रत्नावली नाटिका (सम्राट हर्षवर्धन - शास्त्रीय नाटिका रत्न सम्पूर्ण ४ अङ्क सान्वय सटीक)

INTRODUCTION v not at all observed in Sanskrit plays by reason of the absence of scenery. For the plays were often performed in the open courts of the palaces, perhaps at times in large halls set apart for public entertainments or in the open air. Unity of action—Unity of action, which is the most important element for a drama to be successsful, does not mean one and only one action complete in itself undiversified by subordinate incidents and uncomplicated by accompanying episodes as the most rigorous Neoclassicists observed. Unity here is not incompatible with complexity; it means merely organic connexion and co-herence. Minor actions and subplots and episodes inseperably linked with the main action are to be con- nected in such a way that the seperation of any one of them from the body of the play would mean nothing but the destruction of the whole plot. That is, the organic—not mechanical—connexion of the subplots with the main one is the unity or singleness of action. The episodes or minor incidents which we come across in S'ákuntala are each essentially meant for revealing the different aspects of the character of the hero and the heroine. As for example, the Dhanamitra episode in the 6th act makes us know the feelings of Dushyanta as a sonless king and that knowing on one part helps us to know how it was the high time for the king to be introduced to his son in the 7th act. In the Sanskrit Drama- turgy, the subject-matter has been classified into two heads—(1) चाधिकारिक (the main plot) and (2) प्रासङ्गिक (subsidiary plots or episodes) Cf :— “इदं पुनर्वस्तु बुधैर्द्विविधं परिकल्पितम् । चाधिकारिकमेकं स्यात् प्रासङ्गिकमथापरम् ॥ अधिकारः फले स्वाम्यमधिकारी च तत्प्रभुः । तन्निर्वृत्तं कविभिराधिकारिकमुच्यते ॥” साः दः ( ६ परि ) The subsidiary plots contribute to the development of the main one—cf. “अस्योपकरणार्थं तु प्रासङ्गिकमितीर्य्यते”—सा दः। The unity of

vi RATNAVALI action is tacitly refered to in Sâhityadarpana as “गोपुच्छाग्रसमायं तु बन्धनं तस्य कीर्तितम्” । “गोपुच्छायसमायमिति क्रमेणाङ्गाः सूक्ष्माः कर्तव्याः”—that is, as the tip of the tail of a cow is gradually tapering towards the end, so the action of the drama proceeds towards the end with all subsidiary plots absorbed into it. 4. Dialogue.—The last but not the least is the dialogue which is regarded as an essential adjunct to action and which is very important by reason of its being the means to exhibiting passions, motives, feelings with all the main constituents of characters. When the interest of the drama is predominantly psychological, dialogue is essentially helpful. On the whole the portrayal of the character of a person and exhibition of his feelings and other mental phenomena in a play mainly depend upon the successful reference by dialogues. In a fiction or an epic by a detailed narration the character is painted ; but as the compass of a drama is limited, much worth is to be attained by short and intelligent dialogues which more suggest about the character than express. In S'ákuntala the pithy statement “सकृत्कृतप्रणयोऽयं जनः” by the king Dushyanta throws much light upon the private character of the king, which we cannot expect so impressively from a detailed exposition of the situation. Thus a play to be successful should have good and impressive dialogues. Sanskrit Drama.—The origin of Sanskrit drama is religious. As such it has its own distinguishing characteristics which fundamen- tally determine its value as a type. Indebted as it is for its origin to the surroundings and atmosphere of Vedic religion and ritualistic practices full of Brahmanical influences at every point the Sanskrit drama maintains its ideal character throughout being isolated from other types of drama in the world. Sanskrit drama regarded as the highest product of Indian poetry is essentially aristrocratic mainly for the reason of its being an evolution of the intellectual effort of two aristrocratic classes—the Brahmanas and the Kshattriyas, the upholders of the supremacy of Brahmanic

INTRODUCTION vii civilization. This is one of the notable reasons of Sanskrit drama being inaccessible to the general mass and for this reason a qualified audience (gunagrāhinī parishat) is always sought for and on their satisfactions absolutely depended the success of dramatic representation. As Dr. Keith holds, "The drama bears, therefore, essential traces of its connection with the Brahmins. They were idealist in their outlook, capable of large generalizations but regardless of accuracy in detail, and to create a realistic drama was wholly incompatible with their temperament. The accurate delineation of facts or character was to them nothing ; they aimed at the creation in the mind of the audience of sentiment, and what was necessary for this end was all that was attempted". Following this idealistic bent of the Brahmanic school the dramatists sometimes thought it a necessity to effect changes in the original from which their theme had been derived with a view to representing his persons as consistently ideal in their character so that their representation may evoke in the mind of the audience a perfection of sentiment. Thus some changes are effected in Dushyanta and S'akuntalā of the original epic with a view to removing all blemishes from their character and thus the representation of their character being far removed from reality presents an example of perfect ideal sentiment of love-arousing emotion in the mind of the learned audience. From the viewpoint of this idealistic character Sanskrit drama cannot be described as national in the broadest and the highest sense of the word as the Hellenic plays are called. It is in short a drama of a literary class though as such it exhibits many of the noblest and most refined as well as the most characteristic features of Hindu religion and civilization. The ethics of Indian drama are of a lofty character, but they are those of a scholastic system of religious philosophy self-conscious of its completeness. In the delineation of the characters and movement of the plot the supremacy is attributed to the power of fate to which the gods as well as the mortal world bow.

viii RATNAVALI

One of the distinguishing excellences of Sanskrit drama is 'its poetic grandeur which envelopes it as flowers overspread the bosom of the earth in the season of Spring.......It weaves the wreath of idyllic fancies in an unbroken chain adding to its favourite and familiar blossoms ever-fresh beauties from an inexhaustible garden. Nor is it unequal to depicting the grander aspects of nature in her mighty forests and on the shores of ocean. A profound familiarity with its native literature can here alone follow its diction through a ceaseless flow of phrase and figure, listen with understanding to the home of the bee as it hangs over the lotus and contemplate with S'akuntalā's pious sympathy with the creeper as it winds round the mango tree. But the poetic beauty of the Indian drama reveals itself in the mysterious charm of its outline, if not in its full growth even to the untrained'. (En- cy. Brita. )

To the Brahmanic supremacy in the evolution of the dramatic art and its idealism another notable characteristic of Sanskrit drama can be attributed ; that is the absence of tragedy. Though the tragic elements are not wanting in Sanskrit drama, yet tragic end is denied us most probably on the ground of peculiar conditions of Indian thought in propounding the law of action' and exposing the existence of human life which is nothing but the outcome of the workings of the deeds done in the previous birth. In explaining this view Dr. Keith holds, "The actions and status of man in existence depend on no accident ; they are essentially the working out of deeds done in a previous birth and these again are explained by yet earlier actions from time without beginning. Indian drama is thus deprived of a motif which is invaluable to Greek tragedy and everywhere provides a deep and profound tragic element, the intervention of forces beyond control or calculation in the affairs of man, confronting his mind with obstacles upon which the greatest intellect and the most determined will are shattered. A conception of this kind would deprive the working

INTRODUCTION ix of the law of the act of all activity......"( Keith's Sanskrit Drama P. 277.) According to Aristotle the conditions a tragedy essensially lie in what is called 'undeserved misfortune,' which the hero of a drama has undergone. And that 'undeserved misfortune' must be the outcome of some great error on the part of the hero but not the outcome of any depravity or systematic misdeed on his part. In the case of a person filling into misery from happiness by reason of his misdeeds no tragic feeling will be aroused. So Aristotle says, "..the change in the hero's fortune must not be from misery to happiness but on the contrary from happiness to misery ; the cause of it must lie not in any depravity, but in some grat error on his part" ( Aristotle on the art of poetry translated by In- gram Bywater P. 50 ) Now the commission of a great error is an accident which is not admitted in the Indian doctrine of Karma. According to this doctrine every aspect and deed of human existence is attributed to the working of the deeds done in the previous life ; so any misfortune met with by a hero of a Sanskrit drama will be attributed to his previous deed and as such his misfortune will not create any tragic feeling and hence no tragedy is possible according to the Sanskrit playwrights. In Venisamhára, Duryo- dhana's helpless and deplorable plight, accentuated by the misfor- tune due to the death of his heroic brothers-and military experts who sided with him, may arouse some feeling but cannot create any tragic feeling, as his said misfortune is not come to him accidentally but is an outcome of his systematic misdeeds and mischievous attitude of injuring the Pándavas. So our sympathy goes more towards the Pándavas who attained to happiness in the long run ofter continued struggle against the evils. So the strong conviction of Indian mind as to the working of the law of action is reponsible for the absence of tragedy in Sanskrit drama. Hence all Sanskrit dramas are comedy in the loose sense of the term. Another characteristic of Sanskrit drama is that the persons represented herein are all typical characters ; Dr. Keith says

Here is the line-by-line transcription of the page:

x RATNAVALI “To the Brahmin ideal individuality has no appeal ; the law of life has no room for deviation from type ; the caste system is rigid and for each rank in life there is a definite round of duties whence departure is undesirable and dangerous. The drama likewise has no desire for individual figures, but only typical characters.” Classification of Sanskrit Drama—Poetry in general in Sanskrit is broadly divided in two classes दृश्य and श्रव्य. As a representa- tive art drama is called a दृश्यकाव्य which is otherwise named रूपक. रूपक is defined as—रूप्यतेऽभिनयैर्यंव वस्तु तद्रूपकं विदुः—The subject which is represented by अभिनय is called रूपक. अभिनय is again defined ‘उत्पादयन् सहृदये रसज्ञानं निरन्तरम् । अनुकर्त्तृस्थितो योऽर्थोऽभिनयः सोऽभिधीयते’— ( मन्दारमकरन्द ) Where an action imitated by the imitator arouses sentiment in the mind of a सहृदय (appreciator) it is called अभिनय which is again classified under four heads as :— आङ्गिकः (physical), वाचिकः (verbal), आहार्य्यः (acting by means of costume and makeup) and सात्त्विकः ( acting by representation of outward signs of inner emotions and feelings). The रूपक which is mainly concerned with Rasa or Sentiment is divided into ten classes as – “नाटकमथ प्रकरणं भाणव्यायोगसमवकारडिमाः । ईहामृगाङ्कवीथ्यः प्रहसनमिति रूपकाणि दश ॥” Besides the रूपकs there are eighteen kinds of उपरूपकs (as नाटिका त्रोटक' गोष्ठी सट्टक' नाट्यरासकम् etc ) अष्टादश प्राहुरुपरूपकाणि मनीषिणः ॥ साः दः (६) रत्नावली is a नाटिका, विक्रमोर्व्वशी is a त्रोटक, कर्पूरमञ्जरी is a सट्टक etc. It is said that except their own individual characteristics all the रूपकs and उपरूपकs will follow the general characteristics of नाटक which is the typical form of रूपक ; cf. विना विशेष' सर्वेषां लक्ष्म नाटकवन्मतम् ”—साः दः । The general characteristics of a नाटक as given in the sixth chapter of साहित्यदर्पण can be broadly divided into three heads :—(1) Plot, (2) Hero, and (3) Sentiment. (1) The plot of the drama should be based upon a story derived from some authoritative work ( ख्यातवृत्त ), with five sandhis

INTRODUCTION xi

and the whole plot should be divided into a number of acts from five to ten. The subject-matter of the plot is called वस्तु which is again divided into the two heads आधिकारिक (main) and प्रासङ्गिक (the subsidiary)—the latter contributing to the development of the former. The प्रासङ्गिक वृत्त is again of two kinds as पताका and प्रकरी. पताका is an episode of considerable length ( व्यापि प्रासङ्गिकं वृत्तं पताकेत्यभिधीयते ) and प्रकरी is also an episode of limited duration with minor importance (प्रासङ्गिकं प्रदेशस्थं चरितं प्रकरी मता ) The develop- ment of a dramatic plot is represented again in five stages or अवस्थाs which are (1) प्रारम्भ (beginning), (2) यत्न (attempt), (3) प्राप्त्याशा (hope of success), (4) नियताप्ति (hope of sure attainment through the obstacles being averted) and (5) फलागम (attainment of the desired object); cf.—अवस्थाः पञ्च कार्यस्य प्रारब्धस्य फलार्थिभिः । आरम्भयत्न-प्राप्त्याशा-नियताप्तिफलागमाः ॥ Connecting these five stages there are five corresponding sandhis or junctures which carry each of these stages of the action to its natural close. They are—opening ( मुख ), progression ( प्रतिमुख ), development ( गर्भ ), pause ( विमर्श ) and conclussion ( निर्वहण ) corresponding to Protasis, Epitasis, Catastasis, Peripateia and Catastrophe. Cf.— ‘यथासंख्यमवस्थाभिराभियोंगात्तु पञ्चभिः । पञ्चधैवेतिवृत्तस्य भागाः स्युः पञ्च सन्धयः ॥ साः दः मुखं प्रतिमुखं गर्भो विमर्श उपसंहृतिः । इति पञ्चास्य भेदाः स्युः....॥ साः दः (६) Other minute details of the elements of this plot are superfluous. (2) Hero—The hero of a नाटक should be धीरोदात्त (magnanimous and patient) ; but in the entire dramatic art four kinds of heroes are generally met with. They are उदात्त (magnanimous), ललित (gay or light-hearted) प्रशान्त (calm, not self-conceited), उद्धत (haughty or of firm resolve). The heroines also must be possessing qualities corresponding to those of the heroes and they are broadly divided into three classes—viz., स्वीया परकीया and साधारणी (as Vasantasená of Mricchakatikam). The rival heroes (प्रतिनायक) are depicted with all

xii RATNAVALI

evil qualities so that they may not get any sympathy from the audience even at the utter misfortune met by them, as Duoydhana in the Venisamhára. (3) There must be one principal Rasa or Sentiment and that must be either heroic (वीर) or erotic (शृङ्गार) Other Rasas, if any, should be subsidiary to the principal one. But in the conclusion or निर्वहण the sentiment should always be अद्भुत: cf.— “एक एव भवेदङ्गी शृङ्गारी वीर एव वा । अङ्गमन्ये रसा: सर्वे कार्यो निर्वहणेऽद्भुतः ॥ सा: द: and “प्रसिद्धेऽपि प्रबन्धानां नानारसनिबन्धने । एको रसोऽङ्गीक र्त्तव्यस्तेषामुत्कर्षमिच्छता” ॥ ध्वन्यालोक ॥ The indispensability of the sentiment of अद्भुत does not mean the specific अद्भुतरस as one of the eight sentiments, but it does amount to mean the sublime stage of aesthetic experience to which one’s mind is elevated at the conclusion of a drama and in that stage of enjoying the supreme bliss the water-tight divisions of Rasas cease and the resulting sentiment is nothing but अद्भुत. In endorsement of this view Viśvana'tha aptly quotes from Dharma- datta— “रसे सारश्चमत्कारः सर्व्वत्राप्यनुभूयते । तच्चमत्कारसारत्वे सर्व्वत्राप्यद्भुतो रसः । तस्मादद्भुतमेवाह कृती नारायणो रसम् ॥’ General conduct of the manipulation of the plot—The Sanskrit drama opens with a benedictory song or songs called नान्दी followed by some accounts of the author and by an introductory scene between the stage manager and one of the actors which is more or less connected with the opening of the play itself. The नान्दी which is generally found in the Sanskrit dramas is nothing but the abridged पूर्वरङ्ग which was of a considerable length in the days of yore and which according to Nátyasástra was divided into twenty-two parts. After the performance of नान्दी the intro-

INTRODUCTION xiii duction is made by सूत्रधार (technically called प्रस्तावना) after which the drama proper begins. The subject-matter of the plot is conveniently divided into a number of अङ्कs not exceeding ten. All the facts contained within the subjectmatter of the plot are not represented. What is represented 'should esentially serve to produce the sentiments aimed at and it must avoid offending the feelings of the audience.' 'Hence', as Dr. Keith observes, 'It is improper to portray on the stage such events as a national calamity, the downfall of a king, the siege of a town, a battle, fighting, or death—all that are painful. It is equally forbidden to depict a marriage or other religious rite...or such ill-omened things as curses.' But these details have not always been observed by the Sanskrit playwrights. What cannot be represented on the stage, but are necessary for understanding the links between the acts, are to be simply related by an actor or actors in an interlude which is otherwise called विष्कम्भक (an interlude or prelude of which actors are of higher rank) and प्रवेशक (of which the actors are of lower rank). There is also another way of relating unrepresentable matter, called चूलिका, in which an actor relates the matter from the greenroom. The languages used in Sanskrit drama are Sanskrit and Prakrit—the former being spoken by the male actors of higher ranks and the latter by females in general and the males of lower ranks. The drama must come to an end with a Bharatavákya which is repeated by the principal personages and which contains expressions of good-wishes for general pros- perity and happiness. The unity of action is followed for dramatic interest as has been mentioned before. But the unities of time and place are loosely observed. Natika—The Nátiká is a species of the उपरूपकs and our present work Ratnávali is styled as a Nátiká. The characteristics of a Nátiká are given in Sahityadarpana as follows :— नाटिका क्लृप्तवृत्ता स्यात् स्त्रीप्राया चतुरङ्किका । प्रख्यातो धीरललितस्तत्र स्यान्नायको नृपः ॥

xiv RATNAVALI स्यादन्तःपुरसम्बद्धा सङ्गीतव्यापृताथवा । नवानुरागा कन्यात्र नायिका नृपवंशजा ॥ सप्रवर्त्तेत नेतास्यां देव्यास्त्रासेन शङ्कितः । देवी पुनर्भवज् ज्येष्ठा प्रगल्भा नृपवंशजा ॥- पदे पदे मानवती तद्वशः सङ्गमो द्वयोः । वृत्तिः स्यात् कौशिकी स्वल्पविमर्शाः सन्धयः पुनः ॥ २६८-२७२ ॥ The story of a Nátiká should be an invented one instead of being ख्यातवृत्त. It should contain four acts abounding in female characters. The hero should be of धीरललित class and the heroine connected with the inner apartment should be born of a royal family and should be represented as newly engaged in love- affairs. The chief queen should be a grown-up lady and also born of royal family. The hero should be represented as falling in her love and af raid of the queen. The main sentiment should be शृङ्गार and the union of the two should be under the disposal of the queen. The Vritti should be कौशिकी and there should be all the sandhis except विमर्श. All these characteristics are to be found in the रत्नावली of which the authorship, is attributed to one S'ri Harsha Deva. Author—The authorship of two other plays named Priyadars'iká and Nágananda is attributed to one S'ri Harsha Deva whose produc- tion is Ratnávali also. But when there are more than one S'ri Harsha in the Sanskrit literary history it is very much confusing as to which S'ri Harsha is responsible for which play. From the study of these dramas it can be gathered from the introductory portions that S'ri Harsha was king: cf. (१) अलमति विस्तरेण । अद्याहं वसन्तोत्सवे सबहुमानमाहूय नानादिग् देशागतेन राज्ञः श्रीहर्षदेवस्य पादपद्मोपजीविना राजसमूहेन उक्तः ।—प्रस्तावना of रत्नावली । (२) अद्याहं वसन्तोत्सवे सबहुमानमाहूय नानादिग् देशागतेन राज्ञः श्रीहर्ष देवस्य पाद- पद्मोपजीविना राजसमूहेन उक्तः ।—प्रस्तावना of प्रियदर्शिका । (३) अलमतिविस्तरेण । अद्याहं इन्द्रोत्सवे सबहुमानमाहूय नानादिग्देशागतेन राज्ञः श्रीहर्षदेवस्य पादपद्मोपजीविना राजसमूहेनोक्तः ।—प्रस्तावना of नागानन्द । Now there were four persons bearing the same name श्रीहर्ष.

INTRODUCTION xv (1) S'ri Harsha, is the author Naishadhiyacharitam and खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम् etc., and he was the court-poet of the King of Kanauj named Jayachandra in the 12th century. (2) S'ri Harsha was the father of Munja and Sindhula and the grand father of Bhoja of Dhara. (3) Acc. to Rájatarangini S'ri Harsha was a King of Kashmere reigning from 1113 to 1125 A. D. (4) Fourthly S'ri Harsha was the King of Tháneswar who reigned from 607 A. D. to 647 A. D. He was a son of the old King Prabhákaravardhana and his elder brother was Rájyavardhana who was killed within a short time after he was installed as the king. H. H. Wilson attributes the authorship of Ratnavali to S'ri Harsha of Kashmere reigning from 1113 to 1125 A. D. Now S'ri Harsha of Naishadhiyacharitam cannot be the author of Ratnávali. For he was not a king as the author of Ratnávali was ; again he has alluded in his works to the fact that he had attained the favour of the King of Kanauj. More- over when he has mentioned the names of all his works, he could have referred to the Ratnávali as well, if he had at all been the author of the work. Secondly S'ri Harsa the grandfather of Bhoja flourished in the 12th century. And S'ri Harsha the King of Kashmere to whom Wilson attributes the authorship of Ratna'vali reigned from 1113 to 1125 A. D. None of these kings can be the author of Ratnávali, by reason of some stanzas (Sl. 8 of Act I and Sl. 2, 3,7 and 4 of Act II) of Ratnávali being quoted by Kshemendra who acc. to Buhler flourished about the middle of the 11th cent. More- over the quotations from these three plays by Dhanika who flourished in the 10th century establishes firmly the same fact. It is now sure that Ratnávali was written by one S'ri Harsha who flourished long before the 10th cent. A. D. The King Jayápida of Kashmere reigned, acc. to scholars

XVI RATNAVALI from 780 to 813 A. D. His minister Damodaragupta wrote a work Kuttanimata in which references of Ratnávali are found. This shows that Ratnávali was written long before the 9th cent. A. D. Before this period there was no other king S'ri Harsha by name except S'ri Harsha otherwise named S'ila'ditya, who was the paramount monarch whose feet were waited upon by the circle of kings (पादपद्मोपजीवी राजसमूहः). So from these facts it is conclusively proved that the authorship of Ratnávali goes to no one else but to S'ri Harsha of Thaneswar. Priyadarśiká was also written by the same author as the subjectmatter of Priyadarśiká' resembles that of Ratnávali ; the प्रस्तावना and भरतवाक्य of both of these works are almost the same ; and besides these, there are various other matters in which a close resemblance is found in these two books. Though the subject-matter of Nágánanda is quite different from that of these two former books yet definite proofs as to S'ri Harsha being its author are available. The plot of Nágánanda appears to be taken from the story of Jimutaváhana who going to substitute himself in the place of the Nágas with a view to saving them from the clutch of Garuda endangered his own life. That S'ri Harsa of Thaneswar of the 7th century is the author of the drama Nágánanda is definitely proved by an account given by a Chinese traveller It-sing who visited Harsha'. In his account he says, “King S'iláditya versified the story of the Bodhisattva Jimutaváhana who surren- dered himself in place of a Nága. This version was set to music ; he had it performed by a band, accompained by dancing and acting and thus popularized it in his time.” This work Nágánanda might have been written towards the latter part of his life when he was strongly inclined towards Buddhistic teachings and often held religious councils in Prayága to welcome the Buddhist monks. However, it is conclusively proved that these three plays were written by the king S'ri Harsha in the 7th century.

INTRODUCTION xvii There is another contention as to the genuineness of the author- ship of these works which is challenged by a sentence from Kāvya- prakās'a of Mammaṭa—‘कालिदासादीनामिव यशः श्रीहर्षादिर्धावकादीनामिव धनम्’ (ch I) and by a line from Uddyota of Nāgeśa ,“धावकः कविः । सः हि श्रीहर्षनाम्ना रत्नावलीं कृत्वा बहुधनं लब्धवान्” । These lines show that S'rī Harsha did not write these works himself but got them written by his court-poet Dhāvaka who in exchange of a large amount of money transferred the authorship to his patron. Mr. Kale observes, “As it is, the whole of this comment turns upon the explanations of the commentators of Kāvyaprakās'a whom we need not explicitly follow ; for there is another and a more natural interpretation of the passage in question viz., that Dhāvaka and other poets got wealth from their (royal) patron as a reward and as a mark of recognition and it is necessary to suppose that authorships were transferred to the patrons in consideration of such gifts. Sensitive and honourable patrons themselves would fight shy of such wholesale transfers.”—Introduction to Ratná- vali. Some critics contend that Ratnāvalī was written originally by Bāṇabhaṭṭa, the court-poet of S'rī Harsha and the the author- ship was transferred to his patron in exchange of money. This contention is based on the slender basis of a line—‘श्रीहर्षादेर्बाणादीनामिव धनम्’—come across in a manuscript of Kāvyaprakās'a. The s'loka द्वीपादन्यस्माद् etc., of the प्रस्तावना of Ratnāvalī is referred to in the celebrated work Harshacharitam. The quotation might have been an accidental one. That cannot be the determining factor of the authorship to be attributed to Bāṇabhaṭṭa. Again if a celebrated poet like Bāṇabhaṭṭa thought it lucrative to transfer the authorship of Ratnāvalī which he himself wrote, to the name of his patron in exchange of money, then he could have earned more money by passing the authorship of his two notable works Kādambarī and Harshacharita that are outstandingly superior works to Ratnāvalī and the authorship of which is a matter of Intro.—B

xviii RATNAVALI great pride and covetable as well to any person whoever he may be. The line ‘श्रीहर्षादेर्भाणादीनामिव धनम्’ indicates that Bána in consideration of his superior poetic merit acquired a large amount of money as a reward from his patron. Another contention put forward by Mr. Náráyana S'ástrigal is the identification of Dhávaka with Bhása who was according to him the court-poet of S'ri Harsha Vikrama about whom a reference is found in the Rájatarangini (cf. तत्रानेहस्याप्यभवत् श्रीमान् हर्षपराभिधः । एकच्छत्रश्चक्रवर्ती विक्रमादित्य इत्यभूत्—III. 125 ). Mr. S'ástri bases his contention on the lines of कविविमर्श ascribed to Rájas'ekara, where the authorship of Ratnávali is ascribed to Bhása who was a washerman (Dhávaka) ; cf :— “कारणं तु कवित्वस्य न सम्पद्नकुलीनता । धावकोऽपि हि यद्भासः कवीनामग्रिमोऽभवत् ॥

INTRODUCTION xix quite sufficient for the theory of Mr. S'ástri to collapse down. Secondly the uniformly simple style in the thirteen dramas of Bhása shows that Ratnávali of which style is decidedly condensed and artificial cannot be the production of Bhása. Thus the fact that S'ri Harsha the king of Thaneswar wrote these three dramas is provisionally proved at least for the present, and this is established until some other theory more intrinsic in its merit and solid in its argument can turn it down. Story of the play Act I Vikramabáhu the king of Simhala had a daughter named Ratnávali whose lot was forecast by the astrologers that the king marrying the girl would be the paramount monarch of the world. Yaugandharáyana the clever minister of Udayana the king of Kaus'ámbi, got the scent of this rumour and being bent on doing the utmost good to his master, proposed the marriage of Ratnávali with Udayana to her father ; but Vikramabáhu being afraid of incurring the displeasure of the chief queen Vásavadattá the wife of Udayana refused at first. And Yaugandharáyana in order to remove the obstacle of the marriage spread a false report that Vásadadattá died in a fire which broke out in Lávánaka, a village of Kaus'ámbi. Now the obstacle being removed, the king of Simhala gave his consent to the proposed marriage and Yaugandharáyana sent the Kanchuki to Simhala. While Ratnávali sent by her father was coming to Kaus'ámbi being escorted by Bábhravya (Udayana's chamberlain) and Vasubhuti (the minister of Vikramabáhu) on board a ship, the ship got wrecked. Ratnávali was taken out of water by a merchant of Kaus'ámbi and was presented to Yaugandharáyana. who recognised her by the jewel-necklace which she always wore. Without disclosing the matter to any one Yaugandharáyana put Ratnaváli in the apartment of Vásavadattá as her handmaid

xx RATNAVALI under the name of Ságariká. The chamberlain and the minister were rescued but they could not know the whereabouts of Ságariká. They joined the army of Udayana under the general- ship of Rumanván who was then leading an expedition against the king of Kosala. Here the plot of the drama proper begins. One day while Udayana accompanied by his Vidushaka was enjoying the festival of Cupid, he was sent a message by the Qaeen that he would have to be present in the Makaranda garden of the Queen where the Cupid's festival was also being held. During the visit of the King to the Makaranda garden, Vásavadattá tried her utmost to keep Ságariká out of the sight of the King who might be captivated by her beauty. But Ságariká with a curiosity remained behind a tree and looked at the festival where Cupid as well as the King were being worshipped by the Queen. Ságariká saw the King for the first time and was carried away by love. She also knew that he was the person to whom she was intended to be given by her father in marriage (कथमयं स राजा उदयनो यस्याहं तातेन दत्ता). Then the darkness set in and the festival was closed. Act II. In the Interlude introduced by two maidservants we come to know that the King was to make an experiment of untimely blossoming upou his own Navamáliká as he was taught by one Chandanadása. Ságariká is represented in a love-sick condition and whiles away her time by drawing the picture of the King. Ságariká entrusted to Susangatá her friend within the harem, the cage of a Sáriká, the Queen's pet bird that was put in her charge and made an open heart to her about the strong love which she entertained for the King. In course of their conversation a bewildering news came that a monkey had let itself loose and was creating disturbance on all sides. Hearing this Ságariká and Susangatá hurried away,—Ságariká leaving the portrait of the

INTRODUCTION xxi King and Susangatá leaving the cage. The Sáriká flew away from the cage broken open by the monkey. Then the Vidushaka came talking about the success of the experiment of the King in the untimely blossoming of Navamáliká. The Sáriká sitting upon a tree repeated all that had passed between Ságariká and Susangatá concering the former's love towards the King. The King and the Vidushaka hearing these made some conjectures as to who was the person who was intended in those talks. Then they came across the portrait of the King left by Ságariká. Then Ságariká and Susangatá came there to take the cage and the portrait but finding there the King and the Vidushaka listened to their conversations in which the King showed his passionate love for the unknown maiden who had painted his portrait. Susangatá introduced Ságariká to the King. Then Ságariká went away. At that moment Vásavadattá entered and caught sight of the portrait and coming to know of the King's motive went away in anger. The King then with-a sorrowful heart left the place. Act III. The third act opens with an Interlude in which a plan made by Susangatá for bringing about the meeting of the King and Ságariká (disguised as Vásavadattá) is disclosed by two maid-servants. After the Interlude the King entered and Vidushaka enlightened him about the scheme. In the meantime the Queen got the scent of the scheme and arrived there. The King and Vidusaka following the previous arrangement took her for Ságariká, when Vasavadatta flared up at this insincerity of the King. The King then tried in vain to propitiate her who de- parted with unabated anger. Then according to the previous plan Ságariká entered under the disguise of Vásavadattá and while trying to commit suicide by hanging in remorse due to her ill-luck, was detected and was mistaken for Vásavadattá by the

xxii INTRODUCTION King owing to her disguise. Gradually the King came to know of his mistake and became glad to have his wished for beloved beside him. Then the Queen with a view to propitiate her offended husband entered and saw her husband busily engaged with Ságariká. The King fell in a thoroughly delicate position and the Queen ordered Ságariká and Vidushaka to be bound down and taken to the inner apartment as prisoners. Act IV. In the fourth act the conversation between Susangatá and Vidūshaka reveals the fact that Ságariká had been reported of being sent to Ujjayini by the Queen. Susangatá handed over the jewel-necklace to Vidushaka saying that it was a gift to a Brahmana by Ságariká who was despaired of her own life. Then Vidushaka saw the King who was informed of Ságariká being sent to Ujjayini. The conversation of Vidushaka and the King was interrupted by the arrival of Vijayavarman, the nephew of general Rúmanván who in- formed the King of the victory attained by Rumanván in a battle against the king of Kos'ala. Then came a magician at whose arrival the King took some interest. Then entered Bábhravya and Vasubhuti who were so long with the army of Rumanván after the misfortune that had befallen Ratnávali. Vasubhuti noticed the jewel-necklace worn by the Vidushaka, and recognized it to be belonging to the daughter of the king of Simhala. Subsequently Vasubhuti by way of conversation with the King brought the previous incident of shipwreck to the notice of the King. Vásavadattá who was also enjoying the performance of the magician came to know the fact. In the meantime a fire broke out in the royal palace at which the Queen became very much concerned and screamed out for the protection of Ságariká who was imprisoned in the inner apartment. At this the King himself ran to rescue the princess

[Header] INTRODUCTION xxiii

at the risk of his own life and brought out Ságariká uninjured from fire which was the illusory creation of the magician. Vasubhuti recognized Ságariká who was also identified to be a cousin of Vásavadattá. The latter regretted her cruel treatment towards her. Then Yaugandharáyana entered and explained how he manipulated the whole state of affairs from the beginning up to the performance of the magician who was sent by him for effecting the release of Ságariká confined in the Queen's apartment. Then the whole atmosphere of tension was cleared up and the Queen approved of the marriage of Ságariká with Udayana who was destined to be the paramount monarch of the world. **The Title of the Drama—**The title of the play is after the name of the heroine, Ratnávali the daughter of the king of Simhala. But throughout the progress of the action of the drama up to the out-break of fire she is nowhere represented in her real name, but all through she appears under the name of Ságariká (as she was rescued from the sea) until she was finally recognized by Vasubhuti, the minister of the king of Simhala ( आश्चर्यति खलु राजपुत्री रत्नावली त्वमेनामवस्थामुपागता—IV). For this reason some hold that the title of the drama is after the necklace ( Ratnávali ) the importance of which can by no means be ignored ; and the necklace has been a sort of अभिज्ञान that helped Ságariká to be recognized twice in the drama. When Ságariká was made over to Yaugandharáyana by the merchant who rescued the princess from the sea, it was at the sight of the necklace on her person that he could recognize her as the princess of Simhala and then took particular care in handing her over to the care of Queen Vásavadattá. Again in the last act this necklace which was worn by the Vidushaka as a gift from Ságariká, helped Vasubhuti to surmise correctly that the princess was living and finally on the strange coincidence of the sight of the necklace and the name Ságariká as explained by Vásavadattá

(अमात्य एषा खलु सागरात् प्राप्तेति भणित्वामात्ययौगन्धरायणेन मम हस्ते निक्षिप्ता। अतएव सागरिकेति शब्द्यते—IV), Vasubhuti recognized her (बाभ्रव्य यथा सुसदृशी वसन्तकस्य कण्ठे रत्नामाला अस्याश्च सागरात् प्राप्तिः तथा व्यक्तं सिंहलेश्वरस्य दुहिता रत्नावलीयम्—IV). Thus according to them the title of the play was meant to be based on the necklace (रत्नावली)—a token, as is done in Sákuntala. But however important within the drama the necklace may be, the action of the drama turns round Ratnávali the princess of Ceylon. Though under some strange circumstances her name is for some time disguised, yet the whole plot centres round the incidents of her life, and the mere disguise of a name is immaterial. In the Shakesperean play ‘Julius Caesar,’ though the hero is killed almost in the middle of the drama, yet the whole drama is called after his name as the action of the drama turns round the spirit of Julius Caesar whose previous activities provide the life-blood to the main action of the plot throughout. So the personal presence on the stage of the character appearing under the title role, is not always necessary. Here also the main action centres round Ratnávali the heroine and the disguise of her ,real name under a peculiar circumstance contributes to the greatest extent towards the development of the plot. Source of the Play.—Scarcely the Sauskrit dramatists are original in the invention of the plots of their dramas. They borrow the theme of the plays from some recognized source which is al- ready known to the public and make marked improvement upon the original when necessary. The subject-matter of Ratnávali clings round an incident of the life of Udayana, the king of the Vatsas. He is the central figure in a large circle of Sanskrit stories of love and adventure, and not only that, the story of Udayana and the Vatsas was one of the most interesting source of diversion among the public at that time. We find in the Meghaduta, the reference to the same (cf : प्राप्यावन्तीनुदयनकथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धान् ; in the present drama— cf : लोके हारि च वत्सराजचरितम् ; in the Mircchakatikam—cf. यौगन्धरायण इव उदयनस्य राज्ञः etc.) The other literary allusions are found in the