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

lxxvii] Uttara-Rāma-Charita: Critical Estimate
that of Kālidāsa, the current view being¹ that in the Uttara-Rāma-charita
Bhavabhūti has even surpassed the so-called ‘Shakespeare of India’. We
have given for this play in the sequel (pp. 4–14) a synoptic analysis of its
plot act by act, and have tried to show the bearing of every act (and
scene) upon the dénouement of the play. We will here limit ourselves
to a few general criticisms.
39. Special features of the Uttara-Rāma-charita.—The play, as its
title shows, treats of the later history of Rāma, from his coronation and
the abandonment of Sītā to the final reunion. As we have seen (pp. liv–
lxviii), the main incidents of the story—the circumstances leading to the
abandonment of Sītā, her rescue, the birth of the twins and their education,
the horse-sacrifice and the heroism displayed by the boys in capturing the
horse, their recognition by Rāma, the final ordeal of Sītā, and presumably
also the final reunion,—these were all given to the poet, not excepting even
the Śambūka episode (act ii) and the Lavaṇa affair (end of act i and of
act vii). The poet’s task therefore was not to create a plot, nor even to
make any considerable change in the sequence of given events and connect
them causally, as was the case in the two earlier plays.
The problem to be answered was briefly this: How could Rāma ever
think of abandoning such a wife as Sītā? and, having abandoned her—for
whatever cause—how could they be again united in any real sense until all
clouds, all vestiges of doubt and distrust, had been entirely banished from
their minds? The Dushyanta of Kālidāsa not only repudiates Śakuntalā,
but actually insults her to her face (Śākuntala, act v, Vyapadeśam
āvilayitum, &c.); and yet, when the reunion comes in act vii, Śakuntalā
has no other proof as to the penitence of the king than the indirect report
coming from her mother’s friend, and presumably the sad and wasted form
of her husband when she first beholds him after a separation of years.
True, the king begs her to forgive him (act vii: Sutanu hṛdayāt pratyā-
deśa-vyalīkam, &c.), but Śakuntalā has already acknowledged and accepted
him quietly before that, although her early experience of ‘that jar of
poison with honey on top’ might have taught her a lesson.² Similarly

---

¹ Uttare Rāma-charite Bhavabhūtir viśishyate.
² Of course, Kālidāsa, with the instinct of an
artist, has tried to lessen the suddenness
of the transition in various ways. One
in particular must here be noted, since
its artistic significance has not been suffi-
ciently recognized; namely the difference
in the background of act vii of the play
as contrasted with that of the first and
the following two acts. That of act vii
is a hermitage in the sky far removed
from the world, its passions, its hopes
(Yat kāṅkshanti tapobhir anya-munayas tas-
miṁs tapasyanty amī); that of acts i–iii is
a forest on earth, a penance-grove if you
will, but it is in the full bloom of spring.
The wild infuriated elephant which
breaks in at the end of act i, and the
mild forgiving lioness in act vii which
Sarvadamana robs of her cub, express