[Assignment]
For those accustomed to reading modern dramas, Kalidasa’s Sankuntala and the Ring of Recollection is both familiar and strange. In terms of format, the general arrangement of dialogue interspersed with stage directions is the same in plays from the modern era; the nature of the stage directions, which use miming actions instead of utilizing set pieces and props, seems strange to modern sensibilities, as does the prologue, which breaks the fourth wall and has the director addressing the audience directly as an introduction to the play. In the content of Sankuntala, even more is unfamiliar. This is true not only of the Indian gods that are mentioned in the plot but the day-to-day activities and cultural traditions demonstrated in the drama. Thanks to this merging of the familiar and the unfamiliar, Sankuntala and the Ring of Recollection allows modern readers to gain a deeper understanding of fourth century Indian culture, with the common elements providing the bridge that makes this culture accessible—though to fully understand the play, some a priori knowledge of fourth century India is required.
The presence of similarities in the literature of cultures that are vastly different—either because of their geographical location, their time period, or both—is what enables the literary scholar to compare them, and by extension, compare the values, thoughts, and overarching belief system of the culture that produced a given work. David Damrosch writes eloquently on this point in his book How to Read World Literature. He notes that the genre of drama can be especially useful for these kinds of cultural comparisons because it was included in literary traditions around the world, and cites Sankuntala and the Ring of Recollection as an example of drama in ancient Asia (Damrosch 47).
Kalidasa’s renowned play is a comedy about the orphaned child of a nymph, Sankuntala, who meets King Dusyanta when he visits the hermitage where she was raised. They fall in love, are married in secret, and she becomes pregnant, but in her love-sick state, she neglects to offer hospitality to the spirit Durvasas, who makes Dusyanta forget her existence as punishment. The modern American reader understands the concept of marriage, though sees it as involving only two individuals; the fact that Sankuntala is to become foremost of Dusyanta’s many wives highlights the differences between fourth century Indian culture and that of the Western world in the twenty-first century. Similarly, Kanva’s dialogue when Sankuntala leaves the hermitage to join King Dusyanta (“A daughter belongs to another man—/ by sending her to her husband today,/ I feel the satisfaction/ one has on repaying a loan”) could be offensive to an American reader for whom it is morally wrong to view women as property (Kalidasa 1132).
One problem that arises in reading world literature is the fact that some words or items have a metaphorical or cultural meaning beyond their significance in identifying objects. For example, a modern American writer may use a bald eagle as a stand in for the United States in a piece of political satire. When that work is translated into another language, the words for “bald eagle” will convey the idea of the bird, but will not carry the same contextual connotation. The non-American reader understands what an eagle is when they read their language’s word for it, but still may find the story odd or confusing because they’re missing this critical piece of information. As David Damrosch writes:
We can learn a good deal about a culture by seeing which elements a given tradition highlights and how its writers use them. Conversely, a culture’s overall dramatic norms provide a crucial starting point for understanding the workings of a particular play. (47)
In other words, while a piece of literature can be helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of a given culture, it cannot provide a full introduction; some prior knowledge of their beliefs and traditions is often necessary to fully appreciate and understand the text itself. In The Theory Toolbox, Jeffrey Nealon and Susan Searls Giroux point out that the words used by a given culture are, at some level, inherently arbitrary. Using the example of the word tree, they note that there is no “natural” name for a tree, which is why it is referred to by different words in different languages, and that “trees don’t mean or signify the same thing in all cultureslanguage is a social system of meaning, and reading is essentially the social production of a relation among a set of signifiers” (Nealon and Giroux 25). In this way, even familiar items can be confusing when reading the literature of another culture. Translation can put the literature in a comprehensible language, but often fails to convey its cultural connotations.
There are many instances of this kind of dissonance between a word’s definition and its cultural meaning in Sankuntala and the Ring of Recollection—arguably more than in older literature, such as The Epic of Gilgamesh. The fact that this is a comedy and not a tragedy contributes to this. The things that drive the narrative in a tragedy are considered equally tragic in most cultures. Many details of the plot, setting, and characters are just as unfamiliar to most modern readers as those found in Sankuntala, but the most important elements of the story transcend cultural boundaries relatively intact. The lighter subject matter of a comedy is more likely to derive its interest from culturally relevant interpersonal interactions. For example, when Dusyanta is trying to convince Sankuntala to be with him in act three, he tells her not to worry about disappointing her family, because “The daughters of royal sages often marry / in secret and then their fathers bless them” (Kalidasa 1122). This is explained in a footnote as referring to the gandharva form of marriage, a fact that the readers of the time would have understood implicitly. Even knowing this fact, most modern American readers do not know the cultural implications of this line, even whether it’s a convincing argument or intended to be seen as humorous by the audience. Since the emotional content of the story is found in their courtship and relationship, missing these kinds of details can stand in the way of the reader’s appreciation.
The literature of another culture can help outsiders gain a deeper understanding of its values, beliefs, and the lives of its people, but even well-translated, literature alone is rarely enough on its own to allow an outsider to understand a culture he is entirely unfamiliar with. Unlike non-fiction writing like historical accounts or business ledgers, fiction has an inherently metaphorical level. Some aspects of it convey the universal human experience, but others are inextricably tied to the culture in which it was written, relying on an understanding of certain myths, beliefs, and associations to tell the story and make its point. Sankuntala and the Ring of Recollection certainly grants the modern reader insight into the values and beliefs of fourth century India, showing how the cultures differ by contrasting them with the similarities. These insights are not guaranteed, however; having a baseline understanding of at least the basics of Ancient Indian culture is necessary to fully understand the context of the play.
Works cited
Damrosch, David. How to Read World Literature. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Kalidasa. “Sankuntala and the Ring of Recollection.” The Bedford Anthology of World Literature, Volume 1. Ed. Paul Davis et. al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. Print.
Nealon, Jeffrey and Susan Searls Giroux. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2012. Print.
