STUDIES OF KUTTIKRISHNA MARAR ON SANSKRIT WORKS

Thesis Submitted to Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. in fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sanskrit Sahitya

PUSHPALATHA P V

DEPARTMENT OF SANSKRIT SAHITYA FACULTY OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT KALADY-2019 Dr. DHARMARAJ ADAT, Professor, (Retd) Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, Kerala.

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that, this thesis entitled ‘STUDIES OF KUTTIKRISHNA MARAR ON SANSKRIT WORKS’ submitted by PUSHPALATHA P V, Research Scholar, Department of Sanskrit Sahitya, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sanskrit Sahitya, is a record of bonafied research carried out by her under my supervision. It has not been previously submitted for any Degree/ Diploma/ Fellowship/ Associateship or any other title of this or any other University.

Kalady, Dr. DHARMARAJ ADAT 30-12-2019

DECLARATION

I, PUSHPALATHA P.V., Research Scholar, Department of Sanskrit Sahitya, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, hereby declare that the present thesis entitled ‘STUDIES OF KUTTIKRISHNA MARAR ON SANSKRIT WORKS’, submitted to Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sahitya, is an account of the original research work carried out by me. I further declare that the same has not previously been submitted to any other University or academic body for the award of any of Degree/ Diploma/ Fellowship/ Associateship or other similar title or recognition.

Kalady, PUSHPALATHA P.V. 30-12-2019 I

Preface

Kuttikrishna Marar, equally excellent in Malayalam and Sanskrit is the most profound personality among the trinity in modern Malayalam criticism. M P Paul, one of the three, vanished behind the curtain after having cemented a healthy theoretical foundation to criticism at the age of forty eight. For a quarter of century, Marar and Mundassery played their role very actively in criticism. Mundassery moved along with the artistic development whose literary concepts were influenced by both western and eastern writers. Marar manifested original and self-acquired viewpoints. Iconoclasm sharpened his unique genius, a brave method which no other critic dared to experiment with. They were different in criticism. But all the three always embraced on values of life and right and wrong. This is common in their criticism. Kuttikrishna Marar irked conservative scholars and progressive literary men simultaneously.

Many studies have appeared on the personality and literary works of Marar. Some of them are remarkable written by P S Radhakrishnan, M T Sulekha, Thomas Mathew, M N Karasseri, and Govinda Marar. But a Sanskrit-centered study of Marar and his works has not yet been produced and presented. So the relevance of such a study could not be II unimportant. This is a grave endeavour to bring out Marar’s extraordinary treatment with Sanskrit literature.

Aims of Research

The primary aim of this research is to evaluate holistically the complete works of Marar. This thesis tries to reveal the importance of his period of living, the inspiration he got from former poets, influence of other poets in Malayalam and Sanskrit, relationship and similarity with the contemporaries, variety of plots, method of criticism, style, message, the propriety of literature and criticism and the aims of translation. No man is an island. Marar as a writer did not keep away from the society. This is also an attempt to reveal his share in social reformation. To observe generally the works of Marar in Sanskrit and Malayalam, bring to light unpublished works and uncollected works hither to undiscovered, and disclose the individual excellence as is reflected in his literary productions are the secondary aims.

Scheme of Study

The primary sources of this study are the published and unpublished works of Marar. In addition to his articles and interpretations various sources like studies on Marar have been made use of for writing the thesis. Some of Marar’s unpublished works are being found from his related families and collected. His diary notes are also III used in this research. A number of books from Kerala Sahitya Academy, Appanthamburan Memorial Museum and other libraries are referred to. The great share of this work is of critical approach and the rest is narrational. This attempt progresses in the path of analysis, biographic inquiry and criticism.

This thesis is divided into six chapters. The first chapter deals with Marar’s milieu, especially his literary background.

Epics and myths overwhelm with stories of miracles and hyperboles. Marar demolished the existing approach to such works through epic evaluation. He upturned the insipid, narrow and conservative concepts traditional scholars in his Bh¡rataparya¶ana. The second chapter attempts to review on his observations, literary philosophy and criticism. The third chapter debates on how Marar reproduced the works of K¡lid¡sa as a critic, interpreter and translator. The works of K¡lid¡sa, no doubt, was profoundly stimulated influenced Marar to a great level. The fourth chapter highlights his studies about other Sanskrit works. Chapter five deals with his poetic studies. It specially explains how Kuttikrishna Marar re-introduced the K¡vy¡numiti of Mahimabha¶¶a in Sanskrit literary criticism. The conclusion, sixth chapter presents the inferences and finding arrived at.

I express my sincere gratitude to my guide Dr. Dharmaraj Adat. IV Professor (Rtd), former Head of the Department of Sanskrit Sahitya, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, whose immense support and valuable guidance helped me realize my dream of research. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. P.V Narayanan, Professor and Head of the Department of Sanskrit Sahitya, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady.

I also express my gratitude to all teachers of the Sanskrit Sahitya Department. Mr. Muraleedharan, son of Kuttikrishna Marar, grandson Sathya Narayanan, and others for their incredible support for the completion of my research work. Unpublished works of Kuttikrishna Marar were collected from the libraries such as Sahitya Academy Thrissur, Appan Thampuran Smaraka library Ayyanthol, Chinmaya International Foundation Veliyanad and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit library. I extend my sincere thanks to all librarians and authorities who helped me to reach my goal.

Last but not the least, express my deep sense of gratitude to my parents, my husband, family members and friends who helped me physically, mentally and morally for the fulfillment of my research work.

Pushpalatha P. V

CONTENTS

Page Preface I-IV Chapter –One 1-35 Literary Background of Kuttikrishna Marar Chapter –Two 36-79 Studies on Epic by Kuttikrishna Marar Chapter –Three 80-127 Studies on Translated Works of K¡lid¡sa by Marar Chapter –Four 128-149 Studies of Marar on other Sanskrit Works Chapter –Five 150-167 Studies of Marar on Sanskrit Poetics

Chapter – Six 168-182

Conclusion

Bibliography 183-196

Appendix 197-201

Marar’s Manuscript CHAPTER ONE

LITERARY BACKGROUND OF KUTTIKRISHNA MARAR

Chapter one

Literary Background of Kuttikrishna Marar

Introduction

Kuttikrishna Marar modified the existing concepts of literature with his innate and acquired ingenuity. His education was traditional, but he was not totally immersed in it, yet he got vitality from it and introduced novel viewpoints. His literary activities could reinstall the former orthodoxical nature of literary criticism. Marar dealt criticism with an independent mind and a different method which evaluated literary works in a varied way. He took into account the life-oriented sphere of literature and made it all the more conspicuous. He challenged the existing mode of criticism and, consequentially he was called an iconoclast.

Ofcourse, there was criticism before Marar, but the lion share of it was pedantry. It was a blunt imitation of Sanskrit rhetoricians. Such a method failed in uncurtaining the spirit or essence of literature because of preconcepts and prejudice. This tendency was changed with the advent of Marar. A harmony of scholarship and propriety, and above all an aesthetic appreciation are clearly visible in this

1

prodigy. So whatever he wrote was a new experience to the readers. He demonstrates his own visions on grammar, metre as well as criticism. It toppled the narrow, hereditary and unquestionable literary ideas. Naturally, he encountered tooth and nail opposition from the conservative litterateurs.

In the beginning of Marar‘s S¡hityabh£Àa¸a itself, we hear comments on this opposition. A group argues that Marar has written S¡hityabh£Àa¸a in order to resist Bh¡À¡bh£Àa¸a. Yet another group opines that it is an enlargement of Bh¡Àabh£Àa¸a, so much so that a follower of A R Rajaraja Varma. But his literary critical individuality was never to propitiate either of the two. On the contrary, it was based on his spontaneous reasoning power and skill of appreciation. Here we may recall the opinion of Thayattu Sankaran in his Teraµµe¶uttaprabandha´´al, ―After a long term of study and contemplation, and after acquiring maturity through experiences of life, he assimilated them, formed his literary theory, and only then Marar entered into the realm of literature‖(1990:76). The crux of

Marar‘s literary criticism is experience from life, it is his treasure- house. Marar suggests that whatever written should be touching life. Take his studies about epics in the forefront, then the depth of his

2

theory of criticism becomes all the more opulent. He writes in his S¡hityasall¡pa ―A poet needs be an artist in one quarter, in the other three he should be the sign of the betterment of humanity‖(1999:72).

Whatever he said about literature was inseparably inter-related with life. Marar congruously joined artistic expressions and the intensity of life so that he could be an advocate of ‗Art is Life‘.

Though Malayalam literature was flourished in the 20th century, yet the writers and critics did not consider it seriously. But things changed with the appearance of M.P.Paul, Kesari Balakrishna Pillai, Joseph Mundasseri, Kuttikrishna Marar and the like. Among them he was, perhaps, the most brilliant. When Marar began his comments on literary works, conservatives were puzzled. His contemporaries took a negative attitude. He declared that literature is a technique and the corollary was a rebellion. That Marar encountered the opposition all alone reveals his depth and width in literary ideas and concepts. Upto his time literary works were considered a right of the elite. He frowned at the dwellers of skyscrapers and evicted them. Moreover Marar demolished their conventional construction. Marar made clear that art and literature is for life. Through the expression of life sublime values can be handed over to the readers and make them

3

aware of cultural development. What does he mean by expression of life? By no means it should be superfluous. Under the manifest realities of life there are unmanifest realities. Put them into order is the duty of a litterateur. The reader must think and enjoy. This was the firm outlook of Marar.

His individuality was not limited in making literary principles alone. Marar extended it to criticism too. He illustrated interpretations distasteful to him. Some addressed him an iconoclast and this was a sort of escapism. Because there was a relentless massive effort to devalue the criticism and interpretation of Marar. Progressive group of writers was behind it, but, in fact, those efforts increased the fineness of Marar‘s interpretations. He employed the dictum, ‗Art is life itself‘, in order to analyse the epics and myths, and some opposed it blindly. Epics and myths are scriptures of divinity, and their vision of life has not been exposed for a very long time. Marar interpreted those works as a guide to man, they exceed time, and they are exemplary of sublime life to be followed by man. He had special affinity for classical works. Marar realized that nobody had enjoyed the work properly and the importance of man‘s life was neglected by the readers. He detected the demerits of appreciation and enjoyment

4

for which he gave a means to appreciate the works usefully by his interpretations. His pen took up the mission to link life and K¡lid¡sa‘s works. Marar got into close contact with every genre of works and with his gifts and sense, opened a new path of appreciation, and a novel artistic perception.

Kuttikrishna Marar is equally a genius in Sanskrit and Malayalam. His literary identity can be seen in criticism, translation, painting, drama and poetry. Marar‘s genius is most radiant in criticism. We see a harmonious combination of softhearted aesthetician, logician, philosopher and scathing critic in him. Marar lifted criticism up to the level of self expression. He rebelled against both conservative and progressive men of literary work who could not view beyond what the Sanskrit rhetoricians pointed to, and that too was when Marar led a pathetic life. The foundation of his criticism is logic. With no company at all, all alone, he opposed the arguments of his rivals with extraordinary boldness and strength which he had accumulated from his personal life. So a study on his criticism becomes complete only when his personality is dealt with.

5

Birth and Milieu

Kuttikrishna Marar was born on 14nth June, 1900 (1075- Midhunam 2). His father was Karikk¡¶¶u Krishna Marar, and mother, T¤pra´´o¶¶u Kizhakkem¡r¡ttu Lakshmi M¡rasy¡r. ―To the south of

T¤pra´´o¶¶u temple, the holy place where M¡rkkandeya was murdered and immortalized by Sri Mahesvara, is my family house(m¡r¡ttu)‖(Kuttikrishna Marar,1991:80), thus begins he memoir. The myth of M¡rkka¸·eya has influenced his structure of personality, and the spotting of such a place cannot be indolent. Marar earned his family‘s livelihood by playing drum during worship at the temple. He had to learn homage services at an early age as he was the only man-member of the house. At first he studied blowing conch, early in the morning and evening at the temple. Rising before sunrise, moving alone in the darkness, and homecoming after conch-blowing surged panic in him.―I went to the temple in consternation, blew short blows and returned home with a bigger shudder,‖(1991:81): Marar recollects. His mother gave light with a lamp attached to a rod and stretched it for him to go to the gate tower during which time he listened to the melodious sound of music by students from the nearby mansion. Such things attracted and consoled Marar. His informal

6

education began here. His mother learned a little bit of Sanskrit, composed a few songs for traditional local dance, sang hymns and did menial works. The nearness of such a mother inspired his zest for education.

Marar hated the occupation of hereditary drum beating. Without admonition and with fondling, always caring for the son‘s like, his father gave lessons of drum beating. ―Except beating, my father taught me nothing, so, I did not give patriarchal respect,‖(2010:31)

Marar feels sorry.

He was more interested in drawing pictures than in beating drums. On the fractured walls of the temple he saw the remnants of old frescos. Marar watched them and corrected the defects of the paintings, but only in imagination. It was a mania and gave him much pleasure. Marar writes: ―My interest in painting found expression on the walls of the house and on pieces of paper. Eventually it went out from the four walls of the house to the temple. The picture of Lord K¤À¸a on the northern wall of the shrine of Karikk¡ttu á¡stta is the result of unending effort and interest‖. In company with his father,

Marar beat drums and whenever there was leisure he fulfilled his

7

desire. Nevertheless, favourable circumstances to develop his inborn talent in painting were practically nil.

But Marar‘s desire to be a painter withered where it sprouted.

About five years he practiced drum beating, the traditional job, under the supervision of his father, and learned Sanskrit. With the death of Vell¡na¿¿eri V¡su¸¸i M£satu, Vidy¡rthi Cint¡ma¸i Sanskrit school became without a director and a leader. Later on, member of Yoga KÀema Sabha shifted it to Ëlattiy£r and re –established. At that time

Marar studied there. Again, as the school was closed, some of his classmates joined the Sanskrit college, Pattambi. He too longed to join. On the other hand, he could satisfy his thirst in painting at Guruvayur so that expenses could be minimized. Either of the two might free Marar from the much –hated drum beating. As he was brooding over a suitable selection, his mother suggested: ―There is yet another gift at Guruvayur, you can also learn sorcery (magic) from

your younger uncle‖(2010:33). Marar became thoroughly depressed and nervous. He feared that magic would be imposed on, which he abhorred. So Marar abandoned his desire to practice drawing which was inborn, and took a final decision to go to Pattambi. ―I may draw

8

some pictures; I can‘t think of becoming a sorcerer even in my rebirth‖(2010:34); the poignancy of traditional negation is clear in this statement. If Marar had not gone to Pattambi, he would have become a maestro in drum beating and painting. But a master mind in literary criticism would have been lost forever. R¡j¡nka¸a, Bh¡rataparya¶ana and such great works would remain unbloomed. The possible loss in literature was compensated with Marar‘s aversion to beating drum. But the rhyme and rhythm of drum beating enabled him to come to the conclusion that ‗proper arrangement and direction is art‘. In metre there is proper order and rhythm, and this feature became easily perceivable to Marar as a result of his practice in drum. He could not become a painter, but as an entertainment he cuddled the passion for painting. Rarely, his cartoons appeared in Saµjaya and Vi¿var£pa, both comic magazines.

Study at Pattambi

These were the family, cultural, social and economic backgrounds when he joined the Sanskrit school of Nilakandasarma to pass the course ‗áiroma¸i‘. His stay and study there considerably and decisively influenced in forming his personality. The term of study

9

was from 1919 to 1923. At that time the struggle for independence was in full swing. The spirit of such a political background could engender a mentality of opposition and negative attitude among youngsters. Marar writes: ―British rule and education flourished here, and that gave the tendency to question whatever old and cliehe in the whole of Indian. Some great and good-spirited men fought against decay and degeneration, whereas some others were simply iconoclast‖(2010:34). Since early boyhood Marar protested against irrational traditions and manners. He never liked to be a drum beater, the family occupation, nor a sorcerer. His nature of opposition intensified during his study at Pattambi.

Teachers

His teachers at Pattambi were Punnasseri Nambi Nilakanda Sarma and Sambhu Sarma. Punnasseri Nambi was a ‗guru‘ who learnt Sanskrit verses and other branches of literature in the traditional way. He was famous, at Pattambi Guruklulam he encouraged free thought and style, a rare pattern of teaching on those days. But amongst the teachers, Sri Sambhu Sarma was Marar‘s role model.

Marar almost worshipped him. ―……that Karnatic Brahmin taught

10

logic (tarka¿¡stra) and philosophy (p£rvamim¡msa) which was more interesting than teaching á¡kuntala by other teachers. He was clad in pure white Karnatic traditional dress, walked slowly, and with a face radiant with the glory of a life of long celibacy, and conducted classes……;‖(1998:24) this is how Marar depicts áambhu áarma.

That áambhu áarma deviated from the ancient stream of thought attracted Marar, so his reverence for áarma was near to adoration. áarma had pleaded that Mahimabha¶¶a‘s Vyaktiviveka is more logical than Ënandavardhana‘s Dhvany¡loka. Once his teacher read the article by Marar with the title Upam¡ K¡lid¡sasya. After reading the Sanskrit manuscript áaÆbhu áarma commented; ―Marar‘s style is not that of Pattambi‘s‖(2010:36). In writing and speaking Sanskrit language, Punnasseri gained extraordinary fame, and his main disciples were also famous. But when Marar heard the comment of áambhu áarma that he was different from the Punnasseri style he was not at all worried. Instead, he felt highly honoured by his grand master áambhu áarma.―Once áambhu áarma composed an allegorical poem which satirized the British supremacy with the title S¡tvikasvapna and published it. Its preface was written by Marar. Through mellifluous stanzas the difference of opinion between the moderates and

11

extremists of Bh¡rata Mah¡ Jana Sabha (congress) is delineated by áambhu áarma. Corrupted rule of the authorities is unveiled along with it. But, Punnasseri, who wrote introduction for S¡tvikasvapna, interpreted it as an eulogy of the British. That interpretation irritated Marar, it aroused his ingenuity and he wrote a counter-interpretation with a pseudonym‖(1998:25-26).―Moreover he bore dislike for some

Sanskrit literary ideas and concepts. He wrote a number of articles challenging their logicality. A few of them were published in the Sanskrit Daily Sah¤daya. On that day his works were in Sanskrit. Later on Marar‘s articles were published with the name

S¡hityabh£Àa¸a in the form of an anthology, and his first work is the same‖(2010:35). He writes; ―There was scarce money to sustain life, but the printing of S¡hityabh£Àa¸a seemed more necessary‖(1991:9).

Poignant commitment of Marar to literature is materialized in the statement. He entrusted the work to a press-owner, but S¡hityabh£Àa¸a suffered a kind of uterine death. Because of financial shortage Marar‘s book was stranded at the press. In S¡hityabh£Àa¸a he opposed A R Raja Raja Varma here and there, and it is told that the fans of A R pressurized and manipulated to block the publishing. In this work, which invoked so much mayhem in the Keralite literary

12

world, we see a Marar interrogating traditional illogicality, and here we get the prototype of his individuality. He also wrote introduction and glossary for áambhu áarma‘s Pr¡k¤ta SaÆvidh¡na. He passed the degree of Siromani and reached Vanneri- into the aura of the great poet Vallattol. Marar says about the incident; ―A small part destiny and the major part my own will‖(Patinaµcupany¡sa,1991:65). The great poets erudition and friendship tethered Marar there, and prompted him to remain with the poet in company. He spent a considerable time of his youth at Vanneri. Marar‘s scholarship in

Sanskrit and companionship were useful to Vallattol also. He wrote introductions and glossary for the productions of Vallattol. His diary notes on 24-04-1932 tells that Vallattol was ordained to write a commentary for the work of K. Prakasam, but the duty was handed over to Marar which he did perfectly. The poet did not find any flaw and without any correction he undersigned. Marar was shouldering such an attempt for the first time. He could easily arrange the phrases, idioms and linguistic sweetness of Vallattol, as a result of his association with the poet, in the commentary. Marar considered it an approbation. Vallattol helped him to be the S¡hity¡c¡rya of Kerala Kalamandalam. Vallattol‘s poetic genius and scholarship excited

13

Marar during this period of which he wrote in 1958 ―While Keralites read and enjoy his poetry, I enjoy and adore his poetry with a great share of my life directly, in close contact with him. When you considered him one of the five or six great poets of the time, I considered him the male incarnation of goddess Sarasvati‖(Patinaµcupany¡sa,1991:65-66).―Marar reiterated that literary and artistic living background attracted him and his aesthetic prudence got more fineness and finishing‖ (Palarum

Palatum,1992:27). His boundless admiration for Vallattol poetry was formed as a rivalry and protest against other poets. Such camaraderie and partiality reflected in the introductions written for Vallattol works. We may remember the controversial introduction written by Marar for Vallathol‘s Koccu S¢ta. That book was published first in

1104 (1929). Vallattol composed the poem on the request of Marar. In Tamil Nadu, a certain Cempakavalli sacrificed her life to keep safe her virginity. She was a traditional woman of temple service or Devad¡si. This news appeared in one of the Tamil newspapers, and the thematic authenticity of Koccu S¢ta goes to that news. For its first edition Marar wrote introduction. The Devadasi system was not prevalent in Kerala. But pejorative ceremonies like ―tira¸¶ukuli‖ and

14

―child marriage‖(ke¶¶ukaly¡¸aÆ) and the like prevailed in Kerala among some Hindu sections. Marar indicates in the preface to Koccu S¢ta that a challenge to such abusive customs resounds in it. Professor A Balakrishnan Pillai has recorded that some community leaders brandished the sword of opposition against Marar‖ (1929:15). But a proper study of Kerala history brings to light that Marar‘s opinions were factual. Because, the abusive customs which Marar pointed out existed in Nair, Namboothiri communities and sub-strata. (1929:V) They practised it profusely. Incessant endeavour of social reformers brought the primeval practices almost to an end. Koccu S¢ta and the like literary productions have inspired social reformation under the auspices of N S S, S N D P and other organizations. Marar‘s introduction has been removed from the later editions of Koccu S¢ta. He was curious and in a hurry to revamp the stubborn and orthodoxical social concepts which were unwilling to change with the passage of time. The presence of a critically thinking man can be seen in his criticism. It means that he was not only a literary critic but also a social critic. From boyhood onwards he had been witnessing innumerable castes, tribes, bad customs and superstitions. He

15

envisaged a society that rooted out ugly customs and manners, a society that changed in connection with its tempo.

Equalization between life and criticism is the special feature of Marar‘s criticism. A curiosity was aroused and increased in him to go beyond the poetic and scholastic magnetism of Vallattol. Their intimacy is revealed in such articles as ‗Enikku EttavuÆ IÀ¶¶ape¶¶a

Kavi’, ‗Ëtmakathayile Oraddhy¡yam’, ‘N¡lapp¡¶¶u N¡r¡ya¸a

Menon’‘Ente a¶iverukal‘etc. He having made deep companionship with Nalappattu Narayana Menon, Marar came to the conclusion that literature is something sublime and touching life. Such an impression engendered in him. He turned to be the interpreter of Nalappadan‘s poems such as ‗Cakrav¡laÆ‘, ‗Ka¸¸un¢rtulli‘ etc. Marar describes how the visions of life by Nalappattu Narayana Menon influenced him; ―His hearty compassion rekindled my vitality which was losing warmth; my imaginative consciousness of surroundings was changed into and was directed to realistic consciousness by it. When we fall down fatigued with the hardships of life, that which makes us them forget is not the best poetry, but, I think that which gives courage and ability to solve the problems of life is the best kind of poetry‖

16

(Palarum Palatum,1992:30). Marar considered some beliefs as the base of life which were shattering later on and when he grasped this, he came to understand that he could not carry on his mode of life submerged in artistic imaginary world. In such a situation, through Nalappattu Narayana Menon‘s poetry and friendship, he gained inner visions which were like a nostrum and which were of great avail. Marar‘s theism independent of any philosophical norm which could collapse at any time was regained, and installed by the introduction of ‗The Poor‘ by Nalappattu Narayana Menon.

Nalappattu Narayana Menon gave the book, Marar read it carefully.To him, a benevolent atheist was dearer than a malevolent theist. His friendship with Nalappattu has influenced his literary concepts and visions of life, and enriched his sphere of knowledge. Earlier Marar did not have any opportunity to get into contact with western literature. But his comradeship with Nalappattu compensated this lack. He married in the year 1925. (1100) As his assets were not enough, he could not make a settlement so that his wife and children were away. Marar took them together when he had joined

17

Mathrubhumi at Kozhikode. Only then he turned to be a true and proper householder. His spouse was Thrikkavil Kizhakemarathu Narayanikutty Marasyar. As many as seven children were born to then, three males and four females. The eldest was Muralidharan. In order, Muralidharan, Gangadharan, Candrika, Sujata, Divakaran, Usha and Durga were the pedigree. Among them, Gangadharan, Candrika and Divakaran passed away. Subsistence was too hard. He was very loving and tender to them, in fact, he considered them (as) companions. Marar‘s income was deplorable, but his loving wife conducted house hold activities with expertise. Festivity with a little was her motto. She entertained relatives and guests and her beloved. In short, she was a gem of woman. Once Marar was in economic stringency. He wrote a letter to Nalappattu requesting for an amount of Rs.30 or 40 as he wanted money urgently. For six months consecutievely Marar repeated the request through letters. At last the replay came with a reluctant explanation that the sum would be handed over in instalment. Marar shuddered and his heart panged. He wrote an article invoking friendship, brotherly affection, teacher– student relation, love and trust towards Nalappattu Narayana Menon. Marar terminated and threw away the friendship with Nalappattu

18

Narayana Menon. ‗This incident is described in his article

Ëtmakathayile Oradhy¡yaÆ, which is capable of melting heart‖

(Patinaµcupany¡sa,1991:40-41). It may not be wrong to conclude that the chief factor which influences the budding genius of Marar is his life with Nalappattu Narayana Menon. In 1937, the life oriented literary movement began in Kerala prompted Marar‘s dexterity in criticism, and its role was not too little.

Marar says: ―I began my literary attempts consciously and purportedly when, in 1937 the life – centered literary movement started a campaign‖ (1991:74). But he could not compromise with the interference and interaction of this comparatively new literacy movement which had conspicuous targets. It imposed suggestions and opinions on writers. Marar disliked this. His viewpoint was that such a control curtailed and nullified the creative freedom of the writer. Marar‘s dissention with the new movement vitalized his spirit of criticism, we may say. About 1945, the life – entered movement transformed into Progressive Literary Movement. Nonetheless, his critical mind remained unaltered. Marar does not refute the truth that the progressive movement held hand in hand criticism and the vistas of reciprocity between life

19

and literature. He brooded over their ideas continuously and analyzed the aspects, upon which he renewed and reconstructed his concepts of criticism. Marar believes that he has gained rare literary glimpses and the power to absorb them while opposing the advocates of progressive movement. Marar was enthusiastic in social reformative activities also. He was a participant in intercaste dining, Brahmin reformation, widow – marriage and such innovations. In addition, he participated in the renaissance of the time. During his study at Pattambi, Marar shared intercaste banquet. He, very actively, joined the Brahmin reformative attempts. Marar fought against orthodoxy through such publications as Unni Namputiri, and his weapons were poems and plays. The year 1930 saw the publication of M¡m£linte M¡ttoli, which blesses widow – marriage in the Brahmin Caste. So it is very clear that Marar was active in Socio –cultural rebirth. J¢viccirunn¡l, a drama, published in

Mathrubhumi weekly in 1936, gives the mapping record of Marar‘s anxiety about society. Though not as much explicit as in M¡m£linte M¡ttoli, J¢viccirunn¡l, a drama, presents the private life and zest for freedom of women.

20

As his friendship with Nalappattu Narayana Menon had influenced Marar‘s literary ideas and visions of life, so his sphere of scholarship too was influenced. It was his relationship with Nalappattu Narayana Menon that a door was opened to get an acquaintance with Western literature. Translations of English books were handed over to Marar by Nalappattu Narayana Menon which he read with enthusiasm. Some of the reviews Marar wrote in Bh¡rataparya¶ana were influenced by Nalappattu Narayana Menon‘s

Ratis¡mr¡jya. He accepts that book gave deeper insight. Quite naturally, we may assume that in Marar‘s literary personal formation

Nalappattu played a prominent role. K¡lid¡sa‘s Sanskrit works and

Vallattol‘s Malayalam books gave Marar a new aesthetic sense and light to his life and individuality. His logical layer of thoughts uncurtains recklessly the old superstitions and abusive practices when Marar presents studies on epics and myths. He does not believe in anything blindly whatever it may be. Marar reiterates that timely change is a must. Prudential, reasonable and humane approach makes him a distinctive writer. The rational questioning of mean beliefs is not a modern affair. Ever since the beginning of humanity, it was there –Marar‘s studies establish so.

21

He, through the works before the departure of his dear wife, confirms that we must have a mind of argument and reason. In 1961 he retired from Mathrubhumi as ‗Proof Reader‘. Then he shared the effort to publish Vivekananda Sahityasarvasvam with Trailokyananda Swami. On 23rd November 1965 he had a tryst with Sayi Baba which was a milestone. Next years, in 1966 May 27nth, his wife deceased, and surely it was a great shock to Marar. As a result of the two incidents a pure a spiritualist emanated from him. Essays written during the period of inclination to spiritualism are not representative of Marar‘s criticism, but a metamorphosis of personality. He believes that the sense of rationality leads him to spirituality. ―Once I was totally rapt in literature and fine arts.

Occupation of mine was to interpret them logically and intellectually. My method was applying the principle of cause and effect, and the final result of it was my reaching spiritualism‖ (2007:25), he himself has explained thus. Marar who had Sanskrit education and temple career always opposed and expressed his resentment to ‗ceremonial drumbeating‘ and caste system from boyhood days itself. But when he turned to be a devotee of Sayi Baba, he wrote about belief in god; ― I denied

22

whatever seemed wrong, it was my duty; its most efficient weapon is theism‖ (1998:27).

Death of his wife revamped his views of life. Works afterwards expose a new Marar. G¢t¡parikrama¸a, ÎÀipras¡da and áara¸¡gati are examples. He prepared appendices for his early work V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma where he refuted his own views on aesthetics. Marar who provided us with a spectrum of logical criticism and uncommon literary appreciation returned to spiritual life. In 1973, April 6th, 12.30 night, this genius took his last breath. The Works of Marar (Books or Compositions of Marar) Surprising is the wide world of literature of Marar in amplitude and variety. 39 books have been published. They include epic studies, prose translations, criticism articles and so on. Bh¡rataparya¶ana, R¡j¡nka¸a, Kum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ Gadyaparibh¡Àa, RaghuvaÆ¿aÆ Gadyaparibh¡Àa, Meghasande¿aÆ Gadyaparibh¡Àa, Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntalaÆ Gadyaparibh¡Àa, Bhajagovinda, S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, M¡m£linte M¡ttoli, Bh¡Àa Paricaya, Malay¡la¿aili, S¡hitya Sall¡pa, Nizhal¡¶¶om, S¡hityavidya, Vi¿vamitra, Kaivilakku, Carcc¡yoga, V¤tta¿ilpa, Palarum Palatum, Bh¡Àav¤tta´´al, Dantagopura, H¡sya S¡hitya, Patinaµcupany¡sa, Kala j¢vitam Tanne,

23

I´´uninna´´olam, ÎÀipras¡da, á¡stravum Sayansum, G¢t¡parikrama¸a, S¡hitya¿eÀa, áara¸¡gati, M¡r¡ru¶ekattukal, Teraµµe¶utta Prabandha´´al, U¸¸ikkathakal, S¡hitya Parya¶ana, S¡hitya V¢kÀa¸a, P£jya P£ja, Bhagavad Vivek¡nanda, Nalacaritattil£¶e are the 39 compositions. Marar has writtern many articles on the R¡m¡ya¸a and the Mah¡bh¡rata. ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘, which appears in R¡j¡nka¸a, is a R¡m¡ya¸a - based critical study. This article is his most important character study. He attributed selfishness and all the frailties of an ordinary human being to Rama who is well-known as a righteous and truthful abnegator in the critical article ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘.

Another puranic– character study appears in the book Palarum

Palatum, a study of ‗Ciranjj¢vi Vibh¢Àa¸a‘.

As the very name indicates Bh¡rataparya¶ana has its foundation on the Mah¡bh¡rata. It is a critical study. Marar found some vague portions of the epic and interpreted them in his own peculiar manner and style. It is not the expression of his deep and wide scholarship. On the other hand, he delved into the very heart of personae – an extra ordinary skill of Marar‘s argumentative approach. This work has been

24

translated into English, Hindi and Sanskrit. It won the award of the Govt. of Madras. ‗DuÀyantan Bh¡ratattilum á¡kuntalattilum‘,

‗Mah¡bh¡ratattilekku‘, ‗Itih¡sakath¡p¡tra´´al‘etc are studies on epics and pur¡¸as. He gives more importance to the study of characters than to the study of the great works as a whole. Prose Translations The common folk of Kerala which did not know the classical language had no means to reach the heart of K¡lid¡sa, the greatest on Indian poets. Marar‘s prose translations open a way to the works of

Kalidasa so that an ordinary man may appreciate them. Kum¡rasaÆbhava, RaghuvaÆ¿a, Meghasande¿a, and Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala, are prose translations. Marar gives prose translation for áankar¡c¡rya‘s Bhajagovinda. This includes

Dv¡da¿imaµjarik¡stotra and Caturdasamanjarikastotra. Criticism Literary principle criticism literary debated and works of scientific study on literature come under this heading.

25

Criticism on literary Concepts (or Literary Theories) The foundation of Sanskrit Literature is criticism for and against literary ideas. Marar opposed Sanskrit poetic theories rationally and aesthetically. S¡hityabh£Àa¸a is a collection of Sanskrit articles by Marar. It was printed in the year 1928. But as he was in deep debt and liability Marar could not published it. Later, in 1967, S¡hitya Pravarttaka Sahakara¸a Sangam published it. Literary Discussions (Debates) Ingenuity and straightforwardness, sense of logic, sense of beauty, the extraordinary expertise to pierce into the heart of the writer and the skill in perception like that of an ÎÀi are found in his debates. These include S¡hitya Sall¡pa, Kaivilakku, Carcc¡yoga and Dantagopura. Works on Poetics S¡hitya Vidya, H¡sya S¡hityam and á¡stravum Sayansum come in this class. Articles His essays deal with literature and social subjects. Palarum Palatum, Patinaµcupany¡sa and I´´uninna´´olaÆ give his views on writing and society.

26

Other Works Marar has composed poems and dramas with the purpose of reforming the Brahmin Community. M¡m£linte M¡ttoli was published in 1930. It is a work that supports and encourages widow – marriage. It is believed that Marar wrote in U¸¸i NaÆp£tiri magazines with the pseudonym Vanneri Savitri Antarjanam. Earlier his fascination was in poetry. He, often, told that poetry was not tameable. But he did not abandon the effort to compose poems, unto the last. His early poems are included in the work Nizhal¡¶¶om. Plays and essays also appear in this work. Others come in his posthumous publications. Vi¿v¡mitran and U¸¸ikkathakal are written for children. Marar‘s Bh¡Àa Paricaya is written for students. It gives directions for grammatical accuracy to students. At the same time it is of much avail to adults also. Similarly Malay¡la¿aili discusses linguistics. V¤tta¿ilpa and Bh¡À¡v¤tta´´al arrests special attention and study.They are about metre. Marar has made use of his knowledge and interest in music in the composition of them. He modified some chapters of V¤tta¿ilpa. More simplified, detailed and illustrated are its

27

chapters on metre. Precisely, he has been rewriting the work and a new book is born, namely Bh¡Àav¤tta´´al. His Kala J¢vitam tanne presents articles that give the strength and originality of criticism and the vigour of linguistic style. This book has been divided into five parts consisting of 28 articles. Each part categorizes individuals, literary principles, and famous works. It won M.P. Paul award, Central Sahitya Academy and Kerala Sahitya Academy awards in 1966. Marar‘s activities with Trailokyananda Swami to publish

Vivek¡nanda S¡hitya Sarvasvam– an effort by Vila´´an

Sri.Ramakrishnasramam– a deep knowledge of Vivekananda writings and the death of his wife took him to Spiritualism which we have already mentioned. As he was moving from the material to the immaterial, he wrote ÎÀipras¡da, G¢t¡parikrama¸a and áara¸¡gati. ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘, an essay in R¡j¡nka¸a, presents an ordinary hero. But when we come to S¡hitya áeÀa, we see a holy incarnation of Tretayuga. These two works clearly depict the evolution of Marar‘s concept on society and literature.

M¡r¡ru¶e Kattuka½ consists of letters provided with precious viewpoints about literature, culture and spirituality.

28

Teraµµe¶utta Prabandha´´al is a collection which deals with subjects of criticism. J¢viccirunnal is his social prose drama. S¡hitya Parya¶ana, S¡hitya V¢kÀa¸a and P£jya P£ja are the editions of Marar Birth Centenary. The work Bhagavad Vivek¡nanda is the result of his deep and close familiarity with Vivekananda Scriptures. Marar wrote a book about the literary story for ‗Kathakali‘with the little Na½acaritattil£¶e. It is a remarkable production with six articles. His unpublished works also have been discovered. They are Diary Notes, Peri¶¡ttorulekhanam, Socialism and Gaudap¡dadar¿anam. At first we analyze his unpublished diary notes. Daily records from January 1932 (1102) to May have been fount out. Throught out them Marar‘s life of hardship and private sorrows is depicted. Of them, only three apparently relevant notes are considered for study. One note is filled with literary aspects, the second expresses the self- esteem Marar experienced and the third and last is a record that responses to a contemporary problem.

29

The note jotted down on Medam 4, 1107 Saturday has a tinge of literary beauty. In it is the narration of taking bath in the river. The loving and holy T¤kk¡vil river fondled Marar repeatedly and out of rejoice she gave a gentle smile with curling foams. After bath he reached the bank and a gentle wind wiped out the wet. An invisible evening breeze that came caressing the leaves of coconut trees on the banks like a light silk shawl dried up his body. This is how Marar describes the happy incident. Yet, he surprises and laments that why should sons of mother Nature be in trouble both mentally and bodily for trivial selfishness. Let us have a look at the notes on 24 4 1932, Sunday. Vallattol had to write a commentary for a book by K Prakasam. But the task was handed over to and entrusted with Marar. He completed the duty and Vallattol signed it without any amendment. Marar felt self respect. This has already been mentioned. The notes on 25 4 1932, Monday, is a response to two pieces of news appeared in the Matrbhumi the previous day. The first one was an article by the Bombay reporter. The other was a similar paper report. Adultery and morality were the contents. Prof. Karvey was a Sanskrit scholar and highly educated. He substantiates or tries to

30

substantiate that prostitution is not a wrong but it helps progress and good for humanity. Another article written in relation with the opinion of Professor Karvey states that a man was murdered because of the illicit contact with women. Then how can prostitution be good? Marar tells that as áruti and Sm¤ti are to ÎÀis so is morality to righteous men, it is a moral principle. Have a look at what Veda Vy¡sa tells in á¡ntiparva, Mah¡bh¡rata; (260,262) ºÉnùÉSÉÉ®úÉä ¨ÉiÉÉä vɨÉÇ: ºÉxiɺi´ÉÉSÉÉ®ú ±ÉIÉhÉÉ:* ºÉÉvªÉɺÉÉvªÉÆ EòlÉÆ ¶ÉCªÉ¨É ºÉnùÉSÉÉ®úÉäÁ ±ÉIÉhÉ:** Morality is said to be duty, righteous should be recognized by their practice. If so, with what can it be substantiated? Therefore ethics (morality) is note a principle. Veda Vyasa continues: |Éxɹ`ö:¶ÉÉ·ÉiÉÉä vɨÉÇ:* ºÉnùÉSÉÉ®äúhÉ ¨ÉÉäʽþiÉ&** Eternal duty has come to an end being beguiled by morality. ―Often, by morality, I mean eternal duty and that should be reiterated. In the present day language, this itself is said to be perennial values;‖ (Palarum Palatum, 1992:88) writes Marar.

Here, social ethical values are destroyed because of immoral life of women. Read the two notes of Marar side by side, and then the

31

paradox in the aforesaid article becomes clearer. Of the same reason he asks in his notes; ―Read the two articles simultaneously, what meaning?‖ He leaves the question to the readers to find a solution. An Untitled Article Marar has left an article without a heading. It is a reply to an unrecognized article. Some parts of it are vague due to passage of time. As the paper is worn out, a few passage are illegible. Naturally the ideas too are not very clear. The assumption is that his article is a response to a contemporary famous writing in which Sarvodaya Movement is referred to. He refers to Tolstoy Colony, the teachings of Jesus Christ and Tolstoy‘s approach to Christ‘s ethical doctrines.

Gandhiji‘s ‗Svarajya‘ also is pointed to. But the ideas in this article seem to be unconnected and incomplete. Really, about what the author discusses remains vague and a final inference is impossible. Socialism Marar‘s Socialism has been written in three turns. Every turn of this article introduces new stanzas and additional ideas. It examines the pragmatic side of socialism. Surprising enough there are spelling mistakes. Marar might have written it at old age. At the time writing new ideas are likely to occur in the mind of any writer. Combination

32

of ideas may decentralize concentration. Resultantly mistakes occur. That which happened to Marar could be this. He tries to give finer finishing in every rewriting. Marar gives prominence to the ideas of mutual love, total equality and non-violence in ‗Socialism‘. A sincere attempt is made to clarify what socialism is. Gau·ap¡dadar¿anaÆ Constant haunting of hardships of life had supposedly changed the disposition of Marar. This could be the reason that he became a devotee of Sayi Baba. In the last days he gave more gravity to ethereal thoughts than to literature. Marar was rapt in spirituality. He moved from a mundane world to a supra mundane world. The article Gau·ap¡dadar¿anaÆ illustrates his spiritual elevation. He states that what we want is not progress but salvation. By liberation Marar means ‗MokÀa‘. To attain MokÀa or liberation we must posses a deity, ie; be one with God. Deity or God means glory and light. Keep away the night of ignorance and receive the light of knowledge and wisdom. This is the path to the realization of the Absolute Truth. The present article under examination expresses such ideas.

33

If man is feeble, his very existence becomes precarious. He has to depend on something else or somebody else. Unpublished articles of Marar may be the corollary of such dependency. ÎÀipras¡daÆ, G¢t¡parikrama¸aÆ, and áara¸¡gati are unpublished articles and could be a continuum of the essays mentioned earlier. Some of them are incomplete. Many of the articles related with literature and allied subjects were scattered in various magazines, and some of them are not yet collected and published. ‗Chandonir£pa¸aÆ‘, ‗Ran¶u PariÀattu‘,

‗Ran¶u Putiya Pustaka´´al‘, ‗Saubh¡gya Dar¿anaÆ‘,

‗Te´´ikkaraccil‘, ‗T¡r¡¶¶uÆ Marupa¶iyuÆ‘, ‗Ka¸akkinu Kon¶u‘,

‗S¡hityattil Putiyoru Prasth¡naÆ‘, and ‗Ëtmagh¡tiy¡ya Kavi‘ are some of them. It is observed that the foregoing works ie, Cartoon, Pictures and Sarcastic articles are Published in the pen-name of ku- m¡-r. A poem named Vi¿var£pa published under the name K M K is considered as the work of Marar. A reader can clearly comprehend Marar‘s literary background from his works. The unorthodoxical Sanskrit scholar, Marar, will remain resplendent among world critics for ever. He installs himself

34

like a shining sun to critics, men of literary aptitude and students of literature. His studies on epics and myths are most radiant which give a deeper and wider insight. In the second chapter they are expatiated.

35

CHAPTER TWO

STUDIES ON EPIC BY KUTTIKRISHNA MARAR

Chapter Two Studies on Epic by Kuttikrishna Marar V¡lm¢ki‘s R¡m¡ya¸a and Vy¡sa‘s Mah¡bh¡rata are the two epics of Indian culture, and they are the most sublime works which are like two pinnacles in the world of literature. They assimilated the ancient images of thought and enlarged them in accordance with time; and expressed them impressively so that they have become the glorious pride of Indian people. The essence of Indian life goes to these two great productions, though arguments, against such an opinion is likely to arise. Their influence is tangible in local languages and culture. Abhijµ¡na á¡kuntala of K¡lid¡sa, áisup¡lavadha of M¡gha, NaiÀad¢ya Carita of HarÀa and a lot of works depend on the Mah¡bh¡rata, or find their source of plot from the great work. Take any branch of Sanskrit - poetry, plays or Campu articles - a great share of them has taken incidents from the Mah¡bh¡rata. Moreover Thullalpp¡¶¶u (Baka Vadha, GhoÀay¡tra, Hi·himba Vadha, Kaly¡¸a Saugandhika, K¢caka Vadha, Kir¡ta, Kirmm¢ra Vadha, Nalacarita, P¡µc¡l¢ SvayaÆvara, and Sabh¡ Prave¿a.) and A¶¶akkatha (Baka Vadha, Duryodhana Vadha, Kaly¡¸a Saugandhika, Kar¸a áapatha,

36

K¢caka Vadha, Nalacarita, P¡µc¡l¢ SvayaÆvara, R¡ja S£ya, Subhadr¡hara¸a, and Uttar¡ SvayaÆvara.) have received their stories from the Mah¡bh¡rata, which are the literary forms of such local fine arts. The first Malayalam literary productions based on episodes from the great work are Ayyana Pilla Ë¿¡n‘s Bh¡rataÆ P¡¶¶u,

R¡mappanikker‘s Bh¡ratapp¡¶¶u and áankarappanikker‘s

Bh¡ratam¡la. R¡mappanikkar was one of the Ka¸¸a¿¿a poets. A great many folk songs have their sources in the Mah¡bh¡rata. They have changed the story partially and created imaginary contexts in order to provide more appreciation and enjoyment to the common folk. For example M¡ V¡rataÆ P¡¶¶u, Bh¢manukatha and Bh¡ratapporu. The translation of Mah¡bh¡rata by Kuµµikku¶¶an Tampur¡n is of special consideration. Malayalam has been enriched with his translation. Later on, Vidvan K. Prak¡¿aÆ gave a complete prose translation of the Mah¡bh¡rata. A number of summarized versions of the Mah¡bh¡rata have been published by various authors. Kuttikrishna Marar‘s Bh¡rataparya¶ana is the diadem of such works.

This work has been translated into English (A journey through the Mah¡bh¡rata, P.V. Menon (Tr.), Dr. P.V. Achuthan (Ed.), Kerala

37

Sahitya Academi, Trichur, 1989.), Hindi (Bh¡rataparya¶ana, Dr. M. Aravindakshan(Tr.), Dr. P. V. Krishnan Nair (Tr.), Kerala Sahitya Academi, Trichur, 1989.), and Sanskrit (Bh¡rataparya¶ana, Panditaratnam P. Govinda Marar (Tr.), Dr. P.V. Krishnan Nair (Tr.), Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Near Sriramakrishnasramam, Kozhikkodu, 2009.). Sv¡mi Day¡nanda T¢rtha‘s Mah¡bh¡rata SaÆgraha, M¡li

Bh¡rata, Ku¶¶ikalu¶e Mah¡bh¡rata published by Mat¤ubh£mi and the translation of Vy¡sar Viruntu composed by R¡j¡ji known in Malayalam Vy¡sante Virunnu are noteworthy. Among them, Sv¡mi Day¡nanda T¢rtha‘s work is intended for children.

Many interpretations of the Mah¡bh¡rata are written in Malayalam as in any other Indian language. But Marar was the pioneer in criticizing such great works, or, rather he was the first to approach a literary work logically and critically. Mundassery opines that only classics had satiated the critical mind of Marar. In Malayalam, there was the precedent of giving full freedom to the writers and confining the freedom of critics, Mundassery challenges this tradition and asks the readers to go through the criticism of Mah¡bh¡rata. The critic in Mah¡bh¡rata did not depend on the age old Sanskrit rhetorical theories and chant them. He was unwilling to

38

make those principles the cornerstones of his concept of criticism. On the other hand, it was his rationale that made his criticism sharp and pungent. See what Mundassery opines: ―giving no gap for a hair, he ponders over on all aspects of literature, goes very deep and deep and arrives at a conclusion. We have to understand Marar in this manner.‖

(2004:304) This commentary brings out the sharpness of Marar‘s thoughts. He does not catch hold of an imaginary world where irrational thoughts flourish. On the contrary, he caresses creative thoughts that make life meaningful. That is why some people agree with his perspectives and opinions. Yet the possibility of opposing his logically - rooted thoughts exists. Much might be said on both sides. Still, we must pay our homage to Marar, the Lord of criticism, a rare rarity. Mundassery tells elsewhere: ―You may disagree with a few things that ooze out from his uncompromising method of rational thinking; but we have to admire his poignancy of thought that boosts up like a fully fuelled rocket‖ (2004:304). In the opinion of Mundassery, Marar makes acceptability of opposing ideas to everybody. About the unusual quality of Marar‘s criticism, Sukumar

Azhikkode says thus; ―The curse that wedges distinct and free works

39

in to the beguiling inner recesses of technicality has not possessed Marar fortunately‖ (1986:14). Azhikkode, here, expresses Marar‘s dexterity and nobility in schematic criticism. Mere scholarship in poetics is not the base of his unique criticism. He analyses anything and everything with logic, and then evaluates. This unusual gift has made Marar an unusual entity in Malayalam literature. Azhikkode explains how Marar could converse with and respond to the tendencies of the time. In this concern we have to recall that Marar had only knowledge of Sanskrit literary principles. Marar‘s guide was his free will and thought with which he analyzed everything. Azhikkode assures that Marar was not a blind follower of Sanskrit literature. He harmoniously combined the fluorescent living spirit of Sanskrit literature and logical interpretation and gave unprecedented view points. Similarly his education at Punnasseri ‗Gurukula‘ was detrimental in forming his skill.

Azhikkode continues that freedom of mind made Marar a valiant critic. Only a person like undefeatable Marar can engage freely in literature. His very entrance into the circle of art and literature is its factual evidence. By publishing his first work, S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, Marar stunned the pedants of literature and quite

40

naturally an uproar followed. The protest was not little. Nobody evaluated the book prudentially. Azhikkode called Marar‘s first work an iconoclasm and, henceforth, he was an iconoclast. Marar, very bravely, questioned the traditional literary images and concepts and tried to re-shuffle them. Only a man with a thinking, rebellious mind can try for such a new pattern of vision of his own. Marar was not forming a new literary theory. But, he was exposing the finiteness and the rigid dispositions of Sanskrit rhetoricians. The Keralite literary world thought of bringing Marar under ‗Sm¡rtta Vic¡ra‘– here it means literary judicial trail. But he was stubborn. With the weapons of logic and prudence he entered into the miraculous world of epics, legends and myths. He did not prostrate before epics and legends as some other scholar did. Marar opened his own straight path of classical study. Rational and free thought and sense of logic were his guides. The traditional belief was that as the classical heroes were essentially virtuous and the vice characters always wicked. The logician in Marar could not accept such dogmas and he dared to question. ―When we understand the nature of this world through experiences by and by, we find that there is no man completely good

41

or bad and at times it is difficult to differentiate vice and virtue. The inner layers of man‘s mind have hidden images of classical heroes, and there are statements here and there in the epics to urge (man) that the virtuous is always virtuous and the vice is always vice. Put these points together; we find that the epic characters are not perfect idealists, but the exaggerated and enlarged close – ups of ordinary man‖ (2005:44). Marar always approached any character with this principle. Bh¡rataparya¶ana, ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘ (R¡j¡nka¸a:1996),

‗Itih¡sa Kath¡p¡tra´´al‘ (Dantagopura:2005), ‗Ciranjj¢vi Vibh¢Àa¸a‘

(Palarum Palatum:1992), ‗DuÀyantan Bh¡ratattilum á¡kuntalattilum‘

(Palarum Palatum:1992) and ‗Mah¡bh¡ratattilekku‘

(Carcc¡yoga:1952) are his studies on epics and legends. They are more a study on characters than a study on the original root works as a whole. He examines the plot, theme, subject, style of diction appreciation that readers get, what the work gives to man‘s life etc through characters. Marar establishes that characters are the materialization of poet‘s constructive skill. They become the loudspeakers of Marar. It may be the reason that he gave preponderance to the close study of individual characters.

42

Bh¡rataparya¶ana Indian readers generally attribute divinity to the Mah¡bh¡rata whereas Marar considers it an ordinary family story. More than the glare of glory, Marar believes, conflicts and whimper and worries make the epic magnanimous. Is not man‘s life without pangs and thorns? He describes how the work of Vy¡sa, with its very deep meaning and mystic nature, has worried his boyish mind since he heard the story from mother. ―Draupadi became a slave as the result of dice competition and she had been dragged to the court of Kauravas, she was insulted, the P¡¸·avas just blinked – the story was told by my mother which made me thoroughly unhappy. Because of this I do not respect YudhiÀ¶hira. On the other hand, Bh¢ma who blamed his eldest brother, ― +ºªÉÉ& EÞòiÉä ¨ÉxªÉÖ®úªÉÆ i´É滃 ®úÉVÉxÉ ÊxÉ{ÉÉiªÉiÉä * ¤ÉɽÖþiÉä ºÉÆ|ÉvÉIªÉÉ欃 ºÉ½þnäù´ÉÉÎMxɨÉÉxÉªÉ ** ‖ to the shouting V¡yuputra, I felt sympathy. Out of righteousnous YudhiÀ¶hira told so. I too respect truth fully. But where is truth in this context?. Vidurar clarifies at the court that YudhiÀ¶hira has not made her servile though forfeited.

43

―xÉʽ nùɺÉÒi´É¨ÉÉ{ÉzÉÉ EÞò¹hÉÉ ¦ÉÊ´ÉiÉ֨ɽÇþÊiÉ* +ÊxɶÉäxÉ Ê½þ ®úÉYÉè¹ÉÉ{ÉhÉäxªÉºiÉäÊiÉ ¨Éä ¨ÉÊiÉ&**‖ Still scholarly good people entertain YudhiÀ¶hira in this act. Why should others be accused, if Vy¡sa himself does it. If at all I blame YudhiÀ¶hira, I blame the very ÎÀi Vy¡sa. YudhiÀ¶hira was not only a historic man but also an imaginative production of Veda Vy¡sa with much qualities attributed. If silence on this story is kept, this antipathy does not cause difficulty. I have been destined to write some articles facing the same difficulty – either should I admire Vy¡sa hiding my own opinion or go in company with the iconoclasts and atheists who accuse YudhiÀ¶hira?‖ (2009:9-10). This dilemma was a part of his thinking mind from boyhood days onwords. M¡rkka¸·heya visited YudhiÀ¶hira during his forest life and said in consolation, ‗ne¿e balasyeti caredadharmaÆ–balasya na ¢¿e iti adharmaÆ caret‘ if not a man of might, he could commit wrong or must commit wrong. This is the first approximate meaning. Later on with the help of N¡lapp¡¶u ―If not a man of might, why not whatever done could be unrighteous?‖ (2009:11) – he had got a new logical meaning that

44

spread new light into the Mah¡bh¡rata. M¡rkka¸·heya‘s words urged Marar to write Bh¡rataparya¶ana. Plot Marar has taken 18 incidents and their contexts to study the great work. He unveils rare levels of meaning unseen by anybody else. Indian society worshipped some idols for a very longtime. We see such idols shattered and some wicked characters changed as symbols of virtue in Bh¡rataparya¶ana. In order to satiate the passion of his father, áantanu, for a virgin fisher maid, Gang¡datta took the pledge to be a lifelong celibate. He was steadfast in his vow even when temptations encircled him. Marar felt that Bh¢Àma‘s eternal celibacy meant some thing greater than mere patriarchal piety. What V¡lm¢ki expresses through Rama‘sworship for his father is different from that of Gang¡datta‘s.

Bh¢Àma‘s reverence for his father is nobler and sublime than that of

R¡ma. ―The more you keep away from worldly sensuousness – not from Karma – the more you become virtuous‖ (2009:22-23); - this is the meaning given by Marar to Bh¢Àm¡‘s unfaltering pledge. Amba approached Para¿ur¡ma seeking refuge. For he fought with Bishma and he was on the very verge of defeat. Instead of directing virgin

45

Amba to the path of good sage Para¿ur¡ma waged a war. His generosity is impugned. Our age old impression about Para¿ur¡ma is mutilated all on a sudden. Marar interprets that Para¿ur¡ma is possessive of latent libido. By force Bh¢Àma kidnapped the daughters of the king of K¡¿i for his brothers. Here too, Marar confirms, Bh¢Àma was deactivating his uncontrollable sexual zest. This conclusion empowers modern mental analytical criticism. Marar indicates that his dearest character is Kar¸a. We feel, his fondness for Kar¸a is not just as an epic character, but something more. His partiality for Kar¸a produces an enthusiasm in Marar to cover the weaknesses of the great hero. We see this favoritism permeates down to Duryodhana and company in Bh¡rataparya¶ana at times. Kar¸a‘s debut is in the arena of Pandava‘s and Kaurava‘s demonstration of martial arts. Kar¸a proves that he is equal to Arjuna in archery. He grew as a S£taputra, and as he was of low caste compared to Arjuna, a KÀatriya, Kar¸a could not wage war with Arjuna. Marar quotes the statements of Bh¢masena ridiculing Kar¸a; ―you S£taputra, low caste, you don‘t deserve a death by the son of

Kunti in a duel. Take a scourge, your traditional clan weapon. You do

46

not deserve the kingdom of A´ga. Can the Havis of a sacrifice be given to dogs‖? (2009:34). In this context, Marar especially refers to the loving words of Duryodhana protecting the honour of Karna, ―V¤kodara, you have uttered undesirable words. To KÀatriyas power is greatness and war is duty. Nobody knows the origin of valiants and rivers, needs no many illustrations. Kings know how you were born. Has this jackal been delivered by a stag, who wears divine armour and ear – ornaments and glitters like sun?. This manly god deserves the kingdom of P¤thvi, not A´ga. Let the man impatient of my gift come with his bow - string tightened‖ (2009:34). Duryodhana reveals the incongruity of Bh¢ma‘s diatribes against Kar¸a.

Till the arrival of Kar¸a, there was nobody in parity with Arjuna among the Kauravas. Man power on both sides had been equalized with the unending intimacy between Kar¸a and Duryodhana. Very dexterously, Marar interprets the dramatic and implicit appearance of Kar¸a and points out that it is very decisive in epic study. The man who most influenced the passions, thoughts and emotions of YudhiÀ¶hira was Karna. Before the war YudhiÀ¶hira spent sleepless nights thinking over the unique prowess of Kar¸a. His hatred and anger towards Kar¸a was too much intense. For 36 years

47

he reigned the country during which time YudhiÀ¶hira felt sorry for and repented. By no means he could grasp at the apt moment that Kar¸a was his eldest brother. Lord K¤À¸a‘s preachings do not quieten his regrets. It may be interpreted that advices of the Lord fail on this occasion. G¡ndh¡ri‘s greatness and Duryodhana‘s love and generosity are revealed in Yuddhattinte Ëyudha¿¡la. Duryodhana is the supreme form of manliness. Marar indicates to the compassionate love in this great king. Duryodhana approached G¡ndh¡ri all the eighteen days of war to receive blessing. She always repeated; ―victory is where there is righteousness‖, and she did not wish triumph. Marar points out that this incident expresses G¡ndh¡ri‘s elegance and Duryodhana‘s greatness. ―Knowing that his mother never wished victory on any day, Duryodhana did not default in paying obeisance‖ (2009:54), this is how Marar expresses the love of Duryodhana for his mother. Draupadi, the daughter-in-law of a great king, was dragged into the full court of Kauravas. She wept and asked whether she was a slave or free woman who was left to the judgment of the elders and preceptors. The question was left aside unanswered, and she felt herself an orphan. The discussion of this problem is the content of the

48

chapter ‗Bh¢Àmaru¶e Dharmani¿cayam‘. Vidura and Kar¸a have answered the question of K¤À¸a. But the answer of Bh¢Àma, the righteous and all-knowing sage‘s answer was a kind of escapism; ―I am not the man to answer your question as right is very subtle. On one side a pauper has nothing to forfeit; on the other a wife is subject to husband. YudhiÀ¶hira may leave the whole kingdom, but never truth. He admits that he is already subjugated. So I cannot give a verdict‖ (2009:58). Marar tells that Bh¢Àma has not skulked. He substantiates that the clear judgment is that of the great grand sire. Similarly, how can the words of Vidura, the incarnation of Dharmadeva, very righteous and wise, be neglected? What they do is stupidity and wretchedness is known to Dh¡rttar¡Àtra too. Bh¢Àma knows that philosophy is of no use to ignorant and rude ones. So he replies that whether Draupadi is forfeited or not depends on YudhiÀ¶hira and consider his answer and judgement. Next follows the chapter, ‗Ne¿e Balasyeti Caredadharmam‘. In connection with epic study, Marar has not heard such diatribes elsewhere. ―M¡rkka¸·eya illustrates that he does not commit wrong out of his sense of righteousness, though he is very powerful. What he means is simplify interpreted as he did not do vice if at all he was

49

mighty‖ (2009:68-69) by some Sanskrit scholars. ―To surrender to destiny is not righteousness because of lack of strength, but to collect valour and fight against destiny is duty‖ (2009:70). This is the new meaning attributed by Marar. A man‘s action or karma must me considered vice or virtue depending on his strength and weakness. To the statement which gave M¡rkka¸·heya with a smile, Marar gave the following explanation; ―Whatever a man selects self – assumptively at the time of uncertainty is right, the other thing is wrong‖ (2009:68). He adds that surrendering to destiny is not duty, but, oppose and encounter it. ―Everyman, at least once in life, withdraws from duty and gives justification in the name of morality or non – violence. His laughter spreads over such despondency, inactivity and cankerous frailties of mind‖ (2009:71). This explanation of Marar makes the famous statement of M¡rkka¸·heya, a formula that flourishes in the whole of the Mah¡bh¡rata. Keralites who were accustomed to the study of the Mah¡bh¡rata as a war between right and unright could not accept at all this new interpretation. ‗Kir¡tam£rtti‘ appears to Arjuna doing penance. The purpose of his arrival is to deplete the pride of man‘s duteousness, Marar

50

points out. ―whatever divine arrow he earns is to make him aware that it is only after he has failed in the battle with cruelty and rudeness‖.

The story targets such a purpose also according to Marar. Marar expresses the depth and width of man‘s mind in Vy¡sa‘s compassionate laughter. ―The attempt to grow children completely confined in order to make them ethically and spiritually good is an illusion as natural inclinations find no vent. But such innate tendencies unexpectedly rush out and endanger the youngster‘s life in the society. This rebellious avalanche of dammed up emotions continue to the posterity as if it were a contagion‖ (2009:90). Marar points out that Vy¡sa scorns at such drawbacks. Duryodhana and company are not mere epic characters, they are amongst are ourselves as well. Suyodhana and Duryodhana are symbolic of greed for power. We are ready to do any wickedness for victory and honour. Worshippers of them we were. Let us consider the P¡¸·ava community as a single individual. The psychoanalysis of that person can be in the following manner according to Marar. Bh¢ma is representative of rudeness. The next moment, we see YudhiÀ¶hira with the sense of righteousness to restrain unrefinement. Arjuna is enthusiastic to put into practice what is right. These three are the

51

Psychic levels of the same mind. Victory over the self is very hard, man does any abomination for his selfish motives and many a time weakness of man bears the mask of morality and right. The characters may be under the shade of victorious, royal white umbrella. But Marar analyses them with hair splitting critical argument. See the words of Marar about A¿vath¡ma‘s burning hatred; ―The heaped up revenge that transfuses from one generation to the other, the utter annihilation of the rival at the expense of the most precious jewel, and that mentality of vendetta which is the curse of humanity – all these are represented by this Satan. Be careful of it, be careful of him, anywhere and at anytime. This the meaning when A¿vath¡ma is pictured as immortal and omnipresent‖ (2009:158).

We have got impressions about Dh¤tar¡Àtra, Bh¢Àma, Kar¸a, G¡ndh¡ri, Kunti etc. K¤À¸a, Balar¡ma, Dharmaputra and the like on the other side too have impressed us. They get a new form when Marar treats them with a logical mind. His inner eyes of keen observation do not see things in the ordinary way. His readers grasp that what must be known is different and what is known is mistake to some extent.

52

An ordinary textual context is the base of ‗GhoÀay¡tra‘. Kar¸a and company were very excited to exhibit their pomp and glory while the P¡¸·ava‘s were leading a pathetic life in Dvaitavana. Kar¸a‘s suggestion was anticipated by Suyodhana whose mind was on the same track. They are reciprocative. Kar¸a is a victim everywhere. He was defeated by Citraratha. At the time of gograha¸a he faced the same fate. In the ceremonial marriage hall too he was beaten. Draupadi‘s denudation was the saturation of Kar¸a‘s revenge as the result of his innumerable defeats and hideous treatment by others. That is why he had asked the wicked Du¿¡sana to unclothe P¡µc¡li in the full royal hall. Kar¸a‘s hatred for Arjuna was the transformation of the same.

Kar¸a said:- xÉ {ÉÖjÉvÉxɱÉɦÉäxÉ þxÉ ®úÉVªÉäxÉÉÊ{É Ê´ÉxnùÊiÉ* |ÉÒËiÉ xÉÞ{ÉÊiɶÉÉnÚÇù±ÉÉ ªÉɨÉʨÉjÉÉPÉ nù¶ÉÇxÉɱÉÂ** A new- born babe, wealth or a kingdom does not give as much pleasure as the pangs of enemy give Suyodhana says in the same way:- xÉ iÉlÉÉ |ÉÉ{xÉÖªÉÉÆ |ÉÒÊiɨɴÉÉ{ªÉ ´ÉºÉÖvÉɨÉÊ{É* où¹]Âõ´ÉÉ ªÉlÉÉ {ÉhbÖ÷{ÉÖjÉÉxÉ ´É±Eò±ÉÉÊVÉxÉÉ´ÉɺɺÉ&**

53

―Possession in the whole world does not give me so much pleasure as

P¡¸·avas are seen dressed in bark of trees and hide of deer‖. ËEò xÉÖ ºªÉÉnùÊvÉEÆò iɺ¨ÉÉtnù½Æþ pÖù{ÉnùÉi¨ÉVÉɨÉÂ* pùÉè{ÉËnù EòhÉÇ{ɶªÉäªÉÆÆ EòɹÉɪɴɺÉxÉÉÆ ´ÉxÉä** To me, nothing is more happy than seeing P¡µc¡li dressed in saffron, wandering in the forest. In this context one must consider the agony of Kar¸a, Duryodhana and YudhiÀ¶hira. Marar describes the wickedness of Duryodhana and others, and the readiness of YudhiÀ¶ira and his side to do good for the rivals. Their sense of doing good excels here. The next chapter ‗P¡rtha S¡rathi, presents Lord Krishna intervening at critical moments, in the history of Kuruvamsa. Apparently he is partial to P¡¸·avas, and as a last resort prompts them for a little moral deterioration. Violating the pledge, Lord K¤À¸a takes arms for the P¡¸·avas. Nonetheless, he glitters as the paragon of dispassion and impartiality. To express such an individuality coming out through complex situations without breakage of impression and conforming is really a perplexing test in criticism. Without any wavering Marar does it with skill.

54

‗Bhagavadd£t‘ describes the journey of the Lord as messenger to the Kaurava Court inorder to avoid war. Marar‘s partiality for

Kar¸a is affirmed once more in the chapter ‗Ra¸¶u Abhiv¡dana´´al‘.

In the beginning of the battle YudhiÀ¶hira pays courteous homage to the preceptors including Bh¢Àma. His tactics was to defeat the Kauravas after receiving blessing, victory, his selfish motive is very expressive. Marar pictures the nature of YudhiÀ¶hira‘s mode of practicing duty. Bh¢Àma revealed Arjuna how he could be shot down using the camouflage, namely áikha¸·hi. Parallel to it, Arjuna visits. Bh¢Àma awaiting death on the bed of arrows, when the battle ground was deserted. Bh¢Àma and Kar¸a disagreed on many points. But, with repentance the great sage praised Kar¸a‘s gratitude, and wished him heroic victory. Kar¸a, who had been tarnished and always made a victim till death, received one of the rare recognition in exultation. We see Kar¸a‘s perseverance that excels his sense of duty in the salutation. YudhiÀ¶hira‘s homage was formal, exhibitional and selfish. Kar¸a‘s is free of them. Unfamiliar and unexpected fondling of Bh¢Àma was thoroughly private; ―The first scene which takes place in between the two raging armies is formally glorious, but the second scene is more sublime emotionally than the first‖ (2009:134). Marar

55

observes. We see that Marar is inevitably partial to Kar¸a. May be, a sufferer (Marar) with a sufferer (Kar¸a). Next comes the chapter ‗Sahodaranmar Tammil‘. On the seventeethday only a few of the 18 large battalions remained. The captains of Kauravas, Bh¢Àma and Dro¸a fell down on the 10th day and 15nth day respectively. From the 16nth day onwards Kar¸a was the leader. Arjuna, the targeted rival of Kar¸a, was away to fight against the remaining suicide squad. So Kar¸a had to fight with YudhiÀ¶hira and company. YudhiÀ¶hira‘s eyes reddened with fury and he shouted:

―Kar¸a, Kar¸a, vain spectator, S£taputra, you hear: you are still revengeful to Arjuna; siding with Dh¡rttar¡Àtra you injured us. Today, you show your prowess, power and vendetta in the fight. I will terminate your war – thirst‖ (2009:135). But Kar¸a broke his rival‘s bow and armour. The chariot was shattered into pieces and the banner was torn away. YudhiÀ¶hira rushed for life and took shelter in the tent. His mind overwhelmed with revenge. He became sleepless thinking over the valour of Kar¸a. So much was his anger and hatred to Kar¸a that YudhiÀ¶hira orders Arjuna to murder the valiant man. Even after killing, his revenge did not douse. Throughout his regime of 36 years, regret for Kar¸a haunted YudhiÀ¶hira which was intensified with

56

repentance. By no means he could know that Kar¸a was his eldest brother. Lord K¤À¸a‘s ethical counselling failed to heal his redundant prick of conscience. The subject matter of the article, ‗Yuddhattinte Pari¸¡mam‘, is the abstract and concrete presence of the phenomenal universal vendetta. Its threatening and terrifying forms are clarified by the mind – analysis of Asvath¡ma. His father was being betrayed and killed.

Moreover he loved Duryodhana boundlessly. These two reasons fired his anger and a massacre followed. Marar believes that it is impossible for those who appreciate the unblemished love of Kar¸a cannot neglect the mind – set of Asvath¡m¡. Drau¸i believed that revenge could be quenched with revenge. Earlier he had noticed an owl of the lower kind of birds fiercely killing the bevy of crows roosting on a nearby banyan tree. This sight might have promted him. He was killing the P¡¸·ava army, Dh¤À¶adyumna and the retinue who were taking rest in the tents. He ravaged like a wild bull and killed the best fighters. He hewed down whoever came into sight. Mutilating hands, cutting open belly and piercing sword into the mouth of the rivals, he performed a terrific dance of death. After the holocaust, on the P¡¸·ava side, only seven were left alive including K¤À¸a and

57

S¡tyaki. On the Kaurava side K¤par, K¤tavarm¡v and Asvath¡m¡ survived. The great war began with 18 huge battalions. After a battle of eighteen days the large number shrinked to ten men. Drau¸i‘s perepeteia was as he deserved. The next chapter is ‗NiÀpakÀan¡ya Balar¡ma‘. Marar compares the dispositions of ár¢k¤À¸ and Balar¡ma and comes to the conclusion that the latter is a character of partiality. Of course, apparently, he is impartial. The chapter ‗ArjunaviÀ¡dayoga‘; follows ‗NiÀpakÀan¡ya

Balar¡ma‘. It discusses the worrying thoughts of Arjuna. He was crest fallen when Du¿¿a½a begged him to save the life of her grandson at least. Arjuna made his sister a widow and unwittingly killed her son. As a convict, his repentance was very intense. Marar tells that bombastic words do not need to express his scorching heart but a few simple words will do. In comparison with the ‗pravrajya‘ of Kunti

‗Dh¤tar¡Àtrapravrajya‘ is less glorious, establishes Marar.

YudhiÀ¶hira had to face three tests of righteousness and prudence. With such a background, Marar, analyses the depth of YudhiÀ¶ira‘s mental change. The first was in ‗Dvaitavana‘ where he

58

preferred Nakula to Bh¢Àma and Arjuna. Both could help resume his lost glory. YudhiÀ¶hira insisted on retaining the life of Nakula, son of M¡dri. In the second test, during the great journey, a wandering cur followed him. He was ready to abandon heaven for the sake of the poor animal. In order to console his brothers suffering hellishly, YudhiÀ¶hira denies‗Svarga‘. The incident proves his humaneness and compassion. Manifestation of YudhiÀ¶hira‘s human nature within the canvas of happiness and sorrow gives a human touch to heaven and hell in the epic. The lessons of righteousness he studied and the concepts of it he conceived were redefined by YudhiÀ¶hira, and the working force behind it was human love. Marar interprets the subtle nuances of love in Bh¡rataparya¶ana, through different characters in different situations. Karna who pays homage to the staggering ‗S£tapita‘ without any shyness, Duryodhana who everyday saluted

G¡ndh¡ri unwilling to wish victory, Du¿¿a½a, the widow, who begs to save her grandson, Kunti who becomes helpless before the blood – thirsty children, Draupadi who is a victim of molestation and moral degradation – all these characters exemplify love and its subtle levels.

India, in the first half of this century, nourished a dream. Freedom and a life of giving importance to values was it. This is the

59

social background of Bh¡rataparya¶ana. Gandhian philosophy gave a consciousness of value to the national life of India. At the same time there was moral deterioration. Both were in conflict, rather, they rivalled. Marar stood in between the two realities and formulated his own moral concepts through the debates on epic heroes and heroines. In the beginning of 1920‘s, Gandhi entered into the freedom struggle during which time Marar was studying at Pattambi. ―The scholastic atmosphere urged Marar to question decadence and outworn etiquettes. The circumstances that grew his tendency to be an iconoclast have been discussed early‖ (See infra.2010:34). He was in company with Vallattol about 15 years after study at Pattambi. Vallattol was a stout supporter of Gandhi. So his life with Vallattol helped Marar enlarge the socio – political awareness.

Marar liked Gandhiji who led a life of vows and discipline like many an epic character. Gandhi was the first ideal man whom Marar saw directly. He compared K¤À¸a and Gandhiji in the article of ‗Bhagavad£t‘. He declares that Gandhi is a member of the Vy¡sa clan, for he fought against hatred with patience and righteousness‖

(2009:160).

60

His worship for Gandhi can be seen in Patinaµcupanyasa. See what he writes after paying salutation to Vinob¡ve;― I fulfilled my life long desire, prostrated at his holy feet, but my reverence was not only for him. I could not see Gandhi and pay respect to him directly. Unfortunate I am!. That debt is cleared through these feet, I imagine‖

(Patinaµcupany¡sa, 1991:34). Along with pointing out the greatness of heredity, Gandhiji insisted on keeping individual ethical values. This is one of the central points of Gandhian thought. Marar shoulders this mission as far as possible, and his works like Bh¡rataparya¶ana and others replicate the visions of the father of the nation. In other words, Marar interlocks Gandhian philosophy and literary criticism. After freedom, India was divided and terrible communal riots ensued. Not too late, on 30th January 1948, 5.17, Gandhiji was murdered by N¡thur¡m Godse. Marar was a staunch advocate of non – violence and Gandhian path. India divided after independence turned to be a new KurukÀetra, a war between brothers and brothers. He could feel it a new version of the old Mah¡bh¡rata war. It is noteworthy that some of the articles in the Bh¡rataparya¶ana were written in 1949.

61

―Marar concludes his article by comparing Gandhi‘s journey in

Navakh¡li to mitigate the massacre between Hindu and Muslim brothers to the journey of the Lord with the mission of avoiding war‖

(2009:126). ―The Lord knew that the whole of Kaurava kings would not be equal to him, if they had came unanimously ‗K¤À¸ad£t‘ reminds us that his was not a delusive self – esteem. K¤À¸a went to the (royal) palace unarmed so that an ordinary soldier with the least little weapon like a bamboo stick could assault him. Yet, Gandhiji might possess as much or more consciousness of invincibility as the Lord possessed. He did not consider his death (murder) a serious loss. The difference between the two epic heroes is only so much power of destruction (violence) and power of non – violence –that the first a great man of Dv¡para and the second a great man of Kaliyuga, and non – violence makes Gandhi more progressive‖ (2009:126).

Marar finds out and attributes new meanings in and to Bh¡rataparya¶ana. He examines incidents and the lives of characters, his own process of logical criticism, and discovers new levels of meaning which former critics could not do. The new meanings are deep, appreciable and thought provoking.

62

Marar has written Bh¡rataparya¶ana giving emphasis to the impressions which are evoked from incidents in the epic. Vy¡sa has left some parts not fully interpreted. ―why can‘t they be so?‖– Marar thinks rationally and examines those parts untouched by the great sage. His guides are logic, scholarship and psychology. The Indian mind enshrined and honoured many images. The same reasons for such static worship are used by Marar to shatter the images or idols. He argues that Bh¢Àma‘s life long celibacy is cankerous with lust,

Para¿ur¡ma‘s valiance a global threat, is impurified with effeminate weakness and Dharmaputra‘s righteousness is sometimes inactive.

These are examples of Marar‘s iconoclasm. He points out that

BhiÀma‘s vow of eternal celibacy almost denied him the title,

‗KÀatriya‘. Help the dependents as ability allowed was an observance of Vedic culture. Para¿ur¡ma, the representative of that culture, bears the unholy emotions of a man in his sub – conscious mind; (sexual instincts) - Marar writes in the article ‗AÆba‘.

The following was the agreement between the two sides before the beginning of the war. ―At truce both sides should remain in love to each other. When the war begins, let the soldiers on elephants and chariots be allowed fight only against warriors on elephants and

63

chariots, and infantry against infantry. No man astraying from the array should be killed. After information, fight against equals in age and mettle, do not fight with the fatigued. A man fighting with another a man who has turned his back, he who is empty of weapons, man who has lost armour and a man injured by no means be killed‖

(2009:144). In short, win victory with own skill, never exploit enemy‘s weakness. The conditions were almost observed in the starting days of the war, but later on violated. P¡¸·avas defeated the stalwarts of Kauravas nullifying the ethical codes of war. Marar rejects the deep rooted Indian belief that ár¢k¤À¸a incarnates age after age to punish the wicked and protect the virtuous. Instead of reaching inferences with thorough analysis, Marar tries a method of search for logical arguments capable of justifying the conclusions. Whatever the degree of disagreement with his findings, one must recognize his sense of logicality and psychoanalysis on which he depends to conduct grave studies. Studies on the R¡m¡ya¸a In R¡m¡ya¸a studies, Marar debates on the implied meanings of right and wrong. His article, ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘, has been written at the two different stages of his life as a critic. It is a

64

re-reading of the epic. It was first written between 1938-40, and the other appeared with the same title in 1970. Marar tries to reshuffle the traditional impressions of R¡ma, and reconstructs the impressions on the epic hero‘s greatness, idealism and affection for brothers in the first ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘. His intellectual eagerness to establish that R¡ma is not free from the strength and weakness that ordinary man possesses is evinced. R¡ma is not merely an ordinary character. All noble qualities that take birth in the imagination of men are attributed to and gravitated in R¡ma. He is resplendent incarnation of all divine merits. Hear what V¡lm¢ki says: EòÉäx´Éκ¨ÉxÉ ºÉɨ|ÉiÉÆ ±ÉÉäEäòMÉÖhÉ´ÉÉxÉ Eò¶SÉ ´ÉÒªÉÇ´ÉÉxÉ vɨÉÇYɶSÉ EÞòiÉYɶSÉ ºÉiªÉ´ÉÉCªÉÉäoùføµÉiÉ&** (1.1) Who at present in this world is like crowned with qualities, and with prowessnowing duty, and grateful, and truthful, and firm in vow.

But Marar pulls down R¡ma to the real world of naked truths. Praised by the whole world, V¡lm¢ki‘s R¡ma is righteous, truthful and abnegative. Marar, on the contrary, argues that the hero has selfishness and frailties of common folk. He illustrates that R¡ma was worried about not being enthroned. R¡ma raged at his wife and

65

accused those who prevented his coronation. Marar asks how such a man can be an abnegator. R¡ma manages to subdue his wrath, but the anger fumes out, not very late. ―He was indignant at Kaikeyi, the sorrow of Da¿aratha worried him and was jealous of Bh¡rata;‖ (R¡j¡nka¸a, 1996:56)

Marar observes. R¡ma expressed the same mentality during jungle life too. Marar points out that he was resentful of being blocked from kingly authority. ―The goal of R¡ma was to rule the country after the forest life by attracting the citizens and brother. Marar arrays evidence. It shows the noble covetousness‖(R¡j¡nka¸a, 1996:62) of R¡ma. But he could restrain the greed for royal power. All the circumstances were favourable to him before he started to the wilderness. Use of force would be against kingly ethics and paternal respect. He was in a quandary. At last with his persevererance, R¡ma subdues the urge to use physical power. He was very powerful but did commit unrighteous deeds. This withdrawal too essentially aims at the final acquisition of the kingdom. R¡ma‘s temporary ‗renunciation‘ could surpass all impediments.

66

Marar‘s sharp criticism permeates into the world famous vow of monogamy of R¡ma. Man is usually talkative and humorous before a blonde. áurppa¸akha begged R¡ma to marry her, and Marar points out that manly infatuation is visible in R¡ma‘s behavior. So it is a psychological analysis. In order to hold to power, R¡ma‘s attitude to S¢ta is contemptible. His duty as a king and husband turns to be nothing but desire. He tarnishes S¢ta publicly. A sick eye cannot see a lamp clearly. So is R¡ma about the chastity of his wife as he becomes dubious. Here, the lamp is as it should be, but the looker is eye-sick and his sight is blurred. He thinks of himself perfectly righteous. Yet as a king and an individual he does not grasp the essence of right unto the last. Lenient to kingly duty and priest hood, he does not discern right and wrong, he is at a loss. To ensure authority he leaves S¢ta so that the duties of a king and spouse become alienated. But the separation from R¡ma to S¢ta was unbearable. As far as she was concerned, it was an ascension to spiritual knowledge. Her life in hermitage is an index of her transformation from the worldly to the celestial. All the preparations made for the horse-sacrifice (A¿vay¡ga) were outshone by her death. The ordeal she had to face

67

too became meaningless when the earth swallowed her. With equal indifference she rejects worldly life and life with R¡ma as his wife. With her departure, morality became unreachable to R¡ma forever. That was when he and his brothers bid farewell to life in the Sarayu. R¡va¸a, the antihero in the R¡m¡ya¸a, is supposedly the replica of all worldly vices. That is the general concept about him. Marar demolishes the customary image of R¡va¸a and rebuilds it. As a king who captured the trio of worlds, R¡va¸a is honourable. On those days polygamy is honourable and permissible to rulers. That R¡va¸a had a number of wives cannot be blamed. To all, except S¢ta, it was a recognition to be the wife of the Asura king. In short, he has committed only one crime i.e, the abduction of S¢ta. In this manner Marar stirs the traditional concepts. ‗Ciranjj¢vi Vibh¢Àa¸a‘ an article in Palarum Palatum presents categorized brothers. Marat attempts to make pairs of brothers and studies them. The pairs from the epic R¡m¡ya¸a are Bharata and LakÀama¸a, B¡li and Sugr¢va, Vibh¢Àa¸a and Kumbhakar¸a and Samp¡ti and Ja·¡yu. Of the pairs of brothers, Marar admires Samp¡ti and Ja·¡yu, freely as model brothers. They are of lower birth but, ― even Bharata

68

and LakÀama¸a wither before them. The very name of Vibh¢Àa¸a necessitates a bath of purification‖(Palarum Palatum, 1992:138). The monkey-brothers quarrelled because of misunderstanding. At the time of death what B¡li uttered to Sugr¢va is heart melting. The demons, Vibh¢Àa¸a and Kumbhakar¸a abuse their elder brother for abducting S¢ta. But in the battle, Kumbhakar¸a faught for R¡va¸a and died heroically. Vibh¢Àa¸a, at the decisive moment denounced his brother and sided with R¡ma for vested interests. Marar substantiates that Vibh¢Àa¸a is an opportunist. R¡va¸a began his wicked deeds very early before the extortion. Without trying to prevent the cruel activities of his brother, Vibh¢Àa¸a led a luxurious life. About a year S¢ta lived in the palace of R¡va¸a. Vibh¢Àa¸a, neither admonished nor departed from his brother at that time. R¡ma had reached the seashore with an immense army of monkeys. The fall of Lanka was imminent. He offered help in the battle to R¡ma and proved himself an opportunist. As a reward R¡ma promised the enthronement as king of Lanka and the man of betrayal consented. So his individuality is stained. Marar argues that such a man should be blamed in place of appraisal. ―How different is this

Vibh¢Àa¸a from who are defectionists, seen always and everywhere,

69

in an imbroglio?‖(1992:132):- asks Marar. Yuyutsu, a character in the

Mah¡bh¡rata is akin to Vibh¢Àa¸a. He is younger to the hundred brothers. While faithful G¡ndhari was pregnant and suffering, Dh¤tar¡Àtra engendered Yuyutsu in a Vai¿ya maid servant. Marar remembers Yuyutsu, who has all the wickedness of Vibh¢Àa¸a. We praise Vibh¢Àa¸a who sided with R¡ma and R¡va¸a. That he sided with R¡ma does not make him praiseworthy. His company with the righteous hero does not mean Vibh¢Àa¸a too is good. We forget the duty of Vibh¢Àa¸a to R¡va¸a. Marar protests against it. Forgetting brotherly duty, Vibh¢Àa¸a did not help his brother in disaster. May be a part of his diplomacy, but he should not have joined hand with enemies in assassinating R¡va¸a. He violated his duty. How such a man can be enthroned as the king of morality? Kumbhakar¸a advised R¡va¸a that the abduction of S¢ta was a deadly sin. He did not leave his brother in utter calamity and fought for him to the last breath. So, Marar remarks that Kumbhakar¸a is more honourable than Vibh¢Àa¸a. Naturally, these studies have catapulted provocations. Other critics called him ‗iconoclast‘, ‗revolutionary and so on.

70

With the death of his beloved, Marar‘s logical free thought and critical skill underwent accountable change. Her departure transformed his spiritual concepts also. S¡hitya¿eÀa, ÎÀipras¡da And áara¸¡gati are productions of that time. Marar rewrote ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e

R¡ma‘during this period.

―Early I found in ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘ zest for kingdom and passion, only a combination of both namely debauchery - is a big draw back‖(R¡j¡nka¸a, 1996:89): Marar repents. Then he rewrote

‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘. He continues, ― The R¡m¡ya¸a hero need not be an incarnation; today I discern that it was written to regard him a great hero to be respected just above the ordinary man‖(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:77). What made him Marar say so is the manifestation of his spiritual betterment and elevation in the evening days of his life. He views R¡ma as the incarnation of Tretayuga. Marar proves that R¡ma had nefarious desire for kingship even when he forsook it. Marar‘s view changes later on, that is R¡ma‘s resignation of kingdom results in worldly abnegation. When compared to Lord K¤À¸a who had killed Kamsa and handed over the land to his father ―R¡ma is a

71

worshipper of righteousness; but has not reached quenching of avarice through equanimity‖ (R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:82).

Spiritual change in Marar correspondingly reflects in his opinions about Vibh¢Àa¸a. He could see even a demon like Vibh¢Àa¸a simple minded; ―He worshipped R¡ma so divine as to restrain not only desire but also fury where virtue was opposed‖(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:86). Evaluation of the R¡m¡ya¸a also echoes his spiritual development. Marar wrote that V¡lm¢ki had composed the epic to receive S¢ta after deleting the scandal, by R¡ma. See his change of opinion from R¡j¡nka¸a to S¡hitya¿eÀa. ―This marriage was story in which a preceptor transferred spirituality to the deserved disciple‖(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:78). So Marar values the story as the noble expression of the relation between spiritual knowledge and its devotional student. Many dramas and poems have been written in Sanskrit, R¡ma as the central character. K¡lid¡sa took the story of R¡ma‘s pedigree for the plot of his great poem. Men of great epic knowledge have remarked that S¢ta is a more important character than R¡ma. May be there many R¡mas. But there is only one Sita. She represents the truthful Indian womanhood :-comments Swami Vivekananda. For

72

more than four millennia she lives in the Indian mind as synonym of patience and perseverance. Kum¡ran¡¿¡n has composed the poem Cint¡viÀ¶ay¡ya S¢ta with a clear view to propagate freedom of women. Acknowledged is A¿¡n‘s deep knowledge of K¡lid¡sa works.

Of this reason we see similarity and assimilation at some places in his work with that K¡lid¡sa. Cint¡viÀ¶ay¡ya S¢ta was a turning point in the literary career of Ë¿¡n, true, but the guideline was RaghuvaÆ¿a. K¡lid¡sa accepts the idea that R¡ma is the incarnation of ViÀ¸u. But is the he does not give any celestiality or divinity to his hero. His R¡ma is a character quite like an ordinary man with sense and sensibility, vice and virtue and all feelings and emotions. Ë¿¡n‘s

R¡ma who takes shape through the thoughts and opinions of S¢ta is similar, not different. Ë¿¡nte S¢tayepatti‘ appears in Marar‘s Carcc¡yoga. This article subsists on the R¡m¡ya¸a. It has been written in support of Kum¡ran¡¿¡n‘s Cint¡viÀ¶ay¡ya S¢ta, a short poetic work. Its publication caused much debates and arguments. Various aspects of feminine life are under discussion in the poem as well as the interpretation of Marar. Social malpractices are being impugned. His interpretation of the poem is in support of feminism.

73

Ë¿¡n has studied well S¢ta‘s magnanimous honour, so, he has not tried to present her streamof thought excessively but restrained it:- Marar emphasizes. In Cint¡viÀ¶y¡ya S¢ta, S¢ta abusively speaks of R¡ma;- which case raises objections from various critics that it spoils the individuality of the character. K¡lid¡sa‘s S¢ta too has to face such an allegation. Kuttikrishna Marar reiterates this point. In order to clarifye, he quotes the 51st sloka, Canto 14 of RaghuvaÆ¿a. xÉ SÉÉ´ÉnùrùiÉÖÇ®ú´ÉhÉǨÉɪÉÉÇ ÊxÉ®úÉEòÊ®ú¹hÉÉä´ÉÞÇÊVÉxÉÉoùiÉä%Ê{É* +Éi¨ÉÉxɨÉä´É κlÉ®nÖù&JɦÉÉVÉÆ {ÉÖxÉ& {ÉÖxÉnÇù¹EÞòÊiÉxÉÆ ÊxÉÊxÉxnù** (14.51)

And she did not speak ill of her husband who rejected her even without any fault, but she only condemned herself which is destined to have everlasting grief being herself an unfortunate woman. The words ‗na c¡vadad‘ are as meaningful as the word ‗Ërya‘ in the line ‗na c¡vadad bharturavar¸am¡ry¡‘. The substance is that silence is kept though too much to be spoken. On this unpleasant occasion, it is futile to speak to LakÀma¸a who is constrained by the eldest brother. In ‗Uttarar¡m¡ya¸a‘, it was for his fame that R¡ma forsook

S¢ta. See the view of K¡lid¡sa in RaghuvaÆ¿a that R¡a abandons S¢ta for the sake of the renown of his clan blessed by R¡jarÀis.

74

®úÉVÉ̹ɴÉƶɺªÉ ®úÊ´É|ɺÉÚiÉä¯û{ÉκlÉiÉ& {ɶªÉiÉ EòÒoù¶ÉÉä%ªÉ¨ÉÂ* ¨ÉkÉ& ºÉnùÉSÉÉ®ú¶ÉÖSÉä& Eò±ÉRÂóEò& {ɪÉÉänù´ÉÉiÉÉÊ´É nù{ÉÇhɺªÉ** (14.31)

You see what a stain is caused by me to the family of saintly kings having their origin from the sun and unblemished with its pure conduct like the one caused to a mirror by the wind surcharged with watery vapour. R¡ma gives up S¢ta when she is to gives birth to a child inorder to maintain the rich heritage of his race and fulfil the duty to the forefathers. K¡lid¡sa is against this injustice and imprudence which he speaks out through V¡lm¢kis own word of mouth. =iJÉÉiɱÉÉäEòjɪÉEòh]õEäò%Ê{É ºÉiªÉ|ÉÊiÉYÉä%{ªÉÊ´ÉEòilÉxÉä%Ê{É* i´ÉÉÆ |ÉiªÉEòº¨ÉÉiEò±ÉÖ¹É|É´ÉÞkÉɴɺiªÉä´É ¨ÉxªÉÖ¦ÉÇ®úiÉÉOÉVÉä ¨Éä** (14.65) I am angry with elder brother of Bharata for behaving wrongfully towards you without any cause, despite his having rooted out the thorn of the three worlds, although he is of truthful resolve and free from boastfulness. S¢ta passed the ordeal and proved her chastity which was of no avail for R¡ma pushed her off. The words of S¢ta in a whirlpool of misery to LakÀma¸a are vituperative but remarkable. ´ÉÉSɺi´ÉªÉÉ ¨ÉuùSÉxÉÉiºÉ ®úÉVÉÉ ´É¼xÉÉè ʴɶÉÖrùɨÉÊ{É ªÉiºÉ¨ÉIɨÉÂ* ¨ÉÉÆ ±ÉÉäEò´ÉÉnù¸É´ÉhÉÉnù½ÉºÉÒ& ¸ÉÖiɺªÉ ËEò iÉiºÉoù¶ÉÆ EÖò±ÉºªÉ** (14.55)

75

That king should be told by you as my representative to the effect –―is it consistent with your noble birth or your wisdom to abandon me though purified in fire in your presence just because of some alicious report of the people?‖ K¡lid¡sa indicates that it is an inhuman deed committed by the hard-hearted R¡ma. S¢ta worries on the bitter truth that R¡ma, famous for justice and righteousness, has abandoned her without any scruple. He should not have one it. The very beginning of Cint¡viÀ¶ay¡ya S¢ta states that R¡ma did injustice to S¢ta. But the literary men of that time did not like such an allegation against the noblest man, R¡ma. Marar was not at all timid to face narrow – minded men. He ruthlessly brings out the weaknesses of epic characters. A very fine example is ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e

R¡ma‘. Only such a critic can assimilate the thoughts and emotions presented in CintaviÀ¶ay¡ya S¢ta by Ë¿¡n with a view to bring about a social reformation as far as his ambit allowed. Marar wrote the preface to Vallattol‘s Koccus¢ta in which he discloses how women were strangled with inhumane observances and masculine supremacy. Both the article are feministic.

76

We have seen that Marar is unwilling to stick to the opinions his literary ancestors said while he was study – touring through the epics and legends. He follows his own path that is straight. Marar said and wrote whatever he thought logically unblemished and judicious on which the readers may contravene. His studies on the R¡m¡ya¸a and Mah¡bh¡rata are peerless in Malayalam literary circle. Guptan Nair observed how he could do it. Marar was interested to listen to the stories told by his mother from the epics, but as he was prudential he could not accept the moral discrepancies, i.e. apathy. Guptan Nair reveals a crucial point: ―Those who are tightly tied and obsessed with unpleasant code of ideas in the young stage of life may protest strongly against then in old age. This is an acknowledged psychological truth‖ (1983:76). Marar always disliked the hereditary drum – play. He abhorred his uncle‘s sorcery.

With the same mind Marar may have approached the traditional beliefs that bound him tightly. Guptan Nair observes that Marar discovered and covered evidence to establish a state of equality as he studies epics. For example, Guptan Nair criticizes, Marar debases the grace of R¡ma

77

deliberately. Similarly we see the same critic in Marar when he interprets ‗Ne¿e Balasyeti Caredadharmam‘.

The studies of Marar on epics and legends expose the hollowness of superstitions and bad customs and habits. He did not follow any belief or concept sans questioning it. We come to the conclusion that Marar envisaged development of Individual mind and the socio- cultural growth in harmony with the change of time. His attitude is to analyse everything logically, find a reasonable solution and be completely free. Ever since the beginning of humanity, rational thought, challenging mean beliefs and dissections of them existed. Marar‘s works remind us that these are inevitable.

In R¡j¡nka¸a, Marar see R¡macandra simply as the hero of sage V¡lm¢ki‘s world famous classic. But in old age he raises R¡ma as the incarnation of Tret¡yuga. Marar‘s change is grotesque, but very noteworthy. The reason he gives for this change is that God is omnipresent according to the principle of the Bhagavat G¢ta. Of some weak reasons he had rewritten the arguments in ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma.

Old age is not a sin, we have to remember that this change was brought about by the corollary fragility of old age. Readers with aesthetic appreciation do not see a glorious R¡ma of vigour and

78

vitality in ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘, S¡hitya¿eÀa. ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘, in R¡j¡nka¸a, is an excellent piece of work that a man of literature can provide. This article, one of the most known, has given him everlasting renown.

79

CHAPTER THREE

STUDIES ON TRANSLATED WORKS OF KËLIDËSA BY MARAR

Chapter Three Studies on translated works of K¡lid¡sa by Kuttikrishna Marar Second to epics the strongest works that inspired Marar were the classics of K¡lid¡sa. By the interpretation of K¡lid¡sa‘s books, he directs the readers to an uncommon level of beauty. As a critic and an interpreter Marar re – illuminates the Rasadhvani of the great poet‘s literary creations. Marar‘s contact with K¡lid¡sa‘s literary creations had begun when he was in childhood days. He went to the temple at twilight with consternation to blow the conch. Marar kept in memory how the students in the nearby school recited stanzas from RaghuvaÆ¿a melodiously even after he wrote interpretation and translation of the poet laureate. That hearty experience was of paramount help. Marar did not get so much rapture afterwards. His ‗Upama K¡lid¡sasya’ was published in Sah¤daya whose editor congratulated him full – heartedly. To Marar, this is the greatest incident in his literary life. The criticism and interpretation on the works of K¡lid¡sa remain reciprocal giving the meaning of hard words alone is not criticism to Marar. On the other hand his attempt is to enable the

80

aesthetes, ignorant of Sanskrit, who are patient enough, to enjoy poetry. To attract them Marar follows a simple style in translations. He had envisaged readers who could guide themselves in reading if the hard knots of language were unlocked. For the root stanza, below the first line, prose translation is provided as far as possible, opposite to it is Malayalam. A reader had better read the prose translation at first. The next step is grasping syntactical pattern. Prose translation is readable. Some what versed in it, the reader can read ¿loka. The Keralites who were not in touch with Sanskrit had only one reliance, the prose translations of Marar. Marar has given translations and interpretation on RaghuvaÆ¿a, Kum¡rasaÆbhava, Meghasande¿a and Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala. He consents that he had depended on Aru¸agirin¡tha, Mallin¡tha, Abhir¡ma, P£r¸asarasvati and such persons for textual certainty. True that he studied their criticism diligently. As was his wont, he did not imitate them. Sometimes he has expressed his disagreement with their opinions. The major share of men who approached K¡lid¡sa was satisfied with just translating his works, as if it were an accomplishment. But Marar is different. He possessed grand ideas about translation. Yet he

81

did not attempt verbatim translation for the sake of accomplishment. He confined himself in the world of interpretation. Most of the translations from other languages, especially from Sanskrit defame the original creations according to Marar. Or he experienced so. ―Almost all our translators are like slanderers who tell some thing somewhere, turn down it and tell another thing here. Of some ill – luck, such a group of translators is known as great translators‖

(Kaivilakku,1999:85) Marar criticizes them very severely. He points out that they could not pour out the spirit of original works to the readers. Marar had high notions about translation. He might have thought that he did not have enough poetic skill to materialize the notions. So he kept apart from giving translation in poem. To expose scholarship and confirm deep knowledge were the aims of most of the interpretations. As in the case of translation, Marar had worthy ideas about interpretation. ―As far as I have understood, writing interpretation is not either telling the meaning of difficult words or inter – relating Rasa and metaphorical expressions.

It reveals the artistic and life –criticizing value of poetry‖ (2001:22).

Each of his Sanskrit poetic interpretation suits with this opinion

82

perfectly. Prominence is given to, in Marar‘s interpretations, textual confirmations, interpolational confirmation and interest confirmation. RaghuvaÆ¿a Of the great five great poems in Sanskrit, RaghuvaÆ¿a is note worthy in the group called laghutrayi. From Dil¢pa to Agnivar¸a, 29 kings of the Surya dynasty are described in 19 cantos. During the reign of king Raghu, the foremost of Surya dynasty, the kingdom was expanded and the government well – established. So the Surya dynasty is named RaghuvaÆ¿a, the name is given to the work too. The book is titularly related to king Raghu. Moreover Raghu was the only king who governed the country without personal worries. In the first 17 cantos the stories of Dil¢pa, Raghu, Aja, Da¿aratha, R¡ma, Ku¿a and Adithi are pictured respectively. The remaining two chapters give a brief history of 22 kings. The history of RaghuvaÆ¿a begins with Dil¢pa, a kingly ÎÀi, to whom Arthak¡ma were the paths of salvation. It ends with the story of Agnivar¸a who engaged in all voluptuousness, forgetting ethics, and died tragically with the attack of tuberculosis.

83

<¨ÉÆ Ê´É´Éº´ÉiÉä ªÉÉäMÉÆ |ÉÉäHò´ÉÉxɽþ¨É´ªÉªÉ¨É ʴɴɺ´ÉÉx¨ÉxÉ´Éä |Éɽþ ¨ÉxÉÖÊ®I´ÉÉEò´Éä%¥É´ÉÒiÉÂ* B´ÉÆ {É®ú¨{É®É|ÉÉ{iÉʨɨÉÆ ®úÉVɹÉǪÉÉä Ê´ÉnÖù& ºÉ& EòɱÉäxÉä½þ ¨É½þiÉÉ ªÉÉäMÉä xɹ]õ {É®úxiÉ{É**‖|| (4.1) I instructed this indestructible Yoga to Vivasvan; Vivasvan to Manu and Manu to IkÀ¡ku. The ÎÀis grasped it by the way of this pedigree. Ai, Parantapa, it perished in the long run of ages It is another level of the ruin of Yoga referred to by Lord K¤À¸a. Including R¡ma, the kings of RaghuvaÆ¿a are to be blamed for Yogan¡¿a in the opinion of Marar. K¡lid¡sa tells in RaghuvaÆ¿a that Vaivasvatamanu was the first of kings. ´Éè´Éº´ÉiÉÉä ¨ÉxÉÖxÉÉÇ¨É ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÒªÉÉä ¨ÉxÉÒʹÉhÉɨÉÂ* +ɺÉÒx¨É½þÒÊIÉiÉɨÉÉt& |ÉhɴɶUôxnùºÉÉʨɴÉ** (1.10) once there lived a king called Manu, the son of Vaivasvata, respected by the wise and the foremost among the rulers like the mystic alphabet ‗om‘ prefixed to the word of Vedas.

As Omk¡ra is to Vedas, so is Dil¢pa who was born in the clan of Vaivasvata Manu. Yogic wisdom collected in Dil¢pa was safe during the life of Raghu and Aja. After them, the lineage had been running out of Yogic knowledge, the path of salvation. At last, at the time of Agnivar¸a, the destruction of Yoga was complete. By the

84

passage of time a bamboo groove decays including the stumps. RaghuvaÆ¿a gives the same experience, the decadence of morality and a chain of kings. In RaghuvaÆ¿a, according to Marar, the only on person who justifies the attainments of DharmapuruÀ¡rthak¡ma in the journey of life is Dil¢pa. ―The mysterious secret of NiÀk¡makarmayoga is expressed through Dil¢pa clearly and in charming narration. He who understood its essence – not only to kings and ministers, but even to ordinary labourers, in doing self – duty, desire of reward cannot be an impediment:,‖ (2001:19) writes Marar in the introduction to

RaghuvaÆ¿a. As far as Dil¢pa is concerned, kingly duty and duty of hermitage is one and same. King Dil¢ps, VÉÖMÉÉä{ÉÉi¨ÉÉxɨÉjɺiÉÉä ¦ÉäVÉä vɨÉǨÉxÉÉiÉÖ®ú&* +MÉÞvxÉÖ®úÉnùnäù ºÉÉä%lÉǨɺÉHò& ºÉÖJɨÉx´É¦ÉÚiÉÂ**‖(1.20) He protected himself without fear, practised religious duties remaining healthy, collected revenue without avarice and enjoyed life without being attached.

Safe guarded soul, served duty without ill, acquired wealth without avarice, enjoyed happiness without zest – narrates

85

RaghuvaÆ¿a. Here, the coherent hint is that what Dil¢pa executed was A¿ramadharma itself. Dil¢pa tries to inter – relate and write kingly duties (A¿rama

Dharma) and the duties of hermitage (R¡ja Dharma). ÊxÉ´ÉiªÉÇ ®ÉVÉÉ nùʪÉiÉÉÆ nùªÉɱÉÖºiÉÉÆ ºÉÉ讦ÉäªÉÓ ºÉÖ®úʦɪÉǶÉÉäʦÉ&* {ɪÉÉävÉ®úÒ ¦ÉÚiÉSÉiÉÖ& ºÉ¨ÉÖpùÉÆ VÉÖMÉÉä{É MÉÉä°ü{ÉvÉ®úÉʨɴÉÉä´ÉÔ¨ÉÂ** (2.3) Being compassionate, the king, fragrant with his fame permitted his wife to go back and began to protect the cow, the daughter of Surabhi as though she were the earth personified as cow, the four oceans forming her udders. We see that K¡lid¡sa applies A¿ramadharma in place of R¡jadharma and vice versa. Dil¢pa does not differentiate kingly duty and duty of A¿rama; there is only one state of Dharma. K¡lid¡sa did this by recreating the duties of King and A¿rama as non – duality,

Advaita. Marar‘s concept of duty justifies such a search.

In the description of Dil¢pa observing vow in service of Nandini, in the second canto- ― iÉÉÆ näù´ÉiÉÉÊ{ÉjÉÊiÉÊlÉÊGòªÉÉ%lÉÉÇ ¨Éx´ÉMÉ ªÉªÉÉè ¨ÉvªÉ¨É±ÉÉäEò{ÉɱÉ&*

¤É¦ÉÉè SÉ ºÉÉ iÉäxÉ ºÉiÉÉÆ ¨ÉiÉäxÉ ¸Éräù´É ºÉÉIÉÉÊuùÊvÉxÉÉä{É{ÉzÉÉ **‖(2.16)

86

The ruler of middle world followed her, who is to serve the cause of rites relating to gods, forefathers and guests; and she accompanied by him, the best among the nobles looked like the embodiment of faith followed by proper rituals. K¡lid¡sa qualifies Dil¢pa as the ‗ruler of mid world‘. The synonym for world, madyamaloka, reminds of the former and latter worlds. Marar indicates the view that observance of duty is possible only in the world of man. His concept is that there is no difference between kingly duty and A¿rama duty when they are done properly. Marar thinks that Raghu is the representative of ArthapuruÀ¡rtha, the son of Dil¢pa. ―In this episode, the greed for wealth of man is narrated, as if there were no old age and death. As he had no mania for his accumulated wealth, he gave it to others. The scene in which the guest who comes with holy bowl into the sacrificial hall is welcomed, and this event gives testimony as to how ArthapuruÀ¡rtha becomes duteousness‖ (2001:19).

Aja is the embodiment of K¡mapuruÀ¡rtha. His desire was centered on Indumati. After her death he was dispassionate. Aja had gained a kind of purgation. He ruled the country for eight more years, and it was for the realization of self – duty. Aja hands over the

87

kingdom to his son who is old enough for coronation and dies a death of starvation imposed on himself. ―Aja who self – sacrifices himself for love–his life is a light house in the vast ocean of love‖, (2001:19) this is how Marar opines on the episode. The story of Aja hints that agonies arising from love cannot be redeemed even with the words of ÎÀis. Seeing the tragedy of Aja, the widower, VasiÀ¶ha who was the family preceptor advised thus: ―+´ÉMÉSUôÊiÉ ¨ÉÚføSÉäiÉxÉ& Ê|ɪÉxÉɶÉÆ ¾þÊnù ¶É±ªÉ¨ÉÌ{ÉiɨÉ * κlÉ®vÉÒúºiÉÖ iÉnäù´É ¨ÉxªÉiÉä EÖò¶É±ÉuùÉ®úiɪÉÉ ºÉ¨ÉÖrÞùiɨÉÂ**‖(8.70) The stupid-minded ones think that the loss of a dear one as a thorn stuck to the heart; the firm-minded consider the same as providing a door to prosperity.

But, here, Aja does not wish to become wise, abandoning the love for Indumati. Marar‘s criticism considers karmayoga idealistic. The detrimental down fall of ideal karmayoga is visible from the start of Da¿aratha‘s history. The lust and desire for hunting of Da¿aratha turned to be causes for the downfall. R¡ma struggled hard to keep away from the frailties of Da¿aratha to the maximum. But R¡ma is passionately interested in reputation. Desire for renown is irresistible

88

in him, and that desire over – ruled him. In ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘, we see an unscrupulous critic in Marar when he operates the mind and mentality of R¡ma. His interpretation is stunningly impressive. It was the lust for good name that R¡ma abandoned S¢ta. He saw fame above all worldliness or anything pertaining to the five senses. ―Those who think renown a treasure above all – to them it is greater than world and own body, it is reflected in RaghuvaÆ¿a‖ (+Ê{É

º´Énäù½þÉÎiEò¨ÉÖiÉääÎxpùªÉÉlÉÉÇt¶ÉÉävÉxÉÉxÉÉÆ Ê½þ ªÉ¶ÉÉä MÉ®úÒªÉ&** 14.12). Here, R¡ma is quite different from his predecessor Aja. Aja‘s love to Indumati transcends the pleasure of the senses. But the love of R¡ma, the grandson of Aja for S¢ta is of the world and the senses. VasiÀ¶a advised Aja in vain where as the same advice fruited in R¡ma. To some extent, R¡ma tries to prevent destruction of yoga which formed through Da¿aratha. Ironically, as he is so fond of reputation. He abandons S¢ta for worldly renoun and kinglyrule. Sita, who preserves fidelity and adoration to Rama cannot bear this cruelty. Yogan¡¿a intensifies king after king. Absolutely immersed in lechery and sensuousness, liquor and lady, Agnivar¸a, coughing with

89

consumption, met a tragic death. This is the culmination of moral deterioration in the clan of Raghu. An analysis in such a manner makes us infer that RaghuvaÆ¿a is a tragedy. The fall of moral values is the tragic flaw; it is the cause of tragedy. Dil¢pa is the replica of PuruÀ¡rtha. Raghu represents worldly possessions and Aja reflects desire. Da¿aratha was addicted to lust and hunting, who died pathetically while children were living, but of no avail. R¡ma led the life of a widower while his wife was alive. The sorrow of Da¿aratha and R¡ma is corresponding in this manner. The great poem begins with the picture of Dil¢pa who prepares to self – sacrifice for the welfare of the clan. We see another man on the otherhand entirely with a different character. Agnivar¸a indulged in debauchery and carousing wallowed in sensuousness and satisfied his libido in the zenanas round the clock. Tuberculosis pulverized him. The general saying is that whatever begins well ends well. But here is well- beginning and ill- ending. Marar attempts to analyze the feasibility of tragedy in between the two extremes and the catharsis emerging from it. Marar‘s research journey through the epics untwines the material and human complexities of values and diversities one by one.

90

He differs in RaghuvaÆ¿a ruminations on some central points. The expectant objectives are idealistic and immaterial sublime values. Even physical changes that demand an attitude of silence were absorbed into it. All the Rasas are suggestively presented in RaghuvaÆ¿a. Other works of K¡lid¡sa do not impress the readers with such a variety as in RaghuvaÆ¿a. In Kum¡rasaÆbhava, Abhiµj¡na¿¡kuntala, Meghasande¿a and other works, K¡lid¡sa tries to unite other Rasas with the copulative and romantic attitude of lovers during separation, with the subtle scopes of ᤴg¡ra. Modelling on RaghuvaÆ¿a, great Keralite poets have composed poems. R¡macandravil¡sam by Azhakattu Patman¡bha Kuruppu and Raghuv¢ravijayam by Va¶akkumkur R¡ja R¡javarma are illustrations. Several translations appeared before and after the prose translation of Marar. RaghuvaÆ¿amah¡k¡vyam translation by Kun¶£r N¡r¡ya¸a Menon (1918) RaghuvaÆ¿amah¡k¡vyam Vy¡khy¡navum Vivarttanavum by Kaikkula´ara R¡mav¡ryar (1932), RaghuvaÆ¿am Paribh¡Àa by Cennott N Ke¿ava Pillai (1973), K¡lid¡sa R¡m¡ya¸a Paribh¡Àa by á¡stamangalam R¡mak¤À¸a Pillai (1935), RaghuvaÆ¿am Ma¸iprav¡lam (1 to 3 cantos) by Cunakkara

91

U¸¸ik¤À¸a V¡ryar (1910), R¡mak¤À¸a RaghuvaÆ¿am by á¡stamangalam R¡mak¤À¸a Pillai (1955), Raghur¡m¡ya¸am by K.S. N¢laka¸¶hanu¸¸i (1964), and Malayala RaghuvaÆ¿am by M.P R¡ghava Kuruppu. Marar‘s RaghuvaÆ¿am Prose Translation appeared in the year 1949. This work excels all others. Textual Confirmation Modern researchers rely on old interpretations and books of palm leaf to make sure of the originality of ancient works. Marar does not blame the desirability of this method. But he is anxious about its inefficiency. Conscience is his directive principle to make sure of textual contents. Some may ask:- Is not this approach merely subjective and unscientific?. If Marar had followed conscience indiscreetly, the question could have been more meaningful. He had incessant touch with the poems of K¡lid¡sa, enjoyed and experienced them. Moreover, Marar studied critically the texts accepted by former interpreters so that he got almost a clear picture. He conversed with the poet to get a clear picture. He contacted with the poet laureate by reading time and again. All these factors provided ample inspiration to have a vision about the purity of texts. Marar, the veteran critic,

92

followed his own way. He was only satisfied with his own textual confirmation. We may say that there is no other man like Kuttikrishna Marar who insisted on textual purity amongst modern interpreters. See what he wrote in the introduction to RaghuvaÆ¿a:- ―For a millennium, men of ordinary skill had been handling the

R¡m¡ya¸a and the M¡habh¡rata, along with them the works of K¡lid¡sa. No other ancient work is so tainted as they. The most unbearable is the additions written by others.‖ (2001:5)

This fact is clear in the case of RaghuvaÆ¿a according to Marar‘s argument. He refers to the Auttar¡hap¡¶ha and

D¡kÀi¸¡tyap¡¶ha of RaghuvaÆ¿a. Auttar¡hap¡¶ha, recognized by Mallin¡tha consists of 1569 stanzas. Aru¸agirin¡tha‘s

D¡kÀi¸¡tyap¡¶ha lacks 20 stanzas. All writers have not accepted all the stanzas in it. The state of Auttar¡hap¡¶ha also is not different. Mallin¡tha rejected more than hundred stanzas accepted by North –

Indian interpreters. Marar points out that nine cantos after the 8th canto in Kum¡rasaÆbhava, certain portions in á¡kuntala and Meghasande¿a are interpolated. Impurities are immeasurable. In short,

93

Marar stands stubborn on his argument that the first obstruction to the study of K¡lid¡sa is textual surity. The objective of modern textual criticism is textual purification and if possible finalization. Textual criticism began and flourished in Europe inorder to find the original series of books like the Bible without impurity. Ideologists tried this scientific discipline to study the classics in Sanskrit and Pr¡k¤ta for content correction. Resultantly, examined and edited copies were published. Western scheme of textual correction was modified in accordance with the Indian literary background. Indian researches made an Indian version of scientific study about the originality of books in all aspects. S£ktankar and company published the Mah¡bh¡rata after a long term of examination and purification. They deeply studied thousands of palm books. D D Kosambi‘s Bhart¤hari¿akatraya is an excellent example of textual criticism which book is a re – manifestation of the

A.D. 2nd century text of the Mah¡bh¡rata, popular in India at that time. Another noteworthy contribution is Paµcar¡tra by Edgerton. Confirmation of Interpolated Stanzas To decide on unauthentic stanzas is one of the chief aims of Marar‘s interpretation. Revelation of the great poet K¡lid¡sa in full splendour

94

needs to bring to light attributed and artificial stanzas added to by others. Kuttikrishna Marar tries it. The infrastructure of ancient works had been deformed by other authors. Separation of such malignities is a must to enjoy K¡lid¡sa‘s works with their full decorum in the standpoint of Marar. There may be some stanzas filled with incongruity and stylistic variation. They are easy to be evaded. But the case of all slokas is not so. The danger can be at that point where only a finger – print expert can find out the traces. Like that an interpreter should be very careful. Pure text of ancient works is a spectrum that had not spread fully in the hopeful horizon of aesthetes. A lot of scholars toiled for a very long period to publish the Mah¡bh¡rata with corrections, interpretations, critical approached etc in the Bha¸·¡rkar Research Institute, Punai. They strained unanimously and with full concentration. A great institute, a team of scholars, enough money, exanchange of views and devotion – all these helped them complete the enormous task. We may say that their‘s is a perfect pure text. But their endeavour compels us to think over what caution must be taken before rejection and reception of each stanza.

95

Dr. C. Kunnan Raja, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madirasi, expatiates that cantos from 9nth onwards of RaghuvaÆ¿a are interpolations. He points out that as in Kum¡rasaÆbhava so in RaghuvaÆ¿a such a drawback mentioned above is conspicuous. A man who has comprehended the nature, spirit and singular characteristics of K¡lid¡sa works cannot be lieve that the concerned portion is composed by K¡lid¡sa. But Raja has toiled too much to reject the rest. Consider the line of pledge in the beginning of the poem, ‗ragh£¸¡manvayaÆ vakÀe‘. The plural ‗ragh£¸¡Æ‘ also means that at least the stories of three kings may be narrated. So, the pledge is fulfilled only when the poem is extended to the story of R¡ma. Moreover, when Raja comes to the 16nth stanza, he vacillates—he doubts and guesses that whether K¡lid¡sa has come back. Dr.Raja has toppled such reasoning:-―the sentence only means that the story of Raghu, the founder of RaghuvaÆ¿a, (may) be narrated.‖ Then, in the fifth canto, with the birth of Aja, the preserver of the clan, the oath is fulfilled; again, one must assume that the elaborate narration of ‗Svayamvara‘ in the sixth and seventh cantos and other descriptions are interpolations.

96

Marar alone could not do such a Himalayan task. True that it was impossible for him to reveals the faultless poetry of K¡lid¡sa. Constant contact with K¡lid¡sa‘s works inspired Marar explicitly and implicitly. To him K¡lid¡sa was the very incarnation of poetry, he worshipped him. Marar strictly followed his own stream of conscience either to reject or receive the sloka imprinted on K¡lid¡sa. See on what bases Marar denied a sloka - no seriousness of K¡lid¡sa, lack of suitability, contextual disparity, disagreement of narrational style with the previous etc. As a critic Kuttikrishna Marar believed that it was his duty to expel the slokas entered wrongly. He did the same ruthlessly. If at all some K¡lid¡sa slokas line up with interpolated slokas by some error it is bearable. But a sloka that is not K¡lid¡sa‘s should not be given entry. Marar upsets, here, the judicial dictum that no innocent should be punished if at all a thousand convicts go unpunished. Marar writes one or two sentences while he explains the demerits of a corrupted stanza with insertions. Repeated reading of the sentences helps easy recognition between congruity and incongruity. The tidiness of K¡lid¡sa‘s imagination and style of expression become more and more clear.

97

There are many corrupted slokas is RaghuvaÆ¿a. Here is an example for Marar‘s method as how to take a decision on a stanza interpolated. ―®úɨɨÉx¨ÉlɶɮäúhÉ iÉÉÊb÷iÉÉ nÖù&ºÉ½äþxÉ ¾þnùªÉä ÊxɶÉÉSÉ®Ò* MÉxvÉ´ÉpÖùÊvÉù®úSÉxnùxÉÉäÊIÉiÉÉ VÉÒÊ´ÉiÉä¶É´ÉºÉËiÉ VÉMÉÉ¨É ºÉÉ**‖(11.13) ‗Ni¿¡cari‘ has got two meanings; giantess and whore, yama and dear lover are the two meanings of ‗J¢vite¿a‘.

Here á¤ng¡rabh¡va is bound which is opposite to horridness, the intended one:- some rhetoricians accuse that it is unsuitable. But this blame is against the theory of Rasadhvani. In the present context, the intended Rasa is V¢ra. B¢bhatsa and á¤ng¡ra are subordinates to V¢ra. The exponent of Dhvani theory illustrates that if the intended Rasa is well – established, there is no demerit in infusing opposite

Rasas. But Marar presents the following argument. This stanza does no harmonize with the dictional style of cantos eleven and twelve. Marar reaches a conclusion, either as a critic or as an interpreter, only after a through scrutinizing before and after. He went as far as rational thinking could go. Then only Marar took rest. In the introduction of Raghuvaƿa he writes:-

98

―I have written one or two sentences at the foot of all slokas which have been refuted as slokas with unfair insertions. I am not satisfied with its sufficiency, on recognition of the true mistakes in a stanza and the way in which it is told. They do not agree with the nature of the work is the most important fundamental principle. I hope that my conscience, full with reverence for K¡lid¡sa‘s works, nothing else, may have directed me through the straight way. Yet, I cannot assure that I am faultless because of lack of erudition and excelling interest. Nevertheless a question remains. Is it not a risk to exclude some stanzas of a great poet with self – assertive steadiness? Yes, risk. But the duty of an interpreter includes risk also‖ (2001:22).

Adventure is a journey into darkness. Use the lights of study and rational thought to proceed. The abysmal darkness is without the spark of even a fire fly. Truth is hidden somewhere in the night. Helplessness is ready to swallow the seeker of truth. But the devotional mind can burn, kindle itself as light. Not conceding to helplessness, a duteous and courageous man comes out of the darkness with truth. This is adventure. And Marar is an adventurer.

99

Dr. Srikrishna Sarma in his book, M¡r¡ruÆ Malay¡la S¡hityavuÆ, in the article, ‗K¡lid¡sanuÆ M¡r¡ruÆ Malay¡liyuÆ‘ tells about the affirmation of corrupted stanzas. Once Marar asked Srikrishna Sarma whether he had seen RaghuvaÆ¿a. N.V Krishna Varyar who was in their company, before the reply, said in the following manner with a mischievous laugh:-―Didn‘t you see some destitute stanzas sauntering in the Kozhikode market?. Marar abandoned them on the charge that they are not K¡lid¡sa‘s. When their grievance increased, Marar closed the file telling that ‗K¡lid¡sa himself is interpolation‖ (1995:24). This could be a friendly idle talk to pass time. Nonetheless, Marar admitted the difficulty in recognizing corrupted portions. He replied that he could go wrong, but there was no other way. Marar admits his limitations frankly. Confirmation of Objective Marar‘s skill in confirmation of interest is extra ordinary. He who has touched the vital points of K¡lid¡sa‘s words and phrases, ideas, characters and the continuous observations of life only can go forward faultlessly. ―eÀa prasanna stimita prav¡ha‖RaghuvaÆ¿a, the stanza in the 13nth canto contains this quote. In the interpretation of the 8th interpolated stanza in Meghasande¿a, Marar makes clear the

100

usefulness of the word ‗prasanna‘. With amazing skill, Marar compares very subtly the characters of P¡rvati and Parame¿vara, áakuntala and DuÀyanta. Moreover, his observations on the surprising and multi – faceted poetic genius of K¡lid¡sa are clearly visible in

Marar‘s interpretations. He projects the controversial portions where ideas and meanings demand debate and tries for T¡lparya Nir¸aya. This method of Marar‘s interpretation deserves honour.

Kum¡rasaÆbhava. Kum¡rasaÆbhava is a controversial work. The dispute exists on including the division of cantos. Generally, Kum¡rasaÆbhava is supposed to have seventeen cantos. Like Aru¸agirin¡than and Mallin¡than, Marar approves only the first eight cantos. A.R Raja Raja Varma who translated Kum¡rasaÆbhava disapproves the 8th canto totally. Some rhetoricians found it incongruous. That was the reason why A.R. did not approve of it. Even Ënandavardhana, a liberal in semantics, viewed the 8th canto of Kum¡rasaÆbhava doubtfully. He is of opinion that the romantic dalliance of gracious goddesses is an impropriety. The narration in the 8th canto is about the sexual pleasure of P¡rvati and Paramesvara. Usually, it happens because of lack of deep knowledge. But K¡lid¡sa easily delete the

101

draw – back with inborn insight and indomitable poetic talent. Like.

K¡lid¡sa, only a few posses this dexterity according to the comment of Ënandavardhana. Criticism of Marar exposes a diverse viewpoint from that of Ënandavardhana. Marar believes that the disputable 8th canto is its heart. He sees the eight one as a tryst with passion and dispassion. Accounting the attachment and detachment to life on two varied levels is senseless. They are not two individual and permanent states. Both of them are only the dual forms of the same state. Here, detachment forms out of attachment. In Kum¡rasaÆbhava romance and tranquility resonate passion and dispassion respectively. The self– born K¡madeva was burnt into ashes by áiva. áiva‘s fury emanated from Kama. That Lord áiva composes himself is a hint to it. áiva blesses P¡rvati doing penance:-―Reach a man who has not worshipped another woman‖ (2000:80). At last, in order to realize the blessing, the Lord himself had to become the spouse of P¡rvati. The revelations of Gods cannot be otherwise. Marar thinks that this could be the undertone of the suggestiveness as has been presented in Kum¡rasaÆbhava. He envisages that K¡lid¡sa ridicules furtively áiva‘s aspiration to live self – contained as the spiritual Lord. After

102

the combustion of K¡madeva, it is to keep attachment and detachment not as two separate entities that áiva and P¡rvati practice deep meditation. K¡madeva had to wait for a very long time to embody himself and get permission to dart arrows at áiva. This incident indicates to equanimity. The content of the story of Uma and Mahesvara ensures that a couple indulged in lust at any time can emancipate from it with deep concentration and diligence of mind. With the death of Sati, áiva‘s will power was lost. It became all the more active with meeting with P¡rvati. Marar recognizes that even god cannot defend the presence of strength – love – both on spiritual and physical levels. Kum¡rasaÆbhava gives emphasis on the true nature of spiritual and worldly life. Neither of them stands separately. The 8th canto draws too much vituperation from moralists. Do Siva and P¡rvati become immoral in their meeting?. Marar argues that it will be imprudence without canto 8. The third and fifth cantos depict the strict and strenuous penance of Uma Mahe¿vara. Not a iota of attachment is there. As in Mukti or Salvation, they must prove that they are suitable to universal truth. Then only poetic justice is materialized. Their union prophesies the imminent prosperity of universe.

103

The criticism on the 8th canto by Marar gives the perspective that spiritual life and worldly life are equal. A house holder, after gaining wisdom, leads a life of doing good deeds to the world around. Marar denies the dictum that ascetic life is better than family life. ―Puna¿ca sany¡si g¤hastan¡vukil-

Jjana´´lentu hasiccuracci¶a!‖

(If a hermit becomes again a homely man what ridicules could not be by public men!).

Marar questions the righteousness of these lines expressed by Vallattol N¡r¡ya¸a Menon in N¡gila. Law is for man, man is not for law. That a monk becomes again a house holder is no matter to scoff at. On the other hand, it is as respectable as a householder becomes a hermit. What is illustrated through Kum¡rasaÆbhava is this in the substantiation of Marar. If so, the third object of human life, K¡ma, is justifiable – Kum¡rasaÆbhava creates such an impression. Sincere readers, here, enjoy Rasadhvani through ᤴg¡ra. The process of a reading is necessarily a conversation with the writer. Marar is in free dialogue with K¡lid¡sa. This interpretation gives the reader incomparable sense of beauty. Marar takes into account the aesthetic sense of readers, but never sacrificing his clear

104

view points. Scholars have endeavored to established that the relationship between man and woman from different angles is manifested in Kum¡rasaÆbhava in order to disclose the hollowness of worldly pleasures. Marar disagrees with them. On the contrary, he pleads firmly that life becomes perfect only when the seemingly opposite experiences spiritual and physical experiences get together. Several savants castigated the narration of Um¡mahesvara union in the 8th canto. A great love with universal magnitude draws out a noble soul from the cage of detachment and huddles hard into the chest overwhelming with nondescript affinity. Without this scene Kum¡rasaÆbhava becomes null and void where the celestial and territorial, the spiritual and physical unite and equalize. Exemplification of sublime self-control can be seen in Kum¡rasaÆbhava. Meditation by two very great characters is one of the main arteries of this work. One is the mighty Lord Siva who gives the fruits of all penance. The other is Uma, the daughter of Parvataraja as resplendent as numberless jewels. The very presence of Parameswara is ecstasy to Uma. Uma, who was fond of serving decided to give the prize of a garland made with petals of lotus. At

105

that moment there was a ripple in the heart of Mahadeva like that of the ocean at moonrise.

½þ®úºiÉÖ ËEòÊSÉi{ÉÊ®ú±ÉÖi{ÉvÉèªÉȶSÉxpùÉänùªÉÉ®ú¨¦É <´Éɨ¤ÉÖ®úÉʶÉ&*

=¨ÉɨÉÖJÉä ʤɨ¤¡ò±ÉÉvÉ®úÉä¹`äö ´ªÉÉ{ÉÉ®úªÉɨÉÉºÉ Ê´É±ÉÉäSÉxÉÉÊxÉ** (3.67) Hara having lost his fortitude to some extent like the escalation of the waves at the rise of the moon, looked longingly at the lips of

Um¡ shining like the Bimba fruit with all his eyes.

So the Lord conquered the ephemeral surge of emotion by more empowered self-control. He is appeared with the firm decision that even the nearness of woman must be eschewed. iɨÉɶÉÖ Ê´ÉPxÉÆ iÉ{ɺɺiÉ{ɺ´ÉÒ ´Éxɺ{ÉÊiÉ´ÉÇXÉ <´ÉɴɦÉVªÉ*

ºjÉÒºÉÆÊxÉEò¹ÉÈ {ÉÊ®ú½þiÉÖÈʨÉSUôzÉxiÉnäùvÉä ¦ÉÚiÉ{ÉÊiÉ& ºÉ¦ÉÚiÉ&** (3.74)

Having destroyed him (k¡ma) who caused hindrance to the meditation in a trice, like Indra smashing a tree with his bolt, that lor of beings engaged in penance disappeared from the region along with his attendants in order to avoid the presence of women. Even the life of Gods becomes perfect only with an equal partnership with women according to K¡lid¡sa. He certifies and proves this truth through his ideal hero in Kum¡rasaÆbhava. K¡lid¡sa

106

opines that our world is not a soure of sorrows and miseries. Observe, search and enjoy this world with open eyes. There is enough and more to be completely happy in this world. A man need not go beyond this world where he stands in search of joy. The great poet has exposed a faultless royal path of reciprocal loyalty and compromise in his works. This world of charm and beauty is capable to reject heaven. We see characters simultaneously arrayed in love, self-confidence, conciliation, sorrow and such emotional states in the works of K¡lid¡sa. The works of K¡lid¡sa present luxury, pomp and glory along with indeterminable sacrifice. It may not be wrong to consider that his age was the spring season of material life. Pro. Joseph Mundasseri has remarked that any poet is a servant of his time and declared that K¡lid¡sa too is a ‗servant of time‘. A poet may not be always copying down the milieu exactly, nonetheless, the inclination of his spirit and life will reflect wittingly or unwittingly in his literary productions. The inimitable poetic imagination of K¡lid¡sa has created a new universe of appreciation which is a delicious blend of romantic and legendary life warmed with love of man and love of nature.

107

The works of K¡lid¡sa reflect the amelioration and deterioration, fame and nobility of society and such social aspects. His characters are representatives of a society having clear awareness of the duties of tha four castes, different arts and married life. PrakÀipta álok¡s (Interpolated Stanzas) Some stanzas are marked disputable in the Nir¸aya S¡gara edition of Kum¡rasaÆbhava. Even Mallin¡than left them uninterpreted. After the sloka ‗ tasy¡ praviÀ¶a…..‘(1-15) comes the following one.

1) ―MÉƦÉÒ®úxÉɦÉÒ ¿þnùºÉÊzÉvÉÉxÉä ®ú®úÉVÉ xÉÒ±ÉÉ ±É´É±ÉÉä¨É®úÉÊVÉ& ¨ÉÖJÉäxnÖù¦ÉÒ¯ûºiÉxÉSÉGò´ÉÉEò- SÉ\SÉÖÖSªÉÖiÉÉ ¶Éè´É±É¨É\VÉ®úÒ´É** The following stanza is proceded by ‗ ¿ar¢Àam¡l¡…….‘- (1-38)

2)―ÊxɦÉÇÎiºÉiÉɶÉÉäEònù±É|ɺÉÚÊiÉ {ÉÉÊhÉuùªÉÆ SÉɯûxÉJÉÆ iÉnùҪɨÉÂ* xÉ´ÉÉäÊnùiÉäxnÖù|ÉÊiɨɺªÉ ¶ÉÉä¦ÉÉÆ ´ªÉÉä¨xÉ& |ÉnùÉä¹Éä Ê´É¡ò±ÉÒSÉEòÉ®ú*‖ Translations were published before and after Marar‘s prose translation of Kum¡rasaÆbhava. Kum¡rasaÆbhavam Vy¡khy¡nam by Kaikku½a´´ara R¡ma V¡ryar (1880), Bh¡À¡ Kum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ

108

by A R Raja Raja Varma (1910), Kum¡rasaÆbhavam by Kundoor Narayana Menon (1926), Kum¡rasaÆbhava áeÀaÆ by S Hariharayyar (1927), Kum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ by Karu¸¡kara Panikker (1930), Kum¡rasaÆbhavam Gadyaparibh¡Àa by Kuttikrishna Marar (1948), Kum¡rasaÆbhaÆ by Cherussery Madhava Menon (1950), Kum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ by K P N¡r¡ya¸appisharodi (1957), Kumarasambhavam Kavyam by T Karunakarappanikker (1957), Gadyakum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ by K C Kuttappa Nambiar (1956), Kum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ by K M Panikker (1958). Meghasande¿a Meghasande¿a of K¡lid¡sa is the first ode with all characteristics of its kind Mundasseri remarks that there is only one Sande¿ak¡vya, Meghasande¿a, all others are mimes. To the poignant, sharp inscrutable and everlasting sense of separation – the fundamental factor in man‘s life – is given a heart- melting form.

This is the observation by N.V. Krishna Varyar. Marar tells that there is neither YakÀa nor message. All is the play of poetic excellence, YakÀa is no other than K¡lid¡sa. A quote in L¢l¡tilaka hints that its heroine is sister of Vikram¡ditya, wife to K¡lid¡sa. As ‗Cakre‘

‗Yay¡ce‘ ‗Vy¡jah¡re‘ conjugation (li¶), is used, according to the

109

formula ‗parokÀe li¶‘ the poet had no direct contact with the thread of the story according to Sankunni Nair, Dharmagupta, the interpreter of áukasande¿a opines that the verbal forms like Cakre Yay¡ce can also be considered first person singular, so YakÀa is K¡lid¡sa. Different scholars have forwarded varied conclusions. What and where is the greatness of Meghasande¿a?. All the scholars of different opinion unanimously declare that Meghasande¿a is an excellent lyric of artistic value, it appeals men of all time. It is atop all Sande¿a K¡vyas. Marar wrote the study of Meghasande¿a in 1937 for the first time. That was included in the first edition (1947) of R¡j¡nka¸a. As its synopsis was given as the preface to the translation of Meghasande¿a, 1953, it was excluded from the later editions of R¡j¡nka¸a. On the occasion of his 60th birth anniversary, a collection of selected articles was published with the title, Art is life, in which the first form of this articles is added. Marar has elaborately written down how he reached the ideas and views about Meghasande¿a. It was on those days that N¡lapp¡t¶u was making preparations to write Ratis¡mr¡jya, a time when Marar lived in company with him. He got ample opportunity to study easily the sexology of Westerners. Marar studied as much as to quote Havlock Ellis and the like. A fine chance,

110

he got, to read the manuscript of Ratis¡mr¡jya. It was nobody else but Marar who did the proof reading of the book in print. A context was formed to shoulder to teach Meghasande¿a to some of his friends of which he jots down so:- ―………meanwhile, the interpretation of

Meghasande¿a is a transformation of a momentary phenomenon that occurred sometime, there are experts in sexology with deep knowledge; they may have read Meghasande¿a. None of them, why not, even the author of Ratis¡mr¡jyam ---- I wonder why they did not feel this phenomenon. May be that the two did not occur simultaneously; or that I am destined to tell it. This is the answer I have‖ (2010:40). Narration (of the story) Separation of the dear ones and the pertaining confusion, pangs and stings etc are the narration in Meghasande¿a. The hero, a YakÀa, in service of Vai¿rava¸a was expelled from the country for a year. Vai¿rava¸a was the king of Alaka, North to the Himalayas. The YakÀa committed some omission or negligence in duty. The king punished him for a period of one year during which time he must go away to the far away land of R¡magiri, near N¡gapuri, Central India. He had to depart from his wife, and the separation made him whimper

111

and weep. In the month of ËÀ¡·ha, large clouds rose up in to the sky. His woe of separation multiplied when he saw the clouds moving freely. The YakÀa was in restriction. But the cloud was very very free. An idea sprang up anon in him. Why can‘t a message be sent to my wife through it?. It is told that men personifies of nature when they are in glee or grave grief. Inanimate things are animated. The YakÀa requests the cloud to handover his love message to his beloved by word of mouth. Meghasande¿a consists of 110 stanzas in Mand¡kr¡nta metre. The former part describes the way to Alakapuri. Our hero advises the cloud to indulge with murmuring rivers. On the way the messenger might enjoy all the amorous pleasures; be worshipped with the amiable and infatuating glances by both worldly and divine charming women. The latter part narrates the prosperity, pomp and glory of Alaka, the well – furnished house of the YakÀa, wife and the related anxieties, are the content of the message. At last, YakÀa wishes good for the cloud that he may not be severed from thunder and lightening. YakÀa reminds that separation is excruciating. We see interrupted VipralaÆba á¤ng¡ra in Meghasande¿a. In order to narrates impeded romance, erotic signs have been used throughout. The YakÀa attributed the dense pangs of departure to the

112

animate and inanimate things of nature. Every factor of Vibh¡va is an erotic symbol suggestive of the dissatisfaction rapt in YakÀa‘s romantic anxiety. The amorous cloud, as beautiful as the tusker ploughing the banks of a river, indicates the disposition of YakÀa. ―The cloud, here is a separated man‘s creative emotions surging up from a love – stricken heart like vapour and solidified in an artistic atmosphere. The errand is its silhouette or plan‖ (1996:7). Marar reckons that the message is only a metaphorical usage found every where in the poem. May we call it a leit motif? Its message- story is a festooned stage constructed to differentiate, to form and line up the erotic emotions thronging and walloping uncontrolled and without any specific form in a sexually incited mind. Erotic imaginations dashed to the sweet heart is the beauty of its Sande¿alang¡ra‖ (1996:6):- writes Marar. The YakÀa and cloud are one, not two. They are harmoniously blending together. This is the Dhvanip¡¶ha of Marar. Vedic literature too prompted K¡lid¡sa to imagine the handsome and amorous cloud a dense figure of emotions. Marar discerns the cultural value of Meghasande¿a at that point where the apparent contradictory love for wife and lasciviousness

113

agree with. P£r¸asarasvati‘s Vidyullata interpretation also gave impetus to Marar for cultural interpretation of a work. Yet, he dissociates with P£r¸asarasvati as the latter charged Meghasande¿a with violation of ethical laws. The first stanza of Meghasande¿a tells. ―EòζSÉiEòÉxiÉùÉÊ´É®ú½þMÉÖ¯ûhÉÉ º´ÉÉÊvÉEòÉ®úÉi|ɨÉkÉ- ¶ÉÉ{ÉäxÉɺiÉÆMÉʨÉiɨÉʽþ¨ÉÉ ´É¹ÉǦÉÉäMªÉähÉ ¦ÉiÉÖÇ&* ªÉIɶSÉGäò VÉxÉEòiÉxɪÉɺxÉÉxÉ{ÉÖhªÉÉänùEäò¹ÉÖ ÎºxÉMvÉù¶UôɪÉÉiɯû¹ÉÖ ´ÉºÉËiÉ ®úɨÉÊMɪÉÉǸɨÉä¹ÉÖ**‖(1996:17) Because of lapse of duty, by the curse of his Lord, a YakÀa was deprived of n nobility, his mind was dense with separation from his wife. He lived for a year in A¿ramas, R¡magiri, a place with divine ponds and lakes in which S¢ta had bathed and trees redundant with shadowy foliages. Marar gives ―the meaning ‗dense with the separation of sweetheart‘ to the sound ‗Guru‘ in the word ‗k¡ntavirahaguru¸¡‘

P£r¸asarasvati‘s Vidyullata interpretation gives the meaning ‗the preceptor who taught separation from the dear one for the first time‘ to ‗K¡ntavirahaguru‖ (1996:13) Saµj¢vini interpretation by

114

Mallin¡than may be considered the pristine form of Marar‘s interpretation, ‗dense with dear – departed.

Various scholars have forwarded different opinions. But Marar is no man to be lured. So he has created a dhvanip¡¶ha in his own pattern of thought. Many Sande¿ak¡vyas were composed in imitation of Meghasande¿a. We presume that Marar was trying to disclose the pangs, pants, whisper and whimper of man, his emotions in a melodramatic moment, in his study of Meghasande¿a. There are 29 corrupted stanzas (prakÀipta slokas) in Meghasande¿a. P£r¸asarasvati accepted them, and Mallin¡than interpreted some of them. Yet they are specified as stanzas with impurities. In the chapter ‗M¡r¡ruÆ P¡¶havimar¿anavuÆ‘

Vima¿anattile R¡jav¢thika½, Dr. C. Rajendran reminds that much might be thought on stanzas which Marar set aside. Of the many slokas Marar discarded ruthlessly, one of great aesthetic pleasure is given below. ―iÉx´ÉÒ ¶ªÉɨÉÉ Ê¶ÉJÉÊ®únù¶ÉxÉÉ {ÉC´Éʤɨ¤ÉÉvÉ®úÉä¹`Ò ¨ÉvªÉä IÉɨÉÉ SÉÊEòiɽþÊ®hÉÒ |ÉäIÉhÉÉ ÊxɨxÉxÉÉʦÉ&* ¸ÉÉähÉÒ¦ÉÉ®úÉnù±ÉºÉMɨÉxÉÉ ºiÉÉäEòxÉ©ÉÉ ºiÉxÉɦªÉÉÆ ªÉÉ iÉjÉ ºªÉÉtÖ´ÉÊiÉʴɹɪÉä ºÉÞʹ]õ®úÉtä´É vÉÉiÉÖ&** ‖

115

No husband wishes to introduce his wife sexy. Marar explains the reason for rejection of the quoted stanza (1996:83). According to this arguement the textual portions of K¡lid¡sa where the heroes speak about their beloveds to the ministers should be cut out. Let it be so. Marar rejected the usage ‗s¤À¶ir¡dyaiva dh¡tuhu‘ as the part of the interpolated stanza. Marar, atleast , should have remembered that the words ‗y¡ s¤À¶i: s¤À¶ur¡dya‘of the n¡nd¢ ¿loka of á¡kuntala remind powerfully the usage indicative of áakuntala. Meghasande¿a is the paragon of perfect aesthetic qualities. So no need to search further why it outstands other K¡lid¡sa works. Why so much translations appeared is out of question. A remarkable translation by Tirunellur Karunakaran drew commendation. He has touched the very heart of K¡lid¡sa with very clear and free attitude. According to the Malayalam catalogue of Books, Kerala Sahitya Academy, 18 translations are in circulation. They are Meghad£ta by P V K¡kku¸i (1880), Meghasande¿aÆ by Pattom N kochupilla (1920), Meghasande¿aÆ by Kundur Narayana Menon (1924), Meghad£tam by Kavungal Nilakanda Pillai (1928), Meghasande¿aÆ by T R Nair (1948), Meghad£t by A R Raja Raja Varma (1950), Meghasande¿am gadya vivarttanam by Kuttikrishna

116

Marar (1953), K¡rino¶ by Pettarazhiyam Raman Ilayathu (1946), Meghasande¿aÆ by Tirunallur Karunakaran (1959), Meghacc¡ya by G Sankara Kuruppu (1944), Meghasande¿aÆ by K S Nilakandanunni (1961), Gadya Meghad£taÆ by Koduppunna Govinda Menon (1960), D£taj¢m£taÆ Gadya Vivarttanam by Cherussery Madhava Menon (1960), MeghaÆ by O N Anujan (1967), Bh¡ÀameghaÆ athava Meghasande¿am (V¤tt¡nuv¤tta vivarttanam) by Kadattanattu Kunjunni Varyar (1970), Megham¡rgam by Muthukulam Sreedharan (1963), Meghasande¿aÆ by Madam Paramesvaran Nambuthiri (1966), and Meghasande¿am by V Chandra Babu (1974). Abijµ¡na¿¡kuntala Abijµ¡na¿¡kuntala is totally a lofty work. The main plot is from the Mah¡bh¡rata. K¡lid¡sa used maximum poetic license to write the play. He modified and innovated the epic story many times. Narration of the Story in the Epic áakuntala was born to sage Visv¡mitra and Menaka, an Apsaras. They forsook Menaka in the forest, MaharÀi Ka¸va brought her up. She grew into a charming maiden. Once, King DuÀyanta came that way hunting, saw her, became enamoured of her and wedded in the order of G¡ndharva. He returned to the palace without her. Ka¸va

117

was not there at the time of their marriage. On return, the great sage understood every happening with his holy meditational power. As G¡ndharva marriage was praise – worthy to KÀatriya, the ascetic congratulated her. She gave birth to a male child afterwords. Ka¸va sent her to the palace taking the child on the advice of her protector. In the durbar, the king could not recognize her. By no means he could take her. A heavenly voice all on a sudden ordained that she was married to DuÀyanta. The King took her hand. He knew the truth by word, deed and mind. DuÀyanta feared calumny. So he was unwilling to receive her at first. K¡lid¡sa has taken this story from the epic and made it the plot of Abijµ¡na á¡kuntala. K¡lid¡sa worked out outstanding changes in developing the plot. Poets compose works in accordance with the penchants and the tastes of the time they live. The root – story goes to the epic, true but

K¡lid¡sa modified it suitable to the flow of time. At the time of composing the Mah¡bh¡rata, Vy¡sa was completely free in every sense, he enjoyed perfect poetic license. He was brave enough to divulge the original nature of lecherous men like DuÀyanta. K¡lid¡sa was the dependent of the monarch. So there was no other way but to whitewash the hero in the drama. consequentially, K¡lid¡sa‘s

118

DuÀyanta turns to be innocent. Government of any kind – monarchy, autocracy, democracy or whatever authority – tries to control and influence the writers as word is a sharper sword than the real one. Some people evaluate that the drama is of pure love tempered in the bellows. Considering the social back ground of that age Mundasseri says:-― Ancient poets were toys in the hands of their time. They could not shake off from the contemporary social customs too much. Secretly, they may have pelted some pebbles at the blind heritage‖

(2004:484). Attitude to women in the narration of both works is different. Mundasseri felt the feminine discrimination on reading the epic and the play of K¡lid¡sa. So he thought so. He clarifies that a society of masculine superiority at the time of K¡lid¡sa did not allow equal status and liberty to women. Thousands of years ago, in the age of Vedavy¡sa, woman was equally empowered. So Vy¡sa‘s áakuntala pleaded vigorously for her rights. Mundasseri establishes that G¡ndharva is only a means for the rulers to satiate lust. There emotion is more predominant than reason. DuÀyanta entered the hermitage to quench thirst. No sooner did he see áakuntala than his eros spread hood. Mundasseri, in this way reads out the downfall of feminine

119

dignity and the weaknesses of masculine superiority. Vyasa‘s

áakuntala is bold and mature, where as K¡lid¡sa‘s áakuntala is weaker than the doe in the A¿rama– this remark points to the changes of womanhood occured at various periods. The argument of Mundasseri is inadmissible to Marar. He came to the front line with the article ‗DuÀyantan Bh¡ratattiluÆ

á¡kuntalattiluÆ‘. Mundasseri is rigidly opposed in it. He sides with and justifies the hero because DuÀyanta represents the ideas of ideal love which had been detailed by ancient scholars. So, by no way, Marar can compromise with the viewpoints of Mundasseri. Referring to the allegations put on DuÀyanta by Mundasseri, Marar argues that each and every charge was to express the deep love of áakuntala, and make the public believe. He evaluates K¡lid¡sa á¡kuntala on the grounds of cultural exhibition and constructional beauty. All deeds of DuÀyanta to áakuntala were to manifest the depth of love and to get permission from the citizens. The behaviour of áakuntala in the Durbar hall and the reactions of DuÀyanta are described by Marar as follows:-―Then, at the royal hall, the

honuorable king of Hastinapura repeatedly denied – the people did not believe. The ‗A¿ar¢ri‘ is an artistic projection of the reality that

120

the people were convinced of the truth in what the uncultured women said who had come from somewhere. It is a divine police action against a king violating fidelity. There is no such thing‖ (1990:230-

231). Marar points out that Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala of K¡lid¡sa makes clear how prudence regained after emotional activities can justify the previous deeds. He remarks on it:-― Satiety of too much eating of date covets for sour fruit. Like that, K¡lid¡sa depicts the chief cause of this narration, the momentary but sharp emotional excitement developed to the level of debauchery. It us easily visible even to those with defective sight‖ (1990:234). K¡lid¡sa sanctifies a rash action here.

So Marar opposes the view of Mundasseri. He disagrees with the argument that each should be valued in relation with contemporaneous influences, the stand point of Mundasseri. Marar remarks:-― It is not safe even for a researcher of history in my opinion. To the interpreter, it is quite unsafe. His focus should be on exposition of evaluation and its constructional beauty‖ (1990:235).

He re – instates the importance of poetic beauty and utility while opposing Mundasseri. Marar meant the installation of sublime values in the hearts of readers. Also, a work must culturize the aesthetes. By

121

¿ilpabhangi he meant that a favourable aesthetic mind should be formed in the readers. K¡lid¡sa has executed these two functions marvelously. In addition, he became a model to later writers. Marar confirms doubtlessly that a work cannot be measured with the criterion of Mundasseri. Marar pleads that writers are not subservient to the monarchic justice of the time. The influence of a writer‘s living time may be seen indirectly in literary productions. The aim of a poetic genius is not to become the puppet of time. A skillful artist, instead, purifies and civilizes men of all time. How can he be manacled?. Marar specifically mentions the sexual weakness in DuÀyanta, quite inborn in every human being. Mundasseri comes with counter arguments but not deviating from his early pleads. He is uncompromising in his opinions. Yet, he respects the greatness of Marar as an exceptional critic. Mundasseri expected counter attack at any time, but he never thought that it would be from the part of Marar. He expresses his feelings and thought when Marar appeared with counter points:-―If Marar prepares for counteractions, its nature and course are sure. It carries its own stand point. People have generally understood that view‖ (Joseph

122

Mundassery,2004:4). The words of Mundasseri approbate the stability of consciousness of Marar. Marar formed himself an original literary aptitude which he held unyielding to anybody. This uncommon character of Marar surprises to Mundasseri. The popular drama, Abijµ¡na¿¡kuntala, has got more than forty translations. Translators Year Translations Keralavarmma Valiya Koyitamburan 1881 Keral¢yabh¡À¡¿¡kuntala ‖ 1912 Ma¸iprav¡la¿¡kuntala Ayilyam Tirunnal Ramavarmma 1881 Bh¡À¡¿¡kuntala A Chakrapani Varyar 1901 Sang¢ta¿¡kuntala P G Ramayyar 1903 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala P S Varyar 1910 Sang¢ta¿¡kuntala A R Raja Raja Varma 1912 Malay¡la¿¡kuntala A Govinda Pillai 1913 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala Kunnathu Janardhanan Menon 1931 á¡kuntala Cherusseri Madhava Menon 1935 á¡kuntala Muttathu K Kumarar 1935 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala A Krishna Menon 1936 DuÀyantanum á¡kuntalayum Attur Krishna Pisharoti 1936 Kerala¿¡kuntala

123

K Balarama Panikker 1936 á¡kuntala Vallathol Narayana Menon 1937 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala Cheruliyil Kunjunni Nambisan 1949 Bh¡À¡¿¡kuntala Paramesvaran Nambuthiri 1952 Abhijµana¿akuntala Avanapparambu Kesavan Nambuthiri 1952 Ke¿av¢ya¿¡kuntala M R Veluppilla Sastri 1953 K¡lid¡sa¿¡kuntala P K Francis 1954 á¡kuntala Veluthattu Narayanan Nambuthiri 1954 Keral¢ya¿¡kuntala K Rairu Nair 1955 Abhijµ¡¿¡kuntala Kalady Raman Nair 1955 á¡kuntala Kanakkanadan J Varghese 1955 á¡kuntala Kuttippurathu Kesavan Nair 1956 á¡kuntala Vennikkulam 1957 K¡lid¡sante Kanma¸i(samkÀiptam)

Nallamuttam Padmanabha Pillai 1958 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala D P Unni 1959 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

Chelayil Krishnan Eledam 1959 Keli¿¡kuntala

Kuttikrishna Marar 1964 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

124

Muthur Narayana Pillai 1967 K¡lid¡sapras¡dam

Attukal Nilakanda Pillai 1970 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

R C Sarma 1970 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

K S Nilakandanunni 1970 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

P C S Nair 1972 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

Sudhamsu Chaturvedi 1975 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

Tiruvallam Bhaskaran Nair 1975 Samp£r¸a¿¡kuntala

A Padmanabhan 1979 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

K Sanathanan Pillai 1981 K¡lid¡sa¿¡kuntala

C V Vasudeva Bhattathiri 1983 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

Thirunallur Karunakaran 1985 Abhijµ¡na¿¡kuntala

Marar grasped the vitals of uncontaminated works of K¡lid¡sa and the mission or aims of the poet. He always bore these in mind while interpreting the works. Without any clemency, he ousted the doubtful portions and artificial insertions. Marar took utmost care to deal with the woks in order to disclose the essential meaning. He depended only on stanzas assured as that of the great poet. The

125

readers find a novel and pure style of appreciation of the works of K¡lid¡sa as Marar has paved a new path to direct them. Marar plied maximum to touch the spirit of K¡lid¡sa‘s poetry. He is victorious in it. It is not too difficult for readers having a general knowledge of language to comprehend the prose translations of Marar. Those who read only the translation, without reading the root – stanzas, also can savour the poetic beauty and imaginations of K¡lid¡sa. From myths and epics up to modern literature, R¡ma and K¤À¸a have been depicted as ordinary men and supermen doing miraculous deeds. They are ordinary on the terrestrial level, otherwise, they are divine and celestial. R¡ma and K¤À¸a are the cynosures to whom all Indians pay peculiar reverence, homage and devotion. Marar broke such images in the study on epics. What could be the use of conventional customs and beliefs in the fast – developing contemporary society?. In the works of Marar, we see an unusual sense of justice which is unseen among experts of historical criticism and debate. His study on epics and myths is not a reflection of extra ordinary deep scholarship. On the other hand, it is a certificate of his rational caliber to delve in to the heart of characters.

126

Along with epics and myths, the most powerful factor that stimulated Marars criticism was the works of K¡lid¡sa. His prose translations are of worthy assistance for an easier access to K¡lid¡sa. An unprecedented spectrum of beauty reflects in his interpretations. Marar‘s creative partiality for the works of K¡lid¡sa is crystal clear as we go through his criticism on other Sanskrit works.

127

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDIES OF MARAR ON OTHER SANSKRIT WORKS

Chapter Four

Studies of Marar on other Sanskrit Works Marar‘s literary career moulded when importance of Sanskrit study descended and English education ascended in Indian life. English ideas and their pressure were indefensible. This was the cultural atmosphere when he had begun to deal with criticism. His style of composition was different inclusive of strict linguistic communication, arrangement of ideas and theoretical reconstruction. Marar did not depend on Western culture and education to stimulate his literary potential. He was very resourceful. But we cannot assume that he was unacquainted with English ideas, nor was least influenced by them. He had accepted great writers and became intimate with them through their books. Marar‘s criticism has absorbed their novel ideas whenever indispensable. For example, the general knowledge of western sexology has influenced him in re – evaluating and interpreting Meghasande¿a. Marar read Havloe Elli‘s Ratis¡mr¡jya which, of course, induced him to shape some articles in Bh¡rataparya¶ana. The reflection of his creative communication with the ever – changing world order is tangible in his Sanskrit literary interpretations. Marar was not obsessed with aversion to the Western.

128

Inspiration from English writings enabled him to re – examine the precepts and concepts about Sanskrit and its literature. Those supposedly noble ideas went under post – mortem in the hands of

Marar. His other Sanskrit studies are Svapnav¡savadatta of Bh¡sa, NaiÀadh¢yacarita of ár¢harÀa, G¢tagovinda of Jayadevan, N¡g¡nanda of HarÀavardhana and ár¢k¤À¸avil¡sa of Sukum¡rakavi. Svapnav¡savadatta Like the works of K¡lid¡sa, perhaps a little more, Svapnav¡savadatta of Bh¡sa has arrested appreciation. It‘s plot challenges or excels the poetic skill of any poet. Grotesque trysts and twists are needled into the plot. Bh¡sa expresses his identity through characters entangled in such turning points. Their subtle mental changes are meticulously depicted. The great battle which had been waged for eighteen days is contracted to five days. The spontaneous states of mind of the concerned characters in particular contexts are pictured adroitly in Paµcar¡tra. Írubhanga describes the ruthless attack of Bh¢ma on Duryodhana and the latter‘s last moments of affliction. Great RÀi – poets have said great things about great incidents and great heroes. Let us admire them. Turn every possible

129

little stone and find out the right and wrong of what they have commented is the attitude of Marar, it seems. Marar observes; Bh¡sa is ―like a great soul who makes toys for children with tender leaves, wood – pieces or clod at ease, on overall view‖(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:102).

Plot Udayan, the Valsa King, was an extraordinary expert in playing the lute ‗GhoÀavati‘. His student, V¡savadatta, the daughter of

Avantiking, was his wife. They were in poignant love. In the very beginning of their marital life, the major share of his kingdom was conquered by his arch enemy, Ëru¸i. To defeat Ëru¸i, Udayana has sought help from Dar¿aka, ruler of Magadha. But there was a severe condition. Udayana must marry, Patm¡vati sister to king Dar¿aka. He would not do it as far as his love breathed. Patm¡vati too would not be enamored of a married man. At that moment, Yaugandhar¡ya¸a, the Prime Minister forged a plan with his ministers. They spread the imaginary story that V¡savadatta was swallowed by fire and he decided to isolate her from the public and lead a secret life for the time being. She consented in order to safe guard the country, but unaware of the pathos and perdition awaiting.

130

Here begins the battalion of sorrows of V¡savadatta, and the drama too. Out of the six acts, five have been composed to delineate the increasing multitude of woes of V¡savadatta. In the first act, Yaugandhar¡ya¸a entrusts V¡savadatta to Patm¡vati to be kept very carefully. Her heart splits when she hears that she was turned to ashes. She shed tears when she heard that the ―King‘ held the melted ornaments on chest, lamented loudly and fell unconscious‖. V¡savadatta, known for her self control, wept with stinging pangs. ―May be because of sympathy‖; is the interpretation of this incident. Pure – hearted Patm¡vati protected her very carefully. But time and again V¡savadatta suffocated due to the tragic turn of events. Patm¡vati was going to be the wife of the king. Her maid servant should have expressed happiness. Instead, she ejaculated, ―what a pity‖. Patm¡vati asked why such exclamation, and the maid replied. ―Nothing, forgot everything after so much worry‖,

V¡savadatta tried to justify. We see such scenes in the second act. The intimacy between the mistress and maid was so strong that the maid had to string the nuptial garland for the remarriage of her most beloved husband. This is the picture we get in act three.

131

The fourth act of the drama stages the following incident. Padm¡vati, V¡savadatta and another servant girl over hear the talk between the king and the court jester, Vasantaka. He asks, ―whom do you love more, your former wife or Patm¡vati?‖, and extracts answer from the king. ―nÖù&JÉÆ iªÉHÖÆò ±É¤vɨÉÚ±ÉÉäxÉÖ®úÉMÉ&

º¨ÉÞi´ÉÉ º¨ÉÞi´ÉÉ ªÉÉÊiÉ nÖù&JÉÆ xÉ´Éi´É¨ÉÂ*

ªÉÉjÉÉ i´Éä¹ÉÉ, ªÉÊuù ¨ÉÖSªÉä½þ ¤Éɹ{ɨÉÂ

|ÉÉ{iÉÉxÉÞhªÉÉ ªÉÉÊiÉ ¤ÉÖÊrù& |ɺÉÉnù¨ÉÂ*‖ (1987:32)

(―To uproot deep-rooted love is impossible. Recollection of old incidents renews sorrow. Shed tears and wash clean your brain. This is the way of the world‖) In order to pacify the weeping king,

Patm¡vati the co – wife should be brought in.

Wee see Patm¡vati suffering from headache in the fifth act, who takes rest in a harem surrounded with water. Madhukarika, who hears from Patmini that V¡savadatta‘s interesting stories may lighten the pain of Patm¡vati, goes to bring in V¡savadatta. The king must be informed of, and Patmini finds Vasantaka, who should be messenger to the king. The clown goes to inform the king and Patmini to fetch

132

cephalic ointment. Remembering V¡savadatta, the sorrowful king comes to the rest house of Patm¡vati. He believes that V¡savadatta was killed in fire at L¡va¸aka. The king is informed about Patm¡vati‘s illness by Vasantaka. The king sits on a cot expecting the arrival of his spouse. He hears the stories of the jester. But, as he is fatigued both mentally and physically falls asleep. In order to keep out the chilling cold, the servant goes out to take a blanket. V¡savadatta and Madhukarika reach there on that occasion. She compels V¡savadatta to enter into the chamber and leaves the spot to bring the ointment. V¡savadatta enters, sees the lying king on one side of the bed, sits beside him and nurses her dear partner. Taking her for Patm¡vati, the king huddles her. All the time he has been dreaming about his former wife. Using sweet and affectionate words he chats with her. V¡savadatta believes that the dreamy conservation is true and conscious. She thinks of leaving the room before anybody comes and witnesses the unbecoming behavior. Any how she places the hand of the king in proper position which has been stretching out of the bed. She is ready to depart. The king rushes after her and requests; ―stop, V¡savadatta‖. Not very late the clown comes. The king tells the jester that he has just seen V¡savadatta. The clown thinks that it

133

could be a dream and tries to deviate the king from the present concern. Exactly at the moment K¡µcuki appears and hands over the message of Dar¿aka, the king of Magadha. Udayana listens to the message:-―Your honour, your minister Ruma¸vas has arrived with an enormous army. The Magadha army too is ready. So be prepared to fight against the enemy amassing all your might‖. No sooner does he hears the message than he starts to the war front. Thus ends the fifth act. Denouement occurs in the fifth act. The king restores ‗ghoÀavati‘ upon which his lamentation over V¡savadatta is multiplied. The jester tries to pacify the king. The lyre which has been lost in lush ‗darbha‘ grass is dirty and rusty. Udayana orders his servant to take the lyre to artisans and get it repaired the earliest. He rushes out with the lyre. The king is informed by the watchwoman that step mother Vasundhara and K¡µcuk¢ya have arrived. Immediately he sends the watchwoman for Patm¡vati. Soon after he commands to bring in the step mother and K¡µcuk¢ya they enter and give Mah¡sena‘s message. Mah¡sena could not conduct the marriage rite in the traditional way, before fire as witness. The stepmother and company take out the pictures (photo) of Udayana and V¡savadatta.

134

They continue to explain that the real marriage was conducted by Mah¡sena using the picture instead of real ones. Patm¡vati sees similarity between the picture of the woman and Avantika and starts quickly for her. As if it were accidental, Yaugandhar¡ya¸a appears in Braminic costume and asks for the asset which had to be kept carefully. As an omen, Patm¡vati comes to the spot with Avantika. Vasundhara, the foster mother, recognizes her. The king and the retinue become very happy and they are in a glee. Yaugandhar¡ya¸a‘s scheme turns successful. No need to say, he too is in spree. Intricate series of incidents, at last, bring comic relief. The play is a comedy. Marar‘s criticism is capable of representing the perennial and universal appeal and classical greatness of Bh¡sa‘s dramas. He treats

‗Svapnav¡savadatta with a view to analyze the mind of V¡savadatta.

The second marriage of her husband pushed her into a sea of sorrows. V¡savadatta had to live secretly in her husband‘s palace in disguise for the safety of the kingdom. Her moving words at that time are the crux of this play. ―Those words are not words, it seems that they are silent sighs coming from the very bottom of heart, a reader who does not cock year to the sighs may feel the drama too short of

135

words. Too few words in each scene and context – but, how excessively emotional they are !‖ (R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:102). Marar considers that these are examples of eloquence with the use of minimum words with maximum implied meanings in each scene and situation. Eloquence scintillates in the narration of incidents and attributive meanings. More than words Bh¡sa applies hints for sentimental or emotional expression. Bh¡sa‘s literary works are relevant at present because they embrace the very lasting and universal excellence of humanism. Marar tries to dispose the dispositions of all the major characters. His is psychic study. The seemingly simple – minded and talkative Vasantaka‘s subtle working of heart is discerned by Marar

―He differentiates the two queens of similar nature hinting their minutest change of attitude, and that too is with expressions of his innate gluttonous nature!. A lot of gourmets appeared in Sanskrit dramas in imitation of this old clown – that a clown must be a glutton!. This seems to be a rhetorical condition in creating a jester in a play. Even the famous M¡·havya of K¡lid¡sa is insignificant before Vasantaka‖

(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:101)- assumes Marar. Vasantaka is the archetype of

136

fools in the history of Sanskrit dramas. Numberless characters have been created in total imitation of Vasantaka‘s greed for food and comeliness. But they do not come upto the standard of Vasantaka in appealing sentimental variations. G¢tagovinda G¢tagovinda is one of the most famous works in Sanskrit by Jayadeva. Its theme is romance and piety. May we call it ‗romantic poetry‘. It is a hymn which harmoniously combines music, literature and dance. The root story is from Bh¡gavata Pura¸a, 10nth canto. Romantic revelry is dealt with in the poem. G¢tagovinda begin with stanza; ‗meghairmeduramaÆbaraÆ‘. R¡dha sees her companion,

K¤À¸a engaged in revelry with other Gopikas. She becomes very woeful and haughty. K¤À¸a quickly quits that spot. But he cannot endure separation and returns immediately, tries to conciliate her. K¤À¸a stifles her with poignant love. R¡dha is highly pleased, and they join together. In brief, this is the story. This work consists of 12 cantos and 24 poems. Each song is an octave (aÀ¶apadi). As very poem consists of 8 lines, G¢t¡govinda is also known as AÀ¶apadi.

137

The poet was born in the village of ‗Kindubilvam‘. His father was Bhojadevan and mother R¡dh¡devi. Today that village is called Kenduli, Birbham district, West Bengal. Not always is possible to tell exactly who wrote some of the ancient works or when the authors lived. When and where is a question of debate. But we can make sure that G¢t¡govinda was composed by Jayadevakavi because the end – lines of every octave give clear evidence. ´ÉÌhÉiÉÆ VɪÉnäù´ÉEäòxÉ ½þ®äúÊ®úiÉÆ |É´ÉhÉäxÉ* ÊEòxiÉÖ Ê¤É±´ÉºÉ¨ÉÖpùºÉƦɴɮúÉäʽþhÉÒ ®ú¨ÉhÉäxÉ* Jayadevan was the domineering poet in the assembly of scholars in the court of LakÀma¸asena, the ruler of Bengal. The ‗five jewels‘ or Paµcaratna enriched his palace.Um¡patidhara, Dhoyi, the author of Pavanad£t, Govardhana, author of Ëry¡pta¿ati and Cara¸a were the other members of the royal audience. Jayadeva had close contact with Puri– temple. It is presumed that G¢t¡govinda was written there. Several hymns have been produced in imitation of G¢t¡govinda. Kozhikode M¡naveda composed a poem, K¤À¸ag¢ti; he popularized a local dance and song with the name K¤À¸¡¶¶aÆ. Even today at

138

Guruv¡y£r Temple this form of art is staged. It may be told that the guiding spirit of the world famous Kathakali is G¢t¡govinda . The beginning of the book is a praise of ten incarnations. ―|ɱɪÉ{ɪÉÉäÊvÉVɱÉä vÉÞiÉ´ÉÉxÉ漃 ´Éänù¨ÉÂ* Ê´ÉʽþiÉ´ÉʽþjÉ SÉÊ®újɨÉJÉänù¨ÉÂ** Eäò¶É´É vÉÞiɨÉÒxɶɮúÒ® VÉªÉ VÉMÉnùÒ¶É ½þ®äú**‖ Jayadeva sees K¤À¸a not as an incarnation but ViÀ¸u himself. Ënandavardhan¡c¡rya told that the narration of erotic revelries of the universal father and mother in Kum¡rasaÆbava by K¡lid¡sa was not justifiable. Jayadeva did not take it into account. He could immerse devotees in the ocean of delight by singing again and again on the romantic mischiefs of R¡dha and M¡dhava. Radha‘s displeasure ends with their re – union and the poem too.

Alliterative repetition of emotional words can be seen in G¢tagovinda. Marar pleads; ―The name for lustful statements without congruent conjugation of ‗Vibh¡va‘ and ‗Anubh¡va‘ is nothing else but vulgar sex‖. (Kaivilakku,1999:27).

He was always partial to k¡lid¡sa. So his antipathy to G¢tagovinda becomes very clear. Marar states; ―it has become a custom that if at all we get a Sanskrit book, we try to equalize it or try

139

to excel the works of K¡lid¡sa. This is an honour to K¡lid¡sa, but their poetic knowledge is not praise – worthy‖.(Kaivilakku,1999:28).

G¢tagovinda has got a halo of grace which is said to be both blessing and cursing. Such popularity this work got in a religious society compelled Marar to read it repeatedly. One special feature of his study is that it interprets the pragmatic aspects of sentiments. If has been imagined that interrupted love is the substantial sentiment. But the favourable ‗vibh¡vas‘ and ‗anubh¡va‘ and their mobility are not darned into a fine contexture. Only disconnected words and phrases productive of some emotions can be read in it. Works like Kum¡rasaÆbhava and others manifest the pleasure of love with a single narration whereas G¢tagovinda fails to produce it even with the description of kissing and other amorous pranks. Some erotic statements are given unskillfully without cause and effect so that the reader does not get appreciation. Copulative romance emanating after silly quarrels is too poor to attract the readers. Marar evaluates that G¢tagovinda is a failure as a hymn. K¤À¸a‘s greatness and divinity should be described as the basic

‗Vibh¡va‘. Expression of pious romance must follow it. But it does not occur. Naturally Marar comes to the conclusion, ―The poem of

140

Jayadeva is a ‗Tiruv¡tira‘ with more mellifluous words than any other mellifluous words in the world‖. (Kaivilakku,1999:29)

This work which begins with Da¿¡vat¡raÀ¶apadi is followedby‗áritakamal¡kucama¸·ala‘The upper part of breast is sensuously described time and again. Some stanzas are quoted below.

―{ÉnÂù¨ÉÉ{ɪÉÉävÉ®úiÉ®úÒ{ÉÊ®ú®ú¨¦É±ÉMxÉ‖ ―{ÉÒxÉ{ɪÉÉävÉ®ú¦ÉÉ®ú¦É®äúhÉ ½þ樮 {ÉÊ®ú®ú¦ªÉºÉ®úÉMɨÉÂ‖(4.3) {ÉÒxÉ{ɪÉÉävÉ®{ÉÊ®ºÉ®ú ¨ÉqÇùxÉÊxÉqÇùxɾþnùªÉEò´ÉÉ]õ¨ÉÂ*‖(5.6) ―xÉJÉʱÉÊJÉiÉPÉxɺiÉxɦÉÉ®ú¨É *‖(6.6) ―¦Éڪɺi´ÉiEÖòSÉEÖò¨¦ÉÊxɦÉÇ®ú{ÉÊ®ú®ú¨¦ÉɨÉÞiÉÆ ´ÉÉ\UôÊiÉ* MÉÉä{ÉÒ{ÉÒxÉ{ɪÉÉävÉ®ú¨ÉqÇùxÉ SÉ\SɱÉúEò®úªÉÖMɶÉɱÉÒ*‖ ―iÉɱɡò±ÉÉnùÊ{É MÉÖ¯û¨ÉÊiɺɮúºÉ¨É ËEò Ê´É¡ò±ÉÒEÖò¯û¹Éä EÖòSÉEò±É¶É¨ÉÂ*‖(18.2) ―¨ÉÖMrùä Ê´ÉvÉäʽþ ¨É滃 ÊxÉqÇùªÉnùxiÉnù¨¶ÉnùÉä´ÉÇα±É¤Éb÷ÊxÉʤÉb÷ºiÉxÉ{ÉÒb÷xÉÉÊxÉ*‖ ―®úÉvÉÉ{ÉÒxÉ{ɪÉÉävÉ®º¨É®úhÉEÞòiÉEÖò¨¦ÉäxÉ ºÉƦÉänù´ÉÉxÉÂ*‖ ―Ê|ɪÉ{ÉÊ®ú®ú¨¦ÉhÉ®ú¦ÉºÉ´ÉʱÉiÉÊ¨É´É {ÉÖ±ÉÊEòiɨÉÊiÉnÖù®ú´ÉÉ{ɨÉÂ* ¨ÉnÖù®ú漃 EÖòSÉ Eò±É¶ÉÆ Ê´ÉÊxÉ´Éä¶ÉªÉ ¶ÉÉäÊvÉiɨÉxÉκÉVÉiÉÉ{ɨÉÂ*‖(23.4) ―nùÉ䦪ÉÉÈ ºÉzÉʨÉiÉ& {ɪÉÉävÉ®¦É®äúhÉÉ{ÉÒÊb÷iÉ& *‖ ―¶ÉÉxiɺiɤvÉ{ɪÉÉävÉ®Æú ¦ÉÞ¶É{ÉÊ®ú¹´ÉRÂóMÉɱÉÂ*‖ ―EÖò¯û ªÉnÖùxÉxnùxÉ SÉxnùxÉʶÉʶɮúiÉ®äúhÉ Eò®äúhÉ {ɪÉÉävÉ®ú& ¨ÉÞMɨÉnù{ÉjÉEò¨ÉjÉ ¨ÉxÉÉä¦É´É¨ÉÆMÉ±É Eò±É¶É ºÉ½þÉänù®äú ‖(24.1)

141

These are labial exercises like drinking. The objects of pleasure and the manner of their enjoyment may be appreciable. A child congestive of bowels cries for cake, fruit pappidi and so on. How can a garland made of such childish words be artistry?. Marar asks what kind of enjoyment do the readers get. Enjoyment originates in the logical connection of cause and effect. It is never in the repetition of sweet words. There should be appropriate joining of Vibh¡va and Anubh¡va. According to aesthetic theory what the writer intends must reach the reader and they should enjoy. Marar points out the drawbacks of the poem exactly. NaiÀadh¢yacarita Of the five great poems, NaiÀadh¢yacarita is the last one. Yet, ár¢harÀa‘s NaiÀadh¢yacarita is known as b¤hatrayi. Also it is famous as ―NaiÀadham vidvadauÀadam‖.In the interpretation of

NaiÀadh¢yacarita, Marar accepts the method of analyzing the intricacies of sentiments and emotions. This kind of approach brings him respect, as if it were a shudder to the great Sanskrit scholars. NaiÀadh¢yacarita consists of 22 cantos and 2800 stanzas. It is based on the story of Nala and Damayanti, upto the marriage, but only a small part. Marar remarks that abundance of stanzas does not make

142

NaiÀadh¢yacarita a great work. He writes: ―NaiÀadh¢yacarita does not provide the bottomless secret of life, realistic persons or ideal individuals as had been envisaged and insisted on by Sanskrit rhetoricians. Nor does it give emotional or sentimental pleasure. We can simply enjoy the childish juggling with pleasurable Sanskrit phrases and idioms‖(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:41). He continues; ―Poetry in

NaiÀad¢yacarita wears conjured laces, pieces of enchanted palm leaf and amulets in order to exorcise possession‖ (R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:40-

41). With this attitude, Marar attempts to study formation of plot and characters. Carelessness of the poet is clear as he deals only upto the marriage. Infatuation or mad love without modesty and morality ends in the union of the couple. In the original story, love becomes more bright following the pandemonium created by Kali. ár¢harÀa finished the work before the marriage. Marar gives examples of impropriety and thematic drawbacks that affect characterization. Stanzas of exaggeration cover Nala and Damayanti, and what remains reveals their dalliances. ár¢harÀa gives more authentication to eros than ideal love. The character, Swan, suits to the purpose. With pleasantries, it draws the favour of the virgin and tries to enchant her heart by

143

detailing the goodness and greatness of the lover. So much the character, Swan, is effective. The messenger narrates Nala‘s polygamy and sexual mischiefs to Damayanti. She begs the swan not to tell about her while Nala is in ecstasy at the harem about her while. She pacifies herself with implicating Nala‘s passion and lust: ―who is satiated with drinking water cannot enjoy taste, fragrance and cool fountain‖

(R¡j¡nka¸a,1996:45). AÀ¶adikp¡lak¡s come in disguise, and they are whitened. So the purpose of characterization becomes thoroughly deranged. It is not the essential meaning but exuberance of stanzas that becomes a criterion to evaluate the work by a member of interpretors. Marar expresses his indignation to scholars who argue that NaiÀadh¢yacarita with a number of improper narrations over- domeeners the works of K¡lid¡sa. He thought that Kum¡rasaÆbhava was model to NaiÀadh¢yacarita. Both works narrate romance. Kum¡rasaÆbhava begins with physical love, sexual love goes under the process of catharsis, burnt to ashes and its spirit or ideal love is brought out at last. On the other hand, in NaiÀad¢yacarita hot love overwhelms uncontrolled.

144

N¡g¡nanda N¡g¡nanda is one of the most famous plays in Sanskrit. Garu·a devoured the snakes of Ras¡tala one by one upon which the king of Ras¡tala, V¡suki, made an agreement with the great bird, according to which a serpent each day had to be sacrificed. One day the turn of áamkhuc£·ha came, the only one son of the old mother. J¢m£tav¡hana, the former incarnation of Bodhisattva, alias Prince Vidy¡dhara tries to save J¢m£tav¡hana. Only ten days had passed since the prince‘s marriage!. Vidy¡dhara lied on the sacrificial stone in place of the victim. The narration of incidents will melt the heart of the hardest of hard– hearted man. Scenic arrangement and style of dialogue overwhelm with emotions of pathos and heroism. But according to Marar, the translation of the classical work has deleted its features. áivar¡ma, a Keralite Scholar, has interpreted N¡g¡nanda in Sanskrit, a very prominent interpretation. Vidv¡n K P Govinda PiÀ¡ra¶i, a scholar in Malayalam, Presidency college, Madras, has translated the interpretation into Malayalam language. Marar depends on this translation to criticize the great work. Marar‘s critical eyes discover that true meaning and ideas have leaked out from the original

145

text and awkward meanings have crept in the translation. In his study, Marar unabatedly expresses his resentment as the Malayalam version of the lofty literary product lacks the repletion of aesthetic beauty and worth of the original classic. á¤ik¤À¸avil¡sa Keralite students of conventional Sanskrit education studied á¤ir¡modanta first. á¤ik¤À¸avil¡sa followed next. Generally, á¤ik¤À¸avil¡sa is most dear to readers of Kerala. Its plot is taken from Bh¡gavata Pur¡¸a, the narration of K¤À¸a‘s life. Kum¡rasaÆbhava begins with the description of Mount

Him¡laya. Similarly á¤ik¤À¸avil¡sa begins with a picturesque description of Sumeru mountain. The style of diction of Sukum¡rakavi is akin to that of K¡lid¡sa. Enjoyment, charm, elegance and clarity of meaning are the special characteristics of á¤ik¤À¸avil¡sa. Our translators are like slanderers– telling one thing here and telling the opposite there. Marar comments that some of the leading translators are advocates of calumny. This evil tendency started from Valiyakoyi Tampur¡n as a light trickle, flooded gradually and even today it overflows widely in our literature. Fortunately, so much

146

drawbacks cannot be found in the translation of á¤ik¤À¸avil¡sa, Marar observes. He congratulates the translator. K¡lid¡sa works were the touchstone of Marar‘s study to test the carat of Sanskrit literature. He considered only Bh¡sa, Vy¡sa and V¡lm¢ki superior to K¡lid¡sa–ie, their classics. He opposed some of the orthodoxical literary precepts and theories practiced in Sanskrit. In his study, Marar has made weapons out of implication of any of the nine ‗rasas‘ and its congruity to analyze. It is intermingled with the existing values and rejected values of the contemporary cultural awareness. Marar was not controlled by a sense of value which was not unchanging, definite and steadfast. His concept of value waves whenever he approaches a literary work with prejudice. Marar saw K¡lid¡sa‘s plot innovations as style of diction. He accepts the poetic freedom which Bh¡sa used in Paµcar¡tra and Írubhanga to reform the respective stories. Marar is excited to see the experimental literary efforts of Bh¡sa to transpose great events in the epics. Marar‘s style of criticism was to relate the static and stagnant categories of aesthetic principles and contemporaneous worldly

147

affairs, or social relevance. The practical worth of aesthetic arguments become creative in his studies. To him, epics are not a separate entity, but they are a part of socio – cultural and political process. Along with, he applies the criteria of literary criticism. In short, he chains literature, art and life. Marar‘s criticism does not contain diversity and contradiction on the technical level when he studies and interprets epics. One of the reasons is that he does not aim at Sanskrit literature only. On the other hand, he scrutinized great compositions which can be called light houses in Sanskrit. There lies the historical importance of his study. Marar‘s studies have opened a new window to have a view at and re- reading the works of K¡lid¡sa. He relentlessly repudiates the myths and doctrines that attribute divinity to Sanskrit books. Such deification and flattery make the atheistic mind of society subjugative. Marar attacks such exaggerations. So the undeniable authoritativeness of works like G¢tagovinda and Nalacarita turned impermanent. Marar scribed almost all his studies in the beginning decades of the 20th century when the influence of Sanskrit on Malayalam was under trial. Moreover, in the Indian social setup, he indirectly addresses the literary and aesthetic flourish of Sanskrit literature. Not

148

only Sanskrit literature but also its poetics and metonymies were deconstructed incessantly as part of it. That deconstruction was activated with the reformational values, neglection of the existing values, visions of humanity, materialistic thought etc of the pre- freedom period. Hence is the historical importance of Marar‘s literary studies. His touch with English was practically nil. Surprisingly enough, Marar grasped the essence of English literary philosophy without studying English language and literature. Ignorance in English grieved him gravely. He rushed for good foreign books of which others spoke about and was restless until he acquired the Malayalam translation. His published letters give enough proof for his tremendous effort. Comparing with some English books, Marar has written a few interpretation. Svapnav¡savadattavum Ìnak Ër·anum is an example. It seems, such studies are a part of artificial and conscious effort. In the evaluation of translations too we see a Marar who is a mouthpiece of values.

149

CHAPTER FIVE

STUDIES OF MARAR ON SANSKRIT POETICS

Chapter Five

Studies of Marar on Sanskrit Poetics Utilizing the relation between Indian Philosophy and aesthetics, Marar‘s view of literature has formed. Marar expanded the theoretical possibilities of aesthetics and tried to make use of them apropos to the need of the time. He could reconstruct the literary ideas of Ënandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mahimabha¶¶a. Marar‘s criticism discriminates their theoretical importance and pragmatic relevance. The criticism of Marar is a recreation of ‗Rasadhvani‘ where philosophy and sense of beauty unite. His philosophical tone of criticism is rooted on this union or relationship. S¡hityabh£Àa¸a is a collection of articles expressive of his dislikes for Sanskrit style of approach to poetry and Sanskrit method of criticism. S¡hityabh£Àa¸a marked the disconnection from the traditional Malayalam criticism. On those days, the predominance of A.R Raja Raja Varma was undisputed in the sphere of criticism. S¡hityapaµc¡nana, P K Narayana Pilla was known as the main disciple of A R Raja Raja Varma. Kesari A Balakrishna Pillai considered A R as the father and patron of the pedigree of established criticism. He reproduced the

150

prefaces of A R written for dramas and ˶¶akkatha with the name ‗R¡jar¡jiyam‘. Mundasseri sees A R as the moving force of literary renaissance in Kerala. He pleaded that there is no establishment without the influence of A R. Dr Sukumar Azhikkode states that strong and lasting influence of A R‘s traditional criticism prevails in

Malayalam. But Marar is different. Marar opposed customary literary habits and traditional Sanskrit teaching and study in the beginning. Later on, the sound of neglection and denunciation of his living background, and its sharp and unkind echoes reverberated in the works of that time continuously. See, how Ulloor S Paramesvarayyar introduces Marar to the readers of Malayalam:-―Sharp– intelligent appreciator, free-thinking rhetorician, progressive poetic experimentalist and an active litterateur‖(1991:11). So goes the commendation. This praise is on the writings of Marar, not collected as books, when he was with Ulloor. K¡vyattinte J¢van published in the magazine Samabh¡vini, between 1923 and 1924, in three issues, is an interpretation of Sanskrit aesthetics by Marar. This series of articles is the oldest that has been recovered. This the book deals with the poetic principles of Ënandavardhana, Kuntaka, Mahimabha¶¶a and V¡mana. Though the comparative criticism between Vakrokti and

151

Dvani, and Dvani and K¡vy¡numiti is short, yet it is sharp and subtle. Its subject matter is experience or knowledge derived from the special meaning of poetry. The process of reading gives the appreciator experience and that knowledge engenders enjoyment. Pleasure or enjoyment may originate from suggestive meaning or equivocation. This change is possible through ‗Rasadhvani‘. So the life of poetry is

Rasadhvani. Suggestiveness of word meaning was developed by Ënandavardhana who argued that implied meaning grew causative of enjoyment. K¡vyattinte J¢van reveals that Vakrokti and K¡vy¡numiti represent the varied possibilities of the principles of Rasadhvani. Kuntaka opines that what is said indirectly, equivocation or circumlocution, is poetic life. What the poet means is hidden, and a new different meaning artistically and impressively produced is the essence of Vakrokti. The principle forwarded by Ënandavardhana is not too different from narrative Vakrokti. Meaning changes guessed out of words and phrases and the like is Dhvani according to Mahimabha¶¶a. So word meanings do not need indirect function at all. Marar comes to the conclusion that the life and liveliness of poetry is Rasadhvani, he having scrutinized, compared and interpreted various poetic ideas.

152

In S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, Marar logically details the principles of aesthetics which have been interpreted in K¡vyattinte J¢van, a series of essays. Rasadhvani, expounded by Ënandavardhana and reinstated by Abhinavagupta, influenced Marar much. Reading that causes feelings or reactions in the reader through various possible emotional meanings become impressive. Marar comments that Rasadhvani is the impression of meanings created in the reader. Marar accepts the notion that universalization of Vibh¡va and Anubh¡va manifests Rasa in the man who enjoys. The benefit of a work is this Rasadhvani and it is the life of poetry according to Marar‘s opinion. Universalization of indirect meanings is ensued by knowledge or wisdom. Marar defines that enjoyment of knowledge or experience is Rasadhvani. Mahimabha¶¶a was the exponent of Anumitiv¡da. Marar elaborately analyzed the possibilities of this theory in S¡hityabh£Àa¸a. The essence of reading is Rasadhvani. Marar confirms this fact and accepts K¡vy¡numiti as a path leading to it. He reiterates that the objective of S¡hityabh£Àa¸a is not to reject the theory of Rasadhvani. It is a creative reproduction of Rasadhvani. K¡vy¡numiti is different from the theory of Anum¡na, a principle famous in Ny¡ya á¡stra. ― Above occurability and

153

importance that are subject to worldly conclusions, a conclusion in a well- finished poem that accomplishes ornamental impressions of meaning alone has a speciality and out of that speciality Mahimabha¶¶a has given a peculiar name K¡vy¡numiti‖ (1991:198-

199). KuttikrishnaMarar points out. Like Mahimaba¶¶a, Marar too rejects the suggestiveness of words. His opinion about implied or indirect meaning is:- ― Except Ras¡bhivyakti, all implications are made clear depending on understanding the indirect meaning, the connection between words and them, the circumstance in which they are applied and the resultant effect or knowledge. So they are the causes of inference‖(1928:191).

Marar disagrees with Mahimabha¶¶a on the experience of Rasa. He believes that enjoyment and appreciation cannot be the result of K¡vy¡numiti. ―To the appreciator, harmonized with the sweet joining together of poetic meanings, because of the knowledge of dispositions and Vibh¡vanubh¡va, instinctively imbued sorrow and piety at heart are excited and they become enjoyable, is not inference; but ratiocinative individual himself‖(1991:188).

Experience of pleasure derives from knowledge of Vibh¡v¡nubh¡va. Enjoyment of Rasa leads to mental experience and

154

knowledge. Marar theorizes that Rasadhvani is experienced by the reader in the form of impressions. ―Only a knowledge produced from another knowledge becomes conclusion. Though the awareness of Rasa is kindled by the knowledge of Vibh¡v¡nubh¡va, though enjoyment of Rasa is visible to mental experience, it does not become the true character of appreciation of Rasas incited. What is born out of the knowledge of Vibh¡v¡di is incitement of Rasa, not the knowledge of itself. So, the connection between incitement and awareness of Vibh¡v¡nubh¡va is suggestive and suggested state‖(1991:188-189).

Here, Marar re – introduces the Rasa theories of Ënandavardhana and

Abhinavagupta. Refuting the theory of Anum¡na, Marar clarifies that literary philosophy is based on Rasadhvani. ―Mahimabha¶¶a, the advocate of conclusion, does not accept individual except the idea of anum¡na. The reason may be that at his time the opinion of rhetoricians could not be so wretched, and he might not have thought about it‖

(1991:189).So, ―Not knowing the principle that the inherent emotions hidden in man get excited and become appreciable, he opines that knowing the character-oriented mental stages through

155

Vibh¡v¡nubh¡va is anum¡na, and that alone is the cause of embellishment or metaphorical sweetness‖(1991:189).

Marar‘s criticism gives great importance to universalization

(s¡dh¡ra¸¢kara¸aÆ). If universalization does not take place, the reader cannot enjoy or appreciate Rasa according to his concept. ―For the spark of Rasa, the reader must reach the stage of harmonious assimilation which in the term of rhetoricians is ‗universality‘.

Though this harmony is sooner or later, corresponding to the reader‘s imaginative power and power of appreciation, it cannot be produced an soon as a reader begins reading. Because the harmonization is closely related to the things narrated in the poem‖(1991:189-190). His observations after the study of epic characters resonate the possibilities of the process on universalization. Marar accepts Rasadhvani but rejects the division of poetry forwarded by Ënandavardhana. ― After wisdom (knowledge) and adornment be born, whether that implied meaning is subordinate or main factor to the change of meaning – wherever the heart of the appreciator takes rest-that rhetoric does not go under the process of amelioration and deterioration‖(1991:245). Marar discarded implied sense of which suggestive meaning has become secondary and

156

irrelevant. The Rasa enjoyed is beautiful, whether important or unimportant. Mahimabha¶¶a too did so. So a comparison is improper. Because of it, Mahimabha¶¶a disregards suggestive meaning which has become secondary in importance. Marar disagrees with Ënandavardhana who made V¡man¡c¡rya‘s theory of style of narration, just a combination of words. Ënandavardhana slackens the connection between style and gu¸as (poetic qualities or properties) which depend on Rasa. All the possibilities of R¢tiv¡da are footed on gu¸as. Gu¸as contain Rasas and their sweet results. ―Rasa itself is the soul of poetry, essentially it is only a modification of the literary concept of V¡mana. Rasabh¡vavyakti, to V¡mana, is a property of beauty. Organization of such gu¸as is style or method of composition. There lies the life of poetry. Of the ingredients of poetry, Ënanda took seriously Rasabh¡vavyakti only. As others are less important and depletive of beauty, he considered them simply metaphors and poetic techniques. The guiding work might have been Sarasvatika¸¶h¡bhara¸a‖(1991:54) Explains Marar.

Marar‘s argument is a little modification of the observation of

Ënandavardhana. Ënanda consents that the theory of Rasadhvani was

157

known vaguely to those who debated on the principle of R¢tiv¡da. But they did not deal it in detail. Ënanda wrote so, perhaps, because he had born the attractiveness of Vaidarbh¢r¢ti in mind. Marar theoretically expanded the minute ideas and concepts in Ënanda‘s observation. Rasadhvani is not only a modification of R¢tisiddh¡nta. Riti, basically includes the lessons of composition and its potential. V¡man¡carya unravels the secrets of narration, compositional charm depends on the resourcefulness, carefulness and concentration of the composer. On the other hand, Rasadhvani deals with reading and its possible results. The theory of Rasa debates on how each reading becomes another creation. Moreover, in comparison, with R¢ti, Rasadhvani possesses philosophic meaning range. ―Ënandavardhana brought about a desirable change in literary movement after V¡man¡c¡rya. It may be said, his Dhvany¡loka, is the most brilliant jewel or pearl on the chain of Sanskrit literary science. It was on his doctrine that all the later literary principles sprouted and flourished. Other literature, abiding by the rules of Sanskrit literature, copy it. In short, this vital theory is well – established for ever in the literary world‖(1991:49).

158

But Ënanda‘s indolence to R¢ti, Gu¸a and Vakrokti has provoked the protest of Marar. R¢ti was interpreted by Ënandavardhana simply as a mixture of words. This approach created staunch disagreement in Marar. Anyhow, we have to remember that he was conscious of Ënanda‘s authority in the kingdom of Indian aesthetics. Marar writes: ―He could reveal vital metaphorical aspects which were vague and untouched by ancient literary masters. In short, it may be said, he gave a language to Sanskrit literature to define what different ornamentations are‖ (1991:51).

―Dhvanyac¡rya who found out the very soul of poetry – he was a great ÎÀi - practiced spiritual rumination in the realm of literature‖

(1991:51). In this way Marar praises Ënanda. But Marar is unwilling to accept the argument that a master becomes on original master when he is placed beyond criticism. Dhvani is a rare treasure discovered by Ënanda. It will be incongruous to think that old literary stalwarts did not know of it even vaguely. Marar sees how the minds of almost all masters touch Dhvani and exposes in what manner it is. Dhvani was stranded in other poetic schemes. Ënanda differentiated it, put into order and gave a suitable name. Yet, Marar is not ready to enthrone this preceptor infallible. Relying on Mahimabha¶¶a he finds out the

159

drawbacks of the theory and attempts how they can be corrected so that its excellence be brought to light. Though Marar almost recognizes Mahimabha¶¶a‘s criticism in

S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, yet he does not consider Vyaktiviveka quite flawless. That is his peculiarity. A man can be a great scholar, but Marar will not accept his opinion or doctrine thoroughly as such. On the other hand, Marar has had the mind to receive acceptable portions of the opinion of the ignoramus. He opines that such an attitude is beneficial. Marar was not rejecting Ënanda and accepting Mahimabha¶¶a at a stretch. He entertains what the author of Vyaktiviveka told about the universally acknowledged theory of dhvani that there is something irrational in its explanation. The next moment, he passes the verdict that the critics eye could not reach the vital functional truth of poetry. Dr Sukumar Azhikkodu clarifies how Marar could converse with the tendencies of his time, who knew only Sanskrit literary principles. The guide was free thought to Marar. He was not blindly following the ideas and ideals of Sanskrit literature. Marar acquired the pure spirit and sense of logic in Sanskrit literature, and attempted

160

to find his own path. Moreover, his life at gurukula, Pattambi, played a decisive role in forming the genius in Marar. Dr. Azhikode tells that mental freedom has made Marar a bold critic. Only an unyielding man can freely engage in literary field like Marar. His very entrance into the arena of writers reveals this fact. Pedants were stilled with the publication of S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, and the resulting turmoil was not little. There was nobody to factually evaluate and rationally criticize the critique. He has been condemned as the opposer of A.R. Raja Raja Varma. Dr. Azhikode called the activity of Marar ‗iconoclasm‘. But was it really iconoclasm, breaking images?. A man of freethinking and new literary philosophic scheme alone can take such daring steps. He was not at all forming a new theory. On the contrary, he pointed out the limitations of the reflections of the Sanskrit rhetoricians and the inner meanings of their literary thought. Some men of literature told that Marar‘s S¡hityabh£Àa¸a had been installing the Anum¡nasidhanta of Mahimabha¶¶a. Actually Marar was not a critic who walked along the path of Mahimabha¶¶a. He appreciated Mahimabha¶¶a to some extent. It was not because of unending affinity, but he was attracted to the good aspects of the

161

doctrine. Marar imbibed and recognized the good qualities of Sanskrit literary thoughts, whoever the writer might be. He did not maintain the perspective that some drawbacks meant total mistake and failure. This was his attitude in criticism. According to Azhikkode, Marar, through S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, had inter – related Mahimabha¶¶a‘s theory of Anum¡na and Ënanda‘s theory of Dhvani. He adds:-―When Marar argues that words have the only function of conveying meaning, and the assumed functions of words LakÀa¸a and Vyaµjana are inclusive in Anum¡na, he follows Mahimabha¶¶a. On the contray, Marar remembers Ënandavardhana when he pleads that the stimulated emotions in the mind of the appreciator become enjoyable, not because of Anum¡na, but the effect of Vyakti. Only a person of sharp – grasping power who saw the limitations of the two theories can make such a combination of emotions‖ (1986:145).

A R Raja Raja Varma, a great genius, gave a venue to Malayalam literary criticism of its own. Sukumar Azhikkode observes that Marar who came after A R Raja Raja Varma surpasses the greatman in Malayalam literary excellence. Let us examine the essence of this statement. The change brought about by Marar is

162

immeasurable. He is a prodigy who touched and understood the vital scope of literature. S¡hityabh£Àa¸a, Malay¡la¿aili, V¤tta¿ilpa and the like works of Marar justify this fact. Azhikkode points out that Marar did not take appreciation a business of heart- it is a mixed endeavor of brain and power. ―The result of appreciation, Rasa, should be rationally dealt with. When cause is subjugated to thoughtful sense of reason and its nourishing scholarship, and intellect conducts a search in heart, an ordinary appreciator is metamorphose to a unique critic‖(1986:146). This uniqueness made Marar a light house in Malayalam literature. Dr. Sukumar Azhikkode forwards another point how Marar‘s criticism withstands the test of time. ―Criticism of Marar is rich in emotional liveliness along with intellectual excellence, and that is why it satisfies the readers‖(1986:147).

To some men of literary interest his criticism is distasteful, intellectual excellence is the reason for dislike. Marar vanquished the wicked tactics of those who pleaded that intellect and logic have no role in producing literary appreciation, and proceeded as the paramount sovereign in his literary career.

163

Including Dr Sukumar Azhikkode, critics charged Marar with rationalism. The general understanding is that sense of beauty is the axis of literature, not sense of logic, and art and logic cannot go together. Literature that rises from the romantic aesthetic sense merge with the romantic sense of beauty of the man who enjoys:- this is the commonplace idea. Here nobody needs the presence of brain except heart. A writer may take special situations or incidents as theme from the intricated life of man. Centralizing on that main idea, the writer creates a work making use of other scattered ideas and states of Rasa in the premises of the pivotal theme. According to Marar, such a creation must have rational compactness. ―The poet, in the elegant work which is consciously and unconsciously complex, sow and reap with his reason and scholarship –it is indisputable‖(2002:51):- writes

Marar. The appreciator‘s sense of beauty is inborn, Marar points out, yet his power of artistic enjoyment can be developed by learning and criticism. He argues that power of appreciation is an intellectual and logical substance. In this manner, the presence of logic manifests in the poets composition and the reader‘s enjoyment. Marar

164

substantiates that the case be so, though sense of beauty transcends reason, it is invariably inseparable from logic. In the book S¡hityaprak¡¿anam, Dr Sukumar Azhikkode comments how Marar did approach literary criticism, as follows:- ―That Marar made our literary criticism self-realizational and artistic is his commendable service‖(1984:8). Kuttikrishna Marar entered the field of criticism not as a literary theorist. Auspiciously enough, he had the spirit of innate self realization. No man gains perennial position in criticism without this gift. Dr Sukumar Azhikkode has written in Malay¡la S¡hitya Vimar¿ana about the rarity of Marar‘s excellence: ― The noblest genius worked in Marar to draw and posses all graceful vital forces from the scholarly atmosphere that encompassed him; so that, a man who should have become ancient of the ancients, in practice has become modern of the moderns‖(1998:223).

Sanskrit scholars had expatiated the importance of worldly experience which mould a litterateur. The crux of what Dr Sukumar Azhikkode said is this. Marar‘s works give witness as to how his literary creations become so powerful and ideas are justified, centered on experiences of life. Quite naturally, milieu influences a writer.

165

Marar is no exception. This factor plays a tremendous role in forming criticism self –realizational.

Guptan Nair observes that Kuttikrishna Marar‘s likes and dislikes are very pungent:-―Perhaps, it can be the corollary of burning and souring experiences‖(1983:127). A careful researcher of Mara‘s writings will assure that there is no chaff in the remark of Guptan Nair, his remark is factual. It might be, in order to civilize life and to lead life that Marar engaged in artistic activities. Personal experiences and living atmosphere, of course, as in the case of each and every writer, played a significant role in the formation of his literary philosophy. The motivating force was life itself. We have seen earlierthe factors which made Marar an intrepid critic and an independent thinker. His pupilage to áambhu áarma, a free thinker, intimacy with N¡lap¡¶u N¡raya¸a Menon who was a poet and prose writer, life with Vallathol Nar¡ya¸a Menon etc helped forming his character. Gupthan Nair enabled Marar to carry out this boldness and free thinking. ―If weeding in language is Malayalam style, weeding in literature is Marar‘s literary criticism‖:- (1983:128) writes Gupthan Nair. The greatest contribution of Marar is that he rooted out the lush weeds in criticism bluntly. Marar attempted to

166

challenge, correct and reform the inartistical and illogical penchants in criticism. Gupthan Nair remarks that what made Marar distinct was his style. He did not surrender himself to Sanskrit tradition, nor was he sudued by English language. Without their clutch, he could clarify the self – assumption of Malayalam. The sharpness of criticism has been increased more and more with Marar‘s style.

The foundation stone of Indian aesthetic vision is Rasadhvani. His literary philosophy has been formed out of the serious search for the essential spirit of Rasadhvani. Marar tried to expand his own doctrine with the inner principles of K¡vy¡numiti, R¢ti, Vakrokti and Rasaucitya connecting them to Rasadhvani. To him, they are tools to work out Rasadhvani. So we can say that he was not obsequious to Sanskrit literary tradition and its conservative nature.

167

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

Chapter Six

Conclusion

Kuttikrishna Marar was a lonely traveller in Malayalam criticism. He collected as much literary knowledge as possible and extracted values. It was not just for acquisition of scholarship. He practiced it very boldly in his literary career and made his own pedestal to stand with head up. Marar is a free pragmatist indispensably. Very rich in Sanskrit, he absorbed Western poetics to satisfy the minimum need and amassed deep knowledge in Indian literary thought. Each article is a certificate of the influence of both, more or less.

He found delight in re-examining and reinstalling the generally accepted well-known literary theories. Marar took no work or poet light-heartedly. He seriously dealt whatever mattered. After rumination, he formed literary criteria and made sure they were faultless, and became confident. Confidence and sincerity are tangible in his critiques. He insisted on presenting personal theories as critic with force. Marar earned this individuality from ‗loka¿¡strak¡vy¡dyavekÀa¸am‘

168

The essence of his criticism is rationalism and his own standpoint. He is unique in logical thought, finding the main points of art and in self-dedication to the spirit of a book. Marar esteems his own criteria for evaluation and the related view points. We know persons who vacillate taking change and movement for growth and progress in literature. But Marar is stubborn in his ideas and principles. He is not at all willing to bend and upturn them for convenience and popularity.

Marar was not possessed with orthodoxism though he grew with conventional Sanskrit education. On the contrary, he had enough liberalism. He wrote a destructive criticism on the opinion of his guru, Sambhu Sarma, and drew praise like Bishma. Marar maintained the view that a literary creation should make man a man and culturally uplift him. His awareness on the writers‘ commitment was so adamant. Ancient or modern works, romanticism or realism, whatever it may be, it must aim at the progress of humanity. So he wrote that those who tell that literature is to fill the stomach and for mundane betterment may carry on their business. Marar opposed personal liking and partiality in criticism.

169

Because of his own partial opinion, Marar could not compromise with some works of modern times, especially with the streams in the progressive literary movement. At the same time, he held high the dictum ‗art is life‘. Marar and progressive writers were standing for the same aim. This truth remains well-projected like a relief on a wall. Progressive movement accuses that Marar winks at the worth of local life, a topic for narration. They ridicule Marar that he is a haughty pedant in search of a non-existent eternal value incessantly. Another castigation is that men like Marar who withdraw from localism, temporality and experiences are simply flatterers of immortal value, they are insincere.

But, Marar was in the forefront of critics who had been studying deeply and deliberating on human nature. Again, we can see him in the line of those who believe in the ultimate peace and endeavour to materialize it. He has penned many a time that the duty of writers is to trust in the virtue of man, nurture his goodness and encourage it. Marar reminds writers that they should enable the readers to self- communicate and sublimate their inner urge to enjoy. To engender poetic Rasa in the reader, it must be done. Marar believed that the

170

measurability of a poet is not the number of poems he has composed but the worthy of its content.

Marar was the voice of an era who left a lasting individual impression on Malayalam literature, whose deep knowledge equally in Sanskrit and Malayalam was accepted. He transformed criticism into a creative activity and made himself a milestone in the history of criticism. The study of literary history will lead us to the revelation of certain facts. Upto the time of Marar, criticism was an imitation of the old traditional mode. He constructed a new method, independent of ancient legacy, in which reason, practicality and utility play an eminent part. That is why Marar is an evergreen critic.

Kuttikrishna Marar did not become a part of any theory. He was in close contact with Sanskrit literary philosophy and intermingled with it freely. But he was not going devour its doctrines. Instead, he tried to evaluate them critically. A superior literary vision is inevitable to do this. Each work of Marar is a clear evidence to the accomplishment. Professor Joseph Mundassery and Dr. Sukumar Azhikkode make clear that critics of renaissance studied deeply about the singular originality of Marar. They upheld his sense of reason.

171

Also, they could trace out the new tendencies in language and aesthetic awareness that Marar had brought about.

We have already seen that Kuttikrishna Marar was born into an impecunions family of temple dependents. He drank enough and more bitterness of poverty during his study. In such a circumstance, according to the manner of that time, Marar learned and passed post graduation in Sanskrit. The rise of 20th century saw the beginning of prose and modernity of poetry. Both genre acquired unprecedented momentum. The appearance of the creators of modern Malayalam literature was during this period. When Marar entered in to literary life, the spectrum of a rising new age had already spread.

Marar entered into the sphere of criticism with enough equipments acquired from his teacher Sambhu Sarma, spiritual guide Nalappattu Narayana Menon and Vallattol Narayana Menon so as to install himself in the new rise of Malayalam literature. This can be grasped when we go through the literary background of Marar. We can understand that life experiences have played a great role in forming his literary views.

172

Marar who has created sublime examples of criticizing Sanskrit epics, absorbed epic culture through out his life and in personal life. He enjoyed the light and heat of Sanskrit literature and invoked the spirit of it into his criticism.

Marar is most successful in the interpretation of epic characters. All sixteen chapters of Bh¡rataparya¶ana are interpretation of characters. ‗V¡lm¢kiyu¶e R¡ma‘ (R¡j¡nka¸a), ‗Ciranjj¢vi

Vibh¢Àa¸a‘( Palarum Palatum) etc also bring out the sharpness of the prodigious criticism of the prodigy.

A careful analysis of Marar‘s treatment of characters in

Bh¡rataparya¶ana will help us to find out the deep roots of his criticism. The achievement of Marar lies in the fact that he could display epic characters as ordinary men and women who were hitherto considered as the symbols of vice and virtue and image of divinity and demonic cruelty, ruling the Keralite cultural sphere. He enunciated that they are not the the reserved idols of any particular religion, cult or sect but individuals who demand special attention and study by the appreciators.

173

Many men how pleaded that logicality has no place in literary appreciations. But Marar‘s works completely refute their argument.

The warp and woof of the ideas he expressed is forged in the mould of logical thought. But his argument has not deteriorated in to pleading for pleading‘s sake. This novel excellence made different paths of the appreciation of literary works. His works gained an unearthly charisma that compelled his rivals who opposed bluntly and otherwise to read his works deeply. What Sukumar Azhikkode comments on is valid word by word ― Marar is the topmost in Malayalam prose style which has been slowly growing up like branches of a tree through the past decades‖. As in ideas so in style he is quite alone. English is said to be the maximum developed language. Innumerable writers have enriched English. But we can not find so many English writers with as much descriptional cleverness as Marar. To have sublime style, the mind must have correct and arranged layers of ideas. The rarity of ideas helped him form his style. He thought over the ideas very seriously and a dictional style of his own took birth. Sukumar Azhikkode retells about the uniqueness of Marar‘s criticism.

―Fortunately, the curse of wedging independent works of individuality into the recess of techniquality has not affected‖. The

174

cause of the rarity of Marar‘s criticism is not his scholarship in literature. On the otherhand it is his aesthetic sense and rationale.

The most prominent inspirational centre of Marar‘s criticism is the works of K¡lid¡sa. In comparison with the criticism of other Sanskrit literary productions, Marar‘s creative bias for K¡lid¡sa is conspicuous. He did not approve Sanskrit works that give more importance to rehetorical narrations than Rasadvani that travells from meaning to different meaning. This is the reason why Marar discarded G¢tagovinda of Jayadeva. There is only the repeitition of emotional words in G¢tagovinda. Here the union of Vibh¡v¡nubh¡v¡dis does not happence. So, Marar argues that G¢tagovinda is not a romantic poem (á¤ng¡ra K¡vya) but a work of perverted romance (á¤ng¡r¡bh¡sa) . At the same time he points out that the narration of á¤ng¡ra in Kum¡rasaÆbhava by K¡lid¡sa and its propriety of Rasa (Rasaucityam) is a fine examples of its kind.

Marar‘s criticism of G¢tagovinda proceeds on the level of meaning. The importance of G¡nadhvani we experience from AÀ¶apadi by Jayadeva is set aside by Marar- or he does not search itseriously. The Beng¡li VaiÀ¸ava poetic culture considered love and

175

devotion as the two sides of the same coin- Rasa –they are the different forms of Rasa. Unfortunately, Marar had not touch with that poetic vision. This may be pointed out as the limitations of criticism. Yet, this study substantiates that the creative prejudice of Marar, the critic, is a search of the meaning of the meaning.

Marar has interpreted and criticized only some of the most popular Sanskrit woks. His method of criticism was to relate contemporaneous milieu and the still and inactive aesthetical concepts. The practical value of aesthetic functions becomes active here. His studies are noteworthy as they employ Rasa, Dhvani, K¡vy¡numiti and Rasaucitya for cultural analysis. We have to recognize the subtle diversity of them from his epic studies. There too Rasa, Dhvani, K¡vy¡numiti and the like become functional. In this industrious task, Marar follows a method of R¢ti¿¡stra so as to read again the ends of epic as the part of socio-cultural and political processes.

Marar did not depend on any particular philosophic foundation to form his scheme of criticism. With untainted brilliance, Marar accomplished his literary target which is impossible for others. For, he

176

utilized different and varied philosophic view points to realize his ideal of criticism. Marar succeeded, and that is his greatness. We have seen many times that he was a lonely traveller. The heavy rain of blame went on pouring down on him. Marar was not at all disappointed. He was not a slave to whatever he studied. Footed on rationalism, his criticism soared up to see new spectacles, as if it were a bird. He had extraordinary adroitness to make his readers accept his arguments. Marar used Malayalam and Sanskrit linguistic heritage with equal ease. He has succeeded very much in finding new layers of meaning. Ancient books represent values. Marar has proved that those values have perennial importance on evaluation. The most remarkable fact is that he expressed his opinions bravely and frankly, began a new pattern of translation by translating K¡lid¡sa‘s works and started feminist criticism.

The most helpful raw material to search into the criticism of Marar is his dedicated mind. Let us take his mind and dive deep into the lines, he has inked, and search. Marar‘s criticism mirrors his mind, his mind mirrors criticism. Of that reason, individuality is the hallmark of his criticism; ‗self-assumption‘ is overmuch. A critic who made criticism a part of his life, a man who stood steadfast in the

177

tempest of opposition like a mighty bastion is not yet born in literary criticism according to the evaluation of Dr. M T Sulekha.

His unpublished books and diary notes have been recovered. They are filled with the sprouts of new thoughts. Usually, we consider simple things happening around are in significant. To Marar, they are serious and meditative. We find that some of his notes have been developed into articles by himself.

Marar encountered the piercing wordy attacks with counter logical arguments which were as sharp as the arrows of Arjuna. He acquired mettle and courage for self progression from the bitter experiences and realities of life which he had to meet invariably. He was a one-man army. So he is a mighty skyscraper in literary criticism.

Findings

1. Kuttikrishna Marar has created an original new path in literary criticism and a novel literary vision. He has practised it on the arena of pragmatism (works) combining with analytical evaluation of values.

178

2. Kuttikrishna Marar possesses extra-ordinary excellence to make others accept his literary views. The equipments for working out this task are logical arguments and reasoning power.

3. It was experience of life that made the man and litterateur in Marar. Ofcourse, áambhu áarma, N¡lapp¡¶¶u N¡r¡ya¸a

Menon, Vallattol N¡r¡ya¸a Menon and the like persons helped him brigten his literary flair. Kuttikrishna Marar‘s work assure

the fact that experiences of life moulded his literary career.

4. The great scholar in Sanskrit, Marar, absorbed Indian poetic thoughts indepth and Western poetics as to fulfil the needs. Each and every article of Marar reveals that both streams of poetics have influenced his perspective of criticism. He held no aversion for Western literature.

5. Deep rumination over literary concepts is inborn with Marar. After deep study and test he comes to the conclusion that a particular theory is flawless. This flawlessness and sincerity can be seen in his works.

6. Reliance on his own standpoints and logicality are the soul of Marar‘s literary criticism. He is insurmountable in reasoning,

179

style of diction, finding the vitality of literature and self- dedication to the essential spirit of literary work .

7. Kuttikrishna Marar held the view that the function of a literary work is to make man a man and uplift him culturally. Moreover, a work should give pleasure and enlightenment to the reader.

8. Kuttikrishna Marar has brought about new tendencies in language and aesthetic concepts. On close examination of his works and his studies on Sanskrit works bring out this fact.

9. He did not side with any stream of literary philosophy or thought. When he interfered with Sanskrit poetics, his works tell, Marar treated it critically.

10. Kuttikrishna Marar, who had produced sublime example of interpretation of Sanskrit works, assimilated epic culture through out life as an individual. He enjoyed the heat and light of Sanskrit culture. Later on, he invoked the spirit of that culture into his critiques.

11. Kuttikrishna Marar, perhaps, is the best pscho-analyst of epic and legendary characters. See, how he untwines the mind of

180

Bh¢Àma, Dh¤tar¡Àtra, Vibh¢Àa¸a and such others. He is the best mind-reader among the Kerala writers.

12. Marar is a belligerent fighter for freedom – personal, literary

or cultural. No work of him is without a reference or indication to the freedom of men. Whatever the work may be, wherever the chance may be, he cannot move forward without a word about freedom, the universally accepted fundamental right of man.

13. Astonishingly, he is a great traveller-not by aeroplane or train – from the Himalayas to Cape Comerin. His

Bh¡rataparya¶ana is number one travalogue in the sense that Marar meets several characters at various places and mentally converse with them. Marar invites we too to travel with him in the Mah¡bh¡rata and to meet with mighty heroes and heroines.

14. The most prominent inspirational centre of Marar‘s criticism

is the works of K¡lid¡sa. In comparison with the criticism of other Sanskrit literary productions, Marar‘s creative bias for

K¡lid¡sa is conspicuous.

181

15. Kuttikrishna Marar started a modern style of translation of the classic of K¡lid¡sa.

182

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES Unpublished Works

Kuttikrishna Marar ‘An articlewithout title.’ ,, ‘Diary Entries (1932 & 1939).‘ ,, ‘Gou·ap¡dadar¿anam.’ ,, ‘Socialism.’ Published Works Kuttikrishna Marar 2007 Abhijµ¡na áakuntalam MararASahithya (Prose Translation(Mal)), Prakasam, Kozhikode. BhajagovindamA(Prose ,, 1961 ,, Translation(Mal)), ,, 2000 Bhagavad Vivek¡nandan, ,, ,, 2009 Bh¡rataparya¶anam, ,, ,, 1942 Bh¡À¡paricayam, ,, ,, 1955 Bh¡À¡v¤tta´´a½, ,, ,, 1988 Carch¡yogam, ,, ,, 1957 Dantagopuram, ,,

183

,, 1992 G¢t¡ parikrama¸am, ,, ,, 1957 H¡syasahityam, ,, ,, 1966 I´´uninna´´olam, ,, ,, 1994 J¢viccirunn¡l, ,, ,, 1999 Kaivilakku, ,, ,, 2010 Kala j¢vitam tanne, ,, 2000 Kum¡rasaÆbhavamA(Prose ,, ,, Translation), ,, 1942 Malay¡½a¿aili, ,, ,, 1930 M¡m£linte m¡ttoli, ,, ,, 1981 M¡r¡ru¶e Kattuka½, ,, 1996 Meghasande¿amA(Prose ,, ,, Translation), ,, 2010 Na½acaritattil£¶e, ,, ,, 1946 Nizhal¡¶¶am, ,, ,, 1992 Palarum Palatum, ,, ,, 1991 Patinaµcupany¡sam, ,, ,, 1999 P£jya P£ja, ,, 2001 RaghuvaÆ¿amA(Prose ,, ,, Translation), ,, 1996 R¡j¡nka¸am, ,, ,, 1998 ÎÀipras¡dam, ,,

184

,, 1991 S¡hityabh£Àa¸am, ,, ,, 1999 S¡hityaparya¶anam, ,, ,, 1999 S¡hityasall¡pam, ,, ,, 1974 S¡hitya¿eÀam, ,, ,, 1999 S¡hityav¢kÀa¸am, ,, ,, 2002 S¡hityavidya, ,, ,, 2007 áara¸¡gati , Part I,II & III, ,, ,, 1968 á¡stravum Sayansum, ,, ,, 1990 Teraµµe¶utta Prabandha´´a½, ,, ,, 1998 U¸¸ikkathaka½, ,, ,, 1949 Vi¿v¡mitran, ,, ,, 1952 V¤tta¿ilpam, ,,

185

SECONDARY SOURCES

Works in Sanskrit

Govinda Marar. P. Panditaratnam (Tr.) 2009, Bh¡rataparya¶anam, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

K¡lid¡sa, 1997, Kum¡rasaÆbhavaÆ Mah¡k¡vyaÆ, Choukhambha Krishnadas Acadamy, Varanasi.

K¡lid¡sa, 1997, RaghuvaÆ¿am Mahakavyam, Choukhambha Krishnadas Akadami,Varanasi.

Kshemaraj Srikrishna Dasa(Ed.), 1990, ár¢madv¡lm¢kir¡m¡ya¸am, Nag Publishers, Delhi.

Neelakanda(Ed.), 1988, ár¢manmah¡bh¡ratam, Nag Publishers, Delhi.

Works in Hindi

Aravindakshan Dr. M. (Tr.), Krishnan Nair Dr. P V (Tr.), 1989, Bh¡rataparya¶anam, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trichur.

Sarma Dr. Ganga Sahaya, 1991, V¡lm¢kir¡maya¸am, Sanskrita Sahitya Prakasam, New Delhi.

186

Works in English

Arnold Mathew, 1986, Essays in Criticism, Unique Publications.

Dutt M N(Ed.), 2004, R¡m¡ya¸a of V¡lm¢ki, Parimal Publication, Delhi.

Mani Vettom, 1979, Pur¡¸ic Encyclopedia, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Ltd, Delhi.

Menon P V (Tr.), Achuthan P V(Ed.), 1989, A journey through the Mah¡bh¡rata, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trichur.

Sharma Prof. R K, 1995, Modern Evaluation of the Mah¡bh¡rata, Nag Publishers, Delhi.

Suttom Nicholas, 2000, Religious Doctrines in the Mah¡bh¡rata, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Ltd, Delhi.

Thaper Romila, 1999, áakuntal¡: Texts, Readings, Histories, Kali for Women, New Delhi.

Winternitz M, 1977, History of Indian Literature, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Ltd., Delhi.

187

Works in Malayalam

Achuthanunni Chathanathu, 1984, Alank¡ra áastraÆ Malay¡lattil, State Institute of Language, Thiruvananthapuram.

Appan M P, 1994, A R Mutal M¡r¡r Vare, Department of Cultural Publications, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

Azhikkode Sukumar, 1984, S¡hityaprak¡¿am, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Azhikkode Sukumar, 1986, Khandanavum Mandanavum, Kottayam, D C Books, Kottayam.

Azhikkode Sukumar, 1998, Malay¡½a S¡hitya Vimar¿anam, D C Books, Kottayam.

Balachandran Dr. Indira, 2000, K¡lid¡sa Vaikhari, State Institute of Language, Thiruvananthapuram.

Daniel Dr. Mathew, 2001, Malay¡½a Vimar¿anattinte Soundaryarekhaka½, Current Books, Kottayam.

Gopalakrishnan Prof. K, 1999 Kulapatika½, Vallathol Vidyapeetham, Sukapuram.

188

Govindan Nair V V, 1979, GurudakÀi¸a, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Govindan Nair V V, 1981, M¡r¡ru¶e k£¶e, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikode.

Govindan Nair V V, 1981, Edasseriyum mattum, M¡r¡r Smara¸ika, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikode.

Govindan Nair V V, 2003, S¡hit¢ Saparya, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Guptan Nair S, 1983, Teraµµe¶uttalekhana´´al, Kerala Sahitya Academy, Trissur.

Karasseri M N, 1998, M¡r¡ru¶e KurukÀetraÆ, Vallathol Vidyapeetham, Sukapuram.

Karasseri M N, 1981, Vi¿akalanaÆ, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Krishnan Nair Dr. Chennithala, 2005, Oru Nir£pakante S¡hitya J¢vitam, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Kunjunni Raja K, Menon M S, 2002, Samsk¤ta S¡hitya Caritram, (Vol.I,II) Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trissur.

189

Mathew M Thomas, 2006, L¡va¸y¡nubhavattinte yukti¿ilpam, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trissur.

Mathew M Thomas, 2009, Rudit¡nus¡ri Kavi, Maluben Publication, Thiruvananthapuram.

Mundasseri Joseph, 2004, Mundas¿¿eri K¤tika½, Vol.I, Current Books, Thrissur.

Mundasseri Joseph, 2004, Munda¿¿eri K¤tika½, Vol.II, Current Books, Trissur.

Nair P K (Tr.), 2008, Mah¡bh¡rata Pa¶hana´´a½ of Iravathi Carvey, Mythri Books, Thiruvananthapuram.

Narayana Menon Vallattol, 1929, Koccus¢ta, V T Brothers, Trithala.

Nararyana Pisharoti K P (Tr.), Vijayan Dr. K (Ed.), 1987, Bharatamuniyu¶e N¡tya¿astram Vol.I, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trissur.

Narayanan Potti E K, 1947, S¡hitya Dar¿anam, Sahitya Pravarttaka Co-operative Society Ltd, Kottayam.

Narendra Prasad, 1999, Ente S¡hitya Nir£pa¸a´¸al, D C Books, Kottayam.

190

Nayanar E K, 1998, S¡hityak¡ran Ótu Ceriyil, Cinta Publishers, Tiruvanantapuram.

Neelakandan Bhattathiripadu Adiriyedathu (Tr), 1996, N¡g¡nandam of Sriharshadeva,

Pavanan, Erumeli Parameswaran Pilla (Ed.), 1990, Teraµµe¶utta Prabandha´´a½, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trissur.

Prasannan K, 1990, S¡hitya Vimar¿am of Vidvan C S Nair, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trissur.

Radhakrishnan Dr. P S, 1999, Ku¶¶ik¤À¸am¡r¡ru¶e Soudaryadar¿anam, D C Books, Kottayam.

Radhakrishnan Dr. P S, 2010, Ku¶¶ik¤À¸am¡r¡ru, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi.

Raja Raja Varma A R, 1902, Bh¡Àabh£Àa¸aÆ, D C Books, Kottayam.

Rajendran Dr. C, 2000, Soundarya¿astram, The State Institute of Language, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

Rajendran Dr. C, 2009, Vimar¿anattile R¡jav¢thika½, Vallattol Vidyapeetham, Sukapuram.

191

Ramachandran Dr. Puthussery, 1896, Keralap¡¸in¢yam of A R Raja Raja Varma, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Thrissur.

Ramakrishnan Desamangalam, 1995, K¤tiyum Poru½um, Kerala Bhasha Institute, Tiruvananthapuram.

Sankaran Thayattu, 1990, Teraµµe¶utta Prabandha´´a½, Kerala Sahitya Akademi, Trissur.

Sankunni Nair M P yum Mattum, 1980, M¡r¡rum Malay¡½a S¡hityavuÆ, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Sanu M K, 2005, Vimar¿anattile R¡ja¿ilpi, Marar Sahitya Prakasam, Kozhikkode.

Siddhi Nadananda Swami, 1996, Ëdi Kaviyu¶e Ëdar¿apuruÀan, Sree Ramakrishna Matham, Trissur.

Sulekha M T, 1996, Marar Vimarsanattile Saktigopuram, Margi Publications, Thiruvananthapuram .

Tharakan K M, 1983, Ku¶¶ik¤À¸am¡r¡r: Oru Pa¶hanam, Kerala Writers, Fellowship, Kochi.

Unithiri N V P, 2009, P¡¶havimar¿anam SaÆsk¤tattil, University of Sanskrit, Calicut.

192

Vasudevan Thonnakkal Dr., 2007, Malay¡½a S¡hitya Vimar¿anam, Cinta Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram.

Vedabandhu, 1986, Abhinavaguptante Rasasiddhandam, The State Institute of Language, Thiruvananthapuram.

Magazines

Dayanandan Prof. P K, 2012, Aucitya Vic¡racarccaka½, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol. 62, Issue. 3, P. 17-21.

Geetha, 2013, ‗Ver¸¡kularuka½! K¡¶¶upokkirika½!, M¡t¤bh£mi

Ëzhcapatippu, Vol. 91, Issue. 7, P.40-49.

Hussain Shamshad, 2012, Str¢pakÀa Vimar¿anavum Ëdar¿a Str¢ M¡trkaka½um, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol. 62, Issue. 3, P. 41-43.

Jijµ¡su, 1925, RaghuvaÆ¿attile Dil¢p¡khy¡naÆ, Kairali, Vol.10, Issue.1, P.19-23.

Karunakara Pisharoti K P, 1936, K¡lid¡sante K¡laÆ, M¡t¤bh£mi Ëzhcapatippu, Vol.14, Issue. 34, P. 34.

Keralap¡¸ini áiÀyan, 1926, SaÆsk¤t¡lank¡rikanm¡ru¶e Cila DoÀa´´al, S¡hiti, Vol.3, Issue. 6, P.223-238.

193

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1925, Anum¡nasiddh¡ntam, Kairali, Vol. 9, Issue, P. 419-424.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1036, Ëtmagh¡tiy¡ya Kavi, M¡t¤bh£mi Ëzhcapatippu, July 20, P. 28.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1946, Chandonir£pa¸am, S¡hitya PariÀad Traim¡sikam, Vol.14, Issue. 3, P. 206-215.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1946, Devag¢ta, Mangalodayam, Vol. 21, Issue. 12, P. 543-545.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 2012, Kalaka½u¶e uravi¶aÆ, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol.62, Issue. 3, P. 34-36.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1940, Ka¸akkinu Ko¸¶u!, Vi¿var£pam, Vol.1, Issue. 4, P. 140.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1923, Karkkatakam, 1099 Cinnam, 1099 Kanni, K¡vyattinte J¢van, Samabh¡vini, Vol. 1, Issue 7 to 9.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1945, Ka¶ama, S¡hitya PariÀal Traim¡sika, Vol.13, Issue.4 , P. 310-312.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1951, Ra¸¶u Putiya Pustaka´´a½, S¡hitya PariÀad Dvaim¡sikam, Vol.19, Issue. 34, P. 183-187.

194

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1940, á¡kunta½a- S¡kÀattarjjamayeppatti, Visvar£paÆ, Vol.1, Issue.3, P. 98-100.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1926, Samsk¤t¡lank¡rikanm¡ru¶e Cila DoÀa´´al, Kairali, Vol.11, Issue.1, P. 114-118.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1927, ―Sam: Cila DoÀa´´al‖, S¡hiti, Vol. 8,

Issue. 12, P. 501-515.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1948, Saubh¡gya Dar¿anam, S¡hitya PariÀad Dvaim¡sikam, Vol.16, Issue. 6, P. 140.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1940, T¡r¡¶¶um Marupa¶iyum, Vi¿var£pam, Vol.1, Issue. 3, P. 15.

Kuttikrishna Marar, 1940, Te´´ikkaraccil, Vi¿var£pam,Vol.1, Issue.1, P. 10.

Ku.m¡.r, 1941, S¡hityattil Putiyoru Prasth¡naÆ, Vi¿var£paÆ, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, P. 5-7.

Muralidharan, 2012, Acchan - cila smara¸aka½, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol. 62, Issue 3, P. 37-40.

Narayanan M M, 2012, M¡r¡rum Purogamana S¡hityavum, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol.62, Issue 3, P. 8-16.

195

Rajendran Dr. C, 2012, K¡½id¡sak¤tika½u¶e Paribh¡Àa M¡r¡ru¶e SaÆbh¡vana, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol. 62, Issue 3, P. 22-25.

R¡manezhuttacchan P. Vidv¡n, 1937, Malay¡lattil SaÆsk¤tattinulla Sth¡naÆ, M¡t¤bh£mi Ëzhcapatippu, Vol.14, Issue. 1, P. 5-7.

Shuba K S, 2012, M¡r¡ru¶e K¡½id¡sanum P¡risthitika Str¢v¡davum, Grandh¡lokaÆ, Vol. 62, Issue 3, P. 26-34.

196

APPENDIX

Appendix

Marar’s Manuscripts

197

198

199

200

201