A Note on Venkatanatha’s “Hamsa Sandesha”

Dr H. S. VISWESWARIAH

Although Venkatanatha’s “Hamsa Sandesha” ranks among the world’s really great Sandesha Kavyas, it is very unfortunate that it hasn’t received the critical attention it deserves. Critics have been naturally enamoured more of Kalidasa’s “Megha Sandesha” rather than Venkatanatha’s work of art. In this article I propose to identify one or two salient features of this unique work to demonstrate the superiority of the latter over the former.

To begin with, “Hamsa Sandesha” belongs to a species of literature called Sandesha Kavyas. These were very popular over a considerable period in the history of Sanskrit literature. The popularity of this genre seems to have reached its zenith during the 14th century. It is not at all difficult to trace the origins of this species of literary form. Perhaps Srirama’s love-message to Sita through the divine Hanuman (pre-supposing Ramayana to Sita preceded Mahabharata)in Valmiki’s Ramayana is the prototype of all the later Sandesha Kavyas. The story is embodied in the Ramayana. The story of Nala and Damayanti in the Mahabharataalso seems to have been built on the foundations of the eternal Rama-Sita episode.

Of course, the earliest independent full length Sandesha Kavyas known to us is Mahakavi Kalidasa’s “Megha Sandesha”. It is commonly said that the others are poor imitations of Meghaduta. As I have pointed out already, this genre became very popular during the Middle Ages. It is therefore no wonder that Venkatanatha chose the primordial Ramayana story for artistic treatment. There is little to doubt that he had Kalidasa’s Meghadutafor a model. It is also certain that Venkatanatha, the author of the distinguished Sandesha Kavya, was fully aware of the Nala Damayanti story.

It would appear that Venkatanatha wanted to borrow the best out of both the stories and forge an entirely new and strikingly interesting Sandesha Kavya. Apparently, the outline of the story is borrowed from the Ramayana but the specific literary form is borrowed from Kalidasa. It is a case of the borrower improving vastly upon the borrowed material. This would make it clear that the originality of Venkatanatha lies not so much in the choice of theme or in the choice of the literary form but it lies essentially in the artistic treatment. It is of considerable significance to discuss where precisely this originality is to be found.

The theme of the Sandesha Kavyas is that of separated lovers generally. When the lovers are in a state of separation, each becomes desirous of sending a message of love to the other partner through some agent. The character of the messenger becomes important in such a context. Most of the writers of Sandesha Kavyas differ from one another in the selection of the messenger of love. In Ramayana, the messenger is the unconquerable Hanuman. In the story of Nala-Damayanti, the swan is selected to be the mediator between the lovers. In Kalidasa’s Meghaduta, cloud is the chosen messenger. In other minor Sandesha Kavyas, the messenger is either the wind, sparrow or some other bird.

In this connection, it is perhaps pertinent to ask: Why did Venkatanatha choose the story of Rama in spite of his knowledge of its traditionality? Perhaps some might suggest that Venkatanatha chose it because of the undying nature of the appeal of the story. This could well be. It could also be that by using a worn-out story he found it easy to exhibit his specific learning, wherein he was decidedly superior to others. It is even possible that he wanted to have a dig at Valmiki on the one hand and Kalidasa on the other. The last few stanzas of Venkatanatha’s “Hamsa Sandesha” are a specific pointer to the inherent limitations of the two distinguished Sanskrit poets – Valmiki and Kalidasa. He wanted to demonstrate his superiority by his selection of a proper messenger and a more proper artistic treatment of the communication of the message of love.

Kalidasa’s Megha Sandesha is undoubtedly marked by subtlety of treatment. Venkatanatha was perhaps deeply – and also painfully – aware that he could not excel the prodigious Kalidasa in sheer creative lyrical poetry. He perhaps knew that if he still wanted to outshine Kalidasa it could be only in some other sphere other than the sphere of lyrical poetry.

In both the Kavyas – in “Hamsa Sandesha” and “Megha Sandesha” – we have two parts. The first part of Meghadutaisdevoted to a description of the route to be followed by the Messenger Cloud. In the “Swan Messenger” too the first part is descriptive of the path to be taken by the swan. In the second part of the “Swan Messenger” there is the delineation of the Lanka City whereas in the first part of Meghadutawe have a portrayal of the Alaka City. This is followed by a description of the beloveds–the wife of Yaksha and the wife of Srirama. The message follows this sequence.

The distinctive feature of the ‘Swan Messenger” seems to reside in the selection of the messenger, although some might complain that the chosen vehicle resembles that of Nala. It is my deliberate opinion that Venkatanatha made a careful choice unlike either Vyasa, Valmiki or even Kalidasa. It may be noted here that the period of composition of the “Swan Messenger” was one of great learning. In those days, philosophers considered all natural objects – stones, wind, animate and inanimate objects – as having souls. Human beings could choose to deposit their living souls in any one of these natural objects. The choice of a living animal for carrying the love message was of course in conformity with the tradition set up by Vyasa and Valmiki. The choice of a swan as a Love Messenger was definitely an improvement upon the earlier writers of Sandesha Kavyas.

A proper understanding and appreciation of the “Swan Messenger” hinges itself upon our knowledge of what Deshika did. The writer himself gives expression to this profound knowledge. What could have been the knowledge that he speaks of in his poem especially in the last stanza of the second part? An answer to this question lies in studying the poem in the light of the modern theories of anthropology and psychology.

In the ancient times every man chose a bird, animal or natural object – perhaps this was the period of animism, as anthropologists would say – as his totem animal, an animal where he could deposit his soul safely. To protect his soul against external dangers he stowed it away in a preferable inaccessible place. Among the primitives, a bird was a proper symbol of a soul because of its rapidity and capacity for flight. Our folk tales are full of instances such as this. Further as James Frazer, the famous anthropologist tells us, the totem animal was also a symbol of a clan. Sigmund Freud has described it very interestingly in his highly reputed Totem and Taboo:

...When a primitive man had deposited his soul in his totem animal, he himself was invulnerable The original totem, and the one which continues to remain most common is the animal…The earliest totem animals are identical with soul animals... Soul-animals are appropriate receptacles of souls which have left the body on account of rapid movements or flight through the air or other qualities likely to produce surprise or alarm... Totemism is connected with the belief in spirits, that is to say with animism.

The totem animal theory is applicable to the “Swan Messenger.” It would appear that the swan being a male animal, it is the totem animal of Srirama. It is a Rajahamsa and therefore an appropriate vehicle for the soul. Srirama could easily entrust the message to the swan because it was none other than himself, his animal counterpart. No other person could be entrusted with the secret love message. In view of the great learning of Venkatanatha Kavi it is possible that he foresaw the full implications of identifying the swan with Srirama.

Although the sex of the swan tempts us to identify the animal as the totem animal of Srirama, it is interesting to note that its appearance dissuades us from doing so. A cursory reading of the poem would convince any reader that the appearance of the swan is identical with the appearance of Sita, another chief character of the poem. Throughout, there is ample evidence in the poem, to demonstrate that the animal resembles Sita externally whereas the sex is that of a male one. This is a paradox, a paradox that makes the totem significantly androgynous. What could have been its significance?

The idea of a swan as a symbol of bisexuality is further reinforced by internal evidence. In stanza 6 the author tells us that Lord Narayana was incarnate as a swan. The swan is also regarded as the vehicle of Brahma – one of the members of the Hindu Trinity –who was born in the navel of Lord Narayana. In addition to the foregoing qualities, the swan is made to resemble Saraswati too. The swan–to complete its femininity–has the sweet voice of Goddess Saraswati. This suggests that the author made little difference between Sita and Saraswati, and perhaps, shall we say Srirama? I do not wish to guess further because this leads us to further research into the entire corpus of Venkatanatha. The reader has to read the poem to discover all its other beauties for himself.