Kālidāsa's Śakuntalā and the Mahābhārata

Kālidāsa's Śakuntalā and the MahābhārataAuthor(s): M. B. EmeneauSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1962), pp. 41-44Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595977 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 15:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.177 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:30:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/595977?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


- - # - - -

WATfTl)ASAS SAEENTAIcA AND TEE MAHAREARATA

M. B. EMENEAU UNIVER8IS?Y OF ALIFORN>, BERKBLEY

:EIIsToRIANs OF SANSKRTT LITERATURE are at variance on the relation between Walidasa's play on Sakuntala and the Sakuntala episode in the Mahabharata (Poona ed.; 1. 62-9). Some have held that the epic story is the source, much altered, for the play. Others have found Ealidasa's source in the Padmapurana.

The most conspicuous proponent of the latter view is M. Winternitz who already in 1898 stated it in a sentence or two in Ind?an Antiquary 27. 136 and who thereafter argued it more strongly (and indeed stubbornly) in Geschichte der iyn- d?,schen Litterat¢r (3 [1922] . 215 ) and in A Xqs- tory of Ind?an Literature (l [1927].376 540).1 Winternitz informs us that the view was advanced in 1896 by Vihari Lal Sarkar in a Bengali treatise. IIaradatta Sarma, under Winternitz's tutelage, upheld it in 1925 in a small treatise, Padmapurana and Kalidasa. In this treatise the chief argument is that the Padmapurana story of Sakuntala is very close in detail to Salidasa's plot, while the epic version is rather unlike both, and that conse- quently Ealidasa must have borrowed from the pzurana and not from the epic.

It is, however, made clear by Sarma that the Anandasrama edition of the Padmapurana (1893- 94) does not contain the Sakuntala episode, even though the Bengali manuscripts do. This is strangely interpreted (rather circularly) as evidence that the Bengali manuscripts contain the older version of the purana, rather than (as we should eLpect) that the Sakuntala story is a late interpolation in the Bengali manuscripts and is based on the play. The latter interpretation is that of A. B. GEajendragadlrar in his 3rd edition of the play (1946), p. sss. lieith, in The Sanskrit Drama (1924), p. 15T, n. I, wasted no words on the Winternitz-Sarma view, but in his curt way merely said that it is "impossible." S. S:. De, A Efistory of Sanskrit Literature (1947), p. 140,

1 A History of Indian Literatxre 3 ( 1959 ) . 1-184, broke oS just before the section on the drama, in which there might possibly have been recorded a change of view.

n. 2, saw no reason to follow Winternitz and Sarma 2

Arguments have not been given against the derivation fronl the Padmapurana, apart from that of Gajendragadkar's based on the absence of the Sakuntala story from a large group of the pturana manuscripts. Presumably the general reaction is the somewhat a priori view that it is unthinkable that the subtle and reSned story, on which so much praise has been showered by so many sensitive critics, should have been the product of a purcona author (and an interpolator at that) rather than of the author who in composing the play clothed the plot in such subtle and reSned poetry.

Apart from Winternitz and Sarma, then, scholars generally hold the view that Salidasa took his plot from the Sakuntala episode of the epic, making very radical changes in it to adapt it to his dramatic purposes. But really firm and con- vincing evidence for this seems not to have been presented (unless the bibliographical item which is not available to me contaiIls it). The usual procedure has been rather to take the derivation for granted and to state in fairly general terms the dependence of Sanskrit drama on the two epics (so

2 Alfred Hillebrandt, Ealidasa, etn Versm4ch zm4 seiner literartschen Wqsrdigqhng (1921), p. 100, ignores entirely Winternitz's view, even though his own statement is a little less than forthright: ' die Sakuntala fusst auf einer alten dem Mahabharata bekannten Sage, ist aber, wenn auch keineswegs ohne Schonheit, doch dort von der kunstlerischen Vollendung, die B:alidasa ihr gegeben hat weit entfernt.' Berthold Muller's Ealidasas fakxntala ql,nd thre Qxelae (Gratulationsschrift des Breslauer Elisa- bethgymnasiums, 1874; a longer title in Winternitz, G[eschichte 3. 215, n. 2) is not available; it presumably finds Kalidasa's source in the epic. Hillebrandt reports of it ( p. 101 ) only: ' Berthold Muller . . . hat beide Texte sinnig verglichen und die t3berlegenheit iEZalidasas in grossen wit in kleinen Zugen nachgewiesen.' Gaw- ronski, Les som4rces de qxelqxes drames indiens, which is referred to by Keith, is not available. F. Belloni- Filippi's article ' La leggenda mahabharatiana di Cakun- tala nell'edizione critica di Poona, Giornale delta Societd6 Asiatica Italianay N. S. 2 (1930). 135-40, accepts the view of Winternitz and Earma, but seems to add no argument of value.

41



EMENEAU: :KalidEsa's Sakuntald and the MahAbharata 42

lieith passim), or to poiIlt to the drama audience's knowledge of the commoIl background of legend and mythology, which the epics provided (but this argument is two-edged, since the puranas also are involved) and which is the matris within which the audience's appreciation fitted. The latter is found most recently in G. L. Anderson's 1959 preface (pp. ssiv fE.) to Ryder's translation of Sakuntala in the Everyman Library. Usually specific treatment of this play has centered on dis- cussion of the divergences between the XIahabha- rata story and :lialidasa's plot; this wa3 Gajen- dragadiar's chief concern (pp. siii-xxvii). Ryder's short treatment reversed this tendency (Everyman Library vol., p. 103), and even looked for verbal borrowings. 13:e called attention to the fact that :lialidasa harked back to the epic derivation of the name Sakuntala from sakunta- ' bird ' (Mbh. 1. 66. 14) when he made her little son hear her name in the Prakrit remark about a toy peacock (pekkha sauntalavannarn) in vii. 20.10- really a divergence from the epic. Ryder also found that 'Kanva's worldly wisdom as to husband and wife dwelling together is reproduced (Act IV).' Mbh. 1. 68. 11, which expresses this sentiment, is prob- ably reproduced in the play at act V, vs. 18, but not in Ranva's mouth. This is the only piece of evidence that looks in the direction of Ryder's remarks. He referred to the give-and-take between the king and Sakuntala in act V as showing ' a new dignity '; in fact, the long epic wrangle is so trans- mogrified by :lialidasa that it is difficult to find any similarity.

One parallelism should be pointed out, since it provides very specific evidence of :K:alidasa's dependence on the epic; it seems to have been uni- versally neglected. It is that between Mbh. 1. 68, vss. 52-3, SS-T, 60, and Sak. vii. 17 and 19. The passages are worth quoting to show in detail Ealidasa's treatment.

Mbh. 1.68 52 partpatya yada siinqzr dharantre.nugqmthitoh

pitq£r astisyate 'ngani kirn iva 'sty adhikarn tatah

53 sa tvarn ssayarn anql,praptarn sabSiZa.sarn inzaXrn sutanz

preksamanarn ca kak$ena kirnarthanz avanza- nyase

bS na vasasaJrn na rama.narn na 'pam sparsas tatha sukhah

s1,sor alingyamanasya sparsah sunor yotha sukhah

56 brahmano dvipadam srestho gaur varsstha catu.spadam

gql,rqzr gartyasamn sresthah pql,trah sparsavatarn varah

ST sparsatu tva-rn sanzaslisya pql,tro 'yarn prir yadarsanah.

pql,trasparsat sukhatarah sparso loke na vi- dyate

* * * . . . . * . * -

60 nanu nanza 'nkanz aropya snehad granzarw- tararn gatah

rniirdEni} putran upaghraya pratinandanti . manavae

52. When his son covered with the dust of the ground throws himself upon him and clings to his father's limbs, what is better than that ?

53. Why do you reject with a frown this child who by himself has come to you affectionately and is looking at you ?

* . . . . . . . . . .

SS. The contact neither of clothes nor of beauti- ful women nor of water is as pleasing as the touch of a baby son whom one hugs.

56. A brahman is best of men (bipeds), a cow is best of quadrupeds, a teacher is best of venerated persons, a son is best of all to touch.

ST. Let this pretty son of yours cling to you and touch you. No contact in the world is more pleasant than the touch of one's son.

. . . . . . . . . . .

60. Can we not say that when men have gone to another village, out of affection they let little boys climb on their lap and snifE their heads 3 and are joyful?

Sak., act vii

vs. 17 alaksyadantarngkutan aninzittahasair avyaktavarnararnantyavacah pravrtttn

ankastrayapranayinas tanayan vahanto dhanyas tadangarajasa paruUstbhavanti

'Carrying their sons, whose bud-like teeth are visible because of unaccountable bursts of laughter,

8 The ' sniff-kiss ' was treated by E. W. liopkins, JAOS 28 ( 1907 ) . 120-34.



EMENEAU: EalidEsa's Sakuntal and the MahAbhflrata 42 v

who6e fir6t words are charming because of their indistinct sods, who love to shelter in their fathers' laps, happy they are soiled by the dirt of those childrenns bodies.'

vs. 19 anena kasya 'pi kulankure.na sprste.su gatre.su sukham mamai'varn

karn nirtrtirn cetasi {asya kuryad yasya'yam angat kRtinah pratutah

' Such is my happi:ness when my limbs are touched by this child of some stranger's family. What content would he cause in the mind of that fortunate man froxn whose body he has sprung?4

In the epic the verses are part of SakuntalCs plea to the king that he accept her and the king's and her son; in the play the verses are spoken by the king when he meets the little boy, who un- known to him is his son, and (the second verse) when he touches the boy in releasing the lion cub from his grasp. The context is different. The treatment also is different, di:Suse in the epic, tight and concise in the play. The phraseology is difer- ent, with only the forms anka-, anga-, sutkha-, and sprs- in common. lialidasa's verses have conceits about prattling words and childish laughter which ar) not in the epic. But the general sentiments are certainly the same, and there are identical conceits. In :Salidasa's vs. 17 the dirt of the child's body which gets on to the father is that of vs. 52 of the epic passage. In vs. 19 the ' stranger's family' (kasya 'pi kula- 'of someone or other's family ') clearly harks back to the child in another village (grarr?arwtara-) of the epic vs. 60. There can be no shadow of doubt that :Salidasa's two verses depend on the six in the epic, and that, radically transformed as they are, their debt should be acknowledged. The only other explanation of such detailed coincidence would be borrowing by the epic from :K:alidasa, and this is ruled out by the relatilre chronology, ancertain as it is in detail.5

4These lrerses are in all the recensions of the play; for the evidence, A. Scharp4, Raltd&sa-Le$icon. Vol. I: Basic text of the works. Part I: AbhijEanaFakuntala (1954). It should be noted too that all the epic verses referred to in this paper are found in the whole of the manuscript tradition.

6 It is significant that in the relevant place in the Padmapurana, i. e. the king's meeting with the small boy ( Svargakhan. da, Bakuntalopakhyana, chap. 5, vss. 51-9, as reported by Barma), there is no trace of the sentiments that are found in the verses just considered. Relation in detail of Kalidasa with the Mahabharata,

Given this much clear demonstration of borrowing of detail, we can be sure that another small coincidence of a highly specific nature is due to borrowing. In the epic, lianva on his return to the hermitage recognized by the divine wisdom won by austerity that in his absence Sakuntala had been married by king Du-hsanta by the gandharva rite of mutual consent, and made known to her his views in a long speech beginning thus (Mbh. 1.67.2S, 26ab):

tvaya 'dya rajanvayaya rnans anadrtya yat krtah purnsd saha sansayogo na sa dharmnopaghatakah ksatrtyasya hi gandharvo vivahah srestha gcyate

' it does not offend against lawful duty, that without referring to me today you, who are of royal lineage, united with a man; for marriage according to the gandharva rite is said to be the best for one of warrior rank.)

This is not further explained, but would be com- monplace to those familiar with the epic and the warrior and kingly custom set forth in it, as it is in fact set forth early in the chapter. The applica- tion to Sakuntala has been motivated earlier in the story by the account of her origin from a father Visvamitra, who was originally a ksatriya (warrior), and Duhsanta has said (1.67.1): susyak- tsDm rajaputrt tvam ' you are clearly a kingSs daughter,' presumably with the point of her suita- bility as a wife for him in mind. The usual prohi- bition against caste mixture, however, is not es- plicitly stated in this epic story, and, in spite of its ethical importance and in this instance its practical importance since Sakuntala is generally regarded as the daughter of the brahman li:anva, it is touched upon only in the word rajarwrayaya ' (you) who are of royal lineage,' which of course is the verbal justification for li:anva's statement that the marriage is according to dharma, i. e. lawful according to usage, in this instance the usage of 7csatriyas. The passage is peculiarly con- densed in its statement of the situation, but this is one phase of epic style. Ralidasa, however, makes much of the point in his first act: in vs. 21 and the prose immediately preceding it the king poses the question of Sakuntala's lineage, the scene end- ing with vs. 25 enlightens him about her r2jarsi

but not with the Padmapurana-here is further evidence if it is needed, to eliminate the Padmapurana frotn consideration.



EMENEAU: Zalidasa's Sakuntala and the MahabErata EMENEAU: Zalidasa's Sakuntala and the MahabErata 4 4

('royal sage) father. iEtyder had already noted that :Salidasa was in debt to the epic in this episode: it has perhaps been of some value to make a detailed examination, and in this point, as in the former one, to note the great divergence in language and structure, but the remarkable closeness in its bearing on the plot.6

The first close convergence in detail that was treated cannot be coincidence. One text has borrowed from the other, and considering the chrono logical priority of our critically established Maha- bharata text to Ralidasa, we must conclude that iIR:alidasa has borrowed from the Mahabharata.

6 Did Kalidasa derive the name of one of Cakuntala's friends, Priyamvada, from the epic ? The two friends are, to be sure, an invention of the dramatist. The epic story contains the word in the passage about the great importance of a wife to a man (1.68.39-51, esp. 42): sakhayah pravtvtktest4 bhavanty etah prtyamsadah ' these sweet-speaking (wives) are friends in solitude.' The word is not an uncommon one, and Kalidasa certainly used it with the slightly different meaning ' flatterer ' in one passage. It is impossible to prove that he was led to invent the name for his character by reminiscence of this epic passage, and yet one cannot help thinking that he may have done so.

('royal sage) father. iEtyder had already noted that :Salidasa was in debt to the epic in this episode: it has perhaps been of some value to make a detailed examination, and in this point, as in the former one, to note the great divergence in language and structure, but the remarkable closeness in its bearing on the plot.6

The first close convergence in detail that was treated cannot be coincidence. One text has borrowed from the other, and considering the chrono logical priority of our critically established Maha- bharata text to Ralidasa, we must conclude that iIR:alidasa has borrowed from the Mahabharata.

6 Did Kalidasa derive the name of one of Cakuntala's friends, Priyamvada, from the epic ? The two friends are, to be sure, an invention of the dramatist. The epic story contains the word in the passage about the great importance of a wife to a man (1.68.39-51, esp. 42): sakhayah pravtvtktest4 bhavanty etah prtyamsadah ' these sweet-speaking (wives) are friends in solitude.' The word is not an uncommon one, and Kalidasa certainly used it with the slightly different meaning ' flatterer ' in one passage. It is impossible to prove that he was led to invent the name for his character by reminiscence of this epic passage, and yet one cannot help thinking that he may have done so.

Once this is established, the second instance of detailed convergence is to be interpreted isl the same way. We have, then, found some very desirable detailed evidence that Ealidasa used the S3akunt;alk story in the Mahabharata as the basis for his play. Despite all the change that he introduced both in plot and in language, he failed to destroy com- pletely all the traces of his indebtedness, and detailed study has succeeded in finding it. Lip- service has often been paid to recognition of the debt that the later highly-wrought poetry owed to the epic, and there have been efforts to point out in detail what is owed to the Ramayana. In general, however, the Mahabharata has been the stepchild of Sanskrit literary scholarship. Now that mag- nifieent critical work has been done on the text in India in recent decades, it is time to utilize it, as has been attempted in this paper, for the literary and other work that it can support.7

T For such literary work, it is possible to refer to the unpublished University of California (Berkeley) Ph.D. dissertation ( 1959 ) by Ram Karan Sharma, The Ete- rnents of Poetry tn the Mahabharata, but to very little else.

Once this is established, the second instance of detailed convergence is to be interpreted isl the same way. We have, then, found some very desirable detailed evidence that Ealidasa used the S3akunt;alk story in the Mahabharata as the basis for his play. Despite all the change that he introduced both in plot and in language, he failed to destroy com- pletely all the traces of his indebtedness, and detailed study has succeeded in finding it. Lip- service has often been paid to recognition of the debt that the later highly-wrought poetry owed to the epic, and there have been efforts to point out in detail what is owed to the Ramayana. In general, however, the Mahabharata has been the stepchild of Sanskrit literary scholarship. Now that mag- nifieent critical work has been done on the text in India in recent decades, it is time to utilize it, as has been attempted in this paper, for the literary and other work that it can support.7

T For such literary work, it is possible to refer to the unpublished University of California (Berkeley) Ph.D. dissertation ( 1959 ) by Ram Karan Sharma, The Ete- rnents of Poetry tn the Mahabharata, but to very little else.

HISTORIANS OF AFGlIAN RULiE IN INDIA

HAw[lz.n UADIN

KINGSTON UPON HUJJL

HISTORIANS OF AFGlIAN RULiE IN INDIA

HAw[lz.n UADIN

KINGSTON UPON HUJJL

THE Sl7LTANATE OF DELHI which was established in 1206 by the Indian viceroy of Sultan Mutizz al-I)la Muhammad ibn Sam of Ghor, continued to flourish for over a century and a half, but fell on evil days during the reign of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351-1388) who was des- tined to see the disruption of an empire which under his predecessor had embraced nearly the entire sub-continent. After his death the throne of Delhi was continually contested by rival fac- tions until Timur's invasion in 1398 virtually put an end to the Tughluq dynasty. The Sayyids who emerged in 1414, owed their rise to Timurns benevolence,1 but their greatest achievement, per-

1 At the time of leaving Delhi in 1399, Timur is be- lieved to have bestowed its government on Ehidr Ehan, the Sayyid, but the latter was not able to gain control

THE Sl7LTANATE OF DELHI which was established in 1206 by the Indian viceroy of Sultan Mutizz al-I)la Muhammad ibn Sam of Ghor, continued to flourish for over a century and a half, but fell on evil days during the reign of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351-1388) who was des- tined to see the disruption of an empire which under his predecessor had embraced nearly the entire sub-continent. After his death the throne of Delhi was continually contested by rival fac- tions until Timur's invasion in 1398 virtually put an end to the Tughluq dynasty. The Sayyids who emerged in 1414, owed their rise to Timurns benevolence,1 but their greatest achievement, per-

1 At the time of leaving Delhi in 1399, Timur is be- lieved to have bestowed its government on Ehidr Ehan, the Sayyid, but the latter was not able to gain control

haps, was to repulse further Mughal attacks and delay the Mughal occupation o£ India by about a century. They were superseded in 1451 by the Lodl Afghans who e2atended the boundaries o£ the Sultanate, and founded a new capital at Agra.2 The last LodS Sultan was defeated by Babur at the battle of Panipat in 1526, but the Afghans under Sher Shah Sur recaptured the throne in 1538 from Babur's son, Eumayun, and continued to enjoy sovereignty till 1555 when Humayun was able to re-establish Mughal rule.

Of it until 1414. See Muhammad Bihamad lihanl, " Tarlkh-i-Muhammadl ' (British Mllseum), MS foL 306B, Yahya Sihrindl, Tarzkh-z-Xqffibarak Shah?> ( Cal- cutta, 1931), p. 166.

a For an account of the foundation of Agra, see the writer's article on {' The Afghan architecture of India " in the Revista de9as Studs Ors«talt, XXXV, 149-155.

haps, was to repulse further Mughal attacks and delay the Mughal occupation o£ India by about a century. They were superseded in 1451 by the Lodl Afghans who e2atended the boundaries o£ the Sultanate, and founded a new capital at Agra.2 The last LodS Sultan was defeated by Babur at the battle of Panipat in 1526, but the Afghans under Sher Shah Sur recaptured the throne in 1538 from Babur's son, Eumayun, and continued to enjoy sovereignty till 1555 when Humayun was able to re-establish Mughal rule.

Of it until 1414. See Muhammad Bihamad lihanl, " Tarlkh-i-Muhammadl ' (British Mllseum), MS foL 306B, Yahya Sihrindl, Tarzkh-z-Xqffibarak Shah?> ( Cal- cutta, 1931), p. 166.

a For an account of the foundation of Agra, see the writer's article on {' The Afghan architecture of India " in the Revista de9as Studs Ors«talt, XXXV, 149-155.



Documents

Kālidāsa's Śakuntalā and the Mahābhārata