Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c32: XXIV. The Science of Love

A History of Sanskrit Literature c32

Language
English

XXIV. The Science of Love

c32.2

THE third of the aims of man is Kāma, love, and this subject is taken quite as seriously by Indian writers as Dharma or Artha. As the Arthaçāstra is intended for kings and ministers, so the Kāmaçāstra is to be studied by men of taste, Nāgarakas, who desire to practice refinement and profit to the most by their knowledge of all that is meant by love; women may study it also if they are such as come into contact with gentlemen, that is, courtesans, princesses, and the daughters of high officers. It is not surprising that in the *Kāmasūtra*¹ of Vātsyāyana Mallanāga, our first great treatise on the topic, we should find a close imitation of the *Arthaçāstra*; as in that text we are introduced into the importance of the three ends of man; there is a section on the sciences as they existed at the author’s time, and the book ends with a secret chapter as in the *Arthaçāstra*. Moreover, the author solemnly assures us that the study of the Çāstra will be to induce him who practises love to remember during it the claims of the other sides of man's activity, Dharma and Artha, so that he will observe due moderation. Moreover, the morality of the work is that of the *Arthaçāstra*; on the principle that ‘all's fair in love and war,’ the author complacently gives instruction in modes of deceiving maidens and of seducing the wives of others with as much *sang-froid* as the *Arthaçāstra* in inculcating the benefits of defeating an opponent by guile. The pious Madhusūdana Sarasvatī,² who assigns the Kāmaçāstra to the general head of medicine, assures us that the *Kāmasūtra* in five sections—a discrepancy from our text—teaches that nothing but sorrow results even from all the refinements taught in the text; but that is certainly not the impression left by the *Kāmasūtra*. Even in style the resemblance to the *Arthaçāstra* is quite marked. The work is written in a dry didactic style which is in a sense midway between Sūtras and a Bhāṣya, and the sections are finished off by verses in the manner of the *Arthaçāstra*.¹

c32.3

¹ Ed. Bombay, 1891; Benares, 1912; trans. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1897; cf. *Beiträge zur indischen Erotik* (1911).

c32.4

² *Prasthānabheda*.

c32.5

¹ Jacobi, SBA. 1911, pp. 962 ff., 1912, p. 840. Cf. E. Müller-Hess, *Festschrift Kuhn*, pp. 162 ff.; Jolly, ZDMG. lxviii. 351 ff.

c32.6

The *Kāmasūtra* is divided into seven parts; the first deals with generalities, the purpose of the book, the three ends of man, the sciences, the character of an elegant, and the description of the friends and go-betweens who help him in his intrigues. Part ii discusses the modes of enjoying love; iii relations with maidens, giving hints for courtship which imply a state of society in which child marriages were by no means universal, and marriage ceremonials, supplementing the information of the Gṛhyasūtras; iv discusses relations with married women; v relations with the women of others; vi hetairai; and vii secret potions to secure love. The sociological and medical importance of the treatise is admittedly considerable, it is certain that it was very freely used by the poets to guide them in their descriptions of love scenes.

c32.7

The work, however, makes it clear that it has no claim to be the first written. In the introduction we hear of Çvetaketu, the Vedic scholar, as having composed a treatise which Pāñcāla Bābhravya condensed in seven chapters. Of these Dattaka, at the bidding of the hetairai of Pāṭaliputra, chose the sixth for working up as a special subject and his example was followed by Cārāyaṇa, Suvarṇanābha, Ghoṭakamukha, Gonardīya, Goṇikāputra, Kucumāra, who each took up a section. Then, in view of the size of Bābhravya's work, it was reduced to reasonable dimensions by the author. In point of fact both he and his commentator cite these worthies and give verses from them, so that we may believe that books under their names were actually current. Of these names Cārāyaṇa and Ghoṭakamukha are found in the *Arthaçāstra*, Gonardīya and Goṇikāputra in Patañjali's *Mahābhāṣya*, Ghoṭakamukha beside Kauṭilya in the Jain lists, and that Bābhravya left a school is reasonably certain from the *Kāmasūtra*'s citation of the views of Bābhravīyas. The Buddhists also recognize the Kāmaçāstra as one of the arts in which the young Buddha was instructed, and Açvaghoṣa clearly knew some early work of this sort.

c32.8

The actual dating of the text of Vātsyāyana is difficult. Kālidāsa, like Açvaghoṣa, knew an early Kāmaçāstra, and we cannot prove that he actually used Vātsyāyana for his descriptions in his dramas, in the last canto of the *Raghuvaṁça*, or cantos vii and viii of the *Kumārasambhava*.¹ He is not in either of these two poems in perfect agreement with the rules of the science, as we have it in the *Kāmasūtra*. It is different with Subandhu, who actually refers to Mallanāga or Malanāga and his work, while his account of the hetairai of Kusumapura seems to follow the *Kāmasūtra*. It was certainly known to Māgha, to Bhavabhūti, and to Varāhamihira, whose *Bṛhatsaṁhitā* shows clear signs of using it. The effort² to use the mention of Andhras and Ābhīras as rulers to prove that the date must be later than A. D. 225, since before that the Andhras were paramount rulers, and not merely on the footing of the Ābhīras, may be dismissed as inconclusive, as is the reference to Kuntala Çātakarṇi Sātavāhana who accidentally killed his queen. The dating of the work in the fourth century A. D. is thus purely speculative, if it is perhaps not far from the truth. It may well be, however, that this is too high, and that A. D. 500 is a reasonable date, for the *Arthaçāstra* may not be earlier than *c.* A. D. 400, or even later.

c32.9

¹ Contrast Peterson, JBRAS. xviii. 109 ff.; R. Narasimhachar, JRAS. 1911, p. 183, who compares *Raghuvaṁça*, xix. 31 and *Çakuntalā*, iv. 17 with *Kāmasūtra*, pp. 328, 239. But *Kum.* iii. 68; vii. 77; *Ragh.* vi. 81 violate *Kāmasūtra*, p. 266.

c32.10

² H. Chakladar, *Vātsyāyana* (1921); cf. Jolly, *Arthaśāstra*, i. 26 ff. Bhandarkar (POCP. 1919, i. 25) puts the date *c.* A. D. 100. Vātsyāyana used Āpastamba and the *Mahābhāṣya*, and was a westerner; ABI. vii. 129 ff; viii. 43 ff.; AMSJV. iii. 1. 327 ff.

c32.11

The text would be very unintelligible but for the explanations of obscure terms given by Yaçodhara in his *Jayamaṅgalā*, who wrote under Vīsaladeva (1243–61). Of minor importance are all other works, besides being of late date. These include the *Pañcasāyaka* of Jyotirīçvara³ who knows Kṣemendra; the *Ratirahasya* of Kokkoka, before 1200, who employs elaborate metres, and claims to have used Nandikeçvara and Goṇikāputra as well as Vātsyāyana in compiling his work; the short *Ratimañjarī*⁴ of Jayadeva, who is apparently not to be identified with the poet of the *Gītagovinda*, and the *Anaṅgaraṅga*¹ of Kalyāṇamalla in the sixteenth century. A *Ratiçāstra*² is also attributed to a Nāgārjuna, but we need not identify its author with the famous Buddhist sage who has had the misfortune of becoming the reputed author of many treatises on dubious topics.

c32.12

³ On these works see Schmidt, *Beiträge zur ind. Erotik*, pp. 35 ff.

c32.13

⁴ Ed. Pavolini, GSAI. xvii. 317 ff.

c32.14

¹ Ed. Lahore, 1920; trans. London, 1885.

c32.15

² Cf. Schmidt, WZKM. xxiii. 180 ff. and on the comm., *Smaratattvaprakāçikā* of Revaṇārādhya, WZKM. xviii. 261 ff.

Linked texts (12)