Thanks for your attention for my post.
>> 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!
I think they were determined by the 'laakshaNikaas', only. I truly do not
know the criteria. However, personally I am not worried much about this. As
I said, 'aandhra mahaabhaaratam' was not included in that list. So, do they
mean it is not a 'mahaakaavyam'? How does it matter whether they consider
it or not, when practically many people find it great even today ?
>Were any of these 5 original works? or just translations from some
>Sanskrit texts?
Yes. Three of them: 'manucaritra', 'vasucaritra' and 'paanDuranga
mahaatmyamu' were originals. I have a doubt about 'aamuktamaalyada'.
Perhaps, it may be a 'swECaanuvaadamu' of 'vishNucitteyam' (If so, probably
may not be strictly considered as a translation). Of course,
'sringaaranaishadham' is the translation of Sree Harsha's (not emperor
Harsha Vardhana) 'naishadham'.
With regards,
Prabhakar