R. S. Tiwary

The phrase, “Kalidasa-trayi”, employed by acharya Rajashekhara, the famous author the “Kavya-mimansa” has been clearly intended to convey the meaning of Three Kalidasas not the three works of one and the same Kalidasa. The renowned Madras-based scholar, T. S. Narayana Shastri, had identified as many as nine Kalidasas towards the beginning of the twentieth century. It appears, however, that by the time of Rajashekara of the first half of the tenth century A.D., a trio of Kalidasas had gained prominence for their erotic portrayals. The first three, enumerated by Narayana Shastri, include Kalidasa, also called Matrigupta, the court poet of King Harsha Vikramaditya of Ujjain of the sixth century B.C. who had composed the three famous Plays and also the Epic, ‘Setu Bandha’; Kalidasa, also called Megharudra, Court Poet of the Malwa King Vikramarka of 57 B.C., Founder of the Malwa Samvat, who had composed the three Kavyas, i.e., ‘Raghuvamsha’, ‘Kumarasambhava’ and ‘Meghadoota’, and Kalidasa, also called “Kotijeeta”, pupil of Moolashankara of Kamakoti Patana of 470 A.D., who composed the Season Poem, ‘Ritusamhara’, ‘Navaratnamala’ etc. We are persuaded to believe that Rajashekara’s utterance is suggestive of these three Kalidasa’s who composed poems and plays of an erotic character, to the exclusion of the other six. Our conjecture gains confirmation from the fact that the works, attributed to one Kalidasa presently, to wit the three plays, the three famous poems and the Ritusamhara of an inferior order, get included among the works, said to have been composed by the Trio of Kalidasas and enumerated by Narayana Shastri whose contribution to settling the chronology of ancient Indian History, too, is now considered valuable by a set of Indologists. It is worthwhile to observe in this connection that the poem, ‘Ritusamhara’, failed to create any tration of composing poems on Seasons (Cf. ‘Shepherd’s Calendar’ of Spenser) probably due to being of an inferior artistic order. Accordingly we have left out of consideration this last poem and have taken account only a Duo of Kaidasa. The Playwrite and The Poet.

(B)

I have felt during the course of my investigation respecting the Kalidasian Problem, that the chief bottleneck comes to be failure of the applicability of the corpus of evidence, accumulated by scholars over the decades, in regard to the date of birth which has been determined to be either first (or second) Century B.C., or the later Gupta period. To be clear, the evidence pertaining to the former era holds good mostly in the case of the Dramatist Kalidasa and that pertaining to the latter era, holds good mostly in the case of the Poet Kalidasa, despite the massive intellectual exercise indulged in by reputed scholars. Let me make a clean breast of the fact that this fact, relating to chronology, coupled with other points, induced me initially to probe the problem deeper. My present conviction, accordingly, of Kalidasa, the Poet, is the off-spring of that detailed literary exploration.

We do not propose to enter into the discussion whether Kalidasa and Matrigupta were one and the same person. Sufficient to observe that it will not be reasonable to carry the dramatist Kalidasa forward to the later Gupta Period, 5th or 6th century A.D. Agnimitra, Hero of the play ‘Malvikagnimitra’, has now been, by general consensus, acknowledged as Agnimitra of the Shunga Dynasty whose reign covers the period between 105 B.C. and 73 B.C. The last king of Shunga Dynasty, Devabhuti, had been assassinated by his minister Vasudeva around 71 B.C. who founded the Kanva Dynasty in Magadh. It is to be remembered that the Shungas and the Kanvas were both Brahmanas. The Shungas have been given prominence on account of the fact of the decline in Revival of the decline in influence of Buddhism, accompanied by unprecedented development of arts and letters, during their reign. Accordingly, we can locate, with a measure of confidence, Kalidasa, the dramatist, in the first century B.C., more probably at the line of junction of the Shunga and Kanva reigns. We are disposed to believe that the story of Shakuntala, heroine of the celebrated play ‘Shakuntalam’, having been brought up in the hermitage of the Rishi Kanva, who, undoubtedly, happens to be a Vedic Sage, also points obliquely to the rise of the Kanva Dynasty. The age being that of the Revival of Brahmanism, the dramatist is evidently influenced by the Brahmanic ethos. Kalidasa of the Gupta period could not have been imaginably persuaded innerly to portray, Agnimitra as the hero of the play ‘Malavikagnimitra’ since the difference between their times extends over three to four hundred years. After all, Agnimitra was no where celebrated either in the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, the two national Epics. He was no hero, renowned in the popular tradition as an Erotic Personality like Udayana either.

(C)

It has been a general belief that Kalidasa was the Court poet of some Vikramaditya. Some of the old texts of the play ‘Shakuntalam’ contain the utterance of the Sutradhara eulogising Vikramaditya as being especially versed in “Rasa-bhava”, who had an assembly of poets and aesthetes. This attaches a semblance of confirmation to the popular tradition. Then the difficulty arises that the ruler, named Vikramaditya, should be such as to cover both the dramatist and the poet. As said earlier, the overwhelming majority of scholars hold the author of the epic ‘Raghuvansha’ as the product of the Golden Age of the illustrious Guptas. No satisfactory evidence is available to support the thesis that Kalidasa, the author of the ‘Shakuntalam’ also lived in the age of the Guptas.

The foremost thing to be borne in mind in this regard is that the Vikramaditya of ‘Shakuntalam’ is no king or Emperor. He seems, at best, to have been a lover of art and poetry, also being in possession of some variety or measure of power of governance, who might imaginably, be in tune with the tradition of the times, also had some assembly of poets or scholars, some scholars maintain that this Vikramaditya of the play was “a Malava-gana pramukha” (Head of the Malava Republic) and that it was under his leadership that the Malawas had defeated the Shakas just prior to the beginning of the Christian Era (A.D.) and had started the “Krita Samvat” about 57 A.D. in celebration of their historical victory, which (Samvat) became subsequently the “Malava Samvat” and ultimately came to be styled “Vikrama Samvat” towards the close of the ninth century A.D.

A certain couplet of the ‘Gahasattasai’ of the Satavahana King Hala contains an allusion to Vikramaditya. This anthology of Prakrit couplets was compiled in 70 A.D. circa. Granting that the compilation continued being revised or augmented during the succeeding periods, this much is certain that it must have reached its present final shape by 230 A.D. in as much as the reign of the Satavahanas, who patronised the Prakrit letters, draws to a close in 230 A.D. Accordingly, the Vikramaditya of the said couplet cannot be dragged down to the Gupta Period.

Another allusion, in the play ‘Malavikagnimitram’ also deserves mention. The ‘Pariparshvaka’ has mentioned, in the ‘Prastavana’, the presence of the poems by famous poets like Bhasa, Saumillaka, Kaviputras etcetera in contradicting which, the ‘Sutradhara’ has remarked that “all that is old is not commendable and likewise all that is new is not to be denigrated”. This allusion manifestly signifies that Kalidasa, the playwright, had made his noteworthy debut in the domain of dramatic writing during the lifetime of the old celebrities like Bhasa, etcetera or during the period of continuance of their popularity among the theatre-goers. That is to say, the dramatist Kalidasa was in close propinquity in point of time with the famous Bhasa. That Bhasa had been so popular during the Gupta period does not stand to reason in as much as the “Samajikas” of the prosperous age of the Guptas, cultured and developed in taste and temperament, would not have taken kindly to Bhasa’s dramas which grossly violate, at times, the laws of the theatre laid down by Bharata in his ‘Natyashastra’ as also grammatical laws of Panini. Scholars have suggested that Bhasa be located in the first century B.C. We, on our part, feel that Kalidasa the playwright, cannot be distanced from the elder Bhasa by more than a hundred years or so. Accordingly, the dramatist Kalidasa bids fair to be located in the first century B.C. or thereabout. The earlier facts mentioned here in should be borne in mind together with this time-relation between Bhasa and Kalidasa. As observed before, this period coincided with the fall of the Shungas and the rise of the Kanvas which was characterised by the revival of the Vedic Brahmanic faith. It is worth mentioning that Bhasa has borrowed the themes of his plays from the epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and stands out as having taken not adversely to the Brahmanic ethos.

Ashvaghosha, the celebrated Buddhistic author, also merits consideration in this context. The majority of historians regard Bhasa to be the court poet of King Kanishka of the Kushana dynasty, whose reign has been generally located between 78 and 101 A.D. However, newer studies have revealed the validity of Kanishka being assigned to second century A.D. Therefore, Ashwaghosha might be located in the second century A.D. Kanishka’s time was the revival ‘de novo’ of Buddhism according to historians. Ashwaghosha had, in all probability, embraced Buddhism later in life in as much as attraction for Puranic allusions is manifestly clear in writings. Significantly enough, Ashwaghosha abandoned the Pali language, so sacred to the Buddhists, and adopted Sanskrit as vehicle for his poems and plays with the rise of the Mahayana Cult in Buddhism. His whole works were intended to promote Buddhistic Faith. This Ashwaghosha is posterior in time to the dramatist Kalidasa. In this wise, the relevant chronology settles down to this: Bhasa was followed by Kalidasa, the Playwright, who was followed by Ashwaghosha who was, in turn followed by the Poet Kalidasa.

There is also a tradition that the Vikramaditya who was the patron of Kalidasa was also “Shakari” or “Shakarati” as mentioned in ‘Ramachandra-mahakavyam’. Now the possibility of the Vikramaditya of the ‘Gaha-sattasayi’ having been “Shakari” (Enemy of the Shakas) cannot be ruled out, in as much as the Shakas had started migrating into India since 150 B.C. circa, as is acknowledged by all historians. Plenty of mental exercise has been resorted to respecting the ‘Hunas’ in connection with the ‘Raghuvamsha’ which is totally un-called for the case of dramatist Kalidasa. It is a different matter if the ‘Raghuvamsha’ does not make any direct or indirect reference to the Shakas. Its author was, however, fully acquainted with the historical fact of Hunas having invaded India, and while describing the “Raghu-digvijaya”, he has naturally mentioned the discomfiture of the Hunas at the hands of Raghu.

One significant fact needs mention in this context. Kalidasa, the playwright, seems to have flourished in an age when Buddhism was “losing” its influence where as Kalidasa, the poet, lived and wrote in an age when the Brahmanic ethos had “fully established” itself, virtually liquidating Buddhism. This is borne out by the dramatist’s veiled criticism of the Bauddha system of the “Bhikshuns” (Nuns) which is reflected in making the “Bhikshuni” Kaushiki entangled in the palace intrigues suggested in the play ‘Malvikagnimitra’. As for Kalidasa, the poet, there is no gainsaying the fact that he has, unreservedly and explicitly, chanted the glories of Brahmanism in the two epics, the ‘Raghuvamsha’ and the ‘Kumarasambhava’, more eloquently in the former. Further, it is also of some significance that in the plays, “Gandharva” marriage has been celebrated while in the poems the “Prajapatya” marriage has been accorded the prominence. That leads us to separate the dramatist from the poet. In this very connexion, mention may be made of the fact that the dramatist alludes to “Saptadweepa prithivi”, that is, Earth comprising of Seven Islands, while the poet speaks of “Ashtadash-dweepa prithivi”, that is, Earth comprising of Eighteen Islands. That might be taken to suggest that geographical knowledge had advanced by the time of the poet which means that he flourished much after the playwright.

A difference also becomes patent as to the aesthetic sense of the two Kalidasas. Although both have portrayed the “Shringara rasa”, the “Erotic Relish”, in their works, yet the consciousness of the dramatist is frankly governed by Romantic Proclivities whereas that of the poet is oriented to Classicism, at any rate, in the Indian tradition, characterised by adherence to solid Realism. While describing the physical beauty of the Heroines, Kalidasa, the poet, takes avid delight in depicting the “Nakha-shikha” of his heroines, that is, their beauty from Toes to Head or vice versa. The “Nakha-shikha” of Parvati in the ‘Kumarasambhava’ and that of Yaksha’s wife in the ‘Meghadoota’ are instances.

Contrarily, the heroines of the plays are “Avyaja-manohara” or “Avyaja-sundari” The response of Agnimitra to his physical encounter with Malavika, after having seen her picture, is reflected in his remark: “It seems that the painter (‘Chitrakara’) had grown “Shithilasamadhi”, that is, “Relaxed in his mental concentration”, which is why he has not been able to capture her charms in their full grandeur. In Shakuntala’s description, too, the dramatist’s Romantic propensities have become evidently palpable: “Sarasi Jamanuviddham Shaivalenapi Ramyam”. That is, she looks exquisitely beautiful albeit her body is covered with “Valkalas”, i.e., “Tree-skins”, even as a lotus flower looks beautiful though covered with the aquatic plant, “Shaivala”. Further more in Parvati’s comment, after she has failed to capture the heart of Lord Shiva whose profundity of transcendental meditation has been disrupted by Kamadeva (Cupid), “Ninida roopam hridayen Parvati, priyeshu saubhagya-phala charuta”, the poet’s commitment to the Indian ethos in matters of Love become clearly manifest. Parvati hurls calumniation upon her physical endowments since they have failed to conquer the indifference of Lord Shiva, her desired consort. Such comments are nowhere available in the writings of the dramatist.

Furthermore, the dramatist is committed covertly to “Rasa-vyanjana”, that is, palpable portrayal of ‘Rasa’ or Reslish whereas the poet is cabined by no such commitment. It will cause an amount of surprise if we comment that even in the ‘Meghadootam’, traditionally famed among Sanskrit scholars as a piece excelling in depiction of “Vipralambhashringara” (separated love), the full relish of ‘Love in Separation’ has failed to be evoked. Only around fifteen verses are devoted to ‘Separated Love’ out of a total of about 163 verses, constituting the full poem in two parts.

(D)

Conscious of the growing length of the article, especially in view of the Editorial Instructions, in this regard, I would like to conclude by alluding to a popular tradition (“Janashruti”) respecting Kalidasa. It is said that a Princess, named Vidyottama, exceedingly learned, had made a pronouncement to the effect that she would marry one who would vanquish her in “Shastrartha”. Numerous scholars thronged her palace precincts, entered into discussions with her and got defeated. Conspiring together, at last, to outwit her, they, going out in search of a down right fool, came across, Kalidasa who was cutting down the branch of a tree on which he happened to be poised. They got him down the tree and told him that they would secure him a Princess as wife - the condition being that he would respond to her questions simply by bodily gesticulations. The fool agreed and was brought by them to the proud Princess who was told by them that he was their learned Teacher and would like to discuss with her any metaphysical question simply by bodily movements since he had been observing the Vow of Silence. The Princess raised one of her fingers, meaning thereby that there was only the single “Brahman”, nothing else. The Fool thought she was intending to blind his one eye and therefore he raised his two fingers, meaning thereby that he would blind both her eyes. The Sanskrit scholars interpreted this gesture on the Fool’s part as conveying the existence of the “Jagat”, the Phenomenal Universe, as well besides that of the “Brahman”. The Princess got vanquished and married the Fool. During the nightly intercourse, however, she realised that she had married a Fool and turned him out. The man went away and undergoing a lot of labour and becoming a real scholar, returned one night to the Palace and asked the Princess in pure Sanskrit tongue to open the doors. Vidyottama, astonished and recognising the voice, asked him in response in Sanskrit: “Asti kashchid vagvisheshah?”, that is, “Have you acquired some specialty of tongue?”. The door was opened, welcoming Kalidasa, now a Sanskrit Scholar. Tradition further concludes that Kalidasa composed his three famous poems, each beginning with each of the three component words or phrases: ‘Kumarasambhavam’ beginning with “Astyuttarayam dishi devatatma himalayo nama nagadhiraiah”; ‘Meghadootam’ beginning with “Kashchitkanta virahaguruna swadhikarat-pramattah”; and ‘Raghuvamsham’ beginning with “Vagarthaviva sampriktau vagarthapratipattaye”.

Now, naturally the question arises: Why, at all, are the poems, mentioned in this tradition, excluding even the world-famed play ‘Shakuntalam’? The obvious answer will be: The tradition is relative only to the Poet Kalidasa, not the Dramatist Kalidasa which clearly suggests the same. Yet further, the famous appellation, “Deep ashikha Kalidasa”, applies only to the poet who has described the beauty of Indumati, passing from Prince to Prince with the “Jayamala” in her hands in the “Swayamvara Hall” as matching the flame of a Lamp Quaking. “Upama Kalidasasya” also applies pre-eminently to the author of the three Poems, not the author of the three Plays.

(E)

To conclude, the above brief discussion bids fair to separate Kalidasa, the Playwright, from Kalidasa, the Poet, who (the latter) flourished in the beginning of the sixth century A.D. and had not enjoyed the patronage of any famous King or “Samrat” - no internal evidence having been earthed out so far. According to us, the poet, deeply imbued innerly with the Vedic Brahmanic ethos, probably enjoyed the protection of some potentate, entertaining identical views.

(The article is a summary of my first paper presented at one of the annual sessions of ‘Kalidasa Samaroha’, held at Ujjain in M.P. under the joint auspices of the Vikrama University and the State Government. My purpose is only to attract the attention of the Kalidasian Scholars to The theory of the Duo of Kalidasas even though I am opposing my own views, earlier enshrined in my critical treatise, ‘Mahakavi Kalidaisa’: published by Chaukhamba Vidya Bhavana, Varanasi)

Back