Conclusion to Chapter 2

The foregoing discussion makes it clear that Kuntaka holds Kālidāsa in high steem, even though he is not a blind admirer of him. As a practical literary critic, Kuntaka does not hesitate to indicate the defects in the works of the master poet. Kuntaka’s appreciation and criticism of Kālidāsa are genuine and admirable. He cites large number of verses from the works of Kālidāsa to illustrate tender style and sentential figurativeness. It is notable that Kuntaka uses his five vakratas except phonetic figurativeness for evaluating the works of Kālidāsa. These are the common factors discussed in the selected works of Kālidāsa. The explanation of sentient and non sentient objects, the subject matter of the poet and contextual figurativeness are the other common factor discussed in the works of Kālidāsa except Meghadūta. For evaluating Kālidāsa, Kuntaka uses compositional figurativeness only once for indicating the beauty of the title Abhijñānaśākuntala. Kuntaka’s all other observations on Kālidāsa are found in contextual figurativeness. Contextual figurativeness helps to evaluate the works of Kālidāsa at a comprehensive level.

The proper assessment of a great poet like Kālidāsa is not an easy task. But from the above instances it is clear that Kuntaka had done justice in evaluating him properly. The unique attempt made by a rhetorician like Kuntaka to point out some notable verses will help to bring forth the greatness and also at the same time some small draw backs of the master poet. From the keen evaluation of Kuntaka’s judgement of Kālidāsa, it is clear that the uniqueness of Kuntaka is mainly due to three reasons. One of them is his boldness in criticizing the master poets. Another one is his boldness in breaking the theory of early rhetoricians with apt explanation and the suggestion of new one in its place by replacing the old one. Yet another reason is his propriety in making plausible innovative changes in certain situations.

One of his innovative changes is found in Raghuvaṃśa. For explaining the beauty of tender style, Kuntaka cites a verse beginning with jyābandhaniṣpandabhujena yasya etc. from Raghuvaṃśa. Here Kuntaka has used the word ‘daśānanena’, while Mallinātha and other commentators have used ‘laṅkeśvareṇa’ in this verse. Here the two epithets used for Rāvaṇa are nirjitavāsava and daśānana. The miserable plight of Rāvaṇa is mentioned through two compound words. They are ‘jyābandhaniṣpandabhujena’ and ‘viniḥśvasadvaktraparampareṇa.’ Shanbag in one of his articles^[1] opines that by comparing the two epithets respectively with these two compound words, it is clear that ‘daśānana’ is far better than ‘laṅkeśvareṇa’. Moreover in a single verse of Vikramorvaśīya a word vanānte’ smin is changed by vanoddeśe. Like wise in the verse darpaṇe ca parihogadarśinī…of Kumārasambhava, the word vīkṣya was used instead of prekṣya without hampering the meaning. This reveals that there are some minute variant readings in the verses of the master poets like Kālidāsa in the poetic works. May be the variant readings are the innovation made by either the editor or the author of that particular text. Here it is better to think that Kuntaka has changed the synonym of a word without deviating the meaning of the verse to increase the charm of it.

Kuntaka brings forth yet another poetic excellence of Kālidāsa through the depiction of the hunting episode of Daśratha. Actually there is no reason to support the cruel deed of Daśaratha in his hunting episode. But according to Kālidāsa, it is unfair to depict a king of solar dynasty in a wrong way. Description of this hunting episode is essential, because it leads to the curse episode which is fundamental to the progress of the story. So Kālidāsa with his poetic excellence tries to portray Daśaratha’s qualities using few verses. First of all Kālidāsa depicts Daśaratha’s profound excitement in hunting. Then he depicts king’s concern of living beings like peocock, deer etc. This will help the connoisseurs to think that such a kindhearted man will never deliberately commit such a sin. Then for protecting Daśaratha, the master poet opines that even sometimes due to bad luck good people also go in a wrong way. Thus Kālidāsa very convincingly save the fame of Daśaratha instead of saying that he mistakenly killed a young blind ascetic boy. These make clear that Kālidāsa brilliantly absolves Daśaratha of his sin. Moreover in Raghuvaṃśa Daśaratha says that the curse fallen on him is like a blessing because of his childlessness. This is also one of the beautiful incidents cited by Kuntaka to reveals the poetic excellence of Kālidāsa.

Another notable nature of Kuntaka is that most probably he is the only rhetorician who had shown the boldness to criticize Kāidāsa. Kuntaka points out the impropriety of Kālidāsa by citing two incidents from Raghuvaṃśa and one from Kumārasambhava. In Raghuvaṃśa Kuntaka criticizes Kālidāsa because of the depiction of Rāma’s remembrance of the bad deed of Kaikeyī even after his victory. Another one is Dilīpa’s answer to the lion. In Kumārasambhava, Kuntaka points out the impropriety in the harsh words showered by Cupid towards Indra. These incidents are discussed above. Suppose here Kālidāsa may want to show that sometimes even great personalities have such weakness. But according to Kuntaka a great poet should always be conscious in the depiction of ideal characters. Kuntaka does not tolerate minute faults of the ideal heroes because it will adversely influence the readers. A poet can easily influence the people of a society. A sincere critic should be a good judge. These observations of Kuntaka prove that as a critic he always would like to uphold moral values. At the same time it is clear that the aim of Kuntaka was not to humiliate the master poet through his criticism. The selection of large number of verses from Kālidāsa shows Kuntaka’s acceptance of Kālidāsa. Kuntaka just fulfills his duty as a sincere critic without considering the stature of the poets.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The name of the article is‘Variant Readings of Kālidāsa’s verses in Kuntaka’s Vakroktijīvita.’ It is in the Centenary Commemoration Volume, Vol.XVI. p.22.