Preface [xxx] Moreover, the history and technique of the drama in general have now become a recognized university study; and as a specimen of what India, inde- pendently, has achieved in the way of dramatic literature, the present play will not fail to be interesting. To Indianists, to students of comparative literature, and to students of drama, accordingly, this edition makes its appeal. But it is one thing to read a book and feel its beauties for oneself, and a very different thing to help others to feel them. And the difficulty is all the greater when that help has to be rendered through the medium of a language which is not one's mother tongue. In that case the trans- lator can never be quite certain that the English word which he is using will convey the exact shade of meaning which the original Sanskrit word has for him; or that the English word may not have, for an English reader, some unpoetical connotation or lurking suggestion due to facts in his social environment which the translator may not fairly be expected to know. The kind criticism of Professor Lanman has saved me from some of these pitfalls; but it is too much to hope that I have always done full justice to the poet. To translate a narrative work, or a work which interests us only by reason of the facts which it tells us, is fairly easy. For a scientific or philosophical treatise one has only to choose suitable technical terms and define them precisely and use them consistently; and what is obscure or unduly terse you can explain and expand. But in translating poetry we are called upon not only to give the meaning correctly, but also to repro- duce the subtle literary qualities of the original. Rhythm, word-order, figures of speech, compactness or diffuseness of expression—in short, almost every literary device of the original ought, in theory, to reappear in the translation. But since the genius of one language differs radically from that of another, an ideal translation is, as von Wilamowitz- Moellendorff observes, a travesty or perhaps a metempsychosis: in other words, a wellnigh impossible task. Some things must be sacrificed. But it is far better, wherever possible, to keep close to the original and show the author in his true native colours, rather than, under the pretext of giving a literary finish to the translation, to make him say things which he did not say and would never dream of saying. A few words then as to certain principles, mostly limitations, that have governed me in my translation. First, whereas the original play is mingled prose and verse, the translation is all in prose. The translation of the stanzas is set in narrow measure (that is, with an indentation on both sides) and with the stanza-number at the end in bold-face type, and it is thus distinguished typographically from the translation of the prose. There are in the play nineteen kinds of metre, having from eight to nine-

xxxi] Preface teen syllables to the line. Bhavabhūti uses these metres with consummate skill, as I have tried to show in the Notes, and especially in Appendix 1. The succession of light and heavy syllables and the rhythmic pauses which break the line at irregular intervals give to each of these metres an emotional effect which a Hindu at least can feel and perhaps describe, but which it is absolutely impossible to reproduce in a language where the system of verse-accent is wholly different. The use of prose in translation carries with it, of course, the giving up of rhyme. Both rhyme and metre are apt to lead to useless padding or unwarranted curtailing. Bentley's familiar comment on Pope's Iliad is worth repeating: ‘A very pretty poem, but he must not call it Homer.’ There have been, no doubt, a few ideal translations made by men gifted with true poetic inspiration, but unless the translator is sure that he has this gift, let him beware. Secondly, as to literalness. An attempt, on linguistic or other grounds, to render words radically akin in Sanskrit by words radically akin in English, or to render the same word or phrase in just the same way at every occurrence, is apt to defeat its own end. The word saṁskṛta is indeed equal to con-fectus; but confection as a version of saṁskāra is absurd. Again, the exigencies of the situation sometimes move the trans- lator to render noun by adjective, adjective by adverb, adverb by verb, and so on. In such cases, for the sake of those who are reading the original also, the literal version or the analysis of the compound will be given in the Notes. Once more, it may happen that the ever-varying context shows that the same word has a dozen finely differenced shades of meaning in as many different places. The particle kila, for example, is here rendered in perhaps a dozen different ways. The like holds true for the forms of address. In all this I have tried to heed von Wilamowitz- Moellendorff's precept (Reden und Vorträge³, p. 5) : ‘To give free and origi- nal expression to the thoughts and feelings and moods of the poet because you [the translator] have yourself fully comprehended and experienced them : that—no more, but also no less—is translating.’ Thirdly, as to word-order. It was Bhavabhūti's boast (i. 2) that upon him the Goddess of Speech and Eloquence waited as a submissive hand- maid. And so, we may not assume that with him ‘rhyme was the rudder to sense’, in other words that his diction was determined by exigencies of metre or the like. On the contrary, his word-order is deliberate and almost always artistic; and in the stanzas especially he likes to create a sort of suspense by withholding the principal word, or putting it in only towards the end. In a highly inflected tongue like Sanskrit, the resultant suspending of the sense or the resultant inversion is easily possible and even natural, and I have often tried to reproduce it. But in English the

Preface [xxxii] inflections are nearly all lost, and for this very reason the sense is so dependent on the word-order as to leave little freedom in the arrangement of words, save at the cost of unclearness or extreme harshness. And since a translation, whatever else it pretends to be, must be intelligible, I have had, yet oftener and against my will, to sacrifice the effects of the original in the interest of ready intelligibility. The alliterative effects of the original are often very striking. Bhava- bhūti uses smooth liquid sounds for the softer emotions and harsh guttural combinations to express the sturdier ones. To reproduce these effects in English is in some cases not feasible, and in others not advisable, and in most cases I had to give up the attempt. Finally, as to exotic colour. If East and West are ever to understand each other, then each must bring to the other a sympathetic hearing. On either side a top-lofty condemnation of the peculiarities of the other quite defeats the purposes of a book like this. Accordingly, I have not tried to avoid an idea or an expression peculiar to the Hindus and easily understood by them, just because it may seem ‘queer’ to a foreigner, and I venture to hope that my attitude will be taken as the best compliment that I could pay, not only to the author or to his native country, but also to the fair- mindedness of my foreign readers. An instance or two. An older person in addressing a younger, says āyushman. This I have rendered by ‘long-lived one’, meaning thereby not ‘one who has lived long’, but ‘one who, it is hoped, may live long’. My version is un-English; but the prayer for long life or the benediction (if indeed the speaker is conscious of it at all) is an implicit one, and to render it always as if it were an explicit one, by the phrase ‘may thy days be long’, or the like, is wholly wrong. The synonymous (Marāṭhī) chirañjīva, is still current in India, and is almost equivalent to ‘my son’ as used by an older man (not necessarily the father) to the younger. Like comment might be made on the phrases ‘my father’s feet’, ‘lotus-feet’, ‘vitals of my heart’, ‘valiant monkeys’, ‘shampooing’, and others. A few minor matters. Certain words, like yathā or iti (as marking the beginning or the end of a quotation), or like iti or abhinīya with a stage- direction, are sufficiently rendered by the italics in which those directions are printed or by marks of punctuation. Sometimes, where my version seemed too free, the original word is given in parentheses, although it is not to be regarded as the precise equivalent of the adjacent English word. Words inserted to complete the sense or to bring out more fully the exact force of the original are put in square brackets. Most of the other devices are self-explaining. In all these matters I have tried to follow the dictates of common sense.

xxxiii] Preface The foot-notes to the translation are meant to give the help that a non- Hindu reader may need for understanding the play, but no more. The play bristles with proper names as familiar to a Hindu as is the name of Achilles to a Greek or of St. Paul to a Christian. These Sanskrit names are hard for the Occidental. Moreover, he is confused as to the identity of a character, partly because the same person is called by so many different names. I have therefore given a brief foot-note every time a new name appears in the translation. And to show the relation of the several characters in the action, I have (on the advice of Professor Lanman) given in the Introduction a summary of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa, a poem which (strange as it may seem to a Hindu) is very little known outside of India. More elaborate verbal or aesthetic comments are reserved for the Notes proper. The conclusion of a preface, the grateful acknowledgement of kind counsel and friendly services, is, to the author at least, a most delightful task. It is right and it is pleasant to say 'Thank you'. And it is pleasanter still to think that the names of men who share your enthu- siasms are to be permanently associated with your work, and that the turning of its pages will always remind you of those who have toiled and are toiling with you to reach a common goal. The names of those who have edited or translated this play before me are given in Appendix 12, and need not be repeated here. Dr. Frederick W. Thomas, Librarian of the India Office in London, has procured for me the loan of manuscripts from the India Office Library, the Deccan College Manuscripts Library and the Ānandāśrama Library of Poona, and the Sanskrit College Library of Calcutta—and all with a zeal and kindness that go far beyond the perfunctory discharge of official duty. Dr. Otto Schrader of the Adyar Library at Madras did me the valued favour of sending to the Harvard Library for my use some palm-leaf manuscripts. And I am indebted to Mr. S. P. V. Ranganāthaswāmi, Āryavaraguru, of Vizagapatam, for a similar favour, and also for providing me with some early editions of the play, now out of print. The Prime Minister of Nepal, with a liberality and insight that deserve all praise, sent seventy manuscripts of the Durbar Library to Oxford for photographic reproduction under the supervision of Professor Macdonell, among them the old and important Nevārī manuscript (dated 1196) of this play, and of it the Harvard College Library generously procured for me a rotograph copy. To His Excellency, to Dr. Macdonell, and to the College, my hearty thanks. Shreemant Babasaheb Ghorpade, the talented Chief of Inchalkaranji, has laid me under considerable obligation. It is to his kindness that e [H.O.S. 21]

Preface [xxxiv I owe the loan of the important Old Javanese version of the Rāmāyaṇa which he had secured from Java. Professor H. Kern of Utrecht, the editor of that version, very kindly supplied me with certain items of information about it. My college friend, Mr. R. D. Ranade of Poona, and my brother-in-law, Dr. N. G. Sardesai, have kept me constantly supplied with books and information of all kinds, which, but for them and at such a distance from India, I should not have been able to obtain. The suggestion to edit this play for the Harvard Oriental Series came first from Professor James Haughton Woods of Harvard University, whose acquaintance I made while he was studying philosophy in India, and who, both at the inception of the work and in its progress, has given me his help and his whole-hearted sympathy. To the Controller of the Oxford University Press, Mr. Horace Hart, M.A., my thanks are due not only for the typographic excellence of the work, but also for the promptness with which he printed it. This work, while yet incomplete, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Harvard University. There is yet one more name which I must mention, and which I have purposely kept to the last. It is impossible to express adequately all that this edition owes to the sympathy, the assistance, the almost fatherly care that it has received from my honoured teacher, Professor C. R. Lanman, the editor of this series. When in India, I had made some sort of a plan for bringing out an annotated edition of the Uttara-Rāma-charita. I cannot say what that edition would have been like; but if the present form of the work is in any way an improvement on my earlier plan, as it undoubtedly is, the difference is all to the credit of Professor Lanman. He assisted me in my work most unselfishly. There was no detail too slight to escape his attention, and on every point he would bring to bear all the mature results of his wide experience as a scholar and an editor. His criticisms were always judicious and sympathetic; and I have profited as much by what he taught me expressly in the way of western scientific methods of research as by the indirect inspiration that I derived while observing him at work upon the Visuddhimagga. As the work was born and has grown, so it is natural that it should also go forth into the world under Professor Lanman’s guidance, and I congratulate myself upon having succeeded in overcoming his reluctance to have this work dedicated to him. S. K. BELVALKAR. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, April, 1914.

INTRODUCTION

Bhavabhūti, his life, and his date

1. Bhavabhūti's account of himself.—Bhavabhūti, the author of the Uttara-Rāma-charita, gives in the prologues to his three plays various items of information about himself and his family. This information is fullest in the Mahāvīra-charita,¹ which is probably the poet's earliest work. In his second work, the Mālatī-Mādhava,² there is, in addition to this information, an attempt to glorify his family (i. 7) and his own attain- ments (i. 10). There is also a note of defiance or of discontent (i. 8) at the reception accorded to his earlier work. His latest work, the Uttara- Rāma-charita, is most meagre and also modest in the biographical matter. These items may be put together as follows : In the country to the south there is a city called Padma-pura. In it live certain Brahmans surnamed Udumbara, who trace their lineage to the saint Kaśyapa. They follow the Taittirīya branch of the Black Yajur Veda, are well versed in the Brahma-lore, and have performed the Soma sacrifice.³ They are pious householders, heads of their school, revered of all men, and duly maintain the five Sacred Fires. It was to this family of the Udumbaras that that famous performer of the Vājapeya sacrifice, he who was called Mahā-Kavi (Great Poet), belonged. Fifth in descent from him is our Bhavabhūti, Bhaṭṭa Gopāla of blessed name being his grandfather, and Nīlakaṇṭha of hallowed memory being his father. His mother's name is Jatukarṇī. Bhavabhūti's original name is Śrīkaṇṭha ;⁴

[Footnotes]

[Left Column] ¹ Mahāvīra-charita is cited from the Nirṇaya Sāgara edition of 1901 with Vīrarāghava's commentary. From v. 46¹ to the end, I cite the version given in that edition without the comm., on the pages follow- ing 247 (first sequence). ² The Mālatī-Mādhava is cited from the Nir- ṇaya Sāgara ed. of 1900 with the comm.'s of Tripurāri and Nānyadeva, and of Jagaddhara. The various Nirṇaya Sāgara editions of the two plays do not differ much as to pagination. ³ See Dr. A. B. Keith, Bhavabhūti and the Veda, JRAS., July, 1914, p. 729. [Added

[Right Column] in proof-sheets.] ⁴ 'In whose throat—upon whose lips—resides the Goddess of Wealth and Eloquence.' This probably was the name given him by his parents. His full name would accordingly be Śrīkaṇṭha Nīlakaṇṭha Udumbara. He was called Bhava-bhūti, say some, because God Śiva (Bhava) gave him 'luck' or 'holy ashes' (bhūti); others say, because he wrote a stanza containing either the line Sāmbā punātu Bhava-bhūti- pavitra-mūrtiḥ or Girijāyāḥ kuchau vande Bhava-bhūti-sitānanau.

Introduction [xxxvi] he has mastered the sciences of grammar and rhetoric and logic,¹ and has studied the Vedas and the Upanishads, the Sāṅkhya and the Yoga. His preceptor was Jñāna-nidhi,² rightly so called, a pious ascetic, and, like Aṅgiras, pre-eminent among the sages. Bhavabhūti is a poet and, as is natural, is in friendly relations with the actors, into whose hands he gave his dramatic works. 2. His family-home, Padmapura in the Berars.—Some manuscripts of the Mālatī-Mādhava distinctly say that Padmapura was 'in the Berars', Vidarbheshu.³ In the prologue, the stage-manager speaks of the play as enacted on the occasion of the 'fair of Lord Kālapriya'. If the usual assumption is correct that Lord Kālapriya is the same as Mahākāleśvara, whose famous shrine at Ujjain in Mālva is mentioned by Kālidāsa and Bāṇa and others,⁴ and if we are justified in inferring that the Mālatī- Mādhava was therefore enacted at Ujjain,—then the stage-manager's mention of Padmapura as 'in the country to the south' or as 'in the Dekkan' (Dakshiṇāpathe) would be entirely in harmony with the datum of the manuscripts which specify Padmapura as 'in the Berars'; for Vidarbha is in fact to the south (and a little east) of Ujjain. In fairness, however, we must add that the oldest extant manuscript ⁵ of the Mālatī- Mādhava, dated Nevārī Saṁvat 276 = A.D. 1156, does not mention the province in which Padmapura was situated, nor does the prologue to the Mahāvīra-charita. 3. Identity of Padmapura with Padmāvatī of the Mālatī-Mādhava unproved.—The scene of the Mālatī-Mādhava is laid in a city named Padmāvatī. This city and its surroundings are so minutely described in that play, especially at the end of act iv and the beginning of act ix, that Mr. M. V. Lele ⁶ believes he has succeeded in identifying its exact site with that of what is now a small village called Pavāyā or Polā-Pavāyā, near which remains of a considerable city are discernible. Pavāyā is a little to the north-east of Narvār. Narvār is near the centre of Gwalior state, and is almost due south of Agra, and just 100 miles from it; and it is 220 miles from Ujjain, about north-east by north. If Bhavabhūti's ancestral home, Padmapura, is to be identified with the

Footnotes

¹ 'Science of words and of sentences and of syllogisms.' ² 'Store of knowledge.' ³ See Dr. Bhandarkar's 2nd edition, p. 11 of the Text, end. ⁴ See Raghuvaṁśa, vi. 34; Meghadūta 37 (stanza Bhartuḥ kaṇṭha-, &c.) and 38; also Kādambarī, p. 53, ed. of the Bombay Skt. Series. ⁵ The Nepal Durbar Library MS., no. 1473 ṭ of the Catalogue (Calcutta, 1905), a palm-leaf MS. I used a rotograph copy of it made for the Harvard College Library. ⁶ See his book (in Marāṭhī) entitled Mālatī-Mādhava, Sāra va Vichāra, p. 5 a. Also Cunningham, Archaeological Report for 1862–5, vol. ii, pp. 307–8, where, however, Padmāvatī is identified with Narvār itself.

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]