प्रियदर्शिका नाटिका (सम्राट हर्षवर्धन - चतुरङ्क शास्त्रीय नाटिका सान्वय सटीक)

8219. BHĀRATĪYA VIDYA BHAVAN THE PRIYADARŚIKĀ OF SRI HARSHA-DEVA. EDITED With an exhaustive Introduction, a short Sanskrit Comm., Various Readings, a literal English Translation, copious Notes and useful Appendices. BY M. R. KĀLE, B. A. Author of A Higher Sanskrit Grammar, Sāhityasārasamgraha, A smaller Sanskrit Grammar, A literal English translation of Bāṇa's Kādambarī, Daśakumāracharita, &c. &c. FIRST EDITION. SAEN HAR Published by Messrs. GOPAL NARAYAN & Co., KALBADEVI ROAD, BOMBAY. 1928

Printed by B. M. Sidhaye at the Bombay Vaibhav Press, Servants of India Society's Home, Sandhurst Road, Girgaon, Bombay AND Published by D. V. Mulgaonkar, Proprietor, Gopal Narayan & Co. Booksellers, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. All rights Reserved by M. R. Kâle. ०५ भवभूति (ईशावास्योपनिषद् १)

PREFACE. ————— This edition of S'ri Harshadeva's Priyadars'ika is prepared on the same lines as my editions of the Ratnavali and the Nàgànanda that have been already published, with a view to supply the University student with a text-book that will meet all his requirements. Care has also been taken to make the book useful to the general reader as well. A brief but sufficiently explanatory new commentary in Sanskrit has been added containing the solutions of difficult compounds, derivations of difficult words, &c. &c. Another feature of this edition is the Introduction wherein all that is necessary to be known about the author and the play has been succinctly put together for ready reference and systematic study. The figures of speech and the various technicalities of Sanskrit dramaturgy are not given (except in a few cases) as they are not of much use to the junior University students. I have used the editions of Jivananda Vidyasagar, V. D. Gadre (1884), Pandit R. V. Krisnamacharia: (1906), T. V. Sree- nivasachariar (1908) and that published by the Columbia University 1923; and I am beholden to the editors of all these for help of one kind or another derived from them, specially to those of the last mentioned work. My thanks are also due to Mr. V. S. Bhàndàre B. A. S. T. C. who helped me in writing out the latter part of the introduction. Any suggestions as to improvement &c. will be gratefully received. BOMBAY, } June, 1928. } M. R. KALE.

XI

bed-side of his dying father. Harsha's mother, Queen Yaśomatī immolated herself on the funeral pyre of her husband. Rājyavardhana who had defeated the Hūņas, returned as soon as he heard of his father's death. He was at once proclaimed king though his own desire was to turn out an ascetic, leaving the throne to his younger brother. Misfortunes still dogged the footsteps of the two brothers. Their brother- in-law, Grahavarmā, the ruler of Kanauj, the husband of their sister Rājyaśrī, was slain in battle by the king of Mālwa. The widowed queen was most cruelly treated and kept a prisoner at Kanauj. Rājyavardhana at once marched with a picked force against the king of Mālwa and succeeded in his campaign of vengeance by inflicting upon him a crushing defeat. But Rājyavardhana was lured into a private conference and treacherously murdered by Saśāṁka, the King of Gauḍa (Central Bengal), the ally of the Mālava King. The nobles unani- mously chose Harsha as their sovereign and he assumed the reins of government in 606 A. D., a date which is marked as the beginning of the 'Harsha era.' Harsha, who was in deep grief owing to a succession of domestic misfortunes, accepted the throne with great reluctance. He did not assume the title of 'king' for some years, but called himself simply Rājaputra Śīlāditya (Sun of Virtue). Mr. C. V. Vaidya says that Harsha was not reluctant to ascend the throne of Thaneshwar but he had scruples to accept the throne of Kanauj, since the rightful heir to that throne was his widowed sister, Rājyaśrī. Harsha was only sixteen when he assumed the responsibilities of governing a large kingdom. He had first two great duties to accomplish, the recovery of his widowed sister and avenging the murder of his elder brother. He succeeded in rescuing his sister who had fled into the Vindhya forests and was at this time contemplating suicide. She afterwards assumed the yellow robe and became the devoted companion and counsellor of her royal brother. As regards his second object of punishing Saśāṁka, king of Gauḍa, he seems to have succeeded in so far that he forced him to acknowledge his suzerainty. For nearly six years after his accession Harsha was engaged in incessant warfare with a view to bringing the whole of northern India under one domination. When Harsha had subjugated the whole of upper India, except the Punjab, he was formally crowned and

XII assumed the title of Mahārājādhirāja. For the next thirty- five years Harsha devoted most of his energy and time to the arts of peace and works of piety. But he did not enjoy complete peace or respite from war. In 620 A. D. he advanced against Pulakesin II, the great Chalukya king of the Deccan, but was defeated on the banks of the Narmadā. This was the only failure in Harsha's career of unbroken military successes. After this Harsha was content to accept the Narmadā as his southern boundary. His last military exploit was the conquest of the district of Ganjam on the coast of the Bay of Bengal in 643. Harsha's empire at the time of his death extended on the west up to the Valabhī kingdom in Saurāshtra (Kā- thiāwār) and on the east to the borders of Assam. Its southern boundary was the Narmadā while in the north it in- cluded the whole of upper India except the Punjab. His suzer- ainty was acknowledged by the powerful rulers of Kāmarūpa (Assam), Valabhī (Gujarāt) and Nepal. His court became well known in distant Buddhist countries and he exchanged embassies with the Chinese Empire. Harsha was a strong, vigorous and benevolent ruler. Like Asoka he was indefatigable in the discharge of his duties and was always touring through his dominions, supervising the work of his servants. Education was widely diffused and Buddhistic monasteries at Nālandā and other places, and āshramas of learned sages were liberally endowed by the King. He built numerous monasteries and erected stūpas in his dominions. He also built rest-houses throughout his dominions, where not only food and drink were provided to the people, but doctors attended upon the sick. Harsha was naturally of a religious bent of mind and devoted several hours every day to religious exercises. He was originally a worshipper of Śiva but in the latter part of his life he was strongly inclined to Buddhism. His widowed sister Rājyaśrī, who had embraced Buddhistic faith, exercised great influence on his mind. But he divided his patronage between Brahmanism and Buddhism and did not enforce his religious views on his subjects. He was tolerant of all faiths. He prohibited the slaughter of any living animal and the use of flesh as food on pain of death. A Chinese pilgrim named Hiuen Chuang or Hiuen Tsang, who visited India during the reign of Harsha, in quest of

XIII Buddhistic scriptures, stayed in Harsha's dominions for 8 years (635-643). In his account of his travels this Chinese Buddhistic monk has graphically described the life and work of Harsha and the religious, social and political condition of India at the time. Harsha fell under the spell of Hieun Tsang, in whose honour he held a grand assembly at Kanauj, the capital. The object of holding this assembly was to proclaim the doctrines of Mahayan Buddhism, as expounded by Hieun Tsang, called the Master of the Law. At the conclusion of this assembly Hieun Tsang was invited to another great assembly held at Prayag at the confluence of the Ganga and Yamuna. This was the sixth of the quin- quennial assemblies in which Harsha gave away his accumu- lated treasure to all the holy men of the various Indian religions, Buddhist, Brahmanical, and Jain and to the poor and the destitute. It was Harsha's custom to give away freely his accumulated wealth every five years. This assembly held in 643 was the last, since Harsha did not live to hold another such celebration. Harsha was not only a great warrior, an able administrator and organizer but also an accomplished scholar and man of letters. He wrote three plays, Priyadarsika, Ratnavali and Naganand and a few minor poems. He was a most liberal patron of learned men and authors. Prominent among those who received patronage from Harsha and flourished at his court were the poets Bana and Mayura. Bana, in his historical romance 'Harsha-charita' has given an account of the early life and deeds of his patron. Harsha was also a master of calligraphy, as is evidenced from his signature inscribed on the well-known Banskhera plate. Harsha chose the town of Kanauj for his capital and turned it into a magnificent city, adorned with lofty buildings, tanks and gardens. This great monarch died in A. D. 648, worn out with the toils of constant warfare and the cares of governing a vast empire, before he had reached his sixtieth year. Harsha was the last great Hindu king of Northern India. He left no heir behind him and his empire broke up after his death.

XIV 2 HARSHA AS AN AUTHOR. ( Controversies regarding his Authorship ) The three plays, Ratnāvali, Priyadarśikā, and Nāgānand are attributed to Shri Harsha or Harsha deva of Kanauj. But Harsha's authorship has been questioned by some scholars Indian as well as European. In the first place some even doubt whether the same author wrote all the three plays. Now a perusal of the three dramas ought to lead every one to the conclusion that all the three plays are the product of the same mind. The prologues in the three plays are exactly the same in wording, barring slight variations necessitated by the fact of the plays being different. In the prologue of each play Shri Harsha Deva is mentioned as the author of the play: श्रीहर्षदेवेन अपूर्ववस्तुरचनालङ्कृता रत्नावली नाम नाटिका कृता—श्रीहर्षदेवेन अपूर्ववस्तुरचनालङ्कृता प्रियदर्शिका नामनाटिका कृता—श्रीहर्षदेवेन अपूर्वरचनालङ्कृतं विद्याधरजातकमतिनिबद्धं नागानन्दं नाम नाटकं कृतम्. Besides the closing benedictory stanza in Priyadars'ika and Râtnâvali is the same and two identical stanzas occur in Priyadars'ikā and Nāgān- anda ( Priyadars'ikā III-3, Nagananda IV-1, Priya III 10, Nāga I. 14 ) In addition to these we notice similarity of style and tone, parallels in situations, repeated phrases and expressions which unmistakably prove the common authorship of the three plays. Now the next question is who is this Śrī Harsha-Deva that is mentioned in the three plays ? Mr K. M. Pannikar in his monograph on Shri Harsha of Kanauj mentions five Harshas as being known to ancient Indian History. The first is the half mad tyrant of Kāshmir who ruled that state from 1089- 1101. The second is Shri Harsha, the grand father of king Bhoja, of Dhārānagar. The third is Vikramaditya Harsha of Ujjain, at whose court Mātṛgupta lived. The fourth is the author of Naishadhīya-Charita, and the fifth, the author of Kāvyapradīpa. (1) Harsha Deva King of Kāshmere cannot be conceived of being an author of any literary work, judging from his career and character. Besides no literary work is attributed to him. (2) Shri Harsha of Dhārānagar and grandfather of Bhoja lived in the earlier half of the 10th century. Damodar Gupta in his work called Kuttanimata gives at length the story of

xv Ratnávalí, quotes the 24th verse of the 1st Act and praises it as a work of great merit.* Now this Damodar Gupta lived under Jayápída of Káshmír (A. D. 779–813). The play of Ratnávalí seems to have been widely known at this time, that is, the eighth century. It is impossible, therefore, that a king who lived in the 10th century could have written a play which had become fairly old and attained celebrity in the 8th century. This argument can be advanced with equal strength against the authorship of Harsha-Deva, king of Kashmir. (3) Vikramaditya Harsha of Ujjain cannot be the same as Shri-Harsha, the author of the three plays, because the latter is uniformly known as Harsha without the title Vikramáditya. If the author of the plays had possessed the title he would surely not have neglected to assume it. Besides Harsha Vikramáditya was an orthodox Bráhmana, while the author of the three plays shows a strong Buddhistic leaning in the Nágánanda. (4) (5) With regard to Shri Harsha, the author of Naishad- híya Charita, and Harsha, the author of Kávyapradípa, Mr. Pannikar dismisses them summarily on the ground that time places them out of the controversy. Harsha, the author of Naishadhíya Charita, who flourished under Jayachandra of Kanauj, lived about 1150 A. D. Among the works which he mentions as being composed by himself he does not mention any of these three plays. Besides his style, which is marked by crookedness of expressions, overstraining of words and distressing artificiality, is a marked contrast to the simple and elegant style of Ratnávalí and its sister plays. Besides Harsha of Naishadhíya-Charita was not a king but simply a poet who flourished under the patronage of the king of Kashmir and afterwards of the king of Kanauj; while the Harsha of Ratnávalí and its sister plays was a Sovereign Lord, 'with princes from various kingdoms dependent on his lotus-like feet.' See note on राजसमूहेन &c. p. 2. Now there remains Shri Harsha or Harsha-vardhana of Kanauj (606–648 A. D.) A careful examination of both the external and internal evidence leads us irresistibly to

• आश्लिष्टसन्धिबन्धं सन्पात्रसुवर्णयोजितं वृत्तम् । निपुणपरीक्षकहृदयं राजति रत्नावलीसदृशम् ॥

XVI

the conclusion that this Shri Harsha of Kannauj must be the author of these plays. First, Bana, a great court poet of Shri Harsha, in his biography of his master (हर्षचरित), speaks in eulogistic terms of his learning and poetical genius—"(1) काव्यशास्त्रेष्वप्रीतममृतमुद्भवमिव" (2) "सर्वविद्यासङ्गीतगृहमिव सरस्वत्या" &c. Allowing for the partiality of a protege for his patron and poetic exaggeration, it cannot be doubted that Shri Harsha was a scholar and author of some works. Secondly, the Chinese pil- grim I-tsing, who visited India in the last quarter of the 7th century, writes about king Shri Harsha, "King Sîladitya (i.e. King Harsha) was exceedingly fond of literature. He versified the story of the Bodhisatwa Jîmûtavahana (Cloud- borne) who surrendered himself in place of a Nâga. This version was set to music (lit.—string and pipe), he had it performed by a band accompanied by dancing and acting, and thus popularized it in his time" (Takakusu, I-tsing, p. 163) This statement clearly shows that the author of the play Naganand is king Harsha, who lived in the 7th century. Thirdly, as we have pointed out before, Damodaragupta who flourished at the court of Jayâpîda of Kashmir (A. D. 779- 813), quotes verses from Ratnâvalî, and praises the play as a work of great beauty, in his work called Kuttanîmata. The play is ascribed by him to a king, who, it is quite clear, must be Shri Harsha, who lived in the 7th century. Fourthly, Soddhala, who lived in the 11th century A. D., in his Udaya- sundarîkathâ, mentions Harsha along with Vikramâditya, Munja, and Bhoja, as being both भूपाल (king) and कवीन्द्र (prince of poets) presiding over a literary court (सभा). In another pas- sage Soddhala punningly refers to Harsha (Joy) as 'the glorious Harsha' (श्रीहर्ष) whose 'joy lay in words' (गीर्हर्ष) in his own assem- bly (निजसंसदि). The passage runs as follows :—श्रीहर्षेणेवानिर्वृतिषु पार्थिवेषु नाद्रेव केवलमभाषत चक्षुषस्तु । गीर्हर्ष एव निजसंसदि येन रत्ना सदुज्जित कनक कोटिशतेन बाणः ॥ Fifthly, the famous poet Jayadeva, who lived in 11th century A. D. mentions Harsha as a poet with the earlier poets Bhâsa and Kalidâs, and with his contemporaries Bana and Mayura. He punningly calls Harsha the joy of Poetry. Sixthly, Madhusudan the editor of Mayura S'ataka, writing about A. D. 1654, says that Bâna and Mayura were the court poets of Shri Harsha and calls Harsha 'The chief of the race of poets and the author of the Natikâ called Ratnâvalî, Sixthly, in several Sanskrit anthologies, such as

XVII 'Subhāshitāvalī' and 'Sādhūktikarṇāmṛta' stanzas under the name of Harsha are quoted. Seventhly, there are epigraphic records which prove that Harsha was an author who not only wrote dramas, but also stray verses. The inscriptions on the well-known Banskhera and Madhuban plates are indisputably his own compositions. In the Banskhera plate (628 A. D.) which bears Harsha's own signature we find— "It is the own hand of me, the Paramount Lord, the Glorious Harsha ( स्वहस्तो मम महाराजाधिराज-श्री-हर्षस्य )." Among the verses inscribed on the plates, there is one which is very beautiful and runs thus :—कर्मणा मनसा वाचा कर्तव्यं प्राणिने हितम् । हर्षेणैतत् समाख्यातं धर्मार्जनमनुत्तमम् ॥ Lastly, two short Sanskrit poems on Buddhistic spirit are attributed to Harsha. One of these is named, सुप्रभातस्तोत्र, a morning hymn in praise of the Buddha and the other is called अष्टमहाश्रीचैत्यसं- स्तुतं स्तोत्र, a hymn to the eight Great Buddhist Shrines. These poems thoroughly harmonize with Harsha's acceptance of Buddhistic doctrine in the latter part of his life. It is, however, necessary, to mention and refute the theories started by some scholiasts that Harsha did not himself write these plays but got them written for him by a court poet of his, who was amply rewarded for his labour. This theory is based upon a sentence in the Kāvyaprakāsha of Mammaṭa, who lived about 1100 A. D. Mammaṭa speaking of काव्य or poetry says that it leads to the acquisition of wealth, as in the case of Dhāvaka and others from Shri Harsha and the like— श्रीहर्षाद्धावकादीनामिव धनम् ।. Several commentators have interpreted this text to mean that a poet, Dhāvaka wrote a play by name Ratnāvalī for Shri-Harsha and obtained wealth from him. The commentator Nāgoji Bhatta comments on the sentence thus:—धावकः कविः । स हि श्रीहर्षनाम्ना रत्नावलीं कृत्वा बहु धनं लब्धवानिति प्रसिद्धम् । " In the manuscripts of काव्यप्रकाश found in Kāshmir, the passage is read thus:—' श्रीहर्षाद्वाणादीनामिव धनम् " The original text of Mammaṭa, "श्रीहर्षाद्धावकादीनामिव or "श्रीहर्षाद्वाणादीनामिव धनम्" if interpreted naturally without reading into it any pre-con- ceived idea, would mean that poets like Dhāwaka or Bāṇa obtained wealth from their patron, Shri Harsha, for their literary works. In other words these poets were liberally rewarded by their patron, King Harsha. This interpretation is natural and correct and is in conformity with the tradition which ascribes Ratnāvalī and its sister plays to Shri Harsha. The interpretation of the commentators, who lived several

XVIII centuries after the dramas had been written, does not satisfy a historical or critical test. There is no positive evidence in favour of the statement that Dhāvaka is the author of Ratnāvalī No literary work under the name of Dhavaka has come down to us Besides nothing is known about Dhavaka So the theory that Dhāvaka is the author of Ratnāvalī is not tenable in the face of the overwhelmingly strong evidence in favour of the authorship of Harsha of Ratnāvalī and his other two plays Another theory, that Bāṇa is the author of Ratnāvalī is based on the variant reading of the passage in Kāvyaprakāśa, “श्रीहर्षाद्बाणादीनामिव धनम्” This theory which was set forth by Dr Hall in his introduction to Vāsavadattā is not tenable either In the first place Bāṇa's style, as it is seen in his great works, Kādambarī and Har- ṣacharita is quite dissimilar to that of Ratnāvalī. Besides Ratnāvalī nowhere betrays that high kind of poetry which is abundantly seen in Kādambarī or Harshacharita It is also difficult to believe that Bāṇa sold Ratnāvalī of all his works when he could have struck a much better bargain by selling his Kādambarī Then again it has been proved that the author of Ratnāvalī is also the author of Nāgānanda and it is impossible that Bāṇa who was a strict Brāhmaṇa wrote Nāgānanda which glorifies the Buddhistic doctrine. There is yet another theory which attributes these plays to Bhāsa, who is praised by Kālidāsa and whose plays have been recently discovered and published This theory was first propounded by Mr Narayan Shāstri of South India and afterwards upheld by Prof S M Parānjpe of Poona Mr Shāstri bases his theory on a passage from the कविविमर्श of राजशेखर But as the passage quoted by him seems to be spurious and its authenticity cannot be proved, his theory based upon it topples down Mr Parānjpe does not rely on this passage but argues independently to prove that Bhāsa is the real au- thor of Nāgānanda and the other two plays His whole po- sition is based upon some parallel ideas, similar grammatical peculiarities and literary devices, which he has picked out from Bhāsa's plays and the two plays Nāgānand and Priyadarśikā But mere similarity of ideas and sentiments, and of grammatical and literary peculiarities has little value unless it is supported by other convincing arguments Parallel ideas, and parallel literary devices or peculiarities even occur in the works of authors belonging to different ages and

XIX to different countries. So this argument of similar ideas, and of similar grammatical and literary peculiarities is not sound, especially when we find that the style of Bhāsa is widely differ- ent from the style of Priyadarśikā and its sister plays. The style of Bhāsa is crude and is not elegant or graceful; while the style of Ratnāvalī and its sister plays is refined and graceful. The plays of Bhāsa evidently belong to a more distant age. The similarity of ideas &c. can be explained on the ground that the author of Ratnāvalī and the two plays might have read Bhāsa's plays, as he did Kālidāsa's also, and tried to imitate him in certain points. So this theory about Bhāsa's authorship of the three plays in question, is also untenable. See also our Introd. to the Ratnāvalī. We have thus disposed of all the theories about the authorship of the three plays, Priyadarśikā, Ratnāvalī, and Nāgānand. We have also examined the internal as well as the external evidence that is available to us and we are led to the irresistible conclusion that Shri Harsha of Kanauj, who reigned from 606–648 A. D., is the author of Ratnāvalī and the other two plays. (3) HARSHA AS A POET AND DRAMATIST. Harsha's merits as a poet and dramatist are certainly great. But he can be placed only in the second class among Sanskrit authors. Like many other playwrights he does not show originality in the invention of the plots of his dramas nor great skill or delicacy in the portraiture of character. But he shows considerable skill in the creation of incidents and situations necessary for dramatic effect.* He has neither the imagination, the fancy and the grace of Kālidāsa, nor Bhavabhūti's loftiness of thought and depth and force of passion. As a dramatic artist and master of the language also he is inferior to either of them. But he has the great merit of simplicity of expression and thought. His style is free from the artificiality, overstraining of words, exaggeration of thought and sentiment, which characterise later Sanskrit literature. His Sanskrit is elegant and precise and his use of figures of speech and thought, is on the whole restrained and in good taste. Coming as he does after Kālidāsa

• See infra. our remarks on the source of the plot

xliii garment and cries out to Indīvarikā for help. Indīvarikā was at some distance away from her. So Vasantaka advises the King to run to her rescue. The King does so and gets an opportunity of embracing her. But instead of remaining silent he addresses her in a flattering stanza. A'raṇyikā, who supposed that she had been helped by Indīvarikā, is startled to find that her rescuer is king Vatsa. She is, however, glad to find that it was he to whom her father had promised her in marriage. She, however, calls to Indīvarikā in alarm and when the latter comes the King has to go away and hide himself. Âraṇyikā departs with her companion, with a sad heart, smitten with love. The king too departs, full of deep longing and anxious to meet again the object of his new love. Act III.—We learn from the monologue of a female atten- dant named Manoramā that a little play composed by Saṁkṛtyā- yanī, a learned friend of Queen Vāsavadattā, is to be per- formed for the amusement of the Queen. The play repre- sented an episode in the courtship of Queen Vāsavadattā and King Vatsarāja. Āraṇyikā is to play the part of Queen Vāsavadattā and the Queen's attendant, Manoramā, is to ap- pear in the role of King Vatsa. Manoramā while searching for A'raṇyikā in the garden finds her in her love-sick condition. She overhears Āraṇyikā lamenting her hopeless passion for the King. Manoramā tries to cheer her up. At this very moment the Vidūshaka arrives there in search of A'raṇyikā by the King's command. The two maidens overhear the King's confidant and learn of the King's passion for A'raṇyikā. In the conversation that follows between the Vidūshaka and Manoramā, the latter whispers to him a device for bringing about the meeting of the lovers. Next comes the scene of the Mimic play. It is to be performed in the play- house attached to the palace. The Queen with her attendants and Sāṁkṛtyāyanī comes to witness the play. Āraṇyikā appears in the role of the Queen. But Manoramā does not play the part of the King. For according to the device made known to the King through his companion, it is arranged that the King shall play his own part instead of Manoramā's playing it. The King then enters secretly and begins to act his part in the Mimic play. In playing his part he makes advances to

XXIII Araṇyikā in such a manner as to rouse the suspicion of the Queen. The Queen rises from her seat in a fit of displeasure unable any longer to witness acting of that kind and goes out. She finds Vasantaka who has been asleep in the adjoining room. Thinking that the King may also be there, she rouses him, when he reveals the truth in his drowsiness. The Queen thus comes to know the whole trick and in her anger breaks up the play She then orders both A'raṇyikā and Vasantaka to be imprisoned and departs without listening to the apology of the King. Act IV.—Manoramā enters and is sorely grieved to see that A'rṇyikā has still been kept confined by the relentless Queen. The poor girl, she says, is in deep despair, not because of the hardships of the prison, but because she is not able to see the King. Just then Kāñchanamālā, the Queen's attendant, enters and informs Manoramā that the Queen has been in deep distress since she received a letter from her mother, Aṅgāravatī, informing her that King Dṛḍhavarman, husband of her mother's sister, has been held a captive for more than a year by the Kaliṅga King, and taunting her for King Vatsa's not having lifted a finger to rescue him. In the next scene Vāsavadattā appears, seated in the ivory-tower of the palace, attended by Sāṁkṛtyāyanī. The latter tries to comfort the sorrowful Vāsavadattā, assuring her of the faithful affection of the king. At this time the King enters with the Vidūshaka, talking about the means of conciliating the Queen and setting A'raṇyikā free from her captivity. He approaches Vāsavadattā and tries to appease her. Being informed by Sāṁkṛtyāyanī of the real cause of the Queen's sorrow, the king informs her of the expedition sent by him against the Kaliṅga king and how the latter's armies have been defeated and how he expects shortly to hear of the complete overthrow and destruction of Kaliṅga. At this moment Vijayasena, the victorious general, and the chamberlain of Dṛḍhavarman are announced. The chamberlain informs the king how Vijayasena defeated and slew the accursed king of Kaliṅga in battle and restored his master Dṛḍhavarman to his kingdom. He then narrates how Dṛḍhavarman's daughter Priyadarsikā is lost and no trace of her can be found. At this moment Manoramā hurriedly enters with the sad news that A'raṇyikā has drunk poison. On hearing this Vāsavadattā is smitten with penitence

XXIV and at once orders her to be brought before the king who with his knowledge of magic spells, will save her life. Āraṇyikā is then brought on the stage in a dying condition. The Cham- berlain recognizes her and tells Vāsavadattā that she is the lost Priyadarśikā the daughter of his master, king Dṛḍhavarman. King Vatsa repeats his magic formulas which counteract the effect of the poison and Āraṇyikā is gradually restored to life. Vāsavadattā is delighted to find that Āraṇyikā, who is no other than her cousin Priyadarśikā, also called Priyadarśanā is restored to life. She then places her cousin's hand in the hand of the King to indicate that she is his lawful wife, in accordance with the promise of Dṛḍha- varman. The play thus ends happily with the customary benedictory stanza, praying for universal peace, prosperity and contentment. ——— (2) THE SOURCES OF THE PLOT OF THE PLAY The plot of the Priyadarśikā, in its general outline, is derived from the semi-legendary life of King Udayana as given in the Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya. The story of the loves of Udayana, king of Kauśambī also called Vatsarāja, and Vāsavadattā and of his romantic adventures, seems to have been exceedingly popular in ancient India judging from the fact that it has been referred to and turned to literary account by many Sanskrit poets. It is referred to by Kālidāsa in his Meghadūta — प्राप्यावन्तीनुदयनकथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धान् and प्रद्योतस्य प्रियदुहितरं वत्सराजोऽत्र जह्रे and by Śūdraka in his Mṛcchakaṭika —यौगन्धरायण इवोदयनस्य राज्ञः. Bhāsa, one of the earlier poets, has taken the love intrigues of Udayana for the theme of two of his plays—स्वप्नवासवदत्त and प्रतिज्ञायौगन्धरायण. Subandhu in his well- known Vāsavadattā deals with the adventures of Udayana in the acquisition of Vāsavadattā. In the कथासरित्सागर of सोमदेवभट्ट who lived in the 11th century, the story of उदयन is related at length. Udayana was the son of Sahasrānīka (see note on Vatsarāja p. 3). Sahasrānīka married Mṛgāvatī the daughter of Kṛtavarman king of Ayodhyā. When Mṛgā- vatī was pregnant she had a desire to bathe in a pond of blood-water. While bathing she was snatched away by a bird of the race of Garuḍa and left on the Rising mountain. A young sage saw her there lamenting and took her to

'). Wait! That's only TWO letters after 'पा': 'न' and 'त्'? Wait, could it be 'य' and 'त्'? What if the word is: "उपानयत्"? Wait, where would 'य' be? Could 'न' and 'य' be a ligature: 'न्य'? 'उ' 'पा' 'न्य' 'त्' - no. Wait, what about "उपानयत्" where 'न' and 'य' are somehow...? Wait, let's zoom in to maximum on line 42! Let's describe every single glyph in line 42:

1. 'गो'
2. 'पा'
3. 'ल'
4. 'के'
5. 'न'
6. [space]
7. 'प्र'
8. 'हि'
9. 'तां'
10. [space]
11. 'क'
12. 'न्यां'
13. [space]
14. 'वे'
15. 'श्या' (it has a top e-matra? No, on 'वे' there is an e-matra. On 'श्या', it is 'श्' + 'या').
16. [space]
17. 'उ' (it is 'उ')
18. 'पा'
19. 'प' or 'य'? Wait! Look at

(स), न् (half-na), and दृ (dṛ): "सन्दृष्टोद्याने".

Line 5: "गान्धर्वविधिना तत्रसमुपयेमे स भूपतिः ॥"

Everything else is crystal clear. Let's format nicely line by line.XXVI तथा मञ्जुलिकेत्येवं नाम्नान्वर्थेन गोपिताम् । अपरामिव लावण्यजलधेरुद्गतां श्रियम् ॥ वस-तकसहायं सन्दृष्टोद्याने लतागृहे । गान्धर्वविधिना तत्रसमुपयेमे स भूपतिः ॥ तच्च वासवदत्ताऽथ ददर्श निभृतस्थिता । प्रचुकोप च बद्ध्वा च सा निनाय वसन्तकम् ॥ ततः प्रव्राजिकां वृद्धां सखीं पितृकुलागताम् । स साङ्कृत्यायनीं नाम शरणं शिश्रिये नृपः ॥ सा तां प्रसाद्य महिषीं तथा सैव कृताज्ञया । ददौ बन्धुमतीं राज्ञे पेशलं हि सतीमनः ॥ ततस्तं बन्धनाद्देवी सा मुमोच वसन्तकम् । [L1

XXVII above*. The story of Bandhumatī resembles that of Priya- darśikā, as the student can see from the passage from the कथासरित्सागर quoted above, the names उदयन, वत्सराज, वसन्तक, वासवदत्ता and साङ्कृत्यायनी, being common to both. Hence we con- clude that Harsha took for his basis the meagre story of Bandhumatī, perhaps written in greater detail in the बृहत्कथा, and worked it up into the present charming play. (3) TIME ANALYSIS OF THE PLAY. The action of the Priyadarśikā covers a period of a little over a year, from the autumn (शरद्) of one year to the autumn of another. For we are told in the Viṣkambhaka of the first Act by the chamberlain of Dṛḍhavarman, the king of the Anga country, that his master was already a captive of the king of Kalinga; and from the closing speech of the same chamberlain we learn that the season of the year is autumn; for he speaks of the uncommon severity of the autumnal heat and of the sun having passed from the zodiacal sign virgo to libra. From thiswe know that the month was A'svina, in which generally the sun is in libra. And we learn from the message sent by the Queen Aṅgāravatī to her daughter Vāsavadattā (see p. 46) some days after the events of the third act which happened on the full moon-day of Aśvina that it was more than a year since Dṛḍhavarman was taken a captive. So the action of the play spreads over a period of a year and a few days more. Act I. It is not possible exactly to fix the time of the action of the 1st Act. It begins in the forenoon of some day in the month of A'śvina some two hours before noon as the Act closes at mid-day (see Śl. 12). The King is introduced as holding conversation with his companion Vasantaka some day after his escape from prison and return

• There is also a third and a more faithful abridgement, which is also earlier, of the Bṛhatkathā, known as the Bṛhatkathāśloka- saṅgraha, by one, Buddhasvāmin. It is, however, incomplete, only 28 cantos being extant. In this also the events connected with the birth and early years of Udayana are narrated including his visits to the city of the Serpents and his acquisition there of the magic lute, Ghoṣavatī and of the art of taming elephants Col U. Ed. Introd. pp lxx, lxxi.

XXVIII to Kauśambî with Vâsavadattâ We learn from this conver- sation that Vatsarâja was incensed when he heard that Drdhavarman was taken prisoner and kept in custody by the King of Kalinga. So the news of Dṛhavarman's captivity must have reached Kaus'ambî by the time the Kanchuki in the Viṣkambhaka reaches Vindhyaketu's capital. Again in the same scene when Vijayasena narrates the account of his conquest and utter destruction of Vindhyaketu, we are told that he reached the abode of Vindhyaketu after a forced march of three days and that the attack was made at day- break. And we know from the speech of the Kanchuki in the Vis'kambhaka that all was over by the time‘he returned to Vindyketu's place from Agastya-tirtha where he had gone to bathe and that no trace of the attackers was found. So it follows that the battle was of short duration and Vijayasena, had left the place by or shortly after noon.; for when the Kanchukî arrived on the scene the sun was still very hot. Now Vijayasena must have taken at least three days to return to Kaus'ambî, so that he must have reached it on the seventh day from his starting from it. So the events mentioned in the Viskambhaka, viz. Vindhyaketu's destruction, the loss of the princess and the Chamberlain's resolve to go back to his captive master, must have taken place four days before the events of the first act. Act II An interval of at least one year (or more) separates the events of the first Act from those of the second; and for the following reasons. ( 1 ) It is clearly said in the Praves'aka of the fourth Act that Dṛḍhavarman was in custody for more than one year, and this interval can only be placed between the first two Acts, as the third and the fourth Acts follow pretty closely upon the second. (2) From the conversation between Indîvarikâ and A'raṇyikâ we learn that a great intimacy had grown up between them. Again from the same conversation we further learn of the Queen's intention to inform the King that A'raṇyikâ had reached marriageable age, in accordance with his own bidding that he should be reminded when she reached that age. And in the same scene when the King sees A'raṇyikâ and discovers that she is Vindyketu's daughter he exclaims—" Oh we have long been robbed " All this points to a long interval. (3) From the King's description of the beautiful scene presented by the

XXIX garden attached to the Dhârâgṛha and the tank in it, it is clear that autumn had just set in ; and that can be the autumn of the next year. The time of action of the second Act therefore, is some day in A'svina, as is evident also from the Queen's observing a fast in honour of the great sage Agastya and her intention to give a Svastivâyana on that occasion which is done after Bhâdrapada, (see p. 24 and com. thereon,) and the events mentioned therein take place late in the after- noon, as it is sunset when the King retires to his palace after his unexpected meeting with A'raṇyikâ. Act III—opens with the entrance of Manoramâ, rather late in the afternoon of the full-moon-day of A'svina. For in her speech Manoramâ tells us that the remaining portion of the play composed by Sâmkṛtyâyanî is to be acted before the Queen on the Kaumudî festival, which falls on the fifteenth day of A'svina, and that her friend A'raṇyikâ being absent- minded committed a mistake in her acting on the day. A'raṇyikâ then enters and appears from her conversation with her confidante Manoramâ to have been deeply affected with love for the King and pining for his company day and night. And from the lips of the Vidûshaka who enters next we learn that the King also is love-sick, passes his nights sleeplessly and finds pleasure in nothing but devising means to obtain a sight of A'raṇyika'. This shows that we must allow a period of five or six days at least to intervene between the second and the third Acts to account for the deep impression made on the minds of the lovers by each other's sight at their first meeting. When Manoramâ sees Vasantaka and learns from him how helpless his friend was on account of her friend A'raṇyikâ, she tells him how their meeting was to be brought about that very night when the acting was to be performed before the Queen. Vidûshaka then leaves her, and she starts to go to the play-house with A'raṇyikâ, and by the time they enter it, the twilight is already past (अतिक्कान्ता खलु सन्ध्या p. 31 ). So the action of the third Act begins late in the afternoon of the day and ends when it is bed time, after the breaking up of the Mimic play, by the Queen. See p. 44, King's speech. Act IV. A few days' interval separates the fourth Act from the third. For in the opening speech of Manoramâ she complains of the Queen's long continued anger and of the hardships of confinement to which her friend has been subjected.