out in the world in a perfectly normal, healthy condition. (B) Aesthetic theoretical structures are present in the language of practical criticism more often than not in an implicit form. The second precondition for the emergence of a new aesthetic theory therefore is the existence of a strong critical tradition. If criticism is to be good, the critic must have absorbed his literary tradition and have the ability and the inclination to explore all the minutae of new literary works which he is faced with. He is expected to have acquired certain intellectual skills, because he has to study the aesthetic data supplied by a work of art and on that basis reason his way to evaluative judgment. From where does a critic get these intellectual skills? Of course, from the community, that is, if there is a strong intellectual tradition in it. (C) Its existence is the third precondition that a community which boasts of having created new aesthetic theories must satisfy. Our practical criticism, by and large, has degenerated into smart, verbally titillating chat or verbal pyrotechiques. The content of critical articles is usually meagre. Very often they tell us more about the critic than about a literary work. Critical articles which combine a comprehensive range and attention to minutae are already an exinct species. Entertaining chat about books/authors has taken the place of serious articles. Anyway, what can one expect from the butterflies and grass-hoppers who today go by the name of literary critics? Things are in a very bad shape in the province of intellectual, discursive prose. We just do not have a tradition of intellectual prose. A Lokamanya Tilak here and a Dr. Ketkar or Tarkateerth Laxmanshastri Joshi there do not constitute a tradition. Even if we assume that these few are our peaks, we must not forget that peaks by themselves do not constitute a mountain-range. A recent debate among Maharashtrian intellectuals about the merits of a history of Western Philosophy in Marathi was both entertaining and saddening. Equally saddening is the Lawande-Patankar-Rege debate about Kant's relationship with Expressionism. All that th^ debate shows is that we cannot yet distinguish between instruction and delight. The biting, exasperated attacks made by Prof. M.P. Rege on the poor quality of discursive prose in Marathi have had no effect, every writer complacently assuming that it was the others who were being attacked.* We are baddha and, as always happens, we do not know that we are buddh. This intellectual poverty is not restricted to the field of literary criticism and aesthetics; it is present in every academic field. The conclusion is obvious. If new aesthetic theories of world significance have begun to appear in a cultural group, characterised by striking absence of relevant traditions in the arts, criticism and discursive prose writing, we are victims of an optical illusion. Extreme intellectual naivete alone is responsible for the Marathi fantasy - a world full of aesthetic Pushpaks. Excessive importance is attached in Maharashtra to aesthetics because of an elementary misconception about the nature of the subject. It is believed that man can create an original aesthetic theory even if he is not deeply steeped in any artistic tradition and in all the important material on the subject; what one needs is nothing except genius and original talent. But all this is a big illusion. Most Marathi thinking on the subject takes place within the Western framework. 44 Journal of Arts and Ideas