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

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

INTRODUCTION XXV Kuttanimata of Dámodaragupta, Málatímádhava of Bhavabhuti etc. The historical reference of the king Udayana is found in the Puranas and his name is also traced in the list of twenty-nine Puru kings who lived after the Mahábhárata war. "They lived in Hastinápura, but they removed to Kaus'ámbi in consequence of the destruction of their former capital by an inundation of the Ganges"—Introduction to Ratnávali by C. R. Devadhara. From the Pali literature such as Divyávadána, Mahávams'a etc., we can learn that he was a contemporary of Chanda Pradyota of Avanti ; and in the plays, stories of his long-drawn antagonism with Mahasena of Avanti being mitigated by his marriage with the latter's daughter Vásavadattá are referred to (vide Svapnavásava- dattam). The author of the present play Ratnávali might have taken the theme from these popular and historical sources. The systematic and detailed history of the king Udayana is set forth in the Brihatkathámanjari of Kshemedra (11th cent A. D.) Kathásaritságara of Somadeva (11th cent) and the Brihatkathá- s'lokasamgraha of Buddhasvámin (10th cent) [ See App. A ]. These three works are claimed to be the three recensions of the long lost famous work of popular tales बृहत्कथा written by Gunádhya in the 1st cent A. D. in Pais'áchi language. It is very difficult to ascertain how far these works conform closely to the contents of the original work Brihatkathá which is long lost sight of. Somadeva, the author compiler of the work Kathásaritságara claims that he has made an exact compilation of the essence of the contents of the बृहत्कथा (cf: बृहत्कथायाः सारस्य सङ्ग्रहं रचयाम्यहम्— Kathásarit. I. 3.) That S'ri Harsha surely consulted the Brihatkathá which was extant at his time is confirmed by the fact that the subject-matters of his three dramas are exactly found in detailed narration in the Kathásaritságara which is claimed by its author to be the exact copy of the essence of the बृहत्कथा. S'ri Harsha could not possibly consult the Kathásaritságara as the latter was compiled four hundred years after Harsha's reign.

xxvi RATNAVALI Again the question may arise that Harsha might have been indebted to Bhása the author of the thirteen famous plays of which two namely स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् and प्रतिज्ञायौगन्धरायणम् are written on the story of the king Udayana. But the subject-matter of these two plays of Bhása strictly conforms to the narration as given in the Kathásaritságara while S'ri Harsha takes the mere skeleton of the story and makes a marked improvement upon the original. This fact as well as the fact of the conformity of the subject-matter of his three plays to the narration given in the Kathásaritságara clearly proves that he was directly indebted for the subject-matter of his plays to the बृहत्कथा which was extant in his time and to which Bánabhatta, the court-poet of S'ri Harsha, declares himself to be indebted in the introductory stanzas of his Kádambari. Original and Shri Harsha's deviations.—In the Kathásaritságara the story of Udayana is divided into three stages. It the first stage which is not important to us is the miraculous incident of Udayana's birth, the rescue of a serpent-lord by him from a fowler and the presentation of a magical lute called Ghoshavati (referred to in स्वप्नवासवदत्तम्) to him by the serpent-lord, are related. The second stage relates the incident of the marriage of Vásavadattá, the daughter of Chanda Mahásena of Ujjayini with Udayana. Chanda Mahásena had a long-drawn enmity with the family of the Vatsa kings. Udayana hankered after the hand of the Vásavadattá but that could not be effected due to that hostile feeling. Mahásena was also desirous of having Udayana as his son-in-law. Now Mahásena taking the advantage of the weakness of Udayana viz., his extreme fondness for hunting, put an artificial wooden elephant with warriors inside its belly in the forest and Vatsarája going to shoot that elephant was captured by the hidden warriors and was taken to Mahásena who appointed Udayana a tutor to train Vásavadattá his daughter in lute-playing. Udayana remained there as a captive for a long time, after which Yaugandharáyana.

[Header] INTRODUCTION xxvii

the chief minister and Vasantaka, the Vidushaka, rescued the King by tricks. Vāsavadattá was also brought with him and the nuptials were finished in the Kaus'ámbi palace. In the subsequent history of Udayana a summary mention is made of the king's love with Virachitá the harem-attendant and his intrigue with the captive princess Bandhumati. The Queen detected their intrigues and took Vasantaka captive. The reconciliation was made by Sámkrityáyani who was the friend of Vāsavadattá. The third stage of the story relates the political motive of Yaugandhárayana who wanted to strengthen the foundation of the kingdom on a more secure basis. With that objective in view he had brought about the alliance between Mahásena and Udayana by the marriage of Vāsavadattá. He now wanted to bring about a matrimonial alliance with the royal family of Magadha. Ajátas'atru the king of Magadha had a beautiful daughter named Padmávati who was solicited in marriage for his master. But the king of Magadha did not want his daughter to be put in the posi- tion of a co-wife of Vāsavadattá for whom Udayana had an unflinching love. In order to remove this obstacle Yaugandharáyana took Vāsavadattá in confidence and one day in the absence of Uda- yana announced that Vāsavadattá had perished in a big fire that broke out in Lávánaka. Vāsavadattá under disguise travelled with Yaugandharáyana who called her his sister. Now fresh proposals for marriage of Padmávati with Udayana were made and Udayana went to Magadha and after the conclusion of the nuptial ceremo- nies returned to the capital. Vāsavadattá also returned to the capital and the deep-laid design of the minister came out to be successful as the king Udayana became a very powerful monarch due to the alliance with those eminent royal families. With this last stage of the story the subject-matter of Ratná- vali is connected. The subject-matter of स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् of Bhása strictly conforms to the story of the Kathásaritságara but in रत्नावली the author has made some important modifications. He has taken

xxviii RATNAVALI the broad fact of the original story upon which the subject-matter of his play is based and the names यौगन्धरायण, काञ्चनमाला, रुमण्वान्, वसन्तक, वासवदत्ता, लावणक of the original are found in the play ; but so far as the development of the main action is concerned he has made important modifications of the original. In the original the foreteller predicted that the marriage with Padmávatí, the daughter of the king of Magadha would make Udayana the paramount monarch ; but in the present play, the marriage of Udayana with Ratnávali, the daughter of Vikramabáhu, the king of Simhala was predicted to be the assurance of the paramount monarchy of the king Udayana. The shipwreck of Ratnávali (after- wards named Ságariká while she was being brought across the sea to the Vatsa kingdom) is the invention of the poet. The rumour of Vásavadattá being killed in the Lávánaka fire is common. In the original story Vásavadattá remained incognito in the Magadha palace ; and after the nuptial ceremony was finished with Padmávatí, Vásavadattá returned to the Kaus'ámbi palace. Here Ratnávali under the name of Ságariká was put under the care of Vásavadattá who could not recognize her until she was rescued from the fire that broke out in the palace by the magical skill of the magician. The introduction of the magician is the poet's own creation. General Estimate of the play.—Though Harsha is not original so far as the subject-matter of the Drama is concerned yet the inventive genius and the skill of a dramatist which he has shown is praiseworthy though not unique. Dr. Keith observes, "The originality of his Nátikás is not perhaps great, but he has effectively devised the plot in both (Ratnávali and Priyadars'iká) ; the action moves smoothly and in either play there is ingenuity. The scene of the magician's activity in the Ratnávali is depicted with humour and vivacity ; the parrot's escape and its chatter are sketched with piquancy and the exchange of costumes in the Ratnávali is natural and effective." Of all his plays the Ratnaváli specially

INTRODUCTION xxix

draws the admiration of its admirers particularly owing to its well-drawn characters and poetic beauties of the sanzas. What is of great interest in the Ratnávali is the good get-up and skilful manipulation of the incidents within the play. The marriage scheme of the minister on his own responsibility without the knowledge of anybody and the skilful performance of the magician helping the recognition of the heroine, the chattering of the parrot disclosing the plot and other minor incidents are well conceived and fitting the situations. Without the Magician's per- formance the union would have been a sudden and hap-hazard one. The style of Ratnávali is well conceived and well polished, plot well developed, characters possibly well depicted within the narrow limit of the action of the subject-matter and thus it is the best work of Harsha though not the best of the lot of the greatest lumi- naries like Bhása, Kálidása and Bhavabhuti in the literary firma- ment. Yet considering the burdensome duty of a ruler involved in continuous warfare and struggles, it is not a small achievement on the part of Harsha to elicit admiration from the public by his unflinching devotion to literary pursuits which resulted in the production of a typical drama like Ratnávali the merit of which is stated in short by an eighth century author Dámodaragupta ine his Kuttanimata as follows.— “श्लिष्टसन्धिवन्धं सत्पात्रं सुवर्णयोजितं सुतराम् । निपुणपरीक्षकदृष्टं राजति रत्नावलीरत्नम् ।” “The jewel of Ratnávali shines out effulgently by its well- constructed joints (of the plot), well-painted characters like pieces of gold being examined by the expert connoisseurs.” Harsha construc- ted the plot of Ratnávali strictly in accordance with the rules of dramaturgy ; so the later dramaturgic experts have cited copious illustrations from the Ratnávali to exemplify the rules regulating the Samskrit drama, they have set forth. In the history of Sanskrit drama the place of Ratnávali is by no means to be over-

XXX RATNAVALI looked. Its author flourished at such a period when Sanskrit poetry was having a transit from originality to artificiality. H. H. Wilson observes, "the Ratnávalí in short may be taken as one of the connecting links of the old and the new school as a not unpleasing production of that middle region through which Hindu poetry passed from elevation to extravagance." Characters.—C. R. Devadhara observes, "most of the characters in the play are traditional and the poet has delineated them in exact conformity with the legend." The main interest of the play depends upon the incidents that have helped the action of the drama to move towards the successful end of the plot. As the action of the play is circumscribed within the limit of a few days, the characters have not been given the opportunity of displaying their individual peculiarities which mostly ensure the abiding interest in the drama. Wilson remarks, in the circum- scribed limits of the action "we have no right to entail much contrast or development of character and it is enough that all the individuals introduced preserve their identity." The principal characters are :— (I) Yaugandharáyana :—He is an astute farsighted politician bent heart and soul on the welfare and future good of his master. He was alert to the foretelling of a fortune-teller that the marriage with Ratnávali would ensure the paramount monarchy of his master and so he caught the first opportunity of removing all obstacles from this marriage. From the beginning to the end he has uniformly and unerringly manipulated the matters to a successful end. He knew that the girl rescued from the sea was Ratnávali ; yet he did not disclose it at once and put her under the care of Vásavadattá so that the King might have a hankering for having her as his bride when she would get the opportunity of coming across his sight. He became satisfied and attained self-complacency when Ratnávali was given to the King by Vásavadattá ( इदानीं सफलपरिश्रमोऽस्मि संवृत्तः,—IV ). His

: Is it स्मृ or स्तु? Wait, "स्तुतेरपि ते श्लाघ्यः" = "even of praise you are worthy / worthy even of praise!" Wait, "श्लाघ्य" means "praiseworthy". "स्तुतेरपि श्लाघ्यः" = "praiseworthy even beyond praise"? Or "स्मृतेरपि ते श्लाघ्यः" = "even in memory you are praiseworthy"? Wait, look at the conjunct: Does it look more like स्मृ or स्तु? In either case, it has the 'े' on the 'त'! Wait, look at the first letter: It has स्, and beneath it, is it म or त? Wait, look at स्मृत vs स्तुत: In स्तु, 'त' is attached beneath 'स्'. In स्मृ, 'म' is attached beneath 'स्', or 'स्' is half and followed by 'मृ'. Here, notice that under the crossbar of 'स्', there is a loop! A loop with a bottom curve to the left: that's म with ृ! So it's स्मृतेरपि or स्तुतेरपि! Wait, let's look at line 15: `(साधु कोशलपते साधु, स्मृतेरपि ते श्लाघ

of a lady of noble birth and steady character. In the third act when she comes to know the plot hatched by Vidushaka and Susangatá she shows her ill temper but subsequently she repents her own attitude towards the King and comes back to be reconciled with him. (cf: हञ्जे काञ्चनमाले, तथा चरणनिपतितमार्यपुत्रमवधीय्यागच्छन्त्या मयातिनिष्ठुरं कृतम्। तदिदानीं स्वयमेव नामार्यपुत्रमनुनेष्यामि—III) This shows her nobility of character and unswerving love for her lord. She imprisoned Ságariká so that she might not come to the view of the king, but she never adopted the attitude quite in contrary to her tender nature. When the fire broke out she screamed out that Ságariká was within the palace and got anxious for her rescue so that she might not perish in the fire. Ságariká was her rival, she could easily see her perish in the fire, but her noble birth and tender heart did not allow her to maintain that inhuman attitude. Her magnaninity is further testified by her attitude when she handed over Ságariká to the king for marriage. By that she shows her utmost affectionate feeling towards Ságariká when the latter was in the position of truly being her rival. (4) Sagarika.—She is the heroine of the drama. Her original name Ratnávali was disgnised by the trick of the minister under the name of Ságariká as she was rescued from the sea. She was being brought from Simhala for marriage with the king of the Vatsas, but in the way she fell a victim to the accident. She was embarassed at such an adverse fortune and being made over to Vásavadattá she lived there as a docile, amiable and humble girl utterly resigned to the sweet will of the Queen. The noticeable thing in her character is her intense love for the King at the very first sight and being unable to fulfil her object tried even to put an•end to her life (सर्व्वथा मरणमेव मम मन्दभागिन्या उपेक्षितम्). As a lady of high birth, simple nature, susceptible to a keen sense of self- prestige it is quite likely that she should be despondent of her life under the adverse circumtances—quite in contrary to the situation under which she was born and brought up. She could have

RATNAVALI xxxiii disclosed her identity to the Queen or to her friend Susangatá and thus could have cleared the situation and the misunderstanding ; but she did not do that as the keen sense of honour was always alive within her. She was a charming and accomplished lady, quite capable of attracting the mind of the hero who was thus to have a temporary feud with his old love on her account. (5) Vasantaka—He is the Vidushaka depicted in the conven- tional manner of stereotyped humour and light and frivolous talks. He is a constant companion of the King not in respect of kingly duties, but in harem politics, mostly in love-affair. The King consults and takes always his help in these love-matters. His ugly appearance, stupidity, voraciousness make him a laughing-stock of all. In the original, Vidushaka has been painted with a nobler trait when he underwent a risk to rescue the King from the palace of Chanda Mahásena. In administering the love- affairs of the King he puts himself to trouble by being imprisoned by the Queen. His love for his master is unbounded. On the whole he is the only comic element on the stage bringing about diversion in the midst of seriousness of the action of the play. [Other minor characters] Vasubhuti—He is the minister of the king Vikramabáhu of Ceylon. He accompained Ratnávali but falling victim to shipwreck along with बाभ्रव्य, the chamberlain of Udayana joined the army of Rumanván in his expedition against the king of Kosala. He returned therefrom with a heart full of sorrow at the misfortune that befell Ratná- vali and was in a fix how he would console his master, the king. This shows his extreme devotion for his lord. Kánchanamálá —She is the maid-servant of the Queen. She is always devoted to her mistress who puts utmost confidence in her. She is always anxious for a good bond remaining between the King and her mistress and thus she makes her mistress always alert as soon as she comes to know of any sign of inconstancy of the King whenever a misunderstanding is caused by mistake.

XXXIV RATNAVALI Susangatá :—She is an attendant and friend of the heroine. She is always anxious to see the union of her friend with the King and with this end in view she does everything possible for Ságariká who confides everything to her. She was in the plot with Vidushaka for bringing about a meeting between Sága- riká and the King. She did all this disinterestedly not knowing even that her friend was the daughter of a king. She was al- ways sympathetic towards Ságariká for the situation in which she was put. Dramatis Personae Males सूत्रधारः—The Stage-manager. उदयनः—The king of Kauśámbi, the hero. वसन्तकः—The Vidushaka, a court-wit to Udayana. यौगन्धरायणः—The prime minister to Udayana. वसुभूतिः—The minister to the king of Simhala. बाभ्रव्यः—The chamberlain of Udayana who was sent to Ceylon as a match-maker. विजयवर्मा—A military officer, the nephew of Rumaṇván—the Commander-in Chief of Udayana. शम्बरसिद्धिः—A Magician. Females नटी—The wife of the Stage-manager (सूत्रधार). वासवदत्ता—Udayanana's queen, the daughter of Mahásena. रत्नावली—The daughter of the king of Ceylon named Vikramabáhu. सागरिका—The disguised name of Ratnávali. काञ्चनमाला—The maid-servant of the queen Vásavadattá. सुसङ्गता—The attendant and friend of Ságariká. चूतलतिका ⎫ मदनिका ⎬ The maid-servants of the harem of Udayana. निपुणिका ⎭ वसुन्धरा—The female porter. Persons referred to in the play. विक्रमबाहुः—The king of Ceylon, the father of Ratnávali—the heroine. रुमण्वान्—The general of Udayana. मेधाविनी—A talking pet bird of the Queen that disclosd the plot of Susangatá.

र्त्तिः' (कीर्त्तिः).

Line 15: "श्रीहर्षदेवः 'काव्यं यशसेऽर्थकृते व्यवहारविदे' इत्यादिना काव्यशास्त्रस्य यशआदि-" Notice "यशआदि-" (sandhi not applied, or यशआदि).

Line 16: "श्रेयःसाधनतां पश्यन्, तत्र पुनः काव्यशास्त्रस्य दृश्य-श्रव्यभेदेन द्विविधत्वात् 'नाट्यं भिन्नरु-"

Line 17: "चेर्जनस्य बहुधाप्येकं समाराधनम्' इति श्रव्यकाव्यापेक्षया दृश्यकाव्यस्य लोकचित्तहारि-" (Quotation from Malavikagnimitra: 'नाट्यं भिन्नरुचेर्जनस्य बहुधाप्येकं समाराधनम्').

Line 18: "तया उत्कर्षं, 'काव्यालापांश्च वर्जयेत्' इत्यादिनिषेधानामसत्काव्यविषयतां च विचारयन्"

Line 19: "'रसो वै सः' इति श्रुतिवाक्येन रसानुभूतौ परमपुरुषार्थप्राप्तिबीजं निबध्नन्, पुनः अष्टधा"

Line 20: "विभज्यमानानां रसानां मध्ये शृङ्गाररसस्य प्राधान्यं 'शृङ्गारी चेत् कविः काव्ये जातं रसमयं" (Quotation from Dhvanyaloka: 'शृ

२ रत्नावली जगत्' इत्यादिमहाजनवाक्यतातपर्य्यानुसारेण सम्यग् विविच्य शृङ्गाररसप्रधानां रत्नावलीं नाम नाटिकां चिकीर्षुः ग्रन्थविघ्ननिराकरणमुखेन देवतास्तुतिद्वारा नान्दीश्लोकान् अवतारयन् तत्र प्रथमम् आह—पादाग्रस्थितया इत्यादि। पादयोः अग्रे ताभ्यां स्थितया अवतिष्ठमानया उच्चैर्भावार्थमित्यर्थः। मुहुः पुनः पुनः स्तनभरेण नम्रतां प्रह्वताम् आनीतया प्रापितया शम्भोः शिवस्य, सस्पृहलोचनत्रयपथं सस्पृहं साकाङ्क्षं लोचनत्रयं तस्य पन्थानं 'ऋक्पूरब्धूःपथामानक्षे इति समासान्तः अ-प्रत्ययः। यान्त्या गच्छन्त्या ह्रीमत्या लज्जाशीलया प्रथमोद्भुतयौवनत्वात्, सपुलकस्वेदोद्गमोत्कम्पया पुलकः रोमाञ्चः 'पुलको लोमहर्षणम्' स्वे दोद्गमः घर्मोत्पत्तिः उत्कम्पः वेपथुः च तैः सहिता तया। सात्त्विकभावोदयात् देवाधिदेवे अनुरागः सूचितः। एवम्भूतया गिरिजया पार्व्वत्या तदारा- धने तस्य शिवस्य आराधने पूजायां शिरसि ईङ्गितः अर्पयितुम् अभिप्रेतः क्षिप्तः कुसुमाञ्जलिः अन्तरे पार्वतीशिवयोर्मध्ये विश्रिष्यन् विशीर्णः वः युष्मान् सामाजिकान् रङ्गान्तर्वर्त्तिनः पातु रक्षतु। अत्रायमभिप्रायः—उच्चैर्वेदीमास्थितस्य शम्भोः शिरसि तन्तुष्ट्यर्थं पुष्पाञ्जलिं दातु- कामा पार्व्वती यदा पादाग्राभ्यां स्थिता तदा देवेन मदनावेशात् निरीक्ष्यमाणा तया देव्या लज्जावशात् पुष्पाञ्जलिः उभयोरन्तरे एव क्षिप्तः। शार्दूलविक्रीड़ितं वृत्तम्। काव्य- लिङ्गमलङ्कारः, कुसुमाञ्जलेः अन्तरे पतनं प्रति पूर्व्वपादस्थितानां पदार्थानाम् हेतुभूतत्वात्। अस्य श्लोकस्य मगणेन आरम्भात् ग्रन्थस्य शुभसमाप्तिः सूच्यते। यथोक्तं भामहेन—'क्षेमं सर्व्वगुरुर्द्दत्ते मगणो भूमिदैवतः।” अन्येन च “मौ भूमिस्त्रिगुरुः श्रियं दिशति" इति ॥१॥ Prose. पादाग्रस्थितया मुहुः स्तनभरेण नम्रताम् आनीतया तदाराधने सस्पृहलोचनत्रयपथं यान्त्या ह्रीमत्या सपुलकस्वेदोद्गमोत्कम्पया गिरिजया शम्भोः शिरसि ईङ्गितः क्षिप्तः कुसुमाञ्जलिः अन्तरे विश्रिष्यन् वः पातु ॥१॥ Beng. Trans. তাঁহার (শিবের) আরাধনাকালে পাদাগ্রে দণ্ডায়মানা, স্তনভারে পুনঃ পুনঃ বিনম্রগাত্রা পার্ব্বতীর প্রতি শিব পুনঃ পুনঃ নেত্রত্রয়দ্বারা সস্পৃহ দৃষ্টিপাত করিতেছিলেন। (তাহাতে) পার্ব্বতীর রোমাঞ্চ, ঘর্ম্মোদ্গম ও ঈষৎকম্প হইয়া লজ্জার উদ্রেক করিতেছিল। সেই হেতু পার্ব্বতীকর্তৃক তদীয় শিরোভাগে প্রদানার্থ ঈপ্সিত যে কুসুমাঞ্জলি নিক্ষিপ্ত হইয়াও উভয়ের মধ্যস্থলে বিশ্লিষ্ট হইয়াছিল, সেই পুষ্পাঞ্জলি তোমাদিগকে রক্ষা করুক ॥১॥