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

[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

lvii] History of the Rāma-story form of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa seems to be a statement made in good faith by the author of the Padma. 21. The later history of Rāma as given by the Padma-Purāṇa.—If we accept the above statement as to the original form of Vālmīki’s Rāmā- yaṇa, who was it that completed it and gave to it its present tragic ending? Bhavabhūti (U. R. C. iv. 22⁴³) tells us that Vālmīki’s poem, at least the first form of it, ended with the abandonment of Sītā soon after the coronation. He also tells us that it was Vālmīki himself who later added to it a supple- ment, which ended happily with the reunion of Rāma and Sītā. But here Bhavabhūti is purposely vague. In some passages (U. R. C. vii. 15¹²) he seems to betray a consciousness of the fact that this supplement ended tragically; and it is quite conceivable that owing to the usual reluctance¹ of Hindu dramatists to write tragedies, Bhavabhūti may have deliberately modified his source and made the Uttara-Rāma-charita end happily. More probably, however, Bhavabhūti derived his material from the first sixty-eight chapters of the Pātāla-khaṇḍa of the Padma-Purāṇa. Here we get an account of Rāma’s life after his coronation, and more particularly of the horse-sacrifice which he performed. We are told how in the course of its wanderings the horse was captured by several kings and how bloody fights—always ending with a victory for Rāma—ensued in consequence, until finally, on its return journey, the horse arrives in Vālmīki’s penance-grove. Lava, one of the twins, seizes the horse and a battle follows, in the first part of which Lava is the victor. Then he is made captive. His brother Kuśa now appears on the scene. He puts the whole army to flight and takes all the leaders captive. Sītā, however, intercedes for the prisoners, and these as well as the horse are let loose. The sacrifice then concludes as mentioned in § 18, P above. When Rāma comes to know of the valorous deeds of the two youths, he inquires of Vālmīki, who had come for the sacrifice, and learns the truth. Sītā is now sent for, and in the meantime the twins recite the Rāmāyaṇa as they had learnt it from Vālmīki. Rāma finally takes Sītā back, on the solemn testimony of Vālmīki and Śatrughna and others. There is no appeal to the Earth-

¹ It is not correct to say that no tragically-ending play was written in ancient India. The Ūrubhaṅga, a newly-discovered play of Bhāsa, comes as a welcome proof to the contrary. And in the Nāṭya-śāstra (i. 78 ff.) Bharata expressly says : ‘Drama is a representation of all the happenings of the world, of all the moods of the people, happy or unhappy. Here you have, now a religious rite (dharma), now some festivity or even frivolity, now peaceful serenity ; then again laughter, or a fight, or a love-making, or a death.’ True, the Hindus liked to have all their plays end happily, and hence the ruling of later works on dramaturgy against any form of tragedy. h [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [lviii] goddess or any other ordeal. Thereafter Rāma and Sītā rule in peace for many a year. Since we have no reason to suppose that this Rāmāśvamedha-prakaraṇa in the Padma-Purāṇa was posterior to Bhavabhūti, there is just the possibility that in Bhavabhūti's days two forms of the supplement to the Rāmāyaṇa were current, one ending with a happy reunion as above, and the other, in the genuine Purāṇa fashion, carrying the story right up to the death of the hero. Bhavabhūti's source for the incidents in acts iv-vi of the Uttara-Rāma-charita must undoubtedly have been some account like that in the Padma-Purāṇa. The variations of Bhavabhūti from the Padma-Purāṇa are: 1. According to the Padma, the leader of the army guarding the horse is Pushkala, son of Bharata; according to Bhavabhūti, it is Chandraketu, son of Lakshmaṇa. 2. The boy's age is sixteen years in the Purāṇa (ch. 65, st. 73), while it is twelve in the Uttara-Rāma-charita. 3. Vālmīki himself teaches the twins the science of archery and fighting; contrast with this U. R. C. v. 14¹⁻³. 4. In the Purāṇa, Rāma does not appear personally on the battlefield; Sītā intercedes for the horse, and the recognition of the princes takes place only at Ayodhyā. 5. Sītā does not have to submit to a second ordeal. Before taking up the consideration of Bhavabhūti's plays, we shall now briefly discuss the sources (§§ 22–23) of the Rāmāyaṇa itself, and some of the modifications (§§ 24–26) which were introduced into the story by later writers. 22. Sources of the Rāmāyaṇa: historical element.—The main story of the Rāmāyaṇa seems to have a basis in fact. Had it been otherwise, Vālmīki might very easily have omitted or altered the two or three compromising actions of his hero, such as the unprovoked killing of Vālin (see U. R. C. v. 35). The poem, except in the battle-portion, seems to have such a semblance of truth that it is hard to imagine that Vālmīki invented it all. It may well be that the Rāmāyaṇa is a composite of two distinct stories, the first ending with the palace-intrigue and exile, and the second dealing with the adventures of some early semi-mythical Aryan explorer of Southern India; and Vālmīki may have assigned both these stories to the same hero. Vālmīki was a northerner,¹ and we need not expect to find in his work any very accurate geographical description of Southern India, the absence of which is sometimes pointed out as an argument to prove the entirely imaginative character of the poem.² Vālmīki's geography is ¹ His hermitage is said to have been on the Rāmāyaṇa, i. 2³, vii. 45¹⁷; cp. also vii. 66¹⁵. Tamasā, a tributary of the Ganges. See ² If immediately after the return of Columbus

confused, and scholars are still disputing as to the precise road which Rāma took, and the precise position of Pañchavaṭī, Ṛishyamūka, and Pampā. Nevertheless, the main threads of the story may well be considered historical. So at least Vālmīki seems to have regarded them. 23. The Rāmāyaṇa a blending of history and allegory.—It is also conceivable that the Rāmāyaṇa is a blending of history and some form of primitive nature-allegory. Thus in the Ṛigveda (iv. 57⁶,⁷, i. 140⁴) the word ‘sītā’ means furrow, and is not a proper name. Sītā’s birth from the Earth as narrated in the epic, the names of her twin sons (‘kuśa’ is a kind of grass, and ‘lava’ means reaping ¹), and Sītā’s final disappearance into the bosom of the Earth,—all this appears to be the mythology of some agricultural deity. If it were safe to think of Rāma as answering to the Vedic Rain-god Indra, the coincidence would harmonize well with the fact that the son of Rāvaṇa, who carries off Sītā, is called ‘Vanquisher of Indra’ or Indrajit, and also with the fact that Māruti, who like a rain- cloud in the monsoons, flies over the ocean and brings Rāma the comforting news about Sītā, means the ‘Son of the Wind-god’. All these things point to a possible commingling of history and certain features of agri- cultural mythology. The mythology, however, belongs to Vedic times. In Vālmīki’s days it must almost have ceased to be regarded as such. Thus the ultimate sources for the Rāmāyaṇa may have been threefold :

1. a real historical account about the palace-intrigue and exile; 2. another account also historical but more vague and uncertain about the experience of some early Aryan explorer (as distinguished from a colonizer and a permanent settler) of the south; and 3. the mythical account of Indra and his fight with the Enemy of the Harvest, an account which probably had lost most of its significance as nature-allegory, and had come to be regarded as genuine history dealing with persons as real as any legendary heroes are expected to be. It is no longer necessary to discuss the theory that Vālmīki derived the matter of his epic from the Iliad of Homer. The theory originated with Weber, and has been thoroughly answered by K. T. Telang (Indian Antiquary, 1872, pp. 143–7; 1873, pp. 123 ff.) and Professor Jacobi (Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 94–9). It is now no more than a literary curiosity.²

from the West Indies, and on the basis | merely because the geography was wrong? of statements made by him and his | ¹ Otherwise explained at Raghuvamśa, xv. 32. sailors, an epic had been written de- | ² Per contra, Arthur Lillie (among others) scribing the discovery and exploration of | maintains that Homer took his themes America, could we have reasonably im- | from the Indian Epics : see ‘Rāma and pugned the truth of its main story | Homer’, London, 1912.

Introduction [lx 24. Later modifications of the Rāma-story : 1. Buddhistic form.— The Buddhistic form of the Rāma-story is to be found in the ‘Daśaratha- Jātaka’ (Faüsboll, iv. pp. 124 ff.). The story is as follows. Daśaratha, king of Benares, had three children: Rāma, Lakshmaṇa, and Sītā, all born from his first wife, after whose death he marries a second, and has by her a fourth child, a son named Bharata. Overjoyed at having another son born to him, Daśaratha grants a boon to his wife. After seven or eight years the wife remembers the boon and asks Daśaratha to fulfil it by giving the throne to her son. The king refuses to grant her request; but fearing the machinations of the woman, he advises the three children by his first wife to stay away from the court for twelve years. He makes it twelve years, because astrologers had told him that he would live so long. Rāma, with his brother Lakshmaṇa and his sister Sītā, repairs to the Himalayas. Contrary to the prophecy of the astrologers Daśaratha dies in the ninth year. The widowed queen tries to secure the throne for Bharata, but he sternly refuses and goes to seek his eldest brother, to whom the throne by right belonged. Rāma, however, is unwilling to come immediately, seeing that the period of twelve years assigned to him by his father was not yet over. He stays away another three years and then returns, marries Sītā, and rules in peace. This feeble, distorted, unmotivated story was once regarded as a possible source of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa. Professor Jacobi (Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 84–93) has already shown the utter untenability of such a view. And now we have definite evidence to prove that the Rāma-Rāvaṇa story was already well known¹ before 300 B.C. **25. Later modifications of the Rāma-story : 2. Jain forms.—**The Jain forms of the Rāma-story are to be found in works like the Padma-Purāṇa of Ravisheṇa, the Dharma-parīkshā of Amitagati, and the Trishashṭhiśa- lākāpurushacharita (chap. vii) of Hemachandra. The story in the main follows Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa, and the evident object of these works must be to utilize an already existing story for preaching the special doctrines of the cult. Thus they make Rāma a pious Jain, a total abstainer from meat. This of course involved the omission of the golden deer incident (see § 18, J); Rāvaṇa abducts Sītā while Rāma is engaged in the battle with the fourteen thousand. Similarly Rāma kills Vālin in a fair fight (contrast § 18, K). Years after her abandonment, when Rāma meets Sītā once more, it was not through the instrumentality of Vālmīki, or through the incidents attending

¹ See Kauṭilīya, p. 11, line 3 from the bottom.          the reference to the Rāmāyaṇa in one of     As Bhāsa’s date is uncertain, the fact of          his plays (Avimāraka, p. 16, line 2) cannot     his having written two Rāma-plays and          have much significance chronologically.

lxi] History of the Rāma-story the horse-sacrifice (a Jain could not perform a sacrifice involving the death of any living animal), but merely and simply because people told him about her forlorn state; and he finally loses her again, not because Sītā disappears into the earth, but because, after her purity is attested anew by the fire-ordeal, she is convinced of the vanity of the world and becomes a Jain nun, tearing out her hair with her own hand. Rāma himself takes the mendicant vow soon after. We may note in passing that the Jain accounts tell us that the monkeys and bears and demons who took part in the battle at Laṅkā were not really monkeys or bears or demons. They were human beings who carried the images of a monkey or a bear or a demon on their banners. 26. Later modifications of the Rāma-story : 3. Hindu forms.—A whole treatise could be written discussing the various forms which the Rāma- story assumed in the later Hindu tellings of it, either in Sanskrit or in the different vernaculars of the country. And the special interest of such a treatise would lie in the attempt to show how the story came to be modified in accordance with changing beliefs and varying standards of judgement. We shall content ourselves with indicating merely the several tendencies that are discernible in the process. . 26, A. Exaggeration.—In these later tellings of the story mere exaggerations are what we naturally expect. Thus, even in the present form of the Rāmāyaṇa, the battle at Laṅkā is spun out and made to last for months, the intervals being filled in with one superhuman deed after another on both sides. There is a good deal of repetition. The same applies to some of the later descriptions of the battle of the twins with the army attending the sacrificial horse of Rāma. The twins are made to defeat all the great heroes who fought by Rāma’s side at Laṅkā, including Māruti, Lakshmaṇa, and even Rāma himself. Or, to take another instance which is significant in connexion with Bhavabhūti’s treatment of the theme, Rāvaṇa himself is represented as having been present at Sītā’s svayaṁvara, but unable to bend the bow (see § 18, C), which Rāma alone did. 26, B. Deification.—The beginnings of this process are already observable in the later portions of the Rāmāyaṇa, especially books i and vii, where Rāma is exalted into an Avatar of Vishṇu or the Supreme Spirit. This tendency was in course of time so much exaggerated that it eventually defeated its own purpose. Rāvaṇa also came to be considered as a regular devotee of Rāma; for, works on devotion admit intense enmity as a form of worship no less efficacious than friendship or service. So Rāvaṇa longs to be killed by Rāma and thereby to attain salvation (see U.R.C. ii. 11).

Introduction [lxii If he robs Sītā, it is simply to hasten the wished-for end, and without any sinful designs against Sītā, whom he revered as his mother. 26, C. Idealization.—Attempts were made quite early to clear the character of the intriguing queen Kaikeyī. Thus her nurse Mantharā (see § 18, E) becomes a special messenger sent by the Gods to secure Rāma's exile, and, as a necessary consequence, Rāvaṇa's death. Mantharā is the spirit of Kali (Quarrel), and she possesses Kaikeyī's soul, and makes her say and do what she, a paragon of virtue and kindness, would never otherwise have said and done. Similarly in regard to the episode of Sītā's residence at Laṅkā, the capital of the demon Rāvaṇa. The point was to establish her purity beyond the possibility of a suspicion. To effect this we found that the Uttara-kāṇḍa brought in the story of the curse (see § 18, L, note). Even that apparently did not suffice. The Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa (iii. 7) goes farther and says that Rāvaṇa did not abduct Sītā at all: only her shadow. When the golden deer appeared, Rāma, being an omniscient God, knew that it was a trick of the demon, and he rather welcomed it as it would give him a pretext to kill Rāvaṇa. So he tells Sītā to remain invisible for a while, himself creating in her place an illusory Sītā, which Rāvaṇa carries away. At the time of the fire-ordeal, this illusion is consumed and the real Sītā, untouched by the hand of the demon, shows herself. It is not necessary to mention the other fantastic devices adopted for the same purpose. 26, D. Curse-motif.—Curse as a motif in explaining conduct and fate came to be increasingly applied. Thus Daśaratha dies of grief for separa- tion from his son Rāma, because Daśaratha had himself been the unwitting instrument of causing separation between a father and his son (see Rāmā- yaṇa, ii. 63–64), and so had been cursed to that effect. Similarly almost every demon whom Rāma in his wanderings meets and kills, was repre- sented as a God or a superhuman being who had been, for one fault or another, cursed to assume the form of that particular demon, the release from the curse following immediately after his being killed by Rāma's hand. Quite a number of these additions also resulted from the attempt to describe the earlier lives of the characters that figure in the Rāmāyaṇa, the object being to explain their conduct in this birth by the influence of a previous birth. 26, E. Philosophizing.—Nor, we may be sure, were the interests of philosophy neglected. The Yoga-Vāsiṣhṭha, a philosophical poem even larger than the Rāmāyaṇa, and attributed to Vālmīki himself, is in form a dialogue which takes place between Vasiṣhṭha and Rāma on the occa- sion of Viśvāmitra's visit (§ 18, C) to Daśaratha's court. This work is in

lxiii] Early Plays: Mahāvīra-Charita substance a huge discursive treatise on the Vedānta philosophy. Adhyātma- Rāmāyaṇa, vii. 5, is popularly known as Rāma-gītā, and is in fact a condensed statement of the Vedānta doctrine after the fashion of the Bhagavad-gītā. And there are any number of lesser treatises exhibiting a tendency to philosophize in and out of season. 26, F. Invention and poetic embellishment.—Finally, single episodes from the Rāmāyaṇa, such as the marriage of Sītā, or the embassy of Aṅgada to Rāvaṇa just before the commencement of the battle, came to be embellished and enlarged, while a few other episodes not actually in the Rāmāyaṇa were invented and treated with much poetic feeling. The number of writers who have in these and various other ways treated the story of the Rāmāyaṇa can be easily counted by hundreds, among them some exceptionally gifted female authors; and their works are even to the present day read by hundreds of thousands of people throughout India; and those who cannot read, go to hear other people— the Kathakas or the Purāṇikas—read and explain them. The Rāmāyaṇa in India is not—and never will be, let us hope—a dead mythology. It is full of the noblest examples of virtue and truth, of devotion and self- sacrifice. Its characters have been for centuries, and still are, living forces moulding the actions and aspirations of the men and women of India.

Bhavabhūti's early plays: Mahāvīra-charita,

Mālatī-Mādhava

27. The Mahāvīra-charita.—Such was the Rāma-story, with a past so glorious and a future so vast and promising, that fascinated our poet and was in fact his first love (M. V. C. i. 7). In the Mahāvīra-charita Bhava- bhūti dramatizes the early history of Rāma, beginning shortly before his marriage and taking up the story of his exile and the abduction of his wife and her recovery, and ending with the return from Laṅkā and the coronation. Now here Bhavabhūti's most immediate problem was to give dramatic unity to a vast number of actions and incidents which extended over a period of fourteen years or more, and which had no intrinsic unity except in so far as they all concerned one person, Rāma. The poet might have introduced the various characters which figure in this part of Rāma's history,—Paraśurāma, Mantharā, Śūrpaṇakhā, Khara and the army of the fourteen thousand, Mārīcha, Jaṭāyus, Sugrīva, Vālin, Hanūmant, Śramaṇā, Vibhīshaṇa, Kumbhakarṇa, Rāvaṇa, and so on,—like a series of moving

pictures, and then dismissed them as quickly as they appeared. The result would have been a panoramic procession and not a play with a unified plot. It is likely that the earliest dramatizations of the Rāma-story were of this kind. The first step in the evolution of these 'epic plays' or 'chronicle plays', as we might call them, was perhaps the division of the story as a whole into minor episodes of inherent dramatic unity, and the employment of one of these units as the material for a play. This step may well have been taken by Bhāsa, who comes at least a century or two before Kālidāsa. Two of Bhāsa's plays—'The Coronation of Rāma' or Abhisheka-nāṭaka and 'The Image' or Pratimā—are based upon books iv-vi of the Rāmāyaṇa. We should expect a third Rāma-play by Bhāsa covering books i-iii, if not also a fourth covering book vii. At any rate Bhāsa treated the Mahā-Bhārata story in this fashion, dividing it into a number of separate episodes, each forming the subject of a single play. In most of these earlier plays, however, there was presumably no attempt made to show that the incidents were inevitable. They followed in a definite sequence, because the epic narrated them in that sequence. 28. Bhavabhūti's departure from the Rāmāyaṇa.—Now consider what Bhavabhūti does in order to bring about the desired unity of plot and adequate motivation. When Janaka proclaims his daughter Sītā's svayaṁ- vara, then Rāvaṇa, king of the demons, offers himself as a candidate for her hand. He does not indeed come personally, as suitors were expected to do: he is too proud for that. He sends a messenger who was to ask or rather demand Sītā in marriage. His suit is not only refused, but, even in the presence of his messenger, the girl is betrothed to Rāma—a mere mortal. This was an insult to Rāvaṇa's valour and prowess, and he is further incensed and mortified to learn that Rāma had killed Tāṭakā and Subāhu, and a number of other demons. Rāvaṇa is naturally burning for revenge (act i). However, Mālyavant, Rāvaṇa's trusted minister and adviser, tries to pacify him, and promises to secure his ends by gentler means: by diplomacy. The minister accordingly meets Paraśurāma and instigates him against Rāma (act ii, interlude). Unexpectedly, Paraśurāma is himself vanquished (act iii). This was a great blow to Mālyavant's scheme; the old diplomat does not, however, despair. He sends Rāvaṇa's sister, Śūrpaṇakhā, with instructions that she was to assume the form of the nurse Mantharā and, before Rāma returned to Ayodhyā from his marriage, give him the message (as if coming from his step-mother Kaikeyī) to withdraw into exile for fourteen years. By this plan Mālyavant hoped to draw Rāma

lxv] Early Plays : Mahāvīra-Charita and his wife undefended into the forest, where with the army of demons that Khara had under command, it would not have been very difficult to overpower Rāma and abduct his wife. The ruse succeeds.¹ Rāma dutifully accepts his exile, and Lakshmaṇa and Sītā accompany him (act iv). The abduction of Sītā now follows as a matter of course (act v, interlude). Since, however, Mālyavant did not succeed in crushing Rāma by the help of the army of the fourteen thousand, he prevails upon the very reluctant Vālin to undertake that task. The fight between Vālin and Rāma which follows is a fair one, and at its end Vālin dies, commending his son and his brother Sugrīva to Rāma's care ² (act v). This is the real climax of the play. Mālyavant has been using one means after another to secure his desired end, but all things work against him. Diplomacy had been tried and in vain. Nothing now remained but to risk one last united effort to overpower the enemy by force. This also succeeds no better. Rāvaṇa is killed (act vi) and Vibhīshaṇa installed in his place. Rāma thereupon recovers his wife, returns to Ayodhyā, and is crowned king (act vii). 29. Technical significance of these changes.—Now it is quite clear that even from the start Bhavabhūti has here taken great liberties with his sources. His changes are deliberate, well-advised. He seems to have had a clear conception of just what he wanted to do, and what to avoid. He was not satisfied with a mere reproduction in dramatic form of what the epic gave in a narrative form. He wanted to establish, as far as feasible, a necessary sequence between the various experiences and adven- tures through which his hero passes. But this is not all. He so selects the incidents, and, where there was no choice for him, so modifies them as to bring out, by contrast, all the fine points in Rāma's character. Bhavabhūti represents Rāma as an embodiment of duty, patience, truthful- ness, valour, and chivalry. And to set these qualities in high relief, he brings Rāma into contact with Paraśurāma, who has indeed valour, but valour marred by a fiery temper; with Vālin, who is chivalrous, but lacks strength of conviction, and so is easily beguiled by diplomacy; with

¹ Notice how by this one stroke Bhavabhūti beautiful woman (which disguise she secures three distinct objects. 1. He could, as a she-demon, easily assume). saves the character of Kaikeyī entirely. 3. Bhavabhūti also gains further oppor- 2. By bringing Śūrpaṇakhā thus early tunity for heightening Rāma's character. into contact with Rāma he gains adequate ² Thus the poet skilfully avoids 1. Rāma's motivation for her later conduct; for, if compromising conduct in relation to Rāma could not see through Śūrpaṇakhā's Vālin, and 2. the spectacle of the un- disguise as a nurse, no more was he ex- righteous quarrel between the brothers pected to see through her disguise as a Vālin and Sugrīva. i [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [lxvi Mālyavant, whose misfortune it is to know the better and follow the worse; and finally with Rāvaṇa, whose great qualities of mind and of body (and they are great) are rendered futile by the adulterous passion that dominates and ruins him. In fact, it would not be incorrect to say that the whole play is a struggle between a noble, sincere, straightforward policy and a crooked, underhand, unscrupulous diplomacy, ending in an utter discomfiture of the latter. 30. Merits of the Mahāvīra-charita.—In addition to a unified plot the play affords us some attempts at genuine characterization. The poet has taken great pains to make Rāma an ideal of chivalry. He has no malice against his enemies (i. 31, i. 32¹), generously recognizes their valour (ii. 35, 36, and passim), and is considerate in his treatment of them after their defeat (iv. 21, v. 56). At the same time he is fully confident of his prowess (ii. 33²), and scorns to receive from his enemies any sympathy or advantage that goes beyond the strict code of chivalry (ii. 46¹, v. 50). He is generous and devoted to those whom he has once called his friends (v. 58¹⁷, v. 60), and has a supreme sense of his duty as a pupil (i. 38), as a son (iv. 42), and as a king (iv. 39). We have already spoken of the types of character¹ that are contrasted with his. It is necessary, however, to add that, although Bhavabhūti is conscious of the original divine nature of Rāma (vii. 2), he has tried to show him (except in one or two places) as entirely human and normal. The divine does not intrude itself too prominently and so dull our sympathies, as it does in some of the successors of our poet. The play contains some splendid poetry, and, especially in acts iii and iv, some spirited dialogue. 31. Defects of the Mahāvīra-charita.—The main drawback of the play is the circumstance that its characterization, however clever in some places, is generally stiff and unconvincing; there is no such thing as character- development, unless we choose to call the change of mood in Paraśurāma a development. Thus, from start to finish, Rāma is always the ideal hero, the Mahā-vīra; what we have is a revelation of the different phases of his character, or more correctly speaking, the same phase of his character— bravery, nobility, truthfulness, and what not—revealed under different circumstances and in relation to different persons. So also with Sītā. We do not find in her that fine shading of character and blending of opposing motives, that delicate growth of passion and affection that Bhavabhūti portrays, for instance, in the heroine of the Mālatī-Mādhava. The same may be said of the minister Mālyavant (see also § 36), who in this respect ¹ We may also mention the attempt to differentiate the characters (acts iii and iv) of Janaka and Daśaratha, and of Śatānanda and Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha.

lxvii] Early Plays: Mālatī-Mādhava compares very unfavourably with the sublime character of Rākshasa in Viśākhadatta's Mudrā-Rākshasa. Another characteristic defect of the play is the poet's inability to stop when enough has been already said. Thus Mālyavant's self-revelation— the painful exposition of his motives, his hopes, and his fears—becomes positively tedious, especially in the interlude to act iv; it is not called for, and is technically a blemish. Similarly in act iii, the wordy war between Paraśurāma on the one hand, and Śatānanda and Janaka and Daśaratha and Viśvāmitra on the other, is carried to a length that may perhaps serve to display Bhavabhūti's knowledge of grammar, Yoga, Dharma-śāstra, Mīmāṁsā, and so forth, but that also betrays a radical defect in our poet, the lack of a proper sense of form and measure. As a result, awkward pauses must often have arisen on the stage, one or more characters being compelled to stop and wait till another had concluded his—perhaps poetic, but uncalled for—description or declamation. In fairness to Bhavabhūti however, it must be said that his treatment of the Bharata episode (end of act iv) and of the Vālin-Sugrīva incident can hardly be bettered. Here he gives the desired effect by a few bold strokes; and Vibhīshaṇa's remark (v. 58¹⁸), ‘How touching is this brevity where a prolix statement might have been looked for!’ can very appropriately be applied to Bhavabhūti's own treatment of the theme, as indeed he himself probably intended.¹ Finally we may mention that the language of the play is crude and lacks the grace and polish, and even the directness and vigour, of Bhava- bhūti's later plays. The descriptions are often lengthy and involved, and the diction then becomes stilted and unnatural. The poet may also be charged with some inconsistencies of statement: cp. vii. 16ᶜ with v. 38². The metrical test (see appendix 1) confirms the impression that the play is probably the earliest ² of the three plays of Bhavabhūti. 32. The Mālatī-Mādhava.—This play was probably written not very long after the Mahāvīra-charita. It is in ten acts and is technically called a prakaraṇa, and its plot, taken as a whole, is the poet's own invention. Quite possibly, of course, he may have received from various sources hints for certain incidents and episodes of the story. Thus (as noted at § 4) some parts of it, such as the journey from the Berars to Padmāvatī, are perhaps autobiographical; while others, such as the marriage of a nobleman from the Berars (Mādhava) with a distinguished lady of Northern India

¹ Bhavabhūti is very fond of introducing in his plays such indirect self-praise : com- pare M.M. i. 35¹⁰, vi. 13²; U.R.C. iii. 47⁵. But he generally takes care to introduce it so skilfully as not to destroy the stage- illusion.

² Compare also the prologue (i. 7²), where the work is called new or apūrva; every play is in a sense apūrva, but it is usually in his first play that an author tries to excuse himself on this ground. Cf. Mālavikā, i. 2.,

Introduction [lxviii]

(Mālatī), may have been suggested by historic facts.¹ For the central story, Bhavabhūti seems to have been indebted to the Bṛihatkathā, which—to judge from Kshemendra's synopsis thereof ² and from Soma- deva's Kathāsaritsāgara ³—contained three separate stories of the temple- runaways (see below, § 33, D) and the marriage in disguise (§ 33, E) and the immolation and rescue of a princess (§ 33, F).⁴ The play is of the romantic type, the central interest being a love-story, or rather a dexterous blending together of two love-stories. The plot is crowded with incident and adventure, thrilling us now with hope and now with fear, and the sequences are so far removed from the commonplace that we can never guess what is to come next until near the very end. And the action is projected upon a weird background, with tigers running wild in the streets, ghosts squeaking in the cemeteries, and mystic Kāpālikas performing gruesome rites in their blood-stained temples. 33, A. Analytic statement of the plot of the Mālatī-Mādhava.—Bhūri- vasu and Devarāta, two young friends and fellow-students at the University,⁵ promise each other before parting that, if they should marry and settle down, they would endeavour to pass on their friendship to the next generation by bringing about, if possible, a marriage between their own children. This promise is made in the presence of another fellow-student, Kāmandakī, and her pupil Saudāminī. The friends part. Bhūrivasu becomes minister of the king of Padmāvatī, and has a daughter named Mālatī; while Devarāta has a similar position at Kuṇḍinapura, the capital of the Berars, and has a son named Mādhava. The children grow up and Devarāta sends his son to Padmāvatī, ostensibly to complete his education, but really to remind Bhūrivasu of his early promise. Devarāta is too cautious to send his son direct to Bhūrivasu; instead, he sends him to Kāmandakī, who had now become a Buddhist nun, and was staying in a monastery (vihāra) at Padmāvatī, much honoured both by the king and his minister. 33, B.—Bhūrivasu comes to know of Mādhava's presence in the city, and is not averse to giving his Mālatī in marriage to Mādhava; only it so happens that the king his master has already asked Bhūrivasu to give his daughter Mālatī in marriage to an old court-favourite of his called Nandana:

¹ For two notable marriages of this kind in the Vākāṭaka dynasty of the Berars, we have epigraphic testimony: JRAS., April, 1914, p. 325. ² See his Bṛihatkathāmañjarī (Kāvyamālā, no. 69), xi. 6–88; 67–78; iii. 218–30. ³ See Kathāsaritsāgara, xiii. 17–150; 158–215; iv. 146–203. ⁴ It would be interesting to study the various artistic changes which Bhavabhūti made in his originals. ⁵ Ancient India had famous seats of learning (Ujjain, Takshaśilā, Nālandā), each housing and feeding and teaching thousands of bachelor students. See Hiuen Tsang's description of Nālandā (book ix: S. Beal's translation, ii. 167).