प्रियदर्शिका नाटिका (सम्राट हर्षवर्धन - चतुरङ्क शास्त्रीय नाटिका सान्वय सटीक)

XIV
2 HARSHA AS AN AUTHOR.
( Controversies regarding his Authorship )
The three plays, Ratnāvali, Priyadarśikā, and Nāgānand are
attributed to Shri Harsha or Harsha deva of Kanauj. But
Harsha's authorship has been questioned by some scholars
Indian as well as European. In the first place some even
doubt whether the same author wrote all the three plays.
Now a perusal of the three dramas ought to lead every one
to the conclusion that all the three plays are the product of
the same mind. The prologues in the three plays are exactly
the same in wording, barring slight variations necessitated
by the fact of the plays being different. In the prologue of
each play Shri Harsha Deva is mentioned as the author of the
play: श्रीहर्षदेवेन अपूर्ववस्तुरचनालङ्कृता रत्नावली नाम नाटिका कृता—श्रीहर्षदेवेन
अपूर्ववस्तुरचनालङ्कृता प्रियदर्शिका नामनाटिका कृता—श्रीहर्षदेवेन अपूर्वरचनालङ्कृतं
विद्याधरजातकमतिनिबद्धं नागानन्दं नाम नाटकं कृतम्. Besides the closing
benedictory stanza in Priyadars'ika and Râtnâvali is the same
and two identical stanzas occur in Priyadars'ikā and Nāgān-
anda ( Priyadars'ikā III-3, Nagananda IV-1, Priya III 10,
Nāga I. 14 ) In addition to these we notice similarity of
style and tone, parallels in situations, repeated phrases and
expressions which unmistakably prove the common authorship
of the three plays.
Now the next question is who is this Śrī Harsha-Deva that
is mentioned in the three plays ? Mr K. M. Pannikar in his
monograph on Shri Harsha of Kanauj mentions five Harshas
as being known to ancient Indian History. The first is the
half mad tyrant of Kāshmir who ruled that state from 1089-
1101. The second is Shri Harsha, the grand father of king
Bhoja, of Dhārānagar. The third is Vikramaditya Harsha of
Ujjain, at whose court Mātṛgupta lived. The fourth is the
author of Naishadhīya-Charita, and the fifth, the author of
Kāvyapradīpa.
(1) Harsha Deva King of Kāshmere cannot be conceived
of being an author of any literary work, judging from his
career and character. Besides no literary work is attributed to
him. (2) Shri Harsha of Dhārānagar and grandfather of Bhoja
lived in the earlier half of the 10th century. Damodar Gupta
in his work called Kuttanimata gives at length the story of

xv
Ratnávalí, quotes the 24th verse of the 1st Act and praises it
as a work of great merit.* Now this Damodar Gupta lived
under Jayápída of Káshmír (A. D. 779–813). The play of
Ratnávalí seems to have been widely known at this time, that
is, the eighth century. It is impossible, therefore, that a king
who lived in the 10th century could have written a play
which had become fairly old and attained celebrity in the 8th
century. This argument can be advanced with equal strength
against the authorship of Harsha-Deva, king of Kashmir.
(3) Vikramaditya Harsha of Ujjain cannot be the same as
Shri-Harsha, the author of the three plays, because the latter
is uniformly known as Harsha without the title Vikramáditya.
If the author of the plays had possessed the title he would
surely not have neglected to assume it. Besides Harsha
Vikramáditya was an orthodox Bráhmana, while the author
of the three plays shows a strong Buddhistic leaning
in the Nágánanda.
(4) (5) With regard to Shri Harsha, the author of Naishad-
híya Charita, and Harsha, the author of Kávyapradípa,
Mr. Pannikar dismisses them summarily on the ground that
time places them out of the controversy. Harsha, the author
of Naishadhíya Charita, who flourished under Jayachandra of
Kanauj, lived about 1150 A. D. Among the works which he
mentions as being composed by himself he does not mention
any of these three plays. Besides his style, which is marked
by crookedness of expressions, overstraining of words and
distressing artificiality, is a marked contrast to the simple
and elegant style of Ratnávalí and its sister plays. Besides
Harsha of Naishadhíya-Charita was not a king but simply a
poet who flourished under the patronage of the king of
Kashmir and afterwards of the king of Kanauj; while the
Harsha of Ratnávalí and its sister plays was a Sovereign
Lord, 'with princes from various kingdoms dependent on his
lotus-like feet.' See note on राजसमूहेन &c. p. 2.
Now there remains Shri Harsha or Harsha-vardhana of
Kanauj (606–648 A. D.) A careful examination of both
the external and internal evidence leads us irresistibly to

• आश्लिष्टसन्धिबन्धं सन्पात्रसुवर्णयोजितं वृत्तम् ।
  निपुणपरीक्षकहृदयं राजति रत्नावलीसदृशम् ॥

XVI

the conclusion that this Shri Harsha of Kannauj must be the
author of these plays. First, Bana, a great court poet of
Shri Harsha, in his biography of his master (हर्षचरित), speaks
in eulogistic terms of his learning and poetical genius—"(1)
काव्यशास्त्रेष्वप्रीतममृतमुद्भवमिव" (2) "सर्वविद्यासङ्गीतगृहमिव सरस्वत्या" &c.
Allowing for the partiality of a protege for his patron and
poetic exaggeration, it cannot be doubted that Shri Harsha was
a scholar and author of some works. Secondly, the Chinese pil-
grim I-tsing, who visited India in the last quarter of the 7th
century, writes about king Shri Harsha, "King Sîladitya (i.e.
King Harsha) was exceedingly fond of literature. He
versified the story of the Bodhisatwa Jîmûtavahana (Cloud-
borne) who surrendered himself in place of a Nâga. This
version was set to music (lit.—string and pipe), he had it
performed by a band accompanied by dancing and acting, and
thus popularized it in his time" (Takakusu, I-tsing, p. 163)
This statement clearly shows that the author of the play
Naganand is king Harsha, who lived in the 7th century.
Thirdly, as we have pointed out before, Damodaragupta who
flourished at the court of Jayâpîda of Kashmir (A. D. 779-
813), quotes verses from Ratnâvalî, and praises the play as a
work of great beauty, in his work called Kuttanîmata. The
play is ascribed by him to a king, who, it is quite clear, must
be Shri Harsha, who lived in the 7th century. Fourthly,
Soddhala, who lived in the 11th century A. D., in his Udaya-
sundarîkathâ, mentions Harsha along with Vikramâditya,
Munja, and Bhoja, as being both भूपाल (king) and कवीन्द्र (prince
of poets) presiding over a literary court (सभा). In another pas-
sage Soddhala punningly refers to Harsha (Joy) as 'the glorious
Harsha' (श्रीहर्ष) whose 'joy lay in words' (गीर्हर्ष) in his own assem-
bly (निजसंसदि). The passage runs as follows :—श्रीहर्षेणेवानिर्वृतिषु पार्थिवेषु
नाद्रेव केवलमभाषत चक्षुषस्तु । गीर्हर्ष एव निजसंसदि येन रत्ना सदुज्जित कनक
कोटिशतेन बाणः ॥ Fifthly, the famous poet Jayadeva, who lived
in 11th century A. D. mentions Harsha as a poet with the
earlier poets Bhâsa and Kalidâs, and with his contemporaries
Bana and Mayura. He punningly calls Harsha the joy of
Poetry. Sixthly, Madhusudan the editor of Mayura S'ataka,
writing about A. D. 1654, says that Bâna and Mayura were
the court poets of Shri Harsha and calls Harsha 'The chief
of the race of poets and the author of the Natikâ called
Ratnâvalî, Sixthly, in several Sanskrit anthologies, such as

XVII
'Subhāshitāvalī' and 'Sādhūktikarṇāmṛta' stanzas under
the name of Harsha are quoted. Seventhly, there are epigraphic
records which prove that Harsha was an author who not
only wrote dramas, but also stray verses. The inscriptions
on the well-known Banskhera and Madhuban plates are
indisputably his own compositions. In the Banskhera plate
(628 A. D.) which bears Harsha's own signature we find—
"It is the own hand of me, the Paramount Lord, the Glorious
Harsha ( स्वहस्तो मम महाराजाधिराज-श्री-हर्षस्य )." Among the verses
inscribed on the plates, there is one which is very beautiful
and runs thus :—कर्मणा मनसा वाचा कर्तव्यं प्राणिने हितम् । हर्षेणैतत्
समाख्यातं धर्मार्जनमनुत्तमम् ॥ Lastly, two short Sanskrit
poems on Buddhistic spirit are attributed to
Harsha. One of these is named, सुप्रभातस्तोत्र, a morning hymn
in praise of the Buddha and the other is called अष्टमहाश्रीचैत्यसं-
स्तुतं स्तोत्र, a hymn to the eight Great Buddhist Shrines. These
poems thoroughly harmonize with Harsha's acceptance of
Buddhistic doctrine in the latter part of his life.
It is, however, necessary, to mention and refute the theories
started by some scholiasts that Harsha did not himself write
these plays but got them written for him by a court poet of
his, who was amply rewarded for his labour. This theory is
based upon a sentence in the Kāvyaprakāsha of Mammaṭa,
who lived about 1100 A. D. Mammaṭa speaking of काव्य or
poetry says that it leads to the acquisition of wealth, as in the
case of Dhāvaka and others from Shri Harsha and the like—
श्रीहर्षाद्धावकादीनामिव धनम् ।. Several commentators have interpreted
this text to mean that a poet, Dhāvaka wrote a play by name
Ratnāvalī for Shri-Harsha and obtained wealth from him.
The commentator Nāgoji Bhatta comments on the sentence
thus:—धावकः कविः । स हि श्रीहर्षनाम्ना रत्नावलीं कृत्वा बहु धनं लब्धवानिति
प्रसिद्धम् । " In the manuscripts of काव्यप्रकाश found in Kāshmir,
the passage is read thus:—' श्रीहर्षाद्वाणादीनामिव धनम् " The original
text of Mammaṭa, "श्रीहर्षाद्धावकादीनामिव or "श्रीहर्षाद्वाणादीनामिव धनम्"
if interpreted naturally without reading into it any pre-con-
ceived idea, would mean that poets like Dhāwaka or Bāṇa
obtained wealth from their patron, Shri Harsha, for their
literary works. In other words these poets were liberally
rewarded by their patron, King Harsha. This interpretation
is natural and correct and is in conformity with the tradition
which ascribes Ratnāvalī and its sister plays to Shri Harsha.
The interpretation of the commentators, who lived several

XVIII
centuries after the dramas had been written, does not satisfy
a historical or critical test. There is no positive evidence in
favour of the statement that Dhāvaka is the author of
Ratnāvalī No literary work under the name of Dhavaka has
come down to us Besides nothing is known about Dhavaka
So the theory that Dhāvaka is the author of Ratnāvalī
is not tenable in the face of the overwhelmingly
strong evidence in favour of the authorship of Harsha
of Ratnāvalī and his other two plays Another theory, that
Bāṇa is the author of Ratnāvalī is based on the variant
reading of the passage in Kāvyaprakāśa, “श्रीहर्षाद्बाणादीनामिव धनम्”
This theory which was set forth by Dr Hall in his introduction
to Vāsavadattā is not tenable either In the first place Bāṇa's
style, as it is seen in his great works, Kādambarī and Har-
ṣacharita is quite dissimilar to that of Ratnāvalī. Besides
Ratnāvalī nowhere betrays that high kind of poetry which is
abundantly seen in Kādambarī or Harshacharita It is also
difficult to believe that Bāṇa sold Ratnāvalī of all his works
when he could have struck a much better bargain by selling his
Kādambarī Then again it has been proved that the author of
Ratnāvalī is also the author of Nāgānanda and it is impossible
that Bāṇa who was a strict Brāhmaṇa wrote Nāgānanda which
glorifies the Buddhistic doctrine. There is yet another theory
which attributes these plays to Bhāsa, who is praised by
Kālidāsa and whose plays have been recently discovered and
published This theory was first propounded by Mr Narayan
Shāstri of South India and afterwards upheld by Prof
S M Parānjpe of Poona Mr Shāstri bases his theory on a
passage from the कविविमर्श of राजशेखर But as the
passage quoted by him seems to be spurious and
its authenticity cannot be proved, his theory based upon it
topples down Mr Parānjpe does not rely on this passage
but argues independently to prove that Bhāsa is the real au-
thor of Nāgānanda and the other two plays His whole po-
sition is based upon some parallel ideas, similar grammatical
peculiarities and literary devices, which he has picked out
from Bhāsa's plays and the two plays Nāgānand and
Priyadarśikā But mere similarity of ideas and sentiments,
and of grammatical and literary peculiarities has little value
unless it is supported by other convincing arguments Parallel
ideas, and parallel literary devices or peculiarities even
occur in the works of authors belonging to different ages and

XIX
to different countries. So this argument of similar ideas, and
of similar grammatical and literary peculiarities is not sound,
especially when we find that the style of Bhāsa is widely differ-
ent from the style of Priyadarśikā and its sister plays. The
style of Bhāsa is crude and is not elegant or graceful; while the
style of Ratnāvalī and its sister plays is refined and graceful.
The plays of Bhāsa evidently belong to a more distant age. The
similarity of ideas &c. can be explained on the ground that the
author of Ratnāvalī and the two plays might have read Bhāsa's
plays, as he did Kālidāsa's also, and tried to imitate him in
certain points. So this theory about Bhāsa's authorship of
the three plays in question, is also untenable. See also our
Introd. to the Ratnāvalī.
We have thus disposed of all the theories about the
authorship of the three plays, Priyadarśikā, Ratnāvalī,
and Nāgānand. We have also examined the internal as well as
the external evidence that is available to us and we are led to
the irresistible conclusion that Shri Harsha of Kanauj, who
reigned from 606–648 A. D., is the author of Ratnāvalī and
the other two plays.
(3) HARSHA AS A POET AND DRAMATIST.
Harsha's merits as a poet and dramatist are certainly great.
But he can be placed only in the second class among Sanskrit
authors. Like many other playwrights he does not
show originality in the invention of the plots of his
dramas nor great skill or delicacy in the portraiture of
character. But he shows considerable skill in the
creation of incidents and situations necessary for dramatic
effect.* He has neither the imagination, the fancy and the grace
of Kālidāsa, nor Bhavabhūti's loftiness of thought and depth
and force of passion. As a dramatic artist and master of the
language also he is inferior to either of them. But he has
the great merit of simplicity of expression and thought.
His style is free from the artificiality, overstraining of words,
exaggeration of thought and sentiment, which characterise
later Sanskrit literature. His Sanskrit is elegant and precise
and his use of figures of speech and thought, is on the whole
restrained and in good taste. Coming as he does after Kālidāsa

• See infra. our remarks on the source of the plot

xliii
garment and cries out to Indīvarikā for help. Indīvarikā was
at some distance away from her. So Vasantaka advises
the King to run to her rescue. The King does so and
gets an opportunity of embracing her. But instead of
remaining silent he addresses her in a flattering stanza.
A'raṇyikā, who supposed that she had been helped by
Indīvarikā, is startled to find that her rescuer is king Vatsa.
She is, however, glad to find that it was he to whom her
father had promised her in marriage. She, however,
calls to Indīvarikā in alarm and when the latter comes the
King has to go away and hide himself. Âraṇyikā departs
with her companion, with a sad heart, smitten with love. The
king too departs, full of deep longing and anxious to meet
again the object of his new love.
Act III.—We learn from the monologue of a female atten-
dant named Manoramā that a little play composed by Saṁkṛtyā-
yanī, a learned friend of Queen Vāsavadattā, is to be per-
formed for the amusement of the Queen. The play repre-
sented an episode in the courtship of Queen Vāsavadattā
and King Vatsarāja. Āraṇyikā is to play the part of Queen
Vāsavadattā and the Queen's attendant, Manoramā, is to ap-
pear in the role of King Vatsa. Manoramā while searching for
A'raṇyikā in the garden finds her in her love-sick condition.
She overhears Āraṇyikā lamenting her hopeless passion for
the King. Manoramā tries to cheer her up. At this very
moment the Vidūshaka arrives there in search of A'raṇyikā
by the King's command. The two maidens overhear the
King's confidant and learn of the King's passion for A'raṇyikā.
In the conversation that follows between the Vidūshaka
and Manoramā, the latter whispers to him a device for
bringing about the meeting of the lovers. Next comes the
scene of the Mimic play. It is to be performed in the play-
house attached to the palace. The Queen with her
attendants and Sāṁkṛtyāyanī comes to witness the play.
Āraṇyikā appears in the role of the Queen. But
Manoramā does not play the part of the King. For
according to the device made known to the King through
his companion, it is arranged that the King shall play
his own part instead of Manoramā's playing it. The
King then enters secretly and begins to act his part in
the Mimic play. In playing his part he makes advances to

XXIII
Araṇyikā in such a manner as to rouse the suspicion of the
Queen. The Queen rises from her seat in a fit of displeasure
unable any longer to witness acting of that kind and goes
out. She finds Vasantaka who has been asleep in the adjoining
room. Thinking that the King may also be there, she rouses
him, when he reveals the truth in his drowsiness. The Queen
thus comes to know the whole trick and in her anger
breaks up the play She then orders both A'raṇyikā and
Vasantaka to be imprisoned and departs without listening to
the apology of the King.
Act IV.—Manoramā enters and is sorely grieved to see that
A'rṇyikā has still been kept confined by the relentless Queen.
The poor girl, she says, is in deep despair, not because of the
hardships of the prison, but because she is not able to see the
King. Just then Kāñchanamālā, the Queen's attendant, enters
and informs Manoramā that the Queen has been in deep distress
since she received a letter from her mother, Aṅgāravatī,
informing her that King Dṛḍhavarman, husband of
her mother's sister, has been held a captive for more
than a year by the Kaliṅga King, and taunting
her for King Vatsa's not having lifted a finger to
rescue him. In the next scene Vāsavadattā appears, seated
in the ivory-tower of the palace, attended by Sāṁkṛtyāyanī.
The latter tries to comfort the sorrowful Vāsavadattā,
assuring her of the faithful affection of the king. At this time
the King enters with the Vidūshaka, talking about the means
of conciliating the Queen and setting A'raṇyikā free from her
captivity. He approaches Vāsavadattā and tries to appease
her. Being informed by Sāṁkṛtyāyanī of the real cause of the
Queen's sorrow, the king informs her of the expedition sent by
him against the Kaliṅga king and how the latter's armies have
been defeated and how he expects shortly to hear of the
complete overthrow and destruction of Kaliṅga. At this
moment Vijayasena, the victorious general, and the chamberlain
of Dṛḍhavarman are announced. The chamberlain informs
the king how Vijayasena defeated and slew the accursed
king of Kaliṅga in battle and restored his master
Dṛḍhavarman to his kingdom. He then narrates how
Dṛḍhavarman's daughter Priyadarsikā is lost and no
trace of her can be found. At this moment Manoramā
hurriedly enters with the sad news that A'raṇyikā has drunk
poison. On hearing this Vāsavadattā is smitten with penitence

XXIV
and at once orders her to be brought before the king who with
his knowledge of magic spells, will save her life. Āraṇyikā
is then brought on the stage in a dying condition. The Cham-
berlain recognizes her and tells Vāsavadattā that she
is the lost Priyadarśikā the daughter of his master, king
Dṛḍhavarman. King Vatsa repeats his magic formulas
which counteract the effect of the poison and Āraṇyikā is
gradually restored to life. Vāsavadattā is delighted to find
that Āraṇyikā, who is no other than her cousin Priyadarśikā,
also called Priyadarśanā is restored to life. She then places
her cousin's hand in the hand of the King to indicate that she
is his lawful wife, in accordance with the promise of Dṛḍha-
varman. The play thus ends happily with the customary
benedictory stanza, praying for universal peace, prosperity
and contentment.
———
(2) THE SOURCES OF THE PLOT OF THE PLAY
The plot of the Priyadarśikā, in its general outline, is
derived from the semi-legendary life of King Udayana as
given in the Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya. The story of the loves
of Udayana, king of Kauśambī also called Vatsarāja, and
Vāsavadattā and of his romantic adventures, seems to have
been exceedingly popular in ancient India judging from the fact
that it has been referred to and turned to literary account by
many Sanskrit poets. It is referred to by Kālidāsa in his
Meghadūta — प्राप्यावन्तीनुदयनकथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धान् and प्रद्योतस्य प्रियदुहितरं
वत्सराजोऽत्र जह्रे and by Śūdraka in his Mṛcchakaṭika
—यौगन्धरायण इवोदयनस्य राज्ञः. Bhāsa, one of the earlier poets, has
taken the love intrigues of Udayana for the theme of two of
his plays—स्वप्नवासवदत्त and प्रतिज्ञायौगन्धरायण. Subandhu in his well-
known Vāsavadattā deals with the adventures of Udayana in
the acquisition of Vāsavadattā. In the कथासरित्सागर of सोमदेवभट्ट
who lived in the 11th century, the story of उदयन is related at
length. Udayana was the son of Sahasrānīka (see note on
Vatsarāja p. 3). Sahasrānīka married Mṛgāvatī the
daughter of Kṛtavarman king of Ayodhyā. When Mṛgā-
vatī was pregnant she had a desire to bathe in a pond
of blood-water. While bathing she was snatched away by a
bird of the race of Garuḍa and left on the Rising mountain.
A young sage saw her there lamenting and took her to

').
Wait! That's only TWO letters after 'पा': 'न' and 'त्'?
Wait, could it be 'य' and 'त्'?
What if the word is:
"उपानयत्"?
Wait, where would 'य' be?
Could 'न' and 'य' be a ligature: 'न्य'?
'उ' 'पा' 'न्य' 'त्' - no.
Wait, what about "उपानयत्" where 'न' and 'य' are somehow...?
Wait, let's zoom in to maximum on line 42!
Let's describe every single glyph in line 42:

1. 'गो'
2. 'पा'
3. 'ल'
4. 'के'
5. 'न'
6. [space]
7. 'प्र'
8. 'हि'
9. 'तां'
10. [space]
11. 'क'
12. 'न्यां'
13. [space]
14. 'वे'
15. 'श्या' (it has a top e-matra? No, on 'वे' there is an e-matra. On 'श्या', it is 'श्' + 'या').
16. [space]
17. 'उ' (it is 'उ')
18. 'पा'
19. 'प' or 'य'?
    Wait! Look at

(स), न् (half-na), and दृ (dṛ): "सन्दृष्टोद्याने".

Line 5:
"गान्धर्वविधिना तत्रसमुपयेमे स भूपतिः ॥"

Everything else is crystal clear. Let's format nicely line by line.XXVI
तथा मञ्जुलिकेत्येवं नाम्नान्वर्थेन गोपिताम् ।
अपरामिव लावण्यजलधेरुद्गतां श्रियम् ॥
वस-तकसहायं सन्दृष्टोद्याने लतागृहे ।
गान्धर्वविधिना तत्रसमुपयेमे स भूपतिः ॥
तच्च वासवदत्ताऽथ ददर्श निभृतस्थिता ।
प्रचुकोप च बद्ध्वा च सा निनाय वसन्तकम् ॥
ततः प्रव्राजिकां वृद्धां सखीं पितृकुलागताम् ।
स साङ्कृत्यायनीं नाम शरणं शिश्रिये नृपः ॥
सा तां प्रसाद्य महिषीं तथा सैव कृताज्ञया ।
ददौ बन्धुमतीं राज्ञे पेशलं हि सतीमनः ॥
ततस्तं बन्धनाद्देवी सा मुमोच वसन्तकम् ।
[L1

XXVII
above*. The story of Bandhumatī resembles that of Priya-
darśikā, as the student can see from the passage from the
कथासरित्सागर quoted above, the names उदयन, वत्सराज, वसन्तक,
वासवदत्ता and साङ्कृत्यायनी, being common to both. Hence we con-
clude that Harsha took for his basis the meagre story of
Bandhumatī, perhaps written in greater detail in the बृहत्कथा,
and worked it up into the present charming play.
(3) TIME ANALYSIS OF THE PLAY.
The action of the Priyadarśikā covers a period of a little
over a year, from the autumn (शरद्) of one year to the
autumn of another. For we are told in the Viṣkambhaka of
the first Act by the chamberlain of Dṛḍhavarman, the king of
the Anga country, that his master was already a captive
of the king of Kalinga; and from the closing speech of the
same chamberlain we learn that the season of the year is
autumn; for he speaks of the uncommon severity of the
autumnal heat and of the sun having passed from the zodiacal
sign virgo to libra. From thiswe know that the month was
A'svina, in which generally the sun is in libra. And we learn
from the message sent by the Queen Aṅgāravatī to her daughter
Vāsavadattā (see p. 46) some days after the events of the
third act which happened on the full moon-day of Aśvina that
it was more than a year since Dṛḍhavarman was taken a
captive. So the action of the play spreads over a period of a
year and a few days more.
Act I. It is not possible exactly to fix the time of
the action of the 1st Act. It begins in the forenoon
of some day in the month of A'śvina some two hours
before noon as the Act closes at mid-day (see Śl. 12). The
King is introduced as holding conversation with his companion
Vasantaka some day after his escape from prison and return

• There is also a third and a more faithful abridgement, which is
  also earlier, of the Bṛhatkathā, known as the Bṛhatkathāśloka-
  saṅgraha, by one, Buddhasvāmin. It is, however, incomplete, only
  28 cantos being extant. In this also the events connected with the
  birth and early years of Udayana are narrated including his visits
  to the city of the Serpents and his acquisition there of the magic
  lute, Ghoṣavatī and of the art of taming elephants Col U. Ed.
  Introd. pp lxx, lxxi.

XXVIII
to Kauśambî with Vâsavadattâ We learn from this conver-
sation that Vatsarâja was incensed when he heard that
Drdhavarman was taken prisoner and kept in custody by
the King of Kalinga. So the news of Dṛhavarman's captivity
must have reached Kaus'ambî by the time the Kanchuki
in the Viṣkambhaka reaches Vindhyaketu's capital. Again
in the same scene when Vijayasena narrates the account
of his conquest and utter destruction of Vindhyaketu, we are
told that he reached the abode of Vindhyaketu after a forced
march of three days and that the attack was made at day-
break. And we know from the speech of the Kanchuki in the
Vis'kambhaka that all was over by the time‘he returned to
Vindyketu's place from Agastya-tirtha where he had gone
to bathe and that no trace of the attackers was found. So it
follows that the battle was of short duration and Vijayasena,
had left the place by or shortly after noon.; for when the
Kanchukî arrived on the scene the sun was still very hot. Now
Vijayasena must have taken at least three days to return to
Kaus'ambî, so that he must have reached it on the seventh day
from his starting from it. So the events mentioned in the
Viskambhaka, viz. Vindhyaketu's destruction, the loss of the
princess and the Chamberlain's resolve to go back to his
captive master, must have taken place four days before the
events of the first act.
Act II An interval of at least one year (or more) separates
the events of the first Act from those of the second; and for
the following reasons. ( 1 ) It is clearly said in the
Praves'aka of the fourth Act that Dṛḍhavarman was in
custody for more than one year, and this interval can only be
placed between the first two Acts, as the third and the
fourth Acts follow pretty closely upon the second. (2) From the
conversation between Indîvarikâ and A'raṇyikâ we learn that
a great intimacy had grown up between them. Again from
the same conversation we further learn of the Queen's
intention to inform the King that A'raṇyikâ had reached
marriageable age, in accordance with his own bidding that he
should be reminded when she reached that age. And in the
same scene when the King sees A'raṇyikâ and discovers that
she is Vindyketu's daughter he exclaims—" Oh we have long
been robbed " All this points to a long interval. (3) From the
King's description of the beautiful scene presented by the

XXIX
garden attached to the Dhârâgṛha and the tank in it, it is clear
that autumn had just set in ; and that can be the autumn of
the next year. The time of action of the second Act
therefore, is some day in A'svina, as is evident also from the
Queen's observing a fast in honour of the great sage Agastya
and her intention to give a Svastivâyana on that occasion
which is done after Bhâdrapada, (see p. 24 and com. thereon,)
and the events mentioned therein take place late in the after-
noon, as it is sunset when the King retires to his palace
after his unexpected meeting with A'raṇyikâ.
Act III—opens with the entrance of Manoramâ, rather
late in the afternoon of the full-moon-day of A'svina. For
in her speech Manoramâ tells us that the remaining portion of
the play composed by Sâmkṛtyâyanî is to be acted before the
Queen on the Kaumudî festival, which falls on the fifteenth
day of A'svina, and that her friend A'raṇyikâ being absent-
minded committed a mistake in her acting on the day.
A'raṇyikâ then enters and appears from her conversation with
her confidante Manoramâ to have been deeply affected with
love for the King and pining for his company day and night.
And from the lips of the Vidûshaka who enters next we learn
that the King also is love-sick, passes his nights sleeplessly
and finds pleasure in nothing but devising means to obtain a
sight of A'raṇyika'. This shows that we must allow a period of
five or six days at least to intervene between the second and
the third Acts to account for the deep impression made on
the minds of the lovers by each other's sight at their first
meeting. When Manoramâ sees Vasantaka and learns from
him how helpless his friend was on account of her friend
A'raṇyikâ, she tells him how their meeting was to be brought
about that very night when the acting was to be performed
before the Queen. Vidûshaka then leaves her, and she starts
to go to the play-house with A'raṇyikâ, and by the time they
enter it, the twilight is already past (अतिक्कान्ता खलु सन्ध्या p. 31 ).
So the action of the third Act begins late in the afternoon of
the day and ends when it is bed time, after the breaking up of
the Mimic play, by the Queen. See p. 44, King's speech.
Act IV. A few days' interval separates the fourth Act from
the third. For in the opening speech of Manoramâ she
complains of the Queen's long continued anger and of the
hardships of confinement to which her friend has been subjected.

XXX
This shows that A'raṇyikā was in prison for some days.
Again from the conversation between Sāṅkṛityāyanī and
Vāsavadattā we learn that the Āraṇyikā-love affair was a
recent event. And Vidūshaka's humorous suggestion to the
King to observe a month's fast to gain the Queen's
favour and his words farther on इदानीमेव कल्पशतप्रख्याते परि-
वत्सरेऽस्मिन् p 40, show that not many days, even a week could
have elapsed after the events of the 3rd Act. So the
interval separating the third from the fourth Act must be a
very short one. But we have no means of determining the
exact hour of the day when the action of the fourth Act be-
gins. It lasts for a period of about three hours.
(4) GEOGRAPHY OF THE PLAY
See Notes p 49.
(5) TECHNICAL REMARKS
It will be easily seen that the Priyadarśikā does not closely
follow the various canons found in the Sans. treatises on
dramaturgy, such as the Daśarūpaka and the Sāhityadarpaṇa,
as the Ratnāvalī does. The Sandhis are not elaborated and
well proportioned. The Sṛiṅgārarasa, the main sentiment
of the play, is not well developed in its two parts विप्रलम्भ and
संभोग. In this respect the Māl. is far superior to it. In it the
king's passion (अनुराग) which is compared to a plant is
gradually developed as declared by the poet himself in the
words बद्धमूल, समुद्गतप्रवाल, मुकुलित (कुड्मलित,) and फलित, see IV. 1
A detailed description of the Sandhis and their aṅgas is
not attempted here as it is not of much use to the junior
students. As a Nāṭikā the Priya. conforms to the rules of
dramaturgy on broad lines. As regards the three chief
requisites, the वस्तु is प्रख्यात as the story of Udayana and
Vāsavadattā was popular at the time the play was written.
The Netā or hero is धीरललित (see ante p 9). The Heroine
belongs to the variety known as मुग्धा (defined as मुग्धा नववयःकामा
रतौ वामा मृदुः क्रुधि। Daś, R. II 16 ). The chief sentiment
is शृङ्गार or love. There is an occasional infusion of
Karuṇa as in the lament of A'raṇyikā (see pp. 15, 24)
and when she drinks poison, in order to put an end to her
miserable existence (see p. 54). There is also a slight
tinge of the हास्यरस as when the Vidu. says एते खलु राजानो

XXXI
दिष्ट्यापि वर्धयन्ते (p 38), or advises the King saying मासोपवासं
कृत्वा &c. (p. 48). As regards the denouement and the general
setting the play opens with the usual नान्दी. The प्रस्तावना is
not in its usual style but rather on the model of Bhāsa, as
no other character than the Sūtradhāra is introduced in it.
In it the Sūtra. informs the audience of the name of the
author, the title of the play and the occasion of its perform_
ance. Then there is a Viskambhaka in which the chamberlain
of Dṛḍhavarman, King of the Aṅga country, briefly narrates
the part of the story, a knowledge of which is necessary for
the understanding of the events related in the play. The
Bīja or seed is also cast when the Kañch. says—येन सापि राजकुमारी
पद्मा कथमप्युत्सङ्गाद्योपनीय &c. (see p. 4). The Mukhasandhi
begins where the King commits Āraṇyikā to the care of
Vāsavadattā and terminates with the close of the 2nd Act. The
Bīja germinates and sprouts up when the King sees Āraṇyikā
(p. 18) and afterwards clasps her at the neck (p. 20). The प्रति-
मुखसन्धि begins with the 3rd Act (see com.) wherein we have
the गर्भसन्धि also. In the प्रति० there is यत्न for the attainment of
the Phala or the final object; but to have it further postponed
the poet has used the device of a गर्भनाटक,* which brings to
light the King's intrigue and thus hinders the progress of love.
In the fourth Act which is introduced by a Praveśaka, we
have the अवमर्श and the निर्वहण Sandhis fused together,
wherein the final object is attained; and the play closes with
the usual Bharatavākya.
(6) CRITICAL REMARKS ON HARSHA'S THREE PLAYS.
Of the three plays of Harsha, the Ratnāvalī and the
Priyadarśikā have the same subject-matter, i. e., the love
intrigue of King Vatsa. Four characters are common to both
of these plays, namely, King Vatsa, Queen Vāsavadattā, her
attendant Kāñchanamālā and the Viduṣhaka Vasantaka
Rumaṇvat, the usual general of the King's army is mentioned
*गर्भनाटक also called गर्भाङ्क (An act containing a play in it) is
defined as—अङ्कोदरप्रविष्टो यो रङ्गद्दार समाहितम् । अङ्गोऽपरः स गर्भाङ्कः सबीज-
फलवान्निः Sah. D. VI. 20 'A Secondary Act, incorporated into a
principal Act and having the characteristics of a play in brief, such
as its preliminaries, introduction, its Bīja and its final end, is
called गर्भाङ्क. This device has been used by Bhavabhūti in his
Uttār., Act VII and by Rājaśekhara in his Bālarāmāyaṇa.

Ratnā. similar schemes are devised for the meeting of the
lovers by Vasantaka and a maid servant. Other similar episodes
in the fourth Act of both the plays are the imprisonment of
Vasantaka and of the princesses and their rescue by the king,
in one case from poison and in the other from fire, and the
final sanction of the Queen to the marriage of the Heroine of
each play with the Hero. Other minor similarities are pointed
out in the notes.
The Priyadarśikā, however, bears a closer resemblance
'to the Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa in the general outline
of its plot, both being based on the story of Bandhumatī
(see supra p. xxv). Thus the hand of the Princess Priya is
promised to king Vatsa by her father while in the Māl.
an alliance is sought with king Agnimitra by Mādhavasena by
giving him in marriage his sister Mālavikā. Both Mādhav-
sena and Dṛḍhavarman, Priy.'s father, are taken prisoners by
rival kings and both are finally rescued by the Heroes of the
two dramas. Mādhavasena's minister tries to bring Māl.
to king Agnimitra, while it is Dṛḍh.'s chamberlain who tries
to bring Priya to king Vatsa. Both meet with accidents:
the heroine of the Māl. is brought by Vīrasena, the keeper of
a border fort and given in charge of Dhāriṇī, Agnimitra's
Queen, while Priya is brought by Vijayasena, the victorious
commander of the army of Vatsa, to his master, who in his
turn orders her to be committed to the care of his queen
Vāsavadattā. Both the Heroines are taught dancing, singing
&c., and both are accidentally seen by the respective Kings, and
love springs up between the heroes and the heroines of the two
plays. To bring about the meeting of the two lovers
the mimic play is arranged in the Priy., while a dancing
exhibition is arranged in the Māl. Mālavikā is seen with her
attendant in a garden by the King and his confidant,
and so is Āraṇyikā in the Priyadarśikā. We have Kauśikī,
the sister of Mādhavasena's minister, in the role of a religious
lady, appearing as a friend of the Queen in the Māl., and so
we have Sāṁkṛtyāyanī in the third and fourth Acts of the
Priy. The Vidu.'s careless talk in sleep in the Māl. betrays
Mālavikā's meeting with the King, while Vasantaka's talk in
sleep during the course of the Mimic play brings to light
the ruse used for bringing about Āraṇyikā's meeting with the
King in the Priy. The magic use of the ring bearing a snake

figure which counteracts the effect of poison in the case of the
Vidu who feigns to be bitten by a serpent in the fourth Act
of the Mâl. has its reflex in the King's counteracting the effect
of poison on A'raṇyikâ by means of a charm. And finally
we have the true identity of Mâl. revealed in the Mâl. in the
last Act as that of A'raṇyikâ in the present play. The
similarities of ideas, expressions &c. found between the Priy.
and the Nâgânanda we have pointed out in the notes.
The Nâgânanda is a Nâṭaka in five Acts and stands on a
higher plane than the other two plays which are mere court-
comedies. The play is of a unique type, since it depicts the
grandeur of self-sacrifice in human life. As Dr. Keith
remarks, "Harsha here rises to the task of depicting the
emotions of self-sacrifice, charity, magnanimity, and resolution
in the face of death" The Hero, Jîmûtavâhana, penetrated
with the ideals of Buddhism, is convinced that to sacrifice
oneself for the good of others is the highest duty. He has
accepted the doctrine of non-violence and adheres to it so
firmly that he will not make war even upon his enemy who has
deprived him of his kingdom. When his friend and brother-
in-law, Mitrâvasu, assures him of an easy victory over his
enemy and the consequent restoration of his kingdom to him,
Jîmutavâhana replies:—
स्वशरीरमपि परार्थे यः खलु दद्यामयाचितः कृपया।
राज्यस्य कृते स कथं प्राणिवधक्रौर्यमनुमन्ये॥
'I will give my own life for the sake of another in compassion
unasked; how then can I consent to the cruel slaughter
of men merely for winning a kingdom." Here Harsha
reveals himself in uttering these sentiments Harsha who
had been once the hero of hundred battles and who by his
brilliant victories over his enemies had become the Paramount
Lord in Hindustan, was in the last part of his life a staunch
follower of the Buddhistic doctrine of non-violence (अहिंसा).
(7) THE PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS ON THE PLAY.
VATSARA'JA (THE HERO).
The Hero of the play Priyadarśikâ, Vatsarâja a King of
Kauśâmbî, has many charming legends and stories woven
round his name. It seems that his life full of romantic
adventures, made a deep impression on the popular mind in old

XXXVI
days, as is clear from the remark in the प्रस्तावना of the play,
“लोके हारि च वत्सराजचरितं ।” Hence there are no references to his
great deeds in this play save one adventure, viz., his escape
from his captivity, in which he was kept by the powerful
monarch, Mahasena Pradyota, of Avanti, and his carrying off the
latter’s daughter and making her his Queen. And since the
poet chose to write a Nāṭikā it was not his object also to
present his hero in any of the serious aspects of his character.
Bound by the hard and fast rules of Sans. Dramaturgy he
has cast his characters in the conventional mould. He has
taken care to show his hero in the enjoyment of courtly life,
the stirring events of his public life having already won for
him great popularity. We cannot, therefore, compare him with
Agnimitra, the hero of the Mālavikāgnimitra. But compar-
atively speaking the character of Vatsa is not so well
developed in this play as it is in the Ratnavali. He belongs
to the class of heroes called धीरललित,—‘Firm, gay, and tender-
hearted.’ He is courteous and affectionate to his Queen while
engaged in a new love adventure. As soon as he sees a
charming young maiden, he falls in love with her and thinks
of nothing but meeting her again and making love to her.
He is helped in his love intrigue by his companion, the
Vidushaka, and Manorama an attendant of the Queen. In the
Mimic play in which by a cunning device he is given an
opportunity of meeting Āraṇyikā, he proceeds to act towards
her in such an ardent manner that he rouses the suspicion of
his queen Vāsavadatta. When the Queen knows the whole
truth and breaks up the play in anger, he apologises to her in all
humility and even falls at her feet. Though his Queen
does not accept his apology or relent, he tries his utmost to
conciliate her. And when the Queen knowing that Āraṇyikā
is her cousin Priyadarsika, places the latter’s hand in the
King’s hand, he with delicacy withdraws his hand saying
that he is satisfied that his Queen is reconciled. One noble
trait of his character, however, is brought out when he
appreciates the valour of his fallen enemy and ungrudgingly
bestows praise on him in the words—शोभितं विन्ध्यकेतुना। साधु
विन्ध्यकेतो साधु । राजपुत्रोचितं मार्गमनुगच्छतो समाश्वासिता एव वयं विन्ध्य-
केतोर्गुणेन (Act I).

XXXVII.
A'RANYIKA' OR PRIYADARS'IKA'.
Priyadars'ikā is the Heroine of the play, as the very name
of the play clearly shows it. She is called आरण्यिका up to
the time of the denouement, because she was found in a forest.
Priyadars'ikā is a colourless character, possessing no striking
intellectual or moral qualities. She belongs to the variety of
heroines known as मुग्धा, who is defined as—'मुग्धा नववयःकामा रतौ वामा
मृदुः क्रुधि' । She is represented as a young maiden of rare
beauty. As soon as the King catches sight of her he bursts
into a panegyric of her beauty 'पातालाद्भुवनवलोकनधिया किं नागकन्यो-
त्थिता । &c. ( Act II. 6 ). When she sees the King she falls in
love with him and remarks that her father was right in
promising her to him, thus preferring him to other suitors
( अयं स महाराजः । यस्याहं तातेन दत्ता । स्थाने खलु तातस्य पक्षपातः । ). She
is extremely timid and sensitive. She laments that her
passion is hopeless and will never find its fulfilment. She
therefore longs for death that would relieve her of her sorrow-
सर्वथा मरणं वर्जयित्वा कुतः मे हृदयस्य अन्या निर्वृतिः । Fortunately she is
cheered up and helped by her friend मनोरमा. But she gives way
to sorrow and despondency to such an extent that she actually
takes poison. Thus Priyadars'ikā evinces none of those
qualities which constitute a great character. There is, how-
ever, one admirable trait in her character also. She does not
reveal her identity to the last, even to her confidante Manoramā
and this speaks highly for her keen sense of family honour.
———
VA'SAVADATTA'.
Vāsavadattā is the chief Queen, elderly and majestic Her
love for her lord is sincere and deep and her jealousy proceeds
from her true deep love. In the Mimic play, when the King
makes love to A'ranyikā, playing the part of the Queen, with
great ardour, her suspicion is aroused. And when she learns
the truth from the lips of the Vidushaka, who gave out the
secret in his drowsiness, she breaks up the play in anger and
orders both A'ranyikā and the Vidūshaka to be imprisoned as
being accomplices in the plot. She spurns the conciliation
and prostration of the king. She is truly a मानिनी (a proud self-
respecting woman). She keeps Aranyikā for a pretty long
time in prison. She is not easily appeased. When, however,
she learns that A'ranyikā has taken poison, she is at once
struck with penitence and immediately orders her to be