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

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

confused, and scholars are still disputing as to the precise road which Rāma
took, and the precise position of Pañchavaṭī, Ṛishyamūka, and Pampā.
Nevertheless, the main threads of the story may well be considered
historical. So at least Vālmīki seems to have regarded them.
23. The Rāmāyaṇa a blending of history and allegory.—It is also
conceivable that the Rāmāyaṇa is a blending of history and some form
of primitive nature-allegory. Thus in the Ṛigveda (iv. 57⁶,⁷, i. 140⁴) the
word ‘sītā’ means furrow, and is not a proper name. Sītā’s birth from
the Earth as narrated in the epic, the names of her twin sons (‘kuśa’ is
a kind of grass, and ‘lava’ means reaping ¹), and Sītā’s final disappearance
into the bosom of the Earth,—all this appears to be the mythology of some
agricultural deity. If it were safe to think of Rāma as answering to the
Vedic Rain-god Indra, the coincidence would harmonize well with the fact
that the son of Rāvaṇa, who carries off Sītā, is called ‘Vanquisher of
Indra’ or Indrajit, and also with the fact that Māruti, who like a rain-
cloud in the monsoons, flies over the ocean and brings Rāma the comforting
news about Sītā, means the ‘Son of the Wind-god’. All these things
point to a possible commingling of history and certain features of agri-
cultural mythology. The mythology, however, belongs to Vedic times.
In Vālmīki’s days it must almost have ceased to be regarded as such.
Thus the ultimate sources for the Rāmāyaṇa may have been threefold :

1. a real historical account about the palace-intrigue and exile; 2. another
   account also historical but more vague and uncertain about the experience
   of some early Aryan explorer (as distinguished from a colonizer and a
   permanent settler) of the south; and 3. the mythical account of Indra and
   his fight with the Enemy of the Harvest, an account which probably had
   lost most of its significance as nature-allegory, and had come to be regarded
   as genuine history dealing with persons as real as any legendary heroes
   are expected to be.
   It is no longer necessary to discuss the theory that Vālmīki derived
   the matter of his epic from the Iliad of Homer. The theory originated
   with Weber, and has been thoroughly answered by K. T. Telang (Indian
   Antiquary, 1872, pp. 143–7; 1873, pp. 123 ff.) and Professor Jacobi (Das
   Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 94–9). It is now no more than a literary curiosity.²

from the West Indies, and on the basis | merely because the geography was wrong?
of statements made by him and his | ¹ Otherwise explained at Raghuvamśa, xv. 32.
sailors, an epic had been written de- | ² Per contra, Arthur Lillie (among others)
scribing the discovery and exploration of | maintains that Homer took his themes
America, could we have reasonably im- | from the Indian Epics : see ‘Rāma and
pugned the truth of its main story | Homer’, London, 1912.

Introduction [lx
24. Later modifications of the Rāma-story : 1. Buddhistic form.—
The Buddhistic form of the Rāma-story is to be found in the ‘Daśaratha-
Jātaka’ (Faüsboll, iv. pp. 124 ff.). The story is as follows. Daśaratha,
king of Benares, had three children: Rāma, Lakshmaṇa, and Sītā, all born
from his first wife, after whose death he marries a second, and has by her
a fourth child, a son named Bharata. Overjoyed at having another son
born to him, Daśaratha grants a boon to his wife. After seven or eight
years the wife remembers the boon and asks Daśaratha to fulfil it by giving
the throne to her son. The king refuses to grant her request; but fearing
the machinations of the woman, he advises the three children by his first
wife to stay away from the court for twelve years. He makes it twelve
years, because astrologers had told him that he would live so long. Rāma,
with his brother Lakshmaṇa and his sister Sītā, repairs to the Himalayas.
Contrary to the prophecy of the astrologers Daśaratha dies in the ninth
year. The widowed queen tries to secure the throne for Bharata, but he
sternly refuses and goes to seek his eldest brother, to whom the throne by
right belonged. Rāma, however, is unwilling to come immediately, seeing
that the period of twelve years assigned to him by his father was not yet
over. He stays away another three years and then returns, marries Sītā,
and rules in peace.
This feeble, distorted, unmotivated story was once regarded as a possible
source of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa. Professor Jacobi (Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 84–93)
has already shown the utter untenability of such a view. And now we
have definite evidence to prove that the Rāma-Rāvaṇa story was already
well known¹ before 300 B.C.
**25. Later modifications of the Rāma-story : 2. Jain forms.—**The Jain
forms of the Rāma-story are to be found in works like the Padma-Purāṇa
of Ravisheṇa, the Dharma-parīkshā of Amitagati, and the Trishashṭhiśa-
lākāpurushacharita (chap. vii) of Hemachandra. The story in the main
follows Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa, and the evident object of these works must
be to utilize an already existing story for preaching the special doctrines of
the cult. Thus they make Rāma a pious Jain, a total abstainer from meat.
This of course involved the omission of the golden deer incident (see § 18, J);
Rāvaṇa abducts Sītā while Rāma is engaged in the battle with the fourteen
thousand. Similarly Rāma kills Vālin in a fair fight (contrast § 18, K).
Years after her abandonment, when Rāma meets Sītā once more, it was not
through the instrumentality of Vālmīki, or through the incidents attending

¹ See Kauṭilīya, p. 11, line 3 from the bottom.          the reference to the Rāmāyaṇa in one of
    As Bhāsa’s date is uncertain, the fact of          his plays (Avimāraka, p. 16, line 2) cannot
    his having written two Rāma-plays and          have much significance chronologically.

lxi] History of the Rāma-story
the horse-sacrifice (a Jain could not perform a sacrifice involving the death
of any living animal), but merely and simply because people told him
about her forlorn state; and he finally loses her again, not because Sītā
disappears into the earth, but because, after her purity is attested anew by
the fire-ordeal, she is convinced of the vanity of the world and becomes
a Jain nun, tearing out her hair with her own hand. Rāma himself takes
the mendicant vow soon after. We may note in passing that the Jain
accounts tell us that the monkeys and bears and demons who took part
in the battle at Laṅkā were not really monkeys or bears or demons. They
were human beings who carried the images of a monkey or a bear or
a demon on their banners.
26. Later modifications of the Rāma-story : 3. Hindu forms.—A whole
treatise could be written discussing the various forms which the Rāma-
story assumed in the later Hindu tellings of it, either in Sanskrit or in the
different vernaculars of the country. And the special interest of such
a treatise would lie in the attempt to show how the story came to be
modified in accordance with changing beliefs and varying standards of
judgement. We shall content ourselves with indicating merely the several
tendencies that are discernible in the process. .
26, A. Exaggeration.—In these later tellings of the story mere
exaggerations are what we naturally expect. Thus, even in the present
form of the Rāmāyaṇa, the battle at Laṅkā is spun out and made to last
for months, the intervals being filled in with one superhuman deed after
another on both sides. There is a good deal of repetition. The same
applies to some of the later descriptions of the battle of the twins with
the army attending the sacrificial horse of Rāma. The twins are made to
defeat all the great heroes who fought by Rāma’s side at Laṅkā, including
Māruti, Lakshmaṇa, and even Rāma himself. Or, to take another instance
which is significant in connexion with Bhavabhūti’s treatment of the
theme, Rāvaṇa himself is represented as having been present at Sītā’s
svayaṁvara, but unable to bend the bow (see § 18, C), which Rāma
alone did.
26, B. Deification.—The beginnings of this process are already observable
in the later portions of the Rāmāyaṇa, especially books i and vii, where
Rāma is exalted into an Avatar of Vishṇu or the Supreme Spirit. This
tendency was in course of time so much exaggerated that it eventually
defeated its own purpose. Rāvaṇa also came to be considered as a regular
devotee of Rāma; for, works on devotion admit intense enmity as a form
of worship no less efficacious than friendship or service. So Rāvaṇa longs
to be killed by Rāma and thereby to attain salvation (see U.R.C. ii. 11).

Introduction [lxii
If he robs Sītā, it is simply to hasten the wished-for end, and without any
sinful designs against Sītā, whom he revered as his mother.
26, C. Idealization.—Attempts were made quite early to clear the
character of the intriguing queen Kaikeyī. Thus her nurse Mantharā
(see § 18, E) becomes a special messenger sent by the Gods to secure Rāma's
exile, and, as a necessary consequence, Rāvaṇa's death. Mantharā is the
spirit of Kali (Quarrel), and she possesses Kaikeyī's soul, and makes her
say and do what she, a paragon of virtue and kindness, would never
otherwise have said and done. Similarly in regard to the episode of Sītā's
residence at Laṅkā, the capital of the demon Rāvaṇa. The point was to
establish her purity beyond the possibility of a suspicion. To effect this
we found that the Uttara-kāṇḍa brought in the story of the curse (see § 18,
L, note). Even that apparently did not suffice. The Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa
(iii. 7) goes farther and says that Rāvaṇa did not abduct Sītā at all: only
her shadow. When the golden deer appeared, Rāma, being an omniscient
God, knew that it was a trick of the demon, and he rather welcomed it as
it would give him a pretext to kill Rāvaṇa. So he tells Sītā to remain
invisible for a while, himself creating in her place an illusory Sītā, which
Rāvaṇa carries away. At the time of the fire-ordeal, this illusion is
consumed and the real Sītā, untouched by the hand of the demon, shows
herself. It is not necessary to mention the other fantastic devices adopted
for the same purpose.
26, D. Curse-motif.—Curse as a motif in explaining conduct and fate
came to be increasingly applied. Thus Daśaratha dies of grief for separa-
tion from his son Rāma, because Daśaratha had himself been the unwitting
instrument of causing separation between a father and his son (see Rāmā-
yaṇa, ii. 63–64), and so had been cursed to that effect. Similarly almost
every demon whom Rāma in his wanderings meets and kills, was repre-
sented as a God or a superhuman being who had been, for one fault or
another, cursed to assume the form of that particular demon, the release from
the curse following immediately after his being killed by Rāma's hand.
Quite a number of these additions also resulted from the attempt to
describe the earlier lives of the characters that figure in the Rāmāyaṇa,
the object being to explain their conduct in this birth by the influence
of a previous birth.
26, E. Philosophizing.—Nor, we may be sure, were the interests of
philosophy neglected. The Yoga-Vāsiṣhṭha, a philosophical poem even
larger than the Rāmāyaṇa, and attributed to Vālmīki himself, is in form
a dialogue which takes place between Vasiṣhṭha and Rāma on the occa-
sion of Viśvāmitra's visit (§ 18, C) to Daśaratha's court. This work is in

lxiii] Early Plays: Mahāvīra-Charita
substance a huge discursive treatise on the Vedānta philosophy. Adhyātma-
Rāmāyaṇa, vii. 5, is popularly known as Rāma-gītā, and is in fact a
condensed statement of the Vedānta doctrine after the fashion of the
Bhagavad-gītā. And there are any number of lesser treatises exhibiting
a tendency to philosophize in and out of season.
26, F. Invention and poetic embellishment.—Finally, single episodes
from the Rāmāyaṇa, such as the marriage of Sītā, or the embassy of
Aṅgada to Rāvaṇa just before the commencement of the battle, came to be
embellished and enlarged, while a few other episodes not actually in the
Rāmāyaṇa were invented and treated with much poetic feeling.
The number of writers who have in these and various other ways
treated the story of the Rāmāyaṇa can be easily counted by hundreds,
among them some exceptionally gifted female authors; and their works
are even to the present day read by hundreds of thousands of people
throughout India; and those who cannot read, go to hear other people—
the Kathakas or the Purāṇikas—read and explain them. The Rāmāyaṇa
in India is not—and never will be, let us hope—a dead mythology. It is
full of the noblest examples of virtue and truth, of devotion and self-
sacrifice. Its characters have been for centuries, and still are, living forces
moulding the actions and aspirations of the men and women of India.

Bhavabhūti's early plays: Mahāvīra-charita,

Mālatī-Mādhava

27. The Mahāvīra-charita.—Such was the Rāma-story, with a past so
glorious and a future so vast and promising, that fascinated our poet and
was in fact his first love (M. V. C. i. 7). In the Mahāvīra-charita Bhava-
bhūti dramatizes the early history of Rāma, beginning shortly before his
marriage and taking up the story of his exile and the abduction of
his wife and her recovery, and ending with the return from Laṅkā and
the coronation.
Now here Bhavabhūti's most immediate problem was to give dramatic
unity to a vast number of actions and incidents which extended over
a period of fourteen years or more, and which had no intrinsic unity except
in so far as they all concerned one person, Rāma. The poet might have
introduced the various characters which figure in this part of Rāma's
history,—Paraśurāma, Mantharā, Śūrpaṇakhā, Khara and the army of the
fourteen thousand, Mārīcha, Jaṭāyus, Sugrīva, Vālin, Hanūmant, Śramaṇā,
Vibhīshaṇa, Kumbhakarṇa, Rāvaṇa, and so on,—like a series of moving

pictures, and then dismissed them as quickly as they appeared. The result
would have been a panoramic procession and not a play with a unified
plot.
It is likely that the earliest dramatizations of the Rāma-story were
of this kind. The first step in the evolution of these 'epic plays' or
'chronicle plays', as we might call them, was perhaps the division of the
story as a whole into minor episodes of inherent dramatic unity, and the
employment of one of these units as the material for a play. This step
may well have been taken by Bhāsa, who comes at least a century or two
before Kālidāsa. Two of Bhāsa's plays—'The Coronation of Rāma' or
Abhisheka-nāṭaka and 'The Image' or Pratimā—are based upon books iv-vi
of the Rāmāyaṇa. We should expect a third Rāma-play by Bhāsa covering
books i-iii, if not also a fourth covering book vii. At any rate Bhāsa
treated the Mahā-Bhārata story in this fashion, dividing it into a number
of separate episodes, each forming the subject of a single play.
In most of these earlier plays, however, there was presumably no
attempt made to show that the incidents were inevitable. They followed
in a definite sequence, because the epic narrated them in that sequence.
28. Bhavabhūti's departure from the Rāmāyaṇa.—Now consider what
Bhavabhūti does in order to bring about the desired unity of plot and
adequate motivation. When Janaka proclaims his daughter Sītā's svayaṁ-
vara, then Rāvaṇa, king of the demons, offers himself as a candidate for
her hand. He does not indeed come personally, as suitors were expected to
do: he is too proud for that. He sends a messenger who was to ask
or rather demand Sītā in marriage. His suit is not only refused, but, even
in the presence of his messenger, the girl is betrothed to Rāma—a mere
mortal. This was an insult to Rāvaṇa's valour and prowess, and he is
further incensed and mortified to learn that Rāma had killed Tāṭakā and
Subāhu, and a number of other demons. Rāvaṇa is naturally burning for
revenge (act i).
However, Mālyavant, Rāvaṇa's trusted minister and adviser, tries to
pacify him, and promises to secure his ends by gentler means: by diplomacy.
The minister accordingly meets Paraśurāma and instigates him against
Rāma (act ii, interlude). Unexpectedly, Paraśurāma is himself vanquished
(act iii). This was a great blow to Mālyavant's scheme; the old diplomat
does not, however, despair. He sends Rāvaṇa's sister, Śūrpaṇakhā, with
instructions that she was to assume the form of the nurse Mantharā and,
before Rāma returned to Ayodhyā from his marriage, give him the
message (as if coming from his step-mother Kaikeyī) to withdraw into
exile for fourteen years. By this plan Mālyavant hoped to draw Rāma

lxv] Early Plays : Mahāvīra-Charita
and his wife undefended into the forest, where with the army of demons
that Khara had under command, it would not have been very difficult
to overpower Rāma and abduct his wife. The ruse succeeds.¹ Rāma
dutifully accepts his exile, and Lakshmaṇa and Sītā accompany him
(act iv).
The abduction of Sītā now follows as a matter of course (act v,
interlude). Since, however, Mālyavant did not succeed in crushing Rāma
by the help of the army of the fourteen thousand, he prevails upon the
very reluctant Vālin to undertake that task. The fight between Vālin and
Rāma which follows is a fair one, and at its end Vālin dies, commending
his son and his brother Sugrīva to Rāma's care ² (act v). This is the real
climax of the play. Mālyavant has been using one means after another to
secure his desired end, but all things work against him. Diplomacy had
been tried and in vain. Nothing now remained but to risk one last
united effort to overpower the enemy by force. This also succeeds no
better. Rāvaṇa is killed (act vi) and Vibhīshaṇa installed in his place.
Rāma thereupon recovers his wife, returns to Ayodhyā, and is crowned
king (act vii).
29. Technical significance of these changes.—Now it is quite clear
that even from the start Bhavabhūti has here taken great liberties with
his sources. His changes are deliberate, well-advised. He seems to have
had a clear conception of just what he wanted to do, and what to avoid.
He was not satisfied with a mere reproduction in dramatic form of what
the epic gave in a narrative form. He wanted to establish, as far as
feasible, a necessary sequence between the various experiences and adven-
tures through which his hero passes. But this is not all. He so selects
the incidents, and, where there was no choice for him, so modifies them
as to bring out, by contrast, all the fine points in Rāma's character.
Bhavabhūti represents Rāma as an embodiment of duty, patience, truthful-
ness, valour, and chivalry. And to set these qualities in high relief, he
brings Rāma into contact with Paraśurāma, who has indeed valour, but
valour marred by a fiery temper; with Vālin, who is chivalrous, but lacks
strength of conviction, and so is easily beguiled by diplomacy; with

¹ Notice how by this one stroke Bhavabhūti beautiful woman (which disguise she
secures three distinct objects. 1. He could, as a she-demon, easily assume).
saves the character of Kaikeyī entirely. 3. Bhavabhūti also gains further oppor-
2. By bringing Śūrpaṇakhā thus early tunity for heightening Rāma's character.
into contact with Rāma he gains adequate ² Thus the poet skilfully avoids 1. Rāma's
motivation for her later conduct; for, if compromising conduct in relation to
Rāma could not see through Śūrpaṇakhā's Vālin, and 2. the spectacle of the un-
disguise as a nurse, no more was he ex- righteous quarrel between the brothers
pected to see through her disguise as a Vālin and Sugrīva.
i [H.O.S. 21]

Introduction [lxvi
Mālyavant, whose misfortune it is to know the better and follow the
worse; and finally with Rāvaṇa, whose great qualities of mind and of
body (and they are great) are rendered futile by the adulterous passion
that dominates and ruins him. In fact, it would not be incorrect to say
that the whole play is a struggle between a noble, sincere, straightforward
policy and a crooked, underhand, unscrupulous diplomacy, ending in an
utter discomfiture of the latter.
30. Merits of the Mahāvīra-charita.—In addition to a unified plot
the play affords us some attempts at genuine characterization. The poet
has taken great pains to make Rāma an ideal of chivalry. He has no
malice against his enemies (i. 31, i. 32¹), generously recognizes their valour
(ii. 35, 36, and passim), and is considerate in his treatment of them after
their defeat (iv. 21, v. 56). At the same time he is fully confident of his
prowess (ii. 33²), and scorns to receive from his enemies any sympathy
or advantage that goes beyond the strict code of chivalry (ii. 46¹, v. 50).
He is generous and devoted to those whom he has once called his friends
(v. 58¹⁷, v. 60), and has a supreme sense of his duty as a pupil (i. 38), as
a son (iv. 42), and as a king (iv. 39). We have already spoken of the
types of character¹ that are contrasted with his. It is necessary, however,
to add that, although Bhavabhūti is conscious of the original divine nature
of Rāma (vii. 2), he has tried to show him (except in one or two places) as
entirely human and normal. The divine does not intrude itself too
prominently and so dull our sympathies, as it does in some of the successors
of our poet. The play contains some splendid poetry, and, especially in
acts iii and iv, some spirited dialogue.
31. Defects of the Mahāvīra-charita.—The main drawback of the play
is the circumstance that its characterization, however clever in some places,
is generally stiff and unconvincing; there is no such thing as character-
development, unless we choose to call the change of mood in Paraśurāma
a development. Thus, from start to finish, Rāma is always the ideal hero,
the Mahā-vīra; what we have is a revelation of the different phases of his
character, or more correctly speaking, the same phase of his character—
bravery, nobility, truthfulness, and what not—revealed under different
circumstances and in relation to different persons. So also with Sītā. We
do not find in her that fine shading of character and blending of opposing
motives, that delicate growth of passion and affection that Bhavabhūti
portrays, for instance, in the heroine of the Mālatī-Mādhava. The same
may be said of the minister Mālyavant (see also § 36), who in this respect
¹ We may also mention the attempt to differentiate the characters (acts iii and iv) of Janaka and Daśaratha, and of Śatānanda and Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha.

lxvii] Early Plays: Mālatī-Mādhava
compares very unfavourably with the sublime character of Rākshasa in
Viśākhadatta's Mudrā-Rākshasa.
Another characteristic defect of the play is the poet's inability to stop
when enough has been already said. Thus Mālyavant's self-revelation—
the painful exposition of his motives, his hopes, and his fears—becomes
positively tedious, especially in the interlude to act iv; it is not called for,
and is technically a blemish. Similarly in act iii, the wordy war between
Paraśurāma on the one hand, and Śatānanda and Janaka and Daśaratha
and Viśvāmitra on the other, is carried to a length that may perhaps serve
to display Bhavabhūti's knowledge of grammar, Yoga, Dharma-śāstra,
Mīmāṁsā, and so forth, but that also betrays a radical defect in our poet,
the lack of a proper sense of form and measure. As a result, awkward
pauses must often have arisen on the stage, one or more characters being
compelled to stop and wait till another had concluded his—perhaps poetic,
but uncalled for—description or declamation. In fairness to Bhavabhūti
however, it must be said that his treatment of the Bharata episode (end of
act iv) and of the Vālin-Sugrīva incident can hardly be bettered. Here he
gives the desired effect by a few bold strokes; and Vibhīshaṇa's remark
(v. 58¹⁸), ‘How touching is this brevity where a prolix statement might have
been looked for!’ can very appropriately be applied to Bhavabhūti's own
treatment of the theme, as indeed he himself probably intended.¹
Finally we may mention that the language of the play is crude and
lacks the grace and polish, and even the directness and vigour, of Bhava-
bhūti's later plays. The descriptions are often lengthy and involved, and
the diction then becomes stilted and unnatural. The poet may also be
charged with some inconsistencies of statement: cp. vii. 16ᶜ with v. 38².
The metrical test (see appendix 1) confirms the impression that the play is
probably the earliest ² of the three plays of Bhavabhūti.
32. The Mālatī-Mādhava.—This play was probably written not very
long after the Mahāvīra-charita. It is in ten acts and is technically called
a prakaraṇa, and its plot, taken as a whole, is the poet's own invention.
Quite possibly, of course, he may have received from various sources hints
for certain incidents and episodes of the story. Thus (as noted at § 4)
some parts of it, such as the journey from the Berars to Padmāvatī, are
perhaps autobiographical; while others, such as the marriage of a nobleman
from the Berars (Mādhava) with a distinguished lady of Northern India

¹ Bhavabhūti is very fond of introducing in
his plays such indirect self-praise : com-
pare M.M. i. 35¹⁰, vi. 13²; U.R.C. iii. 47⁵.
But he generally takes care to introduce
it so skilfully as not to destroy the stage-
illusion.

² Compare also the prologue (i. 7²), where the
work is called new or apūrva; every play
is in a sense apūrva, but it is usually in
his first play that an author tries to excuse
himself on this ground. Cf. Mālavikā, i. 2.,

Introduction [lxviii]

(Mālatī), may have been suggested by historic facts.¹ For the central
story, Bhavabhūti seems to have been indebted to the Bṛihatkathā,
which—to judge from Kshemendra's synopsis thereof ² and from Soma-
deva's Kathāsaritsāgara ³—contained three separate stories of the temple-
runaways (see below, § 33, D) and the marriage in disguise (§ 33, E) and the
immolation and rescue of a princess (§ 33, F).⁴
The play is of the romantic type, the central interest being a love-story,
or rather a dexterous blending together of two love-stories. The plot is
crowded with incident and adventure, thrilling us now with hope and now
with fear, and the sequences are so far removed from the commonplace
that we can never guess what is to come next until near the very end.
And the action is projected upon a weird background, with tigers running
wild in the streets, ghosts squeaking in the cemeteries, and mystic Kāpālikas
performing gruesome rites in their blood-stained temples.
33, A. Analytic statement of the plot of the Mālatī-Mādhava.—Bhūri-
vasu and Devarāta, two young friends and fellow-students at the University,⁵
promise each other before parting that, if they should marry and settle
down, they would endeavour to pass on their friendship to the next
generation by bringing about, if possible, a marriage between their own
children. This promise is made in the presence of another fellow-student,
Kāmandakī, and her pupil Saudāminī. The friends part. Bhūrivasu
becomes minister of the king of Padmāvatī, and has a daughter named
Mālatī; while Devarāta has a similar position at Kuṇḍinapura, the capital
of the Berars, and has a son named Mādhava. The children grow up and
Devarāta sends his son to Padmāvatī, ostensibly to complete his education,
but really to remind Bhūrivasu of his early promise. Devarāta is too cautious
to send his son direct to Bhūrivasu; instead, he sends him to Kāmandakī,
who had now become a Buddhist nun, and was staying in a monastery
(vihāra) at Padmāvatī, much honoured both by the king and his minister.
33, B.—Bhūrivasu comes to know of Mādhava's presence in the city,
and is not averse to giving his Mālatī in marriage to Mādhava; only it so
happens that the king his master has already asked Bhūrivasu to give his
daughter Mālatī in marriage to an old court-favourite of his called Nandana:

¹ For two notable marriages of this kind in the Vākāṭaka dynasty of the Berars, we have epigraphic testimony: JRAS., April, 1914, p. 325.
² See his Bṛihatkathāmañjarī (Kāvyamālā, no. 69), xi. 6–88; 67–78; iii. 218–30.
³ See Kathāsaritsāgara, xiii. 17–150; 158–215; iv. 146–203.
⁴ It would be interesting to study the various artistic changes which Bhavabhūti made in his originals.
⁵ Ancient India had famous seats of learning (Ujjain, Takshaśilā, Nālandā), each housing and feeding and teaching thousands of bachelor students. See Hiuen Tsang's description of Nālandā (book ix: S. Beal's translation, ii. 167).

lxix] Early Plays: Mālatī-Mādhava
It was dangerous to refuse the king's request; so Kāmandakī advises
Bhūrivasu to assent to the king's wish, but to word his assent in such
a way as to leave himself a loophole or chance of evasion in case of need
(ii. 2¹⁰), herself undertaking to contrive to bring the young people together
and arrange for a private marriage. Bhūrivasu could in that case plead
that he was in no wise a party to this clandestine affair, and the king—the
marriage once solemnized—would have no choice but to submit. With
the help of friends, Kāmandakī manages to throw the young people together
in chance encounters on the road or at the spring festival of the God of
Love, or in the city garden; while,—by praising to Mālatī the person and
family and accomplishments of Mādhava, by painting with contrasting
touches the ugliness and stupidity of Nandana, and finally by narrating to
her some ancient stories of girls in like circumstances¹ who chose their
husbands without regard to their parents' wishes,—Kāmandakī so works
upon Mālatī's feelings that when the opportunity comes she is ready to
elope with Mādhava and marry him in a place prepared by Kāmandakī.
33, C.—Such is the main plot. Interwoven with it is a by-plot, also
a love-story, namely between Nandana's sister Madayantikā and Mādhava's
friend Makaranda. This by-plot is clearly intended to be a foil for the main
plot, an element of contrast with it. Thus the first meeting of Mālatī and
Mādhava occurs at the spring festival in a most natural way. The first
meeting of Madayantikā and Makaranda takes place under most exceptional
circumstances: A tiger has broken loose, has killed his keepers, and is
running amuck in the streets, when Madayantikā, who happens to pass by,
is saved from deadly peril by Makaranda.² A second notable contrast
appears in the characters of Mālatī and Madayantikā. Mālatī is a modest
obedient girl whom Kāmandakī finds it hard to persuade to disobey her
father's wishes; while Madayantikā, the sister of the court-favourite, is
a flighty passionate girl who elopes with Makaranda at the very first
opportunity. Further, as compared with Mādhava's love, that of Makaranda
is frankly sensuous. There was nothing to prevent Makaranda from going
in straightforward fashion to Nandana and asking for the hand of his
sister (whom moreover he had saved from the tiger). The actual method
adopted is an elopement under cover of darkness.
33, D.—The story is further complicated and diversified by the intro-
duction of two episodic elements: 1. the marriage of Nandana to Maka-
randa disguised as Mālatī; 2. the two hairbreadth escapes of Mālatī, one
before and one after her marriage. The purpose of the first episode is
¹ Such as Śakuntalā, Urvaśī, and Vāsavadattā.
² His opportune presence is adequately motivated (iv. 0²⁸). The rescuer is wounded.