4.1. The Kumarasambhava: Its Genuine Portion

[Full title: Kalidasa Studies (1): The Kumarasambhava: Its Genuine Portion]

The Kumarasambhava as available at present has seventeen cantos which carry on them the commentary Sanjivani by Mallinatha on Cantos I-VIII and by Sitarama Kavi on Cantos IXXVII. The expression in all these is not the same, giving rise, therefore, to a controversy, not yet fully resolved, as to whether the whole of the work is that of Kalidasa or a certain portion of it. A fairly good number of scholars is of the opinion that the genuine portion of the work is upto Canto VIII only, after which it is all interpolation. And there are powerful arguments for it. Later scholars like Bhattojidiksita, Mammata and Anandavardhana in their discussions on certain words, themes and figures of speech have given quotations from the work upto Canto VIII only thereby giving rise to the conjecture that in their time the work had these cantos only and not upto Canto XVII or they did not accept cantos IX to XVII as genuine to draw their material on. Bhattojidiksita has referred to the Kumara-sambhava a number of times: girisam upacacara (Kumarasambhava I.60), visavrkso'pi samvardhya (II.55), tulam yadarohati dantavasasa (V. 34), vimanana subhru (V.43), vijnapana bhartrsu (VII.93), durayaty avanate vivasvati (VIII.31), pivaroru pibativa barhinah (VIII.36), sarvarasya tamasah (VIII. 57). Saranadeva has referred to the Kumarasambhava thirty times to justify the apparently unjustifiable words. And each time it has been from within the portion upto Cantos VIII only. Appayyadiksita (in his Citramimamsa) has quoted twelve, at Shastri Collection, New Delhi. Digitized by $3 Foundation USA

68 68 Classical Sanskrit Literature Anandavardhana six and Mammata nine stanzas from the Kumarasambhava and all these are from the first eight cantos only. A point well-noticed by scholars already against the portion of the Kumarasambhavam beyond Canto VIII as genuine is that Mallinatha has not commented on it. An examination of the two portions of the Kumarasambhava also leads to the same conclusion. The first portion (upto Canto VIII) has no frequentative form while the second (from Cantos IX-XVII) has a few of them e.g. lelihana (XVI.16), dodhuyamana (XVII.30), dandahyamana (XVII.39). The first portion does not have a word with akac while the second one has it: ahakapramukhyan (XII.46). The second portion furnishes instances of hiatus when followed by o enjoined by Panini by ot (1.1.15), e.g. aho aho devaganah (XII. 54), atho acumbat (XIII.19), ittham vilokya surasainyam atho asesam (XVII.33) while the. first portion has nothing of the kind. The words girisa and praphulla occur four times each in the first portion: girisena pascat (1.37), giriso 'numene (1.59), girisam upacacara (1.60), girisaya gauri (III.65), praphullarajivam ivankamadhye (III.45), praphullakasa vasudheva reje (VII.11), praphullavrksaih katakair iva svaih (VII.52), praphullacaksuh kumudah kumarya (VII.74), while they just do not figure in the second. Unlike the first portion there is tautology in the second, e.g. ratanandasukhasya (IX.16), adhikakantikantah (XIII,8) viharahelagatibhih (IX.37), nirdagdham atmano deham durvaham vodhum aksamah (X.13.), sandrapramododayasaukhyahetu-bhutam (X.19), kalahakelikutuhalotkam (XVII.12.). There is a whole lot of made-up words in the second, particularly with reference to Kumara (Skanda), Indra and Candra but not in the first section. Made-up words for Kumara Smararatisutah (XII.47), Andhakaratisutasya (XIII.17.), Adriputrimahesaputraya (XIII . 29), Smarasatrusunuh (XIII. 33), Sailasutatanujah (XIII. 45), Andhakasatrusununa (XIV. 1), Andhakadvesitanujam ( XIV. 8), Tripurantakatmajam (XIVA 9), CC-0. Prof. Satya Vrat Shastri Collection, New Dent.

The Kumara-sambhava-Its Genuine Portion 69 Manmathamardanatmajam (XV.2), Manmathasatrusununa (XV.3), Smararisunoh (XV.38, 40; XVII.6), Purarisunoh (XV.49; XVII.7), Tripurariputram (XVII.18), Makaradhvajasatrusunum (XVII.46), Tripurarisunum (XVII.48), Visamasarareh sununa (XVII.55). Made-up word for Indra Pulomaputridayitah (XII. 22; XIII. 9) Made-up word for Candra (moon) Triyamaramanah (XIII. 8) Unlike his successors like Bharavi and Magha, Kalidasa is not in the habit of using unfamiliar words. Occurrence of some of them like, krpitayoni (X. 16) for fire, sankrandana (XII. 3) for Indra, Kasara (XIV. 7) for he-buffalo in the second part is a clear departure from the Kalidasan practice. So is the eulogy for the celestial Ganga (X. 28-36) which is reminiscent of later stotra type of poetry. Along with tautology could be mentioned unnecessary padding which is noticeable in the second portion. In Tripurasurari (XIII. 20), the word asura is unnecessary. Siva is always called Tripurari. Asura is just a padding here. In ranapraviro hi suran avocat (XIII. 13.), hi is superfluous-though the commentaries like Sisutosini have tried to offer justification for it by pointing out that it denotes certainty, hi niscayah which, however, is a weak defence. The use of hi in the present case is not in the same strain as in klesah phalena hi punar navatam vidhatte. Kalidasa is known for his similes which have a charm of their own. He is very frequent with them as also very original. While there are numerous similes in the first portion, there are just six of them in the second which considering its volume is rather a small number and they too lack the charm and the felicity of those in the first as also Kalidasa's other works. CC cdn the case of a son, Kalidasa's practice, as noticeable in his various works is that he either relates him to the father of the Vrat Shastri Collection, New Delhi.

mother but never to both, e.g. babhuva bhavesu dilipanandanah (Raghuvamsa, III. 41); dilipasunoh sa brhadbhujantaram (III. 54); sudaksinasunur api nyavartata (III. 67); dausyantim apratiratham (Abhijnanasakuntala, IV. 20); kaccid abhinanditas tvaya esa sakuntaleyah (VII. 32/33) where Raghu is referred to as the son of Dilipa or of Sudaksina, and Bharata of Dusyanta or of Sakuntala. The same practice is met with in the first portion of the Kumarasambhava where Parvati is spoken of as the daughter of the mountain (Himalaya) sailatmaja, adritanaya and so on. In the second portion, however, Kumara (Karttikeya) is spoken of as the son of Siva and Parvati, not always as the son of either Siva or of Parvati which should have been the case keeping in view the Kalidasan practice, e.g. mahesadrisutasutasya (XI. 39); girisagauritanayena (XIII. 9); adriputrimahesaputraya (XIII. 29); tanayo'si girisagauryoh (XVII. 14). One more argument against Kalidasa having composed the work upto Canto XVII could be that instead of naming his work Kumarasambhavam, he would have named it, keeping in view the victory over the villain, Tarakavadha like the Prakrit works Kamsavaho, Gaudavaho or named it Tarakavijaya, victory over Taraka, in line with the titles like Haravijaya. It may well be argued here as to how the work could be named Kumarasambhava, the birth of Kumara, if the genuine portion of it is to be accepted to be upto Canto VIII only, for it does not describe the birth of Kumara. The answer to this could be that with the marriage of Siva and Parvati and their union, the birth of a son could be an obvious deduction. All this would point to the portion upto Canto VIII being that of Kalidasa . What follows might well have been composed by a later writer who ascribed it to the master poet to ensure its perpetuity. 819