flounders miserably. JIVAKA, whose lethargic mind did not want to be disturbed often by the necessity of re-valuation according to change of time and circumstances, has had to pay dearly for this weakness. KUDILA was just the reverse of this. He was ever on the alert and never spared himself. His mind was ever engaged - albeit in schemes - and was evolving plan after plan to suit altered circumstances. Leave alone its ethical value, his intellectual agility strikes us with wonder. JIVAKA joins with this intellectual torpidity, a respect, as I have already pointed out, for conventions and traditional grooves of thought and expression. His eulogy of Sundara as in I.i. 37-8 is little better than a conventional compliment; for it does not take long for KUDILA to make him revise his judgment of the Saint "ஐயரும் அழுக்காறடைந்தார் மெய்மை". Though he talks of progressive reforms in politics (IV.v 65-73), his ideas of womanhood were of the old world order (I.iv. 108). Folloowing this traditional line of conduct he interdicts VANI'S marriage with NATARAJAN and forces PALADEVA on MANONMANI, although MANONMANI'S obedience takes off the edge from the bare-faced character of the use of parental power. In his judgment of men he errs egregiously. To the very last his estimate of KUDILA does not undergo any change (V.iii. 105-9). This is due not merely to KUDILA'S consummate hypocrisy and cunning but also to a certain obtuseness of mind on the part of JIVAKA. He does not understand NARAYANAN; he only takes him as one indulging in jokes and quips. He does not understand SUNDARA; he readily echoes KUDILA'S judgment of the Saint (I.iii. 34-5). Of VANI, of NATARAJAN, of PURUSHOTHAMA and of SAKADA he has but the haziest and the most superficial notions. He has neither the intelligence nor the skill to pierce into the kernel of a character and read it aright. His easy nature contents itself by skimming on the surface and this does not permit him to arrive at correct valuation of the men who surround him. This intellectual stolidity leads him to cnsider friends as foes and foes as friends (IV.v. 211-219). What profound shallowness! Yet the keen observing NARAYANA speaks enthusiastically of his good points in IV.iii. 102-103. He evinces patriotism, courage in the field of battle and a high sense of dignity. There virtues are quite compatible with the intellectual defect JIVAKA displays. Not only is he faulty in his judgments, he is also hasty and impulsive at times. His sentencing NARAYANA to be executed proceeds from a conversation held behind the back of the latter. The moment KUDILA expatiates on the so-called crimes and misdemeanours of NARAYANS'S that moment Jivaka Jumps to the conclusion of Narayana's culpability and passes the atrocious sentence of execution on him (IV.iv. 48). MURUKAN, who could not see the justice of this kingly fiat, deliberately misunderstands its meaning and drift and calls upon KUDILA to follow him to the post