Evolutionary Aspects of Telugu Poesy
Veluri, Rao (rveluri@SMTPGATE.ANL.GOV)
Wed, 01 May 96 14:02:59 CST
Dear friends:
{Some time ago in response to one of my posts Ramarao Kanneganti, in
his inimitable style, succintly mentioned the issues 'he is grappling
with' in relation to Texts, Contexts, Heritage, etc. Ever since, I
have been thinking of the present post on the evolutionary character
of literature in general, and Telugu poesy in particular. I have
deliberately avoided mentioning Marx and post Hegelian dialectical
materialism, not because they were incorrect, but because of the
innate revulsion some of the nettors have for these names and phrases.
-- v. r. vEloori}
****
In the beginning, there is the poet. And, there is the reader. The
poet has a message(text). The poet has a language (the whole language
structure) to deliver the message. In poetry the message and the
language structure are so intertwined, that without one, the other
does not exist. There is one more that binds all these together and
it is important: the context. The message obtains its validity and
relevance through context. Of these, only the language appears
outward, since language to a certain extent dictates the message.
Hence, it is not possible to study poetry separated from language.
This language is usually known as kaavya (poesy). When the language
changes, the shape( structure) of the kaavya changes.
The poet appears as the cause that changes the structure of poesy.
This appearance has driven the literary historians to say that epic
poetry in telugu came because of nannaya, peddana was the cause for
the prabhanda, romanticism was due to raayaprolu and abboori, and that
progressive poetry was due to Sree Sree. Because of this, we tend to
give importance to questions such as: who wrote the first epic, who
wrote the first romantic kaavya, who wrote the first progressive
kaavya , etc. Actually, the language does not change by itself and the
poet by himself can not change the language, either. To affect a
change in language, the context and the reader have to change.
When we say context, we have to realize that there are two types of
context that affect the changes in the structure of language. One: The
context that is related to changes in communication tools and modes.
For example, oral (aaSu) poetry ( the so-called pre-nannaya story
telling recitals) is straight and direct from the poet to the
listener; then came the poetry recited by the poet to the
transcriber who literally documents what is recited; - and finally,
the poet himself writing his poetry on a piece of paper with a pen.
With each one of these modal changes, the contexts have changed. One
can see this context change if one carefully looks at the evolution
from aasu kaavya to sravya kaavya and finally the kaavya to be read
at one's leisure.
There is another context one has to understand. The context that is
related to changes in society. The fundamental changes that come in a
society have the power to shape the readers' literary tastes. When
such changes take place, a new shape(style) for literature springs
forth for these readers. For eg., the prabhandaas were born for the
liesure class of the princely courts who are far removed from the
general population that has to struggle for livelihood and
existence. In the post-industrial revolution phase ( although it
caught up with India a little late!), the individual and the freedom
of the individual were perceived to have been lost. Then the poet
expresed the message of freedom through bhaava kavitva (romantic
poetry). Of course, it was quickly realized that such freedom is not
real freedom, but only an illusion. Then the progressive voices
followed. Whenever there is a societal change, readers' tastes have
changed; for those alert readers new poetry always sprung up! One has
to carefully look into the societal changes and changes that occurred
in literature and analyze a little more deeply to clearly understand
the future path and progress of literature.
However, the modal changes and societal changes would help to
clearly understand the evolutionary nature of the styles of Telugu
literature. The facets of such evolutionary nature can be
understood, in general, from the following:
Unless there is context change, styles of literature do not change.
For eg., aaSu literature continued without any structural changes from
the pre-Nannaya times. The only changes in aaSu poetry are those
invoked by the aaSu poet's ingenuity and caused by changes in word
structures.
What happen when context changes? Great poets and the class of people
direcly affected by the change recognize the change. Ordinary
pedestrian writers and the class of people that are not affected by
the change do not recognize the change. Cosequently, the pedestrian
writers still produce poetry in the trite and old structures and
styles. The context changed; but the styles of poetry did not. The
equity that should exist between style, meaning and message
disappears. A literary crisis occurs.
The alert readers recognize, at least, involunatarily the change of
context. They do not enjoy the pedestrian writings, since they
clearly reflect lack of tastes in literature. These writers help
bringing out the literary crisis to the forefront by mammoth
proliferation of their works.
Those poets who recognize the context change write appropriately new
kind of poetry. New context, new readership help change the language
structure. However, the potential audience for this new poetry might
be still under the strong spell of the old structures and yles. They
do not recognize the need for this new poetry. Although, they are
tired of the old styles, they had not yet developed clear cut tastes
to accept the new poetry. On top of it, the necessary vocabulary to
recognize the new poetry isn't there, yet. Hence, their outlook is
fettered by the old norms and rules of literary criticism.They reject
the new poetry.
During this time, the new poets write 'poetry on poetry' creating new
symbols and words that express dejection and disgust at old styles,
and attraction to the new styles. This is intended for people with
unexpressed innate abilities, such that they will become future
readers for their new poetry.
Now, the new poetry starts gaining readership and establishes a strong
footing. Then it creates a revolution in literture.
If the context change completely rejects the old, but the old context
has still strong roots(say, heritage!), in course of time, some
qualities of the old poetry make way into the new poetry. For eg.,
the fascinating story telling qualities of aaSu poetry have crept into
epic poetry, the ideas from sanskrit aesthetics(alankaara saastra)
into the modern romantic (bhaava kavita) poetry, and both the
romantic and the prabhanda qualities made their way into the
progressive (abhyudaya) poetry. Because of this interplay and
infusion, the new poetry will be acceptable to all, and it becomes
'the poetry.' New norms of criticism, standards of tastes will
sprout up, and every one will say that poetry should be just like
this. Or, if poetry does not conform to these standards, then the
readers say it is not poetry, and reject it.
As long as the context does not change, this situation continues.
When either of the contexts we mentioned earlier change, then the
story repeats. It should become clear now that even a great and
powerful poet can not reject the context change, and yet create
poetry that will be a harbinger of a literary revolution. For
instance, look at gurazaaDa. The printing press has already created
a new readership, and yet gurazaaDa addressed this group in the aaSu
tradition with poetry, that could only be sung and listened to. He
rejected the context change that was brought about by tools and modes.
Hence, the readership could not appreciate gurazaaDa in his times.
There were two more people who completely ignored the context and
changes in context, and wrote poetry that failed to create a
revolution in literature. One was ceLLapiLLa veMkaTa Saastri and the
second one was visvanaadha satyanaaraayaNa. CeLLapiLLa rejected the
influence, power and the subsequent context change due to the
printing press as well as the societal changes taking place in his
time. Because of this rejection, his avadhaanaas remained as
literary gymnastic exercises; nothing more nothing less. visvanaadha,
on the other hand wanted the societal changes to march backwards in
time. Because of this rejection to imminent context change, his
poetry and his brilliant style in spite of many admirers, could not
even remotley become a cause to create a literary revolution.
Poetic revolutions, or literary revolutions, do not start because of
poets alone. The poets are subjective factors. The objective factors
are the readers and the context. Literary revolutions are a result
of mutual interactions of the subjective and objective factors. The
literary history, its creation, its changes and its operation is
controlled by an inner dialectic process. Literary histories written
without an understanding of this inner dialectical process will
remain, at best as fables, or trite biographies of poets, or
narrations of the historian's personal whims and fancies.
In short, they do not become real literary histories. And, we have a
few of such histories in the market, and historians with M.Phil,
Ph.D. or some kalaaprapoorNa as appendages to their names.
[ If you find that most of the above ideas as 'plagiarization,' by
george, you have hit the nail righ on the head. I freely stole a bit
of the theme for the essay from Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, a lot chronological structure from velchEru naaraayaNa
raavu's Structure of Literary Revolutions in Telugu, a handful of
verbiage from essays by raaacamallu raamacandraa reDDi, a phrase or
two from Christopher Caudwell. But, codemn me foor for all the goofs.]
Regards.
-- veMkateSvara raavu vEloori