3. Raghuvaṃśa in Kuntaka’s treatment

Like other works of Kālidāsa, the Rāmāyaṇa, Purāṇa etc. are the sources of Raghuvaṃśa. It describes the story of solar dynasty and as the name indicates it gave prominence to the king Raghu, the son of Dilīpa. This mahākāvya gives a clear picture of both the good and bad rulers. It is famous that Kālidāsa is a poet of tender style. For proving this Kuntaka deliberately cites four verses as examples for it. He has also cites few verses as an example for the qualities like prasāda (perspicuity), lāvaṇya (grace), aucitya (propriety) etc. Another notable fact is that Kuntaka boldly pointed out the hidden impropriety found in Raghuvaṃśa. This is really a brave attempt from a rhetorician like Kuntaka. No one else had shown such boldness to criticize the master poet like Kālidāsa. Kuntaka has selected forty eight verses from Raghuvaṃśa to substantiate his various arguments. Kuntaka cites examples for his three figurativeness like lexical figurativeness, sentential figurativeness and contextual figurativeness from it. Though he had selected numerous verses from it, he had not made it an example for compositional figurativeness. But Kuntaka’s selection of verses for contextual figurativeness is really valuable. Through contextual figurativeness itself Kuntaka tries to bring forth the essence of Raghuvaṃśa in its maximum level.

1. Instances of contextual figurativeness

Changes in particular context for making the situation more attractive comes under contextual figurativeness. In the first variety of contextual figurativeness, Kuntaka shows the technique used by poets to depict the energetic performance of some characters without revealing their importance and speciality until the middle of a work. Here the poet tries to keep the suspense for a long time and reveals it only at the proper time, such suspense helps to create some curiosity in the mind of readers also. Moreover breaking of the suspense at the proper time by explaining the unbelievable generosity or some other good qualities of an ideal character will definitely delight the readers. Kautsa, a disciple of Varatantu approaches Raghu for seeking the fee for his teacher. But unfortunately at that time Raghu has donated whole of his wealth in a sacrifice named viśvajit.

Knowing this Kautsa says that he will seek his teachers fee elsewhere.

etāvatuktvā pratiyātukāmam śiṣyam maharshernṛpatirniṣidhya/
kim vastu vidvangurave pradeyam tvayā kiyadveti tamanvayuṅkta//^[1]

“But the king prevented the great sage’s disciple, who after saying this was about to depart and said learned sir, what thing do you mean to give to your preceptor and how much of it”^[2]

A few verses after it are instances of this variety of contextual figurativeness. First of all the teacher of Kautsa denied to accept anything from his disciple. Then after getting irritated by the compulsion of Kautsa, the teacher asked fourteen crore gold coins as fee. After hearing the need of Kautsa, Raghu requests him to stay till three or four days in his holy and renowned fire sanctuary though he is conscious of his empty hand. He also admitted that he would make an effort to fulfill the desire of Kautsa. Then he had decided to fight with Kubera, the god of wealth. Knowing this Kubera showered splendid gold to Raghu. Raghu offered all the weath he has got from Kubera without keeping a little in such his pathetic state. Kautsa was hesitated to take more than what he had requested. Thus both Raghu and Kautsa fight each other for proving their sincerity. The people of Ayodhyā had praised the behavior of both of them.

The few lines indicating these facts of fifth canto are considered as the highlight of Raghuvaṃśa. Through this Kālidāsa gradually reveals the generosity of Raghu in a beautiful manner. The conversation between Raghu and Kautsa show the greedless and truthful mind of both of them. That will really attract the mind of readers. Kālidāsa’s poetic skill is explicit through the depiction of Raghu’s ideal nature. Through this he keeps justice to his title. Kuntaka’s skill in selecting few verses from Raghuvaṃśa for showing the contextual beauty is really remarkable.

Sometimes the poet may be forced to explain same factors like the raising of the sun, moon, etc. repeatedly. In such a situation, a brilliant poet uses new sentiments and figures of speech for differentiating each one and this comes under a variety of contextual figurativeness. Similarly the poets were forced to explain same sentiments like pathetic etc. again and again in different places. So they should provide a new touch of creative originality. It is easy to say that Daśaratha killed the son of an old and blind sage in his hunting excursion. For avoiding such impropriety, Kālidāsa starts to explain the delicate nature of Daśaratha for alleviating his sin.

Here a few beautiful verses cited by Kuntaka for substantiating his arguments are given below:-

vyāghrānabhīrabhimukhotpatitān guhābhyaḥ phullāsanāgraviṭapāniva vāyurugṇān/
śikṣāviśeṣalaghuhastatayā nimeṣāttūṇīcakāra śarapūritavaktrarandhrān//^[3]

“By reason of the activity of hand acquired by long practice the fearless king made the tigers, as they rushed against him out of caves, the quivers (for his arrows) by filling in a moment the hallows of their mouth with arrows, like the fore-branches of the flowering Asana trees broken down by the wind.”

This verse makes it clear that Daśaratha was an expert in hunting. It also shows the Daśaratha’s fearlessness and passion in hunting.

The yet another verse cited by Kuntaka from Raghuvaṃśa is as follows:

api turagasamīpādutpatantam mayūram na sa rucirakalāpam bāṇalakṣīcakāra/
sapadi gatamanaskaśchinnamālyānukīrṇe rativigalitabandhe keśapāśe priyāyāḥ//^[4]

“Having at that moment been put in mind of the braided hair of his beloved queen interspersed with variegated flowers and the knot of which was made loose in amatory sports, the king did not aim his arrow at the peacock though hopping about his horse, and wearig a beautiful plumage.”

Yet another vese says that the archer Daśaratha, who was as mighty as god Indra, having seen the female deer covering the body of her beloved aimed by him, withdrew his arrows though it was drawn near to his ear. He did so because his heart was being obsessed with pity due to his awareness about the value of love. From these two verses it is clear that though Daśaratha was passionate towards hunting, he was highly compassionate towards delicate creatures.

Moreover his intense love towards his wives is also well explicit here.

atha jātu rurorgṛhītavartmā vipine pārśvacarairalakṣyamāṇaḥ/
śramaphenamucā tapasvigāḍhām tamasām prāpa nadīm turaṅgameṇa//^[5]

“Then once upon a time taking the path of a deer in the forest unobserved by his side-walkers, he got to the river Tamasā crowded by ascetics, with his horse foaming through fatigue.”

Daśaratha happened to kill an ascetic boy hearing the sound of drinking water, mistaking it as an animal. This is really unbelievable. The word ‘tapasvigāḍhām’ indicates the calmness and reliability of that particular place. So actually there is no reason to support the cruel deed of Daśaratha in any way. But it is not fair to depict a king of solar dynasty in such a way. Depiction of this particular context is unavoidable too, because it leads to the curse episode which is crucial to the progress of the story.

So the maser poet with his poetic excellence tries to portray Daśaratha’s qualities using the next verse, which is as follows:-

nṛpateḥ pratiṣiddhameva tatkṛtavānpaṅktiratho vilaṅghya yat/
apathe padamarpayanti hi śrutavanto’ pi rajonimīlitāḥ//^[6]

“What Daśaratha did transgressing the rule was indeed strictly forbidden to a king; for even learned men when blinded by passion step into a wrong path”.

Thus Kālidāsa brilliantly explains the evil deed of Daśaratha. Being annoyed by the death of their son, the old parents cursed him that he will also die of sorrow connected to his son. No one will consider a curse as a blessing. But according to Daśaratha it felt like a shower of nectar. He was suffering from childlessness for a long time.

So undoubtedly this curse gave him an expectation of having a child, then he says like this:-

śāpopyadṛṣṭatanayānanapadmaśobhe sānugraho bhagavatā mayi pātito’ yam/
kṛṣyām dahannapi khalu kṣitimindhaneddhaḥ bījaprarohajananīm dahanaḥ karoti//^[7]

“To me who have not yet seen the loveliness of a son’s lotus-like face, even the curse itself inflicted by your divine self is attended with blessing. Indeed fire inflamed by fuel makes the arable soil the producer of shoots from seed, though it burns (the soil).”

Only a master poet can create such a thoughtful concept. It is not proper for an ideal king to do such a crime in his conscious mind. So the poet first of all depicted his deep passion in hunting. Then he depicts the king’s concern for living beings. This will help the readers to think that such a compassionate man will never deliberately commit such a wrong deed. Again the poet supports the king by saying that even sometimes due to bad luck good people go astray. Thus Kālidāsa very convincingly justified Daśaratha instead of barely saying that he had mistakenly killed a blind ascetic boy. By the keen evaluation of the gradual development of these verses, it will be clear that Kālidāsa brilliantly paved the way for alleviating the sin of Daśaratha. But his future life shows that it is difficult to alleviate the consequence of the sin. Citing this beautiful situation once again, Kuntaka succeeded in bringing forth yet another poetic excellence of Kālidāsa.

In yet another variety of contextual figurativeness, Kuntaka shows how the incidents like rising of sun and moon, water sport etc., the integral parts of a mahākāvya create charm to the plot.

Here Kuntaka cites the water sport of Kuśa from Raghuvaṃśa as an example to it.

athāsya ratnagrathitottarīyamekāntapāṇḍustanalambihāram/
niśvāsahāryaṃśukamājagāma gharmmaḥpriyāveṣamivopadeṣṭum//^[8]

“Then come (set in) the hot season, as it were, to give his beloveds instructions in point of dress in which the upper garment was intervowen with jewels, garlands were pendant on capable of being blown away even by the breath.”

athormmilolonmādarājahaṃse rodholatāpuṣpavahe sarayvāḥ/
viharttumicchā vanitāsakhasya tasyāmbhasi grīṣmasukhe babhūva//^[9]

“Once he took a fancy to sport with young women in the water of the Sarayū, which was pleasant in the hot season, which carried with it flowers of the creepers on its banks and which had intoxicated swans anxious to swim in its waves.”

Before explaining the water sport, through these verses Kālidāsa denotes the arrival of summer season which naturally indicates the need of the water sport. Kuśa is completely indulgent in the enjoyment of his water sport with beautiful damsels. So he came to know about the loss of his armlet only at the end of it. As Kuśa is very fond of his armlet, he has made a thorough enquiry about it. From a fisherman Kuśa came to know that it is taken by Kumuda, the serpent king living in the nether world.

Then for the protection of his life Kumuda says these words to Kuśa, when he took his bow towards him with the arrow of great eagle for the search of his armlet. Kumuda says that he knows that Kuśa is the son image of Viṣṇu and his birth as a human incarnation on earth is for fulfilling one of his duties. So Kumuda does not wish to create any displeasure to Kuśa. He also adds that his younger sister Kumudvatī looking upward for the ball that she had knocked with her hand, while she saw an armlet falling from above like a star from the firmament and took it with great inquisitiveness. Kumuda says to Kuśa that the armlet which has a mark of wound by the scratch of bowstring and also the bolt for the protection of earth will surely reunite with his hand. He further requests Kuśa to accept Kumudvatī as a companion of him so that she can dedicate herself for a long time to the service of his feet. After their marriage they beget a child like the knowledge attaining clarity in the early morning. Here the gradual development of summer season, water sport, the union of Kuśa and Kumudvatī and the birth of Atithi show how a small incident lead to the main theme of the plot.

Here all incidents selected for the variety of contextual figurativeness are highly significant. Depiction of genorosity of Raghu, the effort taken to alleviate the sin of Daśaratha, connection of the small incident of water sport of Kuśa to the main plot etc. are some of the soul elements of Raghuvaṃśa. Thus Kuntaka had done a great job to lead readers attention towards the essence of Raghuvaṃśa through his Vakroktijīvita. At the same time it is a duty of a critic to bring forth the impropriety hidden in the compositions. Complete evaluation of text and sharp acumen helps a critic to full fill his duty sincerely. Kuntaka’s unravel of appreciable and minute improprieties found in Raghuvaṃśa are given below.

2. Kuntaka’s criticism of Raghuvaṃśa

Kuntaka cites the following verses to show how the impropriety found in a single sentence becomes irritating to the connoisseurs. Though other rhetoricians cite verses from Kālidāsa it is sure that nobody tries to evaluate him in such a minute way. A sensitive reader with sharp intellect can assess a widely acceptable master poet without humiliating him.

Nobody can blame Kuntaka for his bold attempt, because Kuntaka’s keen observation of Kālidāsa is really appreciable.

puram niṣādādhipatestadetadyasmin mayā maulimaṇim vihāya/
jaṭāsu baddhāsvarudat sumantraḥ kaikeyi kāmāḥ phalitāstaveti//^[10]

“Here is the town of the Niṣadās in which when I tied my matted hair having first put aside the crown, Sumatra began to weep exclaiming, O Kaikeyi, you desires have been completely fulfilled”.

Here Kuntaka says that it is not proper for an ideal king like Rāma to remember such an incident. It is well known that Rāma is considered as a man of forgiveness and compassion. If Rāma recollects the cruel deeds of Kaikeyī even after overcoming all the adversities, it will surely diminish the value of Rāma. This reveals Kuntaka’s keen acumen on literary analysis. Very few rhetoricians have attempted to criticize the master poet. Kuntaka definitely deserves appreciation for such bold attempt and beautiful observation.

Kuntaka again points out other faults found in Kālidāsa’s works. Another verse cited by him also helped to show, how the inappropriateness found in a part will affect a work as a whole. In Raghuvaṃśa a king named Dilīpa and his wife Sudakṣiṇā were in grief of not having a child. Sage Vasiṣṭha advised them to look after a cow named Nandinī. He advised so because the reason of their childlessness was a result of the king’s failure to give due respect to the mother of Nandinī. One day Nandinī decided to examine the King. Soon there appeared a lion which started to attack the cow. For keeping his vow Dilīpa offered himself instead of the cow.

Then astounding Dilīpa, the lion asked him in human voice:-

athaikadhenoraparādhacaṇḍād guroḥ kṛśānupratimād bibheṣi/
śakyo’ sya manyurbhavatāpinetum gāḥ koṭiśaḥśparśayatā ghaṭodhnīḥ//^[11]

“But if you fear to meet the great displeasure of your singlecowed preceptor, who is the very image of fire, it is in your power to allay his anger by presenting him crores of cows, whose udders are as big as pitchers of water (i.e having ample and full udders).”

Here the words of lion are not astounding, because he just wants to tease the king. The king is even ready to bestow his own life for keeping his promise.

The impropriety pointed out by Kuntaka is in the answer of the king to this question and the verse is as follows:-

katham nu śakyānunayo maharṣir viśrāṇanādanyapayasvinīnām/
imāmanūnām surabheravehi rudraujasā tu prahṛtam tvayāsyām//^[12]

“And again how is it possible to avert the wrath of thegreat sage by offering othr cows? Know that this cow is in no way inferior to Surabhi, and it is only through the influence of the god Rudra that you have been able to attack her.”

According to Kuntaka, the words of Dilīpa are highly improper. This verse means that the king Dilīpa and his master are ready to give the life of this cow if other cows existed having same qualities. Kuntaka criticizes this description of Kālidāsa by saying that impropriety of a small thing will also affect a work as a whole like a cloth which becomes completely spoilt though burnt only at one end.

Such beautiful observations of Kuntaka will really inspire the readers to reread the texts and think about the minute impropreities of Kālidāsa. The bold and beautiful observation of Kuntaka is highly praiseworthy. It reveals that even the works of great personalities are completely free of poetic blemishes. So through his minute critical assessment Kuntaka reminds the poets to take utmost care in their compositions. Some other individual verses cited from Raghuvaṃśa in certain situations are given below.

3. Instance given for ‘arthaḥ’

Kuntaka cites the following veres from Raghuvaṃśa to substantiate the importance of ‘arthaḥ’ mentioned in his definition of poetry.

In the definition of poetry given by Kuntaka the word ‘arthaḥ’ denotes that the things with its own refreshing beauty should delight the readers.

tāmabhyagacchadrutitānusārī muniḥ kuśedhmāharaṇāya yātaḥ/
niṣādaviddhāṇḍajadarśanothaḥ ślokatvamāpadyata yasya śokaḥ//^[13]

“The poet who had gone out to collect Kuśa and holey fuel, and whose outburst of the feeling of grief caused at the sight of a bird struck by a fowler, took the form of a verse, went towards her following the direction of the sound of weeping.”

Here it is Vālmīki who ultimately finds Sītā in the forest. Kālidāsa depicts the affectionate heart of the sage by referring to the killing of a bird among two, the incident which led him to the composition of the verse mā niṣāda and consequents of the composition of Rāmāyaṇa. In this way the poet beautifully brings forth the melting heart of the sage, who had seen Sītā in such a pathetic plight. Thus instead of using a mere noun, the tenderness depicted by the poet in the sage will doubtlessly be relished by the readers by the endorsement of the sentiment of pathos. Such an attempt of the poet is really appreciable.

4. Example of sentential figurativeness

Sentence is a group of words including avyaya, kāraka etc. The assessment of an entire verse is possible at the sentential level. This is a step higher to phonetic and lexical figurativeness. Kuntaka includes the whole variety of figures of speech in it.

Through this verse, poet brings forth the pathos of Sītā in an artistic manner without expressing directly.

upasthitām pūrvamapāsya lakṣmīm vanam mayā sārdhamasi prapannaḥ/
tvāmāśrayam prāpya tayā nu kopāt soḍhāsmi na tvadbhavane vasantī//^[14]

“Because on a former occasion when you went to the forest with me, you discarded the goddess of royal glory that came over to you, therefore now that I have got a place in your house, she out of great malice does not suffer me to dwell there.”

These are the messages sent by Sītā to her husband with a heart full of sorrow, when she has been abandoned by Rāma after attaining his throne back. Sītā says that she cannot imagine that a man like Rāma, who once decided to go to the forest along with her rejecting the goddess of wealth, can commit such a bad deed even in dream. Here the poet portrays Sītā and the goddess of wealth as co-wives. So obviously as a revenge arising out of the natural jealousy among the co-wives, the goddess of wealth could not bear the presenceof Sītā in Rāma’s home. Here Sītā actually would like to ask Rāma that even after keeping her along with him in bad times, the present rejection without due reason in his prosperous times is proper or not. The poetic charm hidden in this verse is really appreciable.

5. Tender style

Kuntaka cites yet another verse as an example of tender style. At the time of defining the tender style Kuntaka says that:-

sukumārābhidhaḥ so’ yam yena satkavayo gatāḥ/
mārgeṇotphullakusumakānaneva ṣaṭpadāḥ//^[15]

“Such is the style called ‘the elegant’ (tender) which master-poets follow like bees roving along the grove of full-blown blossoms.”

Through this Kuntaka means that the poets like Kālidāsa followed this style to create their masterpieces. By comparing this style to the forest full of bloom, he attributes the natural loveliness of flowers to this style. Obviously the bees must attract the lovely flowers. Through this Kuntaka indicates the immense desire of the poets to take out the essence of the speech like the bees seeking honey from the flowers.

He also says about the tender style that:-

yat kiñcanāpi vaicitryam tatsarvam pratibhodbhavam/
saukumāryaparispandasyandi yatra virājate//^[16]

“Wherein every element of beauty is a result of the poet’s imagination alone and succeeds in conveying flashes of gentle race.”

The instance taken for it is as follows:-

pravṛddhatāpo divaso’ timātramatyarthameva kṣanadā ca tanvī/
ubhau virodhakriyayā vibhinnau jāyāpatī sānuśayāvivāstām//^[17]

“The day with its heat excessively increased and the night excessively atenuted, both looked like husband and wife estranged by contray behavior consequent upon their love-quarrel and afterwards filled with remorse.”

This verse is one of the beautiful examples to point out the poet’s accidental use of figures of speech like śleṣa (paronomasia). Here the words like ‘pravṛddhatāpaḥ’ and ‘tanvī’ directly produce only the meaning of the charming nature of the day and night respectively and nothing else. But through the poetic excellence, there is also another meaning within it. Those meanings should attract the connoisseurs and deserve the appreciation of the critics. The words like ‘virodhaḥ’ and‘vibhinnau’ are the words, which bring another meaning in it. Here the word ‘virodhaḥ’ signifies the absence of the co-existence of the day and the night. The word ‘vibhinnau’ indicates the different nature of the day and night. On the other hand, in the case of simile the jealous quarrel between the husband and wife is ‘virodhaḥ’ and their staying away from each other due to anger denotes through the word ‘vibhinnau’. Moreover the words like ‘atimātram’ and ‘atyartham’ denote the intensity of the emotions in both the cases. It is always difficult to create the charm of paronomasia but here Kālidāsa has deliberately produced the charm.

In general the beauty of sukumāra mārga (tender style) is due to the creative imagination of the poet and not any deliberate artificial incorporation of charms.

The beauty of it will attract the mind of sensitive readers. The second definition given for tender style by Kuntaka is as follows:-

bhāvasvabhāvaprādhānyanyakkṛtāhāryakauśalaḥ/
rasādiparamārthajñamanaḥsamvādasundaraḥ//^[18]

“Where studious technical skill is superseded by the prominence given to the inner nature of things, where beauty is felt due to sympathy by men of taste who are experts in enjoying sentiments etc.”^[19]

The examples chosen for each line of this definition are respectively given below:-

tasya stanapraṇayibhirmuhureṇaśāvairvyāhanyamānahariṇīgamanam purastāt/
āvirbabhūvakuśagarbhamukham mṛgāṇām yūtham tadagrasaragarvitakṛṣṇasāram//^[20]

“Before him appeared a herd of deer the motion of hinds in which was now and then impeded by the fawns eager to suck their udders, with mouths having Kuśa-grass in them, and at the head of which was a proud black-antelope.”

In this verse Kālidāsa has depicted the natural traits of the herds of deer. The verse represents a life-like picture before the readers. For retaining the natural charm of this verse the poet has deliberately avoided the incorporation of figure of speech and other artificial adornments.

Yet another verse is as follows:-

pūrvānubhūtam smaratā ca rātrau kampottaram bhīru tavopagūḍham/
guhāvisārīṇyativāhitāni mayā kathañcid ghanagarjitāni//^[21]

“And where, O timid lady, remembering your embraces accompanied by with tremor (i.e remembering how you rushed in my arms being terrified by the thundering), which I had enjoyed before, with great difficulty did I pass (with complacency) the roar of clouds that rolled in the caves of the mountain.”

These are the words of Rāma towards Sītā. Through the second line of the definition of tender style, Kuntaka means that the tender style should delight the minds of those who are proficient in enjoying the sentiments etc. Kuntaka includes the erotic too among the sentiments. The readers, who knew the highest secret of erotic sentiment, relish the aesthetic beauty of the verses taking it as their own experiences. Here Kuntaka also points out that all the verses representing the conversation of Rāma to Sītā at the time of their return after killing Rāvaṇa can be cited as the examples of tender style, as the verses depict have the deep sufferings of Rāma, which he had experienced before during the separation from Sītā.

6. Examples for Qualities

Kuntaka cites yet another verse as an example for the quality named perspicuity (prasāda) of the tender style.

The definition given for it and the example cited are respectively given below:-

akleśavyañjitākūtam jhagityarthasamarpaṇam/
rasavakroktiviṣayam yatprasādaḥ sa kathyate//^[22]

“The excellence called ‘perspicuity’ is that which brings out the poet’s intent without any effort on the reader’s part, which conveys the meaning in an instant as it were, and which is concerned with sentiments and artful speech.”^[23]

Here Kuntaka means that there should be no difficulty to understand the meaning of a verse by its first reading. Especially there should be no strain in the case of sentiments like love etc. and also in figures of speech. In general, in prasāda, the words should be uncompounded which would give meanings directly. If there is any compound word in it, that should be easily intelligible too.

Here the word ‘ākūtam’ means beauty.

anena sārdham viharāmburāśestīreṣu tāḍīvanamarmareṣu/
dvīpāntarānītalavaṅgapuṣpairapākṛtasvedalavā marudbhiḥ//^[24]

Sunandā tells these words to Indumatī during her svayamvara.

‘Get pleasure with him on the seashore, where the palm groves whisper and also where the drops of sweat are wiped out by the breeze that brings the scent of clove flowers from the far off islands.’

Kuntaka presents the above verse as one of the best examples for perspicuity of the tender style. It is also clear from this verse that the inexplicable beauty of her face due to various painted designs increases by the pearl like sweats drops of her. There is some confusion regarding the poetic qualities mentioned by Kuntaka. Some of the traits found in one quality is said to be found in another quality too. Thus the line of demarcation of qualities is seen to overlap over each other. For instance, the use of uncompounded words is a feature of both perspicuity and sweetness in the tender style. Whatever it is, the beauty of the selected verse is really marvelous.

Kuntaka takes another verse from Raghuvaṃśa to illustrate the quality named grace (lāvaṇya) of tender style. He defines grace of tender style as:-

varṇavinyāsavicchittipadasandhānasampadā/
svalpayā bandhasaundaryam lāvaṇyamabhidhīyate//^[25]

“When even a little beauty in respect of alliterative syllables and in the choice of diction results in the charm of syntax and contributes to the strikingness of style, we have the excellence called grace”.^[26]

The significance of lāvaṇya is the beauty of the construction of sentence, which is denoted through the word ‘bandha’ in the definition. It means that there should be beautiful arrangements of syllables and words of both nouns and verbs. Their arrangements should seem to be natural and not a deliberate or forceful creation of the poet. In general, lāvaṇya represents excellent sentence construction with the tenderness of sound and sense.

Kuntaka cites the following verse as its example:-

snānārdramukteṣvanudhūpavāsam vinyastasāyantanamallikeṣu/
kāmo vasantātyayamandavīryaḥ keśeṣu lebhe balamaṅganānām//^[27]

“The God of love whose strength was diminished owing to the departure of Vasanta (the spring) again acquired it in the hair of young ladies, which were unbraided on account of their being wet by bathing and in which evening-jasmine-flowers were woven after making them (i.e hair) perfumed.”

This verse does not have any complex word or meaning.

Undoubtedly this verse creates the impression of tenderness to the ears of the listeners without any complexity. The meaning of the verse is really attractive. It is clear that the Cupid becomes active in spring season and later he becomes inactive. So the poet beautifully says that after the spring season the Cupid has got strength in the hairs of damsels decorated with jasmine and so on. Here the poet means that the decorated hairs of damsels are as beautiful as the spring season.

Kuntaka cites yet another verse from Raghuvaṃśa also as an example of lāvaṇya of the tender style.

These are the words of Sunandā towards Indumatī about king Aja at the time of Indumati’s marriage ceremony.

mahendramāsthāya mahokṣarūpam yaḥ samyati prāptapinākilīlaḥ/
cakāra bāṇairasurāṅganānām gaṇḍasthalīḥ proṣitapatralekhāḥ//^[28]

“Playing the Pinākin in battle by mounting upon the great Indra in the form of a great bull, he by means of his arrows rendered the cheeks of the Asura females, devoid of amorous paintings.”

Here Kuntaka cites only the second line of this verse as an example to it. The beautiful arrangements of syllables and words and the accidental composition of the poet etc. make this verse an apt example for lāvaṇya.

After citing few examples for lāvaṇya of the tender style, Kuntaka quotes another verse from Raghuvaṃśa as an example of the quality named propriety (aucitya). One of the definitions given for propriety is that wherein the primary meaning is concealed by the excessive charming nature of the speaker or the listener.

This verse is an example for the concealment of primary meaning by the speaker.

śarīramātreṇa narendra tiṣṭhannābhāsi tīrthapratipāditarddhiḥ/
āraṇyakopāttaphalaprasūtiḥ stambhena nīvāra ivāvaśiṣṭaḥ//^[29]

“Standing in body only, with your wealth given away to worthy recepients, you shine forth, Oh lord of people, like a nīvāra plant, its produce of crops appropriated by foresters, left within its stem.”

These are the words of Kautsa, a disciple of a sage named Varatantu after knowing Raghu’s gift of his entire wealth in a sacrifice named Viśvajit. Here Kautsa compares the king with nīvāra plant. This strengthens the appropriateness of the situation. The generosity of the king is the primary meaning of this verse which is clouded by the beauty of the simile. Thus by concealing the primary meaning by extremely beautiful temperament of the speaker, it becomes an apt example of propriety. The qualities like propriety and spendour mentioned by Kuntaka are common to the three styles. Both of them are highly infused in the word, sentence, and the work as a whole.

7. Examples cited for lexical figurativeness

Then Kuntaka cites two verses as an example of the first variety of lexical figurativeness named ‘art in beautifying conventional sense’ (rūḍhi). This variety says that “When common denotation of words is seen to expand to include connotation of even impossible attributes imagined by the poet, or to include a hyperbolic excess of even an existing attribute as result of the poet’s intent to shower extraordinary belittlement or extraordinary glorification of the theme, we get what is called ‘art in beautifying conventional sense’.

Kuntaka says that it is of various kinds due to the diversity of suggested attributes and cites the below mentioned verse as one of the example to it.

gurvartthamartthī śrutapāradṛśvā rakhoḥ sakāśādanavāpya kāmam/
gato vadānyāntaramityayam me mā bhūt parīvādanavāvatāraḥ//^[30]

“Asking wealth for his preceptor, a certain suitor who had sen the other ends of learning went to another doner not obtaining his object of wish from Raghu. Let there not be this new (first) rise of a reproach about me.”

These are the words of Raghu, who gifted his whole wealth in his sacrifice named viśvajit, for the disciple of Varatantu named Kautsa. He says that here the word ‘Raghu’ denotes the generosity and virtues of valour in its extreme level in the three worlds. It is not to think that the words denoting the name have only some specific meanings. It can convey various special and significant meaning as intended by the poet like the analogy of melody and note in music. After discussing ‘art in beautifying conventional sense’ Kuntaka cites two verses as an example of the second variety of lexical figurativeness named figurativeness related to synonym.

One of it is as follows:-

bhūtānukampā tava cediyam gaurekā bhavet svastimatī tvadante/
jīvan punaḥ śaśvadupaplavebhyaḥ prajāḥ prajānātha piteva pāsi//^[31]

“If your compassion for living beings should prevail, only this single cow would live happily after you die. If, on the other hand, you should live, O Lord of people, you wold ever rescue the people like a father from their distresses.”

Lion tells these words to king Dilīpa, who requests to accept himself instead of the cow named Nandinī. Giving up of life due to the compassion of this single cow is improper. The people may consider Dilīpa as a ridiculous one. But if he is alive, he can protect all the people of this universe from danger at any time. The word ‘piteva’ strengthens the pitiable position of the king if he had committed self sacrifice. Apart from this primary meaning, there is also a suggestive sense. It is indispensable that the lord of the people should never deviate from his duties.Here the poet uses the word ‘prajānātha’ to denote that the king was being reluctant from his duties. The intended suggestive sense mentioned here is that it is sure that if Dilīpa is reluctant to protect the single cow from a weaponless lion then he cannot protect the people of this earth.

In this verse the synonym used by the poet likes‘prajānātha’ and the simile ‘piteva’ convey some meanings, which is impossible to be explained through any other words. According to this variety of ‘figurativeness related to synonym’ (paryāyavakratā) the meaning has an unexplainable element in it. In this verse, Kuntaka beautifully depicts the suggested meaning hidden in it. These synonyms indicate the responsibility of Dilīpa towards his people, both as a strict ruler and affectionate father. This verse reminds that the duty of a king is to protect the whole people of his country, not to die by protecting a single creature. Kuntaka’s keen acumen makes him stand a step ahead of the other rhetoricians.

Two other verses are also cited to discuss the figurativeness related to gender (liṅgavakratā). According to this variety the poet selects one particular gender on the basis of the idea that is to be conveyed for enhancing its beauty.

Through these verses Rāma expresses his grief that he had faced when Sītā had been taken away by the demon Rāvaṇa.

tvam rakṣasā bhīru yato’ panītā tam mārgametāḥ kṛpayā latā me/
adarśayan vaktumaśaknuvantyaḥ śākhābhirāvarjitapallavābhiḥ//^[32]

“O timid one, when you were kidnapped by the demon (and I was looking for you), the way (by which you were taken away) was kindly pointed to me by these creepers here; though unable to speak, they stretched out their branches with the leaves bent down significantly.”

Here the poet means that though the plants are unable to talk as they pointed out the way by stretching down the branches with their tender leaves. The direct meaning of the first verse is that the creepers were crushed down due to the hurried steps of Rāvaṇa at the time of forcible abduction of Sītā, which helps to the guess the way where Rāvaṇa has taken her. But the excellence of the poet makes a verse more attractive. Here Kālidāsa says that it seems that due to their special consideration towards females, the creepers were showing the way by stretching down their branches. The poet expressed so because the creepers cannot speak anything due to their inanimate nature. So they did it in the way the dump people show something by raising their tender hands.

The main attraction here is the poet’s deliberate use of the feminine word ‘latā’ to catch the attention of connoisseur.

mṛgyaśca darbhāṅkuranirvyapekṣāstavāgatijñam samabhodayanmām/
vyāpārayantyo diśi dakṣiṇasyāmutpakṣmarājinī vilocanāni//^[33]

“The female deer also, givng up their interest for the blades of wild grass, directed me better as I was still not sure of he way you had gone. They turned their eyes, with upraised eyelashes, towards the south.”

Through this verse the master poet proved his poetic skill by taking a step further. There he says about the glance of female deers as it is showing the way of Rāvaṇa. Kuntaka cites both these verses for the same instance, among them second one is more reliable. Here an animated deer is showing the way which was not perfectly mentioned by inanimate creepers because they have more consciousness than the creepers. The deers had shown the way by giving up their interest in the food of wild grassand also by looking towards the northern direction. The poet again deliberately used the feminine gender ‘mṛgyaśca’ to strengthen the poetic charm and to delight the readers. Here poet expresses these ideas charmingly with the help of the indirect poetic fancy. The use of feminine gender in both cases is highly aesthetic though the words related to trees and animals can use in any gender. From these it is clear that Kuntaka has cited large number of verses from Raghuvaṃśa among the works he has chosen. His attempt to assess this text is admirable.

Thus it is clear that not only contextual figuraiveness, through which evaluation of entire work is possible but also the explanation of single verses cited from Raghuvaṃśa is stunning. Critics can never point out all the beauty and drawbacks of the compositions. They indicate some of the beautiful instances and the rest should be delineated by the readers themselves. One of the beautiful innovations made by Kālidāsa from Rāmāyaṇa is in the thirteenth canto of Raghuvaṃśa. On the way back to Ayodhyā after rescuing Sītā from Laṅkā, Rāma explains to her about some events and the places they had spent at the time of their exile. Kuntaka cites one verse fro there puram niṣādādhipate this as one of the variety of contextual figuativeness. According to Kuntaka modification or innovations from the original source come under the variety of contextual figurativeness.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Pt.Ramachandra Jha(Ed.). Raghuvaṃśamahākāvyam of Mahakavikalidas, p.201.

[2]:

Gopal Raghunath Nandargikar (Ed.). The Raghuvaṃśa of Kālidāsa, p.130. In this chapter all the translation of the verses of Raghuvaṃśa are taken from it.

[3]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.260.

[4]:

idem.

[5]:

ibid,p.261..

[6]:

idem.

[7]:

ibid,p.262.

[8]:

ibid,p.264.

[9]:

ibid,p.263.

[10]:

ibid,p.71.

[11]:

idem.

[12]:

idem.

[13]:

ibid,p.17.

[14]:

ibid,p.36.

[15]:

ibid,p.43..

[16]:

idem.

[17]:

ibid,p.44.

[18]:

ibid,p.43.

[19]:

ibid,p.329.

[20]:

ibid,p.46.

[21]:

ibid,pp.46-47.

[22]:

ibid,p.48.

[23]:

ibid,p.334.

[24]:

ibid,p.49.

[25]:

idem.

[26]:

ibid,p.335.

[27]:

ibid,p.50..

[28]:

idem.

[29]:

ibid,p.68.

[30]:

ibid,p.85.

[31]:

ibid,p.91.

[32]:

ibid,p.107.

[33]:

ibid,p.108.