Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 DOI: 10.1556/062.2022.00174 Kālidāsa and the Bastard Son An Attempt to Read Kālidāsa’s Nāṭakas Politically Péter Száler* Department of Indian Studies, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary Received: February 12, 2021 • Accepted: June 4, 2021 © 2022 The Author ABSTRACT Kālidāsa’s nāṭakas, namely the Abhijñānaśākuntala and the Vikramorvaśīya are undisputedly among the greatest works of Sanskrit literature. Thus it is not surprising that there have already been many excellent literary interpretations focusing on these works. My aim is not to augment this list, but instead I intend to shed some light on the less-investigated political message of these dramas. In other words, I am attempting to re-read Kālidāsa’s plays as pieces of political theatre. KEYWORDS Abhijñānaśākuntala, Gupta Empire, Kālidāsa, Sanskrit dramas, Skanda Gupta, Vikramorvaśīya * Corresponding author. Email: szalerp@gmail.com Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 34 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 INTRODUCTION Kālidāsa1 is often compared to Shakespeare. Not only are they considered among the greatest figures of dramatic literature, but their lives are similarly little known. As far as we know, Kālidāsa may have earned his living as a court poet under the Guptas.2 This supposition implies that his works may contain a kind of political message. Otherwise, why would a court poet be employed if his writings lacked the political thoughts of his patrons? Although cultural studies have been recently engaged with the tendency of ‘depoliticization’, such an attempt seems to be vain in the context of archaic civilizations, where the main ‘products’ of humanity, such as culture, politics and religion were intertwined with each other inseparably.3 In Michael Walzer’s words: ‘Society was conceived as an organic and integrated whole. It might be viewed under the aspect of religion, or politics, or economy, or family, but all these interpenetrated one another and constituted a single reality. Church and state, church-state and university, civil society and political community, dynasty and government, office and property, public life and private life, home and shop: each pair was, mysteriously or unmysteriously, two-inone, inseparable.’4 In this way, many of the scholarly studies on Kālidāsa’s oeuvre have avoided ‘depoliticization’. Historians usually agree that his works are basic sources about everyday life in the Gupta period,5 while others such as Gawroński and Pollock went even further, and claimed that Kālidāsa sometimes alluded to the imperial politics intentionally.6 Because I agree with the view that the Raghuvaṃśa was intended to introduce the working of the empire,7 I find these above-mentioned political interpretations reasonable. On the other hand, I am at least as much convinced that the real venue for the meeting of Kālidāsa’s art and imperial propaganda was still the theatre. Here it is worth citing Hannah Arendt’s statement: ‘… the theatre is the political art par excellence; only there is the political sphere of human life transposed into art.’8 Michel Foucault came to a similar conclusion: ‘The theater, theatrical practice, this dramatization must be a mode of manifestation of the State and of the sovereign as the holder of State power.’9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Csaba Dezső for having read my article and polishing my English. Ingalls 1976: 15. Morgan 2013: 2–3. Walzer 1984: 315. Agrawal 1989: 34–36; Bhatia 1962: 22–24. Gawroński 1914–1918: 43–82, Pollock 2006: 241. Dezső 2014: 167–168. Arendt 1998: 188. Foucault 2007: 347. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 35 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 These opinions indicate the aim of this article, which is re-reading Kālidāsa’s plays as pieces of political theatre. Of course, such an interpretation always depends on the audience.10 Since Kālidāsa counted on his peers as spectators, my interpretation will be necessarily limited. Despite this, I am sure that some main political thoughts recognised in Kālidāsa’s works might be helpful to understand the great poet somewhat better. In this article, I focus on Kālidāsa’s nāṭakas, namely the Abhijñānaśākuntala and the Vikramorvaśīya, while I do not deal much with his third theatrical work, the Mālavikāgnimitra categorised as a nāṭikā11 or prakaraṇa (love-comedy),12 the possible political message of which has already been investigated by Hans Bakker.13 Tieken maintained that this latter play was a unique piece in Kālidāsa’s oeuvre,14 while Vasudeva, in accordance with Arendt and Foucault’s above-quoted words, suggested that similar interpretations might be fruitful in connection with Kālidāsa’s remaining works: ‘If Kālidāsa’s “Mālavikā and Agnimitra” alludes to actual events, is it possible that his other works do too? It would be interesting to study whether the character of Kālidāsa’s Śakuntalā might have anything to do with either Dhruvadevī wife of Candragupta II and mother of Kumāragupta, or with his wife Anantadevī.’15 Thus, the following lines are intended as an answer to this call. ŚAKUNTALĀ It is beyond question that Kālidāsa’s Abhijñānaśākuntala is the finest pearl of the Sanskrit dramas. Its worldwide fame is unbroken even in these days. Thus, it is not surprising that there have already been many scholarly discussions focusing on several aspects of this drama. Edwin Gerow, for example, analysed the structure of the play, and demonstrated that a peculiar symmetry determined its narrative.16 Daniel H. H. Ingalls drew attention to ‘polite elegance’ as its key feature,17 while Jens-Uwe Hartmann understood the whole work as the thematization of the contrast between the rural and urban lives.18 Here, as I have indicated, I do not want to augment this list of the excellent literary interpretations, but instead I try to regard this play, a bit provocatively, as a tool of royal propaganda. The oldest known version of the Śakuntalā-legend is found in the Mahābhārata.19 It seems quite plausible that Kālidāsa selected his theme from the epic, even though there are apparent differences between the two versions. Romila Thapar claimed that Kālidāsa filled out the epic theme with sub-plots, such as the curse and the signet ring, which may have been borrowed from 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Kirby 1975: 130. Tieken 2001: 154. Rao and Shulman 2009: xv. Bakker 2006. 174–177. Tieken 2001: 158. Vasudeva 2006: 17. Gerow 1979: 563–571. Ingalls 1976: 21. Hartmann 2004: 117–118. Thapar 2011: 45–46. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 36 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 folk literature.20 She also remarked that some features of the play, such as the description of the royal court, the closeness of kings to deities and the institute of agrahāra, may reflect Kālidāsa’s own times.21 Apart from these allusions, Kālidāsa’s play contains a couple of apparently negligible motifs in which the great poet may have encapsulated his own, supposedly political message. In this article, I would focus exclusively on these details and thus intend to take one step further than Thapar did. This proposed way of interpretation touches on three characters of the play, Duṣyanta, Śakuntalā and Sarvadamana, the reunion of whom serves as the happy outcome: diṣṭyā Śakuntalā sādhvī sadapatyam idaṃ bhavān| śraddhā vittaṃ vidhiś ceti tritayaṃ tat samāgatam||22 By good fortune, faithful Śakuntalā, this perfect son, your Majesty, – faith, wealth, and law, this triad is united.23 I think that we can understand the verse better if we take the words, functioning as upamāna in the simile, as references to the fundamental requirements of the Vedic sacrifices. Accordingly, śraddhā is the trust in the efficacy of the rite,24 vitta means money that can cover the cost of the sacrifice, while vidhi is the method according to which the ceremony is performed. An anonymous reviewer of this article directed my attention to the commentator Kāṭayavema’s quite similar explanation: śraddhā āstikyabuddhiḥ vittaṃ dravyaṃ vidhir anuṣṭhānam25 Śraddhā means the conviction in that something will exist, vitta is money while vidhi refers to religious practice.26 If we interpret these words thus, the simile will suggest that the reunion of the characters means the re-establishment of the sacrifices in the royal family. The problem of succession and the sacrifices for the ancestors were always related. Therefore, the want of the heir apparent implies not only political risks, but also puts an end to the heavenly happiness of the forefathers. In this way, the worry about the heir accompanies Duṣyanta during the whole drama. First, he appears in the role of the son, who is called back home by his mother: KARABHAKAḤ: (upasṛtya) jaadu jaadu bhaṭṭā| devīo āṇaventi jadhā āgamiṇi caütthe diase puttapiṇḍao dānao ṇāma uvavāso bhavissadi tattha dīhāüṇā avassaṃ saṇṇihideṇā hodavvaṃ27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Thapar 2011: 44. Thapar 2011: 48–50. Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.173. p. 352. Vasudeva 2006: 353. Lopez 2015: 51. Kāṭayavema comm. ad Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.173. (7.129.) p. 439. The translation is my own. Abhijñānaśākuntala 2.121. p. 124. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 37 KARABHAKA: (approaching) Victory! Victory, Your Majesty! The Queen lets it be known that: ‘On the coming fourth lunar day there will take place the ceremony known as the ‘offering ensuring the birth of a son.’ On this occasion Your Majesty must be present.’28 The cited passage attests to the religious importance of sons. In this case, Duṣyanta, nevertheless, missed performing his duty, and asked his friend, Mādhavya, the vidūṣaka of the play to substitute him as an adopted son of the queen: <Duṣyanta uvāca> tvam ajjūbhiḥ putra iti pratigṛhītaḥ| tad bhavān itaḥ pratinivṛtya tatrabhavatīnāṃ putrakāryam anuṣṭhātum arhati|29 You have been welcomed by Mama like a son. Therefore you must please return from here and stand in for the duty of a son.30 After this, Duṣyanta stayed in the forest, protected Kaṇva’s āśrama from the rākṣasas, and finally made Śakuntalā pregnant. Then he returned to his court, where his wedded wife (bhaṭṭinī, bhartrī), Piṅgalikā, the tigress of his harem (anteuavvagghī, antaḥpuravyāghrī)31 was waiting for him. She apparently failed in her duty of giving birth to an heir, and therefore Duṣyanta’s anxiety about the succession was growing unbearable, especially after the recognition of his misdeed against Śakuntalā: āmūlaśuddhasantati kulam etat Pauravaṃ prajāvandhye| mayy astam itam anārye deśa iva Sarasvatīsrotaḥ||32 This Paurava lineage, pure from its beginning comes to a close since I, unworthy, have no offspring just as the River Sarasvatī seeps away in an unworthy desert.33 Among these worries, Dhanavṛddha’s tragedy affirms the importance of the son further. Dhanavṛddha, the wealthy businessman, passed away without a child, and consequently Duṣyanta inherited his money. The pious king concluded his own future misery from this gain, and he intended to reject Dhanavṛddha’s heritage: LIPIKĀRĪ: jaṃ bhaṭṭā āṇavedi| (pattrakaṃ prasārya vācayati) viditam astu devapādānāṃ yathā Dhanavṛddha iti yathārthanāmā vaṇig vārīpathopajīvī nauvyasane vipannaḥ| sa cānapatyaḥ| tasya koṭiśatasaṃkhyātaṃ vasu| tad idānīṃ rājārtham āpadyate| śrutvā rājā pramāṇam iti| RĀJĀ: (ākampitaḥ) kaṣṭā khalv anapatyatā| Vasumati mahādhanatvād bahupatnīkena tatrabhavatā bhavitayvam| vicāryatāṃ yadi kadā cid āpannasattvā kāpi tasya bhāryā syāt| PRATĪHĀRĪ: deva idāṇiṃ yeva Kesavaseṭṭhiṇo duhidā ṇivuttapuṃsavaṇā jāā suṇīadi| RĀJĀ: nanu garbhaḥ pitryaṃ rikthaṃ arhati| gaccha| evam āryaPiśunaṃ brūhi|34 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Vasudeva 2006: 125. Abhijñānaśākuntala 2.126. p. 124. Vasudeva 2006: 125. Abhijñānaśākuntala 6.179–180. p. 294. Abhijñānaśākuntala 6.212. p. 300. Vasudeva 2006: 301. Abhijñānaśākuntala 6.191–194 p. 296–298. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 38 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 SCRIBE: As your majesty commands. (opens the document and reads) ‘Let it be known to his majesty that the aptly named merchant Dhanavṛddha who trafficked by sea has perished in a shipwreck. He is without issue. His wealth amounts to thousands of millions. This now falls to the royal estate. Hearing this, may the king make a ruling.’ KING: (shaken) It is a misery to have no children. Vasumati! Because he was wealthy he must have had many wives. Enquire whether one of his wives may be pregnant. PORTRESS: Lord, just now we have learnt that his wife, the daughter of the guildsman Keśava, has performed the pregnancy rite to ensure the birth of a son. KING: Well then the unborn child is entitled to the father’s inheritance. Go, tell the honorable Piśuna so.35 This announcement of the pregnancy of Keśava’s daughter indicates the potential salvation for Dhanavṛddha from his misfortune, and at once it offers hope for Duṣyanta. The king, just like Dhanavṛddha, has many wives, any of whom – not only Piṅgalikā– are invited to give birth to the desired son, the heir apparent to the throne. In this way, the further step of this analysis touches on Śakuntalā’s figure and her ability to become a medicine for Duṣyanta’s suffering. As a matter of fact, there is always an uncertainty about Śakuntalā’s birth. When Duṣyanta met her first, he also did not miss to express his doubts about this, even though he finally convinced himself that Śakuntalā was in fact a kṣatriya: RĀJĀ: api nāma kulapater iyam asavarṇakṣetrasambhavā syāt| atha vā asaṃśayaṃ kṣatraparigrahakṣamā yad evam asyām abhilāṣi me manaḥ| satāṃ hi saṃdehapadeṣu vastuṣu pramāṇam antaḥkaraṇapravṛttayaḥ||36 KING: Can it be that she is born in a caste different from the patriarch’s? Or, rather, Doubtless she is fit to be wed by a warrior, since my heart desires her so. For the good, the inclinations of their inner faculties are authoritative in matters of doubt.37 Another verse said by the king points at Kaṇva’s hard-heartedness in connection with this: the sage made his step-daughter, Śakuntalā perform penance, although her body was not capable of this: idaṃ kilāvyājamanoharaṃ vapuḥ tapaḥkṣamaṃ sādhayituṃ ya icchati| dhruvaṃ sa nīlotpalapatradhārayā samillatāṃ chettum ṛṣir vyavasyati||38 The sage who tries to make this guilelessly appealing figure capable of enduring penance: surely he has set about cutting hard firewood with the edge of a blue water-lily petal.39 35 36 37 38 39 Vasudeva 2006: 297–299. Abhijñānaśākuntala 1.97–98 p. 74. Vasudeva 2006: 75. Abhijñānaśākuntala 1.178. p. 70. Vasudeva 2006: 71. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 39 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 Perhaps, it is this disharmony between Śakuntalā and her surroundings which stimulates the tragic happenings in the play. From this view, the situation reminds me of the famous legend of Śambūka, the śūdra performing penance.40 Śambūka did not find his own place and behaved like a brāhmaṇa, which caused the death of an innocent boy. This tragedy, just as the negligence of Śakuntalā can be reasoned by similar discrepancies in the social order. The mādhavī-creeper of the āśrama, on the other hand, seems to be a further hint at Śakuntalā’s foreign status among the ascetics. Śakuntalā is often compared to this plant introduced as the only treasure of the hermitage,41 while there is a whole bower furnished with mādhavīs in Duṣyanta’s capital.42 These allusions may suggest that Śakuntalā’s place is in Duṣyanta’s harem rather than among the hermits. Yet this does not mean that Śakuntalā became the queen of the empire at once. Just the opposite, Kaṇva’s words comparing her to Yayāti’s second wife, Śarmiṣṭhā affirm that Duṣyanta already had other wives: Yayāter iva Śarmiṣṭhā bhartur bahumatā bhava| putraṃ tvam api saṃrājaṃ seva Pūruṃ samāpnuhi||43 Be honored by your husband, as Śarmiṣṭhā was by Yayāti. May you, too, bear a son to be emperor, as she did to Pūru.44 Simon Brodbeck understood this verse as an allusion to an elder son of Duṣyanta, who is known in the southern recension of the Mahābhārata,45 but apart from this possible exception, he is neglected by Kālidāsa.46 Contrary to this interpretation, I rather think that this verse only says that, though Śakuntalā is going to be wed as secondary wife, she will also have a chance to bear an heir apparent, just as Śarmiṣṭhā, whose son, Pūru being the youngest among Yayāti’s sons, inherited the throne of his father.47 To sum up, Kālidāsa certifies that Śakuntalā, in spite of her obscure birth, is fit to be married to a kṣatriya, otherwise Duṣyanta would not fall in true love with her. On the other hand, Śakuntalā’s figure also attests that any woman of the royal harem can become the mother of the future king. Although Śakuntalā’s legitimacy is confirmed, her pregnancy seems to be unfruitful, because she disappears together with her son, the only legitimate candidate for Duṣyanta’s throne. A glimmer of hope still occurs. Though Duṣyanta fails to recognise his former mistress, the recognition of his son could still save the ancestors. This leads us to the outcome of the play, when Duṣyanta unexpectedly finds his son, Sarvadamana at Mārīca’s heavenly āśrama. This scene can easily cause one to remember the first meeting of Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā. Here, the king is faced again with the same disharmony that he perceived between Śakuntalā and Kaṇva’s āśrama: 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Raghuvaṃśa 15.42–53; Rāmāyaṇa 7.64.2–67.5. Abhijñānaśākuntala 1.83. p. 72, 3.30–31 p. 138. Abhijñānaśākuntala 6.94–97 p. 276–278. Abhijñānaśākuntala 4.100. p. 196. Vasudeva 2006: 197. Mahābhārata 1.89.16.b*877.1–2 Brodbeck 2011: 228. Mahābhārata 1.70.29–32. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 40 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 RĀJĀ: tathā| (ity upagamya) ayi maharṣiputra| evam āśramaviruddhavṛttinā saṃyamī kim iti janmadas tvayā| sattvasaṃśrayasukho ’pi dūṣyate kṛṣṇasarpaśiśuneva candanaḥ||48 KING: Indeed! (approaches) Here now, son of a great seer! Why are you thus dishonoring your self-possessed father – as a young cobra does a sandal-tree – with deeds out of keeping with a hermitage, even though it pleases him that beings take refuge in him?49 After that, Duṣyanta becomes gradually aware of the delight that he has found his own son. In this case, it is quite remarkable that Sarvadamana verifies his claim for being Duṣyanta’s son by his deeds. There is no doubt that he is a true-born kṣatriya. He wrestles with a lion cub,50 and moreover, feels spontaneous love for Duṣyanta: TĀPASĪ: assa bālassa asambaddhe vi bhaddamuhe saṃvādiṇī āidi tti vimhidamhi| avi a accantapariidassa via appaḍilomo eso de saṃvutto|51 ASCETIC: I am amazed at the resemblance between you and this boy, although you are not related. Moreover, he is easy-going with you as if you were someone very familiar.52 These signs cause Duṣyanta to recognise his son, and the dynasty is rescued. URVAŚĪ The myth of Urvaśī thematises the love between the human and the divine. Its roots are already found in the Ṛgveda,53 and it may have been known in various versions before Kālidāsa’s period.54 As a matter of fact, it is quite difficult to establish the possible sources of the great poet. At least we can say that the plot of Kālidāsa’s play is somewhat similar to two purāṇic versions of the story, those of the Matsya-55 and the Padma-purāṇas,56 even though it is uncertain whether it was Kālidāsa who borrowed from the purāṇas or the mythological collections were influenced by his play.57 Velcheru Narayana Rao and David Shulman have already noticed the similar imagery and pattern of the Abhijñānaśākuntala and the Vikramorvaśīya.58 Their observations seem to be likewise true for the supposed political message of the Vikramorvaśīya. Here we find again the same triad of the characters, namely the sonless king, his divine mistress, and their child. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.86–87 p. 336. Vasudeva 2006: 337. Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.65–74 p. 332. Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.93. p. 338. Vasudeva 2006: 339. Ṛgveda 10.95. Rao and Shulman 2009: xvii–xx. Matsya-purāṇa 24.9–34. Padma-purāṇa 1.12.51–76. Rao and Shulman 2009: xix–xx. Rao and Shulman 2009: xv–xvi. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 41 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 In this play, the sonless king is called Purūravas. He is a real bon vivant, who, unlike Duṣyanta, cares less for royal succession. The words of his vidūṣaka, nevertheless, reveal the danger threatening the dynasty: asaṃtānattaṇaṃ vajjia se <Purūravasaḥ> ṇa kiṃ vi soaṇīaṃ|59 Except for lacking a son, he has everything he could wish.60 This remark indicates that even though Purūravas has a populous harem, his wives have been unable to deliver a son yet. Of course, there is no harem without its ‘tigress’, who is here the daughter of the king of Kāśī. As a matter of fact, she is a tamer one, and allows her husband enjoy other women: DEVĪ (rājñaḥ pūjām abhinīya prāñjaliḥ praṇipatya): esā ahaṃ devadāmihuṇaṃ RohiṇīMialañchaṇaṃ sakkhīkaria ajjauttam aṇuppasādemi| ajjappahudi jaṃ itthiaṃ ajjautto patthedi jā ajjauttassa samāamappaṇaïṇī tāe mae pīdibandheṇa vattidavvaṃ ti|61 QUEEN (acts out worshipping the king, with her hands folded, bowing): I, the queen, intent on making my husband happy with me, say this with that divine couple, the Moon and his wife Rohiṇī, as witnesses. From now on, whatever woman my husband desires, or whatever woman desires him, will be treated by me as a friend.62 What could motivate such a concession? Perhaps the love of the queen was so overwhelming that she offered such a privilege to her sweetheart. Besides, I find it as much possible that, despite Purūravas’s carelessness, his wife might be in fact anxious about the future of the dynasty. By all means, hope for the ancestors is provided again by a mysterious woman: Urvaśī. She is an apsaras, and therefore her place in Purūravas’s harem is more questionable than Śakuntalā’s. She is not only an odd creeper far from the royal bower of mādhavīs, but she is a celestial being whom humans should avoid. Loving her is doubtlessly risky, as suggested by the anxiety of the vidūṣaka: VIDŪṢAKA: Ṇiuṇie viṇṇavehi tatthabhodiṃ jadāmi dāva miatiṇhiādo ṇivatteduṃ vaasaaṃ tado devīe muhaṃ pekkhissaṃ ti|63 CLOWN: Tell Her Majesty that I’ll do my best to wean my friend from this mirage. I won’t come to see her until then.64 His advice to Purūravas reveals the same intention: VIDŪṢAKA: siviṇasamāamaāriṇiṃ ṇiddaṃ sevadu bhavaṃ| aha vā tatthabhodīe Uvvasīe paḍikidiṃ ālihia oloanto ciṭṭha|65 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Vikramorvaśīya 5.2. p. 184. Rao and Shulman 2009: 185. Vikramorvaśīya 3.126. p. 108. Rao and Shulman 2009: 109. Vikramorvaśīya 2.13. p. 36. Rao and Shulman 2009: 37. Vikramorvaśīya 2.101. p. 56. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 42 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 CLOWN: Go to sleep. You’ll see her in your dream. Another way is to paint a picture of Urvaśī and stare at it.66 The other problem with Urvaśī is that she is not concerned about royal succession, because the birth of a son, in accordance with Indra’s order, will put an end to her love story with Purūravas: <Bharatasya dvitīyaḥ śiṣya uvāca> Purandareṇa uṇa lajjāvaṇadamuhiṃ Uvvasiṃ pekkhia evaṃ bhaṇidaṃ jassiṃ baddhabhāvā si tumaṃ tassa me raṇasahāassa rāesiṇo piaṃ karaṇīaṃ| sā tumaṃ Purūravasaṃ jahākāmaṃ uvaciṭṭha jāva so tui diṭṭhasaṃtāṇo bhodi tti|67 ‘Indra saw her with her head bent in shame and said “I owe a favour to the man you were thinking about. He helped me in battle. You may stay with Purūravas, as you wish to, until he sees a child from you.”’68 Thus, when Urvaśī’s son was, in a somewhat mysterious way, born, she hid him at Cyavana’s hermitage. Fate, however, proved to be outside Urvaśī’s control. Her son, Āyus once became excluded from the āśrama, because he killed a vulture: TĀPASĪ: suṇādu mahārāo| eso dīhāū Āū jādametto evva Uvvasīe kiṃ vi ṇimittaṃ avekkhia mama hatthe ṇāsīkido| jaṃ khattiakumārassa jādakammādivihāṇaṃ taṃ se bhaavadā Cavaṇeṇa asesaṃ aṇuciṭṭhidaṃ| gahidavijjo dhanuvvede a viṇīdo| RĀJĀ: sanāthaḥ khalu saṃvṛttaḥ| TĀPASĪ: ajja pupphasamidatthaṃ isikumāraehiṃ saha gadeṇa imiṇā assamaviruddhaṃ āaridaṃ| VIDŪṢAKA: kadhaṃ via| TĀPASĪ: gahidāmiso kila giddho pādavasihare ṇilīamāṇo lakkhīkido bāṇassa|69 HERMIT WOMAN: Please listen. No sooner was this young boy, Āyus, born – may he live long! – than Urvaśī, for whatever reason, entrusted him to me. All the rituals appropriate for a warrior prince, beginning with the birth ceremony, were performed by the sage Cyavana. He was properly educated and trained in archery, too. KING: Then he was properly looked after. HERMIT WOMAN: But today, when he went out with the other young boys to gather flowers and firewood, he did something utterly against the rules of the hermitage. CLOWN: Like what? HERMIT WOMAN: He shot down a vulture sitting at the top of a tree with a piece of meat in its beak.70 Āyus’s deed shocked the hermits, but it was applauded in Purūravas’s court. The bird killed by the young man had stolen Purūravas’s magic jewel (saṃgamanīyo maṇiḥ) which guaranteed his relationship with the divine Urvaśī. Although the jewel was thus returned, Āyus’s fated arrival, 66 67 68 69 70 Rao and Shulman 2009: 57. Vikramorvaśīya 3.13. p. 84. Rao and Shulman 2009: 85. Vikramorvaśīya 5.72–77 p. 196–198. Rao and Shulman 2009: 197–199. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 43 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 nevertheless, had to cause the divorce of their parents. In this difficult situation, Nārada, as a deus ex machina, entered into the picture to forward Indra’s message. According to this, Urvaśī can stay on Earth as long as Purūravas lives. In this way, we arrive at the happy outcome of the play: the members of the royal triad reunite, and thus the dynasty survives: adyāhaṃ <Purūravāḥ> putriṇām agryaḥ satputreṇāmunā tava| Paulomīsaṃbhaveneva Jayantena Purandaraḥ||71 I feel like Indra when his wife gave birth to Jayanta – a proud father of a worthy son.72 THE ROYAL PATRON BEHIND KĀLIDĀSA’S NĀṬAKAS After analysing the plots of Kālidāsa’s two nāṭakas, we should find out what message these plays might have had for the contemporary audience. As I have indicated, both stories present a case of dynastic crisis. They represent a narrative, in which the dynasty is close to vanishing, and its only hope is a son of obscure birth – whom some people may despise for being a bastard – and who, nevertheless, proves his suitability for the throne with his deeds. The other key figure of these plays is the mother who gives birth to the heir. In both nāṭakas, the mothers are born of apsarases, the appearance of whom indicates a kind of divine intervention. In connection with them, Romila Thapar, moreover, hypothesised that the apsarases of the mythical genealogies originally stood for non-Āryan, perhaps tribal women adopted as such ‘unhuman’ beings in the royal dynasties.73 Above all, who might have been interested in sponsoring putting this theme on stage in the theatres? If we accept that Kālidāsa worked under the Guptas, in my opinion, it will be hard to find any better candidate for this than Skanda Gupta. It is widely accepted that Skanda Gupta was not the rightful heir to Kumāra Gupta’s throne.74 Although he introduces himself as Kumāra Gupta’s son in his inscriptions,75 he, unlike his ancestors, fails to mention the name of his mother. From this, many scholars have concluded that Skanda Gupta may have been born from a woman of low rank;76 in Bakker’s words, he was a bastard son.77 The only, more or less exact fact about his mother is that she is compared to Devakī in the Bhitrī pillar inscription: pitari divam upete viplutāṃ vaṃśalakṣmīṃ bhujabalavijitārir yaḥ pratiṣṭhāpya bhūyaḥ| jitam iti paritoṣān mātaraṃ sāsranettrāṃ hataripur iva Kṛṣṇo Devakīm abhyupetaḥ||78 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Vikramorvaśīya 5.119. p. 204. Rao and Shulman 2009: 205. Thapar 2013: 108. Tandon 2014: 557. CII Vol. 3. No. 12. p. 50. l. 22–23, No. 13. p. 53. l. 6–8, No. 14. Basham 1955: 368–369; Kulke and Rothermund 2002: 89; Tandon 2014: 557. Bakker 2006: 178. CII Vol. 3. No. 13. p. 54. l. 12–14. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 44 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 ‘Who, when (his) father had attained the skies, conquered (his) enemies by the strength of (his) arm, and established again the ruined fortunes of (his) lineage; and then, crying “the victory has been achieved” betook himself to (his) mother, whose eyes were full of tears from joy, just as Kṛṣṇa, when he had slain (his) enemies, betook himself to (his mother) Devakī.’79 Bakker and Willis interpreted this reference as an allusion to Skanda Gupta’s triumph over his paternal uncle, Ghaṭotkaca Gupta.80 However, this tempting way of explanation is less probable, because the inscription, on the one hand, does not explicitly suggest that Skanda Gupta’s enemy did not belong to the royal family, on the other hand, Ghaṭotkaca Gupta, as a paternal uncle, does not correspond in fact to Kaṃsa, Kṛṣṇa’s maternal uncle.81 Furthermore, it is also worth mentioning that Kaṃsa’s identification with Kṛṣṇa’s uncle may have been less certain. According to the Harivaṃśa (3rd or 4th century A.D.),82 Kaṃsa calls Devakī his father’s sister which suggests that he and Kṛṣṇa may have been cousins in an early version of the myth.83 Although Kaṃsa, in this way, only stands for Skanda Gupta’s main rival, the simile seems to be still remarkable. Skanda Gupta’s choice for comparing himself to Kṛṣṇa could evoke the same narrative that we have already found in the case of Pūru, Sarvadamana and Āyus: Pauravī Rohiṇī nāma Bāhlikasyātmajā nṛpa| jyeṣṭhā patnī mahārāja dayitānakadundubheḥ|| lebhe jyeṣṭhaṃ sutaṃ Rāmaṃ Śāraṇaṃ Śaṭham eva ca| Durdamaṃ Damanaṃ Śvabhraṃ PiṇḍārakaKuśīnarau|| Citrāṃ nāma kumārīṃ ca Rohiṇītanayā nava| Citrā Subhadreti punar vikhyātā Kurunandana|| Vasudevāc ca Devakyāṃ jajñe Śaurir mahāyaśāḥ|84 O king, Vasudeva’s first, beloved wife was Rohiṇī, Bāhlika’s daughter, a descendant of Pūrus. She gave birth to nine children, eight sons, namely Rāma, the oldest, then Śāraṇa, Śaṭha, Durdama, Damana, Śvabhra, Piṇḍāraka and Kuśīnara, and one daughter called Citrā who was also known as Subhadrā. Of Devakī, [on the other hand], Vasudeva engendered the very glorious Kṛṣṇa.85 Apparently, the Harivaṃśa attests that Devakī, just as Śarmiṣṭhā, Śakuntalā and Urvaśī, was a secondary wife, who, despite this, delivered the most glorious child for his husband. In this way, Devakī’s mention in the inscription might hint at Skanda Gupta’s obscure birth, and not that he, just as Kṛṣṇa, killed his own uncle. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Fleet 1888: 55. Bakker 2006: 179; Willis 2005: 137. Tandon 2014: 560–562. Brockington 1998: 326. Harivaṃśa 48.38.a, 65.77.c, 65.88.c. Harivaṃśa 25.1–4b. The translation is my own. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 45 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 On the other hand, the Bhitrī inscription tells us that Kumāra Gupta, unlike Candra Gupta I and Samudra Gupta, did not announce Skanda Gupta as his chosen heir.86 Therefore, Skanda Gupta needed to prove his suitability for the throne by his own heroism: krameṇa buddhyā nipuṇaṃ pradhārya dhyātvā ca kṛtsnān guṇadoṣahetūn| vyapetya sarvān manujendraputrāṃl Lakṣmīḥ svayaṃ yaṃ. <Skandaguptam> varayāṃ cakāra||87 ...whom the goddess of fortune and splendour of her own accord selected as her husband, having in succession (and) with judgment skilfully taken into consideration and thought over all the causes of virtues and faults, (and) having discarded all (the other) sons of kings (as not coming up to her standard).88 For want of the old king, Lakṣmī, ‘the goddess of fortune’, appears and selects a new husband for herself. Her choice seemingly depends on the righteous deeds of the candidates. In my opinion, this idea occurs as a leitmotif in Kālidāsa’s plays. Duṣyanta was unaware of the identity of his son, but Sarvadamana’s boyish heroism, his wrestling with the lion cub revealed him. Purūravas’s son, Āyus was, in a similar way, hidden in an āśrama until his valour became plain against the thieving vulture. Thus their heroic deeds qualified these sons to the throne of their fathers. They were of course of royal descent, but they were brought up outside the royal court, and their birth was certified by their virtuous conducts. With regard to Skanda Gupta, the affinity of these boys with Skanda seems also intentional. Both of them find pleasure in peacocks, the bird serving as Skanda’s vāhana. On the one hand, Sarvadamana plays with a clay peacock,89 while on the other hand Āyus fosters a pet peacock called Maṇikaṇṭhaka.90 In this latter case, the resemblance is, furthermore, announced by Nārada at the end of the play: Āyuṣo yauvarājyaśrīḥ smārayaty ātmajasya te| abhiṣiktaṃ Mahāsenaṃ saināpatye Marutvatā||91 The newly crowned prince, your son, brings to mind the happy day, when Indra crowned Kumāra commander of his army.92 To sum up, I think that the narrative of Kālidāsa’s plays are built on such a schema, which could be quite valued for such a king like Skanda Gupta. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Tandon 2014: 559. CII Vol. 3. No. 14. p. 59. l. 5. Fleet 1888: 62. Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.75–80 p. 334, 7.103–108 p. 340. Vikramorvaśīya 5.115. p. 204. Vikramorvaśīya 5.187. p. 218. Rao and Shulman 2009: 219. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 46 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 CONCLUSION In the introduction of this article, I referred to Vasudeva’s call for re-reading Kālidāsa’s works with special regard to their political subtexts.93 Concerning Kālidāsa’s nāṭakas, my answer to this question is definitely positive. While Vasudeva expected Anantadevī or Dhruvadevī’s mirror images to appear in these works, this investigation concluded that Kālidāsa’s apsaras-born heroines stood for Skanda Gupta’s low-born mother. Thus, the story of both Śakuntalā and Urvaśī offers such a schema which can validate the claim of the bastard son to the imperial throne. The idea that Kālidāsa was at some point under Skanda Gupta’s patronage, has already been put forward by many scholars.94 Among them, Gawroński claimed that the first five kings of Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṃśa related, in a special mytho-historic way, the deeds of the Gupta emperors. In his explanation, the most celebrated king of the Raghus, Rāma corresponds to Skanda Gupta, which also means that he may have been contemporary with the author.95 According to Michael Willis, an initial form of the Rāma-cult flourished under Skanda Gupta.96 This cult probably exerted influence of Kālidāsa’s Rāma-story embedded in the Raghuvaṃśa.97 His resume followed Vālmīki’s plot quite strictly. The only exception is its overture, which Kālidāsa may have altered deliberately. At the beginning of the Rāmāyaṇa, the deities commissioned Viṣṇu, as their only chance, to save the world.98 This attests that Rāma-Viṣṇu had not been identified yet with the Supreme being in this phase of the epic.99 On the contrary, the Raghuvaṃśa reports that Viṣṇu rebukes the gods because he, being omniscient, has already been aware of the danger and he, incidentally, should not be reminded of his duty by any deity including Indra.100 Because the court laid claim for Rāma’s identity with the Highest divinity, Kālidāsa’s innovation in the plot seems to be reasoned. Skanda Gupta’s sympathy with Rāma, on the other hand, may have another, personal aspect, too. The Solar Dynasty (Sūryavaṃśa) just as the lineage of the Guptas, was broken slightly after Daśaratha’s death, because he was not in fact Rāma’s biological father. In lieu of him, it was the greatest deity, Viṣṇu, who incarnated himself to save not only humankind from the rākṣasas but also the house of Ayodhyā. After that, Rāma’s way to the throne of his father, just as Skanda Gupta’s, was not straight. Although he was born as Daśaratha’s true heir, he became exiled because of Kaikeyī’s villainy. During his exile, Rāma performed heroic deeds through which he certified his suitability for being Daśaratha’s heir. After the final challenge, the killing of Rāvaṇa, Rāma returned and took over his paternal heritage. Rāma’s legend, in this way, seems to have been a quite obvious paradigm for Skanda Gupta to legitimise his rule as a result of a similar divine intervention. Vasudeva 2006: 17. Mazumdar 1909: 735–739; Pathak 1916: viii-xi. 95 Gawroński 1914–1918: 67–69. 96 Willis 2009: 241. 97 Raghuvaṃśa 11.1–15.103. 98 Rāmāyaṇa 1.14.17.cd. 99 Brinkhaus 1992: 103–104. 100 Raghuvaṃśa 10.39–41. 93 94 Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 47 Perhaps, the case of the Kumārasaṃbhava is even clearer. I agree with Vasudeva’s remark, according to which this poem may have been composed remembering the struggles with the Huns in the last years of Kumāra Gupta’s rule.101 Kālidāsa’s third theatrical work, the Mālavikāgnimitra, however, seems to be a bit problematic because it is often regarded as a key proof for the other popular theory about Kālidāsa’s life, namely for his employment as Candra Gupta II’s court poet.102 This play, unlike the Abhijñānaśākuntala and the Vikramorvaśīya, takes its topic from the events of the historical past instead of the mythological tradition. Even though it is a love comedy, it contains some allusions to the political diversification of Vidarbha and the presence of the Nāgas at Vidiśā which make Hans Bakker’s supposition quite probable that the Mālavikāgnimitra mirrors the contemporary political stage. According to him, Vidiśā was an important political centre of the western part of the Gupta empire where the crown princes may have resided.103 This idea seems fairly acceptable in the case of Rāma Gupta, Samudra Gupta’s elder son, nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine that the annexation of the country of the Śaka kṣatrapas would not have lessened its importance. Furthermore, the court of Vidiśā does not appear as an esteemed office in the Mālavikāgnimitra as it could have been under Rāma Gupta. Although Bakker claimed that Agnimitra, the hero of the play was the heir-to-the-throne and his relations with his father were good,104 these words can be hardly supported if we read Kālidāsa’s work closely. At the end of the story, we are informed that Agnimitra was angry with his father: tad idānīm akālahīnaṃ vigataroṣacetasā bhavatā vadhūjanena saha yajñasevanāyāgantavyam iti|105 So now that my grandson has returned my horse just as Aṃśumat had returned Sagara’s, I shall perform the sacrifice.106 Although the reason of their conflict remains unexplained, it is slightly suggested that Puṣpamitra favoured his grandson Vasumitra against Agnimitra. While Agnimitra is introduced as a typical bad king addicted to his love affairs, Vasumitra is a brilliant general, who is really of use to the empire. When Puṣpamitra is involved in his aśvamedha, it is Vasumitra again who fulfilling the typical duty of an heir took care of the sacrificial horse: so ’haṃ idānīm Aṃśumateva Sagaraḥ pautreṇa pratyāhṛtāśvo yakṣye|107 So now that my grandson has returned my horse just as Aṃśumat had returned Sagara’s, I shall perform the sacrifice.108 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Vasudeva 2006: 17–18. Mirashi and Navlekar 1969: 34. Bakker 2006: 175. Bakker 2006: 174. Mālavikāgnimitra 5.154. p. 198. Balogh and Somogyi 2009: 199. Mālavikāgnimitra 5.154. p. 198. Balogh and Somogyi 2009: 199. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 48 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 With regard to the mythological background, Agnimitra should correspond to Sagara’s evil son, Asamañja, who was banished from the capital because of his misconduct and instead of whom his son, Aṃśumat ascended the throne.109 If we accept that Agnimitra is Asamañja’s counterpart, his appointment as a governor on an outer edge of the empire can rather serve his exclusion from the succession than his straight way to the imperial throne. This at once gives me the impression that the Mālavikāgnimitra may mirror the political circumstances at some time after the fall of the kṣatrapas, when Vidiśā had lost its dominance in the Western part of the empire. On the whole, I hope that this paper was able to present some remarkable allusions in Kālidāsa’s nāṭakas. Of course, these parallels cannot be regarded as ultimate evidences for Kālidāsa’s date, but, in any case, they suggest that many of his works could serve Skanda Gupta’s policy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary sources Abhijñānaśākuntala = Onians, Isabelle and Somadeva Vasudeva (eds.) 2006. The Recognition of Shakúntala by Kālidāsa. [Clay Sanskrit Library] New York: New York University Press & JJC Foundation. CII Vol. 3. = Fleet, John Faithfull (ed.) 1888. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Vol. III. Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. Harivaṃśa = Vaidya, Parashuram Lakshman (ed.) 1969. The Harviaṃśa. Being the Khila or Supplement to the Mahābhārata. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kāṭayavema comm. ad Abhijñānaśākuntala = Kāḷe, Gaṇeś Kāśināth (ed.) 1973. Mumbai: Kalyāṇa. Mahābhārata = Sukthankar, Vishnu S. et al. (eds.) 1927–1966. The Mahābhārata. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Mālavikāgnimitra = Onians, Isabelle (ed.) 2009. Mālavikā and Agnimitra by Kālidāsa. New York: New York University Press & JJC Foundation. Matsya-purāṇa = 1954: Calcutta, Caukhamba Vidyabhavan (http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/corpustei/transformations/html/sa_matsyapurANa1-176.htm [accessed on: 3.8.2021.]). Padma-purāṇa = Pratap, Surendra (ed.) 1984. The Padmamahāpurāṇam. Delhi: Nag Publishers. Raghuvaṃśa = Nandargikar, Gopal Raghunath (ed.) 1971. The Raghuvaṃśa of Kālidāsa with the Commentary of Mallinātha. Delhi, Patna, Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass. Rāmāyaṇa = Bhatt, G. H. et al. (eds.) 1960–1975. The Vālmīki-Rāmāyaṇa. Baroda: Oriental Institute. Ṛgveda = Van Nooten, Barend – Holland, Gary (eds.) 1995. Rig Veda: A Metrically Restored Text With an Introduction and Notes. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies. Vikramorvaśīya = Onians, Isabelle (ed.) 2009. How Úrvashi Was Won by Kālidāsa. [Clay Sanskrit Library] New York: New York – JJC Foundation. 109 Rāmāyaṇa 1.37.2–38.6. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 49 Secondary sources Agrawal, Ashvini 1989. Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Arendt, Hannah 1998. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Bakker, Hans T. 2006. ‘A Theatre of Broken Dreams. Vidiśā in the Days of Gupta Hegemony.’ In: Martin Brandtner and Shishir Kumar Panda (eds.) Interrogating History. Essays for Hermann Kulke. New Delhi: Manohar, 165–187. Balogh, Dániel and Eszter Somogyi (trans.) 2009. Mālavikā and Agnimitra by Kālidāsa. [Clay Sanskrit Library] New York: New York University Press & JJC Foundation. Basham, Arthur Llewellyn 1955. ‘The Date of the End of the Reign of Kumāra Gupta I and the Succession After his Death.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17/2: 366–369. Bhatia, O. P. Singh 1962. The Imperial Guptas. New Delhi: Surjeet Book Depot. Brinkhaus, Horst 1992. ‘Early Developmental Stages of the Viṣṇuprādurbhāva Lists.’ Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens. Supplement Proceedings of the VIIIth World Sanskrit Conference Vienna 1990. 36: 101–110. Brockington, John 1998. The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill. Brodbeck, Simon 2011. ‘The Rejection of Śakuntalā in the Mahābhārata. Dynastic Considerations.’ In: Saswati Sengupta and Deepika Tandon (eds.) Revisiting Abhijñānaśākuntalam: Love, Lineage and Language in Kālidāsa's Nāṭaka. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 219–237. Dezső, Csaba 2014: ‘We do not fully understand the learned poet’s intention in not composing a twentieth canto: Addiction as a Structuring Theme in the Raghuvaṃśa.’ South Asian Studies 30/2: 159–172. Fleet, John Faithfull (trans.) 1888. ‘Texts and Translations.’ In: Id.: Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. [Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 3.] Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, [II/]1–350. Foucault, Michel 2007. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. [Ed. by Michel Senellart, translated by Graham Burchell.] London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gawroński, Andrzej 1914–1918. ‘The digvijaya of Raghu and some connected problems.’ Rocznik Orientalistyczny 1: 43–82. Gerow, Edwin 1979. ‘Plot Structure and the Development of Rasa in the Śakuntalā. Pt. I.’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 99/4: 559–572. Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 2004. ‘»Himmel und Erde mit einem Namen begreifen«. Das indische Drama Shakuntala.’ In: Martin Hose (ed.) Große Texte alter Kulturen. Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 111–129. Ingalls, Daniel H. H. 1976. ‘Kālidāsa and the Attitudes of the Golden Age.’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 96/1: 15–26. Kirby, Michael 1975. ‘On Political Theatre.’ The Drama Review: TDR 19/2: 129–135. Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund 2002. A History of India. London, New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Lopez, Carlos A. 2015. ‘Philological Limits of Translating Religion. Śraddhā and Dharma in Hindu Texts.’ In: Michael DeJonge and Christiane Tietz (eds.) Translating Religion. What is Lost and Gained? New York: Routledge, 45–69. Mazumdar, B. C. 1909. ‘The Date of Kālidāsa.’ The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3: 731–739. Mirashi, Vishnu Vasudev and Narayan Raghunath Navlekar 1969. Kālidāsa. Date, Life and Works. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC 50 Acta Orientalia Hung. 75 (2022) 1, 33–50 Morgan, Margot 2013. Politics and Theatre in Twentieth-Century Europe. Imagination and Resistance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pathak, Kashinath Bapu (ed.) 1916. Kalidasa’s Meghadūta or The Cloud-Messenger (As embodied in the Pārśvābhyudaya) with The Commentary of Mallinātha, Literal English Translation, Variant Readings, Critical Notes, Appendixes and Introduction, determining the date of Kālidāsa from lates antiquarian researches. Poona: Aryabhushan Press. Pollock, Sheldon 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men. Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Rao, Velcheru Narayana and David Shulman (trans.) 2009. How Úrvashi Was Won by Kālidāsa. [Clay Sanskrit Library] New York: New York and JJC Foundation. Tandon, Pankaj 2014. ‘The Succession after Kumāra Gupta I.’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 24/4: 557–572. Thapar, Romila 2011. Śakuntalā. Texts, Readings, Histories. New York: Columbia University Press. Thapar, Romila 2013. The Past Before Us: Historical Traditions of Early North India. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press. Tieken, Herman 2001. ‘The Place of the Mālavikāgnimitra within Kālidāsa’s oeuvre.’ Indo-Iranian Journal 44/2: 149–166. Vasudeva, Somadeva (ed., trans.) 2006. The Recognition of Shakúntala by Kālidāsa. [Clay Sanskrit Library] New York: New York University Press & JJC Foundation. Walzer, Michael 1984. ‘Liberalism and the Art of Separation.’ Political Theory 12/3: 315–330. Willis, Michael 2005. ‘Later Gupta History: Inscriptions, Coins and Historical Ideology.’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 15/2: 131–150. Willis, Michael 2009. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual. Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Access. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC License is provided, and changes – if any – are indicated. (SID_1) Authenticated kosagabor9@gmail.com | Downloaded 04/05/22 07:07 PM UTC