This paper doesnot claim a comparative study in its strictest sense but focuses on some striking parallels that develop from the poetry of Stephen Mallarme, the prominent French symbolist poet (born in 1842 and died in 1893), and Anandvardhana who happened to be between 820-890 A.D and who propounded the poetic theory of Dhvani through his philosophically and scientifically written work, "Dhvanyaloka". It is quite obvious that both Mallarme and Anandavardhana are separated by about ten centuries, and by continents, eventhough one finds, on close observation, a striking affinity between the poetic theories of the two. It becomes all the more interesting when we find no clearcut evidence of Mallarme's familiarity with the theory of Dhvani, although he uses some Indian mythological themes in his writings, the story of Nala and Damayanti for example. But despite some early influences, both are highly original as theoriticians. Both are revolutionary in their attitude to poetry and in their emphasis on the unexplored potentialities of language which is the tool of any poetry. Both also shared the assumption that the inherent value in poetry isnot the beautiful in the conventional sense, but the value arises out of the fact that a linguistic structure can alter and satisfy certain emotional needs, and above all, in their emphasis on the suggestive or evocative power of poetry rather than the descriptive power of poetry. But while Anandavardhana developed his theory into an elaborate system, as a scientific treatise, with utmost care and consideration of the minutest semantic categories so that the methodology was systematic and exhaustive, working from parts to whole, while, Mallarme's theory developed from the various critical comments and observations scattered throughout the entire corpus of his writings. Anandavardhana expounds the theory of Dhvani as an elaborate system, assimilating in the process all the earlier theories of poetry such as Rasa Siddhanta, AlankarSiddhanta and RitiSiddhanta.It would be worthwhile to give some idea of the theory of Dhvani before observing similarities in the theory of Mallarme.

                  Dhvani is the theory of expression in poetry. It is mainly concerned with the semantic problems of the function of words and their meanings.

                    The doctrine is based on threefold power of the word, Abhidha (denotation of word), lakshana (the figurative) and vyanjana (the suggestive) producing respectively three kinds of meaning, namely vacyartha (literal meaning), lakshanartha ( figurative meaning) and, vyanjanartha (suggested meaning)

   Dhvani is defined in the following terms:

         "yatrarthahsabaovatamarthumupasarjanikrta -svarthauvyaktah, kavyavisesahsadhvaniritisurhihkathitah." (The learned call that vparticular kind of poetry dhvani in which the expressed word and sense, subordinating themselves, manifest that [other suggested] sense.) (De 158)

             Anandavardhana follows the binary division in his analysis. First, Dhvani-kavya is divided into two broad categories :avivaksita-vacya and vivaksitanyapara-vacya.In the first case, the expressed sense isnot intended, and in the second case it is certainly meant but ultimately amounts to something else or the unexpressed. The first is based on laksana or indication, and the second on Abhidha or denotation. The laksana born dhvani is again of two kinds; arthantarsamkramita(suggestion where the expressed sense passes into another sense) and atyanta-tiraskrata (suggestion where the expressed sense disappears entirely)

          Abhidha-bom dhvani is also subdivided into two categaries: asanmlaksya-krama (that in which the suggested is of an imperceptible process) and samlaksyakrama (that in which the suggested is of a perceptible process). The main difference between asamlaksya-krama is that the former includes the suggestion of rasa or relish or some bhava or emotional state suggested in a particular way. The latter includes ithe suggestion of vastu (matter / fact) and alamkara (figure). The credit goes to anandavardhana for reviving the concept of rasa first enunciated by bharat (living sometime between the second century BC and the second century AD) in Natya Sa stra (Threatise on Dramaturgy)

                 But it is suffice it to say that the main thrust of the theory of bhvani is that the language of good poetry is emotive, ambiguous, non-logical and open to multiple interpretations it is the supreme glory of language that creatively used, it can yield an infinite variety of meaning, so that poetry cantranscend the descriptive and become suggestive and evocative,

                    Mallarme dos not develop his doctrine so systematically or so scientifically more a poet than a critic, Mallartne does not really care to develop his theory of poetry at any great length. But his critical observations would show that he is at one with Anandavardhana regarding some of basic assumprions about poetry. He believes, for example, that the power of poetry consists not in description but in suggestion

                       Mallarme implies the following assumrtions: Fist, poetry should not present things directly, descriptively or even fully. It should present things suggestively so that the desire state of mind is gradually evoked and what is unexpressed becomes slowly stage, expressed. Second d, poetic enjoyment comes from divination. Finally, the suggested object is ultimately valuable because, charged with feeling, it reveals the state of soul.

              Like ananlavardhana mallarme opposes derect expression, prefers the suggested image (alamkara dhvani) to an image clearly outlined, and prefers by implication vastu-dhavani to photographic or accurate description of an objection

               The suggestive power or vyanjana vriti is a real power of language and can be realized only when language is creatively exploited. This reason why both Mallarme and Anandavardhana insist on the impersonaly of poetry. Both believe, like Poe, Flaubert and Eliot, in the depersonalization of the artist in the creative process so that the end product should not contain any trace of the poet.

Mallarme shares with Anandavardhana this concern for llanguage and the need for purifying the dielect of the tribe by exploiting the resources of the language. In this connection Rene Wellek observes:

             He(Mallarme) is, as far as I know, the first writer who is radically

            Discontent with the ordinary language of communication and attempts

           To construe and entirely separate poetic language.... He described and

           Exploited systematically most of the traditional devices for separating

           Poetic language from ordinary speech (454)

                  It is true that Mallarme began his critical career under the visible inflience of edgar Allen Poe, whom he practically worshipped and derived from him continual insistence on calculation and effect and contested the view that a poet is "a great epileptic khom one depicts unkempt with haggard eyes, haphazardly pouring forth his facile and incoherent verse on one stream" under the inspiraton of some "talkative Muse" Poetry, for Mallarme, as for Poe, is more a matter of perspiration than inspiration.

                The insights of Poe, however, constitute only in an embryonic form the theory of suggestion.Mallarme picks them up and develops them along lines which come very close to Anandavardhana's Theory of dhvani.

               To say that there are distinct echoes of the theory of poerty as enunciated by Mallarme and Anandvardhana in contemporate literate criticism is not to suggest tha contemporare literary criticism is derived either from Mallarme or from Anandavardhana. Bhur only to focus on the contemporary relevance of these two highly original thinkers, who worke independently and yet arrived at certain inlights into the literary universaly which we would love to shere.