Introduction

SYNAE'T1II:S I S ANT) RASA S 1DI)IIANTA : AFPEC'I'IVE 7'111:ORIES

This study is an attempt to show that there is much in

common between the synaesthesis theory1 of I. A . Richards

and the theory of santa rasa2 of Abhinava Gupta. Doth the

theory of synaesthesis and the theory of rasa are affective

theories. Both deal with feelings expressed in poetry. In

his book r h s Mirror and The Lamp, M. I1 . Abrams considers

affective theory as an aspect of expressive thcorics3. In

the expressive theory poetry is viewed from the point of

view of the poet, in tllc affeclive theory the emphasis is on

render-response.

M. 11. Abruo~s says :

A Work of art is essentially the internal made

external, resulting from a creative process

operating under the impulse of feeling, and

embodying the combined product of thc poet's

preceptions, thoughts and feelings. The primary

source and subject matter of a poem therefore are

the attributes and actions of the poet's own mind,

or if aspects of the external world, then these

only as they are converted from fact to poetry by

thc feelings and opercitions of Lhc r)ocL13 ~ n i n d ~ .

Rornant ic Theories.

'I'IIc I I I I I i c l o i s o I I I ( I I C vc1.y : 0 1 1 1 ol'

poelry. M. 11. Abranls elucidutes this basic principle in the

fifth chapter of his book where he deals with the romantic

theories of Wordsworth and Coleridge. The rolnatic theories

assert two basic principles of poetry. First, "Poetry is the

expression or overflow of feelings or emerges from a process

of imagination in which feelings play the crucial partM5.

Secondly "The most important function of poetry is, by its

I C I I U I ~ ~ J I . C N O I I ~ C O N Lu T O H ~ C I . ur~d :-IuIJL i l izc L I I C

sensibility, emotions and sympathies or the readervh.

Wordsworth put the idea succinctly when he said :

"The end of poetry 1s to produce excitement in

coexistence with an over balance of pleasure and

its effect is 'to rectify men's feelings', Lo

widen their sympathies, and to produce or enlarge

the capability of 'being excited' without the

application of gross and violent stimulant^".^

I t was Bharatn who originnlly expounded the thcory of

rasa8. The Western aesthetic theory of emotion originated

from The Republic of Plato.

Plnto bnnishcd poets from his ideal "Republic" on the

ground that their works create in the readers emotional

irresponsibility. I t was primnrly to meet this charge that

Aristotle brought forth his theory of Catharsis in his

S. H. Butcher in Aristotle's Theory of Poetry ant1 Fine

Art (p. 254) suggests that just as in the medical theory of

Hippocrates cure comes after the elimination of alien

matter, in catharsis effected in the readers by tragedy, the

excess of emotion is let out. The feelings of pity and fear,

in real life contain a morbid and disturbing element. In the

process of tragic excitation they find relief and the morbid

element is thrown off . . . the painful element in poetry

and fenr o f renlity is purged nwny - thc cmotion:s thcrn:ielvcs

are ~ u r g e d " . ~

Longinus says :

I would confitlcntly iny i t down thnt nothing

makes so much for grandeur or genuine emotion in

the right place. I t inspires the words as it were

with a fine frenzy and fills them with divine

afflatus. 10

The iden that poctry is a mystcrious nrld inexpl icnble

communicntion between an ispired poet and a receptive reader

goes back to Longinus. "The presence of lofty emotions is

the mysterious quinteseence which turns earthly works to

spiritual gold".ll

It is pointed out that in English Literature afler the

seventeenth century, the terrns 'errlot ions', 'pn>:siorls' arltl

' feel i n g s ' bccri~nc con~plex. Emotion convcycd o i thcr Lhe

poet's expression of an inner state of mind and body or the

reader's re-experiencing of the original expression.

Peelings in romantic usage attended to the organic state of

bodily scnsntions pleasing or painful which accompanied

perception. Richards studied these mental states with

nleticulous care and brought out their distinction. However

there were others who had worked on the affective theory of

poct1.y 11crorc ilc ctrlrlc into tlic field.

Wor.clswc,r t h tlcl'ir~cs poctry both i ~ s ir sporlLnr1cou:s

overflow of powerful feelings and as emotion recollected in

tranquillity. B u t he does not establish a cleur cut

dichotomy between poetry as emotional knowlcdgc and science

as intellcc~ual knowledge. He i~~~iryincs the possi1)ility of

the poet ultimately working alongside the scientist carrying

sensation into the midst of the object of science itself.

Keats longed for a life of sensations rather than of

thought. In one of his letters he wrote "However i t may be,

of course for a life of sensations rather than of thoughts . . " I 2

I t is too simplistic to describe Coleridge's poetic

theory as affective, yet Coleridge gives due place to

emotion in his concept of imagination.

Jn his bcst analysis he transposes feelings,

Lhougl~ls, itleils, desires, images ar~d pilssior~ with

ii freed0111 which describes psychologic;~l inventory

as forms of the activity or tl~c mind.13

In his essay "What is poetry" (18-33) J . S . Mill writes :

The object of poetry is confessedly to act upon

emotions and thereby poetry is sufficiently

distinguished from what Wordsworth affirms to be

its logical opposite namely not prosc, but matter

of fact o~ science. 'rhe orlc nddres~c..; i L ~ e l f Lo

the belief, the other to the feelings. The onc

does its work by cor~virlcir~g or persuatlir~g the

other by moving.l4

M. 11 . Abrr~nw c i LC:; wl~trL Alcxrrr~tlc~ SIIII l h wr i L C : + i r ~ 111s

book Philosophy of Poetry :

The essential character, however of a poetical

narrative or description and that which

distinguishes it from a merely prosaic one is this

- that its direct object is not to convcy

information, but to intimate a subject of feeling

and trirnsmit that feeling from one mind to another.

. . . I n prose, the main purpose of the writer or

speaker is to inform, or exhibit the truth. The

information may excite emotion, but that is only

an accidental effect.15

Alexar~dcr Smith's dcfinitior~ of poctry is similar to

that of J . S. Mill.

Hchold now, thc character of poetry. I t is

essentially the expression of emotions, but the

expression of emotions takes place by thc measured

language ( i t may be verse or i t iilay be not),

harmonious tones and figurative phraseology16.

Smith says that poetic expression is not mere

exclamation. Feeling can only be expressed so as to excite

the sy~npiltliy of others with rcfcrer~ce to a c;~usc or object

moving that feeling.

Tolstov's Theory

According to 1,co 'I'olsloy, ir~l'cctiol~ of u vcl.l~c~l

structure is its prirrie claim to be corlsidered a literary

work. In What is Art Tolstoy writes :

"If a man is infected by the author's condition of

soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with

olhcrs, Lhcr~ the object which has cffeclcd this i s

art, but if there be no such infcction, if there

be not this union with the author and others who

a r e moved by the same work, t h e n i t i s not a r t " 1 7 .

'l'he theory of synaesthesis stands in the great line of

the affective theories of the West. Right from ancient times

thinkers and theorists had attempted to base the principles

of acsthcl ~ c s or1 some sound psychology. Rut t i l I latc i r ~ thc

~ ~ i n c l ecr~th ccrltury psyct~ology ditl not develop a:, n scicr~ce.

Hy tl~c t imc I . A. Ricl~ards carne to Cambr idgc the s i luat ior~

had changed and psychology as a discipline could claim the

position o r science.

1nflucncc.s 94 I. A . Richards -

Ward was one of the three people whom Richards

considered 'formative' in his education in psychology (the

others were Ward's pupil G. F . Stout and William James) and

he knew Ward personally at Cambridge. Ward's conccpt of

coenaesthesis is pivotal in the making of Richards'

synaesthesis.18 He examined behaviourism, gestalt and

psycho analysis with a view to utilising them for expounding

a viable theory of poetry. Richrrrrls himsclf says LhflL he wus

influenced by an article on psychology in the Rritannica,

the books of William James and by Sherrigton's InteRrative

Action of the Nervous System. l 9

I . A. Richards and co-authours of The I;'c!o~~.!!t~t.jon.g f l f

Aesthetics formulated the theory of synaesthesis inspired by

the chincse doctrines of 'Chung Yung' cited by Confucius,

the chinesc sage. In The F o u ~ ~ d a t ions of Acsttlet i cs Richnrds

nr~tl co-r~uthors givc Lhc Col lowing quotc evcrl ~ I L Lhc outset :

My master, the celebrated Chung says; "Having no

leanings is called 'Chung', admitting of no change

is called 'Yung'. By 'Chung' is denoted

' I l i b i u ; 'Yung' is the fixed prir~ciple

~rcgcll ;I t i SIX cvcryl h i rll: ur~tlcr. Irt:t~vcrl. 20

The doctrine of Chung Yung was just one of the

influences on Richards. As we have already seen he drew

liberally from the psychologists mentioned above. Though

Richards says that a1 the lime he wrote Principles d

Literary a t i c i s m Coleridge was not a major infleunce on

him, even at that time he was acquainted with Coleridge's

theory of esemplastic imagination. In The Foundations of

Aesthetics Rict~ards a r ~ t l co-au thors wrote : -- . - -. -. -

In Coleridge, the artist must imitate that which

is within the thing that which is active through

figure and discourse to us by symbols - the

Naturgeist or spirit of nature.2'

Elsewhere Coleridge defines beauty as "Subjection of

matter to spirit so as to be transferred into a symbol in

rind Lhrougll which Ll~c spi r i 1 rcvcals i tscl f " . 22

Ricl~r~rtls does not erldorsc this view in total yct he was

certainly influenced by i t , as we shall see in the course of

this dissertnt ion.

Nco-platorlisni exercised EL very strong inf luer~ce on thc

poetic thought of Coleridge. Richards hns pointed out

"Plotinus is a source for much in C ~ l e r i d g e " ~ ~ . The Saiva

Pratyabhijna theory accepted by Abhinava Gupta based itself

on the 'Saiva Advai ta' School of Philosophy that developed

in rrrlcient Kashmir. Neo -platorlism and Saiva Adva i tam have

lr~uch iri c o r n ~ ~ ~ o n ~ ~ . I t is profitable to dl aw a comparison

between the two, but such an attempt may take us from the

ficld of aesthetics into the realm of philosophy. However

this similarity between neo-Platonism nnd Indian Saiva

~ d v a i t i ~ m shall bc one of the foundritior~s of this work.

Plot inus -- -

A C C < > I . ~ it!&,, Lo I'IoL irlll:;, tlc w01.1~1 ~ I I ~ o c ~ : ~ ? ~ l)cgir~:~; wi 111

the incomprehensive and unexpresible divine One which is

the cterr~al source of all being and emerges first as

universal reason, then as the world soul and later as

i ntl i v i11ui1 I s o u I s r l r ~ t l 11s irltl i v itlurl l hot1 ics i rlc 1 utl i rlg r r ~ i ~ t Lcr

which Plot ir~us considers as r~orl-being. For 1'101 illus Ll~e

object of human life is to ascer~cl to thc One. 'l'his car1 be

achieved by restraining the bodily attractions, as well as

by rlcvclopiir~: s1>isiturlI f o r ce s int:1utline those o r

cogni t ior~.

In Plotinus, the 'One' is described as supreme light.

The objective world, including human beings has emanated

from the One. The One is a trinity consisting of the 'one'

the 'spirit' and the 'soul'. There is o cori-cspontlir~g

tripartite division of man also in the 'spirit', the 'soul'

and the 'body'. 2 5

Mystic cxpcrier~cc accordirlg to Plol inus is tt~c

experience or the O n c the Supren~c by tt~c orlc irl the

indivitlual . 'l'hc ;~csLl~cl ic expericr~ce is akin to the mystic

experience.

In _Co~n~xt_rat ive Aesthetics. Vol I I_ Ki~r~t i ~ t ~ a r ~ d r a Parrdcy

shows how aesthetic experience is akin to mystical

experiences in Plotinus :

Aesthetic experience is the experience of the

spiritual form, beautiful, and therefore is

t l istinct rroln formless cxpercirlces whicl~

characterise the merging of the individual in thc

olle, the mystical ecstasy. In i t 'the duality,

however vague, still persists', there is

something of which the subject is conscious,

though as identical w i t h itself. I n i t there is

conscousness of being . . . . 26

Coleridge's idea of "what is within the thing" is neo-

Platonist and bears a close resemblance to the 'sniva

pratyal)t~igrla thcory' . Iri 'sniva prntyabhignu theory'

everything is 'Siva', the limited individual soul is siva

itself.

As long as the individual (anu) does not recognise

ilsclf ( i 1 1 y i l 1 1 i 1 1 ) ;IS Siva, i l i v 1i111it~:d J I I I ~

consequently unhappy. So one may say that the

rrlonlents of such recognition in the life of a soul

K. C. Pandey explains "As a product of the One, Nous

turns towards the One in order to grasp or comprehend it and

through this very turning towards its

reason0.28

Obviously the similarity in

Coleridge and Abhinava Gupta. Siva is s

perfect harmony of structure in the human

Modern Psychology

Philosophy understands 'what is within' as a reflection

of the Universal and the Eternal in the individual and the

temporal. This miiy bc n spirit or UII idcf~ which hcl~

structure of its own, a shape and a form. This has its own

dynamism. Richards rotrr~d that modern psychology 1111 gl11 ugccc

with this thesis, but that its approach and terminology are

different. According to stoutPg as quoted by Karnani there

are three elementary, but fundamental modes of

consciousness. In specialised terminology Stout calls these

faculties 'cognition', 'affection', and 'conation'. Richards

says : Customary 'cognition', 'feelings', 'conation'

classification of mental goings on is not a pigeon-holing of

exclusive process. Every mental event has in varying

degrees, all these characteristic^.^^

Ijowever a merltnl event is the result of an orgnr~isation

of the faculties of the mind and i t is structured in a

uriiquc way. I:icl~nrtls suys thr~l there is i r ~ thc mil~tl of each

person, "a pre-existing structure of the mind, the

organisational system of possible impulses . . . 3 1

The mind synthesises from pre existent elements and

experiences a source of wholeness and complexity.

John Paul Russo says in his Rook I. A. Richards,

L_i f _e_ .a !id W or k . ~ ,

Richards's internal system' of attitude formation

contained a series of linking concepts that

pointed in two directions, down (into the physical

orgnnisnr) and up (inlo ttrc tiigtler corlsciousrlcss).

'I'llese concepts includetl integration, cqui 1 ibr iurn,

stability, poise, unity, attention a n d vigilance

especially emotion (down) versus feeling (up).32

Shelley in A Defence of P-pe_Uy writes :

nut there is a principle within the human being

and perhaps within all sentient beings, which

acts olherwards than in lyre and produces not

melody alone, but harmony, by an internal

nd justrncnl of the sounrfs nn(l mot ions thus cxci ted

to the imprcsslons w h i c h excite Lhcrrr. 3 3

?'he p r e - e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e S h e r r i n g t o n r e f e r s t o i s

r ~ c i t h c r ;I s p i l - i t n o r a n i t l e a , y c l i t is t h i s s L r u c 1 u 1 - c Lhill

s h a p e s e v e r y m e n t a l e v e n t . I m p u l s e s a r e o r g a n i s e d by t h i s

s t r u c t u r e w h i c h i s a f o r m a t i v e p o w e r .

I t may be d i f f i c u l t t o a r g u e t h a t t h i s i n h e r e n t

s t r u c t u r e i s t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e i n f i n i t e i n t h e f i n i t e

i n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f C o l e r i d g e . Y e t i t i s s i m i l a r t o t h e

p r i r n a l y i t n a g i n n l i o n o f C o l e r i d g e . T h e i n h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e

d e s c r i b e d b y S h c r r r n g t o n o r g a n i s e s a n d g i v e s s h a p e t o t h e

i ~ n p u l s e .

T h e 1hc .o ry o f s y n a e s t . h e s i s e x p o u n d e d by R i c h ; l r d s ant1

h i s a s s o c i a t e s i n The F o u n d a t i o n s of A e s t h e t i c s h a s a s i t s

b a s i s S h e r l - i n g t o n ' s c o r i c c p t o f t h e i n t e g r a t i v e a c t i o n o f t h e

n e r v o u s s y s l c 1 1 1 . l'lic cori~rr~or~ pt1I11 inotlcl ol' 11c1-vc-i1111)111:ic

i n t e g r a t i o r ~ t ~ c l p c c l R i c h a r d s c x p l i ~ i n tlow Lhc r n i r ~ t l i s i l h l c t o

o r g a n i z e a w i d e - r a n g e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . R i c h a r d s

d o c s riot u s e t h e word s y r i a e s t h e s i s i n h i s b o o k a d n c _ i _ p _ l e s o f

1 , i t c r n r y C r i t i c i s ~ t \ . B u t h e e r r d o r s e s i n i t t h i s t h e o r y i n

f u l I . I~le s a y s , "'l'he e x p e r i c r i c e i s t h e w e f t , t h e w a r p b e i n g

t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g s y s t e m a t i c s t r u c t u r e o f t h e m i n d " . 3 4

R i c h a r d s a n d c o - a u t t k o r s o f the F o u n d a t i o n s _o_f

&st.h_eti~c~? clcf i n c s s y n n e s t h c s i s ;I:; ;I h n r r ~ ~ o n i o u + ; b;tiltt: o f

1 1 o 1 , l 1 1 I I r L o l c ~ w 1 I u i 1 i I I W I l i l c iL

p r e v e n t e d a n y i m m e d i a t e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s a c t i o n , i t ( l i d noL

i m p l y a s t a t e o f p a s s i v i t y o r i n e r t i a . S y n a e s t h e s i s c o n s i s t s

of 'equilibrium'and 'harmony'. It is not passive, i t has

freedom also. " A complete systamatisation must takc the

form of such an adjustment as will preserve free play to

every impulse, with entire avoidance of f r ~ s t r a t i o n " . ~ ~

In aesthetic equilibrium the mind's various impulses

are further systematised and intensified beyond the range of

everyday cxpcricnce. Thc impulses enjoy frcc pluy ol'

intellect and emotion in a complete systematisation. Such a

completeness means that the mind does not feel further

frustration. Harmony is the process by which impulses strive

together towards an end state of consciousness. I t is

disinterested.

Chetan Karnani, acoording to John Paul Russo, correctly

notes that Richards drew

from Wordsworth's dynamic psychology, his idea

that the same impulse can be used for different

purposes and that these impulses are arranged in

different orders according to the nature of the

individual and the nature of the culture. 36

John Paul Russo adds that in the 1920's there were

cfiorts to join Ocstult Theory to Uchaviourism, both groups

were attempting to connect psychology with physiology.

"Richards' psychology lies within this tendency"37.

Chetan Karnani in his study of I. A. Richards cxnmines

the influences of Freud and other psychologists on I . A.

Richt~rds. Both Freud nritl Richards subscribe Lo the view that

ar~ artist creates his work wherl hc is in a state of tcnsiorl

- that is when he is in a strained condition of mind,

feelings and nerves38. In trying to resolve his tensions the

artist has to give an order and coherence to R large mass of

experience. According to Freud an artist suffers from

neurosis, because he is baffled by a large number of

heterogenous impulses, which he is not, on some occasions,

able to mould in a definite shape. Neurosis is a sign that

ego has not succecdctl irl making a synacs1hcr;is.

In the terminology of Richards, the more intricate the

impulses t h ~ t an artist has to organize, the greater is the

tension. Release fro111 i t conlea, only whcrl tlo 111is

successfully organised his impulses. He uses his medium to

coax his divine material into some definite form which

enables us to recreate the same experience.

T o quote Richards :

The poet is not writing as a scientist, he uses

these words because the interests which the

situatuion calls into play continue to bring them

just in this form into his consciousness as a

menns of ordering, controlling and consolidating

the whole e x p e r i e n ~ e . ~ ~

We do not propose to trace the influcnccs of

philosophers or psychologits on Richards, for our main

thrust in this treatise is on the parallellism betwcen

synaesthesis theory of I. A. Richards and the santa rasa

concept of Abhinava Gupta and not anything beyond that.

Svnaesthesis and Santa Rasa

The theory of synaesthesis is scientific and modern in

so far as i t seeks to base itself on modern psychology.

Indian aesthetics exploits ancient Indian psychology in its

own way. Primarily i t bases itself on the Indian concept of

rasa. According to most Indian acharyas there are nine

rasas, with their corresponding sthatyibhavas. According to

Abhinava Gupta, the highest of these rasas is 'snnta rasa'.

In fact cvcry other rn.sa nt its highcsl rncrgcs 1r11o R I ~ I I L I I

rasa40. "It is il stngc j r ~ thc self rcrrl isrrt ion which

ilnn~ediately precedes kaivalya, the perfect self relaxation".

Abhinava Gupta enumerates the eleven stages through which

santa is attained. At the tenth stage the residual traces of

the objective cognition are made subordinate by the residual

traces of 'buddhi sattva'. But this is a stage in mystic

contemplation. Something similar takes place at the

aesthetic stage also. Before the time of Abhinava Gupta,

'surltu rc~srr' wirs 11 poir~t of yrcut cor~trovc~ sy rrmon)?, Lhc

authors. Therefore he dcvotcs a whole section Lo the

discussion of the csscntial nuturc or 'santa rusn' and its

establishment as the most important and independent of all

rasas,. . . says K. C. Pandey and discusses Abhinava Gupta's theory of silnta rasn at length in his C ~ p a r a t j y e

i\_csthdicb, 1 1 . 4 '

Rasa is a disinterested state of joy or equanimity and

i t springs from a communion of vibhaava, anubhaava and

samyogant . 'I'hc nlnx irn is

Vibhaava anubhaava vyabhicaarii

Si~rnyogn;rt rasa nispi~lt i

which means that rasa rises out of the union of vibhaava,

: I I I I I I I ; I i l r l d vyi11)ll i ci~:~r i ibhat~vcl.

Rasa is 'carvana' or cognitive chewing, i t is not

something existing as a subject or an object. Cnrvana

consists in cc)gr~i 1 iou, ;if fccl i ~ ~ r i ti11(1 c(>ritiL i o n t111(1

co~~rcs~~ur~~l:; Lo tl~c :;cri:;c of' L i i t I w I 1 is

sccc i vc(1. 'l'l~i s 111-onscs i n tl~c ?;t~hr-u(loyti 01, r.c;.itJc~- II new

consciousness, 'a bodh', which is different from other types

of consciousness. The new consciousness is free from private

interests and also obstacles (vignaas) and leads the mind to

ii slirtc of pecicc or. equnnin~i t y . 4 2

"The csscrltinl thing is that orlc's own consciousricss

must repose unobstructedly in its true nature - ie ~ i v a " ~ ~

p o L : u ' I v i S. Nirr~di. Whr~tcvcr I)c tl~o dr)r~~irl;lnL n~oo(l

of the rasana in the initial state, i t leads to perfect

composure and equipoise in the ultimate state. In this

s c h o o l ( o f Aht~il l i lvi l G u p t a ) t h c p o s s i b i 1 i t y o f s ; ~ n ~ v i 1 k n o w i n g

i t s e l f or- r c p o s i n g i n i t s c l f i s t h c s o u l - c c o f i l l l j o y -

s e n s u a l , a r t i s t i c o r s p i r i t u a 1 4 4 . ~ t t h i s s t a g e a l l o t h e r

I-;~:;os ir~c r g c i r ~ t o silrlt ; l s a s a ant1 t h e s a l l r u d a y a e x p e r i e r ~ c e s

' s a n t a r a s a ' .

l n o r d e r t o s u b s t a r l t i a t e t h e t h e s i s t h a t s y r l ; ~ e s t t ~ e s i s

h a s i~ luch i n colnmon w i t h s n n t a r a s a , we h a v e t o e l u c i d a t e t h e

s y n a e s t h c s i s t h e o r y o f I . A . R i c h a r d s i n t h e l i g h t o f TI'

~o_u:!dt~~t~~~~;~ A e s l t ~ c t i c s , P r i ~ l c i p l c s of C ~ . i t c i s r r ~ ; ~ r ~ d

P r n c t . i c ; ~ I r i t i c I I t i t I I ~ I I I i r l I h c : 1ij:ht.

o f r n s a s i d d h a n t n e s p e c i a l l y a s e x p l a i n e d i n A b h i n a v a

n h a r a t - - ~ i o r A h h i n a v a G u p t a .

'l'hc t h e o r y o f s y r l n e s t h c s i s i s nro t lc rn , s c i e r l t i F i c ant1

w e s t e r n . The r a s a s i d d h a r l t a i s a n c i e n t , Tnd i n n :111rl some way

m y s t i c a l . S y n r i c s t h e s i s t h e o r y a s poirll .ct1 o u t c a r l i e r o w e s

much t o t h e C h i n e s e c o n c e p t o f Chung-Yung. A l s o a t b o t t o m i t

i s embedded i n n e o P l a t o n i s t t h o u g h t a s i n t e r p r e t e d by

C o l e r i d g e . R a s a s i d d h a n t a h a s i t s b a s i s i n a n c i e n t I n d i a n

p s y c h o l o g y ; A h h i n a v a G u p t n s e t i t a g a i n s t ' S a i v a A d v a i t a ' ,

a br; lncl i o f I n d i a n P h i l o s o p h y . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i s t a n c e i n

t i m e b e t w e e n t h e t h e o r y o f s y n a e s t h e s i s a n d s a n t a r a s a o f

r a s a s i d d h a n t a we f i n d t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n them

r c f r c s h i r ~ ~ : l y :i$;tori i s l ~ i r ~ j : ,

Wc: c o i ~ c c r ~ l I.;, t c ell i c f l y or1 wh:~ t f < i L I I : ~ I . C I ~ IIII : ; s f 1 i d I I I ) < I L I I

s y n u e s t h e s i s . We s h a l l e x p l a i n t h i s p r o c e s s a s c l e a r l y a s we

can, but we have to leave aside most of the things he has

said iibout other subjccts of his interest ns of little

~.clcvr~nc:c to our tl~csi :i.

Al)hi~~clvn GugLn htrs wrillcri i'orly four books i n 21 1 I . Of thcse, four deal with 'aesthetics'. We limit our discussion

to what Abhinava Gupta has said about rasa siddhanta in

general and about santa rasa in particular. Kanti Chandra

Pandey point out :

The view that santa rasa is the ninth rasa is

supported by old manuscripts where in after

"staayibhaavan rasatv& mupanesya mali", santa rasa

is found defined as "santoo naama

samastayibhavaatamakah" etc. Experience of every

rasa at the highest level is very much like that

of santa.. . 4 5 .

Wc may refer to what the predecessors and succcssors of

Abhinava Gupta have said about rasa, but we shall not dwell

upon them at length. Also we only point out that there is

considerable simi lnri ty betwccn the phi losophicrll inoorings

of synaesthesis and of rasa siddhanta of Abhinava Gupta. We

do not propose to go into their philosophical depths. Our

thesis is that though Richards and Abhinava Gupta stand

aparL in Litlie u r ~ d space, thc cnd-state o r l i tcrrlry

appreciation envisaged by them is almost identical. In

Richards i t is synaesthesis, in Abhinava Gupta i t is santa

r a s a .

Wc s h a l l exn~ni r lc t h c a f f e c t i v e t h e o r y of R icha r t f s E L L

f i r s t ant1 t h e n t h e r a s a t h c o r y of A b h i n t ~ v a GupLu. We s h a l 1

t h e n s e e how f a r t h e y a g r e e on t h e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f

t h e i r l i t e r a r y t h e o r i e s .

Notes

1 The synaesthesis theory is expounded in the book, The

Foundations of Aesthetics by I . A. Richards, C. K. Ogden,

James Wood, 2nd Ed. (London : George Allen Unwin, 1995).

Rasa Siddhanta was originally put forward by

Bharata.

Kanti Chandra Pandey, Com~arative Aesthetics, Vol.1.

(Varanasi : The Chowkamba Sanskrit Service Office, 1959) 20.

M. H. Abrams, "The Mirror and the Lamp - Romantic

Theory and the Critical Tradition " , (New York : Norton

Library, W. W. Norton, 1958) 21.

M. H. Abrams, 22.

M. N. Abrnms, 101.

M. H. Abrams, 103.

M. 11. Abrams, 103.

8 K. C. l'undey, ~ l n i ~ u l . t l L ~ AeuLt~ct lcs, Vol . 1 , 2nd 1511.

(Varc~r~tlsi : 'I'hc Chi)wku~~~uI>u Sat~kri L Series SLudieu, 1 9 5 0 ) 11.

9. S. H. Butcher. Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine

Arts, (New York : Dover Publication, 1951) 254.

"Pleasure to Plato was a word of base association and

a den~ocrnlic pleasure was doubly ignoble". (203)

Also, see Scott A . James, The Making of Literature,

(London : Mercury Books, 1963) 70.

Raman Selden, The theory of Criticism - From Plato to

the Present, (London and New York : Longman, 4th in~pressions

1990, A Reader) 165.

"Plato banned poets from his Repub& because he feared

that the powerful emotions aroused by poetry would be a

dangerous influence in the young".

10 Raman Selden, The Theory of Criticism, From Plat2 to

Present, (London and New York : Longniann, 1988) 168.

Longinus, "On the Sublime". A. 0. Pickard. (London :

D Oxford Cal+"enden Press, 1906) 12 - 13.

l 1 Raman Selden, 164.

l2 D . J . Enright & Ernest dc Chickera, English Critical

Texts, (London : Oxford University Press, 1964) 256.

l3 I. A. Richards, Coleridge on Imagination, Second Ed.

(London : Routledge & Kegnn Paul, 1950) 56.

l4 J . S. Mill, "What is Poetry" quoted from Rarnan

Selden The Thcory of Criticism - From Plato 9 Present,

(London and New York : Longmanp, 1988) 179.

l 5 M. H. Abrams, "The mirror and the lamp", Romantic

Tlicory k d C r l t icul ~~:r~tlilior~, 152. --

l6 M. H . Abrams, 150.

l 7 Leo Tolstoy, What is art and Essays on Art, Trans.

Alymer Maude, (London : World Classics, Oxford University

Press, 1959), 228.

l R John Paul Russo, 1. A . K1chards, 111s Lire and Works,

(London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1989) 103.

l9 Rauben Brower, Helen Vendler & John Hollander, (Ed)

Essays in His Honour, (New York : Oxford University Press,

1973) 28.

30 1 . A. Richard.~, C. I<. Ogden, Jalnes Woocl. T h e

Fouridat ions of Aesthetics, 2nd Ed. (Lontlorl : George A1 ]en

1Jrlwi11, I'p2.5) 13.

2 1 I . A. Richards, C. K. Ogden, James Wood, 37.

22 I . A. Richards, C. K. Ogden, James Wood, 37.

23 I . A . Richards, Coleridge Imagination, (London :

Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950) 27.

'4 Kanti Chandra Pundey, Comparative AcstActics Vol I ,

(Chowkambha Sanskrit Series), Chapter V, 89 and Comparative

Aesthetics !&L I, Chapter 1 1 , 100.

2 5 A. t1. Armstrong, Plotinus (London : George Unwin,

1953) 53 - 54.

His (Plotinus) theory of emanation has close

similarity with the 'Abhaasaavado' of Abhinava Gupta.

Knnt i Chandrn Pnndey, C_omp-a.r@tivc A e s t h ~ q t i c . ~ Vol . I 1 ,

117.

26~omparntfi-c_ \cstt~ctics - Vol 1 1 - 132.

27 Tnpnsv i S . Nrlrld i . I&c QrFfi in .c.d i)c_v_c.!o[qcl!!t of .tic

theory of Rasa and Dhvani 1st Edn. (Ahemmedabad Gujarat

University Press, Theses Publication series - 10, 1973),

4 0 0 .

28 Kant i Chandra Pandey, Camparat ive Aesthetics Val. 1 I

(1956) 125.

29 Chetan Karnani , "Cri t icisni, Aesthetics and Psychology", sully thf W r i t i o s of 1 . 12. Rich;~rds

(New Delhi : Arnold Ileinmann, 1977) 8 .

J 0 T . A . Richards, I'rir~c:i,)les oT 1 , i t c r ~ x C r i ticisni 2nd

Impression (London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961) 80.

3 1 John Paul Russo, I, Richards, His Life and Works,

1 8 3 .

3 2 John Paul Russo, 1 8 7 .

3 3 "Shelley - A Defence of Poetry" - As quoted from D.

J . Enright, Ernst De Chickera, English Critical Texts, 2 2 5 .

3 4 I . A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism,

2nd Impression (London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1 9 6 1 )

1 2 4 .

35 -- The Foundations of Aesthetics, 7 5

3' J o h n Paul I<usso, I. A. Richards, llis Life und

Works, 1 7 5 , 1 7 6 .

37 John Paul Kusso, 1 7 6 .

3 8 Chetan Karnani, Criticism Aesthetics and psycho lo^^

(London : Arnold Heinmann ) 1 1 5 .

See Cleanth Brooks' Essay on I.A. Richards, in Essays

in l&s_ !!9-11puc (Ed. ) Reuben Browor, John Hollander, 1 3 5 - 155. -

3 9 Chetan Karnani, 1 1 5

I . A. Richards, Science Poetry, (London : Kegan

Paul Trench Tribner) 1 1 3 - 1 1 4 .

40 Kanti chandra Pandey, Comparative Aesthetics VolI,

2 3 9 - 2 4 9 .

4 ' Knnl i Chr~r~rlrr~ Ptrr idcy , 2 1 ' 3 , 2 2 0 .

42 Tapasvi S . Nandi, The Origin Development of the

Theory of Rasa And Dhani, 3 9 1 .

43 Tapasvi S . Nandi, 3 9 7 .

4 4 T n p a s v i S . Nandi, 3 9 7 .

4 5 Kanti Chandra Pandey, Comparative Aesthetics Vol. I,

2 4 9 .

Chapter I

We shall make an earnest endeavour to elucidate the

different aspects of the theory of Synaesthesis. We have to

study each of them with utmost care.

The Poet --

I. A. Richards does not entertain any romantic notion

about the poet as 'a vates' or 'a heirophant'. A poet is a

person among persons, yet hc is different from others in

certain respects1.

The poet is pre-eminently accessible to external

inf luenccs and he can bc discr irllirlnt i vo with rcgrrrtl Lo thcn~.

He has a freedom in which all the imprcssions he receivcs

are held in suspension. As a result new relations may be

formed between them with ease. The poet is able to make more

delicate and more effective connections between the

different elements of his experiences. In this he has plenty

of freedom and his range is wider.

Dryden says about Shakespeare :

"A11 the i ~ ~ ~ a g e s of nature were still prescnt to

h i m ar~d I I C t1r.c~ ~ ~ I C I I I 1101 I I I I > O ~ ~ O U S I Y I)u t

l ~ c k i l y " . ~

Richard says :

"It is this available possession of the past which

is the first characteristic of thc adept in

communication, of the poet or the artist'13.

I t is not a matter of mere memory, not the recalling of

an event correctly dated and placed. I t is a free

reproduction of the past, n recovery of a state of mind

definitely peculiar in its own way. The poet has the special

faculty to orgilnise his experiences and systemiltise such

organizations. Me can store them too. I t is easy for the

poet to retrieve a systematised response from the store-

house of his organized experiences. We may describe this

faculty i~nd tl~c ski l l ns geriius. T h e r e is r~o 111yqtcr.y

surrounding the genius.

The secret of genius is perhaps nothing else than

this greater availability of all expcrienccs

coupled with larger stores of experiences to draw

upon. The man of genius seems to take in more

every minute than his duller companion and what he

has receivcd sccms t o be morc rendily n t h i 5

disposal when he needs it.4

I t is because the poet organises coherently the

impulses he considers valuable that he is able to reinstate

them in happy moments.

Richards takes Sherrington's definition of impulse. The

impulse is rc:,por~si l ) lc for ti wide vilricly of rrlcr~tcll

happenings. According to Richards :

"Impulses are vehicles on which a host of other

elements 'sensations', 'images', enlotions'

'references' ride piggy back through the mind."s

The impulses may be divided into 'appentices' and

'aversions'. The appentices may reach an incipient or

imaginal stage which necessitates their accomodation.

However they are to be satisfied without frustrating some

equal or more important appentency. Richards calls such

impulses as have reached the incipient or imaginal stnge,

'attitudes'. The ordinary man wishes to be steady and clear

in his aLLiLutlc, urid so h e supresees (I gr'enLcr IJUI'L of Lhc

impulses which is 1101 orgarlised. As poir~tell out ciirlicr Lt~e

artist is able to organise more of his impulses without

confusions, than the impulses the ordinary man organises.

Richards says :

" A narrow field of stimulations is all that we can

manage, and we overlook the restu6.

The field of Stimulation

The field of the stimulations of the artist is much

wider, and yet he is able to manage i t . In the act of

creation the aritst manages attitudes that huvc eluded the

grasp of ordinary people.

Kicl~i~rtls gives clctrr def inilior~s or 111osl of the LCI.IIIS

hc c~scs i r ~ 11is tlisc~~:~sion of' litel-t~ry pril~ciplcu. llc dcfir~c:-;

sensation in the following way :

"A sensation is what an impulse at a certain stage

in its development feels like, and its sensory

qualities are characters of the impulse at that

stagen?.

Every human activity has its specific goal, pleasure

very probably ensues in most cases when the goal is reached.

Richards says :

"Stimulating situations give rise to wide-spread

repercussions throughout the body as clearly

marked colourings of c o n s c i o u s n e ~ s " ~ .

'I't~cse ZII.~ responses : These responses, which rlre

orgnnised form themselves into different patterns. I t is

such patterns which produce different mental states. They

are known as fear, grief, joy and anger and such mental

states.

"'l'ticy nrisc for the most p u r l when prcnlilrlerlt or

periodical tendencies of the individual are

suddenly either facilitated or frustratedMg.

Here Richards refers to two type of tendencies; one is

permanent, the other is periodical. Such emotional states

that occur irrespective of the internal life of the poet are

different from sensations. They are called feelings. A

poet's memory is a store-house of such emotional stntcs.

A present sensation that brings to one's mind a similar

but Illore powerful past sensation is a 'mnemic sign'. The

poet's mind is an energy system of prodigious complexity and

extreme delicacy of organizations. I t has an indefinitely

large number of stable poises.

The poet's mind is thrown from orie poise to nriolher

with great facility, each being the resultant of all the

energies of the system. I t may happen that in the course of

this process, a situation which has formerly caused i t to

assume a stable poise may partially return and disturb the

poise. But there i t easily recovers its equilibrium by

reassuming its former state of poiselo. This is a work of

memory, i t keeps no record though appearing to do so. The

poet has this faculty of storing organizations, Lo a large

extent.

The poet frees himself from both 'the force of habit'

and 'inhibitions'. He excludes the irrelevant and the

extraneous. He imposes upon the resulting field of impulse,

the simple, but wide, 'an order' that i t can accept. The

poet has the gift to use past similarities in experience and

control these elements through the dependencies of their

effect upon another. "The poet 'uses his coenesthesia' the

wholeness of irlterniil sensations or the interplay of (I

number of emotions as a chemist uses his reagents or a

physiologist, his galvi~nometer"~~. He is sensitive and as

such his response is delicate.

In the creative moment, the poet's mind is better

organised than that of the ordinary person. I t presents

conciliation of impulses which in most minds remain confused

and conflicting. The active artist offers an example of the

highest integration of experiences, emotions and thoughts.

Richards is of the view that i t does good to emulate the

organising ability of the poet. In Foundations of

Aesthetics, contact with exceptional personalities is the

fifteenth next to Synaesthesis among the definitions of

beauty. l2

Richards admits that a poet is endowed with in~aginativc

power. It is true that in Principles of Literary C2iticism,

Richards succeeded in a large measure in delineating through

psychology, as concretely as possible the interaction

beLwccrl literrlry Lcxt nrld the reader's corlsciousr~css. Ilut he

knew that the process of poetic creation was inexplicable

and also that the tools of psychology were not sophisticated

enough to disengage the creative faculty from the other

faculties of the poet's mind.

As we have already seen he has been influenced by

diffcrent schools of psychology as wcll as diffcrcn~.

psychologists. IIe took from tticse schools idcns most suitcd

to his aesthetic theory. Pamela McCallum points out :

Richards accepts the stimulus response paradigm of

Behaviourist methodology while he q

Watson's rejection of consciousne

instcad the ilnportarlce of ir

necessary and valid compone

studies13.

G. P . Stout spoke of nlerltal syster

synthesiscd experiences. Yet he conccdcd that thcrc wcrc

"floating ideas"14. Such findings as of Stout only

strengthened Richard's respect for Coleridge's theory of

i111ugir1aL ion.

In his Principles of Literary Criticism, Richards

gives six distinctive meanings of imagination and upholds

Coleridge's theory of imagination as more acceptable than

othcr views. Ilc writes :

That synthetic and magical power to which we have

exclusively appropr inLcd. t h e ntilae of inluginn1 ion

reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of

opposites or discordant qualities, the sense of

novelty and freshness with old and familiar

objects or more than usual states of emotion with

more than usual order . . . The sense of musical

dclight with thc power of reducing mu1 titudc into

urlity or cl-fect and nrodifyirlg a series of thoughts

by sornc or~c predominant Lhought or feeling. 1 5

Colcricl~e on Imagination

In Coleri~ke on Ima~ination, I. A . Richards givcs us

an exquisite elucidation of oler ridge's theory of

imagination. Richards quotes Coleridge :

Onc man's consciousness extends only to the

pIc>rsrrnt or unplcnsant situalions ci~usctl irr trirn by

external impression, another enlarges his inner

sense to a cor~sciousness of Corms u n d quality, a

third in addition to the image is consciousness of

the conception or notion,a fourth attains to a

notion of his notions, he reflects upon his own

~ c f lcct ions and 1}1us wc may say without

impropriety that one possesses rnore or less irlrler

sense than the other.16

The self-conscious spirit therefore is a 'will' and n

'freedom'.

Objects are entities in their rights. Imagination puts

1 ife and bcnuty into them and gives thern arr essence t~rld a

ch;~rilctcr.

"This essence or character was not in the material

(say a stone) but it was in theconceiving nlirld

cvcn 11clot.c. i 1 cr~suvtl inlo ~ I I V S L O I ~ C 1117,

Thc artist puts beauty into the object with the aid of

his imagination. The beauty he conceived in his imagination

is much greater than thc beauty tie has been able to express

in his work. The arts do not just copy the visible work.

Imagination apprehends the directive principles of every

object of representation. It makes its defects good. In

truth, imagination is the source of beauty. I t can make

original creations on the basis of its conception of beauty.

C ~ l e r i d g e has said that the poet,

"must out of his mind create forms according to

the severe laws of intellect". 18

According to Coleridge the range of imagination is naU

limited. I t is by virtue of imuginative power that the poet

is able to identify himself with the object. His subject-

object machinery introduces no split between the ingredients

of the mind.

What Coleridge said in philosophical and even mystical

terms, the moderns are trying to put in a scientific way.

But science cannot explain the crcative power which can

cnter into the heart of things and see the things from

inside. In The Foundations of Aesthetics, the authors give

Vernon Lee's exposition of empathy:

The projection of an experience into the non-ego

involves the more or less vivid rcvival of that

cxperiencc in ourselves and that revival according

to its degree of vividness is subject to the same

accompaniment of satisfaction or dissatifaction as

the original experience. So when this attribution

of our modes of life to visible shapes and this

revival of past experiences is such as to be

favourable to our experiences and in so far as

pleasurable we welcome the form thus animated by

oursclves ns bcnutiful.

Vcrr~ori Lcc cor~cludcd :

Empathy has conditioned the bcing of Art and can

explain itW.l9

I t is bccause of empathy that thc poet is able to

retrieve his past experiences.

i i . ---- The Self and the Non-Self

The poet who is sensitive to the influence of the

outside world is not a passive receiver of impressions. His

imagination operates in the realm of the non-self shaping

and t ransrorming i t .

Richards begins his psychological narrative with

'impulses', thus signifying that his subject is not a

passive receiver oS stimuli but an active agcnt. An impulse

~lccorcli~lg t . ~ , hi111 is (1 I)I.C)CC;S in ll~c coussc of wl~ich u

1 1 i g f 1 cvcr~t nltiy occur., i L is 11 pl.~~ces:; w11icl1 t ~ p ~ i ~ ~ r c r ~ t ly

begins in a stimulus and ends in an act. Impulse is a

polyvalent term in Richards. It may refer to a whole

spectrum of events or to anyone of the many events along

with it. It is our endeavour all our life to attempt to

organise impulses, we wish that success is obtained for the

greater number of them.

i I I i s I k I I i I . ' J 1 1 1 1 1 ~ :i W 11 ~ ( l

attempts a psychological explanation of subject-object

relation irl the urea of cxpcricrlcc:;. As we crlcourltcr ilrl

object outside, or a thought within.

"We are aware of a certair~ change thrrt hr~s

occurred ci ll~cr i l l Ll~ir~gs wi L I I O U L or i l l OLII.

thought within"20.

We are either pleased (ir pained by the change and we

want that the pain ceases and the pleasure continues. Thus

feeling prompts our sensation or our situations.

Dain defines sensation as

"men ta l impressions caused by the action of

exlcrr~iil things or1 stirrre part of the body cul led or]

that account sensitive". 2 1

Feeling is the effect of some cause chiefly thc mind's

ericouritc~ with the world outside, or thought wiLhiii. ?'he

same cause may not produce the same result always.

Feeling always implies a relation to a pleasant or

painful situation which is the cause of that feeling. The

simplest form of psychological life therefore involves both

a subject and an object, a subject that feels and the object

that causes the feelings2=. (The object itself may be the

subject, the subject with a difference - the subject having

qualitatively distinguishable objective presentations which

tric Lhe c;~u:;c or i s fccl ir~gs).

"Such integrat iori (of subjective ariti object ivc

factors) or synthesis as K a n L was Lhc first

clearly to see is the indispensable condition

without wl~j ct~ we s h o u I t 1 hi~ve r~o c . x p c c icr1c.c

whatcver"23.

Coalescence of Subject and Object

We have seen that Coler idge endorscs this phi losophical

view of Lhc coolescencc of the subjcct and Lhc object.

Coleridge has his own way of separating the realtion between

nature and the poet. If the artist merely copies nature he

enters into a rivalry with nature which is of no

consequence.

I f he projects into an object his pre-conceived nature

of beauty he can produce only unreality. An aritst hns t o

master L he cssencc ' the naturn naturans' which pre-supposes

a bond between nature in the high sense and the soul of

man. 24

Richards says :

"In his (Colcridge's) best analysis he transposes

feelings, thoughts, ideas, dsires, images and

passions with n freedom which descriptive

psychology has only recently

These are not set against one another. The constructive

activity of the mind integrates them. The perceiving and the

forming are one and the same. In this process the object

becomes the subject and the subjcct becomes t h t : ol)ject.

Coleridge says :

"Man's mind is the very form of all the rays of

intellect which are scattered throughout the

images of nature".26

Ile adds :

l'he poet places these images totalised and filled

to the limits of the human mind so as to

superinduce upon the forms true moral reflections

to which they approximate. He makes the external,

internal, the internal external, makes nature

About this mystery, Richards is aware, yet he will try

his best to explain i t in scientific terms. He points out

that Coleridge's insight into the mystery of subject-object

coalascence has led critics like John Middleton Murray to

speculation. Middleton Murray says :

There is communication between mystery and mystery,

bctwecn thc unknown soul and the ur~kriowr~ real i ty

at one particular point in the texture of life,

thc hiddcn truth br uaks through Lhc vc i I . . . . ZR Nic h i ~ ~ d s sciy5 or1 ~'ngc 259 o r ilrin_c_il~l_c_s ~r

(I

Literary Criticism. These revelation doctrines,

whcr~ we know what thcy are real ly nbouL comc

rlcarcr, we shcil 1 sec lo supplying fir1 cxplar~ul 1o11

of the value of arts than any of the traditional

accounts'l.28.

In his book Coleridne Imagination, I. A . Richards

says :

"What now seems clearer to me is Coleridge's

accord at his best with The Republic . . . The co-adunating imagination is a close analogue if no

more to the synoptic activity of the 'true music

of the dialectics". 29 .

'l'his synpolic activity engaged the serious attention of

Kichartls. Ile sought a scientific explar~tjorl of thc proccss

in thc findings of modern psychologists. Sherrington's

Intcgri~tivc 1 '1 ir~ci~)le scemcd lo o f r c r hirn a sufficierltly

satisfactory answer to this mystery.

The Inherent Structure

The 111ajor question that Richards deals with is how the

impulses are integrated. I t is on the br~sis of t h e ilnswer he

has been able to find that he explains what synaesthesis is.

I I I I ~ U lscs arc i'or~~lcd in every hurnurl r~llrld. 'l'hcsc in~pu lses

are to be co-ordinated if the mind is to function

effectively. So far no one has explained in what order these

impulses are organised.

"We orlly krlow L l l c ~ l rr growir~y ol'tlcr is lhc

principle of the mind, thnL its function is to co-

ordinate. . . We can feel differences between v o 3 0 clear coherent thinking and confusion. . . .

The importance of an impulse is to be measured in terms

of the disturbance that its thwarting causes to other

impulses.Evcry systernatisatior~ involves the sacrifice of

some impulses. That organisation is best which is the least

wasteful of human possibilities. Only ttlc artists and poets

succeed in making such wholesome organisation.

Any e x p e r i e n c e c o n s i s t s o f a s y r r a e s t h e s i s o f

i1111)tr I :<ex3 ' . I I I I I ~ I Y l )c C V C I I d c s c r i t)cd a:s s y r ~ t ~ c : ; t he:: i s i r~ I I

b r o a d s e n s e . T h e r e i s much i n commorr be tweer r W a r d ' s c o n c e p t

o f C o e n c s t h e s i s a n d R i c h a r d s ' c o n c e p t o f s y n a e s t h e s i s .

S i n c e R i c h a r d s h a s d r a w n c e r t a i n i d e a s f r o m W a r d , i t i s

n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n w h a t Ward m e a n s by t h e e x p r e s s i o n

c o e n a e s t h e s e s .

Ward s p e a k s o f t h e s u b j e c t as h a v i n g t h e g r e a t power o f

c o n s c i o u s a t t e n t i o n . I d e c ~ s , f e e l i rrgs arrd e v e n m o t o r rc:sporlse

a r e b u t o b j e c t s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s s u b j e c t . A t t e n t i o n i n i t s

1)1.i111ortl i f 1 1 s t 1 1 t c i cc i v o u n t ~ r y , I t 11r1yt1 i r1 i I : : i rl t h e

e x t e r n a l f i e l d c a n make i t v o l u n t a r y . T h e s u b j e c t c a n

c x p e l . i c n c c s e n s a t i o n arrd f e e l i n g s w h i c h d o n o t e x i s t i n

i s o l a t i o n . T h e y p a r t a k e o f t h e i n t e n s i t y o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s .

Ward t r i e d t o c x p l a i r > Knr~t 'cc iixionl o f i n t u i t i o n i r ~ t c r ~ l r s o f

s c i e n c e a n d p ~ y c h o l o g y . ~ ~ T h e a x i o m o f i n t u i t i o n g o v e r n s t h e

t r a n c e d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n w h i c h c o n n e c t s t h e c o n c e p t o f

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o s e n s u o u s a p p r e h e n s i o n .

E v e r y s e n s a t i o n h a s i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g phenonrena l

r e a l i t y . I n s n t i c i p a t i o r r o f p r e c e p t i o n Knrrt s a i d t h a l

c o n s c i o u s n e s s i t s e l f w a s f l o w i n g . K a n t p o i n t e d o u t t h a t

e v e r y p r c c e p t i o n c o u l d b e a n t i c i p a t e d ' a p r i o r i ' . B u t t h e

s p e c i f i c e m p i r i c a l q u a l i t i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n c a n n o t b e known

' a p r i o r i ' . T h c a x i o m s o f K a n t h e l p e d Ward e x p l a i n t h e i n t e r

r e a l t i o n s o f s e n s a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s . I t

may b e b o r n e i n m i n d t h a t c o e n e a t h e s i s t o Ward w a s a n u m b e r

of elnot ions irl interplay. Coenaesthct ic experierlces arc not

~~~ixtul.cs, rlot cor~~plcx sc~~si~lions - 1.01. scr~sr~lior~s arc ::irlgfc

-- a ct,l~~plcx wl~olc of experiences, the wt~olc mass trf ir~terr~al

sensation^^^.

Richards' 'synaesthesis' resembles Ward's psychological

'coenesthesis'in many respects. I t focuses upon the

corlscious free subject and the wide range of sensations,

images and feelings (which Richards labels as impulses)

irlvolvctl i r l t heir mr,vcnlcri t ilbout ii centre. I I I I thc

s y r ~ ~ r c s t l ~ i c - c l y r ~ c i ~ r ~ i c cictivi Ly of i111pu1sc.r tru thcy n1.c

cxpcricrrcctl togcthcr i r ~ broii(lcr~ir~g or dccpcr~ir~g tl~c nlood.

Moreover i t too has its ideal of an underlying unity.34

Like Ward, Richards also approaches synaesthesis from the

errlot iorial and psychological side.

Synacsthesis is a poctic experience. I t is a mental

state in which conflicting impulses are reconciled with a

minimum waste of cncrgy. This state is attained when the

impulscs are set in order in a happy struclure or a

structure of beauty. There is in every mind,in each person

an internal structure, i t is systematic. I t can organise all

impulses according to a system. These impulses range from

the crudest to the most sophisticated. Mind can synthesise

these impulses.

Wimsattand Brooks point out that in his Principles

Literary 'riCicism, Richards uses t h c word synthcxis not thc --- -. .~ . -

word synaesthesis. Richards' definition of synaesthesis

resembles santayanu's definition. They quote santayana :

I t is the essential privilege of beauty to so

synthesise and bring to a focus the various

impulses of the self as to suspend them to a

single image, that a 'great peace' falls upon that

perturbed kingdom. In the experience of these

momentary harmonies we have the basis of the

enjoyment of beauty and all its mystical

rneanj ngs . 3 5

Richards says that there are two ways in which impulses

may be organised, one is by 'exclusion' the other by

9 . inclusion', ttic one 11y eli~ninritior~, thc othcr by syr~tl~esis.

Although every state of mind depends upon both

inclusion and exclusion i t is possible to contrast

experiences which win stability and order through a

narrowing of responses with those which widen it. A large

deal of poetry and art is content with the ordered

development of limited experiences with a definite emotion

like love or melancholy. Such art has i t own value, and its

own place in human affairs.

Svstematised S t r u c t u s

Great poetry orders our minds, i t is the expression of

the higlrly orgnnised nrrd ordered mind of a great poet. The

poet is able to create an organised system, because he has

formed within him a highly organised and 'synthesised

structure' of beauty. As already mentioned every person

oragnises his impulses but mostly he does i t through

'exclusion'. The poet has, richer and subtler capacity to

organise. He works out a highly sophisticated

systematisation by 'inclusion' rather than by 'exclusion'.

Ilc irt:l~icvos :iyrr:~~:slhc:iis which corlsi:;ls irl cc~i~ilil~rii~n~,

harmony and freedom. Wilber M . is for 'exclusion' or

elimination for achieving 'balance of impulses'. Ethel D.

is also for exclusion through a suppression of

antagonistic impulses. But Richards is for 'inclusion'.

Anlorlg hun~;~ri beings t hcrc are vast tin i formi tics.

Impulses begin with reflexes and work upward to the

elementary structures of the mind that are inherent. We do

not know enough of them, if only we know enough nhout them,

impulses may be arranged in an order of general uniformity

and stability, and we could have explained the special

powers of the p o e t . Richards calls psychology to aid to

explain this, his conclusion is that the secret of the

process of poetic or artistic creation is inexplicable.

Psychology or Psychonric~lysis has noL so far succccdcd

i l l i11vcsL igillir~g Lhc lllcnltil process 01' lhc poet. We rrlrly

indulge i r ~ u nu1111)er of cclr~jcclures rclatirig to the

functioning of the poet's creative faculty. The unconscious

working of the poet's mind is more complex and more

important than the conscious. It may not be fruitful to

infer the inner working of the poet's mind on the basis of

the examination of his work. The point is that we can not

verify our speculation about what took place in the mind of

the poet. The poet's mind is as elusive as a dreamer's mind.

111 u c i p l e s of Literary Criticism, Richards says :

. . . we find the artist constantly struggling towards 'impersonlaity' towards a 'structure' for

his work; which excludes his private eccentric

nlomcr~tary idiosyr~crauics, nr1~1 uvir~g alwrry:.: 11s iLu

I~risis tticsc clelncritr which 111.c IIIOSL ur~iCorl~~ i l l

their effect upon irnpul~e.~8

As to how the poet weaves this structure is difficult

to explain. Every poct sccks to cxprcss this structure in

some verbal form in order to communicate with others. The

verbal form is his medium and like every other artist, the

poet also has to grapple with his medium; and attain mastery

over i t . He has to handle i t with dexterity.

, \ I I I < ) I I ~ , 1I1c IIIO;; t <I i s t i r lct c o r ~ t r i I ) I I t i OII:; <>I ' I< i ? I I : I t r<J : ; 1 0

i c i o l i l c r - ; l l - y c r i t i c i s m a r c hi:; L t ~ e o r y of' c l n o t i v c

l a r ~ g u a g e t~n t l 11 i:; t h e o r y o f s y n a e s ~ h c s i s 3 0 W c h a v e Lo s l u t l y

b o t h t h e s e t h e o r i e s i n some d e t a i l .

Notes

1) . . I . Rr~righl, Jcrrlcst Dc Chickcrn, Enl:lish Criticul

Texts (1.ondon : Oxford University Press, 1964) 6. --

Philip Sidney, An A p o l o ~ v for Poetry, 6.

Shclley, Defence of Poetry, 2 5 5 .

1 . A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism, 2nd

Edn, (London: Routledge and Kegan Pau1,1961) 181.

I. A . Richards, 181.

I . A . Richards, Practic~ll Criticism (London & Ilenley:

Routledge and Keagn Paul, 1976) 249 - 2 5 0 .

I. A . Richnrds, Principles of Literary Criticism, 181.

"To be able to revive an experience is not to

remember when and where and how it occurred, but

merely to have that peculiar state of mind

available"

John Paul Russo, 1 . A . Richi~rds, l l i s Life and Works,

I . A . Richctrds, principles Literary Criticism,

I. A . Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism,

"Sensation, imagery, feelings, emotion, together

with pleasure, unpleusure and pain are names for

the conscious characteristics of impulses", p. 92.

I . A . Richards, 98.

I . A . Richards, 98.

10 I .A. Richards, Principles gf Literary Q j t L c L s m ,

1 0 4 .

John Paul Kusso, I. A. Richards, His Life and Works,

204.

"In the creative moment the poet% mind is better

organized that of the ordinary person. I t

presents "conciliation of impulses which in most

minds are still confused inter trameled and

conflicting".

l 1 I . A . Richards, Princi~les of Literary Criticism,

99 - 100.

'2 0 . I(. Ogtlcrl, I . A. l<ict~i~~,cls, J ~LIIICS Wc,oil , :!:!IS

Foundations of Aesthetics, George Allen, 2nd Edn, 1925, 21.

"Anything is beautiful which brings us into touch

with exceptional presonalities"

1 3 I>~IIIIC, 1 1 1 Mcc:~ 1 1 IIIII, " I . i I c 1.11 ( 1 1 I.(: 111111 MI: l h1)1 l" , ' I ' o W f l rd::l 11

CritAue of I_:. A, Richards, L T, SLElil?f_ mC1 EL L- L ~ ( l v L 3

(New Jcrsey :Gull and MacMillan-Humanities Press, 1983) 43

' I 4 Pamela McCallum, 4 7 .

I . A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism,

242.

l 6 I . A . Richards, Coleridge Qg Imagination, 2nd Ed.

(London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950) 45.

l7 I. A . Richards, Colerid~e on bagination. 26.

l8 I . A. Richards, Coleridge on Irna~ination, 2nd Edn

(London : RouLlcdge and Kegun Paul, 1950) 49

Rama Seldan (Ed.) Theory of Criticism, 27.

The Foundatiorls of Acsthctic~, 68.

20 Ja~ncs Ward, psvcholo~ic&l Pr incip.l_e_~, ('The

C:nn~l)r.iOgc 1 ' : ;ychuIog ic t11 1.i h ~ . u i - y , I v t y I , 1920) 2rltl

Edn., 43.

21 Jarnes Ward, 69.

Bain Alexander, The Emotions ar~d the Will, (London,

1859) too may be consulted.

22 James Ward, 45.

2 3 James Ward, 69.

24 I. A . Richards, 'principles_ of Literary Criticism,

258.

25 I. A . Richards, Coleridge On Inlagination, 2nd Edn,

(London : Routledge a n d ~ e ~ a n Paul) 56.

X 6 I. A . Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism,

258.

Z7 I . A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism

258.

28 1 . A . Richc~rds, Prir~ci~>lcs of 1,itertlrv Crilicism,

2 5 8 .

Z9 I. A . Richards, Colerid~e Imnginnti~r~, Preface

to 2nd Edn, ( Cambridge : Massachusets, October 1949) XV.

3O I. A. Richards, Prir~ciples of Literary Criticism,

5 0 .

31 James Ward, Psvcholoaical Principles, The Cambridge

Psychological Library, 2nd Edn, (Cambridge : CUP, 1920).

I. A. Richards, Principles of Criticism, Chapter V,

99.

3 2 John Paul Russo, I.A. Richards, His Life and Works,

1 0 3 .

3 I a I<usso, 1 . A. Rich;lr<lsr His Life and Works, 1 0 4 .

34 "'This cor~ccpt of total unity rcn~incls us of the

unity produccd by o do~i~int~nt rasa in 11 p l m y or m pocii~

underscored by the Indian Literary theoreticians".

3 5 William K Wimsatt and Cleanth Brooks, 2nd Ind.

Print. Literary Criticism & Short History, (Oxford : I. B.

H. Publishing) 6 1 9 .

"When impulses are 'harmonised' on the other hand

they work together, and such disciplined co-

ordination in action is much to be desired in

other places"

UFoundations of Aesthetics, 7 7 .

Also see I. A. Richards, Princi~)les ol Literary

Criticism, 249-50 (I.A Richards. Essays in His Honour,

Reuben Brower, Helen Vendler and John Hollnder, 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 )

Cleanth Brooks says, "In any case, Richards has either

deliberately or unconsciously reversed the meaning

Santayana assigned to exclusion and inclusion".

3 6 .Jol~r~ P;LLII I<usso, ZI ,A. Richnrds, lLLs 1.iLc i!rjcl Works,

1 0 5 .

37 John Paul Russo, 1.A Richards, His Life and Works,

1 0 5 .

1 . A . Richards, I'rinciples of Literary Criticism

p p . 2 7 - 2 8 .

I t is interestir~g to observe in this contest that both

T. S . Eliot and I . A . Richards spcnk of impcrsonnlity. T h e y

i t g l . e c up or^ a11t1 d i r f c l - i r l nlany aspccts o f poetry. Ilut a

coolpar ison between th e two is outsirle the purview of this

thcsis.

3 9 Emot i v c Lanzauge, E d John Paul R u s s o , (Massachusets:

Carcanct Press, 1974).

1 . A . Iticli;i~-(I::, ~g~~n[)lcnier~la~~i 1 i~ (I;:;:ii~y 10 , I I I I C O I IccLcd

Essays), (Massachusets : Carcanet Press, 1976) X .