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

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

• आश्लिष्टसन्धिबन्धं सन्पात्रसुवर्णयोजितं वृत्तम् । निपुणपरीक्षकहृदयं राजति रत्नावलीसदृशम् ॥

XVI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Line 5: "गान्धर्वविधिना तत्रसमुपयेमे स भूपतिः ॥"

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

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

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

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

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

XXX This shows that A'raṇyikā was in prison for some days. Again from the conversation between Sāṅkṛityāyanī and Vāsavadattā we learn that the Āraṇyikā-love affair was a recent event. And Vidūshaka's humorous suggestion to the King to observe a month's fast to gain the Queen's favour and his words farther on इदानीमेव कल्पशतप्रख्याते परि- वत्सरेऽस्मिन् p 40, show that not many days, even a week could have elapsed after the events of the 3rd Act. So the interval separating the third from the fourth Act must be a very short one. But we have no means of determining the exact hour of the day when the action of the fourth Act be- gins. It lasts for a period of about three hours. (4) GEOGRAPHY OF THE PLAY See Notes p 49. (5) TECHNICAL REMARKS It will be easily seen that the Priyadarśikā does not closely follow the various canons found in the Sans. treatises on dramaturgy, such as the Daśarūpaka and the Sāhityadarpaṇa, as the Ratnāvalī does. The Sandhis are not elaborated and well proportioned. The Sṛiṅgārarasa, the main sentiment of the play, is not well developed in its two parts विप्रलम्भ and संभोग. In this respect the Māl. is far superior to it. In it the king's passion (अनुराग) which is compared to a plant is gradually developed as declared by the poet himself in the words बद्धमूल, समुद्गतप्रवाल, मुकुलित (कुड्मलित,) and फलित, see IV. 1 A detailed description of the Sandhis and their aṅgas is not attempted here as it is not of much use to the junior students. As a Nāṭikā the Priya. conforms to the rules of dramaturgy on broad lines. As regards the three chief requisites, the वस्तु is प्रख्यात as the story of Udayana and Vāsavadattā was popular at the time the play was written. The Netā or hero is धीरललित (see ante p 9). The Heroine belongs to the variety known as मुग्धा (defined as मुग्धा नववयःकामा रतौ वामा मृदुः क्रुधि। Daś, R. II 16 ). The chief sentiment is शृङ्गार or love. There is an occasional infusion of Karuṇa as in the lament of A'raṇyikā (see pp. 15, 24) and when she drinks poison, in order to put an end to her miserable existence (see p. 54). There is also a slight tinge of the हास्यरस as when the Vidu. says एते खलु राजानो

XXXI दिष्ट्यापि वर्धयन्ते (p 38), or advises the King saying मासोपवासं कृत्वा &c. (p. 48). As regards the denouement and the general setting the play opens with the usual नान्दी. The प्रस्तावना is not in its usual style but rather on the model of Bhāsa, as no other character than the Sūtradhāra is introduced in it. In it the Sūtra. informs the audience of the name of the author, the title of the play and the occasion of its perform_ ance. Then there is a Viskambhaka in which the chamberlain of Dṛḍhavarman, King of the Aṅga country, briefly narrates the part of the story, a knowledge of which is necessary for the understanding of the events related in the play. The Bīja or seed is also cast when the Kañch. says—येन सापि राजकुमारी पद्मा कथमप्युत्सङ्गाद्योपनीय &c. (see p. 4). The Mukhasandhi begins where the King commits Āraṇyikā to the care of Vāsavadattā and terminates with the close of the 2nd Act. The Bīja germinates and sprouts up when the King sees Āraṇyikā (p. 18) and afterwards clasps her at the neck (p. 20). The प्रति- मुखसन्धि begins with the 3rd Act (see com.) wherein we have the गर्भसन्धि also. In the प्रति० there is यत्न for the attainment of the Phala or the final object; but to have it further postponed the poet has used the device of a गर्भनाटक,* which brings to light the King's intrigue and thus hinders the progress of love. In the fourth Act which is introduced by a Praveśaka, we have the अवमर्श and the निर्वहण Sandhis fused together, wherein the final object is attained; and the play closes with the usual Bharatavākya. (6) CRITICAL REMARKS ON HARSHA'S THREE PLAYS. Of the three plays of Harsha, the Ratnāvalī and the Priyadarśikā have the same subject-matter, i. e., the love intrigue of King Vatsa. Four characters are common to both of these plays, namely, King Vatsa, Queen Vāsavadattā, her attendant Kāñchanamālā and the Viduṣhaka Vasantaka Rumaṇvat, the usual general of the King's army is mentioned *गर्भनाटक also called गर्भाङ्क (An act containing a play in it) is defined as—अङ्कोदरप्रविष्टो यो रङ्गद्दार समाहितम् । अङ्गोऽपरः स गर्भाङ्कः सबीज- फलवान्निः Sah. D. VI. 20 'A Secondary Act, incorporated into a principal Act and having the characteristics of a play in brief, such as its preliminaries, introduction, its Bīja and its final end, is called गर्भाङ्क. This device has been used by Bhavabhūti in his Uttār., Act VII and by Rājaśekhara in his Bālarāmāyaṇa.

Ratnā. similar schemes are devised for the meeting of the lovers by Vasantaka and a maid servant. Other similar episodes in the fourth Act of both the plays are the imprisonment of Vasantaka and of the princesses and their rescue by the king, in one case from poison and in the other from fire, and the final sanction of the Queen to the marriage of the Heroine of each play with the Hero. Other minor similarities are pointed out in the notes. The Priyadarśikā, however, bears a closer resemblance 'to the Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa in the general outline of its plot, both being based on the story of Bandhumatī (see supra p. xxv). Thus the hand of the Princess Priya is promised to king Vatsa by her father while in the Māl. an alliance is sought with king Agnimitra by Mādhavasena by giving him in marriage his sister Mālavikā. Both Mādhav- sena and Dṛḍhavarman, Priy.'s father, are taken prisoners by rival kings and both are finally rescued by the Heroes of the two dramas. Mādhavasena's minister tries to bring Māl. to king Agnimitra, while it is Dṛḍh.'s chamberlain who tries to bring Priya to king Vatsa. Both meet with accidents: the heroine of the Māl. is brought by Vīrasena, the keeper of a border fort and given in charge of Dhāriṇī, Agnimitra's Queen, while Priya is brought by Vijayasena, the victorious commander of the army of Vatsa, to his master, who in his turn orders her to be committed to the care of his queen Vāsavadattā. Both the Heroines are taught dancing, singing &c., and both are accidentally seen by the respective Kings, and love springs up between the heroes and the heroines of the two plays. To bring about the meeting of the two lovers the mimic play is arranged in the Priy., while a dancing exhibition is arranged in the Māl. Mālavikā is seen with her attendant in a garden by the King and his confidant, and so is Āraṇyikā in the Priyadarśikā. We have Kauśikī, the sister of Mādhavasena's minister, in the role of a religious lady, appearing as a friend of the Queen in the Māl., and so we have Sāṁkṛtyāyanī in the third and fourth Acts of the Priy. The Vidu.'s careless talk in sleep in the Māl. betrays Mālavikā's meeting with the King, while Vasantaka's talk in sleep during the course of the Mimic play brings to light the ruse used for bringing about Āraṇyikā's meeting with the King in the Priy. The magic use of the ring bearing a snake

figure which counteracts the effect of poison in the case of the Vidu who feigns to be bitten by a serpent in the fourth Act of the Mâl. has its reflex in the King's counteracting the effect of poison on A'raṇyikâ by means of a charm. And finally we have the true identity of Mâl. revealed in the Mâl. in the last Act as that of A'raṇyikâ in the present play. The similarities of ideas, expressions &c. found between the Priy. and the Nâgânanda we have pointed out in the notes. The Nâgânanda is a Nâṭaka in five Acts and stands on a higher plane than the other two plays which are mere court- comedies. The play is of a unique type, since it depicts the grandeur of self-sacrifice in human life. As Dr. Keith remarks, "Harsha here rises to the task of depicting the emotions of self-sacrifice, charity, magnanimity, and resolution in the face of death" The Hero, Jîmûtavâhana, penetrated with the ideals of Buddhism, is convinced that to sacrifice oneself for the good of others is the highest duty. He has accepted the doctrine of non-violence and adheres to it so firmly that he will not make war even upon his enemy who has deprived him of his kingdom. When his friend and brother- in-law, Mitrâvasu, assures him of an easy victory over his enemy and the consequent restoration of his kingdom to him, Jîmutavâhana replies:— स्वशरीरमपि परार्थे यः खलु दद्यामयाचितः कृपया। राज्यस्य कृते स कथं प्राणिवधक्रौर्यमनुमन्ये॥ 'I will give my own life for the sake of another in compassion unasked; how then can I consent to the cruel slaughter of men merely for winning a kingdom." Here Harsha reveals himself in uttering these sentiments Harsha who had been once the hero of hundred battles and who by his brilliant victories over his enemies had become the Paramount Lord in Hindustan, was in the last part of his life a staunch follower of the Buddhistic doctrine of non-violence (अहिंसा). (7) THE PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS ON THE PLAY. VATSARA'JA (THE HERO). The Hero of the play Priyadarśikâ, Vatsarâja a King of Kauśâmbî, has many charming legends and stories woven round his name. It seems that his life full of romantic adventures, made a deep impression on the popular mind in old

XXXVI days, as is clear from the remark in the प्रस्तावना of the play, “लोके हारि च वत्सराजचरितं ।” Hence there are no references to his great deeds in this play save one adventure, viz., his escape from his captivity, in which he was kept by the powerful monarch, Mahasena Pradyota, of Avanti, and his carrying off the latter’s daughter and making her his Queen. And since the poet chose to write a Nāṭikā it was not his object also to present his hero in any of the serious aspects of his character. Bound by the hard and fast rules of Sans. Dramaturgy he has cast his characters in the conventional mould. He has taken care to show his hero in the enjoyment of courtly life, the stirring events of his public life having already won for him great popularity. We cannot, therefore, compare him with Agnimitra, the hero of the Mālavikāgnimitra. But compar- atively speaking the character of Vatsa is not so well developed in this play as it is in the Ratnavali. He belongs to the class of heroes called धीरललित,—‘Firm, gay, and tender- hearted.’ He is courteous and affectionate to his Queen while engaged in a new love adventure. As soon as he sees a charming young maiden, he falls in love with her and thinks of nothing but meeting her again and making love to her. He is helped in his love intrigue by his companion, the Vidushaka, and Manorama an attendant of the Queen. In the Mimic play in which by a cunning device he is given an opportunity of meeting Āraṇyikā, he proceeds to act towards her in such an ardent manner that he rouses the suspicion of his queen Vāsavadatta. When the Queen knows the whole truth and breaks up the play in anger, he apologises to her in all humility and even falls at her feet. Though his Queen does not accept his apology or relent, he tries his utmost to conciliate her. And when the Queen knowing that Āraṇyikā is her cousin Priyadarsika, places the latter’s hand in the King’s hand, he with delicacy withdraws his hand saying that he is satisfied that his Queen is reconciled. One noble trait of his character, however, is brought out when he appreciates the valour of his fallen enemy and ungrudgingly bestows praise on him in the words—शोभितं विन्ध्यकेतुना। साधु विन्ध्यकेतो साधु । राजपुत्रोचितं मार्गमनुगच्छतो समाश्वासिता एव वयं विन्ध्य- केतोर्गुणेन (Act I).

XXXVII. A'RANYIKA' OR PRIYADARS'IKA'. Priyadars'ikā is the Heroine of the play, as the very name of the play clearly shows it. She is called आरण्यिका up to the time of the denouement, because she was found in a forest. Priyadars'ikā is a colourless character, possessing no striking intellectual or moral qualities. She belongs to the variety of heroines known as मुग्धा, who is defined as—'मुग्धा नववयःकामा रतौ वामा मृदुः क्रुधि' । She is represented as a young maiden of rare beauty. As soon as the King catches sight of her he bursts into a panegyric of her beauty 'पातालाद्भुवनवलोकनधिया किं नागकन्यो- त्थिता । &c. ( Act II. 6 ). When she sees the King she falls in love with him and remarks that her father was right in promising her to him, thus preferring him to other suitors ( अयं स महाराजः । यस्याहं तातेन दत्ता । स्थाने खलु तातस्य पक्षपातः । ). She is extremely timid and sensitive. She laments that her passion is hopeless and will never find its fulfilment. She therefore longs for death that would relieve her of her sorrow- सर्वथा मरणं वर्जयित्वा कुतः मे हृदयस्य अन्या निर्वृतिः । Fortunately she is cheered up and helped by her friend मनोरमा. But she gives way to sorrow and despondency to such an extent that she actually takes poison. Thus Priyadars'ikā evinces none of those qualities which constitute a great character. There is, how- ever, one admirable trait in her character also. She does not reveal her identity to the last, even to her confidante Manoramā and this speaks highly for her keen sense of family honour. ——— VA'SAVADATTA'. Vāsavadattā is the chief Queen, elderly and majestic Her love for her lord is sincere and deep and her jealousy proceeds from her true deep love. In the Mimic play, when the King makes love to A'ranyikā, playing the part of the Queen, with great ardour, her suspicion is aroused. And when she learns the truth from the lips of the Vidushaka, who gave out the secret in his drowsiness, she breaks up the play in anger and orders both A'ranyikā and the Vidūshaka to be imprisoned as being accomplices in the plot. She spurns the conciliation and prostration of the king. She is truly a मानिनी (a proud self- respecting woman). She keeps Aranyikā for a pretty long time in prison. She is not easily appeased. When, however, she learns that A'ranyikā has taken poison, she is at once struck with penitence and immediately orders her to be

xxxvIII brought into the presence of the King, who is an expert in the treatment of poisons and magic formulas, for being restored to life. She is an affectionate niece, for we see her plunged in deep grief at the news of the long imprisonment of her aunt's husband (Act IV). The nobility of her mind is seen when she gladly bestows the hand of A'ranyikâ, whom she now knows to be her cousin, Priyadarsikâ, on the King in fulfilment of her father's promise. In fact the picture of the Queen drawn here, though not so magnificent as that of Dhârinî in the Mâl (see V. 19) is quite in keeping with the requirements of a Nâtikâ. THE VIDÛSHAKA. The Vidûshaka is a boon companion of the King who amuses him in his lonely hours. He is a Brâhmaṇa but without learning, great wit or wisdom. He is greedy and ever eager to receive gifts. He excites laughter by his appearance, quaint remarks and movements. He helps the King in his love-intrigue. When A'ranyikâ is attacked by bees and covering her face with a mantle calls to her friend for help, he cleverly advises the King to run to her rescue silently so that she may clasp him mistaking him for her friend. He is an accomplice in the scheme by which the King gets an oppor- tunity of meeting and making love to A'ranyikâ in the Mimic play. But he is light-headed and gives out the truth of the whole plot in his drowsy condition. He, however, sometimes makes very clever and appropriate remarks. When the chamberlain of Dṛidhavarman informs the King that the Kaling king was killed and Dṛidhavarman restored to his throne, the Vidushaka says in the hearing of the queen, ईदृशे अभ्युदये अस्मिन् राजकुले एतत् करणीयम् । ( राजानं निर्दिश्य वीणावादनं पाठयन् ) शुश्रूषता ( आत्मनो यशोराशिं दर्शयन् ) ब्राह्मणस्य सत्कारः , ( आरण्यिकां सुखयित्वा ) सबन्धधनमोक्ष इति । When the King succeeds in restoring A'ranyikâ to consciousness, the Vidûshaka again significantly reminds the Queen, “भवति दर्शनस्य पारितोषिकं विस्मृतम् ।