उत्तररामचरितम् (महाकवि भवभूति - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी व्याख्या)

UTTARARĀMACHARITA ix IV Literary estimate Bhavabhuti is a great poet. From very early times Sanskrit critics have looked upon Bhavabhūti as contesting with Kālidāsa for the first place among Sanskrit poets. Most however would give the palm of superiority to Kālidāsa. The muse of Kālidāsa is always smooth and polished and never grates upon the ear, while that of Bhavabhūti is often rugged and jarring. Kālidāsa is a consummate artist, and his execution is always even. Bhavabhūti is inferior as an artist and his execution is most uneven. While there are passages in Bhavabhūti's works that are unrivalled in their beauty, force and loftiness of sentiment, there are many others that are marred by verbosity and slovenliness. Kālidāsa was a court poet, while Bhavabhūti hardly ever dwells upon the pomp and luxuries of royalty. Kālidāsa seems to have moved in a world of conventionalities, while Bhavabhūti is an unsophisticated child of Nature. But there are certain provinces in which Bhavabhūti admits of no equal. We shall briefly point out some of the merits of the autho- (1) The tone of the whole drama and of every part of it is highly elevated. Every one of the characters is an ideal one in its own way. Even Durmukha, a spy and as such hated by all, is painted as a high-souled public servant, who faithfully does his duty towards his master, though with the greatest reluctance and sorrow. It is not necessary to say anything about Rāma and Sītā, the hero and heroine of the drama. These two have been cherished for thou- sands of years by all classes in India as the loftiest ideals of manly and womanly virtues respectively. It is difficult to find another work in Sanskrit where the conflict of generous feelings in elevated walks of life is depicted so deftly and in such impressive colours. In connection with the tone of gravity that pervades Bhavabhūti we may note that none of his three works contains a buffoon. (2) Bhavabhūti shows a true love of Nature in its beautiful and sublime moods. He was a minute observer of Nature, and could draw out lessons from the most trivial aspect of it. His descriptions of scenery are always realistic, vivid and forcible. What can be more graphic and picture- sque than his description of the Daṇḍakā forest and Janasthāna in the second Act of the Uttararāmacharita? 2