Re: 'mahaakaavyaalu'-'mahaakavulu' (1st of 3)

Sitaramayya Ari (ari@Oakland.edu)
Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:33:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 13 Apr 1996 vissa@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu wrote:
> So, it is imperative that 'great poets' or
> 'trend-setting poets' can set rules for themselves, which at times may be a
> few deviations of the 'existing ones', if there are any by that time. Of
> course, the converse is not necessarily be true.
>

I find this statement refreshing as long as somebody out there
(lakshanika?) doesn't determine how many deviations are allowed!

> Apart from 'raamaayaNa and mahaabhaarata', there happened to be other great
> literary works called 'mahaakaavyaas' (In Telugu they are five:
> manucaritra, vasucaritra, aamuktamaalyada, paanDuranga mahaatymam, and
> SRngaara naishadham').

There are a lot of things to talk about in your essay. This one, however,
caught me by surprise. I can understand when you say that a certain work
is a mahaakaavyam. But when you (I don't mean you personally; anybody for
that matter) say that there are five mahaakaavyas in Telugu, it sounds
like a mafia group again! How can there be only 5? What if somebody
writes a great book next year? Who decided that there are 5? Hope these
are not the Lakshanikas again!

Were any of these 5 original works? or just translations from some
Sanskrit texts?

Regards,
Sitaramayya Ari.