12. CHAPTER V SŪRANA AND HIS CRITICS

CHAPTER V SŪRANA AND HIS CRITICS

The theme of the kalapurnodayam is not only original but also profound. No poem of its length can claim its depth, unity and organic connection. Every incident, character, background and even the names of the personages have much bearing on the whole. It appears as if the poem will not survive even a minor change. That is why it cannot be abridged, as it has been possible with the Kadambari or with the important works of Tolstoy, with- out damage to its significance and beauty. Even the title of the poem is as orgnifically and connected with the poem as in the case of Mrcchakatıka. No doubt some writers have published prose versions of it and that too abndged under different titles. But they seem to be carcatures of rather than guides to Surana's poem. 75

To appreciate any work of art certain minimum conditions are to be satisfied. Beauty, after all, is not purely objective. Even simple perceptual knowledge requires object as well as subject. For example the sweetness of sugar depends not only on sugar but also on the perceiving subject. If the person has fever, it will be bitter to him. The same is true of a work of art. To enjoy beauty certain conditions are to be fulfilled by both the work of art and the reader or critic. If either of the two fails, beauty also van- ishes. After all what is beauty without its realisation, and what is life without beauty? When such is the meaning, every cultured man will try his level best to improve or adjust himself to every work of art so that he may have as full a vision of its beauty as possible. He keeps aside his personal whims and fancies, likes and dislikes, theones and opinions. and closely follows the artist step by step. If any discrepancy occurs, i.e., if the artist appears grossly to contradict himself, the critic with his cultural equip- ment adjusts himself and his psychic distance as one does with one's glasses so that all the apparent contradictions disappear. The result may be one of brilliant and profound vision, or a dull G. V. Knshna Rao

and uninteresting picture. In the whole process the rules and methods followed are strictly those of the artist. So, while the artist has to satisfy the fundamental principles of self-evidentness and self-sufficiency, the critic has to see them as they emerge and pronounce hs verdict. If the things delineated are not self- sufficient and self-evident, he has to provide his reasons, and if they are, he has to state clearly how and from what approach and standpoint these can be had. Such a cnticism is certainly invaluable on the one hand to the creator, and on the other, to the reader. But such healthy literary criticism in Telugu literature is perhaps rather a rarity than a common feature. If the past judged the works of art on the basis of extraneous and dogmatic princi- ples, the present is also probably committing the same mistake by applying a new set of ideologies and idiosyncracies. For exam- ple, Potana, the author of Andhra Bhagavata, is not quoted by 76 the laksanikas sımply on the ground that the former has mixed 8 and ein prasa. Tikkana's Uttara Rāmāyana was not as popular as that of Kankantı Papāraju. Religious bias probably weighed heavy against Nannicoda's Kumarasambhavam and Dhūrjati's Sn-kala-hastımahatmyam. Taking Mammata's statement in the Kāvyaprakäsa97 as the last word on principles of literary criti- cism, one critic condemns Srinätha for having named his work as Smagâra Naisadham. Sımply because Mammata condemned the mention of rasas etc. by their names as a fault,98 the learned pandit censured the poet of Srinätha's calibre very severely. The poet perhaps wanted his readers to understand that the story dealt with in the poem is up to the consummation of the mar- nage of Nala and Damayantı, but never conceivably expected or hoped that they would realise smgara rasa by directly mention- ing the word. If this charge were levelled against Pinavirabhadra for assigning the title of Srngarasakuntalam to his poem, there might be some justification. This deploroble state of affairs in literary criticism is per- haps worse in the case of the Kalāpūmodayam. Many articles and introductions and some books and even a commentary have Studies in Kalapurnodayam

been written on the Kalapumodayam. The common drawback as it appears with all these critics is that they approach the poem with some preconceived notions or pet theones. They seem to forget that here is the work of a poet who might have something to portray, and in consequence fail to judge him on his own prin- ciples. If one tres to approach Shakespeare from the standpoint of the alamkārika, and Käldäsa from that of western literary criti- cism or from personal predisposition, then the works of these world-famous writers are likely to appear altogether in a different light and lose most of their beauty. Unfortunately this sort of approach seems to be gaining ground in Telugu literature. If the past has judged poets from the point fo view of Sanskrit litera- ture, the present is perhaps repeating it from the standpoint of western crtiticism. Added to this, modern critics influenced by the west appear to estimate a poet taking some other poet as an absolute criterion. The most important person to advocate this method is Matthew Arnold. This may be useful in determining 77 commercial values, but does not help in the least in the realisa- tion of aesthetic values. On the other hand, this path is paved with so many graves. Suppose one starts with the conception that Nannaya is the best poet and begins to judge other writers using his lines as touch-stones; the result will be conceivably disconcerting. Tikkana with his limpid and halting style. devoid of all romantic imagery, will cut a very poor figure. His realısm, his deeper understanding of human motives and aspirations, his dramatic presentation, his skill in charactersation, all these will most probably be missed. Not only that; new beauties that are brought to light by adopting the language of the common man and by depicting people who are in the lower rung of life as in the Kanyasulkam will generally be lost sight of. Besides, the selec- tion of the touch-stone itself, when logically viewed, will be arbi- trary and irrational. By this apparently wrong approach critics seem to have contributed more to confusion than to an apprecia- tion of Surana. They have pointed to more than twenty draw- backs which they regard as major blemishes in the theme of the Kalapumodayam. To go through them will certainly throw a flood of light on the object and purport of the poem. G. V. Knshna Rao

The first objection raised by Dr. C.R. Reddy is to the part played by the manihara endowed with supernatural powers. Though a most beautiful creation, he says, it is not without fault.99 The reasons he gives are as follows :- (1) Sugraha who obtained the Manihara as a boon from Visnu lost it even before experienc- ing the truth of it. (2) The Brahmin who happened to pick it up did not wear it but simply kept it in his box for years together, only to present it in the end to Sri Krsna. (3) Really the Brahmin's wife should have been a great woman to stand above these temp- tations. Later on, when it was presented to Manikandhara, he also could not enjoy the benefits of its supernatural powers. Ulti- mately it adorned the neck of the baby with its central gem touch- ing her heart and thus manifesting its powers. It once again man- aged to get out of its place just before it revealed the past history of Satvadātman. Madhuralālasa did not even remember it after her marriage. Added to this, she had it lengthened so that when 78 worn the central gem touched her heart. All these points, he argues, are a mere bundle of accidents; and they are to him as unconvincing as assuming the form of the other. These arguments, on closer examination, appear to have been gathered together in support of his contention that the lat- ter part of the poem commencing from the 189th stanza of the sixth canto is superfluous and unnecessary. Whatever may be the object, is he justified in criticising this part played by the manihara? His main argument is that it is not convincing. For argument's sake let this point be conceded. If this is not convinc- ing, do the supernatural powers attrbuted to it, at least from his standpoint, sustain and strengthen the world of make-believe? What about the divine powers of Mrgendravähana? Has he not taken all these for granted? The very fact that he has taken so much pains proves beyond doubt that he concedes these super- natural powers to Manthara and Mrgendravähana. Then why does he take objection to the part later played by the necklace? Grant- ing these supernatural powers, what prevents him from taking them as probabilities? Is there any inhrent logical contradiction? He has not pointed it out. Studies in Kalapurnodayam

His personal dislike for the latter part of the poem seems to have inspired these apparently untenable arguments. For example, he says that Sugraha was cursed even before he experi- enced the power of the manihara.100 This is apparently an exaggeration. What the poet actually says through Madhuralalasa is this101 :-

102

The underlined words in the above passage clearly show that Sugraha utlised the manthara to ascertain the real motive when the ascetic embraced other idols to conceal his emotions. Otherwise Sugraha could not have so positively asserted his opin- ion and ridiculed his behaviour. The nature of the curse also substantiates this point. The next point which contributes to an air of improbability according to the critic is that the Brahmin did dot use the manhara and find its powers, and that he had preserved it for many years. At least, the critic opines, his wife should have sought to wear it even secretly because the love of jewels in women is naturally great. From the context of the criticism it appears that the critic wants the poet to delineate another episode in which the wife of the Brahmin makes a scene for the manhara. If the poet had done it, fortunately for one he has not, the unity of the poem perhaps would have gone to pieces. Besides, it would have cer- tainly defeated the poet's object, the explanation of which is de- ferred to a subsequent chapter. Above all these, if the poet had G. V. Knshna Rao

done what this critic wanted, he would have violated the princi- ples of psychology of the poor and religious minded couple. Sup- pose, a rich man presents a most beautiful and costly garment to a husband and wife who are in stark poverty and who are always dressed in rags. They are most likely not to wear it. On the other hand, they may even try their level best to get rid of it or hide it. Even in nineteen fifties there are Erukulas who do not and dare not wear complete clothing. So also is this Brahmin couple. They should have been poor and religious minded. Because the manihara is pioked up at the temple, and because it is costly, it 1s kept safely without ever being used. Even if the couple had used it secretly, the chances of finding its supernatural powers were practically nil for they would be manifested only when the central gem touched the human heart. Due to poverty, it is natural for the couple not to know the nature of jewels and how to wear them. Now is that unconvincing and beyond probability? Thus 80 manihara passes into the hands of Krsna. Simply because it falls into his hands it cannot grow in its size. Quoting these lines

103

he questions the appropriateness of the phrase 'ecde'. Twisting the argument, he asks whether the Brahamin presented the manihara toKrsna after he had marned sixteen thousand Gopikas, or before, when he was only a child? He would not have raised this irrelevant question had he not apparently overlooked these verses :-

Studies in Kalapurnodayam

81 30 5. 104

But Visnu did not say that the manihara would adjust its sıze with the wearer. The Brahmin presented that Manıhâra of Bala Visnu to Sri Krsna who had many wives. The same manthara, when presented to Manikandhara and put on, hung close to his neck; but its central jewel did not touch his heart. Where is the mnappropnateness? At this juncture another idea may strike the reader. Just as Madhuralälasa enlarged the manihara so that the central gem touched the heart when worn, so also Mankańdhara should have done it. What prevented him from doing it? Being a gandharva, he cannot be said to be ignorant of jewels. Since he is a devotee of Krsna, and the mamhara a present from him in token of his poetic faculty, it is a keep-sake for hım. Madhuralalasa's position, on the other hand, is quite different. She is deeply in love with her husband and wants to please him by wearing his present in an attractive way. Hence, it may be presumed that there is nothing unnatural, or unconvincing, or inappropriate in it.

G. V. Knshna Rao

The last objection is raised on two grounds. Firstly, even when Madhuralalasa was only a child, she was over head and ears in love with Kalapurna. She should have remembered the manihāra presented to her by her lover. Even if one is able to invent some excuse for this, he cannot explain why she dd not remember it at the time of their marriage. This is clearly a viola- tion of the law of association. Secondly, why did she entertain the idea of enlarging the manthara so that the central gem might tough the heart? These two questions give nse to the thought that the critic might have forgotten the previous incident as well as the heroine's social status and culture. The manihāra was presented to her when she was only a baby of a few months, Further to remember such things in latter life or even in child- hood is a psychological impossibility. Only elders who were present on that occasion might be expected to remember it. They did not remember it because they were not directly concerned with 82 Kalapura but only with Madhuralalasa. If they had been as much worned as Madhuraläsa about the here, they would have cer- tainly remembered it. Or, if they had seen the Manthära, they would have reminded the heroine of it. This latter probability also is ruled out by two causes :- firstly, it was safely kept away, and secondly, they did not feel its necessity due to abundance of jew- ellery. The second adverse reason also loses its force when one remembers that the very form ofjewels suggests to men or women of culture, how they are to be worn. The heroine, devoted as she was to her husband, put on that manthära with slight changes required for presenting a proper appearance without becoming the butt of ridicule. Overlooking these implications, the great crtic pronounces a severe judgment against the poet. He does not stop with this, but prescribes certain general rules even to Surana who had a thorough grasp of these aesthetic problems when he remarks :-

Studies in Kalapurnodayam

This judgment naturally raises many problems like accident, rationality, probability, etc. If what is said above is completely valid, the stories of the Spider, the Elephant and the Serpent in Dhurjati's poem, the dramatic works of Maeterlink, the Brand and the Peergynt of Ibsen and the like must be absolutely worthless. On the contrary, it is generally agreed among the cntics and creative artists that they are of immense value and matchless beauty. The natural corollary is that probability in art or literature is not directly related to naturalism or materialistic realism. Anstotle in his Poetics made a serious ef- fort to define the nature of probability but perhaps with little success ... His approach is more apologetic than revelatory when he says :- 83 Speaking generally, one has to justify (1) the impossible by reference to the requirements of poetry, or to the better, or to opinion. For the purposes of poetry a convincing impossibility is preferable to an unconvincing possibility; and if men such as Zeuxis depicted be impossible, the answr is that it is better they should be like that, as the artist ought to improve on his model. (2) The improbable, one has to justify either by showing it to be in accordance with opinion, or by urging that at times it is not improbable; for there is a probability of things happening also against probability. (3) The contradictions found in the poet's language one should first test as one does an opponent's confutation in a dialectical argument, so as to see whether he means the same thing in the same relation and in the same sense before admitting that he has contradicted either something he has said himself or what a man of sound sense assumes as true. But there is no possible apology for improbability of plot or depravity of character when they are not necessary and no use is made of them, like the improbability in the appearance of Aegeus in Medea and the baseness of Menelaus in Orestes.106 G. V Knshna Rao

Abhinavagupta enumerates seven obstacles in the realisation of rasa of which improbability is one. Bharata devotes a considerable part to analyse the nature and characteristics of the divine, the semi-divine, the human, and the animal worlds, and customs and habits, and dresses and languages in varous societies in his stupendous work Natyasastra.107 But all these seem to leave yet something unsaid and the question eludes satisfactory solution. Perhaps this is due to ever evolving human nature and the existence of vanous levels of mntelligence and culture. Due to these differences, what appears probable to some seems improbable to others. Yet one has to arrive at a fairly good standard by which the differences can be reconciled if one wants to avoid chaos in literary crticism. May it be put like this? :- However impossible an event may appear, and seem to be removed far from truth, scientific or otherwise, it becomes probable and convincing provided it forms an integral organic, 84 and at the same time indispensable part and that it does not contradict directly or indirectly a part or the whole to which it belongs. Of course poetic licences or kausamayas are.an excep- tion. It is well known to artists and crtics that the world of beauty is completely inaccesible to those that do not admit the premises with which a work of art begins. When concession of this is followed by self-contradiction, one can impeach the artist for an improbabihty. In spite of this, incidents may be flat and devoid of beauty. They must be certainly criticised but not on the basis of improbability and unconvincing nature. Perhaps Dr. C.R. Reddy has been msguided by overlooking this aspect. When it becomes probable, one may not be convinced. Such cases are not altogether lacking, but the fault then les not with the poet or artist but with oneself. So Abhinavagupta clearly says that the crtic or sahrdaya must be in such a position as to be able to identify himself with those to be descnbed by the poet. The dispute between Isvara and Natkıra in the Sri-kala- hastimahatmyam108 is worth noting in this context. Since a dis- cussion of this is not the immediate concern of this essay, it is left out.

Stuches in Kalapurnodayam

The second fault attnbuted to this work by Dr. C.R. Reddy109 and indirectly supported by Mr. Malladi Suryanarāyana Sastri110 is that the portion from the 189th verse of the sixth canto to the end of the poem is not only devoid of imagination, genius and poetic faculty, but is also superfluous. The marriage of Madhuralalasa etc., he says, has already been suggested and nothing significant will be gained by describing them once again. Moreovcr, he opines, these incidents are not closely related to the maın story. Mr.Suryanärayana Sastri seems to follow the former in his footsteps when he says that the story of Kalapurna ends with the 192nd verse of the sixth canto, and that the rest may be called The Victory of Kalapurna or The Marriage of Madhuralalasa. It this criticism is right, the poet must be said to have committed a grave blunder, and the theme to have a horrible cancer in its body. So it is of considerable importance to examine the reasons they advance, and the validity they possess. Dr. C. R. Reddy, in dealing with the so-called superfluous part, seems to be contrib- uting more heat than light. The reasons he points out are :- Firstly, how is it possible for Kalapurna to forget Madhuralalasa who had as a baby revealed so many wonderful things, and who was the daughter of his vassal king living in the neighbourhood, Sec- ondly, the love of Madhuralalasa for Kalāpūrna as depicted in this part is mean and inappropriate. Thirdly, how did she recog- nise her lover though she had not seen him even once before? Fourthly, the mother's advice on the eve of her departure to her husband's place is devoid of any significance. Fifthly, there is neither interesting story nor arresting imagination. The jealousy between Abhnavakaumudi and Madhuralâlasa, the cause of Kalāpūrņā's expedition of victory, and Satvadatman's political advice are silly, and only brought in to fulfil the rules presecrbed by the alamkānkas. Had not Kalāpūrna obtained an invincible bow and arrows and subjugated the emperor Madasaya? What necessity is there for him to enter into a nonaggression pact with the Magadha king and undertake an expedition of victory a sec- ond time? Sixthly, using only one of the four forces in every battle G V. Knshna Rao

is unrealistic. Mention of bombs, guns and rifles (28exses, udechet, dd stes) as having been used in these battles is gross anachronism. :Kalāpuma : according to Sūrana, is a contempo- rary of Pariksıt and to descrbe Kalapurna as having become the sole emperor is inappropriate. Whatever creation is quite contradictory to the world-famous stones is not appropriate, Seventhly, the age of Sugraha is beyond comprehension. He should have spent some years to obtain the manihara and some years should have passed before it reached Krsna. From the time it was presented to Mankandhara to that when Madhuralalasa wore it a second time thirty years at least should have passed. So his age is a regular paradox. To these veritable incongruities, he says, one finds no end. Why was not Satvadätman recognised by his own sister Rüpanubhut? If it was due to the curse, it had deprived him only of his me memory but not of his body. Nor can it be supported on the ground that he had no access to the harem 86 and so his sister did not happen to see him because he is said to have met Kalapurna and his wife Madhuralālasa in his harem Under point six another question is raised. When was Dvaraka submerged under the sea, before Kalapurna came to the throne or after that event? If it was before, it was too late, and if it was afterwards, did he fight with Krsna, Balarama, Bhima and Arjuna? Eighthly, Abhinavakaumud who remained a barren woman for many years, gave birth to a son late in her thirties. Her conception creates rather suspicion than revelation of beauty. And lastly, the episode of Laksmı-Narayana-Samvada does not fit into the picture and become an integral part. Regarding the first objection, the poet anticipating the critic has given suggestively a reply111 with which the latter is not satisfied. The time lapse of more than sixteen years suggested by the discrption of the gradual growth of Madhuralalasa from childhood to maidenhood has not convinced him of this probability. He presists in saying that to forget her who has releaved such wonderful things is highly improbable. It may be recollected here that she manifested these supernatural powers only once and that these powers too failed her in the middle. Studies in Kalapurnodayam

This failure might have made Kalapurna and others that were present at that juncture to attribute them to some unknown factor and not to Madhuralälasa. Moreover, she did not exhibit such wonderful powers even once after that event. How could she remain in Kalapūrna's memory even after sixteen years? Even great people who have sacrificed everything to their nation and humanity at large are being consigned to oblivion within a span of three or four years. When such is the clear testimony of history, is there any scope for doubting the poet's statement that Kalapurna forgot everything about Madhuralālasa? Is it not well- known to politicians that public memory is very short ?. Leaving all these arguments, one has, ifhe is a crtic, to believe implicitly in what the poet says as long as it remains uncontradicted by any other utterance in the same work. This point of dispute becomes all the clearer if one takes for example Kalidasa's Meghasandesa. Every student knows that a message to be conveyed to Yaksını is ımparted by the Yaksha to the cloud. Viewed 87 realistically, nothing can be more absurd than this; but one timely stroke from the great poet shatters this improbability to pieces. Voicing the doubt of the cntic or sahrdaya, he replies with an arthantaranyāsa.

க்சதல க்கி: அலஜீ:

ன கறமதகு அவைகிவ் வில 112

If the cntic is not satisfied even after reading the last line, appar- ently he expresses only an opinion as distinct from criticism. Turning to the second allegation that the love as depicted here is mean and inappropnate, the critic seems to overlook the fact that an aesthetic object is quite different from a natural or social object. Characters like Ravana, Sakara, lady Macbeth, Sa- tan etc. are objects of wonder and beauty, but as real human beings in flesh and blood, living amidst mortals, they are not only G. V. Knshna Rao

horrible but also mntolerable. It behoves society to get rid of such. aberrations of creation. Such is the gulf between the objects of beauty and the objects of nature. This statement naturally leads to the consideration of the problem of beauty 119 which is to be dealt whith in a subsequent chapter. For the present it may be sufficient to say that social ethics is quite different from that of Fine Arts. Dr.Reddy appears to attack the poet for depicting this love situation purely on ethical grounds and social progress. This bias might have set up a thick screen between him and the beau- ties to be found in the description of a young bud gradually bloom- ing into the fullgrown flower of Madhuralalasa, in the brisk and running narration in appropnate metres and facile expression. Moreover, given that royal status, there seems to be nothing un- convincing or improbable or mnappropriate in Madhuralālasa. To condem a part containing such verses as the following is rather strange :- 38

Studhes in Kalapurnodayam

The third objection on the ground of impossibility of Madhuralälasa's recognising Kalapurna even at the time of their first meeting loses its force if one only remembers Brahma's words. He says :-

From the underlined words it is clear that Madhuralalasa is blessed with a boon of having an inborn love for her husband. Due to this blessing she is able to recognise her would-be hus- band. This point has not been brought into the picture all on a sudden. The poet has clearly mentioned it not once but twice in describing her childhood. Reminding his reader who is likely to forget Brahma's boon, the poet says :- 89

In her childhood Madhuralālasa is again described :-

xi

When she was able even in her babyhood to recognise and respond to the simple name, what improbability is there when she is said to have recognised Kalapurna at their first meeting ? If this is improbable the episode of Sarasvati and Caturmukha becomes all the more improbable and thus the whole of the G V Knshna Rao

Kalapūrnodayam loses all its significance. Whether this concept of pativratya is good or bad, is irrelevant here. The question is whether the peculiar behaviour logically follows from the previ- ous incidents or not. Brahma definitely told that parrot that she would, in her second birth, marry Kalapurna and that the quali- ties of pativratya would be natural and not acquired as the re- sults of psychological process. This boon is confirmed once again by Sumukhasatti118 when she blessed Kalabhasini that she would become a parama pativrata in her next birth. Her words are not simply an expression of her ardent hope because she acquired such supernatural powers from Mrgendravahana that whatever she expressed would become true. Hence this point, Madhuralalasa recognısıng Kalāpurņa at their first meeting, is doubly determined as perfectly consistent and gives no scope for doubt. The fourth allegation seems to be more unjustified than 90 any other mentioned by the critic. Sending away the marned daughter to her husband's house is an important and memora- ble event for a mother even to this day. Even when she marries her daughter to her own brother and sends her to her husband's house for the first time immediately after marnage, tears fill her eyes. This natural emotion and the customary advice of the mother are given expression to by the poet through Rupanubhuti. Even though there is full scope here for teaching the duties of a house- wife, Surana does not indulge in it; on the contrary, dismisses it in only six verses119 taking care not to bring in irrelevant points. The fifth objection appears to have its root in the concep- tion of poetry itself. According to this view, it seems, poetry con- sists only in carefully consturucted story, or incidient, or charac- ter delineation. For those who hold this view simple descriptions of things, moods, emotions, ideas, culture etc. have no value. Fine imagery, beautiful word-music, bewitching melody, subtle rhythm, all these are worthless extravagance. If one accepts this view, Kalidasa's Meghasandesa, Muyura's Süryasataka, Dhuratı's Srı-Kala-hastisvara-sataka, Kasula Purusottama's Andhranāyaka Sataka, Nācana Somana's Uttara harivamsa, the famous odes Studies in Kalapurnodayam

and sonnets in English and Greek literatures must be consid- ered insignificant and worthless. All efforts made by the aestheticians and the ālamkarikas since the time of Plato, ac- cording to this view, will be a colossal waste. Therefore, this theory of poetry is neither supported by the existing works of art, nor upheld by any school of aesthetics. This argument, however, does not concede directly or indirectly that this part of the poem is altogether devoid of story interest. On the other hand, in addition to the interest of the theme, there are beautiful descriptions which are not so conspicuous in the earlier part. For example the child- hood of Madhuralalasa, the jocular way in which the old purohit prattles with the king, the scenes on the battle-field and the feel- ings of the soldiers when they once again come in sight of their native city after a long and protracted absence are more than beautiful. The cause of Kalapurna's expedition of victory which the 91 cntic rdicules is not probably so absurd as it is made to appear if one only refers to modern history of Europe. How many silly causes, personal prejudices, private affairs of the diplomatic per- sonages and mere accidents have precipitated horrible conflicts and disastrous wars ? Hindu polity, besides, insists that a king worth his name should never be satisfied until the whole earth is brought under his domination. Kalapurna, when he undertook this expedition, did nothing more than follow this injunction which has its roots deeply set in the psychology of political leaders. The next question whether the jealousies of Abhinavakaumudi and Madhuralalasa bring them any credit, and whether their respec- tive characters are not marred, does not count if the social and cultural background of those times is taken into consideration. Krsna is depicted as having invaded heaven only to bring the paryata, and Bhima for having attacked gandharvas for the sake of saugandhika flowers. No purpose will be served by viewing ar- tistic creations with the bias of the modern age. Moreover, such outlook is strictly barred by the canons of artistic taste and valu- ation. G V. Knsnna Rao

The satirical remark hurled by the critic at Satvadatman's political advice probably loses it's sting, when its actual content is taken into account. Satvadätman does not teach the A.B.C of politics, but only mentions the points that encourage the king in his mission and openly admits that they are not new to the king well-versed in that science. The next questions which the critic poses as his own, is raised and answered by Satvadätman himself. The critic in hs own way remarks :-

92

One may refer to what Satvadätman says anticipating tnese ob- jections.

No one can say that the critic has not seen these lines and that he thinks that his objection was never in the poet's view. Nevertheless, he raises this point probably to say that he is not completely convinced with Satvadatman's explanation. Keeping the following points in view critics may judge the issue :- Firstly, kalāpūma conquered only Madasaya who had conquered all the Studies in Kalapurnodayam

other kings. He never established his soveregnty over them by practically exhibiting his armed might and prowess. Secondly, defeating the emperor will not bestow sovereignty all the kings are once again subjugated. There can be no clearer example in this respect than the victory of Khaljıs over the kakatıya emperor and the victory of the Sultans of Deccan kingdoms over the em- peror of Vijayanagar. Thirdly, more than twenty years had passed sınce Kalapūrņa defeated Madāsaya. There is sample scope for antagonistic forces to gain fresh strength. Fourthly, somple boons do not automatically establish sovereignty. Though Arjuna ac- quired pasupatastra122 blessed with victory, the terrble war of kuruksetra did not cease to take its disastrous course. The sixth charge brought against the poet is anachronism. Genarally, speaking, lack of historical sense seems to be one of the drawbacks with the Indian writers and especially with the philosophers. But all the same Surana cannot be accused on this score. This critic observes that the poet has committed this blender by mentioning bombs, guns and rifles (poorses, 9:

d, as having been used in the times of Kalapurna. In this context what is more useful than an argu- ment is to go through the account of Salva's attack on Dvaraka described in the Aranya parvam of the Mahabharata.123 There it 1s vividly said that the King Salva carried on an arnal attack on Dvaraka from his Saubhanagaradhya which could fly to any place and the latter, which repulsed the attack, is thus described:

AoS. eoms. e1. .261-263 Thus there is a clear mention of sataghni and other instruments of destruction. It may be argued that the text quoted here is spunous, and that it might have crept into the Mahabharata re- cently. Spurious or not, this passage must have got into the text even before the time of Pingali Surana. The poet, who had thor- oughly studied the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, sımply be- leved in the authenticity of this passage and used the current G. V. Knsnna Rao

names of his time. There are definite references to such instru- ments of destruction in the Sukranitisara125 a treatise on politics, and the Uttaraharivamsam, a poem.126 If there still any error of anachronism at all, it is to be attributed to the earlier writers but not to Surana. The next point that Kalapuma must have been a contem- porary of Parksit certainly true. Because he had great respect for the Bharata, Surana did not even mention the name of Parikshit or others of Kuruksetra fame. To that extent he pre- vented his theme from coming into direct coflict with the story of the Mahabhärata. Strict adherence to historical events and dates is not as important for the poet as creating beauty. The general rule to be followed in this respect is the dictation of beauty. The cntic's dictum, that whatever is contradictory to the world-fa- mous stories is inappropnate,127 seems to be rather a hasty con- clusion. If what he says is nght, even a minor change in a world- famous story is undesirable and repulsive. But there are many dramatists who must be accused on this ground. For example, one dramatist changes one of the most well-known incidents in the Ramayana when he makes Laksmana follow the wonderful deer instead of Rama. Moreover, this effective change is applauded very much by Kuntaka as an instance under Prakarana Vakrata.128 Discussing this problem Dhvanyāloka says :- வி்தரைஸ் லஸ்ககண,

Stuces in Kalapurnodayam

லகக்வி. கக் பன்துை ுரன்க கல்

Here Sürana neither changed the story of the Bharata nor con- tradicted it. He silently passed over the story of Pariksit and that too with a definite object. If he described Kalapuma as having fought with Krsna or Pariksit, it might be regarded as a blunder. Even then before convicting a writer of this charge, many other things have to be taken into consideration. Suppose an English- man wntes an epic in his own language depicting Räma and Rvana in an altogether different light with many changes in the theme; that poem for the English - speaking world does not be- come grotesque. The seventh objection that Satvadatman's age is beyond comprehension and that he appears in this respect to belong to 95 Krtayuga, is hardly convincing. To conceive of Sugraha as losing his kingdöm at the age of twenty two or twenty five and obtaining the manihara in his thirtieth year does not strike one as an im- probability. Even granting that the necklace remained with the Brahmin for ten years, and that thirty years had lapsed before Madhuralälasa came to wear it for the second time which this crtic concedes Sugraha's age does not exceed seventy years. Even learning some more margin, one can take him to be seventy-five years old when he met Kaläpurna and his wife in the harem. The next question why Rupānubhūti did not recognise Satvadātman, suggests that this critic probably did not pay attention to the curse inflicted on Sugraha. It is as follows :-

0 5 .... 130 This means that the past history of Sugraha up to the end of the curse would be forgotten. Not only Sugraha, but also those who know him would not know his past. If the poet had meant only to make him lose his own consciousness up to that event, he would not have wasted so many words, and would have said :- G. V. Knshna Rao

So it seems to be a case of inattention. The eighth objection that Abhinnavakaumudi's conception after many years of married life leads one to doubt her chastity loses all its sharpness if it is only remembered that she belongs to the class of gandhurvas. On each one of the queens a son is bestowed not because the poet wants to be impartial, or to bring about symmetry which the critic ridicules. That the son begotten by Abhinavakaumudi is called Suprasāda, and the one by Madhuralalasa Sarasa, has a greater significance than what the critics have ever tried to probe into. For the present this point is left out only to be discussed at length in its proper context. Now this survey and defence carried on so far is intended only to established that this later part of the poem is free from 96 faults attributed to it by the critic. This is only a negative ap- proach because a faultless poem need not necessarly be beauti- ful. Unless the positive beauties of this part are clearly shown, these arguments do not carry much weight. So this aspect for- sooth needs a closer examination. Suppose the poet had closed his poem with the 192nd verse of the sixth canto as our critic suggests; then the poem would not only be mncomplete but also put the reader in a mood of irritation and dissatisfaction. He would be at a loss to understand firstly, how a baby which was not old enough to laugh could tell so many stories ; secondly, why her supernatural powers failed her sud- denly ; thirdly, why Satvadätman was brought mnto the picture; and fourthly, why Manikandhara was said to have hidden his vina so carefully in the temple of Mregendravahana. There is no point, therefore, in wishing that the poet had closed his poem with the 192nd verse of the sixth canto. Assuming tentatively that the poet had made the baby narrate the story of Sugraha also without a break, would the story suffer in any way? In that case it must also be granted that a baby of a few months can remaned stiil for hours together without moving this side or that Stuches in Kalapurnodayam

side in the cradle. Those words informing the readers that Manikandara had hidden his vina safely in the temple are to be omitted. Added to this one has to think of Brahma as somewhat talkative. If these are the only things with which the readers are concerned, they can be easily adjusted. But the most unfortu- nate thing is that the whole significance and meaning of the poem will be lost. It will only be a fairy - tale to please the young and the old, or a story to be newly added to the Kathasaritsāgara. Not only that. One fourth of the existing poem becomes superfluous and unnecessary. If this is true, the poet must be said to be the most incompetent wnter who does not even know where to end a story. That such an incapable poet can give a story that is atleast marvellous at a certain part is quiet incredible. Even that part which is considered the most beautiful will appear to be maried by many drawbacks if one does not approach it from the correct perspectives. If Dr.Reddy's approach is right, what purpose does it serve to mention the nature of poetry so many times in the 97 poem? Why are Sugätr and Salina said to be the natives of Kashmir and not of some other country? The names of Caturmukha and Sarasvatı can be replaced by Narayana and Lakșmi, or Paramesvara and Parvatı. These points in the story cannot be settled according to this interpretation. The name of Kalāpūrņa is not mevitable. This name can be changed into pūrna Candra. Above all, how is one to account for the failure of the poet in one fourth of the poem? It cannot be said that his Muse deserted him once for all at the end of the 192nd verse of the sixth canto. He wrote another marvellous poem after the Kalāpúrņodayam. These considerations, therefore, lead to the opinion that the cntic might not have approached the poem from a proper angle. Now to follow the crtics in their further accusations. The third fault found with the theme is that the pilgrimage of Maņikandhara to holy places does not serve any other purpose than increasing the bulk of the poem.130 Moreover, it positively spoils, they say, the beauty by enhancing the time gap. Accord- ing to this view Kalabhasini is left in an awkward position. one 1s G. V. Knsnna Rao

at a loss to understand how she spent this period of one and a half years while Manikandhara was on his pilgrimage. This criti- cism ıs partly met by Mr.Süryanārayana Sāstri in his commen- tary on the Kalapurnodayam131 when he explains thus :- Firstly, this pilgrimage is a prelude to his penance, and Nārada had mn- structed the hero to follow his instruction. Secondly, the Kalāpūmodayam is a poem and not a sūtragrantha to leave it to suggestiion. Thirdly, the poet is only making his work good by describing the sacred places of pilgrimage. Added to this, this description is suted to the Prabandha Marga. Fourthly, the poet who has given a story in ten verses sufficient enough for three cantos, cannot be said to be ignorant of what enhances and what hampers the tempo of the story. He is also playing the tune favoured by the people of his age. In spite of this elaborate argument, one may still feel that 98 the objection rased is not properly met. It is true that the poet has some partiality and considers it a sacred thing to go on a pilgnmage. This can be clearly proved by the prominence he gives to Arjuna's tirthayatra at the expense of the story in his Räghavapandaviyam.132 Nevertheless, this description seems to be important not on extraneous grounds but on internal neces- sıty. Kalabhāsını is not a simple and credulous maiden to be easily duped by Manistambha. If the descniption of holy places were omitted by him, could she have believed and implicitly fol- lowed him to achieve her end? He might have exhibited his su- pernatural powers and thus roused her checked ambitions. Well acquainted as she was with the ways of the world, would she have entrusted herself to an utter stranger? Without this de- scnption, what is there for Kalabhasini to have implicit faith in him and to trust him with her life? In order to appear as a pious and god-fearing man Mamstambha took every care to describe all the holy places with such faith and zeal that Kalabhasini did not hesitate to follow him. Even readers who happen to read the poem for the first time do not entertain any suspicion of his ter- nible intention.

Studies in Kalapurnodayam

The fourth allegation against the theme is that the child's exposition of Yoga is unnecessary, inappropnate and unpalat- able.133 This is plainly supported by another critic when he says that this is not in any way connected with the main story, and that it only helps to show the poet's knowledge of Yoga. It seems that these eminent critics have not paid proper attention to it. To understand the importance of this exposition of Yoga it ıs to be recollected that the baby, Madhuralalasa, had narrated the wonderful episode of Sarasvatı and Caturmukha with the clue that she, in her previous birth as Kalabhāsini, had seen the Manihara with Manikanidhara. Requested by Alaghuvrata, Kalapurna introduced himself, his minister and the other per- sonages present on the scene. What would be the immediate reaction firstly, of the readers, and secondly, of the characters who heard this story? Because the episode of Sarasvati and Caturmukha is a continuation of the previous story, the readers naturally would not entertain any doubts. If they had anything 99 to doubt at all, it would only be how the baby which was not old enough to laugh could know the past and narrate it to the audi- ence. This point is kept in abeyance to maintain suspense. Now what are the reactions of the characters involved? This point appears to be by-passed by both these crtics. Instead of being themselves sahrdayas who have no other business than to iden- tify themselves with those to be descnbed by the poet, they seem to mnisist upon the characters following them. But fortunately, one of the greatest poets and aestheticians that he was, Surana knew that the creatures of the poetic or aesthetic world have their own laws which cannot be violated without they being ban- ished once for all from that world. Possessed with great insight, the poet also portrays the reactions of the characters. Kalāpūrna and his retinue were given the past history of their previous births and ongination. They were put in such a position that they could neither confirm nor deny it. It is true that they were comletely lost in wonder. Their past as revealed by the baby was so amaz- ing and eulogistic that they did not want either to disbelieve or confirm it, because such an action would not affect them and G. V. Knshna Rao

their position in the least. But the position of Alaghuvrata was quite different. He came there with the avowed purpose of hear- ing the story of Kalapuma; and on it his whole future depended. So it was of immense importance for him to verify the truth of the story. Of course the names of Kalapurna and his followers on the one hand, and Manikandhara, Kalabhasini and the Manıhära on the other, closely fitted into the narration of the baby. Yet Alaghuvrata had his own doubts not without justification. Sup- pose you are sitting on the beach along with some others whom you do not know. Presently a stranger comes and tells you and the others present, your names correctly and gives some details of your past births. What will be your reactions? Will you sım- ply believe him and accept all that he tells you? Will you not try to test the astrologer by some other means? The same is the reaction of Alaghuvrata in the story. When doubt arises as to the reality of a thing, there are only two kinds 100 of test open to man-one intrinsic and the other extrnsic. Follow- ing this, his mind at once tned to find incongruities in the narra- tion itself. The only thing that appeared to him incongruent and improbable was the strangeness in the parents of Kalapūrna. Hence he questioned first the king and finally the baby how it was possible for a man actually to give birth to a child. The baby, blessed with temporary supernatural power, could probe into his mind, and after narrating the story of Manistambha and Sumukhasattı exchanging their sexes and giving birth to Kaläpura, asked the audience to get the fact verified if they wanted, from Sumukhasatti and Manistambha living Kasarapura.134 Why did the baby bring in the question of verifi- cation if not to silence the doubts of Alaghuvrata? So this is a direct reply to Alaghuvrata though she asked all of them to verify it. Now the poor Brahmin was disarmed, and had to conceve of an objective or extraneous test by which he could know the truth. What could that be? His brain was working at full speed; and in the meanwhile the baby, continuing the story, told them how Svabhāva gave Kalāpūma a bow, arrows and ajewel. Alaghuvrata, who still had doubts, and who was all the while thinking of a Stuches m Kalapurnodayam

method to test the truth, asked her why Svabhava bestowed all those gifts on Kalapurna. When she explained the connections of Svabhava and Kalapurna and the powers the former achieved through Yoga, Alaghuvrata found a way to test the truth in her narration. Because his father was a Yogin and he had learnt something about it, he wanted to test the knowledge of the baby. Unless she possessed genuine knowledge, she could not know the intricate secrets of sciences and philosophy. If she could give a correct interpretation to the science of which he knew something, then all the things she had been telling them could also be believed. Hence Alaghuvrata, assuming an air of great respect and mod- esty, requested her apparently without any relevinced to enlighten him on Yoga. When she explaied it to them at length, he was completely convinced and was inclined to place immense faith in what she sad. He went on questioning her on such matters as he wanted to know. When, towards the close, she told him that 101 Prathamägama etc .. Were his sons, doubts were once again roused. Nevertheless, he was prepared simply to believe what she was about to say. That is why the poet makes him say in his charac- teristic way :-

Ke . 135 Hence the exposition of Yoga does not seem to be superflu- ous as these critics think. It is presumably necessary from the standpoint of Alaghuvrata if not from that of the readers who want a story simple and plain to beguile the time. But some doubt may occur as to the necessity of such a lengthy expostion. Even this is likely to disapppear if one only remembers that Alaghuvrata is slow-witted.16 This interpretation is apparently supported by two more considerations. The baby tells that Alaghuvrata's father is a great yogin. What purpose does it serve to mention this particular quality in addition to others?>INone. G. V. Knshna Rao

argues that these qualities are mentioned only to represent Somasarman as a great man, it may be valid in the case of any other poet than Surana. The qualities attributed to this charac- ter are only three: his knowledge of the Vedas, his greatness in penance and yoga and his affluence. Except the second, the rest are fully utilsed for the later events. When the first and the third qualities are enough to keep the story moving, what purpose does it serve to mention the second? If they were not meant to serve actually any event in the story, they should have been simply ornaments. But that is not the case because without the first and the third qualities, the story would not have come into exist- ence. When two epithets are endowed with such significance, how can one say that the third is superfluous? Hence the present interpretation is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Finally, if the poet only wanted to show off his knowledge of Yoga or to preach it in order to endow his poem with a sacred 102 subject, (punyavastuvarnanakarnaniya) he could have included the whole exposition in the story of Svabhava or Somasarman who are said to be great yogins instead of introducing it by a special request of Alaghuvrata. These considerations, therefore, lead to the conclusion that the present interpretation is more probable. The fifth point which the critic mentions as the most un- satisfactory thing in the theme is the representation of Kalabhäsını as having been brought to life once again even after she was sacrificed to the goddess Mrgendravahana. The critic's actual words are very interesting. He says :-

Stuches m Kalapurnodayam

Now the question is why the poet represented her as hav- ing been resuscitated. Her actual death rather than survival could have certainly enchanced or intensified karuna as the critic men- tions. Did he fail to exploit the situation to the utmost as he alleges, or were there any other considerations that prevented him from following the open course? The first thing to be noted is that the poet never meant or intended to write a regular tragedy in the Greek sense. His object was quite different, and he wanted to express something else which is to be discussed in the next chapter. Simply because a poet refuses to write a tragedy, no one, if one is fair, can find fault with him. Secondly, given the whole story as it is in the 103 Kalapurnodayam, the partıcular episode of sacrıficıng Kalabhāsini to Mrgendravahana by Manikandhara cannot be a pure tragedy because both of them are destined to become the emperor and empress in their next births. When there is such an ardent hope and assured expectation how can it be a tragedy in the Greek sense ? So the question of making it a pure tragedy does not arse at all. Even the other argument that the poet should have repre- sented Kalabhäsini as being not brought back to life again, can- not be maintained if the whole work is taken into consideration. The edict on the stone in front of Mrgendravāhana runs to the effect, that whoever sacnfices a beautiful courtezan well-accom- plished in music enjoys unrivalled emperorship for long without any trouble. Manıkandhara incurred a curse from Nalakubara to the effect that he would meet his death in short time. As a sacrficer of Kalabhāsıņı, he had to enjoy the frut of the boon from Mrgendravahana and at the same time undergo the curse of Nalakubara. To avoid the conflict between these two, the curse and the boon, the poet had to create or bring to light some other factor. That factor is Manikandhara's hesitation to sacrfice his G. V. Knsnna Rao

love, Kalabhāsini, to Mrgendravahana as a result of which the goddess ordained that he would enjoy enjoy the fruit in his next birth. Without this intervention the whole story would have been ruined beyond repair. The goddess who is sensitive to his hesita- tion cannot be said to be indifferent to Kalabhasini's courage and purty of heart. And hence her survival. If the critic's view is to be taken senously, Caturmukha Krida and the rest are to be given up and the poet to be denied his very nght to express his own outlook. Not only that, the goddess is to be made to react without rhyme or reason. Can such an inconsiderate accusation be accepted? The sixth fault found with the theme by another critic is this :- "We are, however, not taken into the poet's confidence when, how and why the youthful maiden at Dwaraka gave the ghost to be reborn as Madhuralālasa, the princess."138

104 This accusation seems to be inept. Supposing the poet has given some cause for her death which is not in the least a difficult one to invent; in what way will the story be affected, or gain in tempo or richness, or charactensation or rasa? It is a well-known general principle followed from time immemorial by all the great artists to omit all the unnecessary details. Only such details as are absolutely reqwred by the story, charactensation, and rasa are given. This same principle is clearly and precisely expressed by the greatest Alankārika, Ānandavardhana, in hıs Dhvanyaloka.

Not only that. It is also considered as one of the rasa doshas by Mammata. Visvanatha and others. The latter savs :- Studies m Kalapurnodayam

The seventh allegation brought against the theme is this :- "How could the relationshıp of Satvadatman and Madhuralalasa be known to the old Brahmın, the confidant of Kalāpūrna, since even Satvadatman did not know it till Madhuralalasa had told him and the king at the end of the poem." 141 This seems to be a deviation on the part of the critic. No- where in the text is it given that the old Brahmin knew the rela- 10 tionship of Satvadatman and Madhuralalasa. It only tells us that. Sügraha is the brother of Rupanubhuti, and that his wherea- bouts are a mystery. The Brahmin does not identify Satvadātman with Sugraha, nor is single hint given to that effect. Had the poet written that the old Brahmin knew the relationship between Satvadatman and Madhuralālasa, the present accusation would have been nght. But he is too great a poet to commit such a blunder The Brahmin actually says :-

G. V Knshna Rao

This statement in no way conflicts either with the curse Sgraha incurred or with any probability. There is no cause whatsoever for Rüpänubhuti to forget all about her father and brother. Moreo- ver, Sugraha's name had become proverbial for his pedigree. What really prevented them from recognising Satvadatman as no other person than Sugraha was the curse inflicted by the Yatı. Thus there seems to be no error in the theme but only an oversight on the part of the critic. Before this discussion on the so-called defects in the theme is closed, one more point raised by another critic is to be consid- ered. Though he never mentions it as a fault, it is a grave mis- 06 take if it is true. He says by way of mentioning it as a fact that Manıstambha's peculiar powers of claurvoyance and clairaudience come to a close with the end of the 88th verse of the third canto of the Kalāpūmodayam. 143 To put it in plain language, it means that the poet who has created a character with some supernatu- ral powers makes him lose them all on a sudden without provid- ing any cause. If true, it is a case of self-contradietion and incon- sistency. Hence it requires careful examination. To begin with, one has to enquire into the nature and scope of the supernatural powers of Manistambha and how he has come to possess them. One of the edicts written on the stone pillar in the temple of Mrgendravahana announces that whoever pierces his eye and ear with the style (gorugallu) and the arrow respec- tively will acquire the powers of claurvision and clairaudience.144 Sumukhāsattı ınforms Kalabhāsını that Manstambha has ac- quired these two powers by means of those savage deeds. But these powers dūradrstı and dūraśravanasaktı are not to be confused with the divine insight (divyadrsti) which is com- monly mentioned in the puranas and epics.146 Divyadrstı means the capacity of knowing the past as well as the future. If the poet Stuces m Kalapurnodayam

had really this in view. he would not have mentioned it as two separate powers; nor would he have prescribed it as two separate powers; nor would he have prescribed two kinds of terrible sacri- fices to acquire them. Besides, bifurcation of these powers is all the more necessary for the purport of the poem to be explained later on. So these two powers düradrsti and duraśravanasaktı are quite different from divyadrsti. When etymologically inter- preted, the former two mean the capacities or powers of seeing and hearing distant objects of perception. The poet definitely makes his reader understand by distant objects only those of the past and present. Had he menat by these two terms, the capac- ity to perceive the events of the future also, he would have com- mitted a blunder by unnecessarily bifurcating them and giving them two separate new names instead of calling them by the single well-known term divyadrstı Because duradrst and dürasravanasaktı have this specific connotation, one can under- stand why Manistambha undertook his mission of sacrificing 107 Kalabhäsin to Mrgendravahana without any thought of its suc- cess. If he had the capacity to look into the future, he would not have started on this mission. So his powers have nothing to do with divine insight. Deviating from the obvious meanng, the critic says that the powers düradrstı and durasravanasaktı of Manistambha are very limited and that they reveal only those two objects of sight and hearing as they are perceived at the moment but not the changes, and the truth and error.147 This interpretation is per- haps inadvertant since it is hardly consistent with the powers themselves. Moreover, this interpretaton, when logically followed lands one into the theory that perception has nothing to do with truth.148 This is not only untenable but also unscientific. For example, the case of Manistambha may be taken. Ifhe knows all the past history, his past words and deeds of Manıkanidhara, cannot he know the truth about the latter? Scientifically speak- ing Manistambha should have known it. But the story tells, that he does not, because he fails to give an account of Manıkaridhara after his first separation from Rambha. This is not the only occa- G V Knsnna Rao

sion on which his powers fail. He does not know what has become of Kalabhäsıni after he leaves her in fear of Nalakubara. How does he not know what has become of Kalabhäsini after he leaves her in fear of Nalakübara? This failure, as it appears, is not due to the limitation of the powers. They are not properly utilised by the agent. Had Manstambha used them in a cool and collected manner, he would have arrived at the truth and the peculiar changes in the situa- tion.149 But such peace and calm in the exercise of his powers are completely denied to him except on one occasion when he is able to locate Kalabhāsıņi as a victim of sacrifice to Mrgendravähana. He is able also to give correctly the past his- tory of Narada and Manikanidhara and thus gain the confidence of Kalabhäsmi. Later on his failure to know the activities of Manıstambha after his first separation from Rambha is due to his disinclination to exercise his powers but not to his incapacity 108 to know the truth.150 Since his last revelation to Kalabhāsiņi, more than an hour and a half should have elapsed because he himself tells her that it takes an hour and thirty six minutes to reach the forest in which Manikandhara has performed penance 151 During this interval the latter has assumed the form of Nalakübara. There is no wonder in siddha not knowing this later development. Except on the last occasion, Manıstambha has neither peace of mind nor leisure to exercise his powers. So the critic's explanation does not seem to be plausible. The exact words dürdrsti and dürasravanasakti hardly support him in his interpretation. The other statment that Manistambha's powers come to a close with the 88th verse of the third canto does not conform to the textual evidence. When Nalakubara and Mäya Nalakübara have fought for a sufficiently long time, Rambha conceives and idea by which she can recognise the real Nalakübara.152 She parts them; and taking one after the other aside, puts in secret a question to which one gves a correct reply and the other does not. Manistambha cannot be said to be so near to Rambha as to overhear that secret question. If that is true, how does Manistambha come to know this particular Studies in Kalapurnodayam

question? From this it is clearly evident that he has utilised his power of durasravana and has come to know that Rambha has asked them when the reference to Kalūpurna was made. Now some doubt may arse as to why Manistambha does not mention the answers given by Nalakubaras ifhe really knows them. These answers are not required either for the reders, or by any internal necessity. In this connection, there is one point which appears to be missed generally. The manner in which Sumukhasattı recog- nises Manstambha as her husband is rather strange and bewil- dering. The poet here seems to be playing with - or can it be said ndiculing - the memory of his readers. How can Manıstambha endowed with the two supernatural powers of clairaudience and clairvision be expected not to know the cause of dispute between Salına and Sugätri? Sumukhasatti also knows quite well that he has these two supernatural powers. Is she not the very first person to inform Kalabhasıni of this fact? Knowing all this as 10g she does, how is she convinced that Manistambha is her hus- band? If he has given the real cause for the dispute, it may be due to his supernatural powers. On what grounds is Sumukhäsatti able to ascertain for herself that this is not the case? One is not enlightened on this point. But the poet is quite aware of what he is doing. Otherwise he will not follow the technique of politicians who side-track the attention of their nations to other issues when their policies fall. When Sumukhasattı tells Manıkardhara that she is Sugātr, Manıstambha also comes out with his story and tells them that he is Salina. Then the question of establishing their identity anses. She promises first to tell and then to write and thus let Kalabhasıni know the cause of their dispute. Immediately she becomes aware of Manistambha's supernatural powers, and re- quests Manikandhara to get the explanation first from Manistambha and then from her. Because the causes mentioned by both of them agree, they are identified as Sugatri and Salina. The whole thing is so picturesquely painted that the readers are put off their guard. If the poet were not personally aware of the G V. Knshna Rao

weakness, he would not have put up such a pretty long show. The very fact that this present point has escaped notice shows clearly that he has succeeded in his efforts. Really, readers have to thank the poet and laugh at themselves for being taken in so easily. The poet is not altogether without another clue to their identity, but he does not openly use it because probably he is bent upon playing with the memory of the readers. Since it is going to be discussed in some other connection, it need not be pursued here. Now to summarise. Except for the defects shown in the later part of the poem commencing from the 192nd verse of the 6th Canto, the rest of the alleged faults seem to have sprung from indolence rather than from reason. Even those adverse remarks passed against the later part of the poem can be ex- plained away to some extent as attempted in this chapter. How-

110 ever, this makes the events cnticised only probable but does not show their necessity and thereby take the wind out of the argu- ments of Dr.CR. Reddy. Regarding charactensation, there are practically no flaws found by the cntics except in the case of Narada and Madhuralalasa. Those who have remarked that Narada's conflict with Tumburu and his learning music in the harem of Krsna is silly153 seem to have not taken into account the principles of psychology and the existence of such an episode in the Lingapurana. The charactensation of Madhuralalasa is se- verely criticised by Dr. Reddy; but he does not show any inherent flaws of inconsistency, ngidity and lifelessness. So one may beg to differ with him on this issue.

Stuches ın Kalapurnodayam