1

Comparative Poetics: A History of Indian and

Western Aesthetic Theories regarding Poetry and

Spiritual Transformation.

Written by

Chip Cosby

PhD Comprehensive Exam #1

California Institute of Integral Studies

Fall Semester 2011

 2

“Every beloved object is the center point of a paradise.”

Novalis

Echoing the words of Novalis, there is a sense of profound depth that utters from

the human capacity to make observations and judgments of an aesthetic nature.

Interestingly, the qualitative structure of our human embodied experience is determined

by aesthetic perception. What makes possible this determination? Are qualities such as

the good, the true and the beautiful contained in the objects themselves? Or, are they

eternal ideas apprehended by the perceiver as Plato once remarked? Questions such as

these are but a sample from the whole realm of aesthetics which has grasped the

imagination of artists, writers, poets, philosophers, and musicians since time immemorial.

Consequently, elaborate theories in India and in the West, from ancient to modern times,

have attempted to shed light on these philosophical and religious questions which arise

from the innate sense of aesthetic perception itself.

The point of this historical overview is to give a detailed account of the major

aesthetic theories that developed in India and in the West. The most enduring aesthetic

theories which will be attended to are those which contextually arouse out of a spiritual

worldview. What’s more is that these theories also bear a meaningful resonance with

human poetic sensibilities. First, in the case of India, the earliest Vedic accounts of what

constitutes drama and poetry will be looked at as well as their related concepts, including

rasa theory, dhvani theory and riti. Following this, the early Indian theorists such as

Bharata, Bhamaha, Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta who went to great lengths to

 3

define the nature of aesthetic enjoyment and art will be individually analyzed. As modern

aesthetics developed in India, subsequent thinkers such as Sri Aurobindo,

Coomaraswamy and Tagore also played key roles in furthering the philosophical

development of Indian aesthetics. Therefore, their own individual theories of Beauty and

Art will be discussed in order to get a sense of the trajectory that aesthetics took in

modern India.

The second section of this paper will delve into the path that aesthetics took in the

Western world. Beginning with the ancient Greeks, speculations concerning aesthetic

issues became systematically developed and written down by Plato. This systemization

laid down the foundation for aesthetic thinking in the West and was taken in a novel

direction by Aristotle. In lieu of this, Platonic and Aristotelian theories such as mimesis,

representationism and katharsis will be discussed, due to the fact that each were

intimately concerned with art and beauty. Subsequently, Plotinus will be briefly looked at

due to his unique thought that included Platonic rationalism with mysticism. His

importance lies in the fact that his metaphysics went on to greatly influence aesthetic

thought in the Middle Ages. The second major turn in Western aesthetics will look at the

medieval Christian tradition, predominantly led by St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas

Aquinas. Aquinas’s “functionalist theory of Beauty” and Bonaventure’s “metaphysics of

light” laid the foundation for a purely Theological aesthetic at that time. God and Beauty

were names used interchangeably as these Christian Platonic writers attempted to express

with precision, the intimate connection between aesthetic and theological concerns.

Next, three important thinkers of the German idealist tradition will be examined

due to their systematic treatment of the subject. Following the Kantian turn in
 4

philosophy; Friedrich Schiller, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer

all made novel and significant contributions to the field of aesthetics. One such

contribution is their unyielding commitment to the idea that aesthetics has soteriological

value. That art and beauty, contain within themselves, the possibility for freedom and

liberation from all forms of suffering and contingency. After Hegel and Schopenhauer,

the most important influence on modern aesthetics is Benedetto Croce. Therefore, the

final section on Western aesthetics will grapple Croce’s Expressionist theory of art due to

it being the most influential in the 20th century. Thus, a comprehensive history of Indian

and Western aesthetic theories will be concluded.

A HISTORY OF INDIAN AESTHETICS

Aesthetic theory in India is comprised of a long and complex trajectory beginning

with its origins in Vedic times. There is considerable evidence that the roots of Indian

aesthetics are embedded in Vedic literature such as the Aitareya Brāhmana from the Rig

Veda. However, according to Indologists, there was no systematic treatment of aesthetics

until Bharata’s Nātyaśāstra was composed. This seminal treatise on drama and poetics is

said to have been written somewhere between 500 BC and 200 AD, but as noted scholar

Bharat Gupt points out, “to give an exact date, is impossible not only for the Nātyaśāstra

but for any work of Indian antiquity. According to him, the best one can do is to examine

the contents of the Nātyaśāstra in relation to the Purāṇas, Smṛtis and other important

works to see whether the Nātyaśāstra can be placed before or after them (Gupt, 19).
 5

Nevertheless, it is a fact that since circa fifth century B.C. no famous work on drama had

been in existence other than the Nātyaśāstra.

As to why this treatise was written, scholars such as Dr. S. S. Barlingay point out

that the Nātyaśāstra was aiming to present one cogent, coherent theory of art in general

and drama in particular (Barlingay, xi). Although much of Indian literature is connected

with art and aesthetics, it is unlikely that India ever produced any unified systematic

theory on aesthetics as a whole. In general, the dynamic and multivalent character of

ancient Indian thought would not allow for such a concrete monovalence to subsist.

Therefore, since one cannot speak of Indian aesthetics by means of generalities or as

being guided by one distinct rational principle as in some Western traditions, how might

one approach this subject matter with some sense of clarity and organization?

It can be said, as the Indic scholar Edwin Gerow points out that Indian aesthetic

theory is primarily concerned with two subject matters, namely kāvya (poetics) and nātya

(drama) (Gerow, 223). Historically, nātya was given systematic treatment before kāvya;

therefore, nātya will be the springboard for delving into Indian aesthetics here as well.

Regarding nātya, a question that one might first address is: What is the meaning of the

word nātya? Scholars suggest that it is etymologically derived from the root word nāt and

that the word nātya is constructed by adding san to nat which means an “action” or

“performance”. Thus, nātya is concerned with the staging of a performance. Moreover,

Bharata defines nātya as “the imitation of that which takes place in the real world” and

his main concern in the Nātyaśāstra is to give a systematic account of nātya (Barlingay,

104). The aim of the Nātyaśāstra is centered on a very important philosophical question,

that is: What is the link between art and aesthetic enjoyment? The arts mentioned in the
 6

treatise include dance, music, drawing, acting, architecture and sketching. However, the

Nātyaśāstra is not primarily interested in descriptively explaining each of these arts, but

rather in giving a detailed analysis of their potential to induce certain states of mind in the

audience or spectators (Gupta, 17). Thus, the link between art and these particular states

of mind is referred to as “rasa” which is the operative principle of Indian aesthetic

theory.

As Professor Shyamala Gupta points out, the concept of rasa is as old as the

earliest vedic literature; but its application to drama and poetry is a revolutionary

discovery ushered in by Bharata (Gupta, 18). Throughout the trajectory of Indian history,

the rasa theory has dominated the majority of philosophical thinking in regards to

aesthetics. The word rasa literally means ‘liquid’ or “that which flows”. It was also used

for indicating an “essence” or “vital principle” (Barlingay, 85). Its etymology is traced to

the root “ras” which stands for making audible noises or sounds. Rasa is used in

orthodox and heterodox philosophical systems, in Āyurveda and in other works of nātya

and kāvya. Additionally, the development of Indian poetics has largely shaped the modern

conception of rasa theory as it exists presently. Professor Hiriyanna from Mysore

University has written that the word rasa primarily means “taste” such as sweetness; and

by metaphorical extension, rasa then became applied to experiences which shared this

similar quality i.e. aesthetic experience of bliss or joy (Hiriyanna, 38). For instance, in the

Taittiriya Upaniṣad it states that after a person obtains rasa, then one is able to attain

great bliss and happiness. Rasa is also referred to as an attraction towards sense objects in

the Bhagavad- Gītā. Nevertheless, Bharata borrowed the word to explain the nature of

drama as a performing art. He openly admits to this appropriation in the seventeenth

 7

verse/first chapter of the Nātyaśāstra. In addition, Bharata mentions two processes

relevant to stage-drama: the process of creation on the one hand and the process of

appreciation on the other. For Bharata, the stage- drama existed as a type of temporal

continuum where the dramatist, the director and the actors create the drama, which is then

appreciated by the spectators. It is said that rasa should arise at the end of the first

process (creation) and the second process (appreciation) should begin with the tasting of

rasa. Thus, rasa is the object of both processes and becomes apparent in and through the

form of drama expressed (Barlingay, 95).

The influence of the theory of rasa was not confined to dramaturgy alone even

though it was explicated by Bharata in the context of nātya (Gupta, 32). As the entire

focus of rasa theory shifted to poetics, an important development began to emerge

regarding the emphasis of rasa in general. The process of appreciation of rasa became far

more significant than the creation of rasa. Also, prior to the connection between rasa and

kāvya, attention had not been paid to the nature and status of poetry. Indian philosophers

had long since suggested that it was an outcome or expression of the poet’s experience,

but it had never received systematic treatment until a work entitled “Kāvyālaṅkāra” by

the poetician Bhāmaha was written.

The Kāvyālaṅkāra was composed most likely between the last quarter of seventh

and middle of eight century AD, thus Bhāmaha began the first discourse on poetics as an

independent investigation on the virtues of diction and the language of poetry (Gupta,

33). Many of the ideas expressed in Bhāmaha’s work were not entirely novel, this is due

to the fact that Bharata had given a summary treatment of poetics in the 16th chapter of

Nātyaśāstra. However, the originality of the Kāvyālaṅkāra consists in its attempt to

 8

isolate poetry from drama and investigate its virtues independenly (Gupta, 34).

Furthermore, the primary concern of Bhāmaha is with the ālaṅkāras (embellishments) of

poetry. The word ālaṅkāra signifies ornamentation, decoration, and figure of speech. It is

therefore used to describe enduring characteristics of Indian artistic production, whether

in the visual, performing or literary arts. In the context of poetry, they are various poetic

figures of speech which like the decorative ornaments enhance the beauty of poetry rather

than the body of poetry. The ālaṅkāras may be seen as a way of achieving a meaning that

is appropriate albeit not direct. Hence, the ālaṅkāras serve a solely aesthetic function in

regards to poetic utterance.

According to the ālaṅkāra school of Bhāmaha, there are two factors which

comprise the body of poetry, the first being śabda (word) and the second being artha

(meaning). Bhāmaha contends that the power of creating rasa is brought about by the

combination of sound and meaning when they are embellished by the ālaṅkāras (Gupta,

35). For Bhāmaha, the necessary conditions for poetry are śabda and artha, whereas the

ālaṅkāras act as merely sufficient conditions. In speaking of the necessary conditions,

Bhāmaha gives an aphorism where he says, “śabdarthau sahitau kāvyam”, in this

statement he isn’t referring solely to the fact that poetry requires words and meanings, but

rather to the curious fact that sound patterns recede into the background while meaning

patterns come into the forefront. This is one important description of the necessary

condition of poetry. However, Bhāmaha is not giving a definition of poetry, only a

descriptive analysis or vyākhyā. His description is valuable because it points out the

relationship between the medium of art and the message of the artist. All too often, in

ordinary language, the meaning or intention is valued over against the words, whereas, in
 9

grammar, the words themselves are considered to be more valuable than the meaning or

intention. For Bhāmaha, specifically in the case of poetry, he asserted that neither of these

parts could be isolated or considered independently without reference to one another.

Following this development, Bhāmaha appropriated rasa theory for the

purpose of explaining auditory poetry which has significant visual overtones and which

takes the form of visual images even in the absence of a stage. The difficulty of

explaining this required that the term vat be added to the end of rasa in order to signify

that something was “like” rasa or “similar to” rasa. Thus, rasavat was recognized by

Bhāmaha and his followers to be either that which possessed rasa or that which was like

rasa. Also, rasavat was recognized as one of the ālaṅkāras in poetry, primarily because it

gave the sensation of seeing a picture while reading or hearing. Rasavat refers to that

poetry which has rasa or picturesque quality embedded in it. Hence, the theory of rasa

became more predominantly used in the context of poetry as the popularity of stage

drama dwindled over time (Barlingay, 96).

Another important theory that Bhāmaha employed in connection with rasa was

his theory of vakrokti. Vakrokti means an expression which is not straightforward, but

one which has curvature (vakra). Moreover, it is concerned with the structure of art and

also with the appreciation and evaluation of art in general (Barlingay, 73). According to

this theory, vakrokti is the invariable core of all poetry. It is an expressive power, a

capacity of language to suggest indirect meaning along with the literal meaning, which is

very similar to the way that the language of myth functions. Bhāmaha points out that

poetic language must show evidence of this expressive power by being distinct of matter-

of- fact statements called svabhavokti. (Gupta, 36). An example of a matter-of-fact

 10

statement being, “The sun sets, the moon shines; the birds return to their nests” (Gupta,

36). A statement such as this is bereft of poetic essence and lacks what Bhāmaha calls

vakrokti or curvature. Therefore, the importance that lies in this theory is that it makes a

sharp distinction between conventional language and poetic language. Thus, vakrokti is a

poetic device used to express something extraordinary and has the inherent potential to

provide the aesthetic experience of rasa.

Subsequently, Bharata and Bhāmaha both tried to give an account as to what the

foundation of rasa experience depends. In the sixth chapter of the Nātyaśāstra, Bharata

gives a full description of his theory on how rasa is produced due to the requests of his

disciples. Here he gives eight types of rasas which correspond to what he calls the eight

bhāvas. Bhāva is a term that Bharata makes copious use of throughout his writings, the

root of the Sanskrit is bhū or “to become” although bhāva often gets translated as feeling,

emotion or mood. According to the Nātyaśāstra, bhāvas are of three types: sthāyi,

vyabhicāri and sancari bhāvas (Gupta, 28). The procreation of rasa is to be understood in

relation to these different bhāvas, though, the most essential part of this theory is to

explain the triadic relation of vibhāvas (determinants), anubhāvas (consequents) and

vyabhicāribhāvas (involuntary emotions). Vibhāva is used in the sense of “that which is

the determining factor of a certain action.” In the context of drama or poetry vibhāvas

determine the words, gestures, facial expressions and are also the object of

consciousness. On the other hand, anubhāvas are the actual words, gestures and facial

expressions that arise physically. They are the concrete bodily manifestations by which

vibhāvas are understood or recognized (Barlingay, 48). Another way to understand it is to

view vibhāvas as the conditions and the anubhāvas as the symptoms. Bharata asserts that
 11

when these three types of bhāvas are stirred up to a certain intensity, the natural result is

the production of rasa in the spectator or audience. Also, there must be a competent

observer whose consciousness is detached from egotistic interest in order for rasa to be

apprehended. Thus, the experience of rasa, which in effect is the experience of this

triadic unity in its fullness, is a contemplative experience.

So far, one can glimpse that the early Indian theorists such as Bharata and

Bhāmaha were primarily concerned with the exterior of a drama or poem i.e., its words

and meanings, and so talked about guṇas (qualities), doṣas (defects) and ālaṅkāras

(embellishments). Those specific words and meanings that fit properly into the drama or

poem were considered guṇas, whereas doṣas referred to those words and meanings which

were defective, and ālaṅkāras were those expressions which were hyperbolic in nature.

Yet, an important development occurs as the successors of these early theorists begin to

move away from exterior analysis and come to distinguish between the sarīra (body) and

the atman (soul) of the aesthetic object ( Gr: aisthetikos). Due to this distinction, Bhāva

or emotion came to be regarded as the soul of poetry. Even when a poem contains a vivid

description of nature or life, it also must evoke emotion.

This connection between the atman and the aesthetic object finds its fullest

expression in the rīti theory of Vāmana . According to Edwin Gerow, Vāmana should be

seen as a theorist who brought not only an analytic interest to the study of poetry but

attempted for the first time to offer a rationalization of the subject (Gerow, 235). In

addition, Vāmana wrote in sūtra style and is most notable for his work entitled the

Kāvyālaṅkāra Sūtra where he attempted to find a way of relating in a single organized

whole the various principles that had been discussed by his predecessors. Tradition
 12

regards Vāmana as an advocate of rīti or “style” which makes him a follower of

Bhāmaha. Rīti represents for him a collocation of guṇas that are thoughtfully joined with

ālaṅkāras to produce the sense of beauty (saundaryam). However, he is similar to

Bhāmaha only so far as his views on ālaṅkāra are concerned. In other ways, his views

are more highly indebted to Daṇḍin in the sense that he assigns great importance to the

notion of guṇa or “stylistic element.” Regarding the notion of ālaṅkāra, Vāmana uses it

in the sense of “attainment of beauty” rather than “embellishment”. The attainment of

beauty in poetry, for him, is founded on the premise of avoiding poetic faults. Poetic

faults are called doṣas which are deficiencies that inhibit poetic speech from occurring.

Therefore, the doṣa accounts for countervailing obstacles to the achievement of poetic

meaning (Gerow, 230).

In Kāvyālaṅkāra Sūtra, Vāmana elevates the concept of rīti as the major

constituent of poetic beauty. According to Vāmana, rīti is the “soul of poetry” and

consists of three specific types. The three specific types are Vaidarbhi (the excellent),

Gaudi (the bombastic) and Pancali (the middling). Out of these three, Vāmana favors the

Vaidarbhi rīti due to the fact that it is free of dosas (faults) and is complete with the ten

guṇas (good qualities) and ālaṅkāras (Barlingay, 39). Also, Vāmana rejects the view that

the other two inferior rītis can lead to the Vaidarbhi rīti (Gupta, 39). It may be said that

rīti denotes style and is concerned with the material constituents as well as the

presentation of art. Whether this is poetry, drama, painting or music, the very existence of

art depends on rīti and it should be recognized that Vāmana was trying to relate the

constituent conditions of art to the evaluative ones. Although Vāmana was the first to

courageously attempt to comprehend the elements of poetry in one whole, in the interest
 13

of congruence he distorted the parts unrecognizably. Professor Gerow points out that

“However felicitous the general outlook of Vāmana’s work, it must be observed that the

detailed working out of his ideas received little or no acceptance in subsequent centuries;

his theory is one of the significant dead-ends in the history of Indian poetics (Gerow,

236).”

Following this development, a theorist by the name of Anandavardhana

constructed his theory of dhvani to try and explain how emotion in poetry gets

communicated to the observer (Ghosh, 6). The exact period and the antiquity of

Anandavardhana is shrouded in mystery, but scholars think that he was acquainted with

the ālaṅkāra school of poetics and was known to them from some sparse references to

the word dhvani in their literary works (Gupta, 58). In order to highlight the importance

of Anandavardhana, Dr. Ranjan K. Ghosh, a well-known scholar in the field of

philosophy of art and aesthetics states:

Before Anandavardhana, Indian aesthetic theories spoke of the descriptive nature

of poetic art and developed in this context ideas relating to excellence of words,
their meaning and expression. These theoreticians wrote treatises on the nature of
poetic language in order to draw attention to the importance of ālaṅkāras,
guṇas, etc. But from Anandavardhana onwards the Indian theoretician becomes
more and more concerned with the nature of poetic meaning. (Ghosh, 10)

Following Anandavardhana ‘s scholarly exposition of the dhvani theory in his work

entitled Dhvanyaloka, his theory was regarded as revolutionary concerning the

explanation of rasa in poetic expression. Professor Edwin Gerow points out that

Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyaloka can be understood in three ways: First, in relation to

Alaṅkāra Sāstra; secondly in relation to the Nātyaśāstra; thirdly, in relation to rasa and

ālaṅkāra as a linking principle (Gerow, 253). It is the last contribution that Gerow points
 14

out is the most important because it unifies the tradition of Indian poetics for the first

time. After Dhvanyaloka, he asserts that Indian authors were either confronting its

propositions or trying to revise the most basic ones.

Dhvani or “suggestion” is basically identified as a means for evoking rasa and

can be understood to embrace allegory, as well as the ambiguity of poetic speech. Also

identified with dhavani is the expressiveness of gesture and movement of figures, the

evocative qualities of musical phrases and visual shapes. Although dhvani theory was

approved by the majority, there was one main critic by the name of Mahimabhatta who

denied dhvani theory and only accepted abhidha (intrinsic meaning) as plausible.

Professor P.V. Kane describes Dhvanyaloka as a work on par with Pāṇini’s aṣṭādhyāyī in

grammar, and Vedānta Sūtra in philosophy and attributes to it a very significant role in

the science of poetics (Gupta, 60). Scholarly opinion suggests that Anandavardhana’s

overall purpose was to synthesize the theory of dhvani with the more well-known and

well-discussed theories of riti, guṇa, ālaṅkāra and rasa. In the process of his massive

undertaking, Anandavardhana not only displays his thorough understanding of semantics

as handed down by grammarians and philosophers, but he also supplements it with his

own sensitivity for poetic beauty found in language.

This sensitivity for poetic beauty is the motivating factor for why the Indian

aesthetic philosophers have made such a meticulous study of both the meaning and the

emotive context of words. A salient point that Anandavardhana tried to emphasize is that

words have at least two meanings, one literal meaning, the other suggested meaning

which is described as ‘dhvani’ or ‘the meaning that echoes’. Dhvani is so termed because

it sounds, rings, or reverberates. Also, Anandavardhana uses dhvani in the sense of

 15

“aesthetic suggestion” because it relates itself to meanings and the suggestive power of

words. Dhvani itself has three aspects, ‘abidha’ which consists in the literal meaning of

expression, ‘laksana’ which consists in the external characteristics of the expression

which are indicative of something more fundamental, and ‘vyañjanā’ which means “that

mood which is suggested”. It is by means of vyañjanā that Anandavardhana thinks the

unexpressed sense can be found in poetry (Tharakan, 56). According to him, it is a

function that cannot be equated with denotation or indication, but rather, it can only be

accepted through the discovery that rasa is unexplainable without assuming vyañjanā as

a postulate. Dhvani is the reverberation of suggested meaning and is declared by

Anandavardhana to be the soul of poetic utterance (Gupta, 62). Furthermore, all good

poetry or dhvani- kāvya must have the power to suggest this extended sense not covered

by the ordinary meanings of the words. Dhvani- kāvya is that poetry which is

characterized by the predominance of suggested sense over expressed sense. Thus,

Anandavardhana makes it abundantly clear that the fundamental principle of the best

poetry is its capacity of suggesting vyañjanā, the moods and feelings which words cannot

express but only suggest to the imaginative mind. To quote Professor S.K. De on this

expressive capacity of poetry, he writes:

The unexpressed is bound up by means of definite links with the expressed,

without which it cannot exist; but it is wrapped up in such a manner as to make it
possible only for the initiated in the poetic hieroglyphics to comprehend its
subtlety. The unexpressed is not understood by those who know grammar and
lexicon, but only by men of taste and literary instinct, who know the essence of
poetry. It is the province of the connoisseur, who is expert in discerning through
the intricate meshes of veiled word and sense into the aesthetic relish (rasa) of
deeper significance, in which the pleasure of the beautiful is mixed up with the
pleasure arising from the fitness of the problem itself. ( De, 174)
 16

Following Anandavardhana’s work, a Kashmiri Sanskrit poetician and literary

theorist by the name of Kuntaka wrote a work entitled Vakroktijivita in which he

postulates the theory vakrokti or figuratve expression. This term vakrokti was mentioned

as one of the embellishments of poetry by authors starting from Bhāmaha, but a central

place was given to it in Kuntaka’s theory (Barlingay, 32). Vakrokti means an expression

which is not straightforward, which is vakra, i.e. one which has curvature. However, the

concept was introduced to be used as an evaluative concept. Interestingly, Kuntaka makes

no direct reference to the doctrine of Dhvanyaloka but his work is considered to be one of

the most independently conceived in the history of Indian poetics (Gerow, 262).

Kuntaka’s theory wrestles with the same problem that dhvani theory wrestles with,

namely, the grammatical basis of poetic utterance. However, Kuntaka elaborates the

notion of poetic utterance in two parallel ways that in effect generalize the claims of the

ālaṅkāra theorists. He does this in a way which does not solely limit the argument to

ālaṅkāra theory. First, he carefully links vakrokti to its effect rasa, thus Kuntaka makes

clear that a “striking or charming apprehension” is the primary principle which qualifies

the bare figure as poetic utterance (Gerow, 262). Secondly, Kuntaka finds the notion of

‘figure’ as being too narrow for a grammatical explanation of vakrokti. Thus, it is the

considered view of Kuntaka that poetic language always deviates from commonplace

expressions by taking imaginative turns. Despite the fact that Kuntaka’s work is elegant

and exemplary, it was judged as being uninteresting by the later tradition and thereby

failed to have any lasting power.

The most important development in Indian aesthetics following the work of

Kuntaka was led by Abhinavagupta. A kashmiri brāhmaṇa by birth as well as a learned

 17

scholar in almost all fields of knowledge, Abhinavagupta was born in the year 960 AD.

He was also considered to be an important musician, poet, dramatist, exegete, theologian,

and logician. Regarding his contribution in the field of aesthetics, two major works were

written by him. The first, entitled Abhinavabhāratī is a long and complex commentary on

Bharata’s Nātyaśāstra. This work has been one of the most important factors contributing

to Abhinavagupta's fame up to this present day. Interestingly, Abhinavagupta does not

accept the premise that drama is an imitation (Gr:mimesis) of actions whether the person

be historical or imaginary. In actuality, he doesn’t see any possibility of imitating the

emotions of a person because he considers emotions to be too subtle and imperceptible

(Gupta, 54). An important question he asks in lieu of this is: How one can be sure that the

actor is accurately representing the emotions of the character? After all, the character is

either, a creation of the literary artist or a historical person, both of which no one has

directly perceived. Thus, Abhinavagupta deems it impossible to know whether the actual

character expresses precisely the same emotions that the actor portrays. Furthermore, the

emotions of the actor are not deemed to be their own for the simple fact that the actor is

portraying someone else and is literally “faking it”. In conclusion, Abhinavagupta asserts

that these emotions should not be associated with one particular person, but should be

understood as general human emotions or psychic states (Gupta, 55). Since identification

takes place within the frame of general human emotions, under no circumstance can this

be considered a form of imitation.

Regarding his second major work in the field of aesthetics, Abhinavagupta’s

Dhvanyalocana is undoubtedly the most important commentary on Dhvanyaloka by

Anandavardhana. In trying to build a bridge between drama and poetry, Abhinavagupta

 18

associated the dhvani theory with Bharata’s theory of rasa. His vision sought to elevate

the importance of rasa above dhvani, while still maintaining the validity of dhvani

theory. Although Anandavardhana had asserted that vastu-dhvani and ālaṅkāra-dhvani

were both suitable expressions of dhvani, Abhinavagupa wanted to reduce vastu and

ālaṅkāra into one unified rasa theory (Gupta, 65). Therefore, he maintained that vastu

and ālaṅkāra dhvani resolves itself into rasa-dhvani resulting in the supremacy of rasa

over dhvani. Also, rather than viewing rasa and dhvani as identical terms, which many

theorists sought to do, Abhinavagupta thought that these two theories supplemented each

other and that they represented two important aspects of Indian aesthetic theory. In

speaking of this, he says “rasāḥ dhvaniḥ eva” which means that rasa and dhvani have to

be taken together because the eva stands for inseparability rather than identification

(Barlingay, 78). Professor S.S. Barlingay asserts that rasa and dhvani are like a symbol

and its meaning and that Abhinavagupta sought to hammer in this distinction between

symbolic presentation and meaning.

Another important feature of Abhinavagupta’s aesthetics is his explanation of the

experience of rasa itself. Abhinavagupta fully agrees with the understanding of rasa as

relish or delight, as well as it being a phenomenon which is subjectively experienced.

However, he develops rasa further by trying to explain how it is that the spectator also

has identically existing emotions except for the fact they are in latent form.

Abhinavagupta attributes the term vāsanā to account for these latent emotions. For him,

vāsanās are impressions in the human mind which are caused by previous experiences or

even previous births. They are regarded by Abhinavagupta as being the necessary

condition for the spectator to feel a sense of identity with the emotions suggested in
 19

drama or poetry. Moreover, the universality of these emotions (sadharanikaran) is what

makes possible a disinterested enjoyment rather than a personal involvement. In speaking

of the relationship between vāsanā and rasa Professor P.V. Kane writes:

There is in the mind a latent impression of feelings which we once went through
and this is roused when we read a poem which describes similar things. By
universal sympathy or community of feeling, we become part and parcel of the
same feeling and imagine ourselves in that condition. Thus, the feeling is raised to
a state of relish called rasa, in which lies the essence of poetic enjoyment. (Kane,
135)

To summarize, the production of rasa is dependent on feeling a sense of identity with

generalized emotions. These generalized emotions are what Abhinavagupta calls

sadharanikaran. However, it is not through understanding the characters emotions in

relation to oneself that generalization happens. On the other hand, it consists of directly

realizing the “universal and impersonal” as opposed to the “particular and individual”

that brings identification about. This is how one is able to take delight in the general form

of poetic experience without getting personally attached. Through rasa, one is now

allowed to take delight in emotions without the obstruction of their

personal/individualistic character. An appropriate end to this topic of discussion is a quote

from the Bengali poet Tagore, in speaking of rasa he comments: “…we love to feel even

fear or sorrow if it is detached from all practical consequences (Ghosh, 13).”

Following Abhinavagupta, there were a few successors such as Hemacandra,

Mammata and Jagannatha who are considered important philosophers of aesthetics.

However, none of their theories surpassed Abhinavagupta and they did not have a

significant impact on Indian aesthetic theory. In fact, Professor S.S. Barlingay calls the

period following Abhinavagupta “the beginning of Indian cultural decadence” (Barlingay,

 20

196). Due to the influence of Anandavardhana, Barlingay says that during this time, the

different domains of art and aesthetics became strictly subsumed by the theories of kāvya.

Furthermore, he says the theory of rasa came to be totally misunderstood and

misinterpreted. It wasn’t until the post-Jagannatha period (seventeenth century) that rasa

theory emerged in a new light. During this time, poetic or artistic appreciation came to be

identified with Ānanda, or the bliss arising from the realization of Brahman (the

absolute). From this development, the meaning of rasa became severed from its original

context which was expounded in Nātyaśāstra. Rasa, saundarya (beauty) and Ānanda are

some of the most important concepts in the Indian aesthetic traditions, however, the Post-

Jagannatha period regarded them as sharing equal status. Therefore, a completely novel

theory of rasa arose in the late nineteenth and twentieth century. This resulted in further

confusion regarding the status and meaning of the word rasa (Barlingay, 277).

The next question that will be delved into will require a brief shift in focus from

aesthetic theory into the realm of Indian philosophy. Although a philosophical question,

its relevance also occupies an important place in the history of Indian aesthetics. The

question is, what is the purpose and role of art according to Indian philosophy?

According to Ranjan K. Ghosh, this question has to be understood in the context of the

Indian conception of reality as it has been developed in the tradition (Ghosh, 8). Broadly

speaking, there are two important philosophical views which have shaped the majority of

thinking on art. First, Vedānta philosophy identifies Ultimate Reality with bliss or

Ananda. Nature or empirical reality for them is a source of both pleasure and suffering

which are always mixed together in various configurations. From their perspective, art

carries the potential to be a source of pure bliss; therefore art is a pointer towards the
 21

ultimate reality. This position affords art an intermediary position between the empirical

and the Absolute because it functions as a bridge. Additionally, Vedānta regards the rasa

experience as being initiated through the medium of art, yet, the spiritual experience itself

is wholly unique (Lat: sui generic/ Ger: das ganz Andere). From the Vedāntic point of

view, the ideal expressed in art is the source of bliss and therefore comes close to the

spiritual quest for the Absolute.

Secondly, the philosophical system of Sāṃkhya maintains that ultimate reality is

characterized by the cessation of pain rather than a positive attainment of bliss (Ghosh,

8). From this standpoint, the purpose of art is to provide a necessary relief from the

mundane experiences of suffering and pleasure found in nature. Moreover, the Sāṃkhya

idea of kaivalya (separatedness) involves self-identification with puruṣa, the cosmic self

which is a mere witness. It is through participation in art that this self-identification can

be enacted thereby loosening the bond between puruṣa (spirit) and prakṛti (matter).

Rather than trying to reach a state of bliss, the purpose of art for Sāṃkhya is to heal the

fundamental dualistic split between spirit and matter.

Following the period of Indian cultural decadence and a lack of prolific writing on

the subject of aesthetics, it wasn’t until the early 20th century in modern India that some

of the greatest thinkers and writers on aesthetics began to emerge. One of these great

thinkers on the spiritual role of art was a man by the name of Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950).

A Bengali poet, philosopher, yogi and freedom fighter, Sri Aurobindo’s essential message

dealt with the evolution of human life into a form of divine consciousness. Regarding his

relationship with art, he devoted three of his longest articles to the subject which were

published posthumously in a book entitled The Significance of Indian Art (1964).

 22

However, in order to grasp Sri Aurobindo’s feelings on the subject of Indian art, it is

important first to look at the historical context of how his theories may have developed.

According to author Mulk Raj Anand in his article entitled “Sri Aurobindo: The Critic of

Art”, he says that Aurobindo acutely realized that the ideal of Indian art had lapsed in

modern India due to the mediocrity of foreign education. In addition, due to the fact that

the ruling elite from the West held a bias in favor of Greek and European Renaissance

perspectives, the Indian perspective came to be completely misunderstood (Anand, 106).

He believed European criticism arose primarily because the essence of traditional Indian

art is spiritual, and because much of Western art is mimetically bounded to the sensuous

plane, the western perceiver of Indian art either misses or does not understand its spiritual

import. Therefore, Sri Aurobindo’s writings on the subject of art were largely a reaction

to this misunderstanding (Ghosh, 58). In particular, his work The Significance of Indian

Art is a defense of Indian Architecture, Sculpture and Painting against the misinformed

attacks of an English critic of his time, Mr. William Archer. An example of the English

superiority that Sri Aurobindo’s reacted to can be found in this quote by Sir George

Birdwood where he remarks, “The decorative art of India, which is a crystallized

tradition… cannot be ranked with the fine arts of Europe, wherein the inventive genius of

the artist, acting on his own spontaneous inspiration, asserts itself in true creation (Anand,

107).” Thus, statements like this one compelled Sri Aurobindo to write on the topic of art

and aesthetics.

Sri Aurobindo considered the artworks of the West to be providers of delight on a

purely sensuous plane, but he thought that the works of Indian art provided a spiritual

ideal and vision. What is significant in his approach is that he talks of art as an integral
 23

part of human life-outward and inner-that stands in need of what he calls “artistic self-

expression perfecting the aesthetic evolution of humanity” (Ghosh, 52). The aesthetic

evolution of humanity that he is referring to is a necessary prerequisite to the ultimate

spiritual ascent. For Aurobindo, art plays a definite role in human evolution as spiritual

consciousness. He views the aesthetic sensibility as playing a crucial role in this

evolutionary process. In expressing this point further, Sri Aurobindo remarks:

It is in the service of Spirituality that Art reaches its highest self-expression.

Spirituality is a single word expressive of three lines of human aspiration towards
divine knowledge, divine love and joy, divine strength, and that will be the
highest and most perfect Art which, while satisfying the physical requirements of
the aesthetic sense, the laws of formal beauty, the emotional demand of humanity,
the portrayal of life and outward reality… reaches beyond them and expresses
inner spiritual truth, the deeper not obvious reality of things, the joy of God in the
world and its beauty and desirableness and the manifestation of divine force and
energy in phenomenal creation. (Aurobindo, 49&50)

Hence, a question of ultimate concern for Sri Aurobindo is: In what sense does the

spiritual evolution of humanity stand in relation to creative art? Surprisingly, Sri

Aurobindo did not leave a detailed analysis of how exactly actual works of art might help

to evolve human consciousness. Despite Sri Aurobindo’s awareness of the soteriological

power inherent in art, he did not know how it would manifest concretely in the evolution

of consciousness.

Arguably the greatest and most prolific modern writer on Indian aesthetics was a

Ceylonese philosopher and metaphysician by the name of Ananda K. Coomaraswamy

(1877-1947). What is unique about Coomaraswamy’s vision is that he set out to restore

ancient Indian aesthetics and place it on firmer ground. He also synthesized many

divergent ideas in literary, philosophical and spiritual traditions while forging them into a
 24

single unified principle. Coomaraswamy specifically distinguishes Indian art as religion-

centric and asserts that the conscious aim of Indian art is the intimation of divinity

(Coomaraswamy, 27-28). In India, he says, the creative engagement has always been with

the Infinite and the Unconditioned, therefore, the western notion of “art for art’s sake” is

incomprehensible. In speaking of this point, Coomaraswamy says that “In religious art, it

must not be forgotten that life is not to be represented for its own sake, but for the sake of

the Divine expressed in and through it” (Coomaraswamy, 13). Accordingly, one can see

that Indian art reflects a spiritual mission to discover the Truth beyond the appearance of

the empirical world. The reason for this goes back to the Indian view of nature as a veil

(maya) as distinguished from the Western view of nature as a revelation. Consequently,

the aim is never to merely represent nature, but to point beyond it through the use of art

and symbol. Art cannot imitate nature, only appearance.

A pertinent question that should be asked is: What exactly is being pointed to?

Coomaraswamy explains that it is the ideal world which is being pointed to. The ideal as

given to humans through mental images or that can be apprehended through the power of

imagination. For the Indian mind, this ideal world is contrasted with the phenomenal

world as perceived by the senses. In apprehending the ideal, Coomaraswamy points to

three different means that the Indian artist draws from. The first is a store of memory

pictures or impressions, the second is the power of visualization and the third is the

power of creative imagination. For Coomaraswamy, such inwardization of the visual

image bears the stamp of “a spiritual discovery” rather than a creation (Ghosh, 37). He

speaks of “seeing” the image with the mind’s eye in order to represent a specific vision in

terms of line and color. In addition, Coomaraswamy points out that “Above all, the first
 25

essential of true art is not imitation, but imagination” (Ghosh, 37). The Sanskrit term to

denote this particular faculty of imagination is pratibhā which literally means “flash”

(Sreekantaiya & Akademi, 134). Thus, it is pratibhā that Commaraswamy equates with

having the ability to impart “spiritual vision” in a work of art.

Like all Indian aestheticians Coomaraswamy too accepts the senses as the

vehicles through which objects form the structure of aesthetic experience. Through

intuition and vision, the artist creates and expresses artistic forms–their arrangements,

composition, lines, sound and pattern. But the question arises: “Is there no other meaning

to art apart from its visual and auditory arrangements? What is then the meaning of art?

What does it convey and what is its significant form? Coomaraswamy finds his answers

in a metaphysics that recognizes a single Reality. Starting here Coomaraswamy argues on

various aspects of art which takes him to the depths or traditional Indian aesthetics and to

recognition of a divine Reality functioning as the single principle underlying the manifold

world of objects. In his own recognition of this fundamental unity, Coomaraswamy

emerges as the greatest contemporary exponent of traditional Indian aesthetics. In his

recognition of the truths of traditional culture, he regards the forms and experience of

finite life as “revelations of the Infinite.” Thus, his aesthetic “taste” seems a natural

outcome spurring from his awareness of spiritual transcendence (Thirunavukarasu, 77).

There are two distinctive features of Coomaraswamy’s traditional-bound

aesthetics. The first involves the activity of the mind in apprehending its realities

underlying the directness or immediacy of perception (pratyaksha–vision of art). The

second feature involves the apprehension of the contents of thought forms resulting from

a process of internal transformations of the mind. For Coomaraswamy, 'true art' or 'pure
 26

art' is, in a sense, self-referential: it refers to a quality wholly self-contained within the

work of art itself and relies exclusively on its own logic and its own criteria, not on

standards of truth applicable in the world (Chari, 53).

Another important writer on aesthetics is Rabindrinath Tagore because of his

major influence on Indian literature and music. Tagore (1861-1941), a poet from Bengal

wrote more than two thousand poems and composed both the lyrics and the music for

approximately three thousand songs. He was also the author of a wide array of novels,

short stories, plays, and essays (Lal, 31). In his essay entitled: What is Art? - Tagore

remarks that the attempt to define art is futile and rather than defining, one should deeply

question the reason for art’s existence. That is, one should sincerely contemplate the

ontological facticity of art, in general. Additionally, Tagore makes an important

distinction between “the world of facts” on the one hand, and “the world of expression”

on the other. He insists on clarifying that while the world of science consists of hard facts

and impersonal laws, it is artistic activity which calls for creating a more intimate and

satisfying relationship based on feeling rather than reason. According to him, when one

replaces empirical facts with creativity, then the individual becomes capable of

comprehending their identity and place in the structure of creation (Lal, 33). Furthermore,

Tagore remarks that the world of expression is realized through one’s personal

relationship with the world. It is through this relationship that limitless creativity begins

to originate in the human person in response to what Tagore calls “the call of the real”

(Lal, 32 ). Interestingly, Tagore attributes human creativity to the realm of the

“superfluous”, he attributes this to a spontaneous “bursting out” due to an overflow in the

 27

individual personality. This surplus in man that results in art is a thought-provoking view

of humanity developed by Tagore. Regarding this point, Tagore remarks:

Of all living creatures in the world, man has his vital and mental energy vastly in
excess of his need, which urges him to work in various fields of creation for its
own sake. Like Brahma himself, he takes joy in productions that are unnecessary
to him, and therefore represent his extravagance and not his hand-to-mouth
penury. (Cenker, 24)

Another point that Tagore insists on is that the artist must establish a relational

way of being with all things. He says that truth can be established by actively modulating

its interrelations and that this is the sole task of art; for reality is not based in the

substance of things but in the principle of relationship (Tagore, 83). Therefore, due to the

intimate relationship between humanity and the world that Tagore saw, he views the

function of art as serving as a link between the individual and reality. However, not only

with respect to art can this link occur, but with education as well. Tagore developed a

highly sophisticated theory of education where he sought in the aesthetic sense, a

synthetic principle for his conception of holistic learning (Lal, 33). In 1901, Tagore

established a school called Santiniketan where he promoted his ideal of aesthetic

education. His views on education were built on the premise that the highest form of

education is to help one realize the inner principle of the unity of all knowledge and all

the activities of social and spiritual being (Tagore, 199). In conclusion, one can see that

Tagore, who is rooted in ancient Upanishadic teachings, naturally inherits an experience-

centric approach to life and reality while integrating it into his philosophy of art. Art, for

Tagore, gives one a taste of reality through freedom of the mind from the empirical and

the contingent (Ghosh, 99).

 28

A HISTORY OF WESTERN AESTHETICS

The history of aesthetics in the West as a distinctive branch of philosophy which

found systematic treatment is hardly older than the eighteenth century. The German

philosopher Alexander Baumgarten (1714-62) first coined the term in his work entitled

Aesthetica which he wrote in 1739. Etymologically, the word aesthetic comes from the

Greek aisthetikos which means “sensitive” or “perceptive”, which in turn was derived

from aisthanomai, meaning “I perceive, feel, sense.” Interestingly, the root of “aesthetic”

is “au” meaning “to perceive” which shares the same root as the English word “audience”

(OED). However, Baumgarten appropriated the term and used it to refer to a science of

sensory perception in which he was basing his philosophy on. By 1750, Baumgarten had

come to equate aesthetics with what he formerly had called poetics, declaring its proper

object to be beauty and the ‘perfection of sensitive cognition’ (Brown, 21). In addition, he
 29

referred to this new philosophy as the “younger sister of logic” which he claimed “will do

for sense perception what logic does for the intellect” (Gregor, 358). His conviction is

that perception is worth developing for its own sake, and that the rules for developing it

are to be derived, not from the requirements of the physical sciences, but from the nature

of perception itself. In the beginning of his aesthetica, Baumgarten remarks that “the end

of aesthetics is the perfection of sense perception as such”(Baumgarten, 14). He also

makes it clear that his new philosophy, if it is to produce results, must focus solely on

perceptual objects as distinguished from rational objects. Due to Baumgarten’s awareness

of the limitations inherent in formal logic, he was able to construct an original

contribution to the history of philosophy in his theory of aesthetics. As a rationalist,

Baumgarten organized his theory based on a “non-conceptual felt unity of sensate

representations” rather than by means of logical concepts based on the principle of

sufficient reason (Wessell, 341). However, due to the fact that Baumgarten coined

aesthetics and turned it into a formal field of philosophical inquiry does not mean there

weren’t many ancient texts that directly influenced what is now called aesthetic thought.

Thus, it is now pertinent to turn one’s gaze towards those great philosophers and ancient

texts in order to glimpse the beginnings of aesthetic thinking in the West.

As in many other areas of philosophy, it is Plato who offers the first extended

treatment of both beauty and the arts (Bychkov & Sheppard, xv). Although Greek

philosophers had declared art as an imitation of reality (mimesis) prior to Plato, it was

Plato himself who derived the metaphysical implications of this theory. He did this by

explaining that art is actually an imitation of nature. Therefore, art is an imitation of an

already existing imitation, namely, the phenomenal world of nature. In consequence of

 30

this, Plato accuses artists of doubling the distance between art images and reality and

indulging in an activity that resulted in a world of artifacts which were sheer illusion of

natural objects which in turn were nothing more than copies of the ideas (Gupta, 104).

Furthermore, Plato’s views on art are explicated in a variety of different contexts and

there are invariant themes which show up in all of his discussions regarding aesthetics.

One such theme is that artists themselves lack true knowledge (gnosis) because they are

engaged in an activity which is contrary to the philosopher’s goal of reaching the truth. A

second invariant theme discusses the powerful impact of poetry and music on the

emotional state of the individual (Bychkov & Sheppard, xv). Plato talked of poets as

persons who are emotionally charged and possessed by the ‘muses’ or some kind of

madness and therefore they are unaware of what it is they pretend to know. Thus, Plato

would not tolerate the idea of emotion conquering reason and that is why he viewed

poetry and art as a threat to society.

Aside from Plato’s harsh criticisms, a few of his dialogues shed a more positive

light on the meaning of art and beauty. For instance, the Ion portrays Socrates arguing

that divine inspiration is responsible for both artistic capacity and for the power of art to

evoke emotions in an audience. Additionally, in the Hippias Major, Socrates is engaged

in a lengthy discussion with the sophist Hippias about how beauty should be defined. All

of the definitions that are subsequently put forth are denied by Socrates and the dialogue

ends inconclusively. In the Symposium and the Phaedrus, on the other hand, the

discussion of beauty is approached quite differently. The difference lies in the fact that

physical beauty is recognized as having the capacity to awaken one to the supersensible

or ideal form of beauty. Plato’s Symposium recounts how the soul can ascend to the
 31

Platonic form of beauty beginning in the physical world. Hierarchically, the soul then

moves from the appreciation of physical beauty, to beauty in other souls, to practices and

laws, to types of knowledge and finally to a revelation of true beauty itself (Bychkov &

Sheppard, xvi). For example, in 211c of the Symposium, it states:

The lover should begin from beautiful things in this world and ascend continually
in pursuit of that beauty. Like someone climbing a ladder, he should go from one
body to two, and from two bodies to all beautiful bodies, and from beautiful
bodies to beautiful practices, and from practices to beautiful types of learning, and
finally from types of learning to that type of learning which studies nothing other
than that beauty itself, so that in the end he understands what beauty really is.
(Plato, 211c, Bychkov and Sheppard)

In a separate dialogue, the Phaedrus portrays Plato’s vision of ideal beauty in

purely mythical terms. In stanza 250c, Socrates recounts how beauty could be

characterized as “shining brightly” when following Zeus and the gods in a joyful dance.

Also, ideal beauty is regarded as a vision of pure, radiant light and therefore it is a divine

mystery that one becomes initiated into. Love, too, is asserted in both the Symposium and

the Phaedrus to be the driving force of the soul towards a vision of ultimate beauty which

transcends all conceptuality. As one can see, both of these dialogues are concerned with

moral as well as aesthetic beauty. In lieu of this, the discussion of beauty in these two

works is far different from Plato’s discussions of beauty in the Republic.

Although Plato was the first to give systematic treatment to the theory of

imitation (mimesis) in art, it was his great disciple Aristotle who modified mimetic theory

into a theory of representationism (Gupta, 234). Even though Aristotle spoke the same

language as Plato did, his theory of art differed drastically due to a difference in his

metaphysical position. Aristotle’s famous work entitled Poetics exposes a novel way of

dealing with art and is considered to be a great contribution to aesthetic theory because
 32

rather than viewing art as an imitation of an imitation, as Plato did, Aristotle makes it

clear that imitation really refers to “emulation of reality.” In section four of Aristotle’s

Poetics, he refers to two causes as being responsible for the art of poetry. Regarding the

first cause, he writes: “the natural desire to imitate, which is present from childhood and

differentiates man as the most imitative of all living creatures, enables him to gain his

earliest knowledge through imitation (Aristotle, 6).” Secondly, Aristotle speaks of the

universal enjoyment that is gained through imitations. This development is strikingly

different than Plato’s view of art as a degrading act. Aristotle’s view of art elevates it to

an activity which has the potential to lead one to the ideal. Thus, it carries this potential

through its ability to represent essences of the real. This marked difference lies in the fact

that Aristotle did not view the pure ideas as existing apart from nature, but rather, as co-

existing. Additionally, Aristotle’s theory values the representational aspect over against

the presentation of forms due to art’s ability to represent deep inner truths. According to

Aristotle, this type of representation is the goal of Art (Gupta, 236).

Another theory of Aristotle’s that was expounded in Poetics is his “theory of

katharsis” which establishes the therapeutic role of emotions in dramatic performance.

According to scholar Jonathan Lear in his article entitled “katharsis,” Lear says that the

notion of tragic performance bringing about emotional relief in the audience is an idea

which has dominated Western philosophy and literary criticism since the Renaissance

(Lear, 297). What is notable about this theory is that it pinpoints the capacity of tragedy

to thoroughly move the spectators by arousing within them fear and sympathy for the

characters. Consequently, this brings about a purging of self centeredness and ego

identification. As a result, katharis has a moral-aesthetic effect on the observer. In

 33

addition, the theory of katharsis is also evidence to the fact that Greek thinkers were

aware of the emotional impact that certain forms of literary expression could evoke.

Thus, one can see how the metamorphosis of mimetic theory took place in the hands of

Aristotle who is the last link in the chain of the important Greek philosophers.

Consequently, Aristotelian theory had far reaching influence in the years to come in

European thought as well.

Following Plato and Aristotle, a philosopher by the name of Plotinus (CE 204/5–

270) combined Plato's rationalism with mysticism to produce a powerfully influential

version of Neo-Platonism. This element of mysticism in Plotinus was a major source of

inspiration for medieval Christian mystics and theologians. In approaching the concept of

beauty, Plotinus owes a great deal to Plato’s Symposium, Phaedrus and Timaeus. Yet, he

develops Plato’s suggestions in a much more systematic way (Bychkov & Sheppard,

xxvii). Plotinus emphasizes that ultimate intelligible beauty derives from the Good, or the

One, the highest principle in his metaphysical system. He also contends that the Platonic

forms are not the only source of intelligible beauty in the world. His major writings were

edited and collected by Porphyry into six books of nine chapters each, known as the

Enneads (Greek for "The Nines"). The Enneads contain a chapter on Beauty (I.6) which

was highly influential on discussions of aesthetics in the Middle Ages. After considering

other theories of what beauty is, Plotinus concludes that beauty is formal unity. What he

means is that when diverse or similar parts are unified by one form, the soul recognizes

and takes pleasure in this form of unity. This may happen when viewing a painting or

sculpture, while listening to a piece of music, or when following an elegant mathematical

proof. In all these cases, the subject is drawn toward unity, and the form of beauty itself.
 34

Plotinus says that one can only get to this formal unity by stages, like emerging from a

dark cave into sunlight; one must become accustomed to the light (Haldane, 1992). In the

following passage, Plotinus combines ideas from Plato's allegory of the Cave with themes

from the Symposium:

“Like anyone just awakened the soul cannot look at bright objects. It must
be persuaded to look first at beautiful habits, then the works of beauty
produced not by craftsmen's skill but by the virtue of men known for their
goodness, then the souls of those known for beautiful deeds . . . Only the
mind's eye can contemplate this mighty beauty . . . So ascending, the soul
will come to Mind . . . and to the intelligible realm where Beauty dwells
(Enneads I.6.9).”

Although Plotinus was an important philosopher who developed highly

sophisticated metaphysical theories, he is also an ideal segue into the next major phase of

aesthetics which took shape during the Middle Ages. His ideality consist in the fact that

his metaphysics were highly influential amongst medieval philosophers as well as

theologians. Interestingly, most of the surviving medieval treatises on aesthetics which

were influenced by Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought discuss the nature of beauty in

purely theological terms. In succession, St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius and St.

Bonaventure all equated beauty with spiritual realities and its importance lied in its

efficacy to convey Christian doctrine (Hassig, 145). Nevertheless, as scholar Umberto

Eco points out, most of the aesthetic issues that were discussed in the Middle Ages were

inherited from Classical Antiquity. Some medieval ideas derived from the Bible and from

the ecclesiastical fathers; but again, these were absorbed into a new and systematic

philosophical world. Even though scholastic philosophy inherited its terminology from

antiquity, Eco points out that medieval thinking on aesthetic matters was highly original.

He asserts that where aesthetics and artistic production are concerned, “The Classical
 35

world turned its gaze on nature but the medievals turned their gaze on the Classical

world” (Eco, 4). Therefore, the medieval sensibility was based on a phenomenology of a

specific cultural tradition. Nevertheless, the medieval philosophers and theologians also

possessed a critical viewpoint, a sensibility which was capable of vivid insights into the

natural world, including its aesthetic character (Eco, 4). Beauty, for the medieval

sensibility was purely intelligible, it consisted of moral harmony and metaphysical

grandeur. Due to this fact, the scholastics often referred to beauty as an attribute of God.

This attitude towards beauty is well documented in the writings of many ascetics and

mystics in the Middle Ages and challenges the view that the medievals held a solely

puritanical outlook.

One important theme that constantly occurs throughout the Middle Ages is the

“Beauty of Being” or ontological beauty. This beauty of being was considered to be the

goal that the human mind was willing itself towards. Additionally, the philosophers and

theologians regarded the universe with great optimism while asserting that beauty and

goodness were equally identical properties. All that exists in the world is taken to be an

expression of “The Good” and the medieval writers held that no distinction could be

made between goodness and beauty. Moreover, the Platonic idea of ideal beauty

expressing itself in the phenomenal world permeated medieval sensibilities. One

prominent theologian during that time, John Scotus Eriugena commented that the

universe was a “revelation of God in His ineffable beauty, God reflected both in material

and in ideal beauty, and diffused in the loveliness of all creation” (Eriugena, 6). As Eco

points out, a number of concepts were constructed in order to give philosophical

expression to this aesthetic vision of the universe. The majority of these concepts derived
 36

from the Book of Wisdom and shared a triadic character such as number, weight, and

measure, or substance, nature, and power. This vision held that the beauty inherent in

form always consisted of three attributes. In an attempt to systematize these attributes, a

strategy was developed by the scholastics wherein they viewed these attributes as co-

extensive metaphysical properties of being (Eco, 20).

Arguably the most important medieval thinker on aesthetics was St. Thomas

Aquinas (1225-1274); primarily due to the fact that he developed a functionalist theory of

beauty. Since, for Aquinas, beauty exists to satisfy the desire of the intellect. Aquinas

asserts that certain conditions must exist as pre-requites before the object may be

characterized as beautiful. His aesthetic functionalism deals with three criteria of beauty,

namely: integrity, proportion and clarity. Integrity signifies a perfection of the object, but

his notion of integrity is relative to the aim and end of the artist’s concept. As Thomistic

scholar Charles Side Steinberg notes, implied in the notion of relative integrity is a

Thomistic acceptance of modern art, for even a physically distorted figure may manifest

integrity, if the aim is realized (Steinberg, 495). Concerning the second pre-requisite of

proportion, Aquinas was implying that the mind and the senses find aesthetic gratification

in the correct juxtaposition of part to part and to the whole itself. Similarly, proportion is

considered to be relative because it solely acquires meaning in the expressed aim and

telos of the work (Steinberg, 495). The third and most important pre-requisite of beauty is

Clarity (claritas), Aquinas asserts that it is in this realm where integrity and proportion

establish their ontological significance. Clarity establishes that which is essential to

beauty in an object because it involves the imposition of form onto matter. This

imposition is of highest significance due to the fact that reason cannot access matter until
 37

it is given form, and therefore the possibility of interaction between perceiving subject

and object rests on the clarity aspect of the perceptible object. The importance of this

functionalist theory of beauty lies in the fact that it gives systematic expression to a

sentiment in the Middle Ages to identify the beautiful with the functional. Umberto Ecco

points out that this identification originated in the equating of the beautiful with the good

in the early Middle Ages (Eco, 79).

Another important medieval theologian and writer, St. Bonaventure (1221-1274),

wrote during the same time as St. Thomas Aquinas. The writings of this medieval

Franciscan thinker express the mature development of the Christian Platonic tradition that

springs, in the West, from Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius. Bonaventure’s aesthetic

vision is explicated in his work entitled Itinerarium Mentis in Deum wherein he relates

the beautiful to proportion and numerical qualities. In speaking of this, he remarks:

Therefore, since all things are beautiful and in some way delightful, and since

beauty and delight do not exist without proportion, and since proportion exists

primarily in numbers, all things are subject to number. (Eco, 59)

Bonaventure’s concept of beauty can be reduced to a notion he derived from Saint

Augustine: beauty is aequalitas numerosa, equality of number. Leonard J. Bowman

writes that this phrase can be interpreted to mean either a unity in multiplicity or a

proportionality of parts (Bowman, 192). According to Bonaventure, the beauty of any

object consists in the interrelationship of its parts and their subordination to the whole.

Thus, to perceive this beauty would be to grasp the arrangement of parts within the whole
 38

in a single perception. This suggests that through proportionality or symmetry, beauty

affects a conjoining of separate elements, a unity in multiplicity. Also, the world itself

offers a partial reflection of absolute beauty in the multiplicity and variety of living

creatures (Bowman, 193). Additionally, Saint Bonaventure asserted that light was the

principle of all beauty. Drawing from Robert Grosseteste, Bonaventure considered light

under three aspects; these were lux or light “in itself”, lumen or “the light that travels

through space” and splendor referring to the light of luminous bodies (Eco. 50). He

regarded light in its pure state as substantial form and as a kind of creative force in the

Neo-Platonic sense. Although light is physical, Bonaventure regarded it primarily as a

metaphysical reality. In his mysticism of light, proportion and number dissolve into pure

effulgence, thus they become an aesthetic ideal in Bonaventure’s writings.

Following the works of Bonaventure, Aquinas, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius and

a small number of other lesser known figures in the Middle Ages, the depth of

philosophical thinking related to art and beauty began to wane. With the shift from the

Middle Ages to the Renaissance, art likewise changed its focus, as much in its content as

in its mode of expression. Despite the revival of Classical Antiquity and Neo-Platonism

during the Renaissance, there were no prominent philosophers of aesthetics until the

German Idealist movement of the late eighteenth century.

As a reaction against the Enlightenment (1650-1800) and its over emphasis on

reason, German Idealism emerged sharing close resemblances with Romanticism due to

its emphasis on emotion as an authentic source for aesthetic experience. Philosophically

speaking, German idealism usually means the philosophy of Kant and his immediate

followers, however, the great representatives of poetry in German idealism were Goethe
 39

and Schiller. Throughout the history of aesthetics in the West, mention of Kant’s

“Critique of Judgement” is often quickly followed by mention of Friedrich Schiller

(1759-1805), who criticized and developed Kant's views in this area (Guyer, 8). In

Schiller's Kallias, a series of letters written to his friend Gottfried Körner in January and

February of 1793, he argues that Kant's “subjectivist” conception of aesthetic response

has to be accompanied with an “objectivist” conception of beauty as the appearance of

freedom or autonomy in the object: a beautiful object is one that appears to be wholly

self-determined without relying on outside forces. In Schiller's philosophical opus, the

letters On the Aesthetic Education of Man, he makes a much more daring claim than Kant

ever expressed, namely that “it is only through Beauty that man makes his way to

Freedom”. He posits that we are driven in one direction by the “form impulse” and in the

other by the “sensuous impulse” (Twelfth Letter). Schiller then claims that one needs to

cultivate a new drive, called the “play drive” (Fourteenth Letter) in order to bring these

two drives, into proper balance with each other, “to preserve the life of sense against the

encroachments of freedom; and second, to secure the personality against the forces of

sensation” (Thirteenth Letter). Schiller's claim is then that it is the experience of beauty

which will induce this balance in us, and thus what we need is to be educated to

experience beauty (Guyer, 8.2).

In the introduction to On the Aesthetic Education of Man, translator Reginald

Snell writes that the whole burden of the argument in this work can be summed
up in a single sentence, namely, “Man must pass through the aesthetic condition,
from the merely physical, in order to reach the rational or moral.” According to
Schiller, the aesthetic condition itself has no significance in itself- its primary
function is to restore humanity. Therefore, the purpose of the aesthetic condition
is inherently moral. (Snell, 12)
 40

Snell makes a crucial point in the introduction that Schiller’s philosophical vision

always connects the sensual with the material and reason with form or what he calls the

formal impulse (Snell, 13). These are two distinct spheres of being that humanity

participates in, however, due to their conflicting natures and demands upon the

individual, they ultimately induce internal bifurcation. Thus, Schiller asserts that it is only

through the aesthetic that these two opposed spheres are brought into harmony, thereby

freeing the individual from this dichotomous struggle between reason and the sensuality.

Additionally, Schiller believes that personal contentment is found through the

contemplation of art, which ultimately brings one to physical and spiritual well-being

(Schiller, 13). To sum up the importance that Schiller’s philosophy admits to the role of

the aesthetic and to art in general, this section concludes with one of his remarks in On

the Aesthetic Education of Man: In the twenty-second letter, he writes:

The aesthetic alone leads to the unlimited. Every other condition into which we
can come refers us to some previous one, and requires for its solution some other
condition; the aesthetic alone is a whole in itself, as it combines in itself all the
conditions of its origin and of its continued existence. Here alone do we feel
ourselves snatched out of time, and our humanity expresses itself with a purity
and integrity as though it had not yet experienced any detriment from the
influence of external forces. (Schiller, 103)

Following Schiller, the next two German philosophers that are going to be looked

at are G.W.F. Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer. The text that will be drawn from is one

that was published in 1936 entitled “Aesthetic Theories of Kant, Hegel and

Schopenhauer” by Israel Knox. In commenting upon this text, Dr. William Francis Hare

who authored “A Critical History of Modern Aesthetics” had this to say about Knox’s

work:
 41

Knox’s bibliography testifies to a scholarly thoroughness in the mastery of their

writings, of those of their prominent critics, and of outstanding modern
contributions to the subject of aesthetics. The exposition is in itself an admirably
concise and clear historical summary. (Hare, 349)

The German philosopher whose aesthetics are regarded by some to be the most important

since Aristotle is that of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel's philosophy of art is a wide

ranging account of beauty in art, the historical development of art, and the individual arts

of architecture, sculpture, painting, music and poetry (Houlgate, 2010). As a famous

German idealist, Hegel established a natural relationship between beauty and art, and

treated aesthetics as philosophy of beauty and art for the first time. As per his idealistic

vision of the universe, Ultimate Reality or the Idea makes itself evident in various

evolutionary stages, and so Hegel regards the beauty in nature as the manifestation of

beauty as it pertains to what he terms “The Absolute Idea” (Gupta, 95). Hegel’s analysis

makes it clear that art is a means of realizing beauty because the awareness of beauty

itself inspires humanity to bring into existence various works of art which participate in

the beauty of nature. On the other hand, Hegel excludes the beauty of nature from his

aesthetic theory due to his conviction that the beauty of art stands higher than nature. For

him, the beauty of art is a new birth of consciousness in humanity, an effulgence of spirit

more radiant than the beauty of nature. As Hegel scholar Israel Knox points out, “Hegel’s

intention was to elevate and not to degrade art”, consequently he sought to push against

the notion of art being a superfluous activity. Additionally, he set out to restore the

transcendent aim of art, as that which participates in liberating humanity from the

shackles of finitude (Knox, 80). Hegel’s deep reverence for art prompted him to confine

his aesthetic philosophy to a consideration of the beauty of art and called him to dispute
 42

any claim which tried to deny art’s intrinsic worth. Any philosophy which attempted to

reduce art to some utilitarian purpose was therefore denounced by Hegel (Knox, 81).

Another important development in Hegel’s aesthetics was his explication of the

stages and types of art which, underlie the history of art in general. Hegel defined art as

“the sensuous presentation of the idea”, the idea being the content and the sensuous

presentation being the form. Therefore, Hegel asserted that art is “an individual

configuration of reality whose express function it is to make manifest the Idea-in its

appearance” (Knox, 85). Historically, three relations of the idea to its sensuous

expression are considered which Hegel terms “art-types”. These three art-types are the

symbolical, the classical and the romantic as expressed throughout history. The

symbolical stage is called “symbolic” due to its emphasis on symbol over against idea or

experience. Hegel’s use of the term “symbolic” refers to its crudeness because it resorts

to exaggeration of form in order to suggest spirit. At the time of symbolic art, the

dawning of spiritual self-consciousness was just beginning to take root in man. The form

of art which uniquely expresses the symbolic is that of architecture. It does this by

creating a unique space for the divine and by erecting a house for sprit to indwell. Also,

by creating a space which protects from nature’s elements, the external world becomes

more purified and less chaotic due to the laws of symmetry. Nevertheless, Hegel points

out that architecture is defective in trying to express the Ideal. It is so because the

medium of architecture is too material and too mechanically determined to adequately

express the Idea in its fullness.

The second art-type in this historical trajectory is that of classical art. In this stage,

the form of art which most pervasively dominates is that of sculpture. According to
 43

Hegel, the expression of the ideal human form in sculpture actually harmonizes the Idea

with its sensuous presentation. By ideally depicting the human form as a representation of

human spiritual consciousness, it divests the human form from its defects which belong

to the sensuous realm. In so doing, sculpture frees the human from finitude and

transcends the phenomenal realm. Thus, as the Idea and its sensuous presentation

approach one another in sculpture; they become united as an individual spiritual union.

Hegel didn’t deny that the medium and material of sculpture during classical art wasn’t

still crude, but unlike symbolic art, sculpture became suffused with a spiritual essence in

attempting to express an ideal form.

Lastly, Hegel speaks of a third stage of art which he calls “The Romantic” and he

regards “feeling” as its constitutive principle. In his remarks on Romantic art, Hegel says

that the Romantic and the Symbolic stage both share a commonality in the fact that there

is a conflict between the Idea and its sensuous presentation. However, the conflict

exhibited in the Romantic stage is of a spiritually higher level. What he means by this is

that, the conflict in Romantic art actually manifests the transcendence of the Idea to

sensuous form. In speaking on this point, Hegel writes:

Romantic art gives up the task of showing God as such in external form and by
means of beauty: it presents God as only condescending to appearance and the
divine as the heart of hearts in an externality from which it always disengages
itself. Thus, the external can here appear as contingent towards its significance.
(Knox, 89).

Furthermore, in Romantic art, the sensuous presentation becomes insignificant due to the

expression of spirit in thought. Therefore, painting, music and poetry become the sine

qua non of Romantic expression because they are less materially oriented than

architecture and sculpture. Additionally, Hegel feels that they represent a more intimate
 44

union of sensuous medium and spiritual significance. Out of the three romantic arts,

Hegel prefers poetry as the “supreme romantic art” because of its clarity and coherence.

For in poetry, Hegel declares that “the mind uses sound to express an ideal content as the

mere external sign for ideal perceptions and conceptions (Knox, 92).” Thus, according to

Hegel, it is only by means of poetry that art has the capability to transcend itself.

Following Hegel, another important German philosopher by the name of Arthur

Schopenhauer (1788-1860) made significant philosophical contributions to aesthetic

theory. Without excessively delving into Schopenhauer’s metaphysics, it is important to

understand that, in general, his aesthetic views are deeply informed by his metaphysical

position. It is also clear that Schopenhauer vehemently disagreed with Hegel on a number

of philosophical issues. In lieu of this, Schopenhauer did not hold the position that the

Absolute manifested itself in creative evolution, as Hegel did. Rather, Schopenhauer

viewed Ultimate reality as being driven by a blind, universal instinct which he termed the

will. In speaking of this will, Schopenhauer remarks:

Will is the thing-in-itself (an sich), the inner content, the essence of the world.
Life, the visible world, the phenomenon, is only the mirror of the will. Therefore,
life accompanies the will as inseparably as the shadow accompanies the body; and
if will exists, so will life, the world, exist. (Knox, 126)

In deviating from Kant and Fichte, who viewed the thing-in-itself as intrinsically

rational, Schopenhauer saw it as a blind, irrational cosmic striving. This will, according to

Schopenhauer, is not something positive, but rather, it is the foundation for all human

desire, longing, and groping through sickness and despair. Furthermore, the way to

transcend or to escape the will is through art. Schopenhauer maintains that artistic vision

pierces through the veil of the worldly into the very essence of being (Knox, 130).
 45

In speaking of Beauty, Schopenhauer views it as a concrete expression of the

Will. For him, a thing is not beautiful in itself, but only to the extent that the will

expresses it. Schopenhauer did not view beauty as an individual property of a thing, as

Spinoza maintained, but as an example or sample of Beauty. Nonetheless, Schopenhauer

holds the view that beauty contains within it the possibility of total spiritual

transformation. That beauty can release one from the bondage of the practical, the

particular, the concrete, to the peace that is liberation. Thus, Schopenhauer sees the

central role of beauty as having a soteriological effect on man in his attempt to transcend

the will (Knox, 136).

As Hegel pointed to the highest art being poetry, Schopenhauer pointed to music

as being the fullest expression of the will. That music is, the will become audible.

Interestingly, he regards music as embodying the world to the fullest extent as he allows

for the will. While other arts speak of shadows, Schopenhauer says that music directly

“speaks of the thing-in-itself” (Knox, 151). As a salient point, he recognizes that the

reason music has a universal appeal lies in that fact that it allows for the subject to co-

create along with it. That is, the emotions of music which Schopenhauer calls the

“timeless feeling-patterns of life” allow for the listener to project their own personal

emotions onto the piece of music. Thus, a universal emotion such as joy or sorrow

becomes a specific emotion for the listener. In speaking on this point, Schopenhauer

remarks:

It must never be forgotten that music has no direct, but merely an indirect relation
to man. Music does not therefore express this or that particular and definite joy,
this or that sorrow, or pain, or horror, or delight, or peace of mind; but joy, sorrow,
pain, horror, delight, and peace of mind themselves. (Knox, 151)
 46

What Schopenhauer is emphasizing here is the lack of emotional definiteness which

characterizes all music. Interestingly, this “lack” is the sole reason which allows one to

“personally” invest in the universal emotions of music. These poignant insights

concerning the nature and role of music are some of Schopenhauer’s most important

achievements with respect to his writings on aesthetics.

Following the aesthetic philosophies of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries in

Germany, the early twentieth century saw a Italian revival of aesthetics referred to as

“Neo-Idealist” aesthetics. The key philosopher who is responsible for this movement is

Benedetto Croce (1866-1952)). In referring to this movement, a work by professor Merle

E. Brown entitled “Neo-Idealistic Aesthetics- Croce-Gentile-Collingwood” serves as an

invaluable contribution pertaining to Croce’s work. In the Journal for East and West,

Italian Professor Massimo Scaligero calls Brown’s work “ a most complete homage to

Croce, thanks to an analysis of his aesthetics, carried out with objectivity and dedication”

(Scaligero, 245). Thus, it is in reference to this work that the theories of Croce will be

explicated.

Benedetto Croce was a dominant figure in the first half of the twentieth century in

aesthetics and literary criticism as well as philosophy. In 1901, he published “The

Aesthetic”, the first of his three volumes on the Philosophy of the Spirit. Croce is most

famous for his notion that “intuitive knowledge is expressive knowledge”, meaning that

“feeling” gives coherence and unity to intuition. Thus, intuition expresses feeling and

arises when feeling is its source and basis. Additionally, Croce develops his own theory

of aesthetics as “logic of intuition” together with “logic of intellect”. Croce asserts that

two autonomous forms of knowledge exist, the intuitive form and the conceptual form.
 47

Hence, human knowledge manifests itself in these two distinct forms. Moreover, Croce

asserts that humans not only live by reasoning, but live by intuiting the projected images.

As a result, knowledge may either be projected as particulars (images) which are the

products of intuition (art), or as universals (concepts) which are the products of reasoning

(logic) (Brown, 26).

Croce’s view of art is that is should be understood first as expression and second

as intuition. As a disciple of Hegel, Croce maintains that this principle is necessary for an

idealist conception of aesthetics. In this sense, the work of art is an ideal projection onto

an object. Here, Croce joins a long line of aestheticians in attempting a sharp distinction

between natural expression (emotions) and intuitive expression in art. Croce’s aesthetic

theory went on to influence other great aesthetics philosophers in the 20th century such as

R.G. Collingwood and John Dewey.

 48

Bibliography

Anand, Raj Mulk. “Sri Aurobindo: The Critic of Art.” Journal of South Asian Literature

24.1 (1989): 104-113.

Barlingay, S.S. A Modern Introduction to Indian Aesthetic Theory. New Delhi: DK

Printworld, 2007

Bowman, Leonard J. “The Cosmic Exemplarism of St. Bonaventure.” The Journal of

Religion 55.2 (1975): 181-198.

Brown, Frank Burch. Religious Aesthetics: A Theological Study of Making and Meaning.

Princeton: University Press, 1989

Brown, Merle E. Neo-Idealistic Aesthetics: Croce-Gentile-Collingwood. Detroit: Wayne

State University Press, 1966.

Bychov, Oleg V and Anne Sheppard. Greek and Roman Aesthetics. Cambridge:

University Press, 2010

 49

Cenker, William. Hindu Personality in Education. Manohar Publications, 1994

Chari, V.K. “Poetic Emotions and Poetic Semantics” Journal of Aesthetics and Art

Criticism 34.3 (1976): 287-299.

Commaraswamy, Ananda K. The Transformation of Nature in Art. New York: Dover,

1956.

De, Sushil Kumar. History of Sanskrit Poetics. New Delhi: Mukhopadhyay, 1960.

Eco, Umberto. Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages. New Haven & London: Yale

University Press, 1986

Eckstein, Walter. Review of “On the Aesthetic Education of Man” by Friedrich Schiller.

Translation by Reginald Snell. Journal of Philosophy 52.21 (1955): pg. 585.

Gerow, Edwin. A History of Indian Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.

Gerow, Edwin. “Rasa and Katharsis: A Comparative Study.” Journal of the American

Oriental Society 122.2 (2002): 264-277.

Ghosh, Ranjan K. Great Indian Thinkers on Art. Delhi: Black and White, 2006.

Gregor, Mary J. “Baumgarten’s Aesthetica.” The Review of Metaphysics 37.2 (1983):

357-385.

Gupt, Bharat. Dramatic Concepts, Greek and Indian: A Study of Poetics and

nātyaśāstra. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 1994

Gupta, Shyamala. Art, Beauty and Creativity: Indian and Western Aesthetics. New Delhi:

D.K. Printworld, 1999

Haldane, John (entry in) A Companion to Aesthetics. Edited by David Cooper Blackwell.

Wiley-Blackwell (2nd Edition), 2009.

 50

Hassig, Debra. “Beauty in the Beasts: A Study of Medieval Aesthetics.” Anthropology

and Aesthetics 19.20 (1990/1991): 137-161.

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel’s Aesthetics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Summer, 2010 Edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Kane, P.V. History of Sanskrit Poetics. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002.

Knox, Israel. Aesthetic Theories of Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer. New York:

Humanities Press, 1958.

Lal, Swati. “Rabindrinath Tagore’s Ideals of Aesthetic Education.” Journal of Aesthetic

Education 18.2 (1984): 31-39.

Laude, Patrick. Singing the Way: Insights into Poetry and Spiritual Transformation. New

York: World Wisdom, 2005.

Lear, Jonathan. “Katharsis” Phronesis 33.3 (1988): 297-326

Scaligero, Massimo. Review of “Neo-Idealistic Aesthetics” by Merle E. Brown. East

and West 18.1 (1968): pg. 245

Schiller, Friedrich. On the Aesthetic Education of Man. Translated by Reginald Snell.

New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, Fifth Printing, 1980.

Steinburg, Charles Side. “ The Aesthetic Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas.” Philosophical

Review 50 (5): 483-497.

Tharakan, K. M. Western and Eastern Poetics. New Delhi: Prestige Publications, 1998.

Thirunavukarasu, Dharma. “Coomaraswamy and the Tradition of Indian Aesthetics.”

University of Sri Lanka. Retrived from http://yabaluri.org

Wessell, Leonard P. “Alexander Baumgarten’s contribution to the development of

Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 30.3 (1972): 333-342.

51