Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c5: Chapter I. Date of the Kāmasūtra

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra c5

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. Date of the Kāmasūtra

c5.2

Vātsyāyana stands pre-eminent in early Indian literature as an author who brought the analytical power of a keen logician to bear on the science of erotics which, in our modern days, has only lately begun to be studied with the care that it deserves. The science had attracted the serious attention of the Indian savants very early, as far back, perhaps, as the time when the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa was being compiled, and in the centuries that elapsed before Vātsyāyana made his appearance, the various sections of the science were being studied separately and individually. But it was Vātsyāyana who synthesised the whole science and revived the popular interest in this branch of knowledge. Apart from its interest as a work on the science of love, Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra, at the present day, is of immense importance to us as throwing a flood of light on the manners and customs of his contemporary Indian society. To appreciate the full value, for the social history of India, of the picture that Vātsyāyana presents, we must, in the first place, try to ascertain, as closely as possible, the time when he flourished and for this purpose it will be necessary to trace the history of his science, to ascertain his relation to other departments of Indian literature, and also to analyse critically the few references that may be gleaned from his work, to the political history of India.

Vātsyāyana's Reference to Earlier Works on the Science of Love

c5.s1.1

In speaking of the origin of the *Kāmaśāstra*, Vātsyāyana says at the beginning of his work¹ that at first, Prajāpati, the ‘Lord of Beings,’ for the welfare and preservation of his progeny composed a huge encyclopædia in a hundred thousand chapters dealing with the three objects of human life, *viz.*, *Dharma*, *Artha* and *Kāma*²; the first two of these subjects were next taken up by Manu and Bṛhaspati respectively and Nandī the attendant of Mahādeva, took up the third which he dealt with in a thousand chapters. This last work was condensed into five hundred chapters by Śvetaketu, the son of Uddālaka. The work of Śvetaketu was further abridged into a hundred and fifty chapters and divided into seven sections by Bābhravya, a native of the Pañcāla country. Next, Dattaka, at the request of the

c5.s1.2

¹ *Vide* Chapter I of the *Kāmasūtra*, pp. 4-7 of the Benares edition. The quotations from the *Kāmasūtra* have been made throughout from the Benares edition, edited by Pandit Dāmodarlāl Gosvāmī and published in the *Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series* and the references are to the pages of this edition. The Sanskrit text edited by Mahāmahopādhyāya Pandit Durgāprasāda of Jaipur had been published earlier, but the Benares edition is more easily accessible to the public, the Jaipur edition being meant for private circulation alone. There is also a Bengali edition of the text and the commentary with a Bengali translation, published by Babu Maheś Chandra Pal of Calcutta. There is some difference in the arrangement of the chapters; otherwise the readings are much the same with only occasional variations.

c5.s1.3

² This agrees with what is said in the *Mahābhārata*, *Śantiparva*, Ch 59, with regard to the origin of the sciences. Here we are told that at the request of the gods who were filled with anxiety at the entire absence of discipline among mankind, Prajāpati Brahmā produced from his own intelligence a hundred thousand chapters in which were delineated *Dharma*—the science of religion and duty, *Artha*—the science of politics and economics and *Kāma*—the science of love.—

c5.s1.4

ततोऽध्यायसहस्राणां शतचक्रे स्वबुद्धिजाम् ।
यत्र धर्मस्तथैवार्थः कामश्चैवमिवर्णितः ॥२६॥

c5.s1.5

But there is no agreement as regards the subsequent development except that in the *Mahābhārata* also Bṛhaspati is one of the authors of Daṇḍanīti or Arthaśāstra.

c5.s1.6

courtesans of Pāṭaliputra, wrote a separate treatise dealing with the *Vaiśika* section of Bābhravya. His example was followed by six other writers—Cārāyaṇa, Suvarṇanābha, Ghoṭakamukha, Gonardīya, Goṇikāputra and Kucumāra, each of whom took up a section of Bābhravya and wrote a monograph on it. As the science treated in this fragmentary fashion by numerous writers was about to be mangled and spoiled and as the work of Bābhravya, being huge in bulk, was difficult to be mastered, Vātsyāyana proposes to give an epitome of the whole subject in a single work of moderate dimensions. Towards the end of the Kāmasūtra, again, Vātsyāyana says that having mastered the significance of the *sūtras* of Bābhravya (from his teachers, as one would do in the case of a sacred text or *āgama*) and having pondered over them in his mind, he composed the Kāmasūtra in the approved method.¹ He thus admits that the great work of Bābhravya formed the groundwork of his own book as is also quite evident from the frequent references that he makes to it in every part of his Kāmasūtra : one out of his seven sections, the *Sāmprayogika*, covering about a fourth part of the whole work, is entirely taken from Bābhravya, as he says at the end of that section.² There can, therefore, be no doubt that Vātsyāyana had before him the great work of Bābhravya Pāñcāla. The commentator also quotes several verses stating the opinions of the followers of Bābhravya, and about a *sūtra* of Vātsyāyana he observes that it is a verse of

c5.s1.7

¹ बाभ्रव्यांश्च सूत्रार्थान् आगमस्य विमृश्य च । वात्स्यायनश्चकारेदं कामसूत्रं यथाविधि ॥ *Kāmasūtra*, Benares edition, p. 381.

c5.s1.8

² एवमेतां चतुःषष्टिं बाभ्रव्याः प्रकीर्तिताम् । Benares edition, page 182. Besides, at pp. 68 79, 94, 238, 273, 274, 296, 353, etc., the school of Bābhravya has been referred to.

c5.s1.10

In speaking of the origin of the *Kāmaśāstra*, Vātsyāyana says at the beginning of his work¹ that at first, *Prajāpati*, the ‘Lord of Beings,’ for the welfare and preservation of his progeny composed a huge encyclopædia in a hundred thousand chapters dealing with the three objects of human life, viz., *Dharma*, *Artha* and *Kāma*²; the first two of these subjects were next taken up by *Manu* and *Bṛhaspati* respectively and *Nandī* the attendant of *Mahādeva*, took up the third which he dealt with in a thousand chapters. This last work was condensed into five hundred chapters by *Śvetaketu*, the son of *Uddālaka*. The work of *Śvetaketu* was further abridged into a hundred and fifty chapters and divided into seven sections by *Bābhravya*, a native of the *Pañcāla* country. Next, *Dattaka*, at the request of the

c5.s1.11

¹ *Vide* Chapter I of the *Kāmasūtra*, pp. 4-7 of the Benares edition. The quotations from the *Kāmasūtra* have been made throughout from the Benares edition, edited by Pandit Dāmodarlāl Gosvāmī and published in the *Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series* and the references are to the pages of this edition. The Sanskrit text edited by Mahāmahopādhyāya Pandit Durgāprasāda of Jaipur had been published earlier, but the Benares edition is more easily accessible to the public, the Jaipur edition being meant for private circulation alone. There is also a Bengali edition of the text and the commentary with a Bengali translation, published by Babu Maheś Chandra Pal of Calcutta. There is some difference in the arrangement of the chapters ; otherwise the readings are much the same with only occasional variations.

c5.s1.12

² This agrees with what is said in the *Mahābhārata*, *Śantiparva*, Ch 59, with regard to the origin of the sciences. Here we are told that at the request of the gods who were filled with anxiety at the entire absence of discipline among mankind, *Prajāpati* Brahma produced from his own intelligence a hundred thousand chapters in which were delineated *Dharma*—the science of religion and duty, *Artha*—the science of politics and economics and *Kāma*—the science of love.—

c5.s1.13

ततोऽध्यायसहस्राणां शतञ्चक्रे स्वबुद्धिम् ।
यत्र धर्मस्तथैवार्थः कामश्चैवाभिवर्णितः ॥१२६॥

c5.s1.14

But there is no agreement as regards the subsequent development except that in the *Mahābhārata* also Bṛhaspati is one of the authors of Daṇḍanīti or Arthaśāstra.

c5.s1.15

courtesans of Pāṭaliputra, wrote a separate treatise dealing with the *Vaiśika* section of Bābhravya. His example was followed by six other writers—*Cārāyaṇa*, *Suvarṇanābha*, *Ghoṭakamukha*, *Gonardīya*, *Goṇikāputra* and *Kucumāra*, each of whom took up a section of Bābhravya and wrote a monograph on it. As the science treated in this fragmentary fashion by numerous writers was about to be mangled and spoiled and as the work of Bābhravya, being huge in bulk, was difficult to be mastered, Vātsyāyana proposes to give an epitome of the whole subject in a single work of moderate dimensions. Towards the end of the Kāmasūtra, again, Vātsyāyana says that having mastered the significance of the *sūtras* of Bābhravya (from his teachers, as one would do in the case of a sacred text or *āgama*) and having pondered over them in his mind, he composed the Kāmasūtra in the approved method.¹ He thus admits that the great work of Bābhravya formed the groundwork of his own book as is also quite evident from the frequent references that he makes to it in every part of his Kāmasūtra : one out of his seven sections, the *Sāmprayogika*, covering about a fourth part of the whole work, is entirely taken from Bābhravya, as he says at the end of that section. ² There can, therefore, be no doubt that Vātsyāyana had before him the great work of Bābhravya Pāñcāla. The commentator also quotes several verses stating the opinions of the followers of Bābhravya, and about a *sūtra* of Vātsyāyana he observes that it is a verse of

c5.s1.16

² एवमेतां चतुःषष्टिं बाभ्रव्येण प्रकीर्तिताम् । Benares edition, page 182. Besides, at pp. 68, 79, 94, 238, 273, 274, 296, 353, etc. the school of Bābhravya has been referred to.

c5.s1.17

बाभ्रवीयांश्च सूत्रार्थान् आगमथ्य विमृश्य च ।
वात्स्यायनश्चकारेदं कामसूत्रं यथाविधि ॥
*Kāmasūtra*, Benares edition, p. 381.

c5.s1.18

Bābhravya;¹ he seems, therefore, to have access to some treatise specially belonging to Bābhravya’s school.

c5.s1.19

¹ The Commentary (Ben. edn., p. 279) says, यथाहुर्बाभ्रव्याः— पुत्रिकां चित्ररूपाश्च पथवः शुकसारिकाः । सर्वेषां गूढभावानां दूतकर्माणि कुर्वत ॥ इति । Besides, the commentator quotes eight verses—Bābhravīyāḥ Ślokāḥ—at pp. 37-38. Moreover, he introduces the sūtra सुरतान्ते सुखं पुंसां, etc. (p. 81) with the remark आसुमेचार्यं बाभ्रव्यीतेन श्लोकेनाह ।

c5.s1.20

It may be noted that Vātsyāyana speaks of having treated Bābhravya’s book like an āgama, a work of holy scripture, indicating that it was considerably ancient. A Bābhravya who is called Pāñcāla by Uvaṭa, the commentator, is mentioned in the Ṛk-prātiśākhya as the author of the Krama-pāṭha of the Ṛgveda and Professor Weber² holds that this Bābhravya Pāñcāla, and the Pāñcāla people through him, took a leading part in fixing and arranging the text of the Ṛgveda. The Mahābhārata also says that the author of the Kramapāṭha was a Pāñcāla of the Bābhravya gotra and that his proper name was Gālava.³ This connection of the Pāñcāla people with the Ṛgveda receives a confirmation from what Vātsyāyana tells us in connection with the sixty-four varieties of Samprayoga or connubial intercourse. He says that they belonged to the Pāñcāla country and were collectively called *Catuḥshaṣṭi*¹—"the sixty-four"—from analogy with the *Ṛgveda*. He avers that the *Ṛks* collected in ten *maṇḍalas* are called the *Catuḥshaṣṭi* (being divided into eight *Aṣṭakas* of eight chapters each) and the same principle holds in the case of the *Samprayogas* too (as they are divided into eight times eight varieties); and besides, because they are both connected with the Pañcāla country, therefore, the Bahvṛcas, the followers of the Ṛgveda, have out of respect given this appellation of *Catuḥshaṣṭi* to them.² It may be noted here that the followers of Bābhravya (Bābhravīyāḥ) are mentioned in the Mahābhāshya (on Pānini I. 1) but we cannot be certain whether a Vedic school or a Kāmaśāstra school is there meant. If Bābhravya, the author of the work on the *Kāmaśāstra*, is the same as the great author of the *Kramapāṭha*, then he has to be placed in a very early age indeed. But Bābhravya is merely a *gotra* or family name and it may be doubted whether the science of erotics could have been systematized so early; though it must be admitted that erotics and eugenics, the sciences that the Kāmasūtra embraces in its scope, had received particular attention from the *Ṛṣhis* at the time of composition of the hymns of the Atharvaveda, many of which deal with philtres and charms to secure love and drive away jealousy, with the means for obtaining good, healthy children and other allied matters.

c5.s1.21

² History of Indian Literature, translated by J. Mann and T. Zachariæ. Popular Edition, pp. 10 and 34.

c5.s1.22

³ Mahābhārata, Calcutta edition, Śāntiparva, ch. 342, vv. 102-104 and the Kumbakonam, South Indian Recension, ch. 352, verses 37-38. वामदेवहितार्थाय स मत्प्रसादान्महात्मना । पाञ्चालेन क्रमः प्राप्तस्तस्माद्भूतात् सनातनात् । बाभ्रव्यगोत्रः स बभौ प्रथमं क्रमपारगः ॥ नारायणाद्धरं लब्ध्वा प्राप योगमनुत्तमम् । क्रमं प्रणीय शिष्यान्वै प्रख्यायित्वा स गालवः ॥

c5.s1.23

¹ पाञ्चालिकी चतुःषष्टिरप; Ben. ed., p. 40; संप्रयोगाश्च चतुःषष्टिरित्याचक्षते चतुःषष्टिरत्वात्; *ibid.* p. 92.

c5.s1.24

² ऋचां दशतीनां च संज्ञितत्वाद्विहापि तदर्थसंबन्धात् पञ्चालसंबन्धाच्च बह्वृचाः पञ्चार्थ संज्ञां प्रवर्तित्त्येके ॥ अष्टानाष्टधा विकल्पभेदादष्टवष्टाचतुःषष्टिरिति बाभ्रवीयाः; *ibid.* pp. 93-94.

c5.s1.25

The Pañcāla country where Bābhravya flourished appears to have been the part of India where the science of erotics was specially cultivated. We have seen how great was the debt of Vātsyāyana to Bābhravya Pañcāla, specially with regard to the section dealing with Samprayoga, the subject-matter proper of the Kāmasūtra. Some of the most revolting ceremonies in the Aśvamedha sacrifice seem to have originated in the Pañcāla country.¹ The Pañcāla people were evidently credited in ancient times with special knowledge in matters relating to the sexes, and one of them is said to have changed even the natural sex, as we see in the case of Śikhaṇḍin, the son of the Pañcāla king, Drupada.² Polyandry as we see it in the case of Draupadī Pañcālī, may be regarded as an ancient institution of the Pañcāla country and the Pāṇḍava brothers, belonging as they did, to the allied tribe of the Kurus, as we see from the common Vedic phrase Kuru-Pañcāla,³ were certainly familiar with it and could have no difficulty in acceding to it; in fact, the Kurus of Hastināpura and the reigning dynasties in North and South Pañcāla are said, in the Purāṇas, to belong to the same stock and to be descended from the same great ancestor Bharata.⁴ In this connection, a statement of Vātsyāyana is very significant. He says that according to the followers of Bābhravya, who belonged to Pañcāla, as we have seen, a woman’s chastity may not be respected when she is found to have intimacy with five lovers⁵ (in addition to her husband, explains the Commentary) showing that five was considered as the limit beyond which it was not proper for a woman to go; if she did so, she could be approached with impunity by any one. The Commentary explains that in the case of Draupadī this limit was not passed, as Yudhishṭhira and others were all her husbands.¹ The indulgence shown by the Pañcāla people to *five lovers*, appears to be significant. It is difficult to see in it a symbolic meaning as is done by Dahlmann.² It is worthy of remark in this connection that Āpastamba from whom, as we shall presently see, Vātsyāyana quotes several aphorisms, refers to the bestowal of a single woman in marriage to a whole family.³

c5.s1.26

¹ See Weber, op. cit., pp. 114-115.

c5.s1.27

² Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parva chh. 189-194.

c5.s1.28

³ See Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index, i, pp. 165-169

c5.s1.29

⁴ F. E. Pargiter, North Pañcāla Dynasty, J. R. A. S. 1918, p. 238.

c5.s1.30

⁵ दृष्टपञ्चपुरुषा नागम्या काचिदस्तीति बाभ्रवीयाः, Kāmasūtra, Ben. ed., p. 68.

c5.s1.31

¹ स्वपतिव्यतिरेकेण दृष्टाः पञ्च पुरुषा पतित्वेन यथा सा स्वरिस्त्री कारणावशात् सर्व्व रेव गम्या । तथा च पञ्चातीता बन्धकीति पराशरः । द्रौपदी युधिष्ठिरादीनां स्वपतित्वाद-न्येषागम्या. कथमेका सत्यनेकपतिरिति चैतिहासिकाः प्रष्टव्याः ; *ibid*, p. 68.

c5.s1.32

² *Das Mahābhārata als Epcs Und Rechtsbuch*, von J. Dahlmann, S. J., pp. 97-98.

c5.s1.33

³ कुलाय हि स्त्री प्रदोयत इत्यपदिशन्ति, *Āp. Dharma Sūtra*, II. 27. 3. See also Winternitz, *Notes on the Mahābhārata*. J. R. A. S., 1897, p. 758.

c5.s1.34.1

Of the predecessors of Bābhravya mentioned by Vātsyāyana, the earlier ones appear to be mythical, but Śvetaketu, the son of Uddālaka, is better known He is mentioned in the Mahābhārata as having established a fixity in sexual relations which before him were entirely free and promiscuous like those of the lower animals, the institution of marriage having not yet come into existence.⁴ This refers to a primitive stage of society, and it is hardly possible, I am afraid, that this Śvetaketu Auddālaki could have been the author of the work in five hundred chapters referred to by Vātsyāyana. However, in the Chāndogyopanishad, and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁵ in the portion called the Bṛhadāraṇyakopanishad, we meet with a Śvetaketu who may be connected with the tradition of the authorship of a work relating to the Kāmaśāstra. Here we find three generations of Vedic teachers, Brāhmaṇas of Kurupañcāla—Aruṇa, his son Uddālaka Āruṇi, and his grandson, Śvetaketu Auddālaki Āruṇeya.¹ A story is told in almost the same words in both the Chāndogya as well as the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishads² how the young Śvetaketu, after finishing his education, went to the assembly (samiti or parishad) of the Pañcāla people and was there discomfited by some questions put to him by Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, a Kshattriya;

c5.s1.34.2

he was mortified at thus being nonplussed by a mere Rājanya and complained to his father who also being unable to answer the questions, sought Pravāhaṇa Jaivali himself for being taught in the matters broached by him. Among the matters taught by this Kshattriya of Pañcāla we find a symbolic interpretation of the relations between the sexes.³ A few chapters later in the Bṛhadāraṇyakopanishad,⁴ we find the same thing related with further additions including rules for approaching a woman, for dealing with a lover of one's own wife and specially rules for obtaining good progeny, and Uddālaka Āruṇi is there referred to as one of the foremost teachers of this science⁵ which represents some of the earliest attempts made in India for the discovery of eugenic laws. These matters were afterwards more fully developed in the Gṛhyasūtras but the beginnings were made in the Upanishads, and, in fact, Āśvalāyana in his Gṛhyasūtra refers to the upanishad or the secret lore as the proper source in these things.⁶ It is significant that both Pravāhaṇa Jaivali and Uddālaka, of the Upanishad story, belonged to the Pañcāla country where, as we have seen before, the Kāmaśāstra was specially cultivated.

c5.s1.34.3

From what we have said above, it is evident that Uddālaka considerably advanced the science the rudiments of which he had received from Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, and his son, Śvetaketu, must have carried it still farther as is evident from the body of tradition that has accumulated round his name as the first human founder of the Kāmaśāstra which appears to have been specially studied in his family. There can be no doubt that Śvetaketu and his father were historical personages and lived in a highly cultured age, an age of intense philosophical speculation, as we see from the many stories connected with them in the Brāhmaṇas and the Upanishads and it is not improbable that he had composed an Upanishad or secret work in which matters relating to marriage, love and the begetting of children were specially dealt with; at any rate, a body of eugenic rules of which a few fragments have been preserved in the Bṛhadāraṇyako-paniṣad, must have come down from him and his family.

c5.s1.34.4

That Śvetaketu left behind him some such work may be gathered from the fact that a personal statement by him has been quoted by Āpastamba in his Dharmasūtra where Śvetaketu is represented as having said that even after his marriage he carried on Vedic studies at his teacher's house for two months every year and thus acquired a greater knowledge of the Śruti than before,¹ and we may note that this passage which seems to be a direct quotation from Śvetaketu, has not been traced as yet in any of the Vedic works where he is referred to. Āpastamba further states, in another chapter, that though Śvetaketu was a person belonging to a comparatively recent age, yet he had become a Ṛshi.¹ Coming back to Vātsyāyana we find that the opinions of Auddālaki are referred to by Vātsyāyana in three places² in his Kāmasūtra and in one of them he contrasts the opinions of Auddālaki and Bābhravya, thus proving the connection of Auddālaki with the Kāmaśāstra beyond any doubt. It does not, however, necessarily impiy that Vātsyāyana had access to Auddālaki's work in five hundred chapters, as in that case he would have made ampler use of it; certain opinions must have been current in Vātsyāyana's time among the teachers of the Kāmaśāstra (whom he frequently refers to as the Ācāryas), as having come down from the reputed human founder of the science; or, the legend of Auddālaki and his opinions might have been taken from the work of Bābhravya on whom Vātsyāyana mainly depends.

c5.s1.35

⁴ *Mahābhārata*. Ādiparra, ch. 123. Calcutta Edn.; अनादृता हि सर्वेषां वर्णानां मङ्गना भुवि ॥ यथा गावः स्थितास्तात स्वे स्वे वर्णै तथा प्रजाः । ऋषिपुत्रोऽथ तं धर्मं श्वेतकेतुं चन्नमे ॥ चकार चैव मर्य्यादामिमां स्त्रीपुंसयोभुवि ।- मानुषेषु महाभागे न त्वन्येषु जन्तुषु ॥ See also Kumbakonam edn., ch. 128.

c5.s1.36

⁵ *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, x. 5. 1. 1. He is also referred to in two places in the *Taittiriya Saṃhitā*. vi. 1. 9. 2 and 4, 5. 1.

c5.s1.37

¹ Chānd. Up.. V. 3. 1. ; VI. 8. 1. Śatap. Br. Mādhyandina Text, x. 3. 4. 1. xi. 4. 1. 1. ; xi. 6. 2. 1 ; xii. 2. 1. 9. etc.

c5.s1.38

² Chānd. Up.. Adhyāya V. Khaṇḍas iii-x. specially Khaṇḍas viii and ix ; Bṛhad Up. VI. 2 1 ff.

c5.s1.39

³ योवा वा अग्निर्गौतम तस्या उपस्थ एव समिद्धोमानि धूमो योनिरर्चिय्यदन्तः करोति तेऽङ्गारा अभिनन्दा विस्फुलिंगास्तस्मिन्ने तस्मिन्नग्नौ देवा रेतो जुहवति तस्या आहुत्यै पुरुषः संभवति स जीवति यावज्जीवत्यथ यदा म्रियते । Bṛh. Up. VI. 2 13.

c5.s1.40

⁴ Bṛh. Up., VI. 4. 3. ff.

c5.s1.41

⁵ एतद्वै तद्विद्वान् उद्दालक आरुणिराह ; Bṛh. Up.. VI. 4. 4.

c5.s1.42

⁶ उपनिषदि गर्भसम्मनं पुंसवनमवलोभनं च ; Āśvalāyana, Gṛhyasūtra. I. 13 1.

c5.s1.43

¹ निवेशे वृत्ते संवत्सरे संवत्सरे द्वौ द्वौ मासौ समाहित आचार्यकुले वसेद् भूयः श्रुतिमिच्छन्निति श्वेतकेतुः । एतेन ह्यहं योगेन भूयः पूर्वस्मात् कालाच्छ्रुतवानस्मि, Āpastamba Dh. Sūtras I. 1. 13, 19 and 20.

c5.s1.44

¹ श्रुतर्षयस्तु भवन्ति केचित् कर्मफलशेषेण पुनः सम्भवे श्वेतकेतुः ; ibid I, 2, 5 and 6. See Buhler, S. B. E. II. pp. xxxviii and xlii.

c5.s1.45

² क्यमेतदुपलभ्यते इति चेत् पुरुषो हि रतिमधिगम्य स्वेच्छया विरमति, नास्त्यव- मपेक्षते । नत्वेवं स्त्रीत्यौहालकिः ; Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 76 : नासंस्तुता दृष्टाकार्य्यो- र्दूत्यमस्तीत्यौहालकिः ; ibid. p. 273; इत्यौहालकेऽभ्यतोयोगाः ; ibid, p. 358. The commentator refers (ibid, pp. 74, 78) two of Vātsyāyana's sūtras to Auddālaki, evidently from the context.

c5.s1.46

The monographs written by the successors of Bābhravya,—Dattaka and others—are quoted by Vātsyāyana in the respective chapters of his book. Dattaka's book on the courtesans appears to have been in use in the eighth century A.C. when Dāmodaragupta wrote his Kuṭṭanīmatam³ and it may have been availed of by the commentator who quotes a sūtra of Dattaka where Vātsyāyana has translated the substance of it.¹ Of the other writers, Gonardīya has been quoted by Mallinātha in his gloss on Kumārasambhava, VII, 95, and on Raghuvamśa, XIX, 29, 30.

c5.s1.47

³ वात्सायनमयमबुधं वाहान् दूरेण दत्तकाचार्यान् । गणयति मन्मथतन्त्रे पशुतुल्यं राजपुत्रं च ।। वात्सायन-मदनोदय-दत्तक-विटपुत्र-राजपुत्रादौः । उल्लपितं यत्किञ्चित्तस्य हृदयदेशमध्यास्ते ।। —verses 77 and 122 in Kuṭṭanīmatam in Kāvyamālā. Gucchaka III.

c5.s1.48

¹ “आगदसंपलवे विशिष्टगृह्यमिति” दत्तकसूत्रम्, अस्य स्पष्टार्थं सूत्रान्तरमाह - प्रतिशाखिकानामिति : *ibid*, p. 321.

c5.s1.49

Rājaśekhara in his *Kāvyamīmāmsā*² refers to Suvarṇanābha as the author of a treatise on a branch of poetics, viz., *Rītinirṇaya* and speaks of Kucamāra as having dealt with the *Aupanishadika* section. The latter is evidently the same as Vātsyāyana’s Kucamāra, the author of a monograph on the *Aupanishadika* portion of the Kāmaśāstra, and most probably one and the same work has been referred to by the two authors, there being nothing extraordinary in the fact that the sections dealing with the secrets and mysteries (*upanishad*) of both poetics and erotics should coalesce.³ Kauṭilya in the *Arthaśāstra* has quoted⁴ *Dīrgha Cārāyaṇa* and *Ghoṭamukha* who, as Professor Jacobi holds,⁵ are probably the same persons as the Cārāyaṇa and Ghoṭamukha of Vātsyāyana; they would therefore have lived prior to the fourth century B. C. and Dattaka and Bābhravya who preceded them must be thrown back to a much earlier date. Dattaka, of course, could not have lived earlier than the fifth century B.C. when Pāṭaliputra became the capital of Magadha. Goṇikāputra is mentioned by Patañjali in the *Mahābhāshya* as a former grammarian⁶ and Professor Jacobi is inclined to believe that he is the same person as the Goṇikāputra of Vātsyāyana. But in his case, as also in that of Gonardīya, the identification is rather doubtful as grammar and erotics are not very allied subjects. The works of Bābhravya and Goṇiputraka, who must be the same as our Goṇikāputra, as well as that of Vātsyāyana, appear to have been used by Jyotirīśvara Ṭhakkura while composing his *Pañcasāyaka*,¹ a work on erotics which was written in Mithilā by the end of the thirteenth century, the author being considered to be the great-grand-father of the celebrated poet, Vidyāpati who flourished in the middle of the fourteenth century A.C.

c5.s1.50

² *Kāvyamīmāmsā*, edited by C. D. Dalal and R. A. Shastry. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, p. 1.—रीतिनिर्णयः सुवर्णनाभः, *** औपनिषदिकं कुचमार (समाम्नासीत् ) इति ।

c5.s1.51

³ The *Kuchimāra-tantram* edited by Mathurāprasāda Dīkshita. Lahore, 1922, claims to give the substance of *Kucimāra’s Upanishad*. संयोगादिसंवादादुपपन्नञ्च तत्त्वतः । कुचिमारेण तपसा यत्कृतं क्रीडनं पुरा ।। तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि चित्तार्थं नानार्थपद-निश्चितम् । श्रयतां नामतश्चैव कुचोपनिषदं पुनः ।। Verses 2 and 3. p 1.

c5.s1.52

⁴ ‘वृषमिति’ दीर्घश्चारायणः । ‘शीता शातीति’ घोटमुखः । *Arthaśāstra*, ed. R. Shama Sastri, 2nd edition. p. 253.

c5.s1.53

⁵ *Sitzung. Königl. Preus. Akad. d. Wissenschaften*, 1911, pp. 959-963.

c5.s1.54

⁶ अथैह कथं भवितव्यं नेताश्वस्य सुध्मित्याहोस्वित्नेताश्वस्य सुध्मस्येति । उभयथा गोणिकापुत्रः—*Mahābhāshya* on Pāṇini, I. 4. 51.

c5.s1.55

¹ *Pañcasāyaka* edited by Sadānanda Śāstrī. Lahore, p. 2; see also R. Schmidt, *Beitrage zur Indischen Erotik*, p. 50.

c5.s1.56

² Dr. Hoernle, *Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages*, p. xxxv.

The Upper Limit of the Date of Vātsyāyana from the Authors quoted by him

c5.s2.1

Vātsyāyana has quoted freely from the works of earlier authors not only in his own subject, but in other departments of Sanskrit literature as well. But while he has taken care to mention the authorities whom he cites and discusses when referring to his predecessors in the science of erotics, in the other cases he has not cared to acknowledge his debt by mentioning the sources. Some of them may, however, be indicated, and we shall be enabled thereby to fix a *terminus a quo* for him on literary grounds.

c5.s2.2

There is a wonderful agreement between Vātsyāyana and the Kalpasūtra of Āpastamba. In Chapter I on the selection of a bride (*Varaṇa-vidhāna-prakaraṇam*) the *Kāmasūtra*

c5.s2.3

1 दृष्ट्वा मन्मयतन्त्रमीश्वरमतं वात्स्यायनीयं मतं
गोणीपुत्रक-मूलदेवभाषितं बाभ्रव्यवाक्यामृतम्।
श्रीमन्दीश्वर-रन्तिदेवभाषितं क्षेमेन्द्रविद्यागमं
तेनाकल्प्यत पञ्चसायक इति प्रीतिप्रदः कामिनाम्॥

c5.s2.4

has सुतां रुदतीं निष्क्रान्तां वरणे परिवर्जयेत्.¹ This is exactly the same as that given by Āpastamba in his Gṛhya-Sūtra, 1. 3. 10.² The next sūtras show only slight modifications, but making allowance for differences in reading they are exactly identical. Vātsyāyana has ³:

c5.s2.5

¹ Benares edition. p. 187.

c5.s2.6

² The Āpastambīya Gṛhyasūtra, edited by Dr. M. Winternitz, p. 4.

c5.s2.7

³ Ben, ed., pp. 187-188.

c5.s2.8

गुप्तां दत्तां घोनां पृषतामृषभां विनतां विकटां विमुण्डां शुचिदूषितां
सांकरिकीं राकां फलिनों मितां खनुजां वर्षकरीं च वर्जयेत् ।
नक्षत्रनाम्नीं नदीनाम्नीं वृक्षनाम्नीं च गर्हिताम् ।
लकाररेफोपान्तां च वरणे परिवर्जयेत् ॥

c5.s2.9

Āpastamba reads :—

c5.s2.10

दत्तां गुप्तां घोतामृषभां शरां विनतां विकटां मुण्डां मङ्कषिकां
सांकरिकां रातां पालों मितां खनुजां वर्षकारीं च वर्जयेत् ॥ ११ ॥
नक्षत्रनामा नदीनामा वृक्षनामाश्च गर्हिताः ॥ १२ ॥
सर्वाश्च रेफलकारोपान्ता वरणे परिवर्जयेत् ॥ १३ ॥

c5.s2.11

The next sūtra of Vātsyāyana again reads exactly the same as Āpastamba's Gṛhyasūtra, I. 3. 20. यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषो-निर्बन्धस्तस्यामद्वितेरामात्रियेतेत्येके.⁴

c5.s2.12

⁴ Winternitz, Ap Gr. Sūtra p. 4.

c5.s2.13

The first sūtra of the next chapter of the Kāmasūtra is again the same as in Āpastamba's Gṛhyasūtra, III. 8. 8. The Kāmasūtra has संगतयोस्त्रिरात्रमधःशय्या ब्रह्मचर्यं क्षारलवणवर्जमाहारः ; Āpastamba reads त्रिरात्रमुभयोरधःशय्या ब्रह्मचर्यं क्षारलवणवर्जनं च.⁶

c5.s2.14

⁶ Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 191; Winternitz, Ap Gr. S., p. 11.

c5.s2.15

About the sources of the Dharma also, Vātsyāyana shows a wonderful agreement with Āpastamba, but this time with his Dharmasūtra. Vātsyāyana after giving a definition of Dharma says that it should be learnt from the Vedas and from the assembly of those who know the *Dharma*, just as he says that the Kāmasūtra should be learnt from the books on the subject and the assembly of the citizens.² Āpastamba says much the same thing in his Dharmasūtra.³

c5.s2.16

⁵ Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 188. and Winternitz. Ap. Gr. S., p. 5.

c5.s2.17

² तं कामसूत्रान्नागरिकजनसमवायाच्च प्रतिपद्येत, *ibid.* p. 15.

c5.s2.18

³ *Āpastambiya Dharma Sūtra* edited by Dr. G. Buhler, C. I. E., p. 1:—

c5.s2.19

In another chapter, Vātsyāyana quotes a verse referring it simply to the *Smṛti*⁴ (*smṛtiṭaḥ*)—

c5.s2.20

⁴ *Kāmasūtra*, Ben. ed., p. 167.

c5.s2.21

वत्सः प्रस्रवने मेध्यः श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ।
शकुनिः फलपाते तु स्त्रीमुखं रतिसंगमे ॥

c5.s2.22

This verse is found in the Dharmasūtras of *Vasiṣṭha*⁵ and *Baudhāyana*⁶ with very slight and immaterial variations. With some further modifications it is found in the Saṃhitās of *Manu*⁷ and *Viṣṇu*⁸ also. Its occurrence in almost identical forms in so many works shows that it must have been borrowed from some common and ancient authority on *Dharma*. Again, in a verse in his chapter on marriage, Vātsyāyana shows an agreement in idea with Baudhāyana. Vātsyāyana says that as mutual affection between a couple is the object of all forms of marriage, therefore the *Gāndharva* form which has its basis in love, is easier to celebrate,

c5.s2.23

¹ तं श्रुतेर्धर्मसमवायाच्च प्रतिपद्येत—Benares Edition, p. 13.

c5.s2.24

⁵ *The Vāsiṣṭha Dharma-Śāstram*, edited by Dr. A. A. Fuhrer, ch. 28. 8, p. 77.

c5.s2.25

⁶ *The Bodhāyana Dharma Sūtram* edited by L. Srinivasācharya, Mysore, 1, 5, 49, p. 57. Bodhāyana reads:

c5.s2.26

⁷ *Manava Dharmaśāstra*, edited by Dr. J. Jolly, V. 130.

c5.s2.27

⁸ *Viṣṇusmṛti*, edited by Dr. J. Jolly, XXIII. 49.

c5.s2.28

अथतः सामायाचारिकान्धर्मान् व्याख्यास्यामः ॥ धर्मज्ञसमयः प्रमाणम् । वेदाश्च ॥

c5.s2.29

वत्सः प्रस्रवने मेध्यः शकुनिः फलपाते ।
स्त्रियश्च रतिसंगे श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ॥

c5.s2.30

नित्यमास्यं शुचिः स्त्रीणां शकुनिः फलपाते ।
प्रसवे च शुचिर्वत्सः श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ॥

c5.s2.31

and is free from the technicalities of a long wooing, is the best of all¹ and Baudhāyana refers to this as the opinion of some authorities.² This idea we also find in the Mahābhārata.³ From the above, it is clear that Vātsyāyana has embodied in his work at least five sūtras from the Gṛhyasūtra of Āpastamba, though we cannot feel quite certain with regard to his debt to Baudhāyana. We are not quite sure about the date of these sūtra works, but the period to which this Vedic literature belonged, is supposed to have extended to about 500 B.C.⁴

c5.s2.32

Next, we find that Vātsyāyana has embodied in his book a considerable number of passages from a work whose date is more definitely known, viz., from the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya⁵ which is now generally considered to have been written about 300 B.C., and he has followed the method of Kauṭilya throughout the Kāmasūtra. This has led to the absurd identification of Kauṭilya with Vātsyāyana and a host of other authors in some of the Kośas or lexicons.⁶

c5.s2.33

¹ Kāmasūtra. Benares edition. 223 .

c5.s2.34

व्यङ्गानां हि विवाहानामनुरागः फलं यतः ।
मध्यमोरपि हि सद्योगो गान्धर्वस्तेन पूजितः ॥
सखत्वाद्बहुकृशादपि चावरणादिह ।
अनुरागात्मकत्वाच्च गान्धर्वः प्रवरो मतः ॥

c5.s2.35

² Baudhāyana. Mysore edition, 1, 11. 16, p. 137.

c5.s2.36

गान्धर्वमप्येकं प्रशंसन्ति सर्वे वां स्नेहानुगतत्वात् ॥

c5.s2.37

³ विवाहानां हि रम्भोऽत्र गान्धर्वः श्रेष्ठ उच्यते—Mahābhārata, Ādiparva ch. 73. verse 4, and ch. 172. v. 19.

c5.s2.38

⁴ Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, Bd. I, pp. 246—258.

c5.s2.39

⁵ Mr. R. Shāmashastry has brought together a number of parallel passages in the Arthaśāstra and Kāmasūtra ; see his Arthaśāstra, second edition, pp. xii-xvi.

c5.s2.40

⁶ In the Modern Review, March, 1918, p. 274, Mr. Srīś Chandra Vasu Vidyārṇava quotes the following verse from the Abhidhānacintāmaṇi :—

c5.s2.41

वात्स्यायनो मल्लनागः कुटिलश्चात्मजः ।
द्रामिलः पक्षिलस्वामी विष्णुगुप्तोऽङ्ग लश्च सः ॥

c5.s2.42

See also, A Note on the Supposed Identity of Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya, by Mr. R. Shamashastry, in the Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. vi, pp. 210-216.

c5.s2.43

Coming down to still later times, we observe that Vātsyāyana quotes from the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali. The latter observes with regard to unavoidable faults or defects in grammatical definitions, that simply because certain defects cannot be avoided, one should certainly not desist from formulating rules of interpretation (*paribhāshās*) or from giving a definition, just as one does not refrain from cooking his food merely because there are beggars to ask for a share of it, nor from sowing barley-grains simply for the reason that when the plants grow up there my be deer to destroy the corn. Vātsyāyana says the very same thing in exactly the same language with regard to defects inherent in *Kāma* or desire.¹ This quotation from the *Mahābhāshya* brings down the upper limit of the date of Vātsyāyana to the second half of the second century B.C., in round numbers to circa 150 B.C.

c5.s2.44

¹ न हि दोषाः सन्तीति परिभाषा न कर्तव्य लब्धं वा न प्रणेयम् । न हि भिक्षाः सन्तीति स्थाल्यो नाधिश्रीयन्ते । न च मृगाः सन्तीति यवा नोप्यन्ते । *Mahābhāshya* on Pāṇini. I. 1. 39. Vātsyāyana has बोद्धव्यं हि दोषेष्विव, न हि भिक्षाः सन्तीति, etc. (Beu el., p. 25); the rest is exactly the same.

c5.s2.45

Besides the above, there are many references to narrative literature in Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra. In one passage,² he says that when a girl shows some signs of listening favourably to the proposals of a lover, she should be propitiated by reciting to her such stories as those of Ahalya, *Avimāraka* and *Śakuntalā*. The story of Ahalya is given in the Rāmāyaṇa about the date of which, however, there is much controversy; but Ahalya is also alluded to by Aśvaghosha in *Buddhacarita*.³ Avimāraka’s story forms the subject matter of one of the dramas of Bhāsa whom some scholars have placed about the middle of the first century B. C. while others would assign him to the third century A. C.¹ In any case there could not have been much distance in time between Bhāsa and Vātsyāyana because we find pictured in the works of the dramatist a state of society very closely resembling that depicted in the Kāmasūtra. We cannot be sure, however, that Vātsyāyana derived the story of Avimāraka from the drama because Bhāsa’s treatment of it seems to indicate that it was a well-known story like that of Udayana; and, besides, the commentary, Jayamaṅgalā, gives some particulars that are wanting in the drama.

c5.s2.46

² श्रुत्वत्यां चाहल्याऽविमारक-शाकुन्तलादीन्यन्यानिपि लौकिकानि च कथयेत्त इत्युक्तानि । Benares edition, p. 271.

c5.s2.47

³ कामं परमिति ज्ञात्वा देवोऽपि हि पुरंदरः । गौतमस्य सुनेः पत्नीमहल्यां चकमे पुरा ।। *Buddhacarita*, IV. 72

c5.s2.48

¹ Mr. K. P. Jayaswal (J. A. S.-B., 1913, p. 265) has advanced the first view while Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (Carmichael Lectures, 1918, p. 59) supports the second one.

c5.s2.49

The story of Śakuntalā is referred to by Vātsyāyana in another place also. In his chapter on the courtship of a maiden, he says that the wooer should point out to the girl courted the cases of other maidens like Śakuntalā who situated in the same circumstances as herself obtained husbands of their own free choice and were happy by such union.² This refers to the story of the love between Śakuntalā and Dushmanta as we know it from the great drama of Kālidāsa, but Vātsyāyana was certainly not indebted to him for it; it is given very fully in the Mahābhārata.³ Aśvaghosha in the Buddhacarita also narrates how Viśvāmitra, Śakuntalā’s father, was led astray by an Apsaras whom, however, he calls Ghṛtācī instead of Menakā; in his Saundarananda-kāvya also, the same author speaks of Kaṇva who brought up Bharata, the son of Śakuntalā, and he says further that the young son of Dushmanta displayed great skill in sporting with the beasts of the forest.¹ In his *Sūtrālaṅkāra* again, Aśvaghosha speaks of Bharata as one of the great kings of India.² He was evidently well acquainted with the story of Śakuntalā. The *Kaṭṭhahāri Jātaka* certainly reminds us of the story of Duṣmanta and Śakuntalā.³ The legend, however, was known in still more ancient times, *viz.*, the period of the composition of the Brāhmaṇa portion of the Vedas. While we observe that Śakuntalā’s mother, Menakā is known as an *apsaras* in both the White and Black Yajurvedas,⁴ Śakuntalā herself is spoken of in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁵ as having borne at Nādapit⁶ the great Bharata who is also called there the son of Duḥshanta, and even the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa quotes the legend as having been sung in

c5.s2.50

² याश्चान्या अपि समानजातीयाः कन्याः शकुन्तलाद्याः स्वबुद्ध्या भर्तारं प्राप्य संप्रयुक्ता मोदन्त स्म ताश्चास्या निदर्शयेत्, Kāmasūtra, Ben. ed., p. 278.

c5.s2.51

³ Ādiparva, ch. 68 ff.

c5.s2.52

¹ *Sūtrālaṃkāra* traduit en François sur la version Chinoise par Edouard Huber, p. 395.

c5.s2.53

² Fausböll’s *Jātaka* Vol. 1, No. 7. This has been pointed out by Signor P. E. Pavolini in the *Giornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana*. Vol. Ventesimo, p. 297. See also note by Mr. R. Chalmers in his English translation of the First Volume of the Jātakas, p. 20.

c5.s2.54

³ मेनका च सहजन्या चाप सरसौ—*Vājasaneyi-Saṃhitā*, xv. 16; *Taitt. Saṃ.*, 4. 4. 3. 1 *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃ.*, 11. 8. 10.

c5.s2.55

⁴ XIII. 5. 4. 11. 13, 14.

c5.s2.56

⁵ एतद् विष्णोः क्रान्तम्। तेनैतेन भरतो दौःषन्तिरेजे तेनेष्ट्वेमां व्यष्टिं व्यनशे येयं भरतानां तदेतद् गाथयाभीगीतमेताससति भरतो दौःषन्तिमुनामनु गङ्गायां वृतघ्ने ऽवभ्रात् पचम्पन्वाजतं हयानिति। अथ तृतीया। शकुन्तला नाडपित्यप्सरा भरतं दधे परः सहस्रान्निद्रायारवान्मेध्यान् य आहरद्विजित्य पृथिवीं सर्व्वमिति। अथ चतुर्थ्या। महद्य अस्तस्य न पूर्व्वं नापरे जनाः। दिवं मत्स्य इति बाहुभ्यां नोदापुः पञ्च मानवा इति।

c5.s2.57

⁶ Harisvāmin, the commentator, explains that the hermitage of Kaṇva where Śakuntalā was nurtured, was called Nādapit. See the English translation by J. Eggeling of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, Part v, p. 399, foot-note 2.

c5.s2.58

विश्वामित्रो महर्षिश्च विगाढोऽपि महत्सपाः ।
दशवर्षसहस्रस्य घृताच्याप्सरसा हतः ॥
*Buddhacarita*, IV. 20.

कावः शाकुन्तलस्येव भरतस्य तरस्विनः ।
*Saundarananda Kāvya*, I. 26.

जिज्ञासमाना नागेषु कौशलं श्वापदेषु च ।
अनुचक्रुवनस्थस्य दौष्मन्ते दैवकर्म्मणाः ॥ *Ibid*, I. 36

c5.s2.59

gāthās ¹ connected with the great hero who gave his name to the whole continent of Bharatavarsha; so that the legend appears to belong to the earliest stock of legends of the Indian Aryans.

c5.s2.60

¹ The Gāthās are quoted in a fairly large number in the Brāhmaṇas and the Vedic literature generally, and they are referred to in the earliest portions of the Ṛgveda itself (I. 190, I, etc.). For the most part, these Gāthās contain historical matter singing about the mighty deeds of great heroes in still older times, as we see from the Gāthās quoted above chanting the great achievements of the eponymous hero Bharata. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (VII. 18) makes a distinction between the Ṛks and the Gāthās, saying that the former refer to the Gods and the latter to men. It is no wonder that with the Aryan Indians who placed spiritual concerns far above the temporal from the very earliest times, the literature dealing with the deeds of mere men fell into comparative neglect and was not preserved with the same care as was bestowed upon the Ṛks, though occasional verses were preserved in memory and transmitted orally.

c5.s2.61

Besides the above mention of certain well-known stories, there are many references throughout the work of Vātsyāyana to love-stories in general, showing that story-telling was very popular in the days of our author; and when we are reminded that the enormous mass of narratives in the Mahāvastu, Divyāvadāna and Aśvaghosha's Sūtrālaṅkāra on the one hand, and the Śānti and Anuśāsana Parvas of the Mahābhārata on the other, as well as those in the Tantrākhyāyika, were mostly embodied in their present form about the early centuries of the Christian era, we feel inclined to think that it was in this period when narrative literature flourished most in India, that his treatise on love was composed by Vātsyāyana who found the recital of love-stories the readiest means of rousing the tender passion in the hearts of maids and swains.

c5.s2.62

*The Lower Limit of the Date of Vātsyāyana from References to Kāmasūtra in later Literature.*

c5.s2.63

We may now proceed to fix the terminus ad quem for the date of Vātsyāyana from an examination of the references to his work in later literature, and for this purpose we shall take into account only those that will be immediately helpful to us. In the first place we observe that the great Kālidāsa was well acquainted with the Kāmasūtra. In describing the dalliance of the voluptuary Agnivarṇa who reminds us so much of the Kāṇva Devabhūti, Kālidāsa has often followed in Canto XIX of the Raghuvamśa, the description in the Kāmasūtra, using even its technical expressions, *e. g.*, the word *sandhayaḥ* which is used in verse 16 in the very same sense as that given by Vātsyāyana in his chapter on *Viśīrṇapratisandhāna*.¹ In verse 31, however, there is a more definite and verbal agreement. Vātsyāyana in his chapter on the means of knowing a lover who is growing cold (*Virakta-pratipatti*) gives as one of the indications of such a one मित्रकृत्यमपदिश्य अन्यत्र शेते.² Kālidāsa in describing Agnivarṇa under similar circumstances uses the very same language—मित्रकृत्यमपदिश्य पार्श्वतः प्रस्थितं तमनावस्थितं प्रियाः. Another very striking agreement has been pointed out by Mallinātha and dilated upon by modern scholars. Describing the marriage of Aja and Indumatī, Kālidāsa says that when the two touched each other’s hands, the hair on the bridgroom’s forearm stood on end and the maiden had her fingers wet with perspiration.³ Here Mallinātha quotes Vātsyāyana who speaks exactly the same thing happening under the same circumstances.⁴ In *Kumārasambhava* VII. 77, however, Kālidāsa has reversed this order, saying that it was Hara, the bridegroom, who perspired and the hair stood on end on the bride’s hand.² But the language is almost the same and we think Kālidāsa’s memory did not serve him quite right when he wrote the Kumārasambhava passage and that he improved himself, as Professor Jacobi holds, in the Raghuvamśa. The violation in the one case only proves more strongly that Kālidāsa had a knowledge of Vātsyāyana’s work and made use of it. Arguing from a similar agreement in another passage of Kālidāsa, Dr. Peterson has come to the definite conclusion that Vātsyāyana is quoted there by the poet. He refers to the following verse (in Act IV) which is considered to be one of the best in his Abhijñāna Śakuntalam.³

c5.s2.64

¹ Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 327 ff.

c5.s2.65

² This is the reading given by Mallinātha. The Kāmasūtra reads मित्रकार्यमपदिश्य, etc., Ben. ed. p. 323.

c5.s2.66

³ आसीदुरः कण्टकितप्रकोष्ठः स्विन्नाङ्गुलिः संवृते कुमारी ।

c5.s2.67

⁴ “कन्या तु प्रथमसमागमे स्विन्नाङ्गुलिः स्विन्नमुखी च भवति । पुरुषस्तु रोमाञ्चितो भवति ; एभिरनयोर्भावं परीक्षते ।” This passage, quoted by Mallinātha is slightly different from the reading in the printed editions of the Kāmasūtra where we have स्विन्नकरचरणाङ्गुलिः स्विन्नमुखी च भवति, Benares edition, p. 266.

c5.s2.68

² Die Epen Kalidasa's, p. 155. In this connection see R. Schmidt, Beitrage Zur Indischen Erotik. 1902. pp. 4-5.

c5.s2.69

³ Kalidasa's Sakuntala, the Bengali Recension, edited by Richard Pischel, p. 89.

c5.s2.70

शुश्रूषस्व गुरून् कुरु प्रियसखीवृत्तिं सपत्नीजने
भर्तुर्विप्रकृतापि रोषणतया मास्म प्रतीपं गमः।
भूयिष्ठं भव दक्षिणा परिजने भोगेष्वनुत्सेकिनी
यान्त्येवं गृहिणीपदं युवतयो वामा कुलस्याधयः॥

c5.s2.71

Dr. Peterson then goes on to say: “The first, third and fourth precepts here are taken verbally from one sūtra, the second occurs elsewhere in our book; the third we have already had. Scholars must judge: but it seems to me to be almost certain that Kālidāsa is quoting Vātsyāyana, a fact, if it be a fact, which invests our author with great antiquity.”⁴ It will be observed frm an examination of the corresponding sūtras of Vātsyāyana⁵ that in

c5.s2.72

⁴ Journal of the Anthropological Society of Bombay, 1891, p. 465; see also J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol XVIII. pp. 109-110

c5.s2.73

⁵ Dr. Peterson here evidently refers to the following sūtras of Vātsyāyana on the duties of a wife: श्वश्रू श्वशुरपरिचर्या तत्पारतन्त्र्यमनुत्तरवादिता, etc. भोगेष्वनुत्सेकः परिजने दाक्षिण्यम्॥ Benares edition, p. 230. Vātsyāyana devotes the whole of Chapter

c5.s2.74

रोमोद्गमः प्रादुरभूदुमायाः स्विन्नाङ्गुलिः पुञ्जकेतुरासीत्।

c5.s2.75

the first two lines of the verse quoted above, Kālidāsa has translated the ideas of Vātsyāyana but in the third line he has followed our author verbally. On the authority of this agreement evidently Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasād Śāstri has also expressed the opinion that Kālidāsa's "knowledge of the Kāmaśāstra was very deep indeed."¹ Dushmanta's words in Act V of Śakuntalā—"नागरकवृत्त्या शान्त्यैनाम्" shows that Kālidāsa has used the word nāgaraka there in the full sense imparted to it by Vātsyāyana in his section called Nāgarakavṛttam, viz., a city-bred man skilled in speech and love-making. There is moreover, a set of sūtras in Vātsyāyana's chapter on Kanyāvisrambha which reminds the reader at once of the first act of Kālidāsa's Śakuntalā as will be seen from the translation here given: "When a girl sees that she is sought after by a desirable lover, conversation should be set up through a sympathetic friend (sakhi) who has the confidence of both; then she should smile with head bent down; when the sakhi exaggerates matters, she should take her to task and quarrel with her; the sakhi, however, should say in jest, 'This was said by her,' even when she has not done so; then when the sakhi is set aside and she is solicited to speak for herself, she should keep silent; when, however, this is insisted upon, she should mutter sweetly, 'O no! I never say any such thing' in indistinct and half-finished sentences; and she should, with a smile, cast occasional side-long glances at the lover, etc."² From what we have said above, there can be no doubt that the Kāmasūtra was known to Kālidāsa and that he

c5.s2.76

¹ Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. II p. 186.

c5.s2.77

² Kāmanitra, Ben ed., p. 195.

c5.s2.78

III of the Bhāryādhikārika section to the mutual conduct of co-wives (p. 234ff). Corresponding to the second line of the verse Vatsyayana has नायकपचारेषु किञ्चित् कलुषिता नात्यर्थं निवेदत् ॥ १८ ॥ साच्चिप्तवचनं त्वेनं मितजनमध्यस्थमेकाकिनं वाऽप्युपालभेत न च मूलकारिका स्यात् ॥ Benaras edition, p. 227.

c5.s2.79

made verbal quotations from the work. Now Kālidāsa could not have lived later than the middle of the fifth century A. C., because he places the Hūṇas on the banks of the *Vaṅkṣu*, the Waksh or Oxus in Bactria,¹ before they had been pushed towards the west or towards the Indian frontier.² In all likelihood Kālidāsa lived during

c5.s2.80

² M. Chavannes has shown from Chinese sources that the Huns had won great power in the basin of the Oxus towards the middle of the fifth century A. C. (*Document sur les Toukiue Occiden aux*, pp. 222-3). We do not know yet exactly when the Hūṇas settled themselves in the Oxus valley. But there can be no doubt that the Hūṇas were known in India even before the time mentioned by M. Chavannes. The *Lalitavistara*, thought to have been written about three hundred

c5.s2.81

1 The passages of Kālidāsa referred to here are verses 67 and 68 *Raghuvamśa*, canto IV, beginning—विनीताध्वश्रमास्तस्य वङ्क्षुतीरविचेष्टनैः. In the *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society* (Vol. II, p. 35 ff. and 391 ff.) Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Śāstrī has sought to place Kālidāsa about the middle of the sixth century A. C. depending on the garbled reading of Mallinātha who reads *Sindhu* instead of *Vaṅkṣu* in the line quoted above. With all due deference to the great authority of Pandit Śāstrī, I would venture to differ from him here. There cannot be the shade of a doubt that *Vaṅkṣu* is the correct reading here and not *Sindhu*. Vallabhadeva of Kashmir, who lived about five centuries earlier than Mallinātha, reads *Vaṅkṣu*, and the unquestioned genuineness and reliability of Vallabha's text as compared with that of Mallinātha has been fully established in the case of the *Meghadūta* where all those verses that had been accepted by Mallinātha as genuine, but had been rejected as spurious by modern critics like Pandit Īśvaracandra Vidyāsāgara, Gildemeister and Stenzler, are found to be absent from the text of Vallabha. The superiority of Vallabha's text thus established in the case of *Meghadūta* applies with equal force to the *Raghuvamśa*. To an editor like Mallinātha living in the far south in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, *Vaṅkṣu* or *Vakshu*, a river in Bactria, was an unfamiliar, outlandish name, and he had no hesitation in substituting for it *Sindhu* which was nearer home, forgetting though that it would have been geographically absurd for Raghu to have marched northwards from the Persian frontier and met the Hūṇas on the Indus. It is significant again, as has been shown by Professor K. B. Pathak, who first drew pointed attention to Vallabha's reading (*Ind. Ant.* 1912, p. 265 ff. and the introduction to his *Meghadūta*) that Kṣīrasvāmin who lived about four centuries earlier than Mallinātha speaks in his commentary on the *Amarakośa*, of Bactria as the province that is referred to in this passage of Kālidāsa; this shows that so late as the eleventh century, Bactria through which the river *Vakshu* or Oxus flows was considered to be the country where Kālidāsa placed the Hūṇas. *Vaṅkṣu* is a well-known river in the *Mahābhārata* (*Cf.* Sabhāparva, 51. 26). Moreover, an examination of the variants given in Mr. G. R. Nandargikar's splendid edition of *Raghuvamśa* shows that Cāritravardhana, Sumativijaya, Dinakara, Dharmameru and Vijayagaṇi, in fact, most of the great old commentators, follow Vallabha, and adopt the old reading.

First 140 of 241 passages. Read on

Linked texts (48)