Part 10 - Merits and demerits (of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita)

The Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkhaka records some merits as well as demerits also. To begin with the merits, firstly, it is having a magnanimous theme, centring round the life and activities of a divine hero. It also refects the high-mindedness of its author. Inspite of being a court-poet, Maṅkhaka refrains from praising his patron king and lauds Lord Śiva, which, in the opinion of the poet is the only intention of him behind the composition of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita.^[1] Secondly, Maṅkhaka’s creativity has been well vented, through the presentation of his poem, in the garb of a literary epic. Though tied to the limitations of the poetical rules and regulations, Maṅkhaka gives life to a bare and familiar mythical story and even then, exhibits his originality in terms of expression. Thirdly, vakratā, that creates strikingness in a poem, is another notable characteristic feature of Maṅkhaka. Adding grace to his poem, this feature becomes a special mark as well as reflective of the poetic genius and scholarship of Maṅkhaka, the poet. Fourthly, suitability of the use of the alaṃkāras is another peculiarity of Maṅkhaka, which helps in augumenting the appeal of the rasa. It is observed that Maṅkhaka desists from play on words as well as the poem is void of the bandhas such as Sarvatobhadra, Gomūtrikā etc., which is also to be taken note of. Fifthly, though Maṅkhaka belongs to the age of learning, in other words, the age of decadence, even then, he has been succeeded in keeping a harmony between poetic capabilities and erudition. The suggestion of sentiments gets its due preference with occasional exceptions regarding form and matter. Sixthly, though the poet advocates on Kashmir Śaivisim, nevertheless, the philosophical discourses do not hinder in the development of the poetical march of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. The meaning to be construed is that, the balance is still intact here also. Besides, regarding delineation of the plot, Maṅkhaka exhibits creativity. In a unique style, he has framed and developed the plot, from the skeleton of the story, as found in its sources.

Thus, Maṅkhaka made some improvements, introduced innovations, elaborations, additions, deviations also. However, he sticks to a preordained strict form just to comply with the necessities of the literary epic, which limited his originality. Again, the sense of proportion and control are found to be lacking in the development of the plot, also his plot sometimes becomes tedious due to exaggeration. Still the innovations provide evidence of his crucial literary ability. In the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, Maṅkhaka, tries to keep a harmony between his literary genius and scholarship. His style shows his erudition, but he has limited it. He refrains from using mere play on words. Appealing expression of ideas and exactness in suggestion of sentiments are parts of his style; hence his style is not vague. But the sense of proportion and control, in the suggestion of sentiments also, are seen deficient, as the poet gives too much importance in delineation of the secondary sentiment i.e. Śṛṅgāra over that of the principal one i.e. Vīra. Inspite of these, the poem attracts the heart of hearts of its readers. Regarding the equilibrium between the form and matter also, the poet seems to be successful to some extent. The poet creates strikingness both in case of form and matter. Again, though the poet tries to give due emphasis on emotion, however, he falls prey to the lack of command over it. Moreover, there are some subsidiary descriptions incorporated there in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, which are unnecessarily attached. This is a fault to give excessive preference to trivial matters, which however be defensed by the logic that it is actually a demerit he inherited. Again, among some of the merits of the poet are-superb power of observation and description, excellent characterization marked with individuality, also, not engaging too much in intellectual deliberations etc.

Maṅkhaka exhibits his deep insight through his power of observation on Nature, birds and animals as well as human beings. As for example, his power of observation has been reflected, while going through the depiction of the impact of the spring season upon Nature, birds and animals as well as the young generation. Besides these, some other instances, where his power of observation has been established are-descriptions of the crooked character of the bad^[2], affliction of the lovelorns at the outset of the spring^[3], admiration of the moon by the celestial females, united with lovers^[4], condemn of the moon by the divine women, separated from their lovers^[5] etc. Again, the power of description of Maṅkhaka has come to the lime-light, through his fascinating and picturesque dersriptions.^[6] However, sometimes his descriptions are tedious, stereotyped as well as repetitive, even then, with great skill, Maṅkhaka, through poetic fancy and rhetorical expressions, has covered these demerits, nicely. The description of the agitation of the Gaṇas^[7] and the demons^[8] may be referred here as instances. Again, Maṅkhaka presents many proverbial sayings containing eternal as well as universal truths in his poem.^[9]

According to Bhatt, there are some defects found, in some of the imegeries of the poem. Firstly, in the verse IV. 55, there is the description of a ‘queer female form’, which, he holds to be a result of not having good taste and sentiment on the part of the poet.^[10] On the contrary, Mandal observes that the supposition of Bhatt is faulty, as because, there is suggestion in this verse, which actually suggests the mountain Kailāsa and there is no incongruity here, also there is the sentiment Adbhuta (wonder). Thus, the imagination of the strange female is befitting for the development of the corresponding sentiment, however, the primary meaning has become vague due to suggestion.^[11] Again, the verse IV. 58 has been shown by Bhatt also as an instance of ‘lack of good taste and propriety’, because here, the mountain Kailāsa is male and he can not have a ‘womb with foetus’, which Mandal considers as underestimation of the ‘taste and knowledge’ of Maṅkhaka, due to misinterpretation by Bhatt.^[12] According to him, it actually means the ‘inside and middlepart’ of the mountain, in its primary sense. Likewise, both hold that the imagery of an elephant form of Śiva in verse V. 13, is ‘dull and unattractive since it is based on pun’.^[13] However, the description of holding a lotus, by a male in XVIII. 3, is not to be considered as a defect, as such description is quite in vogue, as it is to be found in the writings of Kālidāsa^[14] also.

Along with these, there are some anachronisms pointed out by Bhatt. According to him, in canto VIII, up to verse 15, the incidents are said to be taking place on or near Kailāsa, but all of a sudden, in verse 17, there is the mention of the wind from Kerala, made the creepers on Kailāsa quiver. But Mandal is of the opinion that there is no kālavirodha here, because in spring, the season under description, the wind blows from the south to the north; however, there is a point of a large distance between the two places, which may be a case rather of deśavirodha. But that too may be swept away, because, ‘there is no bar for the wind to blow in long distances’, as observed by Mandal.^[15] Similarly, in the poem, there is the mention of the union of a warrior with his consort in heaven after death.^[16] Here Bhatt finds fault, which Mandal holds to be nothing uncongruous as the warrior is in Śiva’s army. He is a demi-god, popularly known as the Gaṇa, residing in Kailāsa, not in heaven. There are other examples^[17] of anachronism also as referred to by Bhatt, which however been refuted, with proper logic by Mandal.

It is to be noted here that no doubt, there may be some demerits in the poem, even then, they are not, as that much big to disparage the merits or the literary genius of Maṅkhaka. However, some modern critics have done much to unturn every stone, but fail utterly in their attempt to underestimate the literary value of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. “They are either obsessed by some predilections or give their verdict without carefully going through the poem”, as noticed by Bhatt and also supported by Mandal.^[18] P.C. Lahiri refers the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita as ‘dreary and uninteresting’, however cites that it gives ‘a full account of its author’.^[19] Bühlar holds the view that the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita deserves a little bit importance for the literary value it contains and it draws attention of the readers, for the underlying historical as well as social data. The remark of Bühlar is an important one.^[20] About the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, De is of the similar opinion.^[21] As an answer to these remarks of De, Bhatt gives his opinion.^[22] M. Krishnamachariar criticizes the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, for its so called defect of inappropriateness regarding the verse 29 of canto XXI, about which he sarcastically remarks that “even the female counterparts of the warriors also were deemed necessary to march along with the warriors.” However, Bhatt refutes this allegation by arguing that the females followed their husbands upto a small distance and afterwards turned back to their homes, therefore, it is quite proper.^[23]

Sures Chandra Banerji is of the opinion that

“the Śrīkaṇṭha-carita is a huge work….As usual in the court-epics, especially of the age of decadence, the story is of very little importance. It is just a means to the end of the poet’s deliberate display of literary skill. The poet’s lack of the sense of proportion is evident in the first canto the whole of which is devoted to the conventional preliminaries of a kāvya, viz. prayers and benedictions. The subject of good and bad people, which may be appropriate in a work on morality rather than in an epic poem, occupies the next canto. An account of the poet’s family and place of residence is given in canto III. The reader is apt to lose his patience in going through so much matter before reaching the story in canto IV. The following canto also carries the narrative a little further. But, the poet again lapses into the habit of digression and the reader’s patience is strained to the utmost limit by the next eleven cantos which describe the spring season and other beauties of nature with the usual amorous sports. The thread of the story reappears in canto XVII which, followed by seven cantos, describes the exploits of Śiva culminating in the burning of Tripura.”^[24]

Banerji though criticizes mostly, appreciates Maṅkhaka too.^[25] Banerji further criticizes him.^[26]

Again,Varadachari opines—

“Much of what is contained there would declare the poem a mahākāvya.”^[27]

Thus, the poem, though composed in a set form of a literary epic and inspite of some inherent demerits, still possesses an perpetual appeal, represented by suggestion of rasas as well as expression of grand thought. Maṅkhaka attracts the heart of the connoisseurs by his vakra style, harmony of talent and scholarship, proper employment of figures of speech (inseparably attached to the ideas), sublime theme, with attractive additions, innovations and elaborations, historical value, geographical imporatance, superb power of observation and descriptons etc. His demerits are due to the influence and his compliance to the norms of his time, which however, can not extinct the literary value of his poem. As a result, Maṅkhaka becomes capable of occupying a unique position in the realm of Sanskrit literary world. It will not be an exaggeration, if he may be ranked along with the counterparts like Bhāravi, Bhaṭṭi, Māgha, Bilhaṇa and Śrīharṣa.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., I. 56

[2]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II

[3]:

Ibid., VI. 1, 7, 8, 1, 12; VII. 24, 28-35

[4]:

Ibid., XI. 63-73; XII. 74-86

[5]:

Ibid., XI. 52-61

[6]:

Ibid., III. 40-44; IV. 36-42; VI. 5 etc.

[7]:

Ibid., XVIII

[8]:

Ibid., XXII

[9]:

Ibid., II. 1-10, 12, 13, 15, 20; VI., 4; XI. 54; XVII. 18; XXI. 3; XXIV. 38;XXV. 10-13.

[10]:

Bhatt, B. N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 135

[11]:

Mandal, B. C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 147

[12]:

op cit., Mandal, page 147

[13]:

Bhatt, B. N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 135; also, Mandal, B. C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 147

[14]:

kaścitkārābhyāmupagūḍhamālamālolapatrābhihatadvirephaṃ/
rajobhirantaḥpariveṣabandhi līlāravindaṃ bhramayāñcakāra// Raghuvaṃśa, VI. 13

[15]:

Mandal, B. C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 148

[16]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXI. 23

[17]:

Ibid., XXI. 24

[18]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 148

[19]:

Lahiri, P. C, Cultural Heritage of India., vol. III, page 645

[20]:

“It is composed so strictly according to the norm of kāvyaśāstra, and offers, inspite of great eloquence and proficiency in versification shown by the author, so few new points of interest, that but for its 25^th canto, which is altogether unique in Sanskrit literature it would deserve little attention….This canto has a double value. It gives a faithful picture of Sabhā, one of the chief modes of social intercourse among the learned in India….Besides, it contains some valuable historical notes.”

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 148-149 (extracted from Bühlar’s report, page 50-52)

[21]:

“the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkha shows the same stereotyped form, method and diction….As usual, the story here is of the slightest importance and the hole stock-in-trade of accessories is liberally brought in…..In the last canto, however…..we have an account of some historical and literary interest…… of an assembly of learned men……But for these personal details, which have a value of their own, the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita shows only a faithful observance of the rules of poetics regarding the composition of a Mahākāvya, and is consequently a work of little originality. As a pupil of Ruyyaka, Maṅkha shows much cleverness in the use of rhetorical ornaments and succeeds in achieving some rich and charming effects in language and metre, but generally speaking, his work lacks lucidity of expression, as well as freshness and variety.” op cit., Mandal, page 149

[22]:

“The deficiency in originality and stereotyped form, method and diction are the results of a faithful observance of the rules of poetics. The last charge viz. lack of lucidity of expression as well as the lack of freshness and variety is true to certain extent but it should be remembered that ornate poems cannot remain absolutely free from these defects.” Bhatt, B. N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 136

[23]:

“The style is rugged and harsh. Many of Maṅkha’s stanzas have a double meaning and the poetical ideas are rarely distinct. His learning mastery of the Sanskrit language is however wonderful….His work forms a landmark in literary history. In one of the later cantos he refers to a number of his contemporary poets of whom principally were Kalhaṇa and Jalhaṇa.” Krishnamachariar, M., ‘History of Classical Sanskrit Literature’., page 46

[24]:

Banerji, Sures Chandra, Cultural Heritage of Kashmir, pages 87-88

[25]:

“As a worthy disciple of Ruyyaka, Maṅkha shows ability in the use of figures of speech. His metrical skill is undoubted. His language testifies to his learning. These remarks are nearly all on the credit side of the poet. Ibid., page 88.

[26]:

“At worst, he is nothing but a conventional writer assiduously applying himself to the production of a Mahākāvya in conformity with the canons of poetics. He shows no originality in handling the theme. The account of his personal history given in canto III, and of an assembly of learned men (in the last canto) held under the patronage of his brother, Alaṅkāra, on the occasion of the completion and recital of his poem, are of some historical importance though tediously long. In the last canto, we find the names of some scholars, poets and officials.” op cit., Banerji, page 88.

[27]:

Varadachari, History of Sanskrit Literature., page 84