PK37' M3T38 rnia ,1 THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Ex tibris [ C. K. OGDEN ' THE MALAVIKAGNIMITRA. A SANSKRIT PLAY BY KALIDASA. LITERALLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH PROSE C. H. TAWNEY, MA., PROFBSSOK OF THE ENGLISH LANUUAGK, PKKSIDENCY COLLEGE, CALCUTTA, CALCUTTA: , SFIHSTIK: ^.irrD co., ipubltsfjers to tfje Calcutta 1875. CAtCrTTA : ?*I5TID BY TSLACKKS, SPI5I & CO. EEEATA. Page iv of Preface, line 19, for " Buddha," read " Bauddha." Last page of Preface, folio, for "x" read "xi." Page 14, line 3 of notes, for " mick," read " mich." 15, line 3, for " quarreling," read " quarrelling." 42, line 8 of notes, for " irpofjLvyorpia" read " - 76, line 3 of notes, for "read snairghrinyam" read -'reads nairghrinyam" 77, liae 1 of notes, after " the," dele " a." PREFACE. THE following translation is intended for the use of persons beginning the study of Sanskrit literature. The admirable edition of this play by Shankar Pandit, M.A., forming No. VI. of the Bombay Sanskrit Series, will hardly meet the needs of the tiro. Professor Weber's German translation was made from a faulty text ; and it is possible that many who take up the study of Sanskrit may not be familiar with Ger- man. There seems therefore to be an opening for an English translation sufficiently literal to assist beginners in unravel- ling the difficulties of the Sanskrit text. The number of students who master the rudiments of Sanskrit is increasing every day. A knowledge of the grammar of this language is indispensable to the student of comparative Philology, and whatever may be thought of the abstract merits of Sanskrit literature, it must always have its value for Englishmen who have chosen an Indian career, as throwing a flood of light upon the social customs and modes of thought of the more cultivated classes of modern Hindu society. The Malavikagnimitra furnishes us with a vivid pic- ture of a native court in the most flourishing period of Indian history, probably about the third century after Christ. An attempt was indeed made by the late Professor Wilson to show that the play could not have been written before the tenth or eleventh century, and was therefore not the work of the great Kalidasa. His objections, which rest solely upon internal evidence, 1 have been fully refuted by Weber, whose 1 There is not the same melody in the verse nor fancy in the thoughts. Wilson's Hindoo Theatre, Vol. II., p- 346. IV PREFACE. arguments are reproduced in Sliankar Pandit's edition, and fortified with some additional proofs. So far from the inter- nal evidence being against the traditional belief that the play is the work of the great Kalidasa, a great many coin- cidences of style and thought between this and the other works attributed to him are pointed out by the above-mentioned scholars. Indeed, Wilson in his account of the play supplies us with some arguments in favour of its antiquity, though he finally decides against it. I confess it seems to me diffi- cult to understand how a critic who places Bhavabhuti in the eighth century can have assigned so late a date to the Malavikagnimitra. With reference to Bhavabhuti, Wilson observes ' : " The date thus given to the compositions of " Bhavabhuti is quite in accordance with their internal evi- " dence. The manners are purely Hindoo, without any foreign te admixture. The appearance of women of rank in public, " and their exemption from any personal restraint in their " own habitations, are very incompatible with the presence " of Mahometan rulers. The licensed existence of Buddha tl ascetics, their access to the great, and their employment " as teachers of science, are other peculiarities characteristic " of an early date, which the worship of Civa in his terrific " forms, and the prevalence of the practices of the Yoga, " are indications of a similar tendency." Now, it is curious that in the Malavikagnimitra we find a female Buddhist ascetic held in great honour, who speaks Sanskrit, and not Prakrit (the ordinary dialect of women in the Indian plays, even of queens), is apparently acquainted with the theory and practice of medicine, 'and is usually ad- dressed as " learned" or " reverend/' It is indeed an objection to the historical truth of the play that Pushpamitra was according to Buddhist accounts a zeal- 1 lliudoo Theatre, Vol. II., p. 4. PREFACE. cms persecutor of Buddhists. But it does not follow that his son Agnimitra was hostile to the Buddhists ; indeed, he may have quarrelled with his father upon this very ground : (see the expression vigatarosJiachetasa, p. 107, line 11, of the Bom- bay edition), ' besides, it is not necessary to our position to sup- pose that the author possessed accurate information with respect to the history of the kings of the Cunga dynasty, which flourished so long before the date assigned by modern scholars to the great Kalidasa. Civa is invoked in the Malavikagnimitra, though we have no trace of the bloody worship of his consort Kali, of which we read in the works of Bhavabhuti, and which is generally believed to be of comparatively modern origin. As for the diction of our play, it is free from the long and involved com- pounds and "dark conceits" which puzzle the student of Bhavabuti's works, and is throughout fresher and more na- tural than the style of that poetl Those who are not convinced by the arguments of Weber and Shankar Pandit that the play was composed by the author of the Cakuntala will, I think, admit on reading it, that it furnishes us with a genuine description of Hindu society before the Mahometan invasion. For this reason it has an abiding historical value, though no one would, of course, think of comparing it in this respect with the Mrichchhakati, which reveals to us strata of Hindu society, that were apparently beneath the notice of the author of the courtly Malavikagnimitra. I now proceed to extract from the second volume of Lassen's Indische Alter- thumskunde an account of the Cunga dynasty of kings of which Pushpamitra was the founder : 1 This is a conjecture of my own. Shnnkar Pandit supposes he may have been angry because his son was sent to guard the horse. VI PREFACE. " After the death of A$oka the vast dominions of the " Mauvya 1 kings broke up into three kingdoms. The first was " in Magadha, the kings of which have been already men- " tioned. The second was that of Jaloka, which included a " great part of North- Western India as well as Kacmira. He " is no doubt identical with the Indian king, called by the " Greeks Sophagasenos, who was a contemporary of Antio- " elms the great, and renewed with him the treaty which his " forefathers had m ade. ....... " The third kingdom of the Mauryas probably embraced a " part of the south-western provinces of the original kingdom, " as its kings are mentioned as successors of Kunala, who " was Viceroy in Takshacila and Gandhara. " After the death of his father, Sampadi must have de- " clared himself independent, and a struggle probably arose " between the three brothers, in which Jaloka was victorious, " and obtained the greater part of his father's kingdom. "Suyacas secured the eastern, Sampadi the soulh-western {( portion. He probably transferred the seat of his sove- " reignty to Vidia, at any rate this city appears as the " of the capital succeeding dynasty of Cunga kings. " We possess some information about Pushpamitra the " founder of this dynasty in a Buddhist work, and also in " the drama Malavikagnimitra. The Purauas only inform us " that he was the general of the last Maurya Brihadratha^ " whom he deprived of his throne and his life. In the Bud- " dhist work we are told that he was the last of the Mauryas, " and that his predecessor was called Pushyadharman. The " first statement is of course a mistake, the second may be " supposed to be correct, as the name could scarcely have been 1 Said to be derived from Mura, the mother of Chandragupta, the first Maurya king. PREFACE. VII " invented. ' According to the drama the capital of his son < { Agnimitra was Vidi^a, so we are perhaps justified in sup- " posing that he was originally in the service of Pushyadhar- tl man, and that after usurping his throne, he deprived the '' king of Magadha of his sovereignty. The fact that in " another account, which we shall proceed to lay before our " readers, he is represented as reigning at Pataliputraneednot " surprise us, as in this account he is supposed to belong to the " Maurya dynasty. " We are told in the drama that, intending to perform the " horse-sacrifice, he let loose a horse, which, as it was wandering (( along the right bank of the Indus, was carried off by a squa- " dron of Yavana cavalry, but rescued by its guard under Va- " sumitra. " We cannot of course be certain whether this was the real " cause of the quarrel or not, but so much is clear that Pushpa- " mitra came into collision with the Greeks on the bank of the " Indus. As he ascended the throne in 178 B. C. ,this struggle " must have taken place in the reign of Eukratides. According " to the account in the drama, it took place under the rule of his " son Agnimitra, whose general he was, but this is contrary (i both to Brahmanical and Buddhist accounts, and the truth