kAvyEshu nATakam ramyam

Ramarao, Ram (Ram_Ramarao@tri.sbc.com)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:50:58 -0500 

samskRta sAhityamlo nAtakAlaku atyunnata sthAnam unDi. aDE telugu
sAhityAnni chUste mana vAllu padya kAvyAlaku iccina prADhAnyata
nAtakAlaku ivvalEdu. nijAniki #respectable# gA vunna kavulu evarU
nAtakAla jOlikE veLLa lEdu. ekkadO oka pingaLi sUranna lATi vALLu
nAtakAla lATi padya kAvyAlu (praBavatI pradyumnam, kaLA pUrnOdayam)
rASAru tappa antati #daring# kavi kUda #full-fledged# nATakam rAsE
sAhasam ceyya lEka pOyAdu. ilA enduku jarigindani AlOciste cAlA ascaryam
vEstundi: migilina cAlA vishayAlalO samskRta sAhityAnni makkiki makki
anukarincina vAru I okka vishayamlO enduku viBedincAru?

(This is too tedious to continue like this. Let me switch to the
language easier to write.)

One can say that since what Telugu poets have mainly done was to
translate stories from Sanskrit, they have simply followed the original
in "form" as well. For example, Bharata, Ramayana, Bhagavata granthas
retained their form. Other major works took minor stories from Puranas
etc., and expanded them as they pleased. In such cases, obviously they
had a choice of form - padya, gadya, or nataka. Of these, they only
chose padya form. What is fascinating is that in Sanskrit, all three
forms enjoyed almost equal respect. For instance, Kalidasa wrote both
padya and nataka kavyas. Gadya kavyas such as Dasakumara charitra by
Dandi and Kadambari by Bana achieved the same level of respect as the
best works in other forms. (In fact, it seems to me that padya and
nataka authors were apprehensive of attempting gadya kavyas for fear
they may not be up to the task. Same appears to be the case with
natakas.)

So one theory why Telugu poets have shunned natakas is that they were
afraid they couldn't do justice to that form. (Except Sringara
Sakunthalam, I don't know of any other Telugu (traditional) work that
followed an original natakam; and, even that was written as a padya
kavya, not nataka.) 

Of course, if the intent was to write hundreds of poems describing
"manmathopalambhanam", etc., then nataka is not the right form for that
either.

Also, when the story line is as thin as Damayanthi's "sAtOdaram", which
the prabhandas in particular perfected, then it's very difficult to make
it into a nataka which requires some amount of story to move it along.

Or, was it that the natakas written by Sanskrit poets were actually
played on stages and that practice has dimished / vanished by the time
of Telugu poets? This is doubtful since historical accounts show that
some kings were very much interested in watching natakas. So what did
they watch? One good possibility is that they were Sanskit natakas
either directly in Sanskrit or in simple direct translations into
Telugu; or stories from ithihasas (Bharata, Bhagavata, Ramayana) that
were put together by "low class" (in the literary sense) poets or the
performers themselves by using selected poems from the Telugu
"originals" mixed with gadyam they wrote themselves. In this scenario,
it is possible that these folklore natakas existed even before Nannaya
and evolved as the ithihasas got translated into Telugu. This would also
explain why "respectable" poets did not even think of writing natakas.

I believe that Sri Gurazada must be credited with starting the nataka
tradition in Telugu with his mind-blowing Kanyasulkam (and a couple of
incomplete works) but what a shame it took so many centuries for Telugu
poets to take natakas seriously! (Incidentally, gadya form also has not
become touchable until Chinnaya Soori towards the end of last century!)
After Gurazada, some prominent poets such as Vedam Venkataraya Sastry,
Tirupati Venkata Kavulu, Chilakamarthi Lakshminarasimham, and so on,
took up the cause though they mostly stayed with mythological /
historical stories. Many of yesteryears' well-known poets like SriSri,
Krishna Sastry, Chalam (yes, I consider him a poet too), etc., ventured
into natakas and gadya works and wrote respectable pieces in each form.
Acharya Athreya revolutionized nataka rangam with his new themes and
powerful dialogues. Prominent in my mind after him is N.R. Nandi, whose
works (naimisaranyam - a novel, Maro Mohanjodaro - a play) are of very
high literary caliber. Others like Gollapudi, Adivishnu, Jandhyala,
etc., followed but none of them gets close to the stature of Athreya or
Nandi. But, after that generation, it appears to me that the nataka art
is again in decline (Natanalayam by Modukuri Johnson may be a glittering
stone in the large heap of trash). When I look at the natakas published
over the last 15-20 years, I cannot see anything worth mentioning.

Having spent countless number of posts on chandassu (and kavitvam in
general), Telusa will be richer by remembering that there are many other
forms of literature - novels, natakas and natikas, short and long
stories, with multiple subdisciplines in each of them.


 ************************************
 ************************************
 **               K.V.S. Ramarao                                    **
 **  Southwestern Bell Technology Resources        **
 **  9505 Arboretum Blvd., Austin, TX 78759     **
 **               ramarao@tri.sbc.com                          **
 **               Ph. (512) 372-5423                        **
 **               Fax (512) 372-5691                        **
 *************************************
 *************************************