mind that all classifications of literature can at best be only rough, we may say that Sanskrit poetry after Valmlki became less descriptive and more lyrical. In other words, Emotion re- placed Beauty as the theme of poetry. But what, it may be asked, is the meaning of making emotion the theme of poetry? Do not emotions, in their intrinsic character, belong to the order of the ‘deep unspeakable’? It is true that they cannot be directly express- ed. Words like ‘fear’ or ‘anger’ may name them but cannot de- scribe them. Although emotions defy direct expression, they can be suggested by portray iAg those external features which are linked with them in our experience. That is all that the poet, who adopts emotions as his theme, does. By describing the outward and visible signs of particular states of feeling he rouses in us the experience of the corresponding stage. Thus the distinction between the old and new types of poetry is not merely one of content but also one of process; and it is the necessity for this indirect suggestion in the case of the later poetry that gave rise to the canon of dhvani , so celebrated in the history of Sanskrit criticism.
The distinction between the two types of poetry requires further elucidation. As regards their final effect there can of course be no difference, for both alike, as forms of art, must evoke aesthetic pleasure. But while the one achieves this result by describing external facts, the other does it by depicting internal feeling. This change does not mean a mere transfer of the poet’s attention from nature to man, for the older poet did not stop at the description of nature but portrayed also the thoughts and activities of man. What distinguishes the later poet is that he delves deeper and
