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

xxxix] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date
Know ye, my dear children, that for the man his lawfully wedded
wife and for the wife her lord are, the one to the other, the
dearest of friends, the sum-total, I should say, of all relations,
the consummation of all desires, a priceless treasure, the very
life and all.
And when children come, this affection between man and wife reaches
its utmost perfection (Uttara-Rāma, iii. 18) :
As being the common meeting-ground of the father's and the
mother's affection, in a child we, so to say, tie in a common knot
of joy the several strands of their hearts.
Bhavabhūti's conception of friendship was also equally lofty. Compare,
for instance, Mahāvīra-charita, v. 59 :
To guard thy friend's interests even at the sacrifice of thy own
life; in thy dealings with him to avoid all malice, all guile ; and
to strive for his weal as thou wouldst for thy own : such is the
course of noble friendship.
Other instances of this are the relation between Mādhava and Makaranda
(Mālatī-Mādhava, ix. 40) and that between Janaka and Daśaratha (Uttara-
Rāma, iv. 13, 14). These extracts from Bhavabhūti's works will help to
make the otherwise shadowy figure of the poet somewhat life-like and
real. We now proceed to the more difficult task of determining his date.
6. Bhavabhūti's date : traditional story about Kālidāsa and Bhava-
bhūti.—Tradition couples Bhavabhūti's name with that of Kālidāsa,
grouping them with seven others as the 'nine gems' of the court of king
Vikrama or Vikramāditya of Ujjain. The story goes that, when Kālidāsa
was already a recognized 'gem' in the court of Vikramāditya, there came
to him one day a Brahman poet, and begged him to intercede with the
king and secure the royal patronage. This poet was no other than our
Bhavabhūti. He read aloud his Uttara-Rāma-charita while Kālidāsa was
half listening to him and half engaged in playing a game of sāra's (a kind
of chess). When Bhavabhūti had finished, Kālidāsa praised the work very
highly, and agreed to use his influence for the poet if he would but drop
a bindu (nasal) in the last line of one of the stanzas (i. 27. See Notes).
Bhavabhūti accepted the improvement, and became an acknowledged
'gem'.
The stanza about the 'nine gems' is late, and we do not even know
from it who is meant by 'Vikramāditya', since that is a title assumed by
several kings. The Saṁvat era which is still current in many parts of

Introduction [xl]
India is supposed to have been founded by a Vikramāditya (57 B.C.), and
some scholars place Kālidāsa in the court of this Vikramāditya. But the
best modern opinion¹ makes the Golden Age of the classical Sanskrit
literature coincident with the bloom of the Gupta dynasty, several kings
of which had assumed the title of Vikramāditya. This brings Kālidāsa
somewhere between 375 and 475 A.D.
7. Bhavabhūti's works certainly influenced by those of Kālidāsa.—
The matter of Kālidāsa's Śākuntala is an old epic legend which we find in
the Mahā-Bhārata; and the matter of his Urvaśī may be traced through the
Brāhmaṇas back to the hymns of the Ṛigveda itself. Accordingly, the fact
that Bhavabhūti alludes in his Mālatī-Mādhava (see ii. 7¹⁰, iii. 3) to the
familiar tales of Śakuntalā and Dushyanta, and of Purūravas and Urvaśī,
has of course not an atom's weight towards proving that he knew the tales
from Kālidāsa's plays. On the other hand, the dénouement of the Uttara-
Rāma-charita resembles that of the Śākuntala enough to suggest that
Bhavabhūti was familiar with Kālidāsa's technique. Again, the parallelisms
in thought and expression as between Bhavabhūti and Kālidāsa (they have
been put together for study in appendix 4) present further cumulative
evidence looking in the same direction. Thirdly, the parallelism between
act ix of Mālatī and act iv of Urvaśī is even yet more weighty as proof.
In the one we have the love-lorn Mādhava wandering in quest of his
Mālatī, and in the other the distracted Purūravas seeking in vain for
Urvaśī. Here again, as between Bhavabhūti and Kālidāsa, the dramatic
situation and its poetic treatment bear such striking similarity as to suggest
direct and conscious imitation. Fourthly, Bhavabhūti's dramatic device
(at M. M. ix. 25, 26) of making the desperate Mādhava send a cloud as
messenger to his beloved, is so clearly an imitation of Kālidāsa's Cloud-
messenger or Megha-dūta that there can be scarcely a doubt that Bhava-
bhūti (perhaps its earliest imitator) here had that famous and much-
imitated poem distinctly in mind,—so complete is the correspondence of
the stanzas concerned not only in situation but also in the words and even
in the characteristic metre. Indeed, as concerns points three and four, we
may say that Bhavabhūti has deliberately set himself to use Kālidāsa's
motifs, and if possible, in so doing, to surpass him.
So much then seems certain, that Bhavabhūti studied and imitated
Kālidāsa. Accordingly he may have been either a somewhat younger

¹ See B. Liebich, Das Datum des Kālidāsa,
Indogermanische Forschungen, Band
xxxi (1912), pp. 198-203. This paper
gives a convenient statement of the vari-
ous older views and arguments with the
needed references to previous discussions.
Compare also Professor Pathak's paper
on Kālidāsa and the Hūṇas of the Oxus
valley, Ind. Ant. for Nov. 1912, pp. 265–
267.

contemporary of Kālidāsa, or else he may (so far as this evidence goes)
be later than Kālidāsa by any amount of time. To try to determine the
interval between them as small or great by differences of style small or
great is a futile task such as has often been tried, and in vain.
8. Bhavabhūti probably later than Bāṇa, about A.D. 610.—The emperor
Harsha of Kanauj reigned from 606 to 648, and the illustrious Chinese
pilgrim Hiuen Tsang has made for us many interesting records of that
memorable reign. Bāṇa was Harsha's court-poet, and wrote a 'History of
Harsha' or Harsha-charita to glorify his imperial patron. The date of the
book may be set at A.D. 610. In the introduction Bāṇa mentions Bhāsa and
Kālidāsa and other famous poets, but not Bhavabhūti.
The argumentum ex silentio is indeed a dangerous one. In this same
introduction Bāṇa omits all 'mention of Vālmīki, although Bāṇa certainly
knew about the Rāmāyaṇa and its author (cp. Kādambarī, ed. Peterson,
pp. 51, 91, &c.). Nevertheless, if Bhavabhūti preceded Bāṇa or was contem-
poraneous with him, it is very unlikely that Bāṇa, as an eminent man
of letters, should not have known Bhavabhūti, an eminent man of letters.
True, Bāṇa and Bhavabhūti did not belong to the same court, and in old
times news did not travel fast; or it may be that Bhavabhūti did not
attain eminence until after the Harsha-charita was finished. But otherwise
it is hard to see why Bāṇa—when mentioning the dramatists Bhāsa and
Kālidāsa—did not mention the dramatist Bhavabhūti also, except on the
assumption that Bhavabhūti was somewhat later than Bāṇa.
9. Identity of Bhavabhūti with 'a pupil of Kumārila' (say 700–750)
unproved.—There is a manuscript of the Mālatī-Mādhava, in appearance
about 400 years old, which in the colophons to acts iii and vi assigns the
play to 'a pupil of Kumārila', but elsewhere assigns it to Bhavabhūti.
According to this evidence,¹ Bhavabhūti was a pupil of the great Mīmāṁsā
teacher, Kumārila, of about A.D. 700. Unfortunately, the colophon to act vi
complicates the matter by giving the name of that pupil as Umvekāchārya.
It follows either 1. that this was an alias of Bhavabhūti, or else 2. that
the Mālatī-Mādhava is a composite work, and that, while the other eight
acts are by Bhavabhūti, acts iii and vi are by Umvekāchārya, perhaps a
substitution (like that of Subrahmaṇya in the Mahāvīra-charita ²) of his
own version of these two acts in place of Bhavabhūti's original version
which this 'pupil of Kumārila' did not like.
Obviously we are giving undue weight to the testimony of a single

Footnotes:

¹ First brought out by Mr. Lele, p. 84 of his book cited above at p. xxxvi; further discussed by Mr. S. P. Pandit, introd. to Gaüḍavaho, pp. ccv ff. See also preface to Dr. Bhandarkar's M. M, 2nd ed., p. viii.
² See Nirṇaya Sāgara ed. of the play, p. 213 n.
f [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [xlii]

manuscript. A solitary manuscript, Bd, of the Uttara-Rāma gives Bhava-
bhūti's original name as Śilakaṇṭha instead of Śrīkaṇṭha; and the oldest
extant manuscript of the Mālatī-Mādhava (of A. D. 1156; cp. p. xxxvi, above)
says, after the colophon to act x, kṛtir iyam mahāva(ka)ver Bhūgarbhasya.
Is Bhūgarbha still another alias of Bhavabhūti? Perhaps all this confusion
means merely that the name of our poet was not so well and so widely
known as we might like to think.¹
Bhavabhūti and Kumārila were both Southerners or Dākshiṇātyas.
It is probable that they were nearly contemporaries (Kumārila's time is
put as 700–750²). And Bhavabhūti does use a technical term or two of
the Mīmāṅsā (so arthavāda at Uttara-Rāma, i. 39⁵). But there do not seem
to be any cogent reasons for an inference that Bhavabhūti was a direct
pupil of the famous Mīmāṅsā teacher Kumārila.
10. Bhavabhūti certainly earlier than Rājaśekhara (about 900).—
The earliest unmistakable reference to Bhavabhūti ³ occurs in Rājaśekhara.
In his play, the Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa, i. 16, he pays a handsome compliment to
Bhavabhūti, and incidentally to himself, as follows:
He who was formerly known as the poet Vālmīki, and who subse-
quently assumed on earth the form of Bhartṛmeṇṭha, and who
appeared once again in the person of Bhavabhūti,—that same
[Vālmīki] is existing now as Rājaśekhara.⁴
The whole tenor of the stanza makes it certain that Rājaśekhara has in
mind no other Bhavabhūti than the one who dramatized the Rāmāyaṇa,
that is to say, our Bhavabhūti. And in order that the reincarnation may
be poetically plausible, we must of course assume that Bhavabhūti had been
dead for some time before Rājaśekhara was born.
But there are further data confirming Bhavabhūti's priority to Rāja-
śekhara. That the latter imitated Bhavabhūti is shown by Professor
V. S. Apte.⁵ And among his dramatic devices derived from Bhavabhūti are
pictures (Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa, act iv), play-within-play (ibid., act iii), a pupil
wandering in search of instruction (ibid., interlude to act iv), and so on.
In the Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa, iv. 41⁷, Rājaśekhara actually mentions, though
with a skilful double meaning, Bhavabhūti's Mahāvīra-charita.
In all his four extant plays Rājaśekhara mentions the fact that he was

Footnotes:

¹ And it is in this way perhaps that we have to explain the reference Mālatīmādhavasya in Jalhaṇa's anthology; see below, § 15.
² See Professor Pathak's paper in the JBBRAS, vol. xviii, pp. 213–38.
³ Of later references there are many. The more important ones may be found together in Appendix 2.
⁴ See Konow and Lanman's Karpūra-mañjarī, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. iv, p. 187.
⁵ In an extremely rare tract. See Konow, l. c., p. 187.

xliii] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date
the spiritual teacher or guru of Mahendrapāla of Kanauj; and this
monarch is mentioned in the Siyadoni inscription ¹ with the dates 903–4
and 907–8. The date of Rājaśekhara is accordingly put at about A. D. 900.
So far as these facts may determine it therefore, the latest limit for
Bhavabhūti would be about 850 to 875.
11. Date of Yaśovarman of Kanauj as determining that of Vākpati-
rāja.—Kalhaṇa’s Chronicle of the kings of Kaśmīr or Rājatarangiṇī, written
1148–9, states at iv. 134 that the king of Kaśmīr, Lalitāditya-Muktāpīḍa
(Mu-to-pi of the Chinese Annals), subdued king Yaśovarman of Kānyakubja
or Kanauj. From the Chronicle, the limits of Lalitāditya’s reign appear to
be 699 to 735 A. D.; but Stein is of opinion that the humiliation of Yaśo-
varman by Lalitāditya was subsequent ² to a certain embassy sent by the
latter to the Chinese emperor, which embassy, according to the Annals,
cannot have been earlier than 736.
12. Date of Vākpatirāja’s Gaüḍavaho not far from 736.—Yaśovar-
man’s court-poet during some part of his reign (presumably the later) was
a man called in Sanskrit Vākpatirāja, or in Prākrit, Bappairāa. He wrote
a Prākrit poem entitled Gaüḍavaho (Sanskrit Gāuḍavadhah). This means
‘Slaughter of the Gauḍian [king]’. It is a long poem of over 1200 stanzas,
devoted ostensibly to the glorification of his Royal patron Yaśovarman.
It was evidently planned on an ‘enormous’ (viyaḍa = vikaṭa) scale; for,
long as it is, it is in fact only a prelude, and does not even give the name
of the ‘Gauḍian king’, much less any details about his ‘slaughter’. It was
edited by Shankar Pandurang Pandit (Bombay, 1887), with an elaborate
introduction, discussing Yaśovarman (pp. xvii ff.), his date (lxvii), Vākpati-
rāja’s personal history (xxxiii and lxiv), and the date of the writing of the
poem (xcvi). Other pertinent discussions are: Bühler’s paper in WZKM,
Band ii, pp. 328–40; Jacobi’s, in the Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen of 1888,
no. 2, p. 68; Stein’s notes to his translation (1900) of Kalhaṇa; and
Bhandarkar’s 2nd ed. (1905) of Mālatī-Mādhava, preface, p. xiii.
In determining the date of the writing of the Gaüḍavaho, no question
could be more pertinent than this: Why does the poem, planned upon an
‘enormous’ scale, stop short with the prelude, and not even take up the
slaughter of the Gauḍian king,³ that is, the very subject which, to judge
from the title of the poem, should form its main substance? The most
natural answer is that Vākpatirāja began his panegyric in the days of
Yaśovarman’s greatest successes, and that, after writing his prelude of

Footnotes:
¹ See Kielhorn, Epigraphia Indica, i. 171; or Konow, l. c., pp. 178–9.
² See Stein’s Translation of the Chronicle, Introduction, § 85, and cp. his notes on iv. 134 and iv. 126, and § 66.
³ For meagre and incidental mentions of him, see Mr. S. P. Pandit, Introd. p. xlii.

Introduction [xliv
1200 stanzas, he was moved to abandon the subject proper by reason
of some great disaster or humiliation¹ that befell his patron—presumably
the humiliation experienced at the hands of Lalitāditya. If this is as
certain as it is plausible, the composition of the Gaüḍavaho would be not
very far from A.D. 736.
13. Bhavabhūti probably a little earlier than Vākpatirāja.—We are
now in a position to consider the bearing of Vākpatirāja’s date upon the
date of Bhavabhūti. For the chronological relation of these two men we
have two important texts. The first is in Kalhaṇa’s Chronicle, iv. 144, and
reads as follows :
kaviVākpatirāja-śrīBhavabhūty-ādi-sevitaḥ
jito yayau Yaśovarmā tadguṇastutivanditām.
‘Yaśovarman, on whom attended the poet Vākpatirāja, the illustrious
Bhavabhūti, and other [poets], became by his defeat [at the hands of
Lalitāditya] a panegyrist of his [Lalitāditya’s] virtues.’ There is not the
smallest reason to doubt that this Vākpatirāja is the same as the author of
the Gaüḍavaho; and the complete reversal of fortune which explains so
well the author’s leaving the main part of his poem unwritten, is here most
clearly set forth. And it would seem extremely improbable that, when
speaking of ‘illustrious Bhavabhūti’, Kalhaṇa had any other poet in mind
than the great dramatist who now engages our attention. In short, it is
a safe inference that both Bhavabhūti and Vākpatirāja,—the latter officially,
the former we know not how,—were connected with the court of
Yaśovarman.
As making against the inference that Bhavabhūti was connected with
the court of Yaśovarman we must in fairness mention two facts : 1. from
none of Bhavabhūti’s extant works do we get the impression that he was
at any time basking in royal favour; and 2. still less do we find any
direct statement that he was ever in attendance upon Yaśovarman. But
these facts are not perhaps of much consequence. In spite of his silence,
Bhavabhūti may have received occasional gifts from that king.
Secondly, as making against the assumption that ‘the illustrious Bhava-
bhūti’ mentioned by Kalhaṇa is the same as our Bhavabhūti, we must
mention the circumstance that, in the dvandva compound contained in the
stanza above cited, Kalhaṇa places ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’ after ‘Vākpatirāja’,
whereas, if Kalhaṇa knew that the dramatist Bhavabhūti was older than
Vākpatirāja (see below) and if he was scrupulous as to a point of grammar
like this, he should have placed ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’ before ‘Vākpatirāja’,
since vārtika 3 to Pāṇini ii. 2. 34 requires that what is prior in order
¹ Cp. Mr. S. P. Pandit, l. c., pp. lxxii, lxxiii.

xlv] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date

of time or nature should come earlier in a dvandva compound. This
objection can be met by supposing that ‘Vākpatirāja’, the first member
of the compound, was in Kalhaṇa’s view the more important one, abhyarhita
(vār. 4 to Pāṇ. ii. 2. 34), the one more intimately connected with the court
of Yaśovarman, and so he could be placed before ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’.
As a matter of fact, however, we should not attempt to make much out
of a subtle point of grammar like the present. Compounds which seem to
violate one rule are often justifiable by another. Thus the compound
grahītṛi-grahaṇa-grāhyeshu (Yoga-sūtra, i. 41) may seem to go against
Pāṇini ii. 2. 34, but it would be perfectly correct if the author of the
Yoga-sūtra considered grahītṛi, the percipient, as more important than
grāhya, the object perceived. Or it may be that the Sūtrakara is here
following a traditional order of words, as he certainly is in the compound
śraddhā-vīrya-smṛiti-samādhi-prajñā¹ in i. 20. I do not think, therefore,
that Professor Jacobi (JAOS., December, 1910, pp. 26–7) has succeeded in
establishing, on the strength of two ‘incorrect’ dvandva compounds, the
existence of a Yoga-Patañjali as distinct from Vyākaraṇa-Patañjali, seeing
that the latter himself does not quarrel with Kātyāyana’s ‘incorrect’
dvandva compounds in vār. 1 to ii. 2. 35, vār. 1 to ii. 2. 36, vār. 6 to
ii. 1. 51, &c. But this is by the way.
The second relevant text is a passage of eight stanzas (797–804) found
in the Gaüḍavaho itself. In it Vākpatirāja is speaking about himself, and
the gist of it is as follows: Vākpatirāja was a favourite friend of Yaśovarman
and bore the title of Head-poet or Kavirāja [797]. Although not naturally
gifted as a poet, he yet came to honour through [the teaching (?) or the
favour (?) of] Kamalāyudha [798]. And in his enormous (viyaḍa) narrative-
structures even now there flash excellences, like drops of the nectar of
poetry from the ocean of Bhavabhūti [literal version of 799]. And his
delight is in the works of Bhāsa, Jvalanamitra, Kālidāsa, Subandhu, &c.
[800]. He is versed in logic, &c. &c. [801–804].
Taking the passage as a whole, and especially the mention of the great
dramatists Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, there is no good reason for doubt as to
who is meant by ‘Bhavabhūti’. It must be the dramatist Bhavabhūti.
Next, it is clear that in stanza 799 Vākpatirāja is modestly acknowledging
an indebtedness to the influence of Bhavabhūti. Was that influence exerted
personally, that is, was Vākpatirāja a pupil of Bhavabhūti? or was it
exerted through Bhavabhūti’s writings which Vākpatirāja read and studied?
Apart from the phrase ‘even now’, the general wording of the stanza
seems to favour the latter view. The phrase ‘even now’ does not decide

¹ Compare also the compounds in Yoga-sūtra, i. 6; ii. 3, 15, 18, 29, 30, 32; iii. 53; iv. 1.

Introduction [xlvi
the matter either way. A man of to-day, and fifty years old, may say
'The influence of Bacon appears even now in my style'. But you cannot
decide from the words 'even now' whether it was the reading of Francis
Bacon's Essays in the man's college days or the personal influence of a
teacher of English named Bacon that he has in mind. The phrase merely
implies the lapse of an interval of time. Accordingly, admitting the
influence without trying to decide whether it was by the spoken or the
written word, and admitting the interval without trying to determine
its length,—we are probably justified in concluding that Bhavabhūti's
connexion with the court of Yaśovarman fell in the earlier part of that
monarch's reign, and that the dramatist was somewhat earlier than
Vākpatirāja.
14. Bhavabhūti probably flourished near the close of the seventh
century.—The considerations recited above point to the following con-
clusions. Bhavabhūti's activity is certainly later than that of Kālidāsa, and
for Kālidāsa the middle of the fifth century is most probable. We can also
say that Bhavabhūti is probably later than even Bāṇa, who flourished about
610. Bhavabhūti appears to have lived, if not at the court of Yaśovarman
of Kanauj, at least during the reign of that king, and before the date
of Vākpatirāja's Gaüḍavaho, which we set at about 736. Accordingly we
may conclude with some confidence that Bhavabhūti flourished in the
closing years of the seventh century.

Bhavabhūti's Works

15. Lost works of Bhavabhūti.—The first question that presents itself
is, did Bhavabhūti write anything besides the three plays that we at present
know to be his? Stanzas ascribed to Bhavabhūti are found in various
anthologies dating from the twelfth century onwards, and among them are
a number of stanzas which do not occur in any one of the three plays of
our poet. The natural inference is that Bhavabhūti wrote some other works,
perhaps dramas, perhaps kāvyas (poems), which have not come down to us.
Dr. Bhandarkar, however, on the basis of a distinction which Jalhaṇa, one
of the anthologists, makes between an author called Mālatīmādhava, and
Bhavabhūti the author of the play called Mālatī-Mādhava, comes to the
conclusion that the stray verses in the anthologies belong not to Bhavabhūti
but to the author Mālatīmādhava. But there is no valid ground for this
distinction, which is unknown to other anthologists earlier as well as later.
And even according to Jalhaṇa's Sūktimuktāvali, Bhavabhūti wrote at
least one stanza (Yadaivārabhyāntaḥ, &c.: see Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for

xlvii] History of the Rāma-story
1887–91, p. xxxv) which does not occur in any of his three extant plays.
By Jalhaṇa’s own showing, therefore, Bhavabhūti presumably wrote some
other work or works; and that is the main point.—Furthermore, compare
§ 38 below.
The anthologies together have preserved for us about a dozen stanzas.
As is to be expected, they are not consistent in the ascription of a particular
stanza to a particular author, and a stanza ascribed by one anthology to
Bhavabhūti is not infrequently given anonymously in another. All that we
can do then is merely to put the various stanzas together (see Appendix 2).
Almost all of them are of such a colourless nature that from them we cannot
make any inference regarding the nature of the original work or works, now
lost to us, from which they were extracted.
16. Bhavabhūti’s extant works.—Only three plays belonging to
Bhavabhūti have come down to us: 1. Mahāvīra-charita, which deals with
the early history and adventures of Rāma down to the battle of Laṅkā
and Rāma’s coronation; 2. Mālatī-Mādhava, a love-story of the romantic
type, the plot of which was probably the poet’s own invention; 3. the
present play called Uttara-Rāma-charita, which continues the history of
Rāma from his coronation to the banishment of his wife and their final
reunion. Seeing that in two of his plays Bhavabhūti has thus dramatized
the entire Rāma-story, it will be useful at this point to make a digression
and survey this story in the various forms in which it existed before and
after the celebrated epic of Vālmīki.

Excursus: History of the Rāma-story

17. Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa: its present form.—Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa
has come down to us in three or four distinct recensions:¹ 1. The Northern
recension or the recension of the commentators; 2. the Bengali recension;
3. the so-called West-Indian recension; and 4. the recently (1905) published
South-Indian recension. These recensions agree in essential particulars,
but each gives a number of stanzas peculiar to itself, and the sequence of
cantos varies. We are not yet in a position to say which of these recensions
is the oldest. Moreover, whatever recension we follow, we meet therein
a number of repetitions and inconsistencies and peculiarities of diction and
metre, which go to prove that the epic has been submitted to a process
of enlargement by more than one hand; so that it is almost impossible to
say what parts of the epic are Vālmīki’s own and what are later interpola-
tions, although in most cases the interpolators have been so simple or
so honest as to leave traces of their working more or less clearly visible.
¹ We ignore here the forms of the Rāmāyaṇa that are known to exist outside India.

Introduction [xlviii]
We are not here concerned with the problem, important and even urgent as
it is, of sifting the new from the old. The Rāmāyaṇa as Bhavabhūti knew
it differs very little from the present form of the Rāmāyaṇa—so far, that
is to say, as the mere story goes. We will therefore summarize the story
as given in the first of these recensions, which we will call the Bombay
recension.
**18, A. Rāma-story as given in Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa.—**Formerly
there ruled over the kingdom of Kosala (capital Ayodhyā) a king called
Daśaratha. He belonged to the Solar race, and counted among his ancestors
such famous names as Manu, Ikshvāku (first king of Ayodhyā), Sagara,
Bhagīratha (who brought the Ganges down from heaven), Kakutstha, and
Raghu. He had three wives: Kausalyā, Sumitrā, and Kaikeyī; the first
was the eldest, the last the most beloved. Daśaratha ruled long and
prosperously, but had only one daughter,¹ Śāntā, and no sons, though he
was getting old. Following the advice of Vasiṣṭha, his family preceptor,
Daśaratha offered a sacrifice in which his son-in-law, Ṛishyaśṛiṅga, officiated
as head-priest. As a consequence, the king got four sons: 1. Rāma, the
eldest, born of Kausalyā; 2. Bharata, born of Kaikeyī; 3. Lakshmaṇa and
4. Śatrughna, both born of Sumitrā.
**18, B.—**The kingdom of Videha (capital Mithilā) was to the east of the
kingdom of Kosala. It was at this time ruled by the saintly king Janaka,
who, as he was once for a holy sacrifice preparing the ground with a
plough, came upon an infant, and brought her up as his own daughter.
This was Sītā thus miraculously sprung from the Earth. The girl grew up
in the company of Ūrmilā, another daughter of Janaka, and of Māṇḍavī
and Śrutakīrti, daughters of Janaka's brother Kuśadhvaja. As Sītā became
of an age to be married, Janaka instituted a svayaṁvara: whoever should
succeed in bending a mighty bow (which Janaka had received from God
Śiva) was to marry the princess. Many attempted, but none succeeded.
**18, C.—**One day there came to the court of Daśaratha the royal sage ²
Viśvāmitra who, finding the demons frequently molesting his penances,
requested the king to send two of his sons, Rāma and Lakshmaṇa, with
him to his penance-grove. Since a person of Viśvāmitra's position could
not be denied anything, Daśaratha reluctantly agreed to give over his sons,
though yet in tender years. Viśvāmitra resumed his holy rites, and when
the molestors came, Rāma, at Viśvāmitra's behest, killed the demon Subāhu

¹ The epic does not say who the mother of
Śāntā was. Daśaratha gave his daughter
in adoption to Lomapāda, and he married
her to Ṛishyaśṛiṅga; cp. Viṣhṇu-Purāṇa,
iv. 18.
² This title is used of one who, formerly a king, had now taken to the practice of
austerities. As a sage he was expected to
forgo all activities proper to a warrior,
and so the royal sage Viśvāmitra had to
apply to Daśaratha for help.

[xlix] History of the Rāma-story

and the terrible she-demon Tāṭakā. Pleased at the prince's valour, Viśvā-
mitra thereupon taught him the mystic formulae relating to all the
missiles that he knew, and particularly the jṛimbhaka missile, which had
the power of producing instantaneous stupor or paralysis in the ranks of
the assailants. After the conclusion of the sacrifice, Viśvāmitra took Rāma
and Lakshmaṇa with him to Mithilā, the capital of Janaka. Janaka was
very favourably impressed by the princes; and Viśvāmitra called upon
Rāma to try his hand at the mighty bow. Young though he was, Rāma
not only succeeded in bending it, but even in breaking it in twain, and thus
winning him a wife. Viśvāmitra now proposed that, along with Sītā's
marriage to Rāma, there be celebrated the marriages of Sītā's sister Ūrmilā
and her cousins Māṇḍavī and Śrutakīrti to the three brothers of Rāma,
Lakshmaṇa and Bharata and Śatrughna respectively. The following table
(in which m. stands for married) makes these relations clear :
⎧ Kausalyā : son, Rāma : m. Sītā, born of the Earth, reared by Janaka
⎪ ⎸
⎪ Twins, Kuśa and Lava
⎪ ⎧ Lakshmaṇa : m. Ūrmilā, daughter of Janaka
Daśaratha : m. ⎨ Sumitrā : sons, ⎨ ⎸
⎪ ⎪ Chandraketu
⎪ ⎩ Śatrughna : m. Śrutakīrti, ⎫ daughters of
⎪ ⎬ Janaka's brother,
⎩ Kaikeyī : son, Bharata : m. Māṇḍavī, ⎭ Kuśadhvaja
The proposal was agreed to. Daśaratha was called from Ayodhyā, and the
marriages were celebrated with due pomp.
18, D.—The nuptial joys, however, were interrupted by the arrival of
Paraśurāma, son of Jamadagni. Paraśurāma was a fiery Brahman, sage
and warrior, who had twenty-one times rid the earth of all Kshatriyas.
He was a devotee of God Śiva, and was incensed to learn that Rāma had
not only bent but broken the bow of his favourite Divinity. As nothing
short of a fight with the young prince would satisfy him, Rāma managed
to reduce him to terms, and sent him away humbled and abashed. The
four princes then returned to Ayodhyā with their brides. Here they passed
some twelve years.¹ End of Bāla-kāṇḍa.
18, E.—Daśaratha, finding his eldest son Rāma now arrived at a
proper age, resolves to crown him heir-apparent. Preparations were
accordingly set on foot. But Kaikeyī, the youngest queen, following the
advice of Mantharā, her nurse and confidante, calls upon her husband to

Footnotes

¹ In the present form of the Rāmāyaṇa there
is some inconsistency here ; according to
one version the exile and the events
leading to it follow immediately after
the marriages. From the Uttara-Rāma-
charita (i. 19, 20 ; vi. 33–35) it is clear that
Bhavabhūti assumes such an interval
between the marriages and the exile.
Compare also Padma-Purāṇa, iv. 36¹⁵⁻¹⁷.

g [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [l
fulfil immediately the two boons which on an earlier occasion he had
granted her. Daśaratha consents, but is sorely grieved to learn that the
boons are: 1. That Bharata, Kaikeyī's son, be appointed heir-apparent;
2. that Rāma be forthwith sent away into exile for fourteen years. As
the king could not belie his words, Rāma had to submit to the wishes
of his step-mother, which he cheerfully does. His wife Sītā and his
brother Lakshmaṇa ¹ refuse to be left behind, and they are all three
accordingly carried away through the weeping multitudes. The old king
was so much afflicted by this great blow that he barely lived to hear the
news of the exiles being taken over safe beyond the boundaries of his
kingdom.
18, F.—Bharata, who all this while was in utter ignorance of the
happenings at Ayodhyā, is now sent for in order to perform the obsequies
of his father and assume the sovereignty thus devolved upon him. He
returns; but discovering the mean conduct of his mother, he reproves her
bitterly, and refuses to take charge of the kingdom and thus give his
consent to the base intrigue. He resolves immediately to start in search
of Rāma, and to implore him to return. On the other side of the Ganges,
near the mountain called Chitrakūṭa, close by the saint Bharadvāja's
hermitage, Bharata finds Rāma leading a forester's life in the company
of his wife and brother. Rāma is struck by Bharata's magnanimity, but
insists upon carrying out his father's command to the letter, and is unwilling
to return before the completion of the full term of fourteen years. Bharata
thereupon resolves to keep company with Rāma; the latter, however,
reminds him of the duty they all owed to their subjects, and persuades him
to return, which Bharata does, only on the condition that Rāma will come
back at the appointed time, himself in the meanwhile conducting the affairs
of the state only as Rāma's agent. END OF AYODHYĀ-KĀṆḌA.
18, G.—Rāma now resolves to withdraw farther away from his kingdom,
and learning that the regions on the other side of the Vindhya mountains
were infested with wild demons and cannibals, he sets forth in that
direction. At his entrance into the Vindhya forests he meets the demon
Virādha, whom he kills. He then meets a number of sages and ascetics, in
whose company he is said to have passed no less than ten years.² Going

Footnotes

¹ The two brothers, Bharata and Śatrughna, were at this time absent in the kingdom of their maternal uncle.
² These seem to be quite uneventful years; and it is rather strange that Rāma should, for the sake of a few months, think of building a hut at Pañchavaṭī (see below), and do nothing of the kind here, where he stayed so long. Evidently something is wrong with the text of the epic. We may add that the Padma-Purāṇa (vi. 269²²⁶) says that it was in Pañchavaṭī that Rāma stayed so many years; and this appears more probable.

further south into the Daṇḍakā forests he reaches the river Godāvarī, and
there, in the part of the country known as Janasthāna,¹ comes upon the
hermitage of Agastya and his wife Lopāmudrā. The holy pair heartily
welcome the newcomers, and here at the foot of a mountain called Prasra-
vaṇa, and in a region known as Pañchavaṭī, Rāma resolves to build a small
hut and to pass the rest of his exile peacefully in the company of the
saint Agastya and the vulture-king Jaṭāyus.²
18, H.—Peace, however, was not vouchsafed to him long. At this time
there ruled in the island of Laṅkā (identified with modern Ceylon) a demon
king, Rāvaṇa. He was called ‘ten-headed’ and was a terror to the world.
Having established his power in Laṅkā proper, Rāvaṇa crossed over to the
mainland and overran the whole of Southern India, subduing everything
that came in his way. Rāvaṇa, however, found more than his match in
Vālin, king of the Monkeys, whose kingdom comprised the part of South
India then known as Kishkindhā. An agreement was entered into whereby,
except for a narrow strip of land along the coast, the bulk of the peninsula
came into the possession of Vālin. Rāvaṇa's territory touched the Jana-
sthāna, and here he left a large army of demons under the command of
Khara (Rāvaṇa's younger brother) and Dūshaṇa and Triśiras.
18, I.—Once Śūrpaṇakhā,³ a widowed sister of Rāvaṇa, came upon
Rāma in the Pañchavaṭī, and smitten with his graceful form made him
frank overtures of love, promising to eat up Sītā and thus put her out of
the way, if Rāma would but consent. Rāma in jest sent her to Lakshmaṇa,
who rewarded her insistence by cutting off her nose and ears. Śūrpaṇakhā
went weeping and bleeding to her brother Khara, who in anger dispatched
fourteen picked men to capture Rāma. As they did not return, Khara
marched with his whole army, 14,000 demons strong, and engaged Rāma in
a close fight. Rāma stepped back a few paces so as to gain room for
working with his bow, and then, one after another, he killed the entire
army of demons, as also its three leaders.
18, J.—Śūrpaṇakhā vows revenge. She now repairs to Rāvaṇa in
Laṅkā and inflames his mind with a passion for Sītā, whose charms she
praises loudly. Rāvaṇa resolves to capture her. He asks Mārīcha, another
demon, to assume the form of a golden deer, and to lure Rāma in chase
away from his cottage. Mārīcha does this and is mortally wounded by
Rāma's arrow. Before he dies, however, imitating the voice of Rāma, he

¹ ‘Abode of men’ or ‘the habitable portion Prasravaṇa (cp. U. R. C. ii. 25). He was
of the Daṇḍakā’. Agastya is said to be very old, of superhuman strength, and
the earliest Aryan colonizer of Southern a friend of Rāma’s father.
India. ³ ‘Whose nails are large as a winnowing-
² He had his nest on the top of the mountain basket.’

calls upon Lakshmaṇa for help. Lakshmaṇa was left behind to guard Sītā in
the cottage; but upon hearing the cry, which she mistook for her husband's,
Sītā urges and even commands Lakshmaṇa to go, which he does reluctantly.
Utilizing the favourable moment, Rāvaṇa now pounces upon the forlorn
Sītā and flies away with her, striking down on his way the vulture-king
Jaṭāyus, who from his mountain peak had watched this daring act and
attempted to intercept the abductor. Jaṭāyus falls down to die, surviving
just long enough to inform Rāma and Lakshmaṇa (already returned from
the deer-chase and amazed at not finding Sītā in the cottage) of what had
happened. Rāma's grief was unbounded. END OF ARAṆYA-KĀṆḌA.
18, K.—Wandering further onward, the princes at last reach the lake
called Pampā. Here they come upon Sugrīva and his trusty friend and
minister Hanūmant, alias Māruti. Sugrīva was the brother of Vālin, king
of the Monkeys, and had been dispossessed by him both of his kingdom
and his wife. Rāma and Sugrīva enter into an alliance whereby Rāma
agrees to restore Sugrīva to his kingdom, and in return the latter promises
to send out search-parties and help Rāma to punish the abductor and
recover his lost wife. Rāma accordingly asks Sugrīva to challenge
Vālin to a duel, and as the two brothers join in combat, Rāma wounds
Vālin mortally with an arrow. For this unprovoked wrong and treachery
Vālin reproaches Rāma severely; the latter simply replies that as an agent
of the sovereign king of Ayodhyā he took upon himself the duty of
inflicting proper punishment upon malefactors who, like Vālin, had usurped
a brother's throne and wife. The death of Vālin leaves Sugrīva master of
the kingdom of Kishkindhā; and in gratitude he now sends, under proper
leaders, parties of Monkeys in search of Sītā. The most important of these
was the one sent to the south under the command of Māruti. This party
presses forward and southward until it gains the sea-coast. END OF
KISHKINDHĀ-KĀṆḌA.
18, L.—The waters seemed to offer an impassable barrier, for the island
of Laṅkā stood on the other side of the ocean; but Māruti undertakes
to clear it by a leap. This he does and enters Laṅkā. Here he was
fortunate enough to meet Sītā, sorrowing in Rāvaṇa's garden under the
shade of an aśoka tree, she-demons of hideous and terrible looks keeping
watch over her day and night. In glowing terms they describe to her the
glory and the greatness of Rāvaṇa, and work alternately upon her hopes
and her fears to the end that she consent to have Rāvaṇa. Sītā refuses to
listen, and Rāvaṇa is too proud to stoop to force.¹ Māruti soon finds
¹ The epic gives yet another motive. As the Nalakūbara, she was forcibly intercepted
heavenly nymph Rambhā was once upon by Rāvaṇa, who thereupon was cursed
a time going to the house of her lover by the lover to the effect that if ever

liii] History of the Rāma-story
opportunity to console Sītā and assure her of a speedy deliverance. Having
thus achieved the chief object of his journey, Māruti now leaves Laṅkā, not
without meeting sundry adventures, in the course of which he succeeds
in killing a few hundred demons and setting the whole city on fire. Once
more he leaps over the ocean and returns to Kishkindhā with the glad
news. END OF SUNDARA-KĀṆḌA.
18, M.—Rāma immediately resolves to invade Laṅkā. Sugrīva with
his army of Monkeys and Jāmbavant with his army of Bears offer their
assistance, and the whole army soon gains the Southern Ocean. Here they
are joined by Vibhīshaṇa, the youngest brother of Rāvaṇa. Vibhīshaṇa
had tried to remonstrate with his eldest brother against the evil course
of conduct he was pursuing, and being rewarded with contempt, he now
came over to Rāma's side. Rāma receives him well and promises him the
kingdom of Laṅkā after Rāvaṇa's death. To make it possible for the army
to cross over, Rāma now resolves to construct a stone bridge over the
ocean, and in this he is helped by the engineering genius of Nala.¹ Having
gained the island he next lays siege to the capital. The battle which
follows lasts, according to the several inconsistent time-indications, for four
or fifteen or thirty-nine or eighty-eight days; Rāvaṇa together with his
brothers and sons and the entire army of demons is put to death; and
Rāma, in accordance with his promise, installs Vibhīshaṇa as king of Laṅkā.
18, N.—Having thus vanquished the enemy and wiped out the insult,
Rāma now meets Sītā. He is, however, unwilling, for fear of public scandal,
to take his wife back until she has proved her purity. Pierced to the
quick by Rāma's suspicion, Sītā proposes the fire-ordeal. A huge pyre is
kindled and with a firm tread she walks towards it and is engulfed by the
flames. Immediately, however, she reappears, led forth by the Fire-god
himself, who in the hearing of all proclaims her innocence. Rāma now
accepts her, saying that he never doubted her innocence, but had to do
what he did for the sake of the people. The fourteen-year period of exile
having now almost expired, Rāma, along with his wife, brother, friends,
and allies, makes the journey northwards, utilizing for the purpose an
aerial car called Pushpaka which belonged to Rāvaṇa. They reach their
home, where they meet Bharata and the Queen-mothers anxiously awaiting
the return of the exiles. Rāma's coronation is now celebrated with due
pomp and there is rejoicing everywhere. END OF YUDDHA-KĀṆḌA.

Rāvaṇa should again touch a woman with another maiden, Vedavatī.
against her free will he would instan- ¹ He was the son of the Architect of the Gods.
taneously meet his death. An exactly Traces of this bridge, on the maps called
similar story is told also in connexion Adam's Bridge, are still pointed out.

Introduction [liv
18, O.—The epic should naturally end here; but there is one more book
or kāṇḍa, dealing with the history of Rāma from his coronation to his
death. Here we are told how a few months after the coronation rumours
regarding Sītā began to be circulated amongst the people, who did not like
that Rāma should have received his wife back after she had been nearly
a year in the house of Rāvaṇa. Through his spies Rāma comes to know of
this, and resolves to abandon Sītā, although at this time she was in a state
of advanced pregnancy. Rāma charges his brother Lakshmaṇa with the
carrying out of this plan. Lakshmaṇa obeys, places Sītā in a chariot,
takes her into a forest on the other side of the Ganges, and there leaves
her, after communicating to her the actual state of things. Thereupon
Sītā sends back to Rāma a spirited reply¹ and patiently succumbs to the
inevitable. In her forlorn condition she fortunately chances upon the
saint Vālmīki, whose hermitage was near by. Vālmīki receives the exiled
queen under his protection. In his hermitage she gives birth to twin sons,
Kuśa and Lava, whom Vālmīki brings up and educates along with his
other pupils.
18, P.—Meanwhile in Ayodhyā Rāma is not at peace. From a mere
sense of duty he discharges his manifold functions as a king, but is always
haunted by the image of her whom he had treated so unjustly. Years go
by, and at last he resolves to perform a horse-sacrifice.² For the festivities
attending the completion of the sacrifice there came Vālmīki bringing with
him the twins, Kuśa and Lava, whom he had taught to sing the Rāmāyaṇa,
a panegyric poem on Rāma which Vālmīki had composed. With great
applause the boys recite the poem in the presence of Rāma and the whole
assembly. Rāma inquires about the boys and is pleasantly surprised to
learn from Vālmīki that they are Rāma’s own sons. Understanding that
Sītā is still alive, he sends for her. Sītā comes. Rāma asks her to give
further evidence of her innocence and purity. ‘If it is true’, exclaims
Sītā, ‘that in mind and deed and word I have never been unfaithful to
Rāma, may Mother Earth receive me into her bosom!’ Just as she utters
these words the Earth gapes open and a divine form stretches forth her
hands to Sītā, who enters the abyss and there finds eternal rest.

¹ This (vii. 48) is one of the most touching passages in the epic. Even Kālidāsa’s Raghu, xiv. 59–68, is but a faint echo of it.
² Only kings of eminence could aspire to perform the horse-sacrifice. In this sacrifice a horse is let loose, and a guard of three hundred follows his track. Should any one hinder the horse’s progress, he has to fight. When the horse completes a victorious circuit of the earth and returns to the capital, he is offered as a sacrifice, and the sacrificing king thereupon assumes the title of Sovereign Emperor.

lv] History of the Rāma-story
18, Q.—Soon after the disappearance of Sītā, Rāma feels his own end
drawing near. The kingdom is divided amongst the four brothers, who in
turn settle it upon their children. In the meantime the aged Queen-
mothers die. Thereafter Lakshmaṇa, whom Rāma, for no fault of his own,
was compelled to send away from him, gives up the ghost. Finally Rāma
himself enters the waters of the river Sarayū, and his other brothers, and
the whole city of Ayodhyā in fact, follow after him to heaven. END OF
UTTARA-KĀṆḌA.
19. Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa not the sole source of our play.—Professor
Jacobi (in his book entitled Das Rāmāyaṇa, Geschichte und Inhalt, nebst
Concordanz, Bonn, 1893, p. 111), upon linguistic, geographical, astronomical,
and various other grounds, assigns the Rāmāyaṇa to the period between
800 and 500 B.C. By this he means of course the oldest strata of the epic.
Additions and interpolations came to be made from time to time even down
to the beginning of the Christian era. Besides the few cantos here and
there which carry the marks of spuriousness on their face, it is almost
certain that the major part of the Bāla-kāṇḍa (where for the first time
we find an attempt to treat Rāma as a divine Avatar) and the whole of the
Uttara-kāṇḍa (which deals with the later history of Rāma) are relatively
late additions. The present play, as its title shows, deals with the later
history of Rāma; and since it differs in many essential respects from the
account given in the last book of the Rāmāyaṇa, the question arises whether
Bhavabhūti used for his plot other sources than Vālmīki's epic.
The Mahā-Bhārata contains, at iii. 273 ff., a ‘Rāma-episode’ or Rāmo-
pākhyāna; but this text does not carry the story beyond Rāma's coronation.
In this fact some see a reason for considering the Rāmāyaṇa (at least in its
present form) as later than the Mahā-Bhārata. This does not follow; for,
considering that Mārkaṇḍeya relates the episode to illustrate how good
people, fallen in misfortune, do in turn gain happiness, there is no motive
for him to carry the story beyond the return to Ayodhyā, even if he knew
it. Further, the Mahā-Bhārata does elsewhere (vii. 59) narrate the story
of Rāma's death; but it is very short, and is of no significance for the
present problem.
The Rāma-story is given with more or less detail in the various Purāṇas
such as the Brahma-Purāṇa (of which the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa forms a part),
the Bhāgavata, Garuḍa, Skanda, Agni, Kūrma, and so on. But in discuss-
ing the sources of Bhavabhūti's plays, and particularly of the present play,
the most important text is the Padma-Purāṇa.
20. Three forms of the Rāma-story in the Padma-Purāṇa.—The Padma
gives the Rāma-story in three different places, each time with significant
variations. These differing versions could not of course have been intro-

duced into the Purāṇa at one and the same time, as will be evident upon
a brief consideration of them.
First form.—This is a summary of the Rāmāyaṇa, and occupies three
chapters, 269–271, of the fifth or Sṛishṭi-khaṇḍa. This part of the Padma
seems to be relatively late. The summary corresponds exactly to the story
as we have it in the Bombay recension of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa, except in
the following six points: 1. Rāma, after the marriage, is expressly said to
have lived for twelve years at Ayodhyā (chap. 269, stanza 181); 2. the
story of the crow, which is given in that recension in a spurious canto
coming after ii. 95, is here given as a genuine part of the epic (ch. 269,
st. 194); 3. Rāma stays for thirteen years in Pañchavaṭī itself before he
encounters Śūrpaṇakhā (ch. 269, st. 226); 4. Rāma himself, and not his
brother, cuts off the nose and ears of Śūrpaṇakhā; 5. after the coronation
Rāma rules with his queen Sītā for a thousand years (cp. also ch. 6, st. 45) :
it is only then that the rumour comes to his ears and he abandons his wife;
6. the god-like character of Rāma intrudes itself too frequently in the course
of the Padma narration.
Second form.—Chapter 112 of the fourth or Pātāla-khaṇḍa gives what
is expressly said to be the ancient or purātana Rāmāyaṇa. No authority
is, however, given for the statement, and elsewhere (stanza 12) it is even
called fictitious or kalpita; and this in fact it seems to be. What is more,
it is not even good fiction, as any one may easily see.
Third form.—A brief passage of the fourth or Pātāla-khaṇḍa, stanzas
164–184 of chapter 66, gives not a form of the Rāma-story as such, but
a statement as to the original form of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa. According to
this, Vālmīki's poem had six (not seven) kāṇḍas: 1. Bāla-kāṇḍa, which was
equal to the present Bāla and Ayodhyā kāṇḍas taken together; 2. Araṇya-
kāṇḍa, 3. Kishkindhā-kāṇḍa, 4. Sundara-kāṇḍa, 5. Yuddha-kāṇḍa,—all
these not differing from the similarly named present kāṇḍas; and 6. Uttara-
kāṇḍa, giving Rāma's conversations with Agastya and other sages, and
describing the commencement of the horse-sacrifice, and including presumably
the account of the abandonment of Sītā.
Sītā's ultimate ordeal and disappearance, the death of Lakshmaṇa and
Rāma and others, and whatever else occurred after Vālmīki's appearance with
the twins at Rāma's court,—all these things the Padma ignores as elements
of the original Rāmāyaṇa, as of course it was bound to do, since the twins
could not be expected to sing of events yet to be. We also find here a
statement as to the original extent of the poem, 24,000 stanzas. This
agrees with Vālmīki's statement in Bāla-kāṇḍa i. 4², except that the Padma
does not state the number of cantos (500). This account of the original

lvii] History of the Rāma-story
form of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa seems to be a statement made in good faith
by the author of the Padma.
21. The later history of Rāma as given by the Padma-Purāṇa.—If
we accept the above statement as to the original form of Vālmīki’s Rāmā-
yaṇa, who was it that completed it and gave to it its present tragic ending?
Bhavabhūti (U. R. C. iv. 22⁴³) tells us that Vālmīki’s poem, at least the first
form of it, ended with the abandonment of Sītā soon after the coronation.
He also tells us that it was Vālmīki himself who later added to it a supple-
ment, which ended happily with the reunion of Rāma and Sītā. But here
Bhavabhūti is purposely vague. In some passages (U. R. C. vii. 15¹²) he
seems to betray a consciousness of the fact that this supplement ended
tragically; and it is quite conceivable that owing to the usual reluctance¹
of Hindu dramatists to write tragedies, Bhavabhūti may have deliberately
modified his source and made the Uttara-Rāma-charita end happily.
More probably, however, Bhavabhūti derived his material from the first
sixty-eight chapters of the Pātāla-khaṇḍa of the Padma-Purāṇa. Here we
get an account of Rāma’s life after his coronation, and more particularly of
the horse-sacrifice which he performed. We are told how in the course
of its wanderings the horse was captured by several kings and how bloody
fights—always ending with a victory for Rāma—ensued in consequence, until
finally, on its return journey, the horse arrives in Vālmīki’s penance-grove.
Lava, one of the twins, seizes the horse and a battle follows, in the first
part of which Lava is the victor. Then he is made captive. His brother
Kuśa now appears on the scene. He puts the whole army to flight and
takes all the leaders captive. Sītā, however, intercedes for the prisoners,
and these as well as the horse are let loose. The sacrifice then concludes
as mentioned in § 18, P above. When Rāma comes to know of the
valorous deeds of the two youths, he inquires of Vālmīki, who had come
for the sacrifice, and learns the truth. Sītā is now sent for, and in the
meantime the twins recite the Rāmāyaṇa as they had learnt it from
Vālmīki. Rāma finally takes Sītā back, on the solemn testimony of
Vālmīki and Śatrughna and others. There is no appeal to the Earth-

¹ It is not correct to say that no tragically-ending play was written in ancient India.
The Ūrubhaṅga, a newly-discovered play of Bhāsa, comes as a welcome proof to
the contrary. And in the Nāṭya-śāstra (i. 78 ff.) Bharata expressly says : ‘Drama
is a representation of all the happenings of the world, of all the moods of the
people, happy or unhappy. Here you have, now a religious rite (dharma), now
some festivity or even frivolity, now peaceful serenity ; then again laughter,
or a fight, or a love-making, or a death.’ True, the Hindus liked to have all their
plays end happily, and hence the ruling of later works on dramaturgy against any
form of tragedy.
h [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [lviii]
goddess or any other ordeal. Thereafter Rāma and Sītā rule in peace
for many a year.
Since we have no reason to suppose that this Rāmāśvamedha-prakaraṇa
in the Padma-Purāṇa was posterior to Bhavabhūti, there is just the
possibility that in Bhavabhūti's days two forms of the supplement to the
Rāmāyaṇa were current, one ending with a happy reunion as above, and
the other, in the genuine Purāṇa fashion, carrying the story right up to
the death of the hero. Bhavabhūti's source for the incidents in acts iv-vi
of the Uttara-Rāma-charita must undoubtedly have been some account
like that in the Padma-Purāṇa.
The variations of Bhavabhūti from the Padma-Purāṇa are: 1. According
to the Padma, the leader of the army guarding the horse is Pushkala, son of
Bharata; according to Bhavabhūti, it is Chandraketu, son of Lakshmaṇa.
2. The boy's age is sixteen years in the Purāṇa (ch. 65, st. 73), while it is
twelve in the Uttara-Rāma-charita. 3. Vālmīki himself teaches the twins
the science of archery and fighting; contrast with this U. R. C. v. 14¹⁻³.
4. In the Purāṇa, Rāma does not appear personally on the battlefield;
Sītā intercedes for the horse, and the recognition of the princes takes place
only at Ayodhyā. 5. Sītā does not have to submit to a second ordeal.
Before taking up the consideration of Bhavabhūti's plays, we shall now
briefly discuss the sources (§§ 22–23) of the Rāmāyaṇa itself, and some of
the modifications (§§ 24–26) which were introduced into the story by later
writers.
22. Sources of the Rāmāyaṇa: historical element.—The main story
of the Rāmāyaṇa seems to have a basis in fact. Had it been otherwise,
Vālmīki might very easily have omitted or altered the two or three
compromising actions of his hero, such as the unprovoked killing of Vālin
(see U. R. C. v. 35). The poem, except in the battle-portion, seems to have
such a semblance of truth that it is hard to imagine that Vālmīki invented
it all. It may well be that the Rāmāyaṇa is a composite of two distinct
stories, the first ending with the palace-intrigue and exile, and the second
dealing with the adventures of some early semi-mythical Aryan explorer
of Southern India; and Vālmīki may have assigned both these stories to
the same hero. Vālmīki was a northerner,¹ and we need not expect to find
in his work any very accurate geographical description of Southern India,
the absence of which is sometimes pointed out as an argument to prove
the entirely imaginative character of the poem.² Vālmīki's geography is
¹ His hermitage is said to have been on the Rāmāyaṇa, i. 2³, vii. 45¹⁷; cp. also vii. 66¹⁵.
Tamasā, a tributary of the Ganges. See ² If immediately after the return of Columbus