महावीरचरितम् (महाकवि भवभूति - वीररस-प्रधान रामकथा नाटक सम्पूर्ण ७ अङ्क सटीक)

xxxvii] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date Padmāvatī described in the Mālatī-Mādhava (as is sometimes done), we must find some shrine of Lord Kālapriya with reference to which Padmāvatī may be said to be ‘on the road to the south’, and Mr. Lele suggests¹ that Kālpi on the Jumna (about fifty miles south-west of Cawnpur) does meet this requirement. According to this view, the play was first enacted at the fair at Kālpi (=Kālapriya), and the poet’s family seat, Padmapura (=Padmāvatī, near Narvār), would indeed have been ‘on the road to the south’ from Kālpi. The arguments for this view concern 1. the names, and 2. the preciseness of the description of Padmāvatī. As to the names, Padmapura and Padmāvatī do indeed mean the same thing, Lotus-ville, but neither of them is a distinctive name (there are twenty-nine Green-villes in the United States); and the surface similarity between Kālpi and Kālapriya is not by itself convincing. As for the argument that Bhava- bhūti’s description of Padmāvatī could only have been written by one familiar with the place from birth, it is quite devoid of cogency. His description of the Daṇḍakā forest would prove just as well that he was born there also! It proves his keenness of observation, not his birthplace. Moreover in describing the region of Padmāvatī, Bhavabhūti says: ‘These hills and forests remind me of the Godāvarī and the southern mountains.’ The word ‘remind’ (smārayanti, M. M. ix. 3²) clearly marks his acquaintance with Padmāvatī as the later experience and his familiarity with the south as the earlier one. Pending the discovery of new data, then, we may assume that Bhavabhūti’s ancestral home, Padmapura, was in the Berars,² and not near the site of Narvār in Gwalior state. This would not of course necessarily involve the further assumption, which it is usual to make, of the identity of the shrine of Lord Kālapriya with that of Mahākaleśvara of Ujjain. That is possible, but it is better to leave the question open. 4. Further biographical details.—It would thus seem that, like the hero in his Mālatī-Mādhava, Bhavabhūti quite early in life left his native country of the Berars and went to Ujjain in Mālva, or perhaps to Padmā- vatī, there to complete his studies under his preceptor Jñānanidhi. Bhavabhūti here not only grounded himself in the various sciences,³ but also, like his older contemporary or immediate predecessor, Bāṇa,⁴ stood ¹ In his book just cited, pp. 4 b, 84 a. ² Dr. Bhandarkar (in his M.M., 2nd ed., note to act i, line 31) observes that there are still many Brahman families in the region around Chandā who follow the Taittirīya branch of the Black Yajur Veda, the branch to which Bhava- bhūti’s family belonged (above, § 1). Chandā is in Nagpur, near the border of the Berars, and not far from the Godāvarī. ³ He likes to show off his knowledge: cp. Glossary 1, Technical terms from the three plays. ⁴ Cp. Harsha-charita, p. 47 f, Nir. Sāg. ed. For the chronological relation cp. below, § 8.

on friendly terms with all sorts and conditions of men. Especially intimate was his friendship with the actors. The Mahāvīra-charita and Mālatī-Mādhava actually mention this friendship in the prologue; in the Uttara-Rāma-charita it is hinted at in the account given by Lava of Vālmīki’s play-within-the-play (act iv. 22²⁷⁻³⁵), which we may well believe to be autobiographical. We should very much like to have some details about this relation between the actors and the would-be dramatist, but all is left to imagination. It is possible that Bhavabhūti began by writing for his actor-friends prologues for other people’s plays.¹ He may even at times have modified an earlier play. Possibly again he may have actually taken parts in the plays.² Certain it is that he soon persuaded the actors to stage his own plays, and though he did not immediately succeed as a playwright, he soon got recognition, and was perhaps even able (below, § 13) to secure royal patronage. 5. Bhavabhūti’s personality as inferred from his writings.—Regarding Bhavabhūti’s private life, the impression which the perusal of his plays leaves upon us is of the most favourable kind. He was by no means Fortune’s favourite. His was an uphill fight for fame, may be for even food and the daily necessities of the family; and he complains very bitterly (Māl. Mādh. i. 8) against the proverbially fickle judgements of the people. Even his latest play (Uttara-Rāma, i. 5) is not without this pessimistic note. It would thus seem that our poet had experienced many a reverse of fortune ³ and had emerged triumphant from them all. What gave him the strength to fight his unequal fight with the world, what sustained his courage and infused a new enthusiasm in him, was the consolation of an ideal family life such as, we must believe, was his. Love was not to him a mere sensuous affair, as it often is with poets Sanskrit or non-Sanskrit; it was with him a spiritual communion of souls. Of such a love he has left us many an idealized picture which may well bear comparison with those of other literatures. Thus he says: Uniform in happiness and in sorrow—conformable to all the conditions of life—in which the heart finds solace—the flavour of which age cannot stint—which, with time, as the veil of reserve drops away, abides as a perfect and ripened affection,— that one supreme blessing only the fortunate among mankind, and after a sore trial, attain. (Uttara-Rāma-charita, i. 39.) And it is not only in the Uttara-Rāma-charita, where the theme was exalted, and the personages ideal, that we find such lofty sentiments. We have similar ones in the Mālatī-Mādhava: for example, vi. 18: ¹ See Appendix 8. ³ Cp. Mālatī-Mādhava, viii. 14; Uttara-Rāma- ² Cp. note to English Translation, act vii. 19⁹. charita, vii. 4ᶜ,ᵈ.

xxxix] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date Know ye, my dear children, that for the man his lawfully wedded wife and for the wife her lord are, the one to the other, the dearest of friends, the sum-total, I should say, of all relations, the consummation of all desires, a priceless treasure, the very life and all. And when children come, this affection between man and wife reaches its utmost perfection (Uttara-Rāma, iii. 18) : As being the common meeting-ground of the father's and the mother's affection, in a child we, so to say, tie in a common knot of joy the several strands of their hearts. Bhavabhūti's conception of friendship was also equally lofty. Compare, for instance, Mahāvīra-charita, v. 59 : To guard thy friend's interests even at the sacrifice of thy own life; in thy dealings with him to avoid all malice, all guile ; and to strive for his weal as thou wouldst for thy own : such is the course of noble friendship. Other instances of this are the relation between Mādhava and Makaranda (Mālatī-Mādhava, ix. 40) and that between Janaka and Daśaratha (Uttara- Rāma, iv. 13, 14). These extracts from Bhavabhūti's works will help to make the otherwise shadowy figure of the poet somewhat life-like and real. We now proceed to the more difficult task of determining his date. 6. Bhavabhūti's date : traditional story about Kālidāsa and Bhava- bhūti.—Tradition couples Bhavabhūti's name with that of Kālidāsa, grouping them with seven others as the 'nine gems' of the court of king Vikrama or Vikramāditya of Ujjain. The story goes that, when Kālidāsa was already a recognized 'gem' in the court of Vikramāditya, there came to him one day a Brahman poet, and begged him to intercede with the king and secure the royal patronage. This poet was no other than our Bhavabhūti. He read aloud his Uttara-Rāma-charita while Kālidāsa was half listening to him and half engaged in playing a game of sāra's (a kind of chess). When Bhavabhūti had finished, Kālidāsa praised the work very highly, and agreed to use his influence for the poet if he would but drop a bindu (nasal) in the last line of one of the stanzas (i. 27. See Notes). Bhavabhūti accepted the improvement, and became an acknowledged 'gem'. The stanza about the 'nine gems' is late, and we do not even know from it who is meant by 'Vikramāditya', since that is a title assumed by several kings. The Saṁvat era which is still current in many parts of

Introduction [xl] India is supposed to have been founded by a Vikramāditya (57 B.C.), and some scholars place Kālidāsa in the court of this Vikramāditya. But the best modern opinion¹ makes the Golden Age of the classical Sanskrit literature coincident with the bloom of the Gupta dynasty, several kings of which had assumed the title of Vikramāditya. This brings Kālidāsa somewhere between 375 and 475 A.D. 7. Bhavabhūti's works certainly influenced by those of Kālidāsa.— The matter of Kālidāsa's Śākuntala is an old epic legend which we find in the Mahā-Bhārata; and the matter of his Urvaśī may be traced through the Brāhmaṇas back to the hymns of the Ṛigveda itself. Accordingly, the fact that Bhavabhūti alludes in his Mālatī-Mādhava (see ii. 7¹⁰, iii. 3) to the familiar tales of Śakuntalā and Dushyanta, and of Purūravas and Urvaśī, has of course not an atom's weight towards proving that he knew the tales from Kālidāsa's plays. On the other hand, the dénouement of the Uttara- Rāma-charita resembles that of the Śākuntala enough to suggest that Bhavabhūti was familiar with Kālidāsa's technique. Again, the parallelisms in thought and expression as between Bhavabhūti and Kālidāsa (they have been put together for study in appendix 4) present further cumulative evidence looking in the same direction. Thirdly, the parallelism between act ix of Mālatī and act iv of Urvaśī is even yet more weighty as proof. In the one we have the love-lorn Mādhava wandering in quest of his Mālatī, and in the other the distracted Purūravas seeking in vain for Urvaśī. Here again, as between Bhavabhūti and Kālidāsa, the dramatic situation and its poetic treatment bear such striking similarity as to suggest direct and conscious imitation. Fourthly, Bhavabhūti's dramatic device (at M. M. ix. 25, 26) of making the desperate Mādhava send a cloud as messenger to his beloved, is so clearly an imitation of Kālidāsa's Cloud- messenger or Megha-dūta that there can be scarcely a doubt that Bhava- bhūti (perhaps its earliest imitator) here had that famous and much- imitated poem distinctly in mind,—so complete is the correspondence of the stanzas concerned not only in situation but also in the words and even in the characteristic metre. Indeed, as concerns points three and four, we may say that Bhavabhūti has deliberately set himself to use Kālidāsa's motifs, and if possible, in so doing, to surpass him. So much then seems certain, that Bhavabhūti studied and imitated Kālidāsa. Accordingly he may have been either a somewhat younger

¹ See B. Liebich, Das Datum des Kālidāsa, Indogermanische Forschungen, Band xxxi (1912), pp. 198-203. This paper gives a convenient statement of the vari- ous older views and arguments with the needed references to previous discussions. Compare also Professor Pathak's paper on Kālidāsa and the Hūṇas of the Oxus valley, Ind. Ant. for Nov. 1912, pp. 265– 267.

contemporary of Kālidāsa, or else he may (so far as this evidence goes) be later than Kālidāsa by any amount of time. To try to determine the interval between them as small or great by differences of style small or great is a futile task such as has often been tried, and in vain. 8. Bhavabhūti probably later than Bāṇa, about A.D. 610.—The emperor Harsha of Kanauj reigned from 606 to 648, and the illustrious Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang has made for us many interesting records of that memorable reign. Bāṇa was Harsha's court-poet, and wrote a 'History of Harsha' or Harsha-charita to glorify his imperial patron. The date of the book may be set at A.D. 610. In the introduction Bāṇa mentions Bhāsa and Kālidāsa and other famous poets, but not Bhavabhūti. The argumentum ex silentio is indeed a dangerous one. In this same introduction Bāṇa omits all 'mention of Vālmīki, although Bāṇa certainly knew about the Rāmāyaṇa and its author (cp. Kādambarī, ed. Peterson, pp. 51, 91, &c.). Nevertheless, if Bhavabhūti preceded Bāṇa or was contem- poraneous with him, it is very unlikely that Bāṇa, as an eminent man of letters, should not have known Bhavabhūti, an eminent man of letters. True, Bāṇa and Bhavabhūti did not belong to the same court, and in old times news did not travel fast; or it may be that Bhavabhūti did not attain eminence until after the Harsha-charita was finished. But otherwise it is hard to see why Bāṇa—when mentioning the dramatists Bhāsa and Kālidāsa—did not mention the dramatist Bhavabhūti also, except on the assumption that Bhavabhūti was somewhat later than Bāṇa. 9. Identity of Bhavabhūti with 'a pupil of Kumārila' (say 700–750) unproved.—There is a manuscript of the Mālatī-Mādhava, in appearance about 400 years old, which in the colophons to acts iii and vi assigns the play to 'a pupil of Kumārila', but elsewhere assigns it to Bhavabhūti. According to this evidence,¹ Bhavabhūti was a pupil of the great Mīmāṁsā teacher, Kumārila, of about A.D. 700. Unfortunately, the colophon to act vi complicates the matter by giving the name of that pupil as Umvekāchārya. It follows either 1. that this was an alias of Bhavabhūti, or else 2. that the Mālatī-Mādhava is a composite work, and that, while the other eight acts are by Bhavabhūti, acts iii and vi are by Umvekāchārya, perhaps a substitution (like that of Subrahmaṇya in the Mahāvīra-charita ²) of his own version of these two acts in place of Bhavabhūti's original version which this 'pupil of Kumārila' did not like. Obviously we are giving undue weight to the testimony of a single

Footnotes:

¹ First brought out by Mr. Lele, p. 84 of his book cited above at p. xxxvi; further discussed by Mr. S. P. Pandit, introd. to Gaüḍavaho, pp. ccv ff. See also preface to Dr. Bhandarkar's M. M, 2nd ed., p. viii. ² See Nirṇaya Sāgara ed. of the play, p. 213 n. f [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [xlii]

manuscript. A solitary manuscript, Bd, of the Uttara-Rāma gives Bhava- bhūti's original name as Śilakaṇṭha instead of Śrīkaṇṭha; and the oldest extant manuscript of the Mālatī-Mādhava (of A. D. 1156; cp. p. xxxvi, above) says, after the colophon to act x, kṛtir iyam mahāva(ka)ver Bhūgarbhasya. Is Bhūgarbha still another alias of Bhavabhūti? Perhaps all this confusion means merely that the name of our poet was not so well and so widely known as we might like to think.¹ Bhavabhūti and Kumārila were both Southerners or Dākshiṇātyas. It is probable that they were nearly contemporaries (Kumārila's time is put as 700–750²). And Bhavabhūti does use a technical term or two of the Mīmāṅsā (so arthavāda at Uttara-Rāma, i. 39⁵). But there do not seem to be any cogent reasons for an inference that Bhavabhūti was a direct pupil of the famous Mīmāṅsā teacher Kumārila. 10. Bhavabhūti certainly earlier than Rājaśekhara (about 900).— The earliest unmistakable reference to Bhavabhūti ³ occurs in Rājaśekhara. In his play, the Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa, i. 16, he pays a handsome compliment to Bhavabhūti, and incidentally to himself, as follows: He who was formerly known as the poet Vālmīki, and who subse- quently assumed on earth the form of Bhartṛmeṇṭha, and who appeared once again in the person of Bhavabhūti,—that same [Vālmīki] is existing now as Rājaśekhara.⁴ The whole tenor of the stanza makes it certain that Rājaśekhara has in mind no other Bhavabhūti than the one who dramatized the Rāmāyaṇa, that is to say, our Bhavabhūti. And in order that the reincarnation may be poetically plausible, we must of course assume that Bhavabhūti had been dead for some time before Rājaśekhara was born. But there are further data confirming Bhavabhūti's priority to Rāja- śekhara. That the latter imitated Bhavabhūti is shown by Professor V. S. Apte.⁵ And among his dramatic devices derived from Bhavabhūti are pictures (Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa, act iv), play-within-play (ibid., act iii), a pupil wandering in search of instruction (ibid., interlude to act iv), and so on. In the Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa, iv. 41⁷, Rājaśekhara actually mentions, though with a skilful double meaning, Bhavabhūti's Mahāvīra-charita. In all his four extant plays Rājaśekhara mentions the fact that he was

Footnotes:

¹ And it is in this way perhaps that we have to explain the reference Mālatīmādhavasya in Jalhaṇa's anthology; see below, § 15. ² See Professor Pathak's paper in the JBBRAS, vol. xviii, pp. 213–38. ³ Of later references there are many. The more important ones may be found together in Appendix 2. ⁴ See Konow and Lanman's Karpūra-mañjarī, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. iv, p. 187. ⁵ In an extremely rare tract. See Konow, l. c., p. 187.

xliii] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date the spiritual teacher or guru of Mahendrapāla of Kanauj; and this monarch is mentioned in the Siyadoni inscription ¹ with the dates 903–4 and 907–8. The date of Rājaśekhara is accordingly put at about A. D. 900. So far as these facts may determine it therefore, the latest limit for Bhavabhūti would be about 850 to 875. 11. Date of Yaśovarman of Kanauj as determining that of Vākpati- rāja.—Kalhaṇa’s Chronicle of the kings of Kaśmīr or Rājatarangiṇī, written 1148–9, states at iv. 134 that the king of Kaśmīr, Lalitāditya-Muktāpīḍa (Mu-to-pi of the Chinese Annals), subdued king Yaśovarman of Kānyakubja or Kanauj. From the Chronicle, the limits of Lalitāditya’s reign appear to be 699 to 735 A. D.; but Stein is of opinion that the humiliation of Yaśo- varman by Lalitāditya was subsequent ² to a certain embassy sent by the latter to the Chinese emperor, which embassy, according to the Annals, cannot have been earlier than 736. 12. Date of Vākpatirāja’s Gaüḍavaho not far from 736.—Yaśovar- man’s court-poet during some part of his reign (presumably the later) was a man called in Sanskrit Vākpatirāja, or in Prākrit, Bappairāa. He wrote a Prākrit poem entitled Gaüḍavaho (Sanskrit Gāuḍavadhah). This means ‘Slaughter of the Gauḍian [king]’. It is a long poem of over 1200 stanzas, devoted ostensibly to the glorification of his Royal patron Yaśovarman. It was evidently planned on an ‘enormous’ (viyaḍa = vikaṭa) scale; for, long as it is, it is in fact only a prelude, and does not even give the name of the ‘Gauḍian king’, much less any details about his ‘slaughter’. It was edited by Shankar Pandurang Pandit (Bombay, 1887), with an elaborate introduction, discussing Yaśovarman (pp. xvii ff.), his date (lxvii), Vākpati- rāja’s personal history (xxxiii and lxiv), and the date of the writing of the poem (xcvi). Other pertinent discussions are: Bühler’s paper in WZKM, Band ii, pp. 328–40; Jacobi’s, in the Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen of 1888, no. 2, p. 68; Stein’s notes to his translation (1900) of Kalhaṇa; and Bhandarkar’s 2nd ed. (1905) of Mālatī-Mādhava, preface, p. xiii. In determining the date of the writing of the Gaüḍavaho, no question could be more pertinent than this: Why does the poem, planned upon an ‘enormous’ scale, stop short with the prelude, and not even take up the slaughter of the Gauḍian king,³ that is, the very subject which, to judge from the title of the poem, should form its main substance? The most natural answer is that Vākpatirāja began his panegyric in the days of Yaśovarman’s greatest successes, and that, after writing his prelude of

Footnotes: ¹ See Kielhorn, Epigraphia Indica, i. 171; or Konow, l. c., pp. 178–9. ² See Stein’s Translation of the Chronicle, Introduction, § 85, and cp. his notes on iv. 134 and iv. 126, and § 66. ³ For meagre and incidental mentions of him, see Mr. S. P. Pandit, Introd. p. xlii.

Introduction [xliv 1200 stanzas, he was moved to abandon the subject proper by reason of some great disaster or humiliation¹ that befell his patron—presumably the humiliation experienced at the hands of Lalitāditya. If this is as certain as it is plausible, the composition of the Gaüḍavaho would be not very far from A.D. 736. 13. Bhavabhūti probably a little earlier than Vākpatirāja.—We are now in a position to consider the bearing of Vākpatirāja’s date upon the date of Bhavabhūti. For the chronological relation of these two men we have two important texts. The first is in Kalhaṇa’s Chronicle, iv. 144, and reads as follows : kaviVākpatirāja-śrīBhavabhūty-ādi-sevitaḥ jito yayau Yaśovarmā tadguṇastutivanditām. ‘Yaśovarman, on whom attended the poet Vākpatirāja, the illustrious Bhavabhūti, and other [poets], became by his defeat [at the hands of Lalitāditya] a panegyrist of his [Lalitāditya’s] virtues.’ There is not the smallest reason to doubt that this Vākpatirāja is the same as the author of the Gaüḍavaho; and the complete reversal of fortune which explains so well the author’s leaving the main part of his poem unwritten, is here most clearly set forth. And it would seem extremely improbable that, when speaking of ‘illustrious Bhavabhūti’, Kalhaṇa had any other poet in mind than the great dramatist who now engages our attention. In short, it is a safe inference that both Bhavabhūti and Vākpatirāja,—the latter officially, the former we know not how,—were connected with the court of Yaśovarman. As making against the inference that Bhavabhūti was connected with the court of Yaśovarman we must in fairness mention two facts : 1. from none of Bhavabhūti’s extant works do we get the impression that he was at any time basking in royal favour; and 2. still less do we find any direct statement that he was ever in attendance upon Yaśovarman. But these facts are not perhaps of much consequence. In spite of his silence, Bhavabhūti may have received occasional gifts from that king. Secondly, as making against the assumption that ‘the illustrious Bhava- bhūti’ mentioned by Kalhaṇa is the same as our Bhavabhūti, we must mention the circumstance that, in the dvandva compound contained in the stanza above cited, Kalhaṇa places ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’ after ‘Vākpatirāja’, whereas, if Kalhaṇa knew that the dramatist Bhavabhūti was older than Vākpatirāja (see below) and if he was scrupulous as to a point of grammar like this, he should have placed ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’ before ‘Vākpatirāja’, since vārtika 3 to Pāṇini ii. 2. 34 requires that what is prior in order ¹ Cp. Mr. S. P. Pandit, l. c., pp. lxxii, lxxiii.

xlv] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date

of time or nature should come earlier in a dvandva compound. This objection can be met by supposing that ‘Vākpatirāja’, the first member of the compound, was in Kalhaṇa’s view the more important one, abhyarhita (vār. 4 to Pāṇ. ii. 2. 34), the one more intimately connected with the court of Yaśovarman, and so he could be placed before ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’. As a matter of fact, however, we should not attempt to make much out of a subtle point of grammar like the present. Compounds which seem to violate one rule are often justifiable by another. Thus the compound grahītṛi-grahaṇa-grāhyeshu (Yoga-sūtra, i. 41) may seem to go against Pāṇini ii. 2. 34, but it would be perfectly correct if the author of the Yoga-sūtra considered grahītṛi, the percipient, as more important than grāhya, the object perceived. Or it may be that the Sūtrakara is here following a traditional order of words, as he certainly is in the compound śraddhā-vīrya-smṛiti-samādhi-prajñā¹ in i. 20. I do not think, therefore, that Professor Jacobi (JAOS., December, 1910, pp. 26–7) has succeeded in establishing, on the strength of two ‘incorrect’ dvandva compounds, the existence of a Yoga-Patañjali as distinct from Vyākaraṇa-Patañjali, seeing that the latter himself does not quarrel with Kātyāyana’s ‘incorrect’ dvandva compounds in vār. 1 to ii. 2. 35, vār. 1 to ii. 2. 36, vār. 6 to ii. 1. 51, &c. But this is by the way. The second relevant text is a passage of eight stanzas (797–804) found in the Gaüḍavaho itself. In it Vākpatirāja is speaking about himself, and the gist of it is as follows: Vākpatirāja was a favourite friend of Yaśovarman and bore the title of Head-poet or Kavirāja [797]. Although not naturally gifted as a poet, he yet came to honour through [the teaching (?) or the favour (?) of] Kamalāyudha [798]. And in his enormous (viyaḍa) narrative- structures even now there flash excellences, like drops of the nectar of poetry from the ocean of Bhavabhūti [literal version of 799]. And his delight is in the works of Bhāsa, Jvalanamitra, Kālidāsa, Subandhu, &c. [800]. He is versed in logic, &c. &c. [801–804]. Taking the passage as a whole, and especially the mention of the great dramatists Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, there is no good reason for doubt as to who is meant by ‘Bhavabhūti’. It must be the dramatist Bhavabhūti. Next, it is clear that in stanza 799 Vākpatirāja is modestly acknowledging an indebtedness to the influence of Bhavabhūti. Was that influence exerted personally, that is, was Vākpatirāja a pupil of Bhavabhūti? or was it exerted through Bhavabhūti’s writings which Vākpatirāja read and studied? Apart from the phrase ‘even now’, the general wording of the stanza seems to favour the latter view. The phrase ‘even now’ does not decide

¹ Compare also the compounds in Yoga-sūtra, i. 6; ii. 3, 15, 18, 29, 30, 32; iii. 53; iv. 1.

Introduction [xlvi the matter either way. A man of to-day, and fifty years old, may say 'The influence of Bacon appears even now in my style'. But you cannot decide from the words 'even now' whether it was the reading of Francis Bacon's Essays in the man's college days or the personal influence of a teacher of English named Bacon that he has in mind. The phrase merely implies the lapse of an interval of time. Accordingly, admitting the influence without trying to decide whether it was by the spoken or the written word, and admitting the interval without trying to determine its length,—we are probably justified in concluding that Bhavabhūti's connexion with the court of Yaśovarman fell in the earlier part of that monarch's reign, and that the dramatist was somewhat earlier than Vākpatirāja. 14. Bhavabhūti probably flourished near the close of the seventh century.—The considerations recited above point to the following con- clusions. Bhavabhūti's activity is certainly later than that of Kālidāsa, and for Kālidāsa the middle of the fifth century is most probable. We can also say that Bhavabhūti is probably later than even Bāṇa, who flourished about 610. Bhavabhūti appears to have lived, if not at the court of Yaśovarman of Kanauj, at least during the reign of that king, and before the date of Vākpatirāja's Gaüḍavaho, which we set at about 736. Accordingly we may conclude with some confidence that Bhavabhūti flourished in the closing years of the seventh century.

Bhavabhūti's Works

15. Lost works of Bhavabhūti.—The first question that presents itself is, did Bhavabhūti write anything besides the three plays that we at present know to be his? Stanzas ascribed to Bhavabhūti are found in various anthologies dating from the twelfth century onwards, and among them are a number of stanzas which do not occur in any one of the three plays of our poet. The natural inference is that Bhavabhūti wrote some other works, perhaps dramas, perhaps kāvyas (poems), which have not come down to us. Dr. Bhandarkar, however, on the basis of a distinction which Jalhaṇa, one of the anthologists, makes between an author called Mālatīmādhava, and Bhavabhūti the author of the play called Mālatī-Mādhava, comes to the conclusion that the stray verses in the anthologies belong not to Bhavabhūti but to the author Mālatīmādhava. But there is no valid ground for this distinction, which is unknown to other anthologists earlier as well as later. And even according to Jalhaṇa's Sūktimuktāvali, Bhavabhūti wrote at least one stanza (Yadaivārabhyāntaḥ, &c.: see Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for

xlvii] History of the Rāma-story 1887–91, p. xxxv) which does not occur in any of his three extant plays. By Jalhaṇa’s own showing, therefore, Bhavabhūti presumably wrote some other work or works; and that is the main point.—Furthermore, compare § 38 below. The anthologies together have preserved for us about a dozen stanzas. As is to be expected, they are not consistent in the ascription of a particular stanza to a particular author, and a stanza ascribed by one anthology to Bhavabhūti is not infrequently given anonymously in another. All that we can do then is merely to put the various stanzas together (see Appendix 2). Almost all of them are of such a colourless nature that from them we cannot make any inference regarding the nature of the original work or works, now lost to us, from which they were extracted. 16. Bhavabhūti’s extant works.—Only three plays belonging to Bhavabhūti have come down to us: 1. Mahāvīra-charita, which deals with the early history and adventures of Rāma down to the battle of Laṅkā and Rāma’s coronation; 2. Mālatī-Mādhava, a love-story of the romantic type, the plot of which was probably the poet’s own invention; 3. the present play called Uttara-Rāma-charita, which continues the history of Rāma from his coronation to the banishment of his wife and their final reunion. Seeing that in two of his plays Bhavabhūti has thus dramatized the entire Rāma-story, it will be useful at this point to make a digression and survey this story in the various forms in which it existed before and after the celebrated epic of Vālmīki.

Excursus: History of the Rāma-story

17. Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa: its present form.—Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa has come down to us in three or four distinct recensions:¹ 1. The Northern recension or the recension of the commentators; 2. the Bengali recension; 3. the so-called West-Indian recension; and 4. the recently (1905) published South-Indian recension. These recensions agree in essential particulars, but each gives a number of stanzas peculiar to itself, and the sequence of cantos varies. We are not yet in a position to say which of these recensions is the oldest. Moreover, whatever recension we follow, we meet therein a number of repetitions and inconsistencies and peculiarities of diction and metre, which go to prove that the epic has been submitted to a process of enlargement by more than one hand; so that it is almost impossible to say what parts of the epic are Vālmīki’s own and what are later interpola- tions, although in most cases the interpolators have been so simple or so honest as to leave traces of their working more or less clearly visible. ¹ We ignore here the forms of the Rāmāyaṇa that are known to exist outside India.

Introduction [xlviii] We are not here concerned with the problem, important and even urgent as it is, of sifting the new from the old. The Rāmāyaṇa as Bhavabhūti knew it differs very little from the present form of the Rāmāyaṇa—so far, that is to say, as the mere story goes. We will therefore summarize the story as given in the first of these recensions, which we will call the Bombay recension. **18, A. Rāma-story as given in Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa.—**Formerly there ruled over the kingdom of Kosala (capital Ayodhyā) a king called Daśaratha. He belonged to the Solar race, and counted among his ancestors such famous names as Manu, Ikshvāku (first king of Ayodhyā), Sagara, Bhagīratha (who brought the Ganges down from heaven), Kakutstha, and Raghu. He had three wives: Kausalyā, Sumitrā, and Kaikeyī; the first was the eldest, the last the most beloved. Daśaratha ruled long and prosperously, but had only one daughter,¹ Śāntā, and no sons, though he was getting old. Following the advice of Vasiṣṭha, his family preceptor, Daśaratha offered a sacrifice in which his son-in-law, Ṛishyaśṛiṅga, officiated as head-priest. As a consequence, the king got four sons: 1. Rāma, the eldest, born of Kausalyā; 2. Bharata, born of Kaikeyī; 3. Lakshmaṇa and 4. Śatrughna, both born of Sumitrā. **18, B.—**The kingdom of Videha (capital Mithilā) was to the east of the kingdom of Kosala. It was at this time ruled by the saintly king Janaka, who, as he was once for a holy sacrifice preparing the ground with a plough, came upon an infant, and brought her up as his own daughter. This was Sītā thus miraculously sprung from the Earth. The girl grew up in the company of Ūrmilā, another daughter of Janaka, and of Māṇḍavī and Śrutakīrti, daughters of Janaka's brother Kuśadhvaja. As Sītā became of an age to be married, Janaka instituted a svayaṁvara: whoever should succeed in bending a mighty bow (which Janaka had received from God Śiva) was to marry the princess. Many attempted, but none succeeded. **18, C.—**One day there came to the court of Daśaratha the royal sage ² Viśvāmitra who, finding the demons frequently molesting his penances, requested the king to send two of his sons, Rāma and Lakshmaṇa, with him to his penance-grove. Since a person of Viśvāmitra's position could not be denied anything, Daśaratha reluctantly agreed to give over his sons, though yet in tender years. Viśvāmitra resumed his holy rites, and when the molestors came, Rāma, at Viśvāmitra's behest, killed the demon Subāhu

¹ The epic does not say who the mother of Śāntā was. Daśaratha gave his daughter in adoption to Lomapāda, and he married her to Ṛishyaśṛiṅga; cp. Viṣhṇu-Purāṇa, iv. 18. ² This title is used of one who, formerly a king, had now taken to the practice of austerities. As a sage he was expected to forgo all activities proper to a warrior, and so the royal sage Viśvāmitra had to apply to Daśaratha for help.

[xlix] History of the Rāma-story

and the terrible she-demon Tāṭakā. Pleased at the prince's valour, Viśvā- mitra thereupon taught him the mystic formulae relating to all the missiles that he knew, and particularly the jṛimbhaka missile, which had the power of producing instantaneous stupor or paralysis in the ranks of the assailants. After the conclusion of the sacrifice, Viśvāmitra took Rāma and Lakshmaṇa with him to Mithilā, the capital of Janaka. Janaka was very favourably impressed by the princes; and Viśvāmitra called upon Rāma to try his hand at the mighty bow. Young though he was, Rāma not only succeeded in bending it, but even in breaking it in twain, and thus winning him a wife. Viśvāmitra now proposed that, along with Sītā's marriage to Rāma, there be celebrated the marriages of Sītā's sister Ūrmilā and her cousins Māṇḍavī and Śrutakīrti to the three brothers of Rāma, Lakshmaṇa and Bharata and Śatrughna respectively. The following table (in which m. stands for married) makes these relations clear : ⎧ Kausalyā : son, Rāma : m. Sītā, born of the Earth, reared by Janaka ⎪ ⎸ ⎪ Twins, Kuśa and Lava ⎪ ⎧ Lakshmaṇa : m. Ūrmilā, daughter of Janaka Daśaratha : m. ⎨ Sumitrā : sons, ⎨ ⎸ ⎪ ⎪ Chandraketu ⎪ ⎩ Śatrughna : m. Śrutakīrti, ⎫ daughters of ⎪ ⎬ Janaka's brother, ⎩ Kaikeyī : son, Bharata : m. Māṇḍavī, ⎭ Kuśadhvaja The proposal was agreed to. Daśaratha was called from Ayodhyā, and the marriages were celebrated with due pomp. 18, D.—The nuptial joys, however, were interrupted by the arrival of Paraśurāma, son of Jamadagni. Paraśurāma was a fiery Brahman, sage and warrior, who had twenty-one times rid the earth of all Kshatriyas. He was a devotee of God Śiva, and was incensed to learn that Rāma had not only bent but broken the bow of his favourite Divinity. As nothing short of a fight with the young prince would satisfy him, Rāma managed to reduce him to terms, and sent him away humbled and abashed. The four princes then returned to Ayodhyā with their brides. Here they passed some twelve years.¹ End of Bāla-kāṇḍa. 18, E.—Daśaratha, finding his eldest son Rāma now arrived at a proper age, resolves to crown him heir-apparent. Preparations were accordingly set on foot. But Kaikeyī, the youngest queen, following the advice of Mantharā, her nurse and confidante, calls upon her husband to

Footnotes

¹ In the present form of the Rāmāyaṇa there is some inconsistency here ; according to one version the exile and the events leading to it follow immediately after the marriages. From the Uttara-Rāma- charita (i. 19, 20 ; vi. 33–35) it is clear that Bhavabhūti assumes such an interval between the marriages and the exile. Compare also Padma-Purāṇa, iv. 36¹⁵⁻¹⁷.

g [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [l fulfil immediately the two boons which on an earlier occasion he had granted her. Daśaratha consents, but is sorely grieved to learn that the boons are: 1. That Bharata, Kaikeyī's son, be appointed heir-apparent; 2. that Rāma be forthwith sent away into exile for fourteen years. As the king could not belie his words, Rāma had to submit to the wishes of his step-mother, which he cheerfully does. His wife Sītā and his brother Lakshmaṇa ¹ refuse to be left behind, and they are all three accordingly carried away through the weeping multitudes. The old king was so much afflicted by this great blow that he barely lived to hear the news of the exiles being taken over safe beyond the boundaries of his kingdom. 18, F.—Bharata, who all this while was in utter ignorance of the happenings at Ayodhyā, is now sent for in order to perform the obsequies of his father and assume the sovereignty thus devolved upon him. He returns; but discovering the mean conduct of his mother, he reproves her bitterly, and refuses to take charge of the kingdom and thus give his consent to the base intrigue. He resolves immediately to start in search of Rāma, and to implore him to return. On the other side of the Ganges, near the mountain called Chitrakūṭa, close by the saint Bharadvāja's hermitage, Bharata finds Rāma leading a forester's life in the company of his wife and brother. Rāma is struck by Bharata's magnanimity, but insists upon carrying out his father's command to the letter, and is unwilling to return before the completion of the full term of fourteen years. Bharata thereupon resolves to keep company with Rāma; the latter, however, reminds him of the duty they all owed to their subjects, and persuades him to return, which Bharata does, only on the condition that Rāma will come back at the appointed time, himself in the meanwhile conducting the affairs of the state only as Rāma's agent. END OF AYODHYĀ-KĀṆḌA. 18, G.—Rāma now resolves to withdraw farther away from his kingdom, and learning that the regions on the other side of the Vindhya mountains were infested with wild demons and cannibals, he sets forth in that direction. At his entrance into the Vindhya forests he meets the demon Virādha, whom he kills. He then meets a number of sages and ascetics, in whose company he is said to have passed no less than ten years.² Going

Footnotes

¹ The two brothers, Bharata and Śatrughna, were at this time absent in the kingdom of their maternal uncle. ² These seem to be quite uneventful years; and it is rather strange that Rāma should, for the sake of a few months, think of building a hut at Pañchavaṭī (see below), and do nothing of the kind here, where he stayed so long. Evidently something is wrong with the text of the epic. We may add that the Padma-Purāṇa (vi. 269²²⁶) says that it was in Pañchavaṭī that Rāma stayed so many years; and this appears more probable.

further south into the Daṇḍakā forests he reaches the river Godāvarī, and there, in the part of the country known as Janasthāna,¹ comes upon the hermitage of Agastya and his wife Lopāmudrā. The holy pair heartily welcome the newcomers, and here at the foot of a mountain called Prasra- vaṇa, and in a region known as Pañchavaṭī, Rāma resolves to build a small hut and to pass the rest of his exile peacefully in the company of the saint Agastya and the vulture-king Jaṭāyus.² 18, H.—Peace, however, was not vouchsafed to him long. At this time there ruled in the island of Laṅkā (identified with modern Ceylon) a demon king, Rāvaṇa. He was called ‘ten-headed’ and was a terror to the world. Having established his power in Laṅkā proper, Rāvaṇa crossed over to the mainland and overran the whole of Southern India, subduing everything that came in his way. Rāvaṇa, however, found more than his match in Vālin, king of the Monkeys, whose kingdom comprised the part of South India then known as Kishkindhā. An agreement was entered into whereby, except for a narrow strip of land along the coast, the bulk of the peninsula came into the possession of Vālin. Rāvaṇa's territory touched the Jana- sthāna, and here he left a large army of demons under the command of Khara (Rāvaṇa's younger brother) and Dūshaṇa and Triśiras. 18, I.—Once Śūrpaṇakhā,³ a widowed sister of Rāvaṇa, came upon Rāma in the Pañchavaṭī, and smitten with his graceful form made him frank overtures of love, promising to eat up Sītā and thus put her out of the way, if Rāma would but consent. Rāma in jest sent her to Lakshmaṇa, who rewarded her insistence by cutting off her nose and ears. Śūrpaṇakhā went weeping and bleeding to her brother Khara, who in anger dispatched fourteen picked men to capture Rāma. As they did not return, Khara marched with his whole army, 14,000 demons strong, and engaged Rāma in a close fight. Rāma stepped back a few paces so as to gain room for working with his bow, and then, one after another, he killed the entire army of demons, as also its three leaders. 18, J.—Śūrpaṇakhā vows revenge. She now repairs to Rāvaṇa in Laṅkā and inflames his mind with a passion for Sītā, whose charms she praises loudly. Rāvaṇa resolves to capture her. He asks Mārīcha, another demon, to assume the form of a golden deer, and to lure Rāma in chase away from his cottage. Mārīcha does this and is mortally wounded by Rāma's arrow. Before he dies, however, imitating the voice of Rāma, he

¹ ‘Abode of men’ or ‘the habitable portion Prasravaṇa (cp. U. R. C. ii. 25). He was of the Daṇḍakā’. Agastya is said to be very old, of superhuman strength, and the earliest Aryan colonizer of Southern a friend of Rāma’s father. India. ³ ‘Whose nails are large as a winnowing- ² He had his nest on the top of the mountain basket.’

calls upon Lakshmaṇa for help. Lakshmaṇa was left behind to guard Sītā in the cottage; but upon hearing the cry, which she mistook for her husband's, Sītā urges and even commands Lakshmaṇa to go, which he does reluctantly. Utilizing the favourable moment, Rāvaṇa now pounces upon the forlorn Sītā and flies away with her, striking down on his way the vulture-king Jaṭāyus, who from his mountain peak had watched this daring act and attempted to intercept the abductor. Jaṭāyus falls down to die, surviving just long enough to inform Rāma and Lakshmaṇa (already returned from the deer-chase and amazed at not finding Sītā in the cottage) of what had happened. Rāma's grief was unbounded. END OF ARAṆYA-KĀṆḌA. 18, K.—Wandering further onward, the princes at last reach the lake called Pampā. Here they come upon Sugrīva and his trusty friend and minister Hanūmant, alias Māruti. Sugrīva was the brother of Vālin, king of the Monkeys, and had been dispossessed by him both of his kingdom and his wife. Rāma and Sugrīva enter into an alliance whereby Rāma agrees to restore Sugrīva to his kingdom, and in return the latter promises to send out search-parties and help Rāma to punish the abductor and recover his lost wife. Rāma accordingly asks Sugrīva to challenge Vālin to a duel, and as the two brothers join in combat, Rāma wounds Vālin mortally with an arrow. For this unprovoked wrong and treachery Vālin reproaches Rāma severely; the latter simply replies that as an agent of the sovereign king of Ayodhyā he took upon himself the duty of inflicting proper punishment upon malefactors who, like Vālin, had usurped a brother's throne and wife. The death of Vālin leaves Sugrīva master of the kingdom of Kishkindhā; and in gratitude he now sends, under proper leaders, parties of Monkeys in search of Sītā. The most important of these was the one sent to the south under the command of Māruti. This party presses forward and southward until it gains the sea-coast. END OF KISHKINDHĀ-KĀṆḌA. 18, L.—The waters seemed to offer an impassable barrier, for the island of Laṅkā stood on the other side of the ocean; but Māruti undertakes to clear it by a leap. This he does and enters Laṅkā. Here he was fortunate enough to meet Sītā, sorrowing in Rāvaṇa's garden under the shade of an aśoka tree, she-demons of hideous and terrible looks keeping watch over her day and night. In glowing terms they describe to her the glory and the greatness of Rāvaṇa, and work alternately upon her hopes and her fears to the end that she consent to have Rāvaṇa. Sītā refuses to listen, and Rāvaṇa is too proud to stoop to force.¹ Māruti soon finds ¹ The epic gives yet another motive. As the Nalakūbara, she was forcibly intercepted heavenly nymph Rambhā was once upon by Rāvaṇa, who thereupon was cursed a time going to the house of her lover by the lover to the effect that if ever

liii] History of the Rāma-story opportunity to console Sītā and assure her of a speedy deliverance. Having thus achieved the chief object of his journey, Māruti now leaves Laṅkā, not without meeting sundry adventures, in the course of which he succeeds in killing a few hundred demons and setting the whole city on fire. Once more he leaps over the ocean and returns to Kishkindhā with the glad news. END OF SUNDARA-KĀṆḌA. 18, M.—Rāma immediately resolves to invade Laṅkā. Sugrīva with his army of Monkeys and Jāmbavant with his army of Bears offer their assistance, and the whole army soon gains the Southern Ocean. Here they are joined by Vibhīshaṇa, the youngest brother of Rāvaṇa. Vibhīshaṇa had tried to remonstrate with his eldest brother against the evil course of conduct he was pursuing, and being rewarded with contempt, he now came over to Rāma's side. Rāma receives him well and promises him the kingdom of Laṅkā after Rāvaṇa's death. To make it possible for the army to cross over, Rāma now resolves to construct a stone bridge over the ocean, and in this he is helped by the engineering genius of Nala.¹ Having gained the island he next lays siege to the capital. The battle which follows lasts, according to the several inconsistent time-indications, for four or fifteen or thirty-nine or eighty-eight days; Rāvaṇa together with his brothers and sons and the entire army of demons is put to death; and Rāma, in accordance with his promise, installs Vibhīshaṇa as king of Laṅkā. 18, N.—Having thus vanquished the enemy and wiped out the insult, Rāma now meets Sītā. He is, however, unwilling, for fear of public scandal, to take his wife back until she has proved her purity. Pierced to the quick by Rāma's suspicion, Sītā proposes the fire-ordeal. A huge pyre is kindled and with a firm tread she walks towards it and is engulfed by the flames. Immediately, however, she reappears, led forth by the Fire-god himself, who in the hearing of all proclaims her innocence. Rāma now accepts her, saying that he never doubted her innocence, but had to do what he did for the sake of the people. The fourteen-year period of exile having now almost expired, Rāma, along with his wife, brother, friends, and allies, makes the journey northwards, utilizing for the purpose an aerial car called Pushpaka which belonged to Rāvaṇa. They reach their home, where they meet Bharata and the Queen-mothers anxiously awaiting the return of the exiles. Rāma's coronation is now celebrated with due pomp and there is rejoicing everywhere. END OF YUDDHA-KĀṆḌA.

Rāvaṇa should again touch a woman with another maiden, Vedavatī. against her free will he would instan- ¹ He was the son of the Architect of the Gods. taneously meet his death. An exactly Traces of this bridge, on the maps called similar story is told also in connexion Adam's Bridge, are still pointed out.

Introduction [liv 18, O.—The epic should naturally end here; but there is one more book or kāṇḍa, dealing with the history of Rāma from his coronation to his death. Here we are told how a few months after the coronation rumours regarding Sītā began to be circulated amongst the people, who did not like that Rāma should have received his wife back after she had been nearly a year in the house of Rāvaṇa. Through his spies Rāma comes to know of this, and resolves to abandon Sītā, although at this time she was in a state of advanced pregnancy. Rāma charges his brother Lakshmaṇa with the carrying out of this plan. Lakshmaṇa obeys, places Sītā in a chariot, takes her into a forest on the other side of the Ganges, and there leaves her, after communicating to her the actual state of things. Thereupon Sītā sends back to Rāma a spirited reply¹ and patiently succumbs to the inevitable. In her forlorn condition she fortunately chances upon the saint Vālmīki, whose hermitage was near by. Vālmīki receives the exiled queen under his protection. In his hermitage she gives birth to twin sons, Kuśa and Lava, whom Vālmīki brings up and educates along with his other pupils. 18, P.—Meanwhile in Ayodhyā Rāma is not at peace. From a mere sense of duty he discharges his manifold functions as a king, but is always haunted by the image of her whom he had treated so unjustly. Years go by, and at last he resolves to perform a horse-sacrifice.² For the festivities attending the completion of the sacrifice there came Vālmīki bringing with him the twins, Kuśa and Lava, whom he had taught to sing the Rāmāyaṇa, a panegyric poem on Rāma which Vālmīki had composed. With great applause the boys recite the poem in the presence of Rāma and the whole assembly. Rāma inquires about the boys and is pleasantly surprised to learn from Vālmīki that they are Rāma’s own sons. Understanding that Sītā is still alive, he sends for her. Sītā comes. Rāma asks her to give further evidence of her innocence and purity. ‘If it is true’, exclaims Sītā, ‘that in mind and deed and word I have never been unfaithful to Rāma, may Mother Earth receive me into her bosom!’ Just as she utters these words the Earth gapes open and a divine form stretches forth her hands to Sītā, who enters the abyss and there finds eternal rest.

¹ This (vii. 48) is one of the most touching passages in the epic. Even Kālidāsa’s Raghu, xiv. 59–68, is but a faint echo of it. ² Only kings of eminence could aspire to perform the horse-sacrifice. In this sacrifice a horse is let loose, and a guard of three hundred follows his track. Should any one hinder the horse’s progress, he has to fight. When the horse completes a victorious circuit of the earth and returns to the capital, he is offered as a sacrifice, and the sacrificing king thereupon assumes the title of Sovereign Emperor.

lv] History of the Rāma-story 18, Q.—Soon after the disappearance of Sītā, Rāma feels his own end drawing near. The kingdom is divided amongst the four brothers, who in turn settle it upon their children. In the meantime the aged Queen- mothers die. Thereafter Lakshmaṇa, whom Rāma, for no fault of his own, was compelled to send away from him, gives up the ghost. Finally Rāma himself enters the waters of the river Sarayū, and his other brothers, and the whole city of Ayodhyā in fact, follow after him to heaven. END OF UTTARA-KĀṆḌA. 19. Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa not the sole source of our play.—Professor Jacobi (in his book entitled Das Rāmāyaṇa, Geschichte und Inhalt, nebst Concordanz, Bonn, 1893, p. 111), upon linguistic, geographical, astronomical, and various other grounds, assigns the Rāmāyaṇa to the period between 800 and 500 B.C. By this he means of course the oldest strata of the epic. Additions and interpolations came to be made from time to time even down to the beginning of the Christian era. Besides the few cantos here and there which carry the marks of spuriousness on their face, it is almost certain that the major part of the Bāla-kāṇḍa (where for the first time we find an attempt to treat Rāma as a divine Avatar) and the whole of the Uttara-kāṇḍa (which deals with the later history of Rāma) are relatively late additions. The present play, as its title shows, deals with the later history of Rāma; and since it differs in many essential respects from the account given in the last book of the Rāmāyaṇa, the question arises whether Bhavabhūti used for his plot other sources than Vālmīki's epic. The Mahā-Bhārata contains, at iii. 273 ff., a ‘Rāma-episode’ or Rāmo- pākhyāna; but this text does not carry the story beyond Rāma's coronation. In this fact some see a reason for considering the Rāmāyaṇa (at least in its present form) as later than the Mahā-Bhārata. This does not follow; for, considering that Mārkaṇḍeya relates the episode to illustrate how good people, fallen in misfortune, do in turn gain happiness, there is no motive for him to carry the story beyond the return to Ayodhyā, even if he knew it. Further, the Mahā-Bhārata does elsewhere (vii. 59) narrate the story of Rāma's death; but it is very short, and is of no significance for the present problem. The Rāma-story is given with more or less detail in the various Purāṇas such as the Brahma-Purāṇa (of which the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa forms a part), the Bhāgavata, Garuḍa, Skanda, Agni, Kūrma, and so on. But in discuss- ing the sources of Bhavabhūti's plays, and particularly of the present play, the most important text is the Padma-Purāṇa. 20. Three forms of the Rāma-story in the Padma-Purāṇa.—The Padma gives the Rāma-story in three different places, each time with significant variations. These differing versions could not of course have been intro-

duced into the Purāṇa at one and the same time, as will be evident upon a brief consideration of them. First form.—This is a summary of the Rāmāyaṇa, and occupies three chapters, 269–271, of the fifth or Sṛishṭi-khaṇḍa. This part of the Padma seems to be relatively late. The summary corresponds exactly to the story as we have it in the Bombay recension of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa, except in the following six points: 1. Rāma, after the marriage, is expressly said to have lived for twelve years at Ayodhyā (chap. 269, stanza 181); 2. the story of the crow, which is given in that recension in a spurious canto coming after ii. 95, is here given as a genuine part of the epic (ch. 269, st. 194); 3. Rāma stays for thirteen years in Pañchavaṭī itself before he encounters Śūrpaṇakhā (ch. 269, st. 226); 4. Rāma himself, and not his brother, cuts off the nose and ears of Śūrpaṇakhā; 5. after the coronation Rāma rules with his queen Sītā for a thousand years (cp. also ch. 6, st. 45) : it is only then that the rumour comes to his ears and he abandons his wife; 6. the god-like character of Rāma intrudes itself too frequently in the course of the Padma narration. Second form.—Chapter 112 of the fourth or Pātāla-khaṇḍa gives what is expressly said to be the ancient or purātana Rāmāyaṇa. No authority is, however, given for the statement, and elsewhere (stanza 12) it is even called fictitious or kalpita; and this in fact it seems to be. What is more, it is not even good fiction, as any one may easily see. Third form.—A brief passage of the fourth or Pātāla-khaṇḍa, stanzas 164–184 of chapter 66, gives not a form of the Rāma-story as such, but a statement as to the original form of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa. According to this, Vālmīki's poem had six (not seven) kāṇḍas: 1. Bāla-kāṇḍa, which was equal to the present Bāla and Ayodhyā kāṇḍas taken together; 2. Araṇya- kāṇḍa, 3. Kishkindhā-kāṇḍa, 4. Sundara-kāṇḍa, 5. Yuddha-kāṇḍa,—all these not differing from the similarly named present kāṇḍas; and 6. Uttara- kāṇḍa, giving Rāma's conversations with Agastya and other sages, and describing the commencement of the horse-sacrifice, and including presumably the account of the abandonment of Sītā. Sītā's ultimate ordeal and disappearance, the death of Lakshmaṇa and Rāma and others, and whatever else occurred after Vālmīki's appearance with the twins at Rāma's court,—all these things the Padma ignores as elements of the original Rāmāyaṇa, as of course it was bound to do, since the twins could not be expected to sing of events yet to be. We also find here a statement as to the original extent of the poem, 24,000 stanzas. This agrees with Vālmīki's statement in Bāla-kāṇḍa i. 4², except that the Padma does not state the number of cantos (500). This account of the original