>Are these legitimate complaints, or mere "randhrAnvEshaNa", in a
>monumentsl book, in which in my obviously less than perfect perception,
>I see some snags?
>
>Ramakrishna
Dear Sir!
You hit the bull's eye. Indeed, I have in my mind to come up in detail (as
much as I know) about this. Long long ago, I read somewhere, that the
poet/writer is given some exemptions about the 'chronology' of events
he/she describing. They specifically call this as 'kavisamayamu'. What I
understood is the writer can mingle to some extent the events or characters
of different eras compared to his/her time, much to his/her advantage.
Indeed, I used to make a lot of fun of this condition at times. For e.g., a
grandson, who has same name as his grandfather can say,
'mA tAta gAru, nA peru peTTukunnAru'.
In the early days, as a staunch fan of Indian literature etc. (of course,
even today also, but that 'staunch' is replaced by maturity), I used to
feel very inconvenient to hear the very very very famous quotation many of
the netters also might have heard,
'kALidAsa is the Shakespear of India'.
The simple fact is that kALidAsa (3/4 A.D.) is at least 1300 yrs to 1400
yrs before Shakespear (17 A.D.). This may have served a good source for
Indians to bash some of the Western historians.
So, in essence, there are some exemptions allowed ragarding 'chronology' of
events. However, I think a writer should be careful not to over do it. For
e.g., A writer while describing a scene from 'rAmAyaNa' may compare or
quote something from 'mahAbhArata' only in the general sense, i.e.,
addressing the reader. However, it is foolish on his part to let a
character; say 'rAma' quote an incident from 'mahAbhArata' to some other
character. In such a situation, I think the writer can not seek shelter
under the exemption of 'kavisamayam'. Any more additions?
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala, Ph.D.
Fishberg Research Center for Neurobiology
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
New York, NY 10029