मालविकाग्निमित्रम्/उपोद्घातः
| ← मुखपृष्ठम् | मालविकाग्निमित्रम् उपोद्घातः कालिदासः |
प्रथमोऽङ्कः → |
CRITICAL NOTICE.
The present edition of the Malavikagnimitra is based upon a collation of seven MSS., six of which are written in the Devanagari and the remaining one in the Telagu character. They are as follows:-
(1) A MS. in the office of the Secretary to the Dakshinâ Prize Committee and originally belonging to Mr.Ganesh Shâstrî Lele. It is altogether a recent MS., not being older than six years. It contains thirty-four and a half oblong leaves, of thick blue paper, and is written in a bold and legible hand. Its colophon is इति कालिदासविरचितमालविकाग्निमित्रनाम नाटकं समाप्तम् । श्रीर्भूयाल्लेखकपाठकयोः ।। ६ ॥ शके १७८५ रुधिरोद्रारीनामसंवत्सरे भाद्रपदशुक्ल १२ द्वादश्यां गुरुवासरे लेखनं परिपूर्णमस्तु ॥ शुभं भवतु ॥ यादृशं पुस्तकं दृष्ट्वा तादृशं लिखितं मया । यदि शुद्धमशुद्धं वा मम दोषो न विद्यते ॥ १ ॥ जलाद्रक्षेत्स्थलाद्रक्षेद्रक्षेत्शिथिलबन्धनात् । मूर्खहस्ते न दातव्यं एवं वदति पुस्तकं ।। २ । भग्नपृष्ठिकटिग्रीवा स्तब्धदृष्टिरधोमुखम् ॥ कष्टेन लिखितं ग्रन्थं यत्नेन परिपालयेत् ॥ ३ ॥ I have called this MS. A.
(2) Another MS. belonging to Mr. Govind Shâstri Nirantara of Nassick, a very correct and reliable one. It ends with the couplet: सप्तसप्ताश्वसु-[कु?]- मिते राक्षसाह्वयवत्सरे । निरंतरोपाभिधेन गोविन्देन व्यलेखि यत् । and thus bearing the date Śâl. 1777, i.e. A.C. 1855. Besides having been copied, it seems, from a very correct original, it contains explanatory remarks here and there in the margin of the leaves. I have called this MS. B.
(B) A third MS., a very neatly written and trustworthy copy ; though bearing no date, it appears to be from 75 to 100 years old. This also belongs to a Shastri at Nassick. I have designated this MS. by the letter C.
(4) This also comes from Nassick. It bears the following colophon: -
|
मयूरेश्वरपन्तेन श्रीमद्रामतनूभुवा। |
पिङ्गलोपनाम्नो धुण्डिराजस्येदं मौल्येन संपादितम्। This likewise is a very carefully copied MS, and corrected, like all the MSS. here described, secunda manu, with the aid of another MS. Though bearing no date, it appears equally old with the last preceding. It is accompanied by a Sanskrit translation of the Prakrit passages appended with a separate paging at the end. I have named this MS. D. These three MSS, B, C, D, were kindly procured for me by my friend Mr. Govind K. Sabde.
(5) Another MS, lent me by Mr. Ganesh Shastri Lele of Trimbakeswar. It bears the date Sal. 1710, i. e. A. C. 1789, as embodied in the colophon: व्योमेन्दद्रिकृभिर्युक्ते कीलके शुक्रमासगे । शुक्ले शिवतिथौ चान्द्रं नाटकं लिखितमिदम् । कृष्णसुतविधनाथेन लिखितम्. It is a very correct MS., containing 34 oblong leaves, of which the first is subsequently replaced by a different hand, marked at the end “गतपत्त्रप्रतिनिधिपत्रम्”. In the margin of the MS. are given now and then short explanatory notes. It is a very correct and trustworthy MS. I have called it E.
(6) The sixth was kindly lent me by Mr. Pandurang Narayan, Kirloskar of Gurlhasur, in the Belgaum Collectorate. It is an excellent MS., being written in a beautiful clear legible hand, remarkably correct, not only copied, it seems, by a conscientious and intelligent scribe, but also subsequently corrected by some one who understood the drama. The Prakrit passages in it are each accompanied by a Sanskrit translation immediately following it. It ends thus :-श्रीमत्कालिदासकृतं मालविकाग्निमित्रं नाम नाटकं संपूर्णमस्तु ।। श्रीकाशीविश्वेश्वरार्पणमस्तु ।। शके १७२६ रक्ताक्षी नामसंवत्सरे आषाढवद्य सप्तमी भानुवासरे मुकाम शिरहटी समाप्तः । ग्रन्थसंख्या ११५० छ। The Ms. is, therefore, just 65 years old. It contains forty-seven oblong leaves of a bluish kind of thick paper. I have given this the name F. The six MSS. from A to F were collated at first and the present edition prepared, with no expectation of obtaining more MSS. for collation. 'These six MSS. are designated f "our MSS.” in the Notes, critical and explanatory, accompanying the present edition. But through the kindness of Mr. Gangiah of Bangalore, obtained, after the whole text had been put into type,
(7) An excellent MS.in the Telagu character, written on palmyra leaves, 28 in number. It is a very correct MS, almost free from error, having been copied by a Shâastrî. It is forty-three years old, as we see from the following: {{bold|श्रीरामभद्र गुरुचरणारविन्दाभ्यो नमो नमः । व्ययसंवत्सरे चैत्रबहुले १३ त्रयोदशी गुरुवासरे नृसुह्मसूरिसूनुना योगानृसुह्मेण लिखितमिदं नाटकं स्वकीयमेव नान्यदीयम् । श्रीराम ‡| Though all the various readings of this MS, which I have named G, are not given, in the footnotes, the principal of them have either, wherever it seemed
‡ It goes on thus :-
|
रागाख्यवह्निमित्रं यन्नeटकं लिखितं मया । |
The last stanza though carved like the whole Ms is yet uninked, and seems, accordingly, to have been subsequently added. This, as well as the exigencies of the metre, would account for the mention दर्श as the date on which the MS. was written. necessary, been adopted into the text of the present edition, or have been noticed in the Notes appended.
The seven MSS. are so characterized that they seem to belong to two families. A B C D E are certainly derived origin- ally from one and the same source, as is proved by the fact of their reading a few passages in the same wrong way, e.g. शमिंष्ठाया कृतिः for शर्मिष्ठायाः कृतिः (p. 22, l. 11) उपलभते for उपलभे (p. 10्३, L.5). Of 'course, though originally belonging to the same source, probably D,‡ they have, subsequently to their genesis, been corrected, and therefore vary considerably from each other, as may be seen from the variंx lectiones noticed in our footnotes. MSS. F and G, on the contrary, form a separate family by themselves. This is apparent from both of them reading certain passages in one and the same way. And yet G differs every now and then from F, a fact that seems to owe its origin to the former, or rather the source of it, having been probably corrected subsequently with the help of other MSS., though it bears no marks of correction in its present form.
As, fortunately, all the MSS. collated for the present edition were almost equally good, and as none of them exhibit a different redaction of the text, properly so called, none of them can be said to be the basis of the text herein given to a greater extent than another. All of them have been most minutely and carefully collated, and their differences given in the foot-notes, except such as appeared to me to have arisen from clerical errors.
The Sanskrit version (छाया) of the Prakrit passages, given in the present edition, though based upon the translation found in MSS. D and F had yet to be greatly corrected by the editor, that of the MSS. in question being, as is usually the case, very inaccurate and incorrect.
‡ Thus, e.g., the ते in उपलभेते in D is subsequently scratched, but not sufficiently, and hence the ते was copied into the other MSS. One point more requires special notice; the manner, namely, that I have adopted in this edition of writing Prâkŗit conjuncts containing aspirates, whether hard or soft. Thus it is usual to write the Prâkŗt forms of लक्ष्मी, पुष्प, पृष्ठा as लच्छी,पुष्फ, पुच्छिदा. Editors of Sanskrit-Prâkŗit works have always, in fact, followed the same rules in writing Prâkŗit conjuncts as they do in writing Sanskrit conjunct letters. And Vararuchi, also, after having enjoined, that wherever, after performing an elision or substitution enjoined by a rule, a single consonant comes to represent a conjunct, this letter is always doubled, except in the beginning of a word"(शेषदेशयोद्दिंत्वमनादौ, Prâkŗita-Prakaâśa III. 50, Prof. Cowel's Edition), he states, that "wherever the single representative is an aspirate ......... is to be doubled by prefixing its own non-aspirate,” (वर्णेषु यजः पूर्वः Ibid. III. 51) . therefore,Vararuchi. clearly enjoins forms like लच्छी, पुप्फ, and पुच्छिदा, not ली, एफ, धछुिदा. लछी/छ, पुफ्/फ्, पुछि/छदा।
I must accordingly explain why I have deviated from that grammarian. My authority for the deviation is the concurrent testimony of all the MSS. 'These have a peculiar method of writing Prâkŗit conjuncts. In Sanskrit they give all the components of a conjunct distinctly, but in Prâkŗit the presence of the first component of every conjunct letter is merely indicated by a dot placed before it. This dot indicates that the letter before which it is placed is to be doubled. Thus what ought to be fully written अत्तभवं, they write अ-तभवं, ajjǎutta is अ-जउ-त and not अज्जउत्त. And so also in the case of conjuncts containing aspirates. As दि-ठा, ल-छी, पु-फ, पु-छिदा. This practice of indicating a doubling by means of a dot is not only what is found in the Devanâgarî MSS., but even the Bangalore MS, written in Telagu (that marked G), follows the same method, and that under circumstances which clearly show what importance is attached to this method of writing conjuncts. For it is well known that in the Telagu character the mark for an anusvara, whether this be original, as in सिंह, substitutionary for any of the five nasals, as in नंद, is a dot put after that letter which has the anusvâra in pronunciation. But though this method is followed in respect of Sanskrit words, the dot in the Prâkŗit passages of the MS in question always means a strengthening of the following letter by means of doubling it; and the anusvâra is there represented as in the Devanâgari character by a dot put over the syllable which is to be nasalized by it. It is therefore clear from the general practice of the MSS. that the dot put before a letter in Prâkŗit conjuncts indicates that that letter is to be doubled. But we have the same sign put before an aspirate that we have before an unaspirate letter. I have also examined many MSS. of other Sanskrit-Prâkŗit works, and I have always found the dot to be invariably used as a sign of doubling, and nowhere any the least indication that 'the doubling of an aspirate is to be effected by adding before it its own non-aspirate,” as taught by Vararuchi in the Sûtra वर्गेषु युजः पूर्वः, III. 51. One and the same sign being used by the MSS. to indicate doubling, whether of aspirate or non-aspirate letters, I have simply doubled the letter before which the MSS. put a dot, that is to say, I have not followed Vararuchi's rule about the doubling of aspirates by means of non-aspirates.
The text of the Drama of Malavikâgnimitra was first printed at Bonn in 1840, edited by the late Otto Frederik Tullberg. That edition, however, of the Swedish scholar was, unfortunately, far from being correct. Many a passage in it is corrupt and confused; Some verses are given as prose, and speeches of different characters are put into the mouth of one and the same speaker.
Then followed, in 1856, a German translation by Professor Weber. This translation was not based entirely on the unfortunately faulty edition of Dr.Tullberg; but the learned Professor, as might have been expected,took care to examine for himself into the MSS., and proposed many an emendation of the text in his notes to his translation.
But the original Sanskrit Drama, as far as I am aware, is as yet nowhere printed in a correct edition,based, as every edition of a Sanskrit work ought to be,on the collation of several trustworthy MSS. collected from different parts of India. To supply this desideratum is the principal object I have had in view in preparing the present edition. The Drama of Mâlavikâgnimitra is a remarkable instance of how much a genuine production of a well-known poet may suffer, when left to the mercies of distant posterity. The history of that play affords a most instructive illustration of the universal disfavour that is not unfrequently shown to an object that has once had the misfortune of being accidentally disfavoured by a great man. Genuine merit does not always shine forth through all clouds of misfortune. It is as frequently brought to light by an accidental glance of illustrious eyes, as thrown into obscurity by a contemptuous look of them.
Such and no other is the misfortune under which the play of Mâlavikâ and Agnimitra" has hithertolaboured. Professor H. H. Wilson, the most eminent orientalist, was the first who brought that drama, along with many others, to the notice of European Sanskrit scholars. But in the account which he gives of this play in his Appendix to the second volume of his excellent work on the Theatre of the Hindus, that great scholar expresses himself rather unfavourably on the merits of the play, and doubts very much whether it belongs to the celebrated author of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî . Nay he seems to have been of opinion that the play might be the production of a Kâlidâsa, who lived perhaps in the tenth or eleventh century, or even later than that.
These and other depreciatory remarks of the great orientalist on the literary merits and the pretensions to antiquity of the drama, followed by the greatly incorrect state in which the text of it was edited and published by Dr. Tullberg, has in my humble opinion, not a little contributed to the neglect into which the play has hitherto been thrown by the public, to the fact that by some ‡it is regarded as a production not of that Kâlidâsa of antiquity, who has presented us with the immortal plays of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvas'i, but of an inferior namesake of him, who belonged to a very modern time. But how far the drama in question deserves that it should be denied the honour of coming from the hands of the celebrated author of the Śâkuntalaand how far he himself deserves to be deprived of the credit of writing it, seems to require some examination.
<ref> ‡ Thus Dr. Hall (Vâsavadattâ, preface, page 15) not only believes that the play does not belong to the author of the Śâkuntala, but that it does not belong to any Kâlidâsa at all. He says, " I will add that the frequent omission in MSS. of this drama of the words attributing it to Kâlidâsa furnishes a strong presumption that they have been foisted into the original composition. " I do not understand what words are those that Dr. Hall says are omitted in the MSS. of the play that he examined. It is difficult to see how the prologue can possibly stand without the words attributing the drama to Kâlidâsa. Indeed, the name of Kalidasa is twice repeated in the prologue and unless the name of some other author is — foisted" into the text in place of that of Kalidasa in the MSS. of the play that Dr. Hall collated, it is impossible to suppose that they contain the prologue. None of the seven MSS. of the drama, all of them highly trustworthy that I have collated, omit the words attributing it to Kâlidâsa, and do not furnish any – presumption that they have been foisted into the text. It were very much to be wished that the learned editor of Vâsavadattâ had been more explicit in his note, and stated what particular words are omitted in his MSS.and how the prologue stands therein, if it does stand at all. It may not be improbable that his MSS, are not much superior to those on which Dr. Tullberg based his text of the drama. . The chief grounds on which Professor Wilson bases his doubt about the legitimacy of the Mâlavikâgnimitra as a production of the great Kâlidâsa, are: 1st, that-- "There is neither the same melody in the verse nor fancy in the thoughts ;” 2nd, that –- "The manners described appear to be those of a degenerate state of Hindu society." Now, as to the first ground, it is not clear what is meant by ‘‘the same melody in the verse." Is it intended to be understood that the metrical portion of the drama is rough or loose? The poetry, indeed, of the Malavikagnimitra is as smooth and flowing as that of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvas'î. It is as little laboured and artificial as that of those two dramas. It requires as little labour to understand the one as the other. The verse in the Mâalavikâgnimitra is as regular and model-like as that in the two sister dramas of the poet. How, therefore the latter can be said to be more melodious than the former cannot, perhaps, be very easily understood. The metres too, are nearly the same in all the three dramas; so that if they are melodious in the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî, they are not less so in the Mâlavikâgnimitra.
But there is not the "same fancy in the thoughts" in the Mâlavikâgnimitra as in the two other dramas. This is, indeed, an objection that carries, undoubtedly, considerable weight with it. It is, doubtless, true that the play in question is not so rich in its poetry as the two other ones, and that the fights of fancy do not soar equally high in our play. Professor Weber would account for this difference by the fact that whereas the S'âkuntala and the Vikramorvaśi have their scenes mostly in the woods and forests, and afforded their author opportunities of indulging his fancy in giving excellent descriptions of nature, and that "both rest moreover upon a mythical background, and conse- quently bear a more magnificent and ideal character: the Mâlavikagnimitra portrays the life in the court of a historic prince, and consequently the bare actuality, with its self-made, and therefore, scanty concerns." Though it is perfectly true that the nature of the subjects and the places of action of the two plays may have contributed to their excellence, by enabling their author to compose them as he has done, and by making us admire them as we do, it is, nevertheless, much open to doubt whether "the life in the court of a historic prince" may have restrained a poet of Kalidasa's powers and genius in Writing as excellent a drama on that subject as on the Lost Ring or the Heavenly Nymph. Considerable portions of the two dramas, whose legitimacy is unquestionable, have also their scenes in courts of princes; and if it be urged that Dushyanta and Purûravas were mythical characters, Agnimitra also, who lived according to Professor Weber himself, at least five centuries before Kalidasa, might have, if the latter wanted it, been invested with as much mythology as was required for dramatic excellence, if this depended on mythology. But instances are not wanting where & « the bare actualities’ and " the scanty concerns' of unmythical and real persons have supplied materials, even to Sanskrit poets, for dramas, whose excellence is beyond dispute. The subject, for example, of the Malatimadhava is as unmythical as any that can be imagined.
The task of showing why one work of an author is inferior to another, why one play of a dramatist is not so rich in fancy of the thoughts or fragrance of the poetry as some other, is one that can hardly be satisfactorily performed by the author himself. Nor can we reject a work as unworthy of a celebrated poet on no other ground than that it does not possess the same excellence in regard to a point that relates to its matter or form, especially when the evidence for holding that it does belong to the same poet is overwhelmingly convincing. If the fact of the comparative excellence and the comparative inferiority of different works of one and the same author is established, all that we can do to account for the fact is necessarily of a general character, and partaking greatly of the nature of a mere conjecture. If this last is strengthened by any corroborative evidence, so as to make it probable, we can proceed no further in the investigation of the question. If, accordingly, I may be allowed to hazard a guess as to the cause of the difference between the poetical worth of the Mâlavikâgnimitra and that of either of the two other plays, the first that suggests itself to my mind is that the Mâlavikâgnimitra is the first production of Kalidasa, that it was written while he was yet young, and while he was yet unknown as a dramatist of note to his contemporaries, and while yet he had not made a name for himself as a poet. Such a supposition seems to be strengthened by the tone of the prologue that introduces to us the drama. The assistant (पारिपार्श्विकः) of the manager, is surprised to hear his master propose that Mâlavikâgnimitra,a drama composed by Kâlidâsa, should be acted, and asks him why a drama of a living poet should be acted, at the neglect of those of the famous Bhâsa and Saumilla. If when the Mâlavikâgnimitra was composed and acted, the author had been known as a dramatist of note,and if the Śâkuntala, and the Vikramor. vaśi had been written and published, and acquainted the public with their author, the prologue would, in all likelihood, have been differently worded. For that prologue does not seem to introduce to the public the particular drama to which it is attached, but rather the author who wrote it.
We then come to the second objection of Professor Wilson:"The manners described appear to be those of a degenerate state of Hindu society." This is a reproach , which, I am humbly of opinion, is little deserved by the Mâlavikâgnimitra in particular. If the manners described in that play are indicative of a degenerate state of Hindu society, those portrayed in the two other plays are likewise open to the same censure. Whose manners are they that are degenerate in the play ? Agnimitra differs little from Dushyanta or Purûravas in the purity or otherwise of his principles. Marrying more wives than one is a privilege of a Hindu, and whether we observe the present practice or read of ancient traditions, the privilege is especially allowed to Princes. Dushyanta has already a harem of ladies, and yet he makes love to Śakuntalâ ; Purûravas likewise has more wives than one, and he does not hesitate to marry Urvaśî, a heavenly nymph that, it may be observed, in earthly language would be designated by a name by no means enviable to a woman of good character. The Mâlavikâgnimitra is no more a domestic intrigue, as it has usually been assumed, than the Vikramorvaśî. King Agnimitra's passion for Mâlavikâ is as pure, or, perhaps, more so than that of King Purûravas for Urvasi'. Agnimitra nowhere shows that he desires an unlawful gratification of his passion. We must not be misguided by the fact that Mâlavikâ was in the train of attendants of Dhâarinî. We are nowhere told that the heroine actually served as an attendant of Dhâriņî . Even if this had been the case, there would have been nothing of the nature of an intrigue, properly so called, in the king's love affairs with Mâlavikâ, as long as he wished to add his mistress formally to his harem by elevating her to the position of a queen. Indian kings were neither in ancient times nor are they in modern times, very fastidious as to the family of every member of their harems, provided the objects of their passion are possessed of personal beauty and mental accomplishments. We need not go far in search of an illustration. The marriage of Śakuntalâ with Dushyanta, of a girl of illegitimate birth with a king of one of the most renowned dynasties of ancient India, ought to satisfy us. Nor can the play of Mâlavikâgnimitra be pronounced an household intrigue, simply because the court of the king is the scene where the events take place. The amours of, Purûravas and Urvaśî likewise have the court of that prince for their locality.
Nor can I see in the character of Mâlavikâ herself, or of Queen Dhâriņî, or even of the light Irâvatî, of Vidhûshaka, or of the professors of dancing and music, any thing that can well be called ‘ degenerate. ” The only thing to which objection may be taken is, perhaps, the fact that Dhârinî does not show quite as much indignation at the king's conduct with regard to Mâlavikâ as might be expected; as, for example, Queen Auśînarî does in the Vikramorvaśî, , to cite an instance from another poet, Queen Vâsavadattâ in the Ratnâvalî. But this is easily accounted for, when we remember that Dhârinî is an elderly lady, and that, besides, the poet has given us enough of jealousy and indignation in the character of Irâvatî, who, being still young, is evidently better suited to exhibit those passions. If Professor Wilson himself had examined into the charge of "degeneracy,” as brought by him against our play, he would have seen cause to modify his estimate of its merits.
But Professor Wilson concludes from the degeneracy of manners which he imputes to the Mâlavikâgnimitra, that "it can sarcely be thought earlier than the tenth or eleventh century. It may possibly have been the production of a somewhat later day.” This conclusion, based as it is, upon the alleged " degenerate state of Hindu society," is one that deserves not to be accepted without some diffidence, even if we assume for a moment the truth of the charge of degeneracy brought against the drama. For it is difficult to see why Professor Wilson thought that the alleged " degenerate manners" of the play suited the tenth or eleventh, or even a later century, any more than say the sixth or seventh, or any other century before or after the age which he so arbitrarily assigns to the genesis of the drama. The fact seems to be that the allegation is as little founded as the inference that is made to rest upon it.
The principal object, however, which I have in view here is not to examine the pros and cons of the antiquity of the drama, but the question whether it belongs to the renowned author of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî. If a successful attempt is made to answer this question, the more general question of the age of Kalidasa may be left to be investigated else where more appropriately.
Now, what are the means by which we can hope to prove that an extant work, the age of whose genesis is long gone by, belongs to a certain author? We have, I think,to consider the external as well the internal evidence relating to the work in question. But if the work is several centuries old, external evidence as regards such a composition is reduced merely to the form of tradition, written and oral. Oral tradition, perhaps, if it is several centuries old, loses a great deal, in fact, almost the whole of its claim to be regarded as satisfactory evidence. But if there is a written tradition, and this tradition is written in the words of the author himself, and if no one has ever doubted its correctness, we must, by all means, accept it as conclusive evidence. Now what is the nature of external evidence as regards the drama tending to show whether it does or does not belong to the author of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî? The very prologue itself unequivocally states that the drama is a production of Kâlidâsa; and nobody has ever doubted that this Kâlidasâ is the same individual as the author who has given us the two other plays. The same kind of tradition, namely, the statement of the author introducing the play to the public, implicitly and universally believed, that fathers the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî upon Kâlidâsa, is the tradition that attributes the Mâlavikâgnimitra to him. In all the three plays KÂLIDÂSA is stated to be the author who composed them. If either of the two plays of Śâkuntala and Vikramorvaśî were to be denied to-day to be the production of the same Kâlidâsa who composed the other, laying aside internal evidence, what positive evidence should we have to show that they both belonged to one and the same Kâlidâsa ? So far then as external evidence goes, there is none to show that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to a different Kâlidâsa; but,on the contrary, the prologue most positively declares that the play belongs to Kâlidâsa. By external evidence, therefore, we have no grounds to suspec| that the Mâlavikâgnimitra is the production of another Kâlidâsa. Traditionary external evidence has always attributed it to the same Kâlidâsa, till Professor Wilson chose to doubt the correctness of the tradition. Turning then to internal evidence, we may observe in the outset that the prospects of success here are more hopeful than in any other means that may be used as an argument for showing that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to the author of the other two great plays. The internal evidence goes so far to prove the great Kâlidâsa's authorship of the play, that even if we had not the profession of the poet himself in the prologue, we should never hesitate,after a careful perusal and comparison of the three plays,to pronounce that the Mâlavikâagnimitra comes from the same hands as the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî.
Every great writer,whether of prose or poetry, has always a settled style of composition. This is especially the case with those poets and authors who take delight in an easy and natural expression of their thoughts and never surrender their good sense and fondness for perspicuity to a labored and obscure style of writing. Whatever is natural and ordinary will be frequently repeated in the writings of one and the same author. And,accordingly, there are so many analogies,or, I had almost say,identities of expression,everywhere to be met with in the diction and ideas of the three dramas of Śâkuntala, Vikramorvaśî and Mâlavikâgnimitra, that it is impossible to explain them on any other ground than that of the identity of their author.The simple occurrence of the same expressions and phrases in different works does not, it is true, necessarily show that the works come from one and the same author,but it is the repetition of those analogous expressions,phrases and ideas with a characteristic frequency in each of the compositions, that is of importance in determining the identity of their author.
As regards diction the following analogies may be quoted :-ञच्चाचाहिदं (भत्याहितम्), ‘great misfortune. Cf. note on page 82, 1.3–संभाव्य ‘to honour' Cf. note on page 47, 1. 1३-स्वनियोगमशून्यं कुरु, ‘Go thou about thy business ,' i.e., ‘retire, and leave us alone. ' Cf. note on page 22, 1. 7. –मा, with the future tense, in the sense of either the prohibitive imperative or lest with the subjunctive.' Cf.note on page 21, 1. 9–णिर्बन्धः, in the sense of 'importunity'. 'Cf. note on page 17, 1. 11–पारेदि (पारयति), in the sense of 'he can.' Cf. note on page 45, 1. 5—अथ्थि बिसेसो (अस्ति विशेषः्) ‘there is some change [for the better]'Cf. note on page 65, 1. 11–पुढमो कप्पो (प्रथमः कल्पः ), an excellent alternative.' Cf. note on page 12, 1. 1३ -अणुणभं” गेण्हदि (अनुनयं गृह्वाति, ‘allows himself to be assuaged and reconciled. ' Cf : note on page 85, 1. 2–पदं कृ, ‘ to enter upon, ’ ‘to set foot upon. Cf. note on page 52,1. 1–पानं, आसङ्कदि (पापमाशङ्कते), ‘ suspects something unfortunate.' Cf. note on page 82, 1, 5-सरओओ (स्वरयोगः), ‘ harmony of sounds,’ ‘voice.' Cf. note on page 100, l . 11–अन्तरेण with the accusative, as regards,’ ‘ with reference to.'Cf. note on page 62, 1. 13–शरणम्‘the sacred abode of [Agni, &c.]. Cf. note on page 106, 1. 12-सभाजइदुं , (सभाजयितुम्) ‘to pay one's respects to : Cf . note on page 113, 1. 2–अनात्मज्ञ : ‘ foolish ,’ ‘ silly. Cf. note on page9, 1. 1गहोदथ्या (गृहीतार्था), ‘ she who has understood the matter.' Cf. note on page 52, 1. 6–विसंवादिदो (विसंवादितः), ‘ caused to be disappointed. ' Cf. note on page 21, 1. 10. लङ्घैस्सदि (लङ्घयिष्यति), ‘ will hurt, ‘ will cause harm to.' Cf. note on page 77, 1. 6–पकिदिथ्थो (प्रकृतिस्थः), ‘ recovered. C£. note on page 69, 1.2–उवआरादिक्कमं पमज्जिदुं (उपचारातिक्रमं प्रमार्ष्टुम्), ‘to atone for disdaining the king's prostration. Cf, note on page 8२, ii, 5, 6–अभ्भवहार (अभ्यवहारः, eating, dinner' Cf. note on page 82, 1. 7–वसन्दावदारसूभआणि (वसन्तावतारसूचकानि), ‘indicative of the first appearance of spring: Cf. note on page 36, 1. 10- पस्सपरिवटिणी (पार्श्वपरिवर्तिनी), ‘ standing by . Cf. note on page 95,1. 6–पर्याप्तमेतावता कामिनां, ‘this that I hear is enough for lovers.' Cf. note on page 53, 1. 5–एत्तिओ मे विहवो (एतावान्मे विभवः), ‘ thus far the flight of my genius and no further. Cf. note on page 28, 1.7 -भप्पणो छन्देन (आत्मन” छन्देन)’ after thy own wish.' Cf note on page 51, 1. 1–विशेष, at the end of a compound, giving the notion of 'excellence' to the sense of the substantive to which it is affixed, as भाकृतिविशेष शिलाविशेष. Cf note on page 78, 1. 8-विभावेमि (विभावयामि,) I recognise, ° I infer . C f . note on page 73,1 ; 7- अलं भवदो परिदेविएण (अलं भवतः परिदेवितेन), ‘away with your lamentation.' Cf . note on page 35, l. 7. These are some of the analogies of expression which strike at once a careful reader and comparer of the three dramas as being characteristic of one and the same author. A few more, not noticed here, may be found in the Notes. Any one that makes it his object to find such analogies from the three poems-Raghuvamśa, Kumârasambhava, and the Ritusamhâra, and the three dramas of Śâkuntala, Vikramorvaśî and Mâlavikâgnimitra,-will, doubtless, be able to swell the list I have given above, by adding a great number of more similarities and identities of expression.
Let us now turn to analogies of thought. The following are a few of them: —The regret of the king that while the Asoka is blessed by the touch of Mâlavikâ's foot, he himself enjoys no such favour, and is therefore unhappy. A similar address to a bee in the Śâkuntala. Cf. note on page 53, 1. 13.—The trustworthiness and the cutting sharpness of the fowery weapon of the God of Love. Cf. note on page 36, 1. 5.—The withdrawing of characters from the stage, with the pretext of driving away the young deer. C f. note on page 77, 1. 6.—Comparison of the hand of a handsome woman with the Śyâmâ creeper. Cfnote on page 25,1. 4.—IThe gracefulness of beauty, in whatever posture and state this may be. Cf. note on page 25, 1. 1.-The erection of hair through an amorous emotion compared to the sprout of a tree. Cf. note on page 61, 1. 5.—The fulfilment of a Brahman's words. C£. note on page 45, 1. 6.-Description of the flower Kurabaka Cf. note on page 38, 1. 14.-Surprise of Nipunikâ that she should be supposed to have told her mistress what was untrue. Cf. note on page 79, 1. 13.—'The scene of Irâvatî accompanied by her attendant, Nipunika, wandering through the garden in search of the king, greatly analogous to that of Queen Auśînarî and her attendant, Nipuņikâ, in quest of King Purûravas. Cf note on page 79, 11. 11-18.—The comparison with the thief who has been caught in the act of committing theft. Cf. note on page 57, ll.7-9. Sweet professions of love without love. Cf. note on page 37,1.7.—The scornful refusal of the king'sapology by Irâvatî affords him an excuse for neglecting her. Cf. note on page 60, ll. 10, 11.—The green pigeons sitting on the sloping roofs of the palace. Cf note on page 29, 1. 8.—A woman wearing the dress and bedecked just with those ornaments that she should have as the wife of a living husband. C f note on page 13, 1. 15. The eight forms or bodies of God (ईश). Cf , note on page 1, 1. 3.—The watching for an opportunity by the king to step forward and show himself to his mistress. Cf. note on page 54, 1, 6–Vidûshaka's fear for Snakes. Gi. note on page 83, 1. 7. – Personification of the Vernal Beauty. Cf. notes on page 38, st. 5.—Many more analogies in thoughts may, doubtless, be added to this list from the poems and the other dramas which are allowed to belong to the Kâlidâsa of antiquity.
There are some other peculiarities of the author of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî that make themselves felt by their conspicuous presence in the Mâlavikâgnimitra also. Thus, it is a characteristic of Kâlidâsa's writings that they all begin with a charmingly modest introduction, marked by great diffdence. The great poet never thinks that he has done well, until what he has done is pronounced good by the learned. The Raghuvamśa (i, 10} and the Śâkuntala (p. 2, ll. 6, 7, आ परितेषा द्विदुषाम्} lay down the maxim, and it is repeated in our play (p. 26, ll. 9, 10). Bhavabhûti and others, on the contrary, do not consider it at all inconsistent with modesty to give long descriptions of their genealogies and of their own attainments [१]. Some of them, again, Bhavabhûti for example, are defiant, and challenge the public in their introductions. It may also be observed that the Nândî, or the opening and benedictory part, is characteristically short, consisting of one stanza only, in dramas that belong to Kâlidâsa, while that of other dramatists is extravagantly long, consisting often times of three, four or five stanzas, and full of metaphysical and mythological nonentities. We may add, further that the introduction of the dramas of Kâlidâsa, as these are easy and temperate in their style, and were probably on that account intelligible to a majority of their audiences, never contains any explanation of their plots or subjects, and they always guide imperceptibly,as it were, from the reality of the stage-manager and his assistant into the scenic commencement of the play. Other authors, on the contrary, with little good taste, give a summary of the play's contents in their introductions, and end them abruptly, or, at least, so as clearly to show where the introduction ends and the play begins. We must not forget also that Kâlidâsa is more fond of the arya metre in his plays than other dramatists. This arya metre is of as frequent occurrence in the Mâlavikâgnimitra as in the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî.
These and other analogies will strike any careful reader of the three plays. The reader will in vain seek for
similar ‘‘points of contact,” as Professor Weber calls
them, in works that professedly belong to different authors, unless one of them has designedly imitated in his own writings the diction, the style, the thoughts, the fancies, the modesty, and good sense of another . The conclusion that will force itself irresistibly on the mind of a reader of the three plays that they all belong to one and the same author, can hardly be unsettled by a suggestion that the similarities may be explained on the ground of imitation. If the Mâlavikâagnimitra be the work of a person who made it his study to imitate Kâlidâsa, it is a most singular instance of imitation, unpararelled, probably, in the wide range of literature of ancient or modern times. What should we say of the imitating powers of a man who so transformed himself into another person that he was able to copy most faithfully every characteristic, great or small, of his master,his style, his diction, his shoughts, his words, his taste, his good sense, his modesty, and, what is most surprising, his name itself? But when did this most unique imitator live ? He could not have lived in the time of the great Kâlidâsa; nay, not even soon after him. For the imitation of a poet like Kâlidâsa, either during his lifetime or at anytime subsequently, when there were critics who were yet familiar with the personal history of the great author, would surely be known by its true nature, and we should certainly have had some tradition handed down to us in one shape or another of so singular an imitator as that who composed the Mâlavikâgnimitra. But if we should suppose that the imitation is a production of a modern age, say the time of Bhoja, when there was an unequalled activity in the cultivation of Sanskrit learning, it is impossible to think that the drama. should bear no stamp whatever of the time when it was composed. For it is granted by Professor Wilson himself that it is free from all the "extravagancies" of modern composition. It has none of those faults of bad taste and unnaturalness which distinguish modern Sanskrit poems and dramas.
Nor can we account for the wholesale similarities by supposing that the Mâlavikâgnimitra is an adaptation. We know of no original to which such an adaptation could be referred. And we have also to remember that adaptations, by their very nature, are devoid of all originality, of all invention. The Mâlavikâgnimitra, however, whatever its poetical merits, may fairly be allowed to be as much distinguished for the display of those qualities as the two other dramas of Kâlidâsa.
What is then the fact ? What is it that caused Professor Wilson, and, through him, several other European scholars, to doubt whether the play under notice really belonged to the author of the Lost Ring? The poetical worth of the Mâlavikâgnimitra, even if not so great as that of either of the two other dramas, ought not, I think, to be reckoned as sufficient ground for holding that it belongs to a different author. All the works of a poet, even those that actually come to our hands after all the care bestowed on them by their author, are far from always being equally excellent. Every literature, whether modern or ancient, will, I think, supply instances of different works by one and the same author of world-wide fame exhibiting various powers of poesy and invention. And yet it will never do to reject the less good productions, and call them spurious, or which is the same, attribute them to inferior hands.
Though I do not here undertake to treat the question of Kâlidâsa's age, it seems nevertheless desirable that Professor Wilson's statement that the present drama may belong to the tenth or elevenbh, or even a later century, should be carefully sifted before we accept it as correct. Indeed, the great orientalist himself appears to have been, in the same summary of the drama, more than half willing to modify his statement by referring,with a candidness as great as his learning, to such of its features as would require us to assign it to a greater antiquity than the tenth or eleventh century after Christ.
"The dramas", say Professor Wilson, "written in more recent periods are, invariably, as far as is yet known, mythological, and have some one of the forms or family of Vishnu for the hero. There is no such thing as a decidedly modern drama the business of which is domestic intrigue.” Whatever may be thought of the reason that he gives to account for that fact,-viz., that "such a subject, indeed, was wholly incompatible with Hindu feelings, as affected by intercourse with their Mahomedan masters, whether the effect of that intercourse was terror or imitation,”-it is perfectly correct that modern poets and dramatists seem to have written under the notion that poesy should not be debased by being made to celebrate the deeds of any hero who was not somehow or other connected with any of the incarnations of the gods; they have certainly left us no play, —with the exception,perhaps,of the Viddhaśâlabhanjikâ, that belongs to the eleventh century ,of the Ratnâvalî that may be referred to the beginning of the twelth century, and of the Mrigânkalekhâ, which Professor Weber aptly styles “a mixture of Ratnâvalî, Urvaśî and Mâlatîmâdhava, ”–that has for its subject the domestic love-affairs of an (to us) insignificant king like Agnimitra. The fact, therefore, of the subject of the present drama being very unlike any that modern writers were likely to choose to write upon, seems to point to a very much earlier period than the tenth or eleventh century as the age to which the production of the play under notice should be referred.
Again, as Professor Wilson says, the history of the hero, Agnimitra, as described in the play, is of considerable weight towards determining approximately the age when the drama must have been composed. The full history of Agnimitra or his father Pushpamitra is nowhere given in the Sanskrit works that have come down to us. The Puranas1 mention Pushpamitra as the founder of the Śunga dynasty, but they nowhere give any more detailed account of him than that he dispossessed his master, Bŗihadratha, the last of the Maurya dynasty, of his crown, and usurped it, probably, as Professor Wilson supposes, in favour of his son. But nothing is said of Agnimitra, the hero of our
1 Cf., for instance the Bhagavata Purana XII., 1. 15. Also Wilson's Vishnu Purana, (pp.470, 471 ). play, except that he succeeded his father, Pushpamitra. To suppose then that the Mâlavikâgnimitra is the production of so late a date as the tenth or eleventh century would necessitate another supposition that the history of Pushpamitra and his son, Agnimitra, which is so familiarly alluded to in the drama, existed during these ages in a far more copious form than the bare mention of the princes in the Purânas. Nothing, however, favours such a supposition. The only inference, therefore, that is possible is, that the play was written while the story of Pushpamitra and Agnimitra was yet fresh in the memory of men, though not quite so fresh as to make it too recent to be made the subject of a drama. This would certainly require that we should assign the piece to a time several centuries earlier than the tenth or eleventh century,since Pushpamithra founded the dynasty that immediately followed the Mauryas, and must have accordingly done so about 160 years before Christ. To suppose that the deeds of Agnimitra, were chosen to be the subject of a drama at a time when nothing more was known of him than We know through the Purânas, would be to suppose what is not at all probable.
But, in addition to this consideration, ‘‘ the style of the play,” says Professor Wilson, is very unlike that most common amongst modern writers, and most highly esteemed, being free from all jingle of sounds and from metaphorical common-place; it does not even affect anything like the uniform smoothness which seems to have preceded and ushered in the extravagancies of modern composition.” Who will not be struck by the simplicity and elegance of the style of the Malavikagnimitra, the total absence in it of those monstrous long compounds, which are so wearisome already in Bhavabhûti, who may belong somewhat to the begining of the eighth century ? If we had nothing else to guide us in fixing with tolerable exactness at least the century which produced the present play, the style and diction of it would alone be sufficient for assuming that it could not have been the production of any time that was not several centuries prior to the age of Bhavabhûti. In what author, again, of those ages of elaborateness and pedantry, of which the beginning is marked by the great Bhavabhûti, shall we find such a sound piece of criticism as that put into the mouth of the stage-manager (page 2, stanza 2) by the author of the Mâlavikâgnimitra ? As Professor Wilson truly remarks , "it is the sentiment of a day long gone by."
There is yet another point, which, though failing against our expectations to determine the age of the drama at present, may yet possibly reward future research. I allude to the mention in the prologue of the poets Bhâsa and Saumilla, as predecessors of Kâlidâsa. Unfortunately, Sanskrit chronology is as yet, and perhaps will be, it is difficult to say for how many ages to come a labyrinth of uncertainties. If nothing positively is known about the time when Kâlidâsa fourished, it is equally uncertain when Bhâsa and Saumilla, his predecessors, lived! To add to the uncertainty of the ages of these latter, it does not as yet appear to be decided how we are to read their names. Dr. Tullberg chose to read, according to one MS, which is identical with that used by Professor Wilson, and which Professor Weber calls bad in many ways,” धावकसौमिल्लकविपुत्रादीनां in the prologue. Professor Weber is right in his guess that the reading Dhavak in place of Bhasa[ka], found as it is in one single *bad MS, is a correction coming from a scribe who knew Dhavaka, and not Bhasa[ka]," the lectio difficilior, and must therefore, as is often the case, have substituted it for the latter. Dr Hall (Vâsaudattâ, preface, page 15,) believes that he has come to the conclusion " that the poets whom it [the play] names with Bhâsaka are Râmila and Saumilla." None of the seven MSS., however, which I have collated give either Dhâvaka, as hinted at by Professor Wilson, and adopted by Dr. Tullberg, nor Râmila as added by Dr. Hall. They all unanimously read Saumilla for the second, Bhâsa for the first, and except one (G.) they read simply the honorific मिश्र for the third. Now nothing is known of any of these two or three poets referred to in the prologue. Bhâsaka is nowhere mentioned as a poet. It is a mere gratuitous conjecture that Bhâsaka may be the same as the Bhâsa so much applauded in the introduction‡ of the Harshacharita, and mentioned by Râjaśekhara in the verses quoted from the Śârngadhara-paddhati†
‡सूत्रधारकृतारम्भैर्नाटकैर्बहुभूमिकैः । सपताकैर्यशो लेभे भासो देवकुलैरिव, as quoted by Dr. Hall, Vasavdatta preface, page 14.
†भासो रामिलसोमिलौ वररुचिः श्रीसाहसाङ्कः कविमेंपो भारविकालिदासतरला- स्कन्ध: सुबन्धुश्च यः। &c., Ibid. ppage 20. But, supposing Bhâsa to be the correct reading, and not.Bhâsaka, we gain nothing, as all that we know of Bhâsa is that he was a dramatist, and fourished before Rajaśekhara, as shown by the passage from the Harshacharita. Of Saumillawe know absolutely nothing at present, nor of Kaviputra, if that be one of the predecessors named in our prologue. It is just possible that future researches into the history of Bhâsa or Saumilla,or Kaviputra, none of whose works are known to exist, may throw some light on the earliest limit of age that we must assign to Kâlidâsa.
'The character of "Parivrâjikâ” in the play appears to me of some importance in examining Professor Wilson's statement that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to the tenth or eleventh, or even a later, century. As Professor Wilson says, “ a Parivrâjikâ denotes an ascetic female of the Bauddha faith,” and though, according to him, “ there is nothing in the piece to assign the character to any particular sect,” it does most likely belong to the Bauddha religion. A female ascetic, properly so called, is nowhere met with in the Brahmanical Writings. A widow, who, not burning herself on the funeral pile of her dead husband, survives him, and leads a life of austerities, is, no doubt, a kind of Sannyasinî, ’ or Parivrâjikâ; but such a widow is neither called by the latter name, nor enjoined to assume the garments of the ascetic; nor is the widow Sannyâsa' ever praised as a “ path fit for the virtuous ” (सज्जनस्य पन्थां : page 108, 1, 10); but, on the contrary, that honour is given to the widow who burns herself with the corpse of her husband, and the widow Sannyâsa' is enjoined only as an alternative when the woman, under peculiar circumstances, is prevented from sacrificing herself to the flames. Nor are such garments as the Parivrâjikâ of the play assumed enjoined by the Hindu Śâstra to be worn by widows. When to this we add that the Parivrâjikâ, as the word signifies, is a wandering or itinerant mendicant, while the Hindu widow in general is never a wandering medicant, it is perfectly clear that Kaus'ikî does not profess the Brahmanical her, wherever we meet with a Parivrâjikâ- it is a Buddhistic female mendicant belonging to one or other of the sects of that religion. And when we bear in mind that though there may have been female itinerant mendicants belonging to any other sect, they are nowhere stated to have been reverentially treated in the courts of kings, it is highly probable, nay, almost certain, that Kaus'ikì was a Buddhistic mendicant. And when the religion of Buddha had already been banished from India by the end of the eighth century, it is not very natural to suppose that an author who wrote, according to Professor Wilson, in the tenth or eleventh century, when the professors of the Brahmanical faith looked down upon the few lingerers, if these were left behind in any considerable number, from amongst their once powerful rivals, may have introduced a character in his drama professing the despised religion, and may have, moreover, made the whole court of a powerful prince pay her a most reverential homage. Such a supposition would only be possible if the author of the Mâlavikâgnimitra had made it his object to represent by means of that play how Buddhism, that was dead in his time, had once been revered in the courts of princes. But such is not, as any one may perceive the burden of the play; nor is it at all likely that Agnimitra might be chosen as an exemplary champion of Buddhism, even if the poet had intended to sing the former greatness of that religion, since the Śungas, to which dynasty Agnimitra belonged, are represented to have been far from favourable to the followers of Buddha. The probability, therefore, is that the play was written, not at a time when Buddhism was despised, and had already been driven out of India, but when it was still regarded with favour, and was looked up to with reverence; and this must refer us to a time several centuries prior to the tenth or eleventh century after Christ.
In conclusion, I must confess I do not see the slightest ground for the supposition that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to a different Kâlidâsa from the author of the "Lost Ring" or the "Heavenly Nymph,” a supposition accidentally entertained by Professor Wilson, and unfortunately strengthened subsequently by the very incorrect state in which the public has had to read the play in Dr. Iullberg's edition. If by the present edition any success is achieved in the eyes of the cultivators of Sanskrit literature in restoring the play to its original purity, and in enabling thereby the reader to judge whether it does or does not belong to the great Kalidasa, I shall regard my humble task more than sufficiently rewarded. And as for the author of the play, I hope I may be allowed to say, with the learned Professor Weber,="So moge sich denn dies zierliche Drama auch in einen weiteren Kreise, als bisher, Freunde erwerben und zu dem wohl verdienten europaischen-[I had rather say allgemmeinen ]–Lorbeerkranze des Kalidasa, seines Verfassers, dadurch ein neues duftiges Blatt hinzugefitgt werden !”
Deccan College, Poona,
1st September 1869.
C O R R I G E N D A.
P. 34,1.7,read the stage-direction प्रस्थिता afterलहेहि in 1. 6.
P. 33,1 18, read रक्ताशोकरूचाविशेषितगुणो
P. 62,1. 15, , पिङ्गलाक्ष्या
P. 78,1. 17, , रत्नभाण्डं यौवनगर्वं
P. 83,1. 18, , सर्प इति
P. 84,1.8 English notes, right-hand column, read पुछ्छिदव्वो
.
- ↑ See Bhavabhûti’s introduction to his Mâhavîracharita or to his Mâlaîtmâdhava, and also the Uttararâmacharita ; also Rajaśekhara's Viddhaśâlabhanjikâ.