Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c12.s3: 3. Kumāradāsa

A History of Sanskrit Literature c12.s3

Language
English

3. Kumāradāsa

c12.s3.1

Fate was long unkind to the *Jānakīharaṇa*¹ of Kumāradāsa, since it left the poem preserved only in a Sinhalese word-for-word translation, though, since first published from this source, it has come to light in southern India, where Sanskrit literature has often found preservation denied in the north. Ceylonese tradition of no early date or value asserts the identity of the author with a king of Ceylon (A. D. 517–26) who is connected, as we have seen, in tradition with the death of Kālidāsa. What is certain is that Kumāradāsa was a zealous admirer of Kālidāsa and very freely imitates him in manner as well as in general treatment of the subject, as comparison of Canto xii of the *Raghuvaṁça* with the relevant portions of the *Jānakīharaṇa* establishes beyond cavil. On the other hand, it is really beyond question that he knew the *Kāçikā Vṛtti* (*c.* A. D. 650), while on the other hand he must have been known to Vāmana (*c.* A. D. 800) who censures the use of *khalu* as first word, found in Kumāradāsa, and cites a stanza which in content and form proclaims itself as unquestionably a citation from the lost part of the *Jānakīharaṇa*. Finally, he was probably earlier than Māgha, who seems to echo a verse of his. Rājaçekhara, the poet (*c.* A. D. 900), asserts his fame:²

c12.s3.2

¹ Ed. Ceylon, 1891; i–x, Bombay, 1907; xvi, BSOS. iv. 285 ff. See Leumann, WZKM. vii. 226 ff.; Thomas, JRAS. 1901, pp. 253 ff.; Keith, *ibid.*, 578 ff.

c12.s3.3

² In the *Kāvyamīmāṁsā* he mentions his blindness, as also that of Medhāvirudra (p. 12).

c12.s3.4

*Jānakīharaṇaṁ kartuṁ Raghuvaṁçe sthite sati*
*kaviḥ Kumāradāsaç ca Rāvaṇaç ca yadi kṣamaḥ.*

c12.s3.5

‘No poet save Kumāradāsa could dare to sing the rape of Sītā when the *Raghuvaṁça* was current, even as none but Rāvaṇa could perform the deed, when Raghu’s line remained on earth.’

c12.s3.6

The *Jānakīharaṇa* suffers, of course, from the trite theme; Sanskrit poetry affords us a very vivid explanation of the complaint of a great poet: *cui non dictus Hylas puer et Latonia Delos*, for we actually have so many poems on the same theme preserved for us. Still, it is fair to say that Kumāradāsa does very well indeed in handling his story; his invention is negligible, but he uses effectively the innumerable opportunities for description which the theme offers. Thus we have poetic pictures of Daçaratha and his wives as well as of Ayodhyā (i); in ii Bṛhaspati, in appealing to Viṣṇu for aid, sketches the exploits of Rāvaṇa; in iii he revels in his themes; the king and his wives disport in the garden, then, as in Bhāravi, we have the king’s own description of the scene; the poet then describes the sports in the water, the king the sunset, then night and morning are sketched. Cantos iv and v carry on the narrative, the one from the birth of Daçaratha’s sons to the slaying of the Rākṣasī who plagues the hermitage, the other to the close of the defeat of the Rākṣasa host. In vi the scene shifts to Mithilā where Viçvāmitra and Janaka exchange greetings. In vii Sītā and Rāma meet; he describes her beauty, the poet their love and marriage. Then follows the picture of the joys of their union ending with a fine description of sunset and night (viii). The next canto brings us to Ayodhyā, and in x the poet shows his command of the maxims of politics by giving us a lecture from Daçaratha, who proposes to crown Rāma, on the duties of the sovereign. Events are crowded together, and Sītā is stolen before the canto closes. With equal haste are related the reception of the news by Rāma, his alliance with Hanumant who fights Vāli; the poet then turns to the more graceful theme of the rainy season, which he first himself and then through Rāma describes with considerable beauty. Canto xii matches the description of spring (iii) with a picture of autumn; then policy once more has its turn, for Sugrīva tenders ill counsel and Lakṣmaṇa rebukes him. Rāma is dejected, and to cheer him Sugrīva describes the mountain, while in xiv we have first a picture of the monkeys as they build the causeway, then Rāma’s impression of the scene, after which the poet resumes the description and presents a lively impression of the crossing of the host. Canto xv gives us the mission of Aṅgada as envoy to Rāvaṇa; Canto xvi the revels of the Rākṣasas; xvii–xx Rāma’s triumph.

c12.s3.7

Kālidāsa influenced Kumāradāsa in style as well as subject;

c12.s3.8

he adopts the Vaidarbha form,¹ and he develops in a marked degree the love of alliteration, though he never carries it to the point of affectation, as in the efforts of such poets as Māgha to produce effects by the constant repetition of a single letter. Nor is he fond of the Yamaka form to any undue degree: a good example is:

c12.s3.9

¹ Nandargikar (*Kumāradāsa*, p. xxiv) asserts that he uses the Gauḍī, but this exaggerates, though he may have known Māgha. The reverse is probable; cf. *Jān.* iii. 34 f. with Māgha, v. 29; below, § 4. Walter (*Indica*, iii. 34, 36) claims that Bhāravi borrows the use of *tan* and perfect impersonal passives from him, but this is doubtless the reverse of the truth.

c12.s3.10

*atanunātanunā ghanadārubhiḥ: smarahitaṁ rahitaṁ pradidhakṣuṇā*
*rucirabhācirabhāsitavartmanā: prakhacitā khacitā na na dīpitā.*

c12.s3.11

‘Strong love, eager to burn the lover deserted, kindled with cloud-logs the sky refulgent and irradiated with the lightning.’ Prettiness is, perhaps, the chief characteristic of Kumāradāsa; he abounds in dainty conceits expressed with a felicity of diction and a charm of sound and metre which no language but Sanskrit can produce. Thus we have a pretty picture of the naughty Rāma as a child:

c12.s3.12

*na sa Rāma iha kva yāta ity: anuyukto vanitābhir agrataḥ*
*nijahastapuṭāvṛtānano: vidadhe ’līkanilīnam arbhakaḥ.*

c12.s3.13

‘“Rāma is not here; where has he gone?” the women called as they searched for him, but the child, covering his face with his clasped hands, played hide-and-seek with them.’ Though flagrant imitations of Kālidāsa, these stanzas are not unworthy of that poet:

c12.s3.14

*puṣparatnavibhavair yathepsitaṁ: sā vibhūṣayati rājanandane*
*darpaṇaṁ tu na cakāṅkṣa yoṣitāṁ: svāmisammadaphalaṁ hi maṇḍanam.*

c12.s3.15

‘With richness of jewels and flowers she adorned herself before the prince as was his will; but she sought not a mirror, for woman’s tiring hath its guerdon in her lord’s delight.’

c12.s3.16

*kaitavena kalaheṣu suptayā: sa kṣipan vasanam āttasādhvasaḥ*
*cora ity uditahāsavibhramaṁ: sapragalbham avakhaṇḍito 'dhare.*

c12.s3.17

‘In their dalliance she feigned to fall asleep; then as he touched her robe in diffidence, “Thief!” she exclaimed in laughing confusion, and boldly kissed him on the lips.’ Another verse, describing love-weariness, proves use of Canto viii of the *Kumārasambhava*:¹

c12.s3.18

¹ viii. 14 is copied in Kumāradāsa, viii. 8 and 24.

c12.s3.19

*tasya hastam abalā vyapohitum: mekhalāguṇasamīpasaṅginam*
*mandaçaktir aratiṁ nyavedayat: lolanetragalitena vāriṇā.*

c12.s3.20

‘Though in her weariness she had not strength to push away the hand that sought to loosen her girdle, still she showed her indifference by the tears that fell from her glancing eyes.’ A famous crux in the creation of woman’s beauty is posed:

c12.s3.21

*paçyan hato manmathabāṇapātaiḥ: çakto vidhātuṁ na mimīla cakṣuḥ*
*ūrū vidhātrā hi kṛtau kathaṁ tāv: ity āsa tasyāṁ sumater vitarkaḥ.*

c12.s3.22

‘If he looked, then love’s darts must have pierced his heart; if he closed his eyes, he could not have seen to create; how then did the creator fashion the beauty of her limbs? Thus even the wisest was at fault.’ Love and nature are inseparably blended:

c12.s3.23

*prāleyakālapriyaviprayoga-: glāneva rātriḥ kṣayam āsasāda*
*jagāma mandaṁ divaso vasanta-: krūrātapaçrānta iva krameṇa.*

c12.s3.24

‘Night perished, as a maiden fadeth through severance from her lover in winter’s cold, and in her place slow came the day, as though wearied by the fierce spring heat.’

c12.s3.25

In another stanza we may have a reminiscence of Bhāravi:²

c12.s3.26

² x. 36 compared with *Jānakīharaṇa*, iii. 9; cf. ix. 21 with i. 4.

c12.s3.27

*vāsantikasyāṅçucayena bhānor: hemantam ālokya hataprabhāvam*
*saroruhām uddhṛtakaṇṭakena: prītyeva ramyaṁ jahase vanena.*

c12.s3.28

‘Seeing that winter’s prowess had been quelled by the army of the rays of the spring sun, sweetly laughed the forest in its joy that the tormenter of the lotuses had been banished.’

c12.s3.29

Though not a pedant, Kumāradāsa was a keen student of grammar, and there is no doubt that he must rank as an authority of some weight in judging the correctness of disputed forms. He himself sneers in a paronomasia at bad poets who spoil their compositions by the use of such particles¹ as *tu*, *hi*, *na*, by incorrect employment of roots, and by hiding their meaning through wrong words, and doubtless he had authority for such formations as *halacarma*, furrow, where *carma* is clearly from *car*, go, and *maruta*, a by-form of *marut*. He borrows from the *Kāçikā* the rare forms *vitūst*-, to comb one’s top-knot, *marmāvidh*, piercing the vitals, *satyāp*-, declare truth, and such aorists as *acakamata*; other rare terms from the grammarians are *anyataredyus*, one day, *āyaḥçūlikatā*, violence, *ikṣuçākaṭa*, field of sugar cane, *jampatī*, husband and wife, *nīçāra*, covering, *paçyatohara*, robber in broad daylight, *pravara*, covering, *bhidelima*, fit to be broken, *muṣṭiṃdhaya*, fist-sucking baby, *çāyikā*, sloth, and *saukharātrika*, asking if one has slept well. Of constructions he has very freely adverbial prepositional compounds, the impersonal use of the perfect passive, and the weird passive *muninā joṣam abhūyata*, ‘the sage rejoiced’. The accusative with *sarvatas* and *ubhayatas* is grammatical; *kālasya kasyacit* has a similar origin, but *samāḥ sahasrāṇi* seems careless and *doṣā* as instrumental of *doṣan* is unparalleled; the use of *khalu* and *iva* at the beginning of lines is quite wrong, and censured by Vāmana as regards *khalu*.² From Vālmīki he has *tanucchada*, feather, from Kālidāsa *avarṇa*, shame, and *ajarya*, friendship. His love of periphrasis is remarkable: he styles himself even Kumāraparicāraka.

c12.s3.30

¹ Already in *Vāsavadattā* (p. 134); see *Jān.* i. 89; viii. 29.

c12.s3.31

² xiii. 39. In *Māgha*, ii. 70 the use is correct, as ’*khalu* there equals *alam*. Nandargikar (pp. xii f.) gives some dubious words, *klamathu*, *āsa* as perfect, *tapasyadbhavanam*, *jayamānam* as middle, *ātmasu* as plural.

c12.s3.32

Kumāradāsa’s use of metre is skilled, but he follows in the main the manner of Kālidāsa without seeking the elaboration of the use of many shifting metres as in Bhāravi. The Çloka³ is dominant in Cantos ii, vi, and x; Drutavilambita in xi; Pramitākṣarā in xiii; Upajāti of Indravajrā type in i, iii, and vii; Vaṅçasthā in v, ix, xii, and iii. 64-76; Vaitālīya in iv; and Rathoddhatā in viii. The minor metres are Çārdūlavikrīḍita, Çikhariṇī, Sragdharā, Puṣpitāgrā (xvi), Praharṣiṇī, Vasantatilaka, Avitatha, Mandākrāntā, and Mālinī.

c12.s3.33

³ In 424 half-stanzas in ii, vi, and x there are only 10 Vipulās, 8 first, 1 second (irregular ◡ — — — beginning), 1 third; 4 fourth Vipulās in Nandargikar’s ed. must be false readings. Before the first Vipulā the first foot is 6 times ◡ — — — or ◡ ◡ — — as against 2 ◡ — ◡ —, a phenomenon like the facts in Kālidāsa.

Linked texts (7)