Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c5.s2.63

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