Bangla sahitye Rabindra proyojoniyota
Apratim Sarkar
>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>Ami ki swanamdhanya hoye gechi? Dudin pore shunbo `shorgiyo Indranilbabu'.
Prothomta thik, parerta janina, asha rakhi shetar scene kom.
>: Amar Kolkata-r post-er uttor kothai?
>
>Tumi to motamuti amar shathe akmot. Borong amar hoye onnoder ektu jhere
>pNuche dao dekhi.
Tomar shange ki amar shudhui onnomot-er samporko?
>Let's finish the literature part first. I'm really tired today. Wrote a
>10 page reply to Larry Sinclair in the sci.
I know. Kudos to you, but Larrybabu kintu bhaloi khelchhen.
>: >Today's literature is no exception. There have been conscious
>: >efforts to move away from the `Rabindrik' tradition, and all of them
>: >were splendid failures at best. The `kallol' movement of the
>: > 30s, led by stalwart men and women of letters of this century was
>: >not so much a movement against the `rabindrik' tradition as one which
>: >was a direct continuation and an offshoot of the same.
>
>: The example that you have given, Kallol, is not 'today's literature'.
>
>It was an attempt at making o-rabindrik literature right in the backyard
>of the old man. Talk of audacity. However, it turned out to be the most
>worthy successor of the torch that Rabibabu had lit.
But still, it is not 'today's literature'.
>: You have not metioned any other examples, so let me propose a few
>: and request you to reconcile them with the so-called Rabindra tradition.
>: Let us start with Amiyo Chakrabarti, Manik Bandyopadhayaya and Badal
>: Sarkar, for poetry, prose and drama respectively. Even these are not
>: 'today's literature', so what about Jai Goswami, Abul Bashar and Manoj
>: Mitra?
>
>Amiyo Chakrabarti is IMO completely Rabindrik. Not even post Rabindrik.
>I know he is your favourite poet. So fire away.
First prove your point! Amiyobabu Rabindrik - joke?!
Remember, 'Chomkiye othe kobitai, d(n)aata shuddha ranga palanshaak.'?
>Manik Bandopadhyay's prose is strong, very strong, but not terribly
>different from the norm. In fact Putul Nacher Itikotha could have been
>written by Sharatchandra (as far as the prose is concerned).
But not the topic. As I have already mentioned, to me the topic is
more important than the language (one of the main reasons to tolerate
Tarashankar). Could Sharatbabu dream of PNI in his worst nightmare?
>Rabindranath didn't have the opportunity to write and stage dramas of
>the Badal Sarkar kind. His creations for the stage were stylised, often
>musical in nature. Shouldn't compare.
We are not talking of opportunities or achievements here. Nor are we
comparing styles. We are measuring the impact of Rabindranath on today's
literature.
So, do you concede that Badalbabu is a-Rabindrik?
>: Language, yes, but you forgot Alaler Gharer Dulal and Hutom P(n)yachar
>: Naksha, which are closer to today's Bengali than Rabindranath was in his
>: salad days. Besides, while an important constituent of literature, IMHO,
>: language is not all, but we already have had this discussion in the context
>: of Shakti Chattopadhayaya.
>
>Hutum pNacha was truely modern. But, Kaliprasanna didn't live to spawn a
>genre. The bengali language had to wait till Rabindranath rediscovered
>the magic of the chalit bhasha. I think this is all the more indicative
>of Rabindranath's influence. If Hutum PNacha had laid the foundations of
>the modern bengali, we'd perhaps never have had Rabindranath.
>
>Also, I didn't think about it in my last post, but while Rabindranath's
>prose took its own course, his forte, which was verse was quite free and
>unbirdled from very early on. Recall Chitrangoda, IMO, his finest piece
>of work. It was written in the last century I think.
>
>`Arjun tumi Arjun! Phire esho, phire esho
>khoma diye koro na oshomman,
>judhdhe karo ahvan,
>beer hate mrityur gaurob, kori jano anubhob,
>Arjun, tumi Arjun!'
>
>
>In fact he created the language in his verses. His stories and novels
>don't amount to that much. His letters are terrific. But he was making a
>language in every line he wrote.
>He taught 70 million people how to say everything 10 different ways.
>Who would have known that one could say
>Ei to tomar prem, ogo hridoyhoron.
>
>Or
>
>Tomar shurer dhara bohe jethay tari pare ..
Guru, tumi jodi amai ek piece, just ek piece Bangali dekhate paro je
o-i bhashai katha bale, lekhe, bhabe, whatever ... tabe ami e-i tokke
har mene nebo! Battalar standard prempatrer collection-e hoito oshob
ekhono chale. Tumi-i na balechhile ediningkaal most successful pickup
line jachche, 'Ei, prem korbi?' Otai shotti, miliye niyo.
>A language is a set of elegant constructions. Fact is, Rabindranath
>constructed a vast number of them. After him, few have contributed to
>this well which we unconsciously draw upon. Budhdhadev, Jibonanodo,
>Sunil, Shakti, Sanjib have.
But, isn't that unrelated to the present debate, about the influence of
Rabindranath on today's literature?
>: I would like to see some deep-rooted influence of Rabindra shaitya in
>: 'today's literature', influence that others have left in literatures of
>: their own language, Mayakovsky in Russian, Aragon in French and Rilke in
>: German.
>
>I don't know Russian, German or French. But I'll be very surprised to
>find a German equivalent of Rabindranath. Rabindranath is a phenomenon
>that seems possible only in a changing, developing language. German and
>French have existed for so long.
Well, since we are back to the language angle, I have no comments.
>I was trying to point out, that the legacy of Rabindranath is deep
>rooted in the language. The fact that mimicks and worshippers of
>Rabindranath seem to be a vanishing race is not an indication that
>Rabindranath's legacy (also in particular,in the context of the present
>discussion, its influence on the literature)is getting diluted,
>but rather the exact contrary.
Fine, but still we are dwelling on the socio-cultural aspects of Rabindra
influence, and not the literary influence, the intended topic of discussion.
>Indranil.
Apra.
Apratim Sarkar
>asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>>>The meaning of the phrase "Rabindra-influence" is, IMO, to be left for very
>>>subjective interpretation.
>
>>Absolutely! I would love to hear yours.
>
>Here I'm giving an extreme example with the risk of making it a "reductio
>ad absurdum".
>
>As you talked about mainstream literature - Prafulla Ray is mainstream. And
>if his novel's first lady sings a Rabindrasangeet or recites a Rabindra-
>poem, even that is Rabindra-influence on today's Bengali literature to me.
>May be via social-influence.
Yes, via social influence. That's why I proposed to keep social
influences out, so that we can unbiasedly judge the influence of
Rabindranth on today's literature and be not sidetracked by
social issues. For, I do concede that there is a sizable socio-cultural
impact of Rabindra sahitya, for good or for bad. Which, almost
inevitably, has never failed to bolster the sagging relevance of
Rabindra sahitya to modern Bengali literature.
May I propose again to keep such wonderbras out of the analysis?
>Before going into the main topic here, one thing I want to mention.
>P.K.De Sarkar used to be English-grammmer-guru, it was P.Acharya who wrote
>those red-covered Bangla-byakorons...:-)
My confusion explains, quite adequately, the reason why I nearly failed
in both the first and second languages in the HS. :-)
Thanks for the correction. Now, coming back to my question, while
P.K. De Sarkar is absolved from the crime of influencing Sunil or
Shakti (which is good, as I would hate to see a fellow Sarkar in
such a funny position), would you consider that P. Acharya has
profoundly influenced modern Bengali literature (except for a few
lucky ones like Jai Goswami, who never quite cleared the Board exams,
I hear.)
Jokes aside, Sambit, would you consider CRDG (of HS Physics fame) an
important factor in the makings of Sumit Das (quite a noted physicist
these days)?
>Do you seriously think effect of "Bornoporichoy" and that of Rabindrik
>writings are the same? Haven't you read "Kotha o Kahini", haven't you read
>some of "Golpoguchchho"s in your curriculam? (Here 'you' is a general 'you').
Please refer to my comments in the previous paragraph.
>>Right, but songs are not literature and hence I proposed keeping the songs
>>out of the discussion. What about prose, poetry and drama?
>
>But I think songs are a kind of literature. And there is very little bit of
>subjectivity there. Those who know say, Ghalib ghazals are fine pieces of
>literature.
Yes, those who know. But, as I have mentioned before, I would
accept that Bengalis do appreciate Rabindrasangeet as works of
poetry iff at least one Bengali, and I would accept her/his words
at face value, can think unbiasedly and remember the lyrics of 5,
just 5, Rabindrasangeets for which (s)he doesn't know the tune.
Just 1, just 5, no tune, but just the lyrics. Before I would accept
that Bengalis know that Rabindrasangeets are 'fine pieces of
literature'.
>Geetanjali (rather "Songs Offerrings") received Nobel Prize
>in "literature" category.
So? I never contended that Rabindrasangeets have no literary value,
but just that Bengalis, in fact my argument was about only modern
day Bengali writers, do *not* appreciate Rabindrasabgeets as works
of literature.
>>Even Bishnu Dey is a 30's poet. And note, he uses Rabindranath in a most
>>'a-Rabindrik' manner. What about more recent poets? Jai, for example?
>
>No doubt about the "o-rabindrik" use of Rabindranath - but it shows that
>using those lines will provide the readers with some kind of interpretation
>which would have been absent otherwise.
I didn't quite understand what you meant, can you please elucidate?
>I feel Joy is very much "Rabindra-influenced" - by his mental-training that
>comes out of his poems. But I can't illustrate that point since I'm not
>trained as a literary critic.
:-) Not done, if you will allow me to express my frustrations. As if
I am trained as a literary critic. Anyway, this is more preposterous
than Indranil claiming that Amiyo Chakrabarty is Rabindra-influenced!
Rabindranath couldn't have imagined, even in his worst dreams, that
he would influence the makings of
'Kadai kophe talgolakar kh(n)urchhi, kh(n)urchhi, kh(n)uri
Matir talai jyanto ghilu peyechhi ek khuri.'
What do you say?
>OK. About bulk:
>
>PORTRY:
>
>From Biharilal to Joy, it took almost 120-125 years. Without Rabindranath
>it would have taken twice as much. Rabindranath holds the missing link of
>Bengali literature which connects "Priyoshokhi Bidhumukhi" with "Oboni
>baDi aachho". In other words, he is that legendary "Melaben, tini melaben".
All these assertions, but no proof.
>PROSE:
>
>Had there been no Rabindranath, the Bangla-short-stories would still
>have been in nascent satage. (Rabindranath Uponnyash-ta chhoDaten!)
Why, may I ask? *And, why, may I ask*?
>DRAMA:
>
>Rabindranath's dramas are mostly for reading. And bengali does not read
>plays (Read Manoj Mitra's "Oleek Kunatya Ronge").
So, are you conceding that modern Bengali plays are not
influenced by Rabindranath?
>LANGUAGE:
>
>What about Rabindranath's language in his Byangokoutuks? It is very close
>to what we speak/read today.
Socio-cultural impacts were outside the proposed realm of this
discussion.
>Cannot resist to quote the following:
>
> Jodi jote roj
> Emni bini poishar bhoj
> Dish-er pore dish
> Shudhu mutton-curry, fish
> tari sathe roj
> Du-char royal dose.
>
>In one of his novels:
>
> Koto kaal robe
> Bolo bharot re
> Shudhu daal-bhaat jol pothya kore?
>
> Deshe onno jol-er holo ghor onoton
> Dhoro whisky-soda aar Murgi mutton.
>
>Just to prove that he didn't write only "Aaji e probhat-e robir kor/ kemone
>poshilo praan-er por" stuff.
I never said that he had such limitations, but only that the quotes
that you have mentioned will not make to his ten most well-known ones.
Let me reiterate, it was not my intention to have a literary overview
of Rabindra sahitya, but rather it's influence on modern Bengali
literature.
>>Right. But, my point was quite similar, that today's literature is driven
>>by its own factors, of which socio-economic scenerio, as mentioned by you,
>>for example, has played a significant role, but Rabindra influence is quite
>>rare in shaping today's Bengali literature.
>
>That's what my point is, too. If Rabindranth still has influence on Bengali
>social culture, which influences literary culture, you cannot discuss literary
>culture per se. (Jolke gele beni bhijbe-i. she apni "ami beni bhijabo na" bole
>jotoi kotrokti korun.)
Well, then we differ, I guess. However, I could not help noting one
point though. It seems that you have almost conceded that there is no
direct influence of Rabindranath on modern Bengali literature, and
hence are falling back to the social influence of the poet, and hence
the indirect influence on literature. Well, my point was, in fact,
quite similar. *That Rabindra literature, by virtue of its literary
merits alone, cannot claim to be an influence of modern Bengali
literature.*
I am surprised, though, that people still feel the necessity to
support the influence, if only indirect, of Rabindranath on today's
literature. Seems like a modern cultism to me. But all this, perhaps,
is more appropriate of a new thread on the socio-cultural impacts of
Rabindranath on the Bengali psyche.
>>I never said that he did not know his limitations. He was a good man. I only
>>repeated his thoughts on this matter, that Rabindra literature, poetry,
>>prose and drama have died, as predicted, correctly, by Rabindranath himself.
>
>Ei shob koch-kochi chheDe "aaji shubhodin-e pitar-o bhobon-e amrito sodon-e
>chalo jaai". Rabindranath smoron kore ashun ei boDodin shobai "on the rocks"
>pNedai.
>
> Obhoy dao to boli amar wish ki
> Shudhu ak chhotak jole, poa-tak whisky.
>
> (Smriti theke uddhrito, tai bhul aachhe-i).
Obhoi dao to boli amar wish ki
Ekti chhatak soda-r jole, paki tin poya whiskey.
Chhotak fotak (and poya toya) bujhi na bole I could never try this
preparation, prescribed by the Bishwakobi himself. If anyone can
help me on this issue, and give the conversions to ounce for the
above units, I would really appreciate that.
>>Rabindrasangeet lives, and will live, but that, IMO, is not literature, like
>>'Nutcracker' will never be considered part of Russian literature.
>
>You cannot compare "Nutcracker" with Rabindrasangeet. One is pure music and
>the other is songs which have lyrics too.
Agreed. Wrong example on my part. What about the operas by Ameduesbabu?
>Regards,
>Sambit
>
>ps. Jobab-ta jhop kore deben na. 10 din thakbo na. Porer hopta-r majha-majhi
>shomoy chhaDun, noyto maalti muchhiya jaibe.
Bari firechhen asha kori. Happy hols!
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil DasGupta
: >Let's finish the literature part first. I'm really tired today. Wrote a
: >10 page reply to Larry Sinclair in the sci.
: I know. Kudos to you, but Larrybabu kintu bhaloi khelchhen.
: >: >Today's literature is no exception. There have been conscious
: >: >efforts to move away from the `Rabindrik' tradition, and all of them
: >: >were splendid failures at best. The `kallol' movement of the
: >: > 30s, led by stalwart men and women of letters of this century was
: >: >not so much a movement against the `rabindrik' tradition as one which
: >: >was a direct continuation and an offshoot of the same.
: >
: >: The example that you have given, Kallol, is not 'today's literature'.
: >
: >It was an attempt at making o-rabindrik literature right in the backyard
: >of the old man. Talk of audacity. However, it turned out to be the most
: >worthy successor of the torch that Rabibabu had lit.
: But still, it is not 'today's literature'.
But today's literature is certainly a descendent of the Kallol.
: >: You have not metioned any other examples, so let me propose a few
: >: and request you to reconcile them with the so-called Rabindra tradition.
: >: Let us start with Amiyo Chakrabarti, Manik Bandyopadhayaya and Badal
: >: Sarkar, for poetry, prose and drama respectively. Even these are not
: >: 'today's literature', so what about Jai Goswami, Abul Bashar and Manoj
: >: Mitra?
: >
: >Amiyo Chakrabarti is IMO completely Rabindrik. Not even post Rabindrik.
: >I know he is your favourite poet. So fire away.
: First prove your point! Amiyobabu Rabindrik - joke?!
No joke and hardly a revolutionary thesis. Amiyababu carried
Rabindranath's briefcase around for many years and actually went through
some sort of an apprenticeship (to writing!). His early work is heavily
influenced to say the least. Even in his later days when he was not
carrying anybody's briefcase, his writing was more Rabindrik than
other `rebellious' Kallolians. In fact, this was an allegation he
consciously tried to disprove all his life.
But, I will contend that even more original poets like Premendra Mitra
and better writers of prose like Budhdhadev Basu were not out of
Rabindranath's sphere of influence. Their urge to be different finally
found an expression in the theme and the subject matter, which was more
an imitation of the prevailing doctrines of Europe than the Victorian
traditions Rabindranath himself never allowed himself to break free of.
But, Rabindranath's influence nevertheless remains in the language, in
the diction, in the metres of their poems.
Only Jibonanondo and Najrul were truely different. Both died young.
Najrul was un-imitatable. Jibonando's style was so limited in breadth
that it ended with him. There is no Jibonando-esque traits in modern
poetry.
But it is almost impossible to read any bengali poem (especially those
written in chhanda) without ghost-hearing one by Rabindranath. Shakti's
greatest coups were based on Rabindrik lines. Of the little I've read of
Joy Goswami, Rabindranath's (and Shakti's) influence is undeniable.
`Malatimala Vidyalaya' for example.
: Remember, 'Chomkiye othe kobitai, d(n)aata shuddha ranga palanshaak.'?
If Rabindranath hadn't written `udhdhoto jato shakhar shikhore
radodrendon guchcho' someone would quote them as `O-rabindrik' lines.
: >Manik Bandopadhyay's prose is strong, very strong, but not terribly
: >different from the norm. In fact Putul Nacher Itikotha could have been
: >written by Sharatchandra (as far as the prose is concerned).
: But not the topic. As I have already mentioned, to me the topic is
: more important than the language (one of the main reasons to tolerate
: Tarashankar). Could Sharatbabu dream of PNI in his worst nightmare?
But aren't we discussing literature (as a whole?). Theme's do change
with time. However Sharatbabu would probably have drawn the characters
of PNI equally well. Manik Bandyo is really a Sharat Chatto with a
strange sense of fatality.
: >Rabindranath didn't have the opportunity to write and stage dramas of
: >the Badal Sarkar kind. His creations for the stage were stylised, often
: >musical in nature. Shouldn't compare.
: We are not talking of opportunities or achievements here. Nor are we
: comparing styles. We are measuring the impact of Rabindranath on today's
: literature.
: So, do you concede that Badalbabu is a-Rabindrik?
Perhaps he is. But Badalbabu is not ALL of modern bengali literature.
Even Satyajit Ray is quite Orabindrik. So were Upendrakishore and
Sukumar Ray.
: >: Language, yes, but you forgot Alaler Gharer Dulal and Hutom P(n)yachar
Actually that was probably Robindronath's favourite pick up line too.
But, these same pieces of Bongoshontans would draft letters in a
different language. It's a question of how serious you are. Besides, the
influence is deeper than a mere cut and paste attitude.
: >A language is a set of elegant constructions. Fact is, Rabindranath
: >constructed a vast number of them. After him, few have contributed to
: >this well which we unconsciously draw upon. Budhdhadev, Jibonanodo,
: >Sunil, Shakti, Sanjib have.
: But, isn't that unrelated to the present debate, about the influence of
: Rabindranath on today's literature?
Well, if you agree to what I said here, I can't see how you can conclude
that modern literature is free of Rabindranath's influence.
: >: I would like to see some deep-rooted influence of Rabindra shaitya in
: >: 'today's literature', influence that others have left in literatures of
: >: their own language, Mayakovsky in Russian, Aragon in French and Rilke in
: >: German.
: >
: >I don't know Russian, German or French. But I'll be very surprised to
: >find a German equivalent of Rabindranath. Rabindranath is a phenomenon
: >that seems possible only in a changing, developing language. German and
: >French have existed for so long.
: Well, since we are back to the language angle, I have no comments.
Aha, literature minus the language!
: >I was trying to point out, that the legacy of Rabindranath is deep
: >rooted in the language. The fact that mimicks and worshippers of
: >Rabindranath seem to be a vanishing race is not an indication that
: >Rabindranath's legacy (also in particular,in the context of the present
: >discussion, its influence on the literature)is getting diluted,
: >but rather the exact contrary.
: Fine, but still we are dwelling on the socio-cultural aspects of Rabindra
: influence, and not the literary influence, the intended topic of discussion.
Socio-cultural and therefore also some literary influence.
Indranil.
Apratim Sarkar
>
>: >: >Today's literature is no exception. There have been conscious
>: >: >efforts to move away from the `Rabindrik' tradition, and all of them
>: >: >were splendid failures at best. The `kallol' movement of the
>: >: > 30s, led by stalwart men and women of letters of this century was
>: >: >not so much a movement against the `rabindrik' tradition as one which
>: >: >was a direct continuation and an offshoot of the same.
>: >
>: >: The example that you have given, Kallol, is not 'today's literature'.
>: >
>: >It was an attempt at making o-rabindrik literature right in the backyard
>: >of the old man. Talk of audacity. However, it turned out to be the most
>: >worthy successor of the torch that Rabibabu had lit.
>
>: But still, it is not 'today's literature'.
>
>But today's literature is certainly a descendent of the Kallol.
But then, the entire Bengali literature is a descendent of Charyapadas.
Does that prove the active influence of Charyapadas on modern Bengali
literature? Or on Rabindranath, for that matter?
>: >Amiyo Chakrabarti is IMO completely Rabindrik. Not even post Rabindrik.
>: >I know he is your favourite poet. So fire away.
>
>: First prove your point! Amiyobabu Rabindrik - joke?!
>
>No joke and hardly a revolutionary thesis. Amiyababu carried
>Rabindranath's briefcase around for many years and actually went through
>some sort of an apprenticeship (to writing!).
True.
>His early work is heavily
>influenced to say the least.
True again.
>Even in his later days when he was not
>carrying anybody's briefcase, his writing was more Rabindrik than
>other `rebellious' Kallolians.
True again. But that does not make him Rabindrik, simply because
he was not a rebel. What about quoting a couple of Rabindrik
Amiyo Chatto lines, written after he matured into full form, say
after 1930 (i.e. givng Amiyobabu 30 years to mature).
>In fact, this was an allegation he
>consciously tried to disprove all his life.
An allegation doesn't make anyone anything. Nor does unrelated
or outdated associations. Analysis and examples do.
>But, I will contend that even more original poets like Premendra Mitra
>and better writers of prose like Budhdhadev Basu were not out of
>Rabindranath's sphere of influence. Their urge to be different finally
>found an expression in the theme and the subject matter,
Absolutely right! Theme, the central point of any art.
>which was more
>an imitation of the prevailing doctrines of Europe than the Victorian
>traditions Rabindranath himself never allowed himself to break free of.
Right again. Shab-i to dekhchhi bojho baba :-) ...
>But, Rabindranath's influence nevertheless remains in the language,
OK, if that would make you happy, I would grant, if I have not
already done so, that there is undeniable Rabindra influence in
the language of the Kallol and post-Kallol poets, till the 40's
and 50's.
And, you have already partially granted my point, which is that
there was an active change in theme, in subject matter, starting
with Kallol. I would like to argue that the change in theme has gone
so far that there is no noticable Rabindra influence in today's
Bengali literature, so far as the theme is concerned.
>in
>the diction, in the metres of their poems.
Evidently, we disagree in what the metre of any literature should be.
>Only Jibonanondo and Najrul were truely different. Both died young.
>Najrul was un-imitatable. Jibonando's style was so limited in breadth
>that it ended with him. There is no Jibonando-esque traits in modern
>poetry.
Thank God! But, the situation is not as rosy as you paint. While
JD-esque traits are fading, Shakti-esque traits are building up.
Anyway ...
>But it is almost impossible to read any bengali poem (especially those
>written in chhanda) without ghost-hearing one by Rabindranath. Shakti's
>greatest coups were based on Rabindrik lines. Of the little I've read of
>Joy Goswami, Rabindranath's (and Shakti's) influence is undeniable.
>`Malatimala Vidyalaya' for example.
Theme, Indranil, theme. Kan pato. Mone ekta chobi a(n)kaar cheshta
karo. 'Kemon habe, amiyo jodi nashto meye hoi?' e-i jignasha
Robibabur srishto kono choritrer mathai ashto na!
>: Remember, 'Chomkiye othe kobitai, d(n)aata shuddha ranga palanshaak.'?
>
>If Rabindranath hadn't written `udhdhoto jato shakhar shikhore
>radodrendon guchcho' someone would quote them as `O-rabindrik' lines.
Granted, these are a-Rabindrik. But as has been repeatedly
discussed in the anals of Bengali literature, Sesher Kobita
is strongly influenced by the contemporary literature, if not
directly Kallol-influenced.
Rabindranth definitely was a-Rabindrik in Sesher Kobita, if
only in some parts.
>: >Manik Bandopadhyay's prose is strong, very strong, but not terribly
>: >different from the norm. In fact Putul Nacher Itikotha could have been
>: >written by Sharatchandra (as far as the prose is concerned).
>
>: But not the topic. As I have already mentioned, to me the topic is
>: more important than the language (one of the main reasons to tolerate
>: Tarashankar). Could Sharatbabu dream of PNI in his worst nightmare?
>
>But aren't we discussing literature (as a whole?).
No, we are not. We are trying to win arguments. Hence, you are
stressing on the language, and I am stressing on the theme.
>Theme's do change
>with time.
That, essentially was my point. That, themes have changed.
>However Sharatbabu would probably have drawn the characters
>of PNI equally well.
May be, if he could think of it, of course. But probably the same
can be told of Raygunakar Bharatchandra, remembering Ishwari Patani.
So?
>Manik Bandyo is really a Sharat Chatto with a
>strange sense of fatality.
Clarify! Not the 'strange sense of fatality' part, the other part.
Doesn't that make Manikbabu what he is, the sense of fatility, the
darkness that you are talking about! It is the same as saying that
Monet is the same as Matisse, with only a different painting style.
>: >Rabindranath didn't have the opportunity to write and stage dramas of
>: >the Badal Sarkar kind. His creations for the stage were stylised, often
>: >musical in nature. Shouldn't compare.
>
>: We are not talking of opportunities or achievements here. Nor are we
>: comparing styles. We are measuring the impact of Rabindranath on today's
>: literature.
>
>: So, do you concede that Badalbabu is a-Rabindrik?
>
>Perhaps he is. But Badalbabu is not ALL of modern bengali literature.
>Even Satyajit Ray is quite Orabindrik. So were Upendrakishore and
>Sukumar Ray.
I note that you haven't mentioned that Badalbabu's language is quite
Rabindrik. So was that of the three Ray's, more prominent in the
senior two.
Yes, they are not ALL of modern Bengali literature.
>: >Who would have known that one could say
>: >Ei to tomar prem, ogo hridoyhoron.
>: >
>: >Or
>: >
>: >Tomar shurer dhara bohe jethay tari pare ..
>
>: Guru, tumi jodi amai ek piece, just ek piece Bangali dekhate paro je
>: o-i bhashai katha bale, lekhe, bhabe, whatever ... tabe ami e-i tokke
>: har mene nebo! Battalar standard prempatrer collection-e hoito oshob
>: ekhono chale. Tumi-i na balechhile ediningkaal most successful pickup
>: line jachche, 'Ei, prem korbi?' Otai shotti, miliye niyo.
>
>Actually that was probably Robindronath's favourite pick up line too.
:-) Does that make it Rabindrik?
>But, these same pieces of Bongoshontans would draft letters in a
>different language. It's a question of how serious you are. Besides, the
>influence is deeper than a mere cut and paste attitude.
Let us not start harrassing Bangosantans. Let us come back to modern
Bengali literature. From where the discussion originated.
>
>: >A language is a set of elegant constructions. Fact is, Rabindranath
>: >constructed a vast number of them. After him, few have contributed to
>: >this well which we unconsciously draw upon. Budhdhadev, Jibonanodo,
>: >Sunil, Shakti, Sanjib have.
>
>: But, isn't that unrelated to the present debate, about the influence of
>: Rabindranath on today's literature?
>
>Well, if you agree to what I said here, I can't see how you can conclude
>that modern literature is free of Rabindranath's influence.
Well, since I have always maintained that I consider literature
to be almost (please note the almost) independent of the language
in which it is written, I do not see why you find my conclusion
contradictory.
>: >: I would like to see some deep-rooted influence of Rabindra shaitya in
>: >: 'today's literature', influence that others have left in literatures of
>: >: their own language, Mayakovsky in Russian, Aragon in French and Rilke in
>: >: German.
>: >
>: >I don't know Russian, German or French. But I'll be very surprised to
>: >find a German equivalent of Rabindranath. Rabindranath is a phenomenon
>: >that seems possible only in a changing, developing language. German and
>: >French have existed for so long.
>
>: Well, since we are back to the language angle, I have no comments.
>
>Aha, literature minus the language!
Aha, literature minus the theme, but centered only around the
language!
Ki labh Indranil, e-i chor poolish khele? Language-e ashte chao to
onno thread kholo, socio-cultural impact-er opor. E-i thread-e
tumi theme-e na ele, ami language-e nei.
>: >I was trying to point out, that the legacy of Rabindranath is deep
>: >rooted in the language. The fact that mimicks and worshippers of
>: >Rabindranath seem to be a vanishing race is not an indication that
>: >Rabindranath's legacy (also in particular,in the context of the present
>: >discussion, its influence on the literature)is getting diluted,
>: >but rather the exact contrary.
>
>: Fine, but still we are dwelling on the socio-cultural aspects of Rabindra
>: influence, and not the literary influence, the intended topic of discussion.
>
>Socio-cultural and therefore also some literary influence.
*sigh*
Thik achhe bhai, tomra bhai rajar chhele, amra bhai ****ir bhai.
Etogulo bangasantan, Bishwakobi-r ekta direct literary influence-er
katha mathai ante parlo na? Shei ghuriye naak dekhate habe? Socio-
cultural-er chakkore dhukte habe? Ar ki balbo ...
>Indranil.
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil
: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
: >Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: >: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
: >
: >: >: >Today's literature is no exception. There have been conscious
: >: >: >efforts to move away from the `Rabindrik' tradition, and all of them
: >: >: >were splendid failures at best. The `kallol' movement of the
: >: >: > 30s, led by stalwart men and women of letters of this century was
: >: >: >not so much a movement against the `rabindrik' tradition as one which
: >: >: >was a direct continuation and an offshoot of the same.
: >: >
: >: >: The example that you have given, Kallol, is not 'today's literature'.
: >: >
: >: >It was an attempt at making o-rabindrik literature right in the backyard
: >: >of the old man. Talk of audacity. However, it turned out to be the most
: >: >worthy successor of the torch that Rabibabu had lit.
: >
: >: But still, it is not 'today's literature'.
: >
: >But today's literature is certainly a descendent of the Kallol.
: But then, the entire Bengali literature is a descendent of Charyapadas.
: Does that prove the active influence of Charyapadas on modern Bengali
: literature? Or on Rabindranath, for that matter?
Yes certainly. Perhaps the charyapadas did not influence rabindranath
as much or as directly as Rabindranath himself influenced the later
literature. It's a question of degree. Everything that was written
after the invention of the printing press obviously had a bigger
influence on contemporary and future generations than things written
before the printing press.
: >: >Amiyo Chakrabarti is IMO completely Rabindrik. Not even post Rabindrik.
: >: >I know he is your favourite poet. So fire away.
: >
: >: First prove your point! Amiyobabu Rabindrik - joke?!
: >
: >No joke and hardly a revolutionary thesis. Amiyababu carried
: >Rabindranath's briefcase around for many years and actually went through
: >some sort of an apprenticeship (to writing!).
: True.
: >His early work is heavily
: >influenced to say the least.
: True again.
: >Even in his later days when he was not
: >carrying anybody's briefcase, his writing was more Rabindrik than
: >other `rebellious' Kallolians.
: True again. But that does not make him Rabindrik, simply because
: he was not a rebel. What about quoting a couple of Rabindrik
: Amiyo Chatto lines, written after he matured into full form, say
: after 1930 (i.e. givng Amiyobabu 30 years to mature).
Let's agree not to force each other's hands in such brutally direct
fashion. I haven't read much poetry in the last 10 years and all my
books are thousands of miles away. Anyway I'll quote as much as I
remember of one of Amiya babu's later day poems:
kNedeo pabe na take borshar ojosro jolodhare,
phalgun bikele brishti name ...
blah blah blah blah
motto din, mughdho khon, pritthibir prothom jhonkar obiroho,
kNedeo pabe na take ojosro borshar jolodhare.
: >But, I will contend that even more original poets like Premendra Mitra
: >and better writers of prose like Budhdhadev Basu were not out of
: >Rabindranath's sphere of influence. Their urge to be different finally
: >found an expression in the theme and the subject matter,
: Absolutely right! Theme, the central point of any art.
: >which was more
: >an imitation of the prevailing doctrines of Europe than the Victorian
: >traditions Rabindranath himself never allowed himself to break free of.
: Right again. Shab-i to dekhchhi bojho baba :-) ...
: >But, Rabindranath's influence nevertheless remains in the language,
: OK, if that would make you happy, I would grant, if I have not
: already done so, that there is undeniable Rabindra influence in
: the language of the Kallol and post-Kallol poets, till the 40's
: and 50's.
: And, you have already partially granted my point, which is that
: there was an active change in theme, in subject matter, starting
: with Kallol. I would like to argue that the change in theme has gone
: so far that there is no noticable Rabindra influence in today's
: Bengali literature, so far as the theme is concerned.
Those times are gone those people are gone. The literaure reflects the
present. Some things are different now. Others not so much.
Rabindranath's Gora and Shirshendu's Doorbeen are similar or
different depending on the point of view. In any case Rabindranath
created a language., he may not have invented any new themes at all.
: >in
: >the diction, in the metres of their poems.
: Evidently, we disagree in what the metre of any literature should be.
I was trying to argue against the proposition that modern bengali
literature has NO Rabindrik influence. You agree that the language does
have Rabindranath's signature.
Then I submit that at least the verse is Rabindra-influenced. Novels,
stories can sometimes be discussed without reference to the language .
What about poems?
: >Only Jibonanondo and Najrul were truely different. Both died young.
: >Najrul was un-imitatable. Jibonando's style was so limited in breadth
: >that it ended with him. There is no Jibonando-esque traits in modern
: >poetry.
: Thank God! But, the situation is not as rosy as you paint. While
: JD-esque traits are fading, Shakti-esque traits are building up.
: Anyway ...
: >But it is almost impossible to read any bengali poem (especially those
: >written in chhanda) without ghost-hearing one by Rabindranath. Shakti's
: >greatest coups were based on Rabindrik lines. Of the little I've read of
: >Joy Goswami, Rabindranath's (and Shakti's) influence is undeniable.
: >`Malatimala Vidyalaya' for example.
: Theme, Indranil, theme. Kan pato. Mone ekta chobi a(n)kaar cheshta
: karo. 'Kemon habe, amiyo jodi nashto meye hoi?' e-i jignasha
: Robibabur srishto kono choritrer mathai ashto na!
Kano ashto na? Nashto maye na likhe onno kichu likhten. Talgach ak paye
dNariye jodi tar gol gol pakhate urbar ichche mel dhorte pare ....
: >: Remember, 'Chomkiye othe kobitai, d(n)aata shuddha ranga palanshaak.'?
: >
: >If Rabindranath hadn't written `udhdhoto jato shakhar shikhore
: >radodrendon guchcho' someone would quote them as `O-rabindrik' lines.
: Granted, these are a-Rabindrik. But as has been repeatedly
: discussed in the anals of Bengali literature, Sesher Kobita
: is strongly influenced by the contemporary literature, if not
: directly Kallol-influenced.
: Rabindranth definitely was a-Rabindrik in Sesher Kobita, if
: only in some parts.
Actually that all the poems in Shesher kobita are completely Rabindrik
(something that takes away a lot of punch from Amit Raye's
character). The preceeding lines to the `Radodrendon guchcho' go like:
Nai amader konok chNapar kunjo,
bonobithikay keerno bokul punjo,
pothopashe pakhi puchcho nachay, bondhon tare kori na khNachay,
dana mele deoa muktipriyer kujone dujone tripto
etc
: >: >Manik Bandopadhyay's prose is strong, very strong, but not terribly
: >: >different from the norm. In fact Putul Nacher Itikotha could have been
: >: >written by Sharatchandra (as far as the prose is concerned).
: >
: >: But not the topic. As I have already mentioned, to me the topic is
: >: more important than the language (one of the main reasons to tolerate
: >: Tarashankar). Could Sharatbabu dream of PNI in his worst nightmare?
: >
: >But aren't we discussing literature (as a whole?).
: No, we are not. We are trying to win arguments. Hence, you are
: stressing on the language, and I am stressing on the theme.
See above for argument regarding the verse. The onus is on you to
contend that language is not an integral part of the verse form.
: >Theme's do change
: >with time.
I aws kidding , it is not Rabindrik.
: >But, these same pieces of Bongoshontans would draft letters in a
: *sigh*
Kobitay esho. Direct influence dekhte pabe.
Indranil.
Ranjan Bhattacharya
E to dekhchhi jugolbondi cholchhe - bakira chup keno?
As I mentioned in my previous post (posted on Friday, and which still
hasn't made an appearance), why don't we lay down the basis of the
discussion. What constitutes literary influence - is it language,
form, theme or something else? It would be helpful to have examples.
Aboshyo adda hishebe bhaloi cholchhe.
Lag, lag, Narod, Narod :)
--
Ranjan (ran...@ed.ray.com)
Apratim Sarkar
>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
>: >Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: >: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
>: >
>: >: >: >Today's literature is no exception. There have been conscious
>: >: >: >efforts to move away from the `Rabindrik' tradition, and all of them
>: >: >: >were splendid failures at best. The `kallol' movement of the
>: >: >: > 30s, led by stalwart men and women of letters of this century was
>: >: >: >not so much a movement against the `rabindrik' tradition as one which
>: >: >: >was a direct continuation and an offshoot of the same.
>: >: >
>: >: >: The example that you have given, Kallol, is not 'today's literature'.
>: >: >
>: >: >It was an attempt at making o-rabindrik literature right in the backyard
>: >: >of the old man. Talk of audacity. However, it turned out to be the most
>: >: >worthy successor of the torch that Rabibabu had lit.
>: >
>: >: But still, it is not 'today's literature'.
>: >
>: >But today's literature is certainly a descendent of the Kallol.
>
>: But then, the entire Bengali literature is a descendent of Charyapadas.
>: Does that prove the active influence of Charyapadas on modern Bengali
>: literature? Or on Rabindranath, for that matter?
>
>Yes certainly.
The next thread I am going to start, Did Charyapadas influence
Rabindranath or not?
>Perhaps the charyapadas did not influence rabindranath
>as much or as directly as Rabindranath himself influenced the later
>literature. It's a question of degree.
That essentially is the issue here. The question of degree.
>Everything that was written
>after the invention of the printing press obviously had a bigger
>influence on contemporary and future generations than things written
>before the printing press.
Not necessarily. Things written before the printing press were often
preserved and afterwards reproduced once the printing press came
into existence. Like, say, the Ramayana, (remember M.M. Dutt.). Or the
Upanishads, which, you might note, influenced Rabindranath a lot.
>: he was not a rebel. What about quoting a couple of Rabindrik
>: Amiyo Chatto lines, written after he matured into full form, say
>: after 1930 (i.e. givng Amiyobabu 30 years to mature).
>
>Let's agree not to force each other's hands in such brutally direct
>fashion.
My apologies. :-)
>I haven't read much poetry in the last 10 years and all my
>books are thousands of miles away. Anyway I'll quote as much as I
>remember of one of Amiya babu's later day poems:
>
>kNedeo pabe na take borshar ojosro jolodhare,
>phalgun bikele brishti name ...
>
>blah blah blah blah
>
>motto din, mughdho khon, pritthibir prothom jhonkar obiroho,
>
>kNedeo pabe na take ojosro borshar jolodhare.
I wonder why you would consider this to be Rabindrik. The style,
IMO, is much more powerful, much more bold, direct than RT's. RT
would rarely start a poem with a negative sentence.
Another interesting thing is that while this is one of the most
popular poems by AC, people hardly remember beyond the first line.
Perhaps, due to the boldness of the first line ...
When I first read this poem, it reminded me of the impressionist
paintings of G & G. Thank you Indranil, for reminding me of this
poem.
A side point, the blah blah blah blah surely in quite unmistakenly
Rabindrik, but since Amiyobabu did not write it himself, I believe
that to be a non-issue ... just kidding :-).
>: And, you have already partially granted my point, which is that
>: there was an active change in theme, in subject matter, starting
>: with Kallol. I would like to argue that the change in theme has gone
>: so far that there is no noticable Rabindra influence in today's
>: Bengali literature, so far as the theme is concerned.
>
>Those times are gone those people are gone.
Eta ekta Sanskrit shlok na?
>The literaure reflects the
>present. Some things are different now. Others not so much.
>Rabindranath's Gora and Shirshendu's Doorbeen are similar or
>different depending on the point of view. In any case Rabindranath
>created a language., he may not have invented any new themes at all.
I would rather say that the themes that he created are no longer alive.
>: >in
>: >the diction, in the metres of their poems.
>
>: Evidently, we disagree in what the metre of any literature should be.
>
>I was trying to argue against the proposition that modern bengali
>literature has NO Rabindrik influence. You agree that the language does
>have Rabindranath's signature.
I do agree that byaboharik Bengali language, which IMO is more a
socio-cultural issue, indeed has RT's signature. Each individual
writer has added his/her own signature on top of it. This is more
strongly noticable in the case of poems, less in the case of
prose.
>Then I submit that at least the verse is Rabindra-influenced. Novels,
OK, time for some examples:
1. Jibanananda Das: 30's
Prithibi probin aro haye jai, mirujin noditir tire.
Bibarna prashad tar chhaya fale jaale.
O prashad-e kara thake? Keu nei
Shonali agun, chupe jaler shorir-e
Noritechhe, jolitechhe, mayabir moto jadubale.
She agun jole jai, dahenako kichhu.
She agun jole jai, she agun jole jai, she agun jole jai
Dahenako kichhu.
Nimil agune o-i aar hridai, mrito ek sharosh-er moto.
Prithibir rajh(n)ash noi ...
2. Arun Kumar Sarkar: 40's
Rabhashe dau dau shamudrer,
Shorire pake pake fashfarash
Andhakare chul eliye dao
Nakhare nil hok shubhra buk.
Tomake chhara nei, shanti nei
Golapful ami chh(n)uyechhi dher
Raktakingshuke jaliye dao
Amar boishakhi ratridin.
3. Shakti Chatujje (tomar Bhagoban :-)): 50's
Ami ekti shonar machhi khun korechhi raatdupure
Take b(n)achate cheyechhilam, A(n)dhar shomudre nouko
Jemonbhabe bheshe firto. Take b(n)achate cheyechhilam.
Hathat chhuri doure elo, haater mutho shakto kore
A(n)dhare chalate bollo, jemonbhabe mare boitha -
Shukhe opar h(n)eke balchhe, dukkhomochon karbe esho
Amar pdmadighir kachhe sanb(n)adhano ghatti achhe
Shekhane keu kapor kache ....
4. 60'ser karu kobita mone ashcche na ... What about Tushar Ray:
Signal up.
A-i Baap!
5. Joi goswami: 70's
Lash re lash, lash re lash,
Kar dhone tui bhag bashash?
Kader chhele chhili re toke dekhte chhilo kemon?
Ma kaj korto loker bari, baper buke byamo.
Rakto byamo bahye bomi ei niye bas, baser jomi
Kadai kophe talgolakar kh(n)urchhi kh(n)urchhi kh(n)uri.
Matir talai jyanto ghilu peyechhi ek khuri.
Note, that these are not necessarily my favorite poets from these
dashaks ...
Now, Indranil, please explain what evidence of Rabindra influence you
find in these poems!
>stories can sometimes be discussed without reference to the language .
>What about poems?
Yes, they can.
>: >But it is almost impossible to read any bengali poem (especially those
>: >written in chhanda) without ghost-hearing one by Rabindranath. Shakti's
>: >greatest coups were based on Rabindrik lines. Of the little I've read of
>: >Joy Goswami, Rabindranath's (and Shakti's) influence is undeniable.
>: >`Malatimala Vidyalaya' for example.
>
>: Theme, Indranil, theme. Kan pato. Mone ekta chobi a(n)kaar cheshta
>: karo. 'Kemon habe, amiyo jodi nashto meye hoi?' e-i jignasha
>: Robibabur srishto kono choritrer mathai ashto na!
>
>Kano ashto na? Nashto maye na likhe onno kichu likhten. Talgach ak paye
>dNariye jodi tar gol gol pakhate urbar ichche mel dhorte pare ....
Likhechhen ki? More importantly, do you think the above quote is
Rabindra influenced? As you have claimed before?
Talgachh kobitati khub bhalo ... but still that cannot be claimed
as the influencing factor of the tamaltorutal in 'Malatibala Balika
Bidyalaya'.
>: >: Remember, 'Chomkiye othe kobitai, d(n)aata shuddha ranga palanshaak.'?
>: >
>: >If Rabindranath hadn't written `udhdhoto jato shakhar shikhore
>: >radodrendon guchcho' someone would quote them as `O-rabindrik' lines.
>
>: Granted, these are a-Rabindrik. But as has been repeatedly
>: discussed in the anals of Bengali literature, Sesher Kobita
>: is strongly influenced by the contemporary literature, if not
>: directly Kallol-influenced.
>
>: Rabindranth definitely was a-Rabindrik in Sesher Kobita, if
>: only in some parts.
>
>Actually that all the poems in Shesher kobita are completely Rabindrik
>(something that takes away a lot of punch from Amit Raye's
>character). The preceeding lines to the `Radodrendon guchcho' go like:
>
>Nai amader konok chNapar kunjo,
>bonobithikay keerno bokul punjo,
>pothopashe pakhi puchcho nachay, bondhon tare kori na khNachay,
>dana mele deoa muktipriyer kujone dujone tripto
>
>
>etc
I didn't comment on the preceeding lines, so no comments. It is
not fair to put words in my mouth. I clearly mentioned that only
some parts of Sesher Kobita are a-Rabindrik, and you earlier
quoted from one such part. You are changing quotes now.
>: >But aren't we discussing literature (as a whole?).
>
>: No, we are not. We are trying to win arguments. Hence, you are
>: stressing on the language, and I am stressing on the theme.
>
>See above for argument regarding the verse. The onus is on you to
>contend that language is not an integral part of the verse form.
I never said that language is not an integral part of the verse
form. I only claimed that it is possible to appreciate and
analyse the poems independent of the language andd the verse form.
Let me give an example here. As we all know, the Ramayanas were
written in the verse form. But few of us, if not none, have read
the original verse form. Does that prevent us from appreciating the
Ramayanas?
>: >: ekhono chale. Tumi-i na balechhile ediningkaal most successful pickup
>: >: line jachche, 'Ei, prem korbi?' Otai shotti, miliye niyo.
>: >
>: >Actually that was probably Robindronath's favourite pick up line too.
>
>: :-) Does that make it Rabindrik?
>I aws kidding , it is not Rabindrik.
Me too.
>: Etogulo bangasantan, Bishwakobi-r ekta direct literary influence-er
>: katha mathai ante parlo na? Shei ghuriye naak dekhate habe? Socio-
>: cultural-er chakkore dhukte habe? Ar ki balbo ...
>
>Kobitay esho. Direct influence dekhte pabe.
Eshechhi. Eba tomar khap kholar apekkhai.
>Indranil.
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil DasGupta
: E to dekhchhi jugolbondi cholchhe - bakira chup keno?
: As I mentioned in my previous post (posted on Friday, and which still
: hasn't made an appearance), why don't we lay down the basis of the
: discussion. What constitutes literary influence - is it language,
: form, theme or something else? It would be helpful to have examples.
Apratim never really mentioned in his first post that he was trying to
discuss literature minus th language. Such a discussion will
necessarily exclude `chondo', `mil', `anuprash' etc. So, then verse is
for all practical purposes thrown out of the adda.
Indranil.
Apratim Sarkar
>Ranjan Bhattacharya (ran...@matsbd151.ed.ray.com) wrote:
>
>: E to dekhchhi jugolbondi cholchhe - bakira chup keno?
>
>: As I mentioned in my previous post (posted on Friday, and which still
>: hasn't made an appearance), why don't we lay down the basis of the
>: discussion. What constitutes literary influence - is it language,
>: form, theme or something else? It would be helpful to have examples.
>
>Apratim never really mentioned in his first post that he was trying to
>discuss literature minus th language.
True. My apologies for the confusion.
>Such a discussion will
>necessarily exclude `chondo', `mil', `anuprash' etc. So, then verse is
How is chhando dependent on the language? Swarabritte jodi likhi,
tabe Sanskrit-e likhlam ki cholit Bangalai, tate ki ashe jai?
Also, I do not know of any original chhandos that RT created, that
influenced the later generation of poets - but I may be just
ill-informed.
Same goes for mil. That, IMO, is not language specific. Rather,
that goes with the style. Shutarang, M. M. Dutt mil dilen na,
shekhan thekei Amitrakkhar gothito holo. It was not important
that he wrote in Bengali.
Anuprash - no comments, karan RT-r anuprash-er jor chhilo hoitoba,
kintu amar relevant kichhu para nei. Tabe eta ghatana, Jai-er
anuprash-er hat-ti bhalo, RT influenced kina jani na.
Chhando, mil, anuprash eshob to khub relevant, khub bhalo jinish.
Tabe kina ekebare classical jinish. RT-ke diye influenced haowa
shakto, particularly Sanskrit sahityo kichhu pore felle - o-i je
hayechhilo na: Ke jeno M. M. Dutt-ke balechhen, 'Moshai, narak
barnana-ta apni Goethe theke jherechhen.' Heshe Dattobabu ballen,
'Na dada, Goethe jekhan theke jherechhen, ami-o shekhan theke.'
Bole Milton khule poriye dilen.
>for all practical purposes thrown out of the adda.
Balai shat! Firiye ana hok tabe ... :-)
Dekho, my point was that Robibabu indeed influenced the modern
Bengali language a lot, but he didn't make significant literary
contributions whose effect may be found even today. The reason
I do not consider the influence on the language as a literary
one is that next to Rabindranath, the most important factor in
shaping the development of the Bengali language is Ananda Bajaar
Patrika ... to ki etakeo shaityo bolte habe naki!?
>Indranil.
Regards,
Apra.
Apratim Sarkar
>As I mentioned in my previous post (posted on Friday, and which still
>hasn't made an appearance), why don't we lay down the basis of the
>discussion. What constitutes literary influence - is it language,
>form, theme or something else? It would be helpful to have examples.
IMO, it is the theme and the form.
Example:
The following poem by Jibanananda Das, IMO, has direct RT
influences wrt form:
...
Aparup rup-porishthan
Diganter age
Tomar nirmegh chokkhe kobhu nahi jage!
Akashkusumbithi diya
Malya tumi ano na rochia,
Udhao hao na tumi aleyar pichhe
chhalamai gaganer niche!
...
Adhare nahiko trishna, chokkhe nahi bhul,
Rakte tabo alakta je pare nai ajo rani,
Rudhit ningari tabo ajo debi mange nai raktim chandan!
...
Examples for thematic influence, of course, are much harder to
provide. There are places where the JD influence on Shakti is quite
apparent. Please give me some more time ...
>Ranjan (ran...@ed.ray.com)
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil
: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
: >Ranjan Bhattacharya (ran...@matsbd151.ed.ray.com) wrote:
: How is chhando dependent on the language? Swarabritte jodi likhi,
: tabe Sanskrit-e likhlam ki cholit Bangalai, tate ki ashe jai?
: Also, I do not know of any original chhandos that RT created, that
: influenced the later generation of poets - but I may be just
: ill-informed.
The way I read bengali poems there are only two chhandos: the poyar and
the matrabritto. They are not derived from Sanskrit. The poyar
encompasses a large number of verse forms many of which, I am positive,
did not occur before Rabindranath.
I think the same can be said of Matrabritto.
: Same goes for mil. That, IMO, is not language specific. Rather,
: that goes with the style. Shutarang, M. M. Dutt mil dilen na,
: shekhan thekei Amitrakkhar gothito holo. It was not important
: that he wrote in Bengali.
: Anuprash - no comments, karan RT-r anuprash-er jor chhilo hoitoba,
: kintu amar relevant kichhu para nei. Tabe eta ghatana, Jai-er
: anuprash-er hat-ti bhalo, RT influenced kina jani na.
I was not simply talking about a particular `mil' or `onuprash', but
rather of the character of the poems that comes from a regular or
irregular but controlled use of these.
: Chhando, mil, anuprash eshob to khub relevant, khub bhalo jinish.
: Tabe kina ekebare classical jinish. RT-ke diye influenced haowa
: shakto, particularly Sanskrit sahityo kichhu pore felle - o-i je
: hayechhilo na: Ke jeno M. M. Dutt-ke balechhen, 'Moshai, narak
: barnana-ta apni Goethe theke jherechhen.' Heshe Dattobabu ballen,
: 'Na dada, Goethe jekhan theke jherechhen, ami-o shekhan theke.'
: Bole Milton khule poriye dilen.
Take all the bengali verse that was written before Rabindranath and find
me a significant poem in poyar where `juktakkhor's are counted
consistently as two
syllables. There is no Classical text on Bengali chhando. It developed
as it was written.
: >for all practical purposes thrown out of the adda.
: Balai shat! Firiye ana hok tabe ... :-)
: Dekho, my point was that Robibabu indeed influenced the modern
: Bengali language a lot, but he didn't make significant literary
: contributions whose effect may be found even today. The reason
: I do not consider the influence on the language as a literary
: one is that next to Rabindranath, the most important factor in
: shaping the development of the Bengali language is Ananda Bajaar
: Patrika ... to ki etakeo shaityo bolte habe naki!?
Noy?
I thought even the legal documents ....
Indranil.
Indranil
: >: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
: >: >Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: >: >: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
: >: >
: >Everything that was written
: >after the invention of the printing press obviously had a bigger
: >influence on contemporary and future generations than things written
: >before the printing press.
: Not necessarily. Things written before the printing press were often
: preserved and afterwards reproduced once the printing press came
: into existence. Like, say, the Ramayana, (remember M.M. Dutt.). Or the
: Upanishads, which, you might note, influenced Rabindranath a lot.
Yes, but much of what was written before the printing press is also
surely lost. Besides, the Upanishads can hardly affect the literature in
the same way today as they could have centuries ago when the language of
the Upanishads was still alive. The result of the invention of the
printing press has been that the written language now affects the spoken
one, the exact contrary of what must have happened before its invention.
Charyapadas couldn't have influenced the spoken bengali of that age to
the same extent than RT later did or Anandabajar does now.
: >I haven't read much poetry in the last 10 years and all my
: >books are thousands of miles away. Anyway I'll quote as much as I
: >remember of one of Amiya babu's later day poems:
: >
: >kNedeo pabe na take borshar ojosro jolodhare,
: >phalgun bikele brishti name ...
: >
: >blah blah blah blah
: >
: >motto din, mughdho khon, pritthibir prothom jhonkar obiroho,
: >
: >kNedeo pabe na take ojosro borshar jolodhare.
: I wonder why you would consider this to be Rabindrik. The style,
: IMO, is much more powerful, much more bold, direct than RT's. RT
: would rarely start a poem with a negative sentence.
Interesting comment but I am sure one can find many counter-examples:
Jeyo na jeyo na phire ...
Dekhate pari ne kano pran ....
: Another interesting thing is that while this is one of the most
: popular poems by AC, people hardly remember beyond the first line.
: Perhaps, due to the boldness of the first line ...
Yes of course. The rest was not so memorable.
: When I first read this poem, it reminded me of the impressionist
: paintings of G & G. Thank you Indranil, for reminding me of this
: poem.
: A side point, the blah blah blah blah surely in quite unmistakenly
: Rabindrik, but since Amiyobabu did not write it himself, I believe
: that to be a non-issue ... just kidding :-).
: >: And, you have already partially granted my point, which is that
: >: there was an active change in theme, in subject matter, starting
: >: with Kallol. I would like to argue that the change in theme has gone
: >: so far that there is no noticable Rabindra influence in today's
: >: Bengali literature, so far as the theme is concerned.
: >
: >Those times are gone those people are gone.
: Eta ekta Sanskrit shlok na?
HNa. O tempora O mores.
: >The literaure reflects the
Orabindrik.
: 2. Arun Kumar Sarkar: 40's
: Rabhashe dau dau shamudrer,
: Shorire pake pake fashfarash
: Andhakare chul eliye dao
: Nakhare nil hok shubhra buk.
: Tomake chhara nei, shanti nei
: Golapful ami chh(n)uyechhi dher
: Raktakingshuke jaliye dao
: Amar boishakhi ratridin.
Kallolian. The structure certainly occurs in RT.
:
: 3. Shakti Chatujje (tomar Bhagoban :-)): 50's
: Ami ekti shonar machhi khun korechhi raatdupure
: Take b(n)achate cheyechhilam, A(n)dhar shomudre nouko
: Jemonbhabe bheshe firto. Take b(n)achate cheyechhilam.
: Hathat chhuri doure elo, haater mutho shakto kore
: A(n)dhare chalate bollo, jemonbhabe mare boitha -
: Shukhe opar h(n)eke balchhe, dukkhomochon karbe esho
: Amar pdmadighir kachhe sanb(n)adhano ghatti achhe
: Shekhane keu kapor kache ....
2nd from last line? Of course Shakti would use rabindrik lines on
purpose. And the last line is pure Shakti.
: 4. 60'ser karu kobita mone ashcche na ... What about Tushar Ray:
:
: Signal up.
: A-i Baap!
NO comments.
: 5. Joi goswami: 70's
: Lash re lash, lash re lash,
: Kar dhone tui bhag bashash?
: Kader chhele chhili re toke dekhte chhilo kemon?
: Ma kaj korto loker bari, baper buke byamo.
: Rakto byamo bahye bomi ei niye bas, baser jomi
: Kadai kophe talgolakar kh(n)urchhi kh(n)urchhi kh(n)uri.
: Matir talai jyanto ghilu peyechhi ek khuri.
Written in a traditional chhoda style, that dates from before
Rabindranath.
: Note, that these are not necessarily my favorite poets from these
: dashaks ...
: Now, Indranil, please explain what evidence of Rabindra influence you
: find in these poems!
Well I found an RT-esque line in Shakti's poem. And I will offer my
sampling.
From Shakti:
1) Takhono chilo andhokar, takhono chilo bela,
hridoypure jotilotar cholitechilo khela...
2) Hridoye chile jege, dekhe ki kalo meghe
utola holo aji srabon baridhara,
tomar kane shokhi shudhu she kohilo ki
duar khule dao prohori ache tara?
3) Aj shei ghore elay poreche chhobi,
amon chhilo na ashadh shesher bela,
udyane chhilo borosha peedito phul,
anando bhoirobi.
4) ... amon shomoy otorkite daaklo ke amay ...
5) Jabar shomoy bolo kamon kore ..
From Sunil:
1) Jaagoron hemborno, tumi oke shondhay jagao,
aro kachhe jao ...
2) Tomoshar tire nagno shorire dNaralaam ami,
pashe nei aar maya shongshar aakashe oshoni ...
3) Jodi nirbashon dao ...
4) Amar bhalobashar kono jonmo hoy na mrityu hoy na ..
: >stories can sometimes be discussed without reference to the language .
: >What about poems?
: Yes, they can.
: >
: >: Theme, Indranil, theme. Kan pato. Mone ekta chobi a(n)kaar cheshta
: >: karo. 'Kemon habe, amiyo jodi nashto meye hoi?' e-i jignasha
: >: Robibabur srishto kono choritrer mathai ashto na!
: >
: >Kano ashto na? Nashto maye na likhe onno kichu likhten. Talgach ak paye
: >dNariye jodi tar gol gol pakhate urbar ichche mel dhorte pare ....
: Likhechhen ki? More importantly, do you think the above quote is
: Rabindra influenced? As you have claimed before?
Apart from the necessary twist of the `noshto meye', yes.
: Talgachh kobitati khub bhalo ... but still that cannot be claimed
: as the influencing factor of the tamaltorutal in 'Malatibala Balika
: Bidyalaya'.
`baire didimonir pashe didimonir bor ...' is a rabindrik line in form if
not theme.
Indranil.
Apratim Sarkar
>The way I read bengali poems there are only two chhandos: the poyar and
>the matrabritto.
Of course, Okkhorbritto and Matrabritto are easier to grasp, easier
to implement, hence they are more popular. Kintu, Swarabritto bhule
gele puropuri? Sudhin Datta, Bishnu Dey?
Besides the point, though.
>They are not derived from Sanskrit.
What about earlier Bengali poets eg Krittibas and Kashiram?
>The poyar
>encompasses a large number of verse forms many of which, I am positive,
>did not occur before Rabindranath.
>I think the same can be said of Matrabritto.
OK, so some of these may have been created by RT, some by later
poets. For the sake of the argument, let's assume, RT created
all the different flavours of Poyar that were non-existent
when he started writing, and that no one has created any since then.
Now, coming back to my original question, how has that affected
later, and more importantly, present, day poets? Is it more or less
than the influence that Krittibas' poyar had on RT?
>I was not simply talking about a particular `mil' or `onuprash', but
>rather of the character of the poems that comes from a regular or
>irregular but controlled use of these.
I fail to grasp your point, some examples will help.
>Take all the bengali verse that was written before Rabindranath and find
>me a significant poem in poyar where `juktakkhor's are counted
>consistently as two
>syllables.
Granted. But how has that changed the course of Bengali poetry?
And influenced later generation of poets? The point that you have
made is an well known academic one, let's analyze it's impact on
present day Bengali poetry.
And while we are at it, let's also discuss the everlasting
influence of Vidyapati over RT and how Bhanusingher Padabali
adequately represents Rabindra Kabya, before you start quoting
individual lines from S & S (who are anyway 50's poets) to prove
RT influence on modern (read 80-90's) Bengali literature.
>There is no Classical text on Bengali chhando. It developed
>as it was written.
As it is still developing. Even after 50 years of RT's death. I hope
that it continues to do so.
>Indranil.
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil DasGupta
: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
: >The way I read bengali poems there are only two chhandos: the poyar and
: >the matrabritto.
: Of course, Okkhorbritto and Matrabritto are easier to grasp, easier
: to implement, hence they are more popular. Kintu, Swarabritto bhule
: gele puropuri? Sudhin Datta, Bishnu Dey?
Swarabritto-ta ki ami bhule gechi. Akta udahoron dao diki.
: Besides the point, though.
: >They are not derived from Sanskrit.
: What about earlier Bengali poets eg Krittibas and Kashiram?
`Mahabharo-ter kotha- Amrito sho- man
Kashiram- dash kohe - shone punno- ban||
Choto choto- banorer - baro baro - pet,
Lonka par - hoitei - matha holo - hNet||
Both are Poyars of regular 18 matra.
Very regular.
: >The poyar
: >encompasses a large number of verse forms many of which, I am positive,
: >did not occur before Rabindranath.
: >I think the same can be said of Matrabritto.
: OK, so some of these may have been created by RT, some by later
: poets. For the sake of the argument, let's assume, RT created
: all the different flavours of Poyar that were non-existent
: when he started writing, and that no one has created any since then.
: Now, coming back to my original question, how has that affected
: later, and more importantly, present, day poets? Is it more or less
: than the influence that Krittibas' poyar had on RT?
The ancient Poyar of Krittibash and Kalidash form the core structure of
Bengali poettry. Influence on RT is unquestionable. One can hardly
write a Poyar without rmembering the characteristic tune associated to
the singing of Krittibash''s Mahabharat.
: >I was not simply talking about a particular `mil' or `onuprash', but
: >rather of the character of the poems that comes from a regular or
: >irregular but controlled use of these.
: I fail to grasp your point, some examples will help.
I'll coome back to this point later, with comparative instances.
: >Take all the bengali verse that was written before Rabindranath and find
: >me a significant poem in poyar where `juktakkhor's are counted
: >consistently as two
: >syllables.
: Granted. But how has that changed the course of Bengali poetry?
: And influenced later generation of poets? The point that you have
: made is an well known academic one, let's analyze it's impact on
: present day Bengali poetry.
: And while we are at it, let's also discuss the everlasting
: influence of Vidyapati over RT and how Bhanusingher Padabali
: adequately represents Rabindra Kabya, before you start quoting
: individual lines from S & S (who are anyway 50's poets) to prove
: RT influence on modern (read 80-90's) Bengali literature.
Taliking of poettry in the 80s I am provoked into coommenting that from
the little I read in `Desh' , things are going against RT. Must also
say that Bengali poetry is much the worse for the same reason. Shakti
has a default Rabindrik style which when turned on surpasses RT once i n
a while.
:
: >There is no Classical text on Bengali chhando. It developed
Apratim Sarkar
>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
>: >Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: >: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
>: >: >Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>: >: >: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
>: >: >
>
>
>: >Everything that was written
>: >after the invention of the printing press obviously had a bigger
>: >influence on contemporary and future generations than things written
>: >before the printing press.
>
>: Not necessarily. Things written before the printing press were often
>: preserved and afterwards reproduced once the printing press came
>: into existence. Like, say, the Ramayana, (remember M.M. Dutt.). Or the
>: Upanishads, which, you might note, influenced Rabindranath a lot.
>
>Yes, but much of what was written before the printing press is also
>surely lost. Besides, the Upanishads can hardly affect the literature in
>the same way today as they could have centuries ago when the language of
>the Upanishads was still alive.
But why? Bengali translations of Upanishads are well available.
The Hindu religion, the mysticism therein even affected T. S. Eliot
in Wasteland ... due to the availability of the English translation
I guess. Do you think it would have affected him more if he happened
to be well versed in Sanskrit? And read the original text.
This way, we are going to ignore all foreign influences on any
literature.
>The result of the invention of the
>printing press has been that the written language now affects the spoken
>one, the exact contrary of what must have happened before its invention.
>Charyapadas couldn't have influenced the spoken bengali of that age to
>the same extent than RT later did or Anandabajar does now.
Grnated, but how does thhat influence sahitya? (Here we go again ...
:-)).
>: >I haven't read much poetry in the last 10 years and all my
>: >books are thousands of miles away. Anyway I'll quote as much as I
>: >remember of one of Amiya babu's later day poems:
>: >
>: >kNedeo pabe na take borshar ojosro jolodhare,
>: >phalgun bikele brishti name ...
>: >
>: >blah blah blah blah
>: >
>: >motto din, mughdho khon, pritthibir prothom jhonkar obiroho,
>: >
>: >kNedeo pabe na take ojosro borshar jolodhare.
>
>: I wonder why you would consider this to be Rabindrik. The style,
>: IMO, is much more powerful, much more bold, direct than RT's. RT
>: would rarely start a poem with a negative sentence.
>
>Interesting comment but I am sure one can find many counter-examples:
>
>Jeyo na jeyo na phire ...
Not a negative sentence, but a request.
>Dekhate pari ne kano pran ....
Not a negative sentence, but a question.
In both the above quotes, the positive intentions are apparent.
A better example would have been (not in form, but in theme),
Dujone dekha holo, Madhujaminire,
Kono katha kahilo na, Choliya gelo fire ...
But then the biroho sahityo of RT never attempted to be bold, as
AC attempted to be in the previous quote.
>: >Those times are gone those people are gone.
>
>: Eta ekta Sanskrit shlok na?
>
>HNa. O tempora O mores.
Kalidas na Barahomihir?
>: 2. Arun Kumar Sarkar: 40's
>
>: Rabhashe dau dau shamudrer,
>: Shorire pake pake fashfarash
>: Andhakare chul eliye dao
>: Nakhare nil hok shubhra buk.
>
>: Tomake chhara nei, shanti nei
>: Golapful ami chh(n)uyechhi dher
>: Raktakingshuke jaliye dao
>: Amar boishakhi ratridin.
>
>Kallolian. The structure certainly occurs in RT.
Indranil, if RT happens to write 'ami bari jachchi' anywhere in his
prolific works, and if I say the same to you sometime at the end of
a nice adda, will you recognize that as the effect of RT on me?
>: 3. Shakti Chatujje (tomar Bhagoban :-)): 50's
>
>: Ami ekti shonar machhi khun korechhi raatdupure
>: Take b(n)achate cheyechhilam, A(n)dhar shomudre nouko
>: Jemonbhabe bheshe firto. Take b(n)achate cheyechhilam.
>: Hathat chhuri doure elo, haater mutho shakto kore
>: A(n)dhare chalate bollo, jemonbhabe mare boitha -
>: Shukhe opar h(n)eke balchhe, dukkhomochon karbe esho
>: Amar pdmadighir kachhe sanb(n)adhano ghatti achhe
>: Shekhane keu kapor kache ....
>
>2nd from last line? Of course Shakti would use rabindrik lines on
>purpose. And the last line is pure Shakti.
Amar padmodighir kachhe? Oi-ta? Of course on purpose, jate sekhanne keu
kapor kachte pare. RT jeta konokrome-i bhabte parten na (tate dosher
kichhu nei, jodiyo.)
>: 4. 60'ser karu kobita mone ashcche na ... What about Tushar Ray:
>:
>: Signal up.
>: A-i Baap!
>
>NO comments.
Kapurush. :-)
>: 5. Joi Goswami: 70's
>
>: Lash re lash, lash re lash,
>: Kar dhone tui bhag bashash?
>: Kader chhele chhili re toke dekhte chhilo kemon?
>: Ma kaj korto loker bari, baper buke byamo.
>: Rakto byamo bahye bomi ei niye bas, baser jomi
>: Kadai kophe talgolakar kh(n)urchhi kh(n)urchhi kh(n)uri.
>: Matir talai jyanto ghilu peyechhi ek khuri.
>
>Written in a traditional chhoda style, that dates from before
>Rabindranath.
Rabindrik kina, tai balo.
>Well I found an RT-esque line in Shakti's poem. And I will offer my
>sampling.
Difference is, that you have to *search* for RT-esque lines.
That too in 50's poems. Come to recent days poets.
>
>From Shakti:
>1) Takhono chilo andhokar, takhono chilo bela,
>hridoypure jotilotar cholitechilo khela...
Bhalo kobita, purota post karo.
>2) Hridoye chile jege, dekhe ki kalo meghe
>utola holo aji srabon baridhara,
>tomar kane shokhi shudhu she kohilo ki
>duar khule dao prohori ache tara?
Aro bhalo, eto puro post karo, generally tokko na kare social
obligations metao.
>3) Aj shei ghore elay poreche chhobi,
>amon chhilo na ashadh shesher bela,
>udyane chhilo borosha peedito phul,
>anando bhoirobi.
Eta amar RT-esque mante ektu problem hachche.
>4) ... amon shomoy otorkite daaklo ke amay ...
Harererere? Good choice!
>5) Jabar shomoy bolo kamon kore ..
>From Sunil:
>
>1) Jaagoron hemborno, tumi oke shondhay jagao,
>aro kachhe jao ...
>
>2) Tomoshar tire nagno shorire dNaralaam ami,
>pashe nei aar maya shongshar aakashe oshoni ...
>
>3) Jodi nirbashon dao ...
>
>4) Amar bhalobashar kono jonmo hoy na mrityu hoy na ..
Egulo kintu shabkatai besh tenuous.
>`baire didimonir pashe didimonir bor ...' is a rabindrik line in form if
>not theme.
I would say its a Bu.Ba. line.
Roddur-er sngule a(n)ka megher chera sh(n)ithi
Hathat khule dilo smritir antahin fite.
Emoni ek meghela din Diganter sashonhin
Bhabishyat dekha na jai otit holo hara
Du:shwapane parilo mone droupadir shari.
Balo, eta RT-influenced form tai second derivaive niye Jai
RT-influenced?
>Indranil.
Regards,
Apra.
Apratim Sarkar
jabab ta ar apekkha na kare namiye feli. Particularly, aDai pattor
Goldschlager-er pareo jakhan ghum ashchhe na.
Amar mane hai amra e-i conclusion-ei reach karlam, je dariburo bhashatar
barota ja bajanor bajiye diye gechhe, kintu sahityo-ta atota jhuliye diye
jete pareni. Ki balo he Indranil?
Chhanda niye ami ebang Indranil dujonei besh kichhu bhul balechhi, parashuno
kare dekhlam.
Bangla chhando-r accepted bhag je tinti, swarobritto, matrabritto ar
okkhorbritto - er madhye, searobritto puropuri Bangali jinish. Example khub
shoja, eta basically chharar chhanda.
Jemon,
Diner alo nibhe elo, sujyi dobe dobe
I E A O | I E E O | U I O E | O E
4 4 4 2 -> apurnapad
Akash jure megh karechhe ch(n)aader lobhe lobhe.
from Sishu (RT).
Second linetao o-i eki bhabe swar gune gune pare fela jabe. Ekhane byabohrito
tinti purnapad, ekti apurnapad, tabe temon kono b(n)adhadhara niyom nei.
Arekta, trickier example,
Madhumajhir o-i je noukokhana
B(n)adha achhe Rajganjer ghate
Karo kono kaje lgachhe na to
Bojhai kara achhe kebal pate.
Amai jodi dei tar noukati
Ami tabe shatshota d(n)ar a(n)ti
Pal tule dei charte p(n)aachta chhata
Mithye ghure berai na ko hate ...
- from Sishu (RT).
Ekhane second line-ta explain karte gele:
B(n)adha achhe Rajganjer ghate
A A A E | A A E (R) | A E
Now, apparently, there is a swar (syllable) missing in the second part. RT
named it ruddhadal. So, we have two types of 'dal'-s ruddha and mukto.
Purota bala noi je dal, e-i ar ki.
There aren't examples of swarabritto in Sanskrit literature.
Next, comes matrabritto. Instead on the swars, we count matras. Gaaner
lokjon etake jh(n)ok balte paren:
Panchashare dagdha kare karechho eki sanyashi
Bishmamai diyechho tare charaye
Byakulatara bedana tar batashe othe uchchwashi
Oshru tar akashe pare charaye.
Dhwaniya uthe nikhil bhaba roti bilap shangite
Shakal dik k(n)adiya uthe apani
- Madanbhaswher par (RT).
Pancho,share dagdha,kare karecho,eki sanyashi.
2 + 2 + 2 + 1
Bishma,mai diyecho,tare charye
2 + 2 + 1
Note the similar byabohar of apurna pads at the end. Matrabritto claims its
origin squarely from Sanskrit,early Bengali literature.
For example, Jaideb Goswami-r Gitagobindam:
Badashi jadi kinchadapi dantaruchi koumudi ...
Next comes okkhorbritto: as Indranil has explained, the most notable example
being poyar:
Chhoto chhoto b(n)aador-er baro baro pet
Lanka dingaite giye holo matha h(n)et.
Remember this is the Bengali script, and count the letters: You get the
regular 8 + 6. Aat chhai, aat chhai, poyar-er chh(n)aad koi - chhotobelai
sikhechhilam.
Etaro, kintu, early Bengali-te source: In fact, this comes almost directly
from padakuluk (?) chhanda in Sanskrit, and may be found as early as
Charyapad:
Kaya tarubara panchabi dala
4 + 4 + 4 + 4 : with the aa-kars being counted as a separate okkhor. (See
Indranil, before RT.)
That's about it for chhandos. Please correct any erros that you may have noted.
Finally, to refute Indranil's claim that RT was the boss of anuprash for
Bengali poetry, with all those verses as Chalachapalar chokito chamake and
Takhan torun chhilo arun alo, I would like to present the master at work, much
before RT, Jaideb goswami again. Remember:
Nila Kalebara, pita basana, jamuna tire
Basati Bane Banamali.
Ok, the schnapps is over, time to go to sleep.
Regards,
Apra.