4
மறைமலையம்
―
7
Sakuntala when he returned to his capital. From this it must be evi- dent how artistically the poet Kalidasa has, for the purpose of the play, perfected this simple story taken from the Mahabharata, the great store-house of the Indian legends, by introducing into it the curse of Durvasa which is not found in its original source but which has been skilfully created by the poet himself. Though the creation of this incident looks admirable, so far as it seves as an indispensable hinge on which the plot turns, I might be permitted to question whether it is not inconsistent with the stainless character of a saintly person. I have discussed this point in the following critical study of the Sakuntala and have shown how Shakespeare stands superior to Kalidasa in this respect.
But in the art of delineating the main and the sub-ordinate char- acters that appear in this drama kalidasa is not in any way inferior to Shakespeare but to a remarkable degree is his equal. With what great acuteness Kalidasa has penetrated to the inward nature of each character, in what brief, pointed expressions of thought and feeling he has so well brought it out, and in what strong relief he sets one in contrast with or foil for the other, can be grasped only by those who make an attentive and discerning study of the speeches of each per- sonage. To the best of my understanding I have, in the following critique, shown at length these psychological differences which the poet has so carefully observed and noted in his characters.
Years ago I happened to hear in English lecture delivered by an able brahmin scholar on this drama of Kalidasa. After dwelling on some of the excellences of the play, when he came to speak of the character - study of the poet, he, instead of going right through the speeches manners and actions of each dramatic personage, and trying to exhibit whether or not there were special features in each, summarily dismissed it by saying that Kalidasa was sadly wanting in his delineation of character and is therefore no peer of Shakespeare the prince of the dramatists. That sweeping remark of the learned lecturer kindled in me a burning desire to make a comparative study of the dramatic art of the two poets, and from that time onward I
