5C 



V EM AN A, BY 



which Mr. Brown dismisses with the significant remark that 

 " critical exactitude is not to be expected in an author who 

 disregarded eloquence of style." 



Sotfs5b 2^O5J50£>o"e5?5b ^S^O^b T^oo^^_^o # &|| 1.122. 



Mr. Brown's verdict certainly represents the opinion of 

 all native critics, and Vemana may, without disparaging 

 his real merit, be admitted to stand higher as a philosopher 

 than he does as a poet. 



Mr. Brown compares Vemana with Lucian and Rabelais. 

 No doubt, like the former, he laboured to undermine the 

 religion and philosophy of his countrymen by his satire, 

 and, like the latter, had a special hatred of monks and hy- 

 pocrities. He also resembles both these writers in the 

 profanity and indecency with which his writings are so 

 often tainted. But there is little else in common between 

 them. Lucian and Rabelais are prose writers, and the form- 

 er is an elegant writer. Vemana is a poet and not a good 

 poet. Lucian and Rabelais are eminent for their wit and 

 humour. There is but little wit and no humour in Vema- 

 na s satire. 



Mr. Brown remarks that " Vemana has in many passages 

 called himself a madman with a view, we may suppose, to 

 securing himself from the vengeance he was likely to incur 

 by his unsparing satires on Hindooism and the Braminical 

 hierarchy." The following is one of these passages, 



^Sb Kexjfib ^ ^ss^o^o?^^ \ a. II. B. 45. 



Those who consider themselves decent and reputable, look 

 upon the mad Vemana with astonishment ; as the deity 



