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

Introduction [lxxxii] It is clear that a poet who could fathom so deeply the inmost recesses of the human heart and produce a result which, from beginning to end, is so perfectly artistic because it is so perfectly natural, was a dramatist of no mean order. Similar genuinely human touches are found on almost every page of the drama. 42. Recognition-scene in the sixth act of the Uttara-Rāma-charita.— So far the poet has given us a brilliant opening and a real psychological climax, but the climax of situations is yet to come. In the latter part of the play the great act of course is the sixth, and the poet has been preparing us for it ever since the interlude to act ii. There we hear of the horse-sacrifice for the first time; Rāma confirms the news in iii. 46¹², and towards the end of act iv we actually see the horse. Similarly at the end of act iii Rāma is just starting in his pushpaka car to return to Ayodhyā, and we naturally expect him to see what was happening in Vālmīki's penance-grove on the banks of the Ganges, seeing that it lay just on the way from the south. Thus Rāma's appearance on the scene exactly when he does appear (vi. 6⁴) is adequately explained. Finally, that Lava should see and capture the horse and that a battle should ensue was also quite inevitable. The recognition itself is very artistically conceived and carried out except that here and there a point is rather over-laboured¹—at least so it seems to us, however it may have seemed to Bhavabhūti's audience. The various steps in the process are summarized in our Notes to vi. 27¹, and here we may call attention particularly to the very natural way in which Lava is led to talk of his twin-brother (iv. 22¹⁵⁻⁴¹ and again vi. 15⁴ff.). Notice also how, in regard to the similarity of looks between the father and the sons, which is one of the links in the argument, the poet has tried to gain dramatic probability for the fact by letting at least three other persons besides Rāma himself be impressed by it. The whole recognition scene is worthy to be put on a par with the analogous scene in Kālidāsa's Śākuntala (act vii); in some respects it would seem that Bhavabhūti has made a distinct advance over the latter. A sort of suspense is also created by making the recognition not complete until the very end of the last act. **43. Other merits of the Uttara-Rāma-charita.—**If we compare the interludes in the Uttara-Rāma-charita with those in the Mahāvīra-charita or in the Mālatī-Mādhava, we notice another great advance which the poet has made: he has now recognized the full dramatic value of the interlude. We have no longer some person or persons brought on the stage expressly to give us information (cp. interludes to M. M. ii and vii), nor ¹ I have in mind Rāma's long soliloquy in movement against soliloquies is, however, act vi, particularly vi. 27¹-vi. 28⁴. The distinctly modern.

lxxxiii] Uttara-Rāma-Charita: Critical Estimate a tedious soliloquizer like Mālyavant (cp. interludes to M. V. C. ii and vi) who reveals to us the exact situation of things; neither do the characters begin, as is sometimes done, by expressly telling us who they are and what they are doing (cp. interludes to M. M. v and ix; also M. V. C. iv. 40⁴); but rather we find a group of persons with an individuality of their own who conduct the dialogue and give us the necessary information without seeming to do so. We have some approaches to this in the Mahāvīra- charita (cp. interludes to acts v and vii); but the best interludes are those to acts iv and ii of the Uttara-Rāma-charita. In these interludes there is hardly a word wasted, and they are entirely natural and adequate. The least successful is the one to U. R. C. act vi. Secondly, the poet has developed in this play some remarkable instances of dramatic irony. Thus in that picture-gallery scene of act i, while Rāma and Sītā are enjoying the ‘bliss of sorrows remembered’,¹ looking upon them more or less as things of the past the memory of which is to be revived only to season the cup of present joy, the audience has already heard (i. 6) of the rumour and partly divines the fate that is hanging over the two, so that it fully understands why it is that almost in spite of himself Rāma strikes a sorrowful note ² and seems to have a foreboding of he knows not what. And just at the moment when Rāma bursts into that sublime apostrophe to his sleeping wife (i. 38)—‘What of hers is not dear, save only that unendurable separation?’—the Female-warder's ‘Is come’ does indeed startle Rāma,³ but on the audience it is calculated to produce an impression not unlike that made by Iago’s aside after a similar outburst of Othello (ii. 1. 185).⁴ There is also some clever irony in acts iv and v, and throughout the recognition scene of act vi. Finally, consider how skilfully the author has tried to bridge over the twelve-year interval that separates the first act from the rest of the play.⁵ He brings the fact home to us in various ways. The nature-descriptions in act ii (especially stanza 27) and the account of the young peacock (iii. 19, 20, 21) and the elephant-cub now grown to full maturity (iii. 16, 17) make us realize that during this period growth and change were in constant

¹ Cp. Raghuvaṁśa, xiv. 25. ² Cp. i. 27² to i. 33ᵈ. It is worthy of remark that stanza i. 23, where Rāma invokes the blessings of the Bhāgīrathī, is in the sad dirge-like hariṇī metre. See appendix 1. ³ Cp. note to the English Translation of the passage. ⁴ Othello. O my soul’s joy! If after every tempest come such calms, May the winds blow till they have waken’d death! • • • • • Iago (aside). O, you are well tun’d now! But I’ll set down the pegs that make this music. ⁵ Under similar conditions Shakespeare has introduced Time as the Chorus who turns his glass, and leaves ‘the growth untri’d’ (The Winter’s Tale, iv. 1).

Introduction [lxxxiv progress. Men also had grown and witnessed changes of station. Thus king Janaka has for some years given up the offices of state and sought solace in retirement (iv. 12⁷); the demon Lavaṇa, who broke upon us at the close of act i, has been killed and his · kingdom is now in the hands of Śatrughna (vii. 19²⁹; cp. Rāmāyaṇa, vii. 70–71); and the twelve-year session of the sacrifice (i. 4¹, ii. 6¹²) has come to an end. But amid this fluctuation there were also elements of constancy. The mountains remain unchanged (ii. 27ᵈ); the deer still remember her who used to feed them in the kadalī grove in the Pañchavaṭī (iii. 22⁵, 26; cp. also Kādambarī, p. 21, ll. 19–20); Rāma is constant and devoted to the memory of his wife;¹ and above all, the holy pair, Vasiṣṭha and Arundhatī, still continue to guard the interests of the Raghu family, and, out of the calamities that have happened and that they in part had foreseen (iv. 17⁶), they succeed in working a prosperous issue. 44. Defects of the Uttara-Rāma-charita.—The play, in spite of its great excellence, is not entirely free from faults. Thus the poet still retains—though in a far less degree—his old fondness for long descriptions and alliterative compounds. These are particularly obtrusive in acts v and vi. Elsewhere also the poet would have done better to condense and omit so as to secure a general quickening of the action; and if the results of appendixes 6 and 8 are correct, it would seem that the author himself sanctioned such curtailment for stage-purposes. Secondly, Bhavabhūti has not yet quite got over his fondness for display, and his points are sometimes laboured. The sentiment of the play is on the whole very real, but in its expression we sometimes catch a jarring note. Thus Rāma brings his ‘heart’s vitals’ rather too frequently into his speeches, and not all the faintings in the play are as inevitable and as artistically necessary as that of Rāma at iii. 39¹. Particularly infelicitous are the Vidyādhara- Vidyādharī sentiments at vi. 4 ff. and especially vi. 5. Finally, we may mention that in none of Bhavabhūti’s extant plays do we (except in U. R. C., act iv) find any pronounced humour. Bhavabhūti’s humour, what little there is of it, is of the purely intellectual character and springs more from situation and irony (e. g. U. R. C. vi. 19¹² ᶠ, iv. 22²⁰, iii. 46¹⁶). Only once does Sītā herself indulge in a joke (i. 18²) and even then it is of the sober matronly kind quite in accord with her character. This absence in Bhavabhūti’s plays of anything like a pervading lighter vein² may be due to the fact that the poet took his subject too seriously, felt in other ¹ Cp. p. lxxix, above, and also U. R. C. iii. 14⁶;    that Bhavabhūti was a conscious imi-   iii. 43¹⁴; vi. 38⁶; &c.            tator of Śūdraka in the ‘Clay Cart’. ² This by itself would rule out the theory

lxxxv] Common Characteristics of Bhavabhūti's Plays words that he had a lesson to teach; or finally that he was tempera- mentally incapable of dwelling long on the sunny side of life. A few more defects of a minor nature could also be pointed out; but in this connexion the more important thing is to see how many of his earlier shortcomings he has in this play successfully overcome, and so to realize, as Bhavabhūti did, that the key to consummate success lies in a constant practice in the light of earlier failures. 45. Some common characteristics¹ of Bhavabhūti's plays.—The three plays were all given as open-air performances on the occasion of a religious fair, and they end happily. The hero in all cases is devoted to one wife, and there is no illicit love of any kind. Pathos is the prevailing sentiment in the U. R. C., and it is not wholly absent in the other two plays. In all of them there appears at least one aged mourner. They show only one kind of Prākrit, Śaurasenī, and it is all prose and no verse.² All the three plays have characters flying through the air (two of them have aerial cars), and this circumstance, as well as the effect of light and shade given by the stanza vyatikara iva,³ is of importance in connexion with the stage- properties.⁴ We have already spoken (§ 37) of the long Prākrit passages in the Mālatī-Mādhava as an indication of the nature of Bhavabhūti's audience; we may further note that all the three plays contain a number of learned allusions to different Śāstras, and this must be meant as an appeal to another element of the audience. Finally, what are called unities of time and place are entirely absent in the plays. The action moves in a rapid succession from the interior of a house or a palace to the garden surrounding it, the street, the cemetery, the river, or the forest, sometimes indeed the high regions of the atmosphere. Then as to time, the first play covers a period of some fifteen years, the last about twelve years. The action of the Mālatī-Mādhava occupies nearly three months. The only unity recognized is the unity of plot. About that we have spoken elsewhere. All these circumstances make it likely that the plays were given by one and the same company of actors; and this is an important factor in determining the authorship of the stage-emendations discussed in appendix 8. ¹ Mere parallelisms in words, images, and sentiments will be found collected in appendix 3. ² M. M. vi. 10 and 11 are so worded as to have one form both in Sanskrit and in Prākrit. ³ M. M. ix. 54; x. 8; U. R. C. v. 13; M. V. C. has the thing (i. 43) but not the words. This last circumstance might be additional proof that the M. V. C. was the earliest of the three plays. ⁴ See appendix 11.

Introduction [lxxxvi]

Bhavabhūti as a Poet

46. Bhavabhūti's shortcomings.—So far as it is possible to separate the functions of a dramatist from those of a poet, we will now try to bring out some of the special qualities of Bhavabhūti's poetry; and first we will speak of his shortcomings because they are so very few. Most of them are on the surface, and are the more often felt because critics attempt to apply to the poet standards which belong neither to his country nor to his time; but some are radical defects, and belong as much to the man as to his works. Thus, especially in his early works, the poet does not seem to have risen above the standards imposed upon him from without. He came after Bāṇa, or at least at a time when long mouth-filling words were regarded as the very essence of poetic composition. Words had to be arranged in a particular way so as to give a particular rīti, a particular kind of alliterative effect, which was supposed to represent a particular kind of emotional mood. Softer emotions were expressed in simpler words, the more fiery or warlike emotions in harsh, guttural sounds, uttered in rapid succession.¹ The result has been those long descriptive passages in the Mālatī-Mādhava and elsewhere, which do not even contain ideas sufficiently poetic to offer a sort of a justification for the poet. It may be that his own audience was trained to such language, and grasped it more readily than we can do now, but the very fact that, as he advanced in his work, he gave up his earlier and more cumbrous style in favour of the simpler style of the Uttara- Rāma-charita, is an argument against such a supposition. Where there is such a deliberate straining after effect we need not be surprised if here and there we meet some infelicities of expression.² Secondly, Bhavabhūti now and then exhibits a tendency to exaggerate, and so to transcend the bounds of what is poetically probable. We must not, however, in this case judge the poet too harshly. Almost all romantic writers, Oriental or non- Oriental, modern or ancient, not infrequently indulge in exaggeration for the sake of deeper colour and stronger effect. A third fault in Bhavabhūti is pithily expressed by the formula that he has more passion than poetry. As Dr. Bhandarkar puts it, where Kālidāsa suggests, Bhavabhūti expresses. ‘The characters of the latter, overcome by the force of passion, often weep bitterly, while those of the former simply shed a few tears, if they do so at all.’³ Now with an external manifestation of emotions as such, we need

¹ This is best illustrated in U. R. C. v. 26, where the first half has a different rīti from the last half. Most of the illustra- tions which follow are purposely chosen from this play only. ² Thus guñjat used of an elephant's roar (U. R. C. v. 6ᵃ); ghaṭā used of a flock of owls (U. R. C. ii. 29ᵃ); &c. ³ Mālatī-Mādhava, 2nd ed., preface, p. xii.

lxxxvii] Bhavabhūti as a Poet have no quarrel; it is a characteristic as much of a people as of a man, or of a particular period in the life of a man. Thus the ancient Greeks had it to a great extent, and even Kālidāsa's Dushyanta shows enough of it in the sixth act of the Śākuntala. Is the emotion genuine? is the expression natural? that is the main question. And we saw (§ 37) that such is not always the case in the Mālatī-Mādhava. In the Uttara-Rāma- charita the emotion is genuine, but the expression (especially fainting) is, to say the least, peculiar. A few other defects, such as the poet's use of the miraculous and his fondness for display, have already been mentioned. 47. Bhavabhūti's merits.—The real merits of the poet far outweigh his defects. We have spoken of his cumbrous style; this, however, is true only of his descriptive prose, and of less than a fourth part of his verse. Elsewhere, and whenever something stirring or momentous is happening on the stage, his language becomes notably simpler and simpler, until in some of the most intense situations he seems to have abjured compounds altogether.¹ No writer in fact has succeeded in keeping his prose and his poetry on two so entirely distinct footings. Then as to the ability to suggest the picture by a few, bold strokes, Bhavabhūti is not entirely devoid of such power;² more usually, however, instead of seeking for artistic similes and figures of speech, which were Kālidāsa's forte,³ Bhava- bhūti likes to select a few typical aspects of a situation or an emotion, and state them barely in succession; and this is equally effective in spite of, or rather because of, the absence of any poetic embellishments.⁴ We have already commented sufficiently upon the poet's skill in portraying the deeper emotions of the human heart. This he does quite as much by a cumulation of epithets, as by a solitary word or sentence put into the mouth of some character. Instances of the former kind are not far to seek;⁵ of the latter we may mention the exquisitely self-revealing speech of Sītā as she awakes to find herself alone (i. 51² ff.), or, in the words of Wilson, the truly Shakespearian device (U. R. C. i. 8⁶) of the chamberlain's addressing the newly crowned king first as 'Rāma dear' and then as 'Your Majesty'. Similarly the other chamberlain of the play (act iv), true to his calling, merely repeats or paraphrases the words of his betters. ¹ Cp. U. R. C. ii. 27 ; iii. 31 ff. ; iii. 46 ; iv. 13 ; vi. 11 ; vii. 6 ; &c. ² Compare for instance U. R. C. i. 29, or that beautiful description of the peacock in iii. 19 and 20. ³ 'Upamā Kālidāsasya.' Some of Bhavabhūti's particularly happy similes in our play are : i. 45 ; ii. 4 ; iii. 5 ; iii. 30 ; iii. 43 ; v. 11 ; vi. 4 ; vi. 17 ; &c. ⁴ Compare i. 27 ; i. 43 ; ii. 27 ; iii. 16 ; iii. 38 ; iv. 1 ; iv. 4 ; vi. 19 ; &c. ⁵ As typical ones we may mention U. R. C. i. 35 f. ; ii. 26 ; iii. 11 f. ; iii. 32 ; iii. 36; iii. 39 ; vi. 9 ; &c.

Introduction [lxxxviii It is touches like these¹ that tell us as much about the character of the chamberlain as the two descriptions of it given by Kālidāsa (Śākuntala, v. i; Vikramorvaśīya, iii. 1). In this connexion we may observe that the poet is at pains to put in the mouth of each character words the most appropriate. Thus Lava, pupil of the saint Vālmīki, speaks a language that is tinged with religious learning (v. 31¹), just as the language of Janaka is tinged with the philosophy for which he is so famous in the Upanishads. Tamasā, the River-goddess, is full of similes drawn from her experience in the water.² The two ascetic youths in the interlude to act iv, Uttara-Rāma-charita, take a keen pleasure in logical discussions, attempting to detect fallacies and draw subtle distinctions, just as students might have done in the great mediaeval universities of India. Bhavabhūti has also given us some very beautiful pictures of animals, investing them of course with human feelings.³ 48. Conclusion.—But it is hardly necessary to enumerate all such merits one by one. Appreciative criticisms of this sort are more or less subjective, and it is no longer the fashion for a translator or an editor of an ancient text to take his reader by the button, stop him in front of every picture, and ask him to admire it, and even to tell him how he should admire it. If a modern reader, and especially a foreigner, is given just the help necessary to understand the exact situation, and to get from it the exact implication that was got by a Hindu of Bhavabhūti's time who saw the play acted, that is all that can be expected in an edition like this. Once the preliminary ground has been cleared, and the needful informa- tion given, the play can confidently be left to win its own conquests. It will not lack readers. In India it has never lacked enthusiastic admirers. Never, O never mayest Thou condemn me to sing my song unto hearts that answer not! Such was the prayer of an old Sanskrit poet. A deeper note was struck by Bhavabhūti: It may be that a spirit kindred to mine will some day be born; for time is endless, and the world is wide! ¹ Cp. also our Note to U. R. C. iii. 26². iii. 43ᶜ; and iii. 48. ² Cp. U. R. C. iii. 13ᵈ; iii. 24; iii. 30; iii. 35ᵇ; ³ Cp. iii. 15 f. ; iii. 20 ff. ; iv. 1ᵃᵇ ; iv. 26 ; &c.

TRANSLATION 1 [H.O.S. 21]

DRAMATIS PERSONAE¹ A. MAIN CHARACTERS. Rāma, King of Kosala (capital Ayodhyā), son of Daśaratha and Kausalyā. Ashṭāvakra, a Brahman messenger. Durmukha,† a state spy. An aged chamberlain (kañchukin). A female warder† (pratīhārī). Śambūka, a Śūdra ascetic killed by Rāma.² Kausalyā,† Rāma’s mother, widow of King Daśaratha.³ Grishṭi, a chamberlain in attendance upon her. Sītā,† Rāma’s wife, daughter of King Janaka and Earth-goddess. Janaka, Sītā’s father, King of Videha (capital Mithilā). Arundhatī, wife of sage Vasishṭha, Rāma’s family-preceptor. Kuśa and Lava, twin sons of Rāma and Sītā. Vālmīki, foster-father and teacher of the twins, author of the Rāmāyaṇa. Lakshmaṇa, Rāma’s half-brother, son of Daśaratha and Sumitrā. Chandraketu, son of Lakshmaṇa and Ūrmilā. Sumantra, Chandraketu’s charioteer. A man (purusha) from Chandraketu’s army. ¹ Speakers behind the curtain and persons addressed ākāśe are not separately men- tioned here. ² He is immediately reborn as a celestial being. ³ Often spoken of in the plural : Daśarathasya dārāḥ or mahishyaḥ, Rāmasya mātaraḥ, ambāḥ, &c. This may be a plural of respect, although there is also the impli- cation of the mere presence of the step- mothers of Rāma. † These four characters speak Prākrit; the rest, Sanskrit.

B. INTERLOCUTORS.¹ For the Prologue at the beginning of Act i. Reciter of the customary Invocation (Nāndī). Stage-manager (Sūtradhāra). An actor. For the Interlude at the beginning of Act ii. Vāsantī, a sylvan deity of the forest of Daṇḍakā.² Ātreyī, a former student of Vālmīki's. For the Interlude at the beginning of Act iii. Tamasā, Goddess of the river Tamasā.² Muralā, Goddess of the river Muralā. For the Interlude at the beginning of Act iv. Bhāṇḍāyana } Saudhātaki,† } ascetic boys, fellow-students of the twins at Vālmīki's. For the arrival of the horse, near the end of Act iv. Boys (baṭavaḥ) much excited upon seeing the unfamiliar animal. For the Interlude at the beginning of Act vi. An air-sprite (Vidyādhara) } witnesses, in an aerial car, of Lava's His mate (Vidyādharī),† } combat with Chandraketu. For the play within the play in Act vii. Stage-manager, for the Prologue in Vālmīki's little play. Sītā,† a heavenly nymph (apsaras) representing Sītā. Earth-goddess (Pṛithivī), mother of Sītā } nymphs enacting these Goddess of the river Bhāgīrathī (Ganges) } parts.³ Twin boys, just born. ¹ These figure mainly in the Prologue and the Interludes, and give information of events not enacted on the stage. ² Takes also an active share in the main plot of Act iii. ³ The real Pṛithivī and Bhāgīrathī have only a stanza in common (vii. 17), and each has separately a short speech from behind the curtain. † These three characters speak Prākrit; the rest, Sanskrit.

SYNOPTIC ANALYSIS OF THE PLAY PROLOGUE: i. 1—i. 7² TRANSLATION, PAGES 15–17. Scene* 1 (i. 1—i. 2). Ujjain (?): a booth at the fair of Kālapriyanātha. The Director recites the customary Invocation (i. 1); he withdraws upon the entrance of the Stage-manager (i. 1¹), who announces the title of the play, with a few words about its author (i. 1³—i. 2). Scene 2 (i. 2¹—i. 7²). Ayodhyā: a large square near Rāma's palace. The Stage-manager, now representing one of the many bards assembled for the coronation of Rāma after his victory at Laṅkā, inquires (i. 2³) why the festal music in the squares has ceased. Enters an actor and replies that it is because the coronation is over and the guests are gone. He adds that the Queen-mothers and other persons of age and authority have left Ayodhyā¹ to attend the twelve-year² sacrifice (i. 3) at the hermitage of Ṛiṣhyaśṛiṅga, the husband of Rāma's sister Śāntā, and that they did so reluctantly, as it involved their leaving behind them Sītā, now far gone with child. The actor also alludes incidentally to a false rumour about Sītā (i. 6), and expresses assurance (i. 6²) that sages and deities will intervene³ in order that no evil may come out of it. Upon inquiry they learn that Rāma is just returning home to comfort the disconsolate Sītā (i. 7), and so the Stage-manager and his companion go about their duties (i. 7¹, i. 4³). * In this synopsis the play has been divided into scenes, irrespective of the canons of Hindu dramaturgy, which do not recognize such a division. The entrances and exits and the place of action have served as the guiding principle. ¹ This statement makes it clear that, in the absence of persons to whose authority Rāma owed deference (his gurus), he is acting of his own accord when he aban- dons his wife. Compare ii. 6¹⁰, iv. 10⁵. ² This period represents the interval between the first Act and the rest of the action of the play. It is alluded to more than once later; compare ii. 6¹², iii. 34, vii. 15, &c. ³ And this in fact they do, thus bringing about a non-tragic ending to the play. Cp. iii. 3, vii. 17, vii. 18⁶ff.

5] Synoptic Analysis of the Play ACT I. THE PICTURE-GALLERY TRANSLATION, PAGES 17–30. Scene 1 (i. 7³—i. 14³). Ayodhyā: A chamber in Rāma's palace. Enter Rāma and Sītā. He tries to console her. Enters the chamberlain (i. 8⁶) to announce the arrival of Aṣṭāvakra, a messenger from Ṛiṣyaśṛiṅga's hermitage, and exit. Enters Aṣṭāvakra with his message: A. that all is well with the Queen-mothers and the rest, and that they confidently expect (i. 9¹) for Sītā heroic¹ progeny; B. that all the women enjoin upon Rāma to satisfy promptly any longings of pregnancy (i. 10²) that Sītā may have; and C. that his family-preceptor, Vasiṣṭha, exhorts Rāma to do his utmost to keep his subjects pleased.² Exit Aṣṭāvakra, announcing the entrance of Lakṣmaṇa. Enters Lakṣmaṇa and proposes (i. 12⁵), as a diversion, a visit to the picture-gallery. Scene 2 (i. 14⁴—i. 33¹⁶). Ayodhyā: the palace-corridor with paintings on the walls depicting Rāma's earlier history. Rāma and Sītā inspect the paintings,³ Lakṣmaṇa serving as cicerone or guide and explaining them (i. 14⁴—i. 33²). The pictures of these familiar scenes arouse in Sītā a longing (i. 33⁶ f.) for an excursion to the Ganges. Rāma orders Lakṣmaṇa to bring forthwith an easy carriage for her (i. 33¹¹ f.). Exit Lakṣmaṇa (i. 33¹⁶). Scene 3 (i. 33¹⁷—i. 51¹⁵). Ayodhyā: a balcony near the palace-corridor. After the pictures Sītā feels fatigue. Rāma begs her to rest; she does so, her head pillowed on Rāma's arm, and falls asleep (i. 37³). Enters a female warder (i. 38¹) to announce Durmukha, an old and trusty spy, and exit. Enters Durmukha (i. 38⁸), who, with grief, whispers to Rāma (i. 39⁷) the scandalous rumour about Sītā. Rāma knows her innocence and yet, to please the people, resolves to abandon her (i. 40¹).

¹ The Sanskrit word for 'heroic' means both 'valorous' and 'male'. ² This message has an important bearing on the action of the play. A. The confident expectation as to the sex of Sītā's offspring, and Rāma's further knowledge (cp. vi. 28) that it was to be twins, serve as im- portant links in the recognition and final identification of the two sons when Rāma encounters them in Act vi. B. gives Rāma the pretext under cover of which Sītā is led away (cp. i. 33⁷f., i. 43¹, i. 51⁹f.). C. Vasiṣṭha's reminder fortifies Rāma in his resolve (i. 41¹, i. 42).

³ This episode gives occasion for the tender love between Rāma and Sītā to show itself, and thus heightens by contrast the grief of their ensuing separation. Incidentally the sight of the picture of the magic missiles (jṛimbhakāstra) leads Rāma to assure Sītā that the actual missiles shall be at the service of her offspring (i. 15²). The picture of the Ganges calls forth from Rāma a prayer to the river for Sītā's welfare (i. 23¹). Both these inci- dents are important in the dénouement of the play.

Bhavabhūti — Uttara-Rāma-Charita [6 He bids Durmukha tell his change of plan to Lakshmaṇa (i. 43¹). Exit Durmukha (i. 44²). Rāma tears himself gently from his sleeping wife (i. 46). His lamentations (i. 46¹—i. 49²). A voice behind the curtain tells him of a danger threatening some of his Brahman subjects from the demon Lavaṇa (i. 50). The voice recalls him to his kingly duty. He resolves to send his brother Śatrughna against the demon (i. 50¹ ᶠ.). With the prayer¹ (i. 50³ ᶠ.), ‘O holy Earth, watch over thy daughter Sītā’, Rāma leaves her and exit. Sītā wakes and finds herself alone (i. 51³). Enters Durmukha (i. 51⁹) and tells her that Lakshmaṇa has the carriage in readiness for her. She rises (i. 51¹¹) to go—as she supposes—with Rāma to the Ganges. Exeunt all. ACT II. DAṆḌAKĀ REVISITED TRANSLATION, PAGES 31–40. Between Act i and Act ii is an interval of twelve years. Scene 1, Interlude (ii. 0¹—ii. 9²). The forest of Daṇḍakā. Vāsantī, the sylvan deity of Daṇḍakā, welcomes, from behind the curtain, Ātreyī, who enters in the habit of a traveller. Vāsantī herself follows (ii. 0⁴). They exchange compliments and fall into a conversation, in the course of which Ātreyī explains why, although studying at Vālmīki’s, she is compelled to travel southwards in search of instruction (ii. 3): because

1. she could not keep pace (ii. 4) with Kuśa and Lava, twins of unknown lineage, of whom Vālmīki is both teacher and foster-father (ii. 3¹³ ᶠᶠ.); and because 2. Vālmīki himself was recently much occupied with the composition of a new poem, the Rāmāyaṇa (ii. 5⁵ ᶠ.). Having rested (ii. 5¹⁰), Ātreyī rises to go, but the incidental mention (ii. 5¹¹) of some places associated with the life of Sītā in the Daṇḍakā arouses painful memories. Vāsantī, ignorant of the happenings in the distant Ayodhyā, makes anxious inquiries. Ātreyī tells her all, including the most recent act of Rāma—his starting out (ii. 8¹ ᶠ.) in search of a Śūdra ascetic, Śambūka, whose austerities² have caused the premature death of a Brahman’s son. As Śambūka is in the Daṇḍakā, Vāsantī ¹ A prayer which did not remain unheard : cp. iii. 2⁶, vii. 18⁹f. ² The law permitted only Brahmans to practise austerities. Śambūka’s doing so was therefore an offence which, if unpunished, might cause trouble in the kingdom.

7] Synoptic Analysis of the Play expresses hopes (ii. 8³ f.) of soon meeting Rāma there. It is midday (ii. 9); so they both retire. Scene 2 (ii. 9³—ii. 30¹). The forest of Daṇḍakā, particularly that portion of it called Janasthāna. Enters Rāma, in his aerial car¹ named Pushpaka, sword in hand, and makes a pass as if to kill some one behind the curtain (ii. 10¹). Enters a celestial being who explains that he is no other than Śambūka, the Śūdra ascetic of the Daṇḍakā, just killed by Rāma (ii. 11 and ff.). The mention and the actual sight of Daṇḍakā and Janasthāna arouse very painful memories in Rāma (ii. 17—ii. 18). Śambūka's eloquent description (ii. 19¹-21) of the forest scenery affects Rāma all the more, and Rāma consequently dismisses him (ii. 21¹). Śambūka, however, goes away to pay his respects to the sage Agastya, who lived near by, before mounting the car to heaven (ii. 21³). A pathetic soliloquy (ii. 22–28) by Rāma follows. It is interrupted by Śambūka who reappears with the word that Agastya's wife, Lopāmudrā, desires that Rāma will stop a while at her hermitage before returning to Ayodhyā (ii. 28¹ ff.). Rāma accepts the invitation and goes away followed by Śambūka, expressing, however, the intention of visiting the old familiar scenes once more (ii. 28⁶) before leaving for his kingdom. ACT III. THE SHADOW TRANSLATION, PAGES 41–59. The interest of this Act is mainly psychological. Act i saw the separation of Rāma and Sītā, and the motif of Acts ii–vii is their union, which, to be complete, must be both mental and physical.² Act iii achieves the former, and Acts iv–vii the latter. Accordingly, what seems here to be lacking in dramatic movement is more than made up by the richness and faithfulness of its psychology. Scene 1, Interlude (iii. 0¹—iii. 5²). That part of the Daṇḍakā called the Pañchavaṭī. Time: afternoon of the same day as Act ii. Enter two River-goddesses, meeting. The first, Muralā, is the bearer of a message from Lopāmudrā, who has asked (iii. 0⁴—iii. 2) the river Godāvarī to try, by means of cool scented breezes, to soothe and revive Rāma in

¹ It is not clear whether Rāma gets down from the Pushpaka before striking the blow. Probably he does. ² The same motif underlies Acts vi–vii of Kālidāsa's Śākuntala, but his treatment is somewhat different from that of our poet. Compare Introduction, sections 39 and 41.

Bhavabhūti — Uttara-Rāma-Charita [8 case the sight of Pañchavaṭī proved too much for his sorrowing heart. The second, Tamasā, relates (iii. 2⁴⁻⁸) that Queen Sītā, abandoned by Rāma in the forest, there gave birth to twin sons, whom her mother, the Earth, and the divine Ganges have placed in charge of Vālmīki; and that the holy Ganges, anticipating Rāma's present visit to Pañcha- vaṭī, has contrived to bring Sītā herself there (iii. 3¹⁻⁴); and that being, by the favour of the Ganges, rendered invisible (iii. 3¹³) to men (like Rāma) and sylvan deities (like Vāsantī), Sītā can now, in a case of need, revive Rāma by her touch.¹ Thereat Muralā goes to carry the news (iii. 3¹⁶) to Lopāmudrā, and Tamasā to bear company with Sītā. Scene 2 (iii. 5³—iii. 10²). Place and time, the same as before. Enters Sītā, gathering flowers and listening to the speech of Vāsantī behind the curtain. This speech refers to an attack by another elephant upon a young elephant once the pet of Sītā (iii. 6). Sītā, in great excitement, calls upon Rāma to protect her pet, but realizing her situation faints away (iii. 6⁴). Enters Tamasā to comfort her. Sītā is in fact comforted by the sound of Rāma's voice behind the curtain (iii. 6⁹ ff.). Tamasā explains that Rāma was then in Pañchavaṭī on state business (iii. 7⁴). 'How fortunate', observes Sītā (iii. 7⁶), 'that the King is so very assiduous in the discharge of his kingly duties!' Greatly overcome by grief, Rāma, still behind the curtain, calls out Sītā's name and faints (iii. 9⁵). This affects Sītā deeply, and on Tamasā's asking her (iii. 10) to do so, she hurries to where Rāma was (iii. 10¹). Scene 3 (iii. 10³—iii. 15¹⁹). Place and time as before. Enters ² Rāma, at Sītā's touch reviving from his swoon. Sītā, afraid lest Rāma might blame her for presenting herself unbidden before him, suggests to Tamasā that they withdraw. The latter reminds her that she is invisible to Rāma ³ (iii. 12¹¹). Enters Vāsantī (iii. 15⁴) to announce the fight of the elephants, whereupon the whole party—including Sītā and Tamasā—proceed to where the fight was going on (iii. 15¹⁹).

¹ The mysterious power of the beloved one's touch is the constant theme of our poet. Cp. i. 18, 34, 35, 38; iii. 10–12, 14, 39⁹, 40, 41, 42; iv. 21¹¹; vi. 4⁴ ff., 8, 13, 22; vii. 18. ² In the absence of curtains which could be raised up or pulled sideways, it would seem that Rāma had to enter the stage walking, and then assume the necessary position. Sītā comes in shortly after, while Tamasā, whose exit is not indicated at the end of the last scene, watches, along with the spectators, the whole course of events. ³ This may appear dramatically improbable, but so is the statue-scene in The Winter's Tale (Act v, sc. iii). Each, however, has the same purpose to serve, and it is unfair to question a poet's premises. Invisibility was regarded in India as one of the inci- dental attainments due to the practice of Yoga (cp. Yoga-sūtra, iii. 21), and is constantly employed as a dramatic de- vice: cp. Śākuntala vi, Vikramorvaśīya iii, Bhāsa's Avimāraka iii, &c.

9] Synoptic Analysis of the Play Scene 4 (iii. 15²⁰—iii. 49¹). Another part of Pañchavaṭī: At a distance, the river Godāvarī, with elephants fighting in the waters. Characters same as before. The elephant-fight has resulted in a victory for Sītā's pet (iii. 15²¹); all rejoice in consequence (iii. 16 ff.). Vāsantī now avails herself of the occasion to point out a number of other objects (iii. 19, 22, 37⁵, 38, 44) connected with their earlier life in Pañchavaṭī, as if casually, but really with a view to reprobate Rāma's conduct towards his wife. Rāma in reply lays his whole heart open to Vāsantī (iii. 27⁶ ff., 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39), who is much moved by his sorrows and his sufferings and the sublime grandeur of his soul. All this takes place, of course, within the hearing of Sītā, though neither Rāma nor Vāsantī was aware of her presence. The result is that Sītā, who in Scene 2 (iii. 7⁶) was full of just resentment against her husband, gradually finds herself softening towards him,¹ until finally she absolves him from all wrong whatsoever (iii. 46¹³ ᶠ.). As it was getting late, Rāma rises to go to Ayodhyā and take part in the holy horse-sacrifice (iii. 48¹).² Exeunt all. ACT IV. KAUSALYĀ AND JANAKA Translation, pages 60–72. This Act is practically synchronous with the last two, and is partly meant as a humorous relief after the intense emotional excitement of Act iii. Scene 1, Interlude (iv. 0¹—iv. 2²). Vālmīki's hermitage on the Ganges: An open space near by. Enter two pupils. One of them admires the beauty of the hermitage, which is now putting on its best appearance (iv. 1) to welcome some venerable guests. The other—evidently a youngster³—is delighted at the thought that the guests bring with them also a holiday for the schools (iv. 1¹). In the course of their conversation it transpires that the guests are no other than Arundhatī, Vasishṭha, and the Queen-mothers, who, on the conclusion of Ṛishyaśṛiṅga's twelve-year sacrifice (cp. i. 3), not caring to return to Ayodhyā where Sītā was not, have repaired to Vālmīki's hermitage. Among the day's guests there is also Janaka (iv. 1²³), Sītā's father, come on a friendly visit to Vālmīki (iv. 1³³). The boys go off to play. ¹ The psychological moments in this process are described at length in the note to iii. 7⁶. They show the poet's thorough understanding of human passions, and a deft handling of them. ² For the nature of this sacrifice compare Introduction, § 18, P. ³ Who cannot yet speak his Sanskrit properly. 2 [H.O.S. 21]

Bhavabhūti — Uttara-Rāma-Charita [10 Scene 2 (iv. 2³—iv. 26¹¹). A yard adjoining Vālmīki’s hermitage. Enters Janaka, seated sorrowing at the foot of a tree. His lamentations for his daughter (iv. 3-5) are interrupted by the appearance of Arundhatī and Kausalyā, who, led by a chamberlain and under instructions from Vasiṣṭha, are coming to meet Janaka. Janaka is not at first well- disposed towards Kausalyā, the mother of ‘that shepherd of the people’, meaning Rāma (iv. 10³); but he soon relents at the sight of the grief- stricken old widow of his late friend Daśaratha (iv. 13, 14). A noise of the boys making merry over their holiday-games is heard from behind the curtain (iv. 18¹). Among the boys all watch with interest one—evidently a Kṣatriya youth (iv. 20)—who resembled in his looks not only Rāma but Sītā also (iv. 19, 22). Arundhatī, who has had the secret (iv. 18⁷) from Bhāgīrathī (the Ganges), knows that he must be one of the twin sons of Rāma. They send the chamberlain (iv. 20³) after the boy, who comes and announces himself (iv. 21³) as Lava. They inquire after his parentage (iv. 22¹), but he naïvely answers (iv. 22⁵) that he belongs to Vālmīki (who of course never married). A voice behind the curtain conveys to the soldiers of the army Prince Chandraketu’s order (iv. 22⁹) to the effect that they must not molest the hermitage in any way. Janaka and Kausalyā rejoice at the prospect of meeting Chandraketu (iv. 22¹⁰ ᶠᶠ˙), and in reply to Lava’s inquiry they tell him that Chandraketu is no other than Lakshmaṇa’s son (iv. 22²⁰). Lava, who knew Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa by heart, was instantly able to identify Chandraketu. Janaka now asks Lava (iv. 22²³) if from the Rāmāyaṇa he could tell them some of the Later History of Rāma. Lava replies that Vālmīki has composed that portion, but, wishing to give a dramatic representation of it, he has sent it, in charge of Lava’s brother Kuśa, to the sage Bharata.¹ The published portion of the Rāmāyaṇa, he adds, ends with the abandonment of Sītā (iv. 22⁴³). The memory of that event calls forth a passionate expression of grief from Janaka (iv. 23), and Lava now learns who all the elders were (iv. 23²). At this point a number of disorderly boys break in upon the stage and inform (iv. 26) Lava of a wonderful sight—a horse—that they have seen. They drag Lava off the stage (iv. 26²). The rest of the party also go away anxious to meet Vālmīki and learn from him, if possible, the secret of Lava’s parentage (iv. 26¹¹). Scene 3 (iv. 26¹²—iv. 29¹). Another open space near Vālmīki’s hermitage: the sacrificial horse in sight. Re-enter ² the boys with Lava. Lava at

¹ Author of the Nāṭyaśāstra, the earliest extant book on Hindu dramaturgy. This whole account sounds like a bit of auto-biography: cp. Introduction, § 4. ² Not strictly ‘re-enter’. The boys merely withdraw to a remote part of the stage

11] Synoptic Analysis of the Play

once perceives that it is a sacrificial horse, and the boys, from inquiry, learn (iv. 27) that it is let loose by Rāma, ‘the foremost hero of the seven worlds’. The youthful Lava, incensed at this supposed insult to his own heroism asks his companions to capture the horse (iv. 28¹ ᶠ.). Enters an enraged soldier to prevent the capture. Lava makes ready to fight (iv. 29). Exeunt all.

ACT V. PRINCES IN COMBAT

TRANSLATION, PAGES 73–81.

In the short interval—an hour or so—between this Act and the last, Lava has utterly routed the army. Scene 1 (v. 0¹—v. 36²). An open space near Vālmīki's hermitage. Enter Chandraketu in a chariot, and Sumantra his charioteer. Chandraketu has heard of the fight and is hastening to the rescue (v. 1). He cannot help admiring Lava's appearance and courage (v. 2, 3, 5) and feels abashed to find that Lava singly has defeated the whole army (v. 6³). Chandraketu now invites Lava for a personal combat (v. 7). Enters Lava, bow in hand, leaving the army, who, however, continue to harass him (v. 8⁴, v. 10⁴) the moment his back is turned upon them. Finding no other way to stop them, Lava makes use of the magic missiles ¹ (v. 12² ᶠ.). The hubbub in the army is now at an end (v. 13) and the two youths meet face to face (v. 15³). Chandraketu courteously offers Lava a chariot (v. 28²), which Lava as courteously, but not without a mixture of pride, declines (v. 28⁶). Lava adds that the fight was partly forced upon him (v. 29) by the insolent vaunting (iv. 27) of the attendants of the horse. Chandraketu wonders if Lava really believed himself superior to the great Rāma (v. 29¹, 34). Lava, who knew the Rāma story well, replies that no great man need be absolutely perfect, and mentions a few weak points (v. 35) in Rāma’s earlier career. This provokes Chandraketu and both repair to a place where they can fight undisturbed (v. 36¹).²

at the end of Scene 2, and now come to the centre. ¹ Called jṛmbhaka or stupefying. Their use, so naturally brought in, plays an im- portant part in the final recognition in Acts vi and vii. ² According to the canons of Hindu drama- turgy, combats could not be represented on the stage.

Bhavabhūti — Uttara-Rāma-Charita [12 ACT VI. THE PRINCES RECOGNIZED TRANSLATION, PAGES 82–93. In respect of time, this Act is an immediate sequel to the last. Scene 1, Interlude (vi. 0¹—vi. 7³). Place: aerial regions above Vālmīki's hermitage. Enter an air-sprite (Vidyādhara) and his mate, viewing the combat between Lava and Chandraketu from an aerial car. They describe the fight: how one missile supersedes another only to be itself superseded by a third. Victory trembles in the balance. At last they see Rāma returning from Daṇḍakā in his Pushpaka car (vi. 6⁵) and stopping the battle. The air-sprites go away. Scene 2 (vi. 7⁴—vi. 42³). The fighting-ground at a considerable distance from Vālmīki's hermitage. Enter Rāma, Chandraketu, and Lava. Chandraketu tells Rāma of the fight and particularly of Lava's valour (vi. 8²). Rāma feels an unaccountable attraction towards Lava (vi. 9, 12). Lava, in his turn, is deeply impressed (vi. 10, 11) by the sight of the great man, who, Chandraketu tells him (vi. 12⁵), is no other than the hero of the Rāmāyaṇa. Rāma embraces Lava (vi. 13). Lava begs to be pardoned for his insolent conduct (vi. 13³) but Rāma praises him for it (vi. 14). Chandraketu then points out how by his jṛimbhaka missiles Lava has thrown the whole army into a stupor (vi. 14²). Rāma asks Lava to withdraw the missiles and sends Chandraketu away to comfort his army. Exit Chandraketu. Rāma inquires of Lava how he came to have this power over the missiles (vi. 15³). Lava explains that they two were born to the knowledge of them. ‘Who is the other?’ asks Rāma. The answer is partly given by a voice behind the curtain, inquiring in great agitation, after Lava (vi. 16). This is Lava's elder brother, Kuśa, returning from his errand to sage Bharata (vi. 17¹, cp. iv. 22³³ ff.). Enters Kuśa, bow in hand. Rāma admires his bearing (vi. 19). Lava introduces him to Rāma, who embraces him (vi. 21). As the day was growing hot, Lava suggests reposing under the shade of a tree (vi. 22¹), which they all do. The appearance and the deportment of the two boys (vi. 23 f.), their resemblance to Rāma and Sītā (vi. 25–27), their presence near the place where Sītā was abandoned, their inborn power over the missiles, which Rāma remembers now to have transferred in anticipation (i. 15²) to the offspring of Sītā, and particularly the fact of the boys being twins, as he knew would be the case with Sītā's issue (vi. 28),—all this seems to him to be mournfully tantalizing. Rāma weeps. Lava expresses

13] Synoptic Analysis of the Play concern for him (vi. 29). Kuśa wonders why Lava, knowing the Rāmā- yaṇa, should be surprised at Rāma's grief (vi. 30). If Rāma had hoped to ask the boys about their parentage and learn something definite, all his hopes were now at an end. The boys spoke of the hero of the Rāmāyaṇa in the most unconcerned way imaginable. Rāma now asks the boys to recite some stanzas from the Rāmāyaṇa (vi. 30³). Kuśa (vi. 31, 32) and after him Lava (vi. 36) hit upon passages which awaken the most painful memories in Rāma's mind (vi. 34, 37). At this point a voice behind the curtain states that Vasiṣṭha, Vālmīki, the Queen-mothers, Janaka, and Arundhatī, having heard of the fight between the boys and anxious for their safety, are coming that way (vi. 39). Rāma and the boys go away hurriedly to meet them (vi. 42³). ACT VII. THE REUNION TRANSLATION, PAGES 94–102. In the interval between Acts vi and vii Rāma has met all the elders. When their first grief had abated a little, all plied Vālmīki with questions regarding Kuśa and Lava. Vālmīki, anticipating all this, has arranged to have the Later History of Rāma enacted (play within play), in the sight of gods and men, by the celestial nymphs trained by Bharata (cp. iv. 22³¹). Scene 1 (vii. 0¹—vii. 20¹). An extensive open-air stage on the banks of the Ganges, near Vālmīki's hermitage. Time: afternoon of the same day. Enters Lakshmaṇa, who announces that the stage is ready and the audience seated. Enters Rāma (vii. 1¹) who orders the players to commence (vii. 1⁷).¹ Play within play, Prologue (vii. 1⁸—vii. 2¹). Enters Stage-manager, who requests the audience to be graciously attentive to the play of Vālmīki, 'the speaker of the Truth'. The lament of a woman is heard from behind the curtain (vii. 1¹³ ᶠᶠ·). The Stage-manager explains that it is Sītā, who, unable to bear the pangs, is throwing herself into the Ganges (vii. 2). Exit Stage-manager. Play within play, Scene 1 (vii. 2⁷—vii. 15¹⁰). Enters Sītā fainting, supported by two Goddesses—Earth and the Ganges—each with an infant in her lap. The Goddesses congratulate Sītā on the birth of twin sons (vii. 3). Sītā inquires who they were, and on learning ¹ The play within the play which follows is rupt the course of this secondary play by of the one-act kind known as prekshaṇaka. occasional remarks. For convenience the The characters of the original play inter- inner play is here given all by itself.