BUDDY READS/ READ-ALONG - Kalidasa's Abhigyan Shakuntalam - Page 2

Act IV ŚAKUNTALĀ'S DEPARTURE

This one is perhaps the longest act in the entire play because it contains the signature episode of Sage Durvasa getting angry at Śakuntalā.

The entire act is a premonition: first, Śakuntalā's friends worry about the king forgetting Śakuntalā, then Sage Durvasa's curse happens, which Śakuntalā is unaware of, then the esteemed ladies bless her to become the chief queen and to safely deliver a brave son, Sage Kanv's worries because Śakuntalā is leaving and he dreads her mistreatment at the court, Sage Kanv's subtle message for the king to behave and be mindful of Śakuntalā's pregnancy - all foreshadow the happy event.

What strikes is Śakuntalā's constant need for assurance from practically everyone to not forget her. It seems that Śakuntalā has serious abandonment trauma that she could not get rid of even in the hermitage.

Act V THE REPUDIATION OF ŚAKUNTALĀ

"Tell the bull he is king of the herd and his tiredness disappears." Madhavya has a sense of humour!

This act is mostly an extensive presentation of Dushyant's pathetic character.

He is arrogant: he feels he should be praised and sought after and he hardly takes responsibilities of his actions - there is a certain pride in the manner in which he recounts his short affair with Hamsavati.

He is a serial womaniser: Hamsavati's song sums it up.

He is a serial dodger of responsibility: once again he pushes the responsibility of answering Hamsavati's query to Madhavya like he had in the earlier act.

He is very self-absorbed: in a way that he only listens and does what he prefers without any regard to others or investigating any claims before deciding anything. He doesn't put any effort in recalling the gap in his memory, he doesn't listen to Sages' claims or tires to cross-verify them, he also dismisses everything that is not as per his wishes. Śakuntalā calls out his double standards and insults him for it!

He is a misogynist and rude to people, especially to women. He calls Gautami and all women as inherently wantons, not worthy of being heard or carrying any credibility. Thus, he prefers dismissing their words.

This brings me to the last point about his sorry character - he is an opportunist. He is tempted by Śakuntalā, but he does not believe her and yet agrees to keep her once his high priest suggests to let her stay at his place because according to him, he doesn't want to commit a sin of adultery with some other's wife. For him, forsaking his own wife is a lesser evil - only a blame but adultery is a stain on his character.

Ugh. I cannot but hate his crappy character.

Originally posted by: LizzynDarcy

Act V THE REPUDIATION OF ŚAKUNTALĀ

"Tell the bull he is king of the herd and his tiredness disappears." Madhavya has a sense of humour!

This act is mostly an extensive presentation of Dushyant's pathetic character.

He is arrogant: he feels he should be praised and sought after and he hardly takes responsibilities of his actions - there is a certain pride in the manner in which he recounts his short affair with Hamsavati.

He is a serial womaniser: Hamsavati's song sums it up.

He is a serial dodger of responsibility: once again he pushes the responsibility of answering Hamsavati's query to Madhavya like he had in the earlier act.

He is very self-absorbed: in a way that he only listens and does what he prefers without any regard to others or investigating any claims before deciding anything. He doesn't put any effort in recalling the gap in his memory, he doesn't listen to Sages' claims or tires to cross-verify them, he also dismisses everything that is not as per his wishes. Śakuntalā calls out his double standards and insults him for it!

He is a misogynist and rude to people, especially to women. He calls Gautami and all women as inherently wantons, not worthy of being heard or carrying any credibility. Thus, he prefers dismissing their words.

This brings me to the last point about his sorry character - he is an opportunist. He is tempted by Śakuntalā, but he does not believe her and yet agrees to keep her once his high priest suggests to let her stay at his place because according to him, he doesn't want to commit a sin of adultery with some other's wife. For him, forsaking his own wife is a lesser evil - only a blame but adultery is a stain on his character.

Ugh. I cannot but hate his crappy character.

Dushyanta disgusts me as a character was he really like this ? Wasn’t he supposed to be some kinda noble guy ? This guy here is a regular commitment phobe, an arrogant, spoilt player — also a horny one at that

Originally posted by: missFiesty_69

Dushyanta disgusts me as a character was he really like this ? Wasn’t he supposed to be some kinda noble guy ? This guy here is a regular commitment phobe, an arrogant, spoilt player — also a horny one at that

I am not a fan of mythology as a genre. Yet as far as I have read, I find all male figures in mythologies to be class one douchebags, troublemakers of worst type, who cause issues, then blame women for it and call them all types of names. Be it in Indian mythology or in the Greek mythology. All male characters have questionable personalities.

Reading mythology is my reminder of why majority of male population needs to be wary of because even their greatest examples fall short of standards, even in the fantasies. See, Dushyant is the greatest misogynist, who claims all women (including his mother, wives, and perhaps future daughters) inherently cunning to sin with someone and rear that sin with someone else when he addresses Gautami, wife of Sage Kanv, his wife's guardians.

Part of me wonders why he is a popular mythological figure. And then I remember, back in the 19th century, the painter was a man, who picked him up as a theme for his paintings. So, that answers the hype around the guy. BTW, the same painter popularised Vishvamitra and Menaka in paintings.

Originally posted by: LizzynDarcy

I am not a fan of mythology as a genre. Yet as far as I have read, I find all male figures in mythologies to be class one douchebags, troublemakers of worst type, who cause issues, then blame women for it and call them all types of names. Be it in Indian mythology or in the Greek mythology. All male characters have questionable personalities.

Reading mythology is my reminder of why majority of male population needs to be wary of because even their greatest examples fall short of standards, even in the fantasies. See, Dushyant is the greatest misogynist, who claims all women (including his mother, wives, and perhaps future daughters) inherently cunning to sin with someone and rear that sin with someone else when he addresses Gautami, wife of Sage Kanv, his wife's guardians.

Part of me wonders why he is a popular mythological figure. And then I remember, back in the 19th century, the painter was a man, who picked him up as a theme for his paintings. So, that answers the hype around the guy. BTW, the same painter popularised Vishvamitra and Menaka in paintings.

@b: exactly — only a douchebag can understand the filth oh sorry “sentiments” of a fellow douchebag right ? Ugh. 😣

Oh, well, the painter definitely must have commiserated with their ideologies or shared a similar mindset, I guess.

I totally thought Dushyanta and Shakuntala would be somewhat similar to Nala and Damayanti

Originally posted by: missFiesty_69

@b: exactly — only a douchebag can understand the filth oh sorry “sentiments” of a fellow douchebagright ? Ugh. 😣

Oh, well, the painter definitely must have commiserated with their ideologies or shared a similar mindset, I guess.

I totally thought Dushyanta and Shakuntala would be somewhat similar to Nala and Damayanti

I am not sure what the myth of Nala and Damayanti is about. Personally, I haven't been pursuing Indian mythology actively because the moment you start talking about it in academia, most people expect you to praise these characters or worship them. Most of them are not yet ready to criticise them, so I usually keep quite.

But, a huge chunk of these mythological characters are class one douchebags... It is difficult to process them.

But, if you want to read something comic, then you can read Greek and Sanskrit Comedies if you can get access to them. They are much better than these classic works.

Originally posted by: LizzynDarcy

I am not sure what the myth of Nala and Damayanti is about. Personally, I haven't been pursuing Indian mythology actively because the moment you start talking about it in academia, most people expect you to praise these characters or worship them. Most of them are not yet ready to criticise them, so I usually keep quite.

But, a huge chunk of these mythological characters are class one douchebags... It is difficult to process them.

But, if you want to read something comic, then you can read Greek and Sanskrit Comedies if you can get access to them. They are much better than these classic works.

Nala is a just and a honest king, Damayanti is his queen. It is a part of the Mahabharata epic.

@b: oh yes, history has a lot of jerks but very few people accept them for what they are.

I really like Greek mythology. I’m not familiar with Sanskrit comedies though.

I am finally done with the busy week now. I will be finally able to actively read and post more than I had been able to in the last week.

Act VI SEPARATION FROM ŚAKUNTALĀ

The prelude like other preludes pushes the story forward, but I think this is the most important one because it reveals the caste and class differences that were prevalent in Kalidas's time. The mistreatment of the fishermen, the officials laughing at his profession and caste, calling him names and suspecting him because of his profession provide an insight how discriminatory the system was back then - no matter how much contemporary whitewashing and rewriting be done, it doesn't wipe off the truth or its trauma that we still carry. But, apart from this, the blatant reference to corruption is also worth paying attention to. Especially the amount offered by the fisherman, half of his reward and the manner in which the officials change their tune upon receiving the bribe is noteworthy.

These preludes are far more interesting than anything else as they shape the play in ways that often deviate from the main theme of the play to provide key insights into the driving elements of the story.

Anyway, returning to the act, the shift from romance to social hierarchy is beautiful and equally sad. The recognition of Śakuntalā after seeing the ring focuses on two things - the separation and the damage control.

1. Separation - is one of the central themes of the play - it surfaces right from the beginning of the play. Dushyant is separated from his orderly world and has entered the forest for a temporary respite; Śakuntalā has been estranged from her biological parents since her birth; they enjoy temporary separations during their flirtations, which is the only positive separation in the play unless you want Śakuntalā to avoid the man altogether; then Śakuntalā's prolonged separation is a painful one - she has been asked to wait as Dushyant does not want her to accompany him to his capital, much less to his palace, then she is driven out of her childhood because she picked the guy as her lover/spouse - agreed that it was to send her to Dushyant's place, but upon being rejected, she was not allowed to return; Dushyant is once again separated from his palace and the world when he visits the celestial realm and later Mārīc's hermitage.

When one reads them, the pain is hard to avoid because in most cases, it looms in the backdrop of the play, weaving the complexity in it. As it is evident, Śakuntalā suffers more intense and prolonged separation, Dushyant's separation from his world and Śakuntalā feels more comic than tragic: all of his antics look like a tantrum being thrown by a spoilt child as he shows regrets, shows jealousy to the lovers in general and tries to dodge the responsibility of his actions (he interrogates why Madhavya did not tell him about Śakuntalā and tries to blame Madhavya for his own actions!). His tantrum and the difference in the intensity and length of separation bring in a significant shift in the tone and the theme of the play. The play is no longer about love, but about the social dynamics and the status of woman with agency in a patriarchal society, which leads to the next point of damage control.

2. Damage control - since his love falls short because of his crap personality and scheming attitude, it is successfully established that Śakuntalā loved him more than he ever loved Śakuntalā. And while this story is not about big gestures of agency from Śakuntalā, it certainly shows her strength in being able to consciously decide on something (See the initial acts where she and her friends dig out more information before Śakuntalā accepts him), and resiliently live those decisions. Since the play is no longer about love between two, it automatically shifts to the next thing: self-worth through social status.

Dushyant has already received "the blame" of wronging his innocent wife. So, now he needs to bring her back. But there are unexpected issues in his plan - Śakuntalā's kidnapping and unknown whereabouts. So, he tactfully handles these two aspects. He performs an elaborate show to establish Śakuntalā as a "chaste wife" and that he believes in her chastity. His conversation with Madhavya and admiration of Śakuntalā's painting is the proof of this. This further aides in establishing the legitimacy of the previously unknown child. being the opportunist man he is, Dushyant uses the chance essentially run another one-sided trial. This time, the trial is to defend his unjust actions, prove his innocence and to establish his wife and her child's innocence. He speaks of the ring to prove his innocence and the painting to prove Śakuntalā's innocence. And it effectively works on the listeners, the eavesdroppers: they understand the plight of Śakuntalā and accept the kings' fib to alleviate her of her misery. Śakuntalā is victim of men in her life - Vishwamitra, Durvasa and Dushyant - each of them represent the uncontrolled lust, arrogance, high expectations and scheming nature of men in her life.

Long note on chase wives:

Chaste wives in Indian mythology are a sign of fertility and are associated with being mothers and spouses of great men. So, attributing Śakuntalā as a chaste wife becomes significant. On one level it marks the shift from Śakuntalā's status as a woman to wife. A woman would mean seeing her as a person, as a lover, companion and friend, but a wife means seeing her as a good candidate to bear his children. Woman and wife are established as binaries in Indian mythology as the distinction allows to administer harsh, unjustified punishments on females as it happens in both Ramayan and Mahabharat. The inability to reconcile these two binaries of a female's personality shows the damages in Śakuntalā-Dushyant's relationship. The interpersonal relationship between two seems destroyed and perhaps that is why a new excuse is needed - a child - to bind them together for a fresh start.

Act VII ŚAKUNTALĀ'S PROSPERITY

Finally, the last part. I feel like Duryodhan right now, obsessed with dissecting each act of the play, just like he was obsessed with shloks beyond memorising them.

The final act of the play is without prelude, and begins with Dushyant's departure from the celestial world. The only interesting thing that stands out to me in the small episode is the presence of a charioteer, a significant figure in Indian mythology, who guides his rider. Like Krishna, Mātali guides Dushyant to Śakuntalā, whose whereabouts were unknown; it seems poetic that Dushyant needs a guide to be directed to his wife, also reaffirms his own wayward character. Also, there is a short speech of Dushyant as they descend to earth when one gets insights into his mindset: he has inherent arrogance in him, he sees himself above the fellow mortals in the way he describes earth and its dwellers and that is quite hypocrite of him. The hypocrisy is once again apparent when he describes the hermitage in a completely opposite words than he did when he met Śakuntalā at Saga Kanv's hermitage. His descriptions would symbolic as the Kanv's hermitage was described as innocent, fearless, untainted, wild, fulfiller of desire and Mārīc's seems mature, abundant yet restraint, orderly, perfect world, fulfiller of needs.

As the play reaches it end, one finds echoes of the past acts: men telling women on how to be a 'virtuous wife', how the young Bharat throws similar tantrums as his father, inflicting pain on others, bullying animals uncurbed, and the blessings of the sages and their wives (Aditi like sages' wives before blesses her, while the latter bless Śakuntalā to bear a son, Aditi blesses her to be respected by husband and son) before departure.

In this light, the identification by Mārīc as

Faith - Śakuntalā, Promise - Bharat, Performance - Dushyant make sense, where Śakuntalā's faith keeps her going, Bharat is the promise made by Dushyant and the world often fulfilled belatedly, while the only own whose agency is acknowledged and is that of Dushyant.

Thank you for reading these long notes at irregular interval. I am curious to know more of your thoughts on these aspects of the play.