Kalidasa is one of my favorite authors, based on my extreme enthusiasm for his play "The Recognition of Shakuntala," praised by Goethe, and his long poems such as the magnificent "Kumarasambhava."
"Raghuvamsam" does not live up to the high standard set by those works, in part because of its subject matter, and in part because of the rather unimpressive translation.
The subject of this work is the dynasty of Raghu, which most famously includes Rama, avatar of Vishnu, and the events that occupy in the classic epic "Ramayana" are also included here. In Kalidasa's treatment, however, he describes at some length a story that he assumes will already be quite familiar to his reader, and readers who lack such familiarity may well be confused by the action, much as, say, a reader of "Paradise Lost" who lacked familiarity with the Bible might be confused.
In many of Kalidasa's other works, what comes to the fore is his celebration of love as a vehicle for the experience of divinity, He was arguably at the font of a tradition of extolling the virtues of love that eventually found its way into Europe by way of Islam and formed the tradition of exalted love celebrated by the Minnesingers, Troubadours, and Dante.
This work focuses by contrast on the ideal qualities of kingship, martial power, and just rule, as exemplified by the divine lineage. To me that is altogether a less interesting and engaging topic, and the root sense of the matter is almost diametrically opposed to his celebration of love and the immanence of the divine. Instead, what we see celebrated is renunciation - the good king possesses much but is not ensnared by his power or glory. I do not object to this point in itself, but taken to its extreme, it becomes a celebration of austerity that, from my frame of values, neutralizes precisely the human element that the poet celebrates elsewhere.
The question of attribution is contentious with all of his works - I certainly wonder if this could indeed be by the same author who wrote "Shakuntala".
While the poet, whomever he was, was a master of words, our translator A. N. D. Haksar, unfortunately, is not. Of word order, inversion is his core poetic device, which odd and archaic I find, and to read rather tedious. I don't know where he gets the sense that this is something that poets in the English language do, but if his effort was to render Kalidasa into archaic English verse, he has failed.
Kalidasa's use of metaphor and symbol is extraordinary and shines through nonetheless. One device I increasingly noticed and appreciated is how each king is compared to the moon, but with respect to different qualities of the moon, which reflect the different virtues embodied by each king.