Link between bhavabhooti and Tilak
Sreenivas Paruchuri (sreeni@ktpsp1.uni-paderborn.de)
Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:34:23 +0100 (MET)
Greetings all!
Yes, I am back after a six (/seven) month break. A prolific poster I am
and a notorious reputation to start 'hot' threads (unwillingly) awarded,
I may request to use options like: mail filters, digest format, kill files,
etc if you don't want to be troubled by me.
Before I start with the real topic, the reason for rejoining: The other day
I browsed through the Telusa FTP archives and felt happy as a lot of ChandO
stuff was discussed in recent times. When I told the same to a Telusaer,
I was gently pointed that "in strict sense, actually, only the members of
the list should read the archives". A big moralist I am, decided to join the
list and follow the discussions 'live'.
So, enough of intro....
I found the latest "Valentine day cards" postings from Veluri gaaru very
interesting and somewhat confusing. I really liked his selection (with one
exception though). I really did n't get the link between bhavabhooti and
Tilak in 1st posting ('ll discuss about the 2nd part later).
First of all could n't Veluri gaaru find a better 'ChandO' poem from Tilak?
After all he wrote a considerable no. of them. Is n't it? Esp. in his early
days (1941- 1945) and also a few in late 50s/early 60s (between '45 and '55
he almost wrote nothing due to poor health, if I remember rightly). If you
ask for my personal opinion I would rather choose his "vachana kawitwam" than
prosodical stuff. Its stereotypical, and trying to imitate Krishna Sastry.
Another major problem with him (again a personal opinion! Sorry, for adding
this 'tag' every time. Recently a netter thundered elsewhere that "while
making statements in any public forum, one should be sure to include such
tag") is his great confusion with "isms". Within a poem he oscillated between
"prabandha kawitwam", "bhaava kawitwam" and "abhyudaya kawitwam". When it
came to "stree varNana" he really slided to greater depths, competing with
"prabandha kavivarENyulu". Is it that confusion Veluri gaaru trying to point
out while juxtapositioning Tilak's and Bhavabhooti's works? Or am I missing
something?
Regards,
Sreenivas