रत्नावली नाटिका (सम्राट हर्षवर्धन - शास्त्रीय नाटिका रत्न सम्पूर्ण ४ अङ्क सान्वय सटीक)

INTRODUCTION ix
of the law of the act of all activity......"( Keith's Sanskrit Drama
P. 277.) According to Aristotle the conditions a tragedy essensially
lie in what is called 'undeserved misfortune,' which the hero of a
drama has undergone. And that 'undeserved misfortune' must be
the outcome of some great error on the part of the hero but not the
outcome of any depravity or systematic misdeed on his part. In
the case of a person filling into misery from happiness by reason
of his misdeeds no tragic feeling will be aroused. So Aristotle says,
"..the change in the hero's fortune must not be from misery to
happiness but on the contrary from happiness to misery ; the
cause of it must lie not in any depravity, but in some grat error
on his part" ( Aristotle on the art of poetry translated by In-
gram Bywater P. 50 ) Now the commission of a great error is
an accident which is not admitted in the Indian doctrine of Karma.
According to this doctrine every aspect and deed of human existence
is attributed to the working of the deeds done in the previous life ;
so any misfortune met with by a hero of a Sanskrit drama will
be attributed to his previous deed and as such his misfortune will
not create any tragic feeling and hence no tragedy is possible
according to the Sanskrit playwrights. In Venisamhára, Duryo-
dhana's helpless and deplorable plight, accentuated by the misfor-
tune due to the death of his heroic brothers-and military experts
who sided with him, may arouse some feeling but cannot create any
tragic feeling, as his said misfortune is not come to him accidentally
but is an outcome of his systematic misdeeds and mischievous
attitude of injuring the Pándavas. So our sympathy goes more
towards the Pándavas who attained to happiness in the long run
ofter continued struggle against the evils. So the strong conviction
of Indian mind as to the working of the law of action is reponsible
for the absence of tragedy in Sanskrit drama. Hence all Sanskrit
dramas are comedy in the loose sense of the term.
Another characteristic of Sanskrit drama is that the persons
represented herein are all typical characters ; Dr. Keith says

Here is the line-by-line transcription of the page:

x RATNAVALI
“To the Brahmin ideal individuality has no appeal ; the law of life
has no room for deviation from type ; the caste system is rigid
and for each rank in life there is a definite round of duties whence
departure is undesirable and dangerous. The drama likewise
has no desire for individual figures, but only typical characters.”
Classification of Sanskrit Drama—Poetry in general in Sanskrit
is broadly divided in two classes दृश्य and श्रव्य. As a representa-
tive art drama is called a दृश्यकाव्य which is otherwise named रूपक.
रूपक is defined as—रूप्यतेऽभिनयैर्यंव वस्तु तद्रूपकं विदुः—The subject which
is represented by अभिनय is called रूपक. अभिनय is again defined
‘उत्पादयन् सहृदये रसज्ञानं निरन्तरम् । अनुकर्त्तृस्थितो योऽर्थोऽभिनयः सोऽभिधीयते’—
( मन्दारमकरन्द ) Where an action imitated by the imitator arouses
sentiment in the mind of a सहृदय (appreciator) it is called अभिनय
which is again classified under four heads as :— आङ्गिकः (physical),
वाचिकः (verbal), आहार्य्यः (acting by means of costume and makeup)
and सात्त्विकः ( acting by representation of outward signs of
inner emotions and feelings). The रूपक which is mainly concerned
with Rasa or Sentiment is divided into ten classes as –
“नाटकमथ प्रकरणं भाणव्यायोगसमवकारडिमाः ।
ईहामृगाङ्कवीथ्यः प्रहसनमिति रूपकाणि दश ॥”
Besides the रूपकs there are eighteen kinds of उपरूपकs (as नाटिका
त्रोटक' गोष्ठी सट्टक' नाट्यरासकम् etc )
अष्टादश प्राहुरुपरूपकाणि मनीषिणः ॥ साः दः (६)
रत्नावली is a नाटिका, विक्रमोर्व्वशी is a त्रोटक, कर्पूरमञ्जरी is a सट्टक etc.
It is said that except their own individual characteristics all the
रूपकs and उपरूपकs will follow the general characteristics of नाटक
which is the typical form of रूपक ; cf.
विना विशेष' सर्वेषां लक्ष्म नाटकवन्मतम् ”—साः दः ।
The general characteristics of a नाटक as given in the sixth
chapter of साहित्यदर्पण can be broadly divided into three heads :—(1)
Plot, (2) Hero, and (3) Sentiment.
(1) The plot of the drama should be based upon a story
derived from some authoritative work ( ख्यातवृत्त ), with five sandhis

INTRODUCTION xi

and the whole plot should be divided into a number of acts
from five to ten. The subject-matter of the plot is called वस्तु
which is again divided into the two heads आधिकारिक (main) and
प्रासङ्गिक (the subsidiary)—the latter contributing to the development
of the former. The प्रासङ्गिक वृत्त is again of two kinds as पताका and
प्रकरी. पताका is an episode of considerable length ( व्यापि प्रासङ्गिकं वृत्तं
पताकेत्यभिधीयते ) and प्रकरी is also an episode of limited duration
with minor importance (प्रासङ्गिकं प्रदेशस्थं चरितं प्रकरी मता ) The develop-
ment of a dramatic plot is represented again in five stages or अवस्थाs
which are (1) प्रारम्भ (beginning), (2) यत्न (attempt), (3) प्राप्त्याशा (hope of
success), (4) नियताप्ति (hope of sure attainment through the obstacles
being averted) and (5) फलागम (attainment of the desired object);
cf.—अवस्थाः पञ्च कार्यस्य प्रारब्धस्य फलार्थिभिः । आरम्भयत्न-प्राप्त्याशा-नियताप्तिफलागमाः ॥
Connecting these five stages there are five corresponding
sandhis or junctures which carry each of these stages of the action
to its natural close. They are—opening ( मुख ), progression ( प्रतिमुख ),
development ( गर्भ ), pause ( विमर्श ) and conclussion ( निर्वहण )
corresponding to Protasis, Epitasis, Catastasis, Peripateia and
Catastrophe. Cf.—
‘यथासंख्यमवस्थाभिराभियोंगात्तु पञ्चभिः ।
पञ्चधैवेतिवृत्तस्य भागाः स्युः पञ्च सन्धयः ॥ साः दः
मुखं प्रतिमुखं गर्भो विमर्श उपसंहृतिः ।
इति पञ्चास्य भेदाः स्युः....॥ साः दः (६)
Other minute details of the elements of this plot are superfluous.
(2) Hero—The hero of a नाटक should be धीरोदात्त (magnanimous
and patient) ; but in the entire dramatic art four kinds of heroes
are generally met with. They are उदात्त (magnanimous), ललित (gay
or light-hearted) प्रशान्त (calm, not self-conceited), उद्धत (haughty or of
firm resolve). The heroines also must be possessing qualities
corresponding to those of the heroes and they are broadly divided
into three classes—viz., स्वीया परकीया and साधारणी (as Vasantasená of
Mricchakatikam). The rival heroes (प्रतिनायक) are depicted with all

xii RATNAVALI

evil qualities so that they may not get any sympathy from the
audience even at the utter misfortune met by them, as Duoydhana
in the Venisamhára.
(3) There must be one principal Rasa or Sentiment and that
must be either heroic (वीर) or erotic (शृङ्गार) Other Rasas,
if any, should be subsidiary to the principal one. But in the
conclusion or निर्वहण the sentiment should always be अद्भुत: cf.—
“एक एव भवेदङ्गी शृङ्गारी वीर एव वा ।
अङ्गमन्ये रसा: सर्वे कार्यो निर्वहणेऽद्भुतः ॥ सा: द:
and
“प्रसिद्धेऽपि प्रबन्धानां नानारसनिबन्धने ।
एको रसोऽङ्गीक र्त्तव्यस्तेषामुत्कर्षमिच्छता” ॥ ध्वन्यालोक ॥
The indispensability of the sentiment of अद्भुत does not
mean the specific अद्भुतरस as one of the eight sentiments, but it does
amount to mean the sublime stage of aesthetic experience to which
one’s mind is elevated at the conclusion of a drama and in that
stage of enjoying the supreme bliss the water-tight divisions of
Rasas cease and the resulting sentiment is nothing but अद्भुत. In
endorsement of this view Viśvana'tha aptly quotes from Dharma-
datta—
“रसे सारश्चमत्कारः सर्व्वत्राप्यनुभूयते ।
तच्चमत्कारसारत्वे सर्व्वत्राप्यद्भुतो रसः ।
तस्मादद्भुतमेवाह कृती नारायणो रसम् ॥’
General conduct of the manipulation of the plot—The Sanskrit
drama opens with a benedictory song or songs called नान्दी followed
by some accounts of the author and by an introductory scene
between the stage manager and one of the actors which is more
or less connected with the opening of the play itself. The नान्दी
which is generally found in the Sanskrit dramas is nothing but
the abridged पूर्वरङ्ग which was of a considerable length in the
days of yore and which according to Nátyasástra was divided into
twenty-two parts. After the performance of नान्दी the intro-

INTRODUCTION xiii
duction is made by सूत्रधार (technically called प्रस्तावना) after which
the drama proper begins. The subject-matter of the plot is
conveniently divided into a number of अङ्कs not exceeding ten.
All the facts contained within the subjectmatter of the plot
are not represented. What is represented 'should esentially
serve to produce the sentiments aimed at and it must avoid
offending the feelings of the audience.' 'Hence', as Dr. Keith
observes, 'It is improper to portray on the stage such events as
a national calamity, the downfall of a king, the siege of a town,
a battle, fighting, or death—all that are painful. It is equally
forbidden to depict a marriage or other religious rite...or such
ill-omened things as curses.' But these details have not always been
observed by the Sanskrit playwrights. What cannot be represented
on the stage, but are necessary for understanding the links
between the acts, are to be simply related by an actor or actors in
an interlude which is otherwise called विष्कम्भक (an interlude or
prelude of which actors are of higher rank) and प्रवेशक (of which
the actors are of lower rank). There is also another way of relating
unrepresentable matter, called चूलिका, in which an actor relates the
matter from the greenroom. The languages used in Sanskrit
drama are Sanskrit and Prakrit—the former being spoken by the
male actors of higher ranks and the latter by females in general
and the males of lower ranks. The drama must come to an end
with a Bharatavákya which is repeated by the principal personages
and which contains expressions of good-wishes for general pros-
perity and happiness. The unity of action is followed for
dramatic interest as has been mentioned before. But the unities
of time and place are loosely observed.
Natika—The Nátiká is a species of the उपरूपकs and our present
work Ratnávali is styled as a Nátiká. The characteristics of a
Nátiká are given in Sahityadarpana as follows :—
नाटिका क्लृप्तवृत्ता स्यात् स्त्रीप्राया चतुरङ्किका ।
प्रख्यातो धीरललितस्तत्र स्यान्नायको नृपः ॥

xiv RATNAVALI
स्यादन्तःपुरसम्बद्धा सङ्गीतव्यापृताथवा ।
नवानुरागा कन्यात्र नायिका नृपवंशजा ॥
सप्रवर्त्तेत नेतास्यां देव्यास्त्रासेन शङ्कितः ।
देवी पुनर्भवज् ज्येष्ठा प्रगल्भा नृपवंशजा ॥-
पदे पदे मानवती तद्वशः सङ्गमो द्वयोः ।
वृत्तिः स्यात् कौशिकी स्वल्पविमर्शाः सन्धयः पुनः ॥ २६८-२७२ ॥
The story of a Nátiká should be an invented one instead of
being ख्यातवृत्त. It should contain four acts abounding in female
characters. The hero should be of धीरललित class and the heroine
connected with the inner apartment should be born of a royal
family and should be represented as newly engaged in love-
affairs. The chief queen should be a grown-up lady and also
born of royal family. The hero should be represented as falling
in her love and af raid of the queen. The main sentiment should
be शृङ्गार and the union of the two should be under the disposal
of the queen. The Vritti should be कौशिकी and there should be
all the sandhis except विमर्श. All these characteristics are to be
found in the रत्नावली of which the authorship, is attributed to
one S'ri Harsha Deva.
Author—The authorship of two other plays named Priyadars'iká
and Nágananda is attributed to one S'ri Harsha Deva whose produc-
tion is Ratnávali also. But when there are more than one S'ri Harsha
in the Sanskrit literary history it is very much confusing as to
which S'ri Harsha is responsible for which play. From the study
of these dramas it can be gathered from the introductory portions
that S'ri Harsha was king: cf.
(१) अलमति विस्तरेण । अद्याहं वसन्तोत्सवे सबहुमानमाहूय नानादिग् देशागतेन
राज्ञः श्रीहर्षदेवस्य पादपद्मोपजीविना राजसमूहेन उक्तः ।—प्रस्तावना of रत्नावली ।
(२) अद्याहं वसन्तोत्सवे सबहुमानमाहूय नानादिग् देशागतेन राज्ञः श्रीहर्ष देवस्य पाद-
पद्मोपजीविना राजसमूहेन उक्तः ।—प्रस्तावना of प्रियदर्शिका ।
(३) अलमतिविस्तरेण । अद्याहं इन्द्रोत्सवे सबहुमानमाहूय नानादिग्देशागतेन राज्ञः
श्रीहर्षदेवस्य पादपद्मोपजीविना राजसमूहेनोक्तः ।—प्रस्तावना of नागानन्द ।
Now there were four persons bearing the same name श्रीहर्ष.

INTRODUCTION xv
(1) S'ri Harsha, is the author Naishadhiyacharitam and
खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम् etc., and he was the court-poet of the King of Kanauj
named Jayachandra in the 12th century.
(2) S'ri Harsha was the father of Munja and Sindhula and
the grand father of Bhoja of Dhara.
(3) Acc. to Rájatarangini S'ri Harsha was a King of
Kashmere reigning from 1113 to 1125 A. D.
(4) Fourthly S'ri Harsha was the King of Tháneswar who
reigned from 607 A. D. to 647 A. D. He was a son of the old King
Prabhákaravardhana and his elder brother was Rájyavardhana
who was killed within a short time after he was installed as the
king.
H. H. Wilson attributes the authorship of Ratnavali to S'ri
Harsha of Kashmere reigning from 1113 to 1125 A. D.
Now S'ri Harsha of Naishadhiyacharitam cannot be the
author of Ratnávali. For he was not a king as the author of
Ratnávali was ; again he has alluded in his works to the fact
that he had attained the favour of the King of Kanauj. More-
over when he has mentioned the names of all his works, he
could have referred to the Ratnávali as well, if he had at all been
the author of the work.
Secondly S'ri Harsa the grandfather of Bhoja flourished in the
12th century. And S'ri Harsha the King of Kashmere to whom
Wilson attributes the authorship of Ratna'vali reigned from 1113
to 1125 A. D. None of these kings can be the author of
Ratnávali, by reason of some stanzas (Sl. 8 of Act I and Sl. 2, 3,7
and 4 of Act II) of Ratnávali being quoted by Kshemendra who
acc. to Buhler flourished about the middle of the 11th cent. More-
over the quotations from these three plays by Dhanika who
flourished in the 10th century establishes firmly the same fact.
It is now sure that Ratnávali was written by one S'ri Harsha who
flourished long before the 10th cent. A. D.
The King Jayápida of Kashmere reigned, acc. to scholars

XVI RATNAVALI
from 780 to 813 A. D. His minister Damodaragupta
wrote a work Kuttanimata in which references of Ratnávali
are found. This shows that Ratnávali was written long before the
9th cent. A. D. Before this period there was no other king S'ri
Harsha by name except S'ri Harsha otherwise named S'ila'ditya,
who was the paramount monarch whose feet were waited upon by
the circle of kings (पादपद्मोपजीवी राजसमूहः). So from these facts
it is conclusively proved that the authorship of Ratnávali goes
to no one else but to S'ri Harsha of Thaneswar. Priyadarśiká
was also written by the same author as the subjectmatter of
Priyadarśiká' resembles that of Ratnávali ; the प्रस्तावना and भरतवाक्य
of both of these works are almost the same ; and besides these, there
are various other matters in which a close resemblance is found
in these two books. Though the subject-matter of Nágánanda
is quite different from that of these two former books yet
definite proofs as to S'ri Harsha being its author are available.
The plot of Nágánanda appears to be taken from the story
of Jimutaváhana who going to substitute himself in the place of
the Nágas with a view to saving them from the clutch of Garuda
endangered his own life. That S'ri Harsa of Thaneswar of the
7th century is the author of the drama Nágánanda is definitely
proved by an account given by a Chinese traveller It-sing who
visited Harsha'. In his account he says, “King S'iláditya
versified the story of the Bodhisattva Jimutaváhana who surren-
dered himself in place of a Nága. This version was set to music ;
he had it performed by a band, accompained by dancing and
acting and thus popularized it in his time.” This work Nágánanda
might have been written towards the latter part of his life when
he was strongly inclined towards Buddhistic teachings and
often held religious councils in Prayága to welcome the
Buddhist monks. However, it is conclusively proved that these
three plays were written by the king S'ri Harsha in the 7th
century.

INTRODUCTION xvii
There is another contention as to the genuineness of the author-
ship of these works which is challenged by a sentence from Kāvya-
prakās'a of Mammaṭa—‘कालिदासादीनामिव यशः श्रीहर्षादिर्धावकादीनामिव
धनम्’ (ch I) and by a line from Uddyota of Nāgeśa ,“धावकः कविः ।
सः हि श्रीहर्षनाम्ना रत्नावलीं कृत्वा बहुधनं लब्धवान्” । These lines show that S'rī
Harsha did not write these works himself but got them written
by his court-poet Dhāvaka who in exchange of a large amount of
money transferred the authorship to his patron. Mr. Kale
observes, “As it is, the whole of this comment turns upon the
explanations of the commentators of Kāvyaprakās'a whom we
need not explicitly follow ; for there is another and a more natural
interpretation of the passage in question viz., that Dhāvaka and
other poets got wealth from their (royal) patron as a reward and
as a mark of recognition and it is necessary to suppose that
authorships were transferred to the patrons in consideration of
such gifts. Sensitive and honourable patrons themselves would
fight shy of such wholesale transfers.”—Introduction to Ratná-
vali.
Some critics contend that Ratnāvalī was written originally
by Bāṇabhaṭṭa, the court-poet of S'rī Harsha and the the author-
ship was transferred to his patron in exchange of money. This
contention is based on the slender basis of a line—‘श्रीहर्षादेर्बाणादीनामिव
धनम्’—come across in a manuscript of Kāvyaprakās'a. The
s'loka द्वीपादन्यस्माद् etc., of the प्रस्तावना of Ratnāvalī is referred to in the
celebrated work Harshacharitam. The quotation might have
been an accidental one. That cannot be the determining factor
of the authorship to be attributed to Bāṇabhaṭṭa. Again if a
celebrated poet like Bāṇabhaṭṭa thought it lucrative to transfer
the authorship of Ratnāvalī which he himself wrote, to the name
of his patron in exchange of money, then he could have earned
more money by passing the authorship of his two notable works
Kādambarī and Harshacharita that are outstandingly superior
works to Ratnāvalī and the authorship of which is a matter of
Intro.—B

xviii RATNAVALI
great pride and covetable as well to any person whoever he may be.
The line ‘श्रीहर्षादेर्भाणादीनामिव धनम्’ indicates that Bána in consideration
of his superior poetic merit acquired a large amount of money as a
reward from his patron.
Another contention put forward by Mr. Náráyana S'ástrigal
is the identification of Dhávaka with Bhása who was according
to him the court-poet of S'ri Harsha Vikrama about whom a
reference is found in the Rájatarangini (cf. तत्रानेहस्याप्यभवत् श्रीमान्
हर्षपराभिधः । एकच्छत्रश्चक्रवर्ती विक्रमादित्य इत्यभूत्—III. 125 ). Mr. S'ástri bases
his contention on the lines of कविविमर्श ascribed to Rájas'ekara,
where the authorship of Ratnávali is ascribed to Bhása who was a
washerman (Dhávaka) ; cf :—
“कारणं तु कवित्वस्य न सम्पद्नकुलीनता ।
धावकोऽपि हि यद्भासः कवीनामग्रिमोऽभवत् ॥

INTRODUCTION xix
quite sufficient for the theory of Mr. S'ástri to collapse down.
Secondly the uniformly simple style in the thirteen dramas of
Bhása shows that Ratnávali of which style is decidedly condensed
and artificial cannot be the production of Bhása. Thus the fact
that S'ri Harsha the king of Thaneswar wrote these three dramas
is provisionally proved at least for the present, and this is
established until some other theory more intrinsic in its merit and
solid in its argument can turn it down.
Story of the play
Act I
Vikramabáhu the king of Simhala had a daughter named
Ratnávali whose lot was forecast by the astrologers that the
king marrying the girl would be the paramount monarch
of the world. Yaugandharáyana the clever minister of Udayana
the king of Kaus'ámbi, got the scent of this rumour and being bent
on doing the utmost good to his master, proposed the marriage of
Ratnávali with Udayana to her father ; but Vikramabáhu being
afraid of incurring the displeasure of the chief queen Vásavadattá
the wife of Udayana refused at first. And Yaugandharáyana in
order to remove the obstacle of the marriage spread a false report
that Vásadadattá died in a fire which broke out in Lávánaka,
a village of Kaus'ámbi. Now the obstacle being removed, the
king of Simhala gave his consent to the proposed marriage and
Yaugandharáyana sent the Kanchuki to Simhala. While
Ratnávali sent by her father was coming to Kaus'ámbi
being escorted by Bábhravya (Udayana's chamberlain) and
Vasubhuti (the minister of Vikramabáhu) on board a ship, the
ship got wrecked. Ratnávali was taken out of water by a
merchant of Kaus'ámbi and was presented to Yaugandharáyana.
who recognised her by the jewel-necklace which she always wore.
Without disclosing the matter to any one Yaugandharáyana
put Ratnaváli in the apartment of Vásavadattá as her handmaid

xx RATNAVALI
under the name of Ságariká. The chamberlain and the minister
were rescued but they could not know the whereabouts of
Ságariká. They joined the army of Udayana under the general-
ship of Rumanván who was then leading an expedition against
the king of Kosala. Here the plot of the drama proper begins.
One day while Udayana accompanied by his Vidushaka was
enjoying the festival of Cupid, he was sent a message by the
Qaeen that he would have to be present in the Makaranda garden
of the Queen where the Cupid's festival was also being held.
During the visit of the King to the Makaranda garden, Vásavadattá
tried her utmost to keep Ságariká out of the sight of the King
who might be captivated by her beauty.
But Ságariká with a curiosity remained behind a tree and
looked at the festival where Cupid as well as the King were
being worshipped by the Queen. Ságariká saw the King for the
first time and was carried away by love. She also knew that he
was the person to whom she was intended to be given by her
father in marriage (कथमयं स राजा उदयनो यस्याहं तातेन दत्ता). Then the
darkness set in and the festival was closed.
Act II.
In the Interlude introduced by two maidservants we come
to know that the King was to make an experiment of untimely
blossoming upou his own Navamáliká as he was taught by one
Chandanadása. Ságariká is represented in a love-sick condition
and whiles away her time by drawing the picture of the King.
Ságariká entrusted to Susangatá her friend within the harem, the
cage of a Sáriká, the Queen's pet bird that was put in her charge
and made an open heart to her about the strong love which she
entertained for the King. In course of their conversation a
bewildering news came that a monkey had let itself loose and
was creating disturbance on all sides. Hearing this Ságariká and
Susangatá hurried away,—Ságariká leaving the portrait of the

INTRODUCTION xxi
King and Susangatá leaving the cage. The Sáriká flew away from
the cage broken open by the monkey. Then the Vidushaka came
talking about the success of the experiment of the King in the
untimely blossoming of Navamáliká. The Sáriká sitting upon a tree
repeated all that had passed between Ságariká and Susangatá
concering the former's love towards the King.
The King and the Vidushaka hearing these made some
conjectures as to who was the person who was intended in those
talks. Then they came across the portrait of the King left by
Ságariká. Then Ságariká and Susangatá came there to take the
cage and the portrait but finding there the King and the Vidushaka
listened to their conversations in which the King showed his
passionate love for the unknown maiden who had painted his
portrait. Susangatá introduced Ságariká to the King. Then
Ságariká went away. At that moment Vásavadattá entered and
caught sight of the portrait and coming to know of the King's
motive went away in anger. The King then with-a sorrowful heart
left the place.
Act III.
The third act opens with an Interlude in which a plan
made by Susangatá for bringing about the meeting of the
King and Ságariká (disguised as Vásavadattá) is disclosed by two
maid-servants. After the Interlude the King entered and Vidushaka
enlightened him about the scheme. In the meantime the Queen
got the scent of the scheme and arrived there. The King
and Vidusaka following the previous arrangement took her
for Ságariká, when Vasavadatta flared up at this insincerity of
the King. The King then tried in vain to propitiate her who de-
parted with unabated anger. Then according to the previous plan
Ságariká entered under the disguise of Vásavadattá and while
trying to commit suicide by hanging in remorse due to her
ill-luck, was detected and was mistaken for Vásavadattá by the

xxii INTRODUCTION
King owing to her disguise. Gradually the King came to know of
his mistake and became glad to have his wished for beloved
beside him. Then the Queen with a view to propitiate her offended
husband entered and saw her husband busily engaged with
Ságariká. The King fell in a thoroughly delicate position and
the Queen ordered Ságariká and Vidushaka to be bound down
and taken to the inner apartment as prisoners.
Act IV.
In the fourth act the conversation between Susangatá and
Vidūshaka reveals the fact that Ságariká had been reported of
being sent to Ujjayini by the Queen. Susangatá handed over the
jewel-necklace to Vidushaka saying that it was a gift
to a Brahmana by Ságariká who was despaired of her
own life. Then Vidushaka saw the King who was informed
of Ságariká being sent to Ujjayini. The conversation of
Vidushaka and the King was interrupted by the arrival
of Vijayavarman, the nephew of general Rúmanván who in-
formed the King of the victory attained by Rumanván in a battle
against the king of Kos'ala. Then came a magician at whose
arrival the King took some interest. Then entered Bábhravya
and Vasubhuti who were so long with the army of Rumanván
after the misfortune that had befallen Ratnávali. Vasubhuti
noticed the jewel-necklace worn by the Vidushaka, and
recognized it to be belonging to the daughter of the king of
Simhala. Subsequently Vasubhuti by way of conversation with
the King brought the previous incident of shipwreck to the
notice of the King. Vásavadattá who was also enjoying the
performance of the magician came to know the fact. In the
meantime a fire broke out in the royal palace at which the
Queen became very much concerned and screamed out for the
protection of Ságariká who was imprisoned in the inner
apartment. At this the King himself ran to rescue the princess

[Header]
INTRODUCTION xxiii

at the risk of his own life and brought out Ságariká uninjured
from fire which was the illusory creation of the magician.
Vasubhuti recognized Ságariká who was also identified to be a
cousin of Vásavadattá. The latter regretted her cruel treatment
towards her. Then Yaugandharáyana entered and explained how
he manipulated the whole state of affairs from the beginning up
to the performance of the magician who was sent by him for
effecting the release of Ságariká confined in the Queen's
apartment. Then the whole atmosphere of tension was cleared
up and the Queen approved of the marriage of Ságariká with
Udayana who was destined to be the paramount monarch of the
world.
**The Title of the Drama—**The title of the play is after the name of
the heroine, Ratnávali the daughter of the king of Simhala. But
throughout the progress of the action of the drama up to
the out-break of fire she is nowhere represented in her real
name, but all through she appears under the name of
Ságariká (as she was rescued from the sea) until she was
finally recognized by Vasubhuti, the minister of the king of
Simhala ( आश्चर्यति खलु राजपुत्री रत्नावली त्वमेनामवस्थामुपागता—IV). For
this reason some hold that the title of the drama is after
the necklace ( Ratnávali ) the importance of which can by no
means be ignored ; and the necklace has been a sort of अभिज्ञान
that helped Ságariká to be recognized twice in the drama.
When Ságariká was made over to Yaugandharáyana by the
merchant who rescued the princess from the sea, it was at the
sight of the necklace on her person that he could recognize her as
the princess of Simhala and then took particular care in handing
her over to the care of Queen Vásavadattá. Again in the last
act this necklace which was worn by the Vidushaka as a gift from
Ságariká, helped Vasubhuti to surmise correctly that the princess
was living and finally on the strange coincidence of the sight of
the necklace and the name Ságariká as explained by Vásavadattá

(अमात्य एषा खलु सागरात् प्राप्तेति भणित्वामात्ययौगन्धरायणेन मम हस्ते निक्षिप्ता। अतएव
सागरिकेति शब्द्यते—IV), Vasubhuti recognized her (बाभ्रव्य यथा सुसदृशी वसन्तकस्य
कण्ठे रत्नामाला अस्याश्च सागरात् प्राप्तिः तथा व्यक्तं सिंहलेश्वरस्य दुहिता रत्नावलीयम्—IV).
Thus according to them the title of the play was meant to be
based on the necklace (रत्नावली)—a token, as is done in Sákuntala.
But however important within the drama the necklace may be, the
action of the drama turns round Ratnávali the princess of Ceylon.
Though under some strange circumstances her name is for some
time disguised, yet the whole plot centres round the incidents of
her life, and the mere disguise of a name is immaterial. In the
Shakesperean play ‘Julius Caesar,’ though the hero is killed almost
in the middle of the drama, yet the whole drama is called after
his name as the action of the drama turns round the spirit of Julius
Caesar whose previous activities provide the life-blood to the
main action of the plot throughout. So the personal presence on
the stage of the character appearing under the title role, is not
always necessary. Here also the main action centres round
Ratnávali the heroine and the disguise of her ,real name under
a peculiar circumstance contributes to the greatest extent towards
the development of the plot.
Source of the Play.—Scarcely the Sauskrit dramatists are
original in the invention of the plots of their dramas. They borrow
the theme of the plays from some recognized source which is al-
ready known to the public and make marked improvement upon the
original when necessary. The subject-matter of Ratnávali clings
round an incident of the life of Udayana, the king of the Vatsas.
He is the central figure in a large circle of Sanskrit stories of love
and adventure, and not only that, the story of Udayana and the
Vatsas was one of the most interesting source of diversion among
the public at that time. We find in the Meghaduta, the reference to
the same (cf : प्राप्यावन्तीनुदयनकथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धान् ; in the present drama—
cf : लोके हारि च वत्सराजचरितम् ; in the Mircchakatikam—cf. यौगन्धरायण इव
उदयनस्य राज्ञः etc.) The other literary allusions are found in the

INTRODUCTION XXV
Kuttanimata of Dámodaragupta, Málatímádhava of Bhavabhuti
etc. The historical reference of the king Udayana is found in the
Puranas and his name is also traced in the list of twenty-nine
Puru kings who lived after the Mahábhárata war. "They lived
in Hastinápura, but they removed to Kaus'ámbi in consequence
of the destruction of their former capital by an inundation of the
Ganges"—Introduction to Ratnávali by C. R. Devadhara. From
the Pali literature such as Divyávadána, Mahávams'a etc., we can
learn that he was a contemporary of Chanda Pradyota of Avanti ;
and in the plays, stories of his long-drawn antagonism with
Mahasena of Avanti being mitigated by his marriage with the
latter's daughter Vásavadattá are referred to (vide Svapnavásava-
dattam). The author of the present play Ratnávali might have
taken the theme from these popular and historical sources.
The systematic and detailed history of the king Udayana is set
forth in the Brihatkathámanjari of Kshemedra (11th cent A. D.)
Kathásaritságara of Somadeva (11th cent) and the Brihatkathá-
s'lokasamgraha of Buddhasvámin (10th cent) [ See App. A ].
These three works are claimed to be the three recensions of the
long lost famous work of popular tales बृहत्कथा written by
Gunádhya in the 1st cent A. D. in Pais'áchi language. It is very
difficult to ascertain how far these works conform closely to the
contents of the original work Brihatkathá which is long lost sight
of. Somadeva, the author compiler of the work Kathásaritságara
claims that he has made an exact compilation of the essence
of the contents of the बृहत्कथा (cf: बृहत्कथायाः सारस्य सङ्ग्रहं रचयाम्यहम्—
Kathásarit. I. 3.) That S'ri Harsha surely consulted the
Brihatkathá which was extant at his time is confirmed by the
fact that the subject-matters of his three dramas are exactly found
in detailed narration in the Kathásaritságara which is claimed by
its author to be the exact copy of the essence of the बृहत्कथा. S'ri
Harsha could not possibly consult the Kathásaritságara as the
latter was compiled four hundred years after Harsha's reign.

xxvi RATNAVALI
Again the question may arise that Harsha might have been
indebted to Bhása the author of the thirteen famous plays of which
two namely स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् and प्रतिज्ञायौगन्धरायणम् are written on the
story of the king Udayana. But the subject-matter of these two
plays of Bhása strictly conforms to the narration as given in the
Kathásaritságara while S'ri Harsha takes the mere skeleton of the
story and makes a marked improvement upon the original. This
fact as well as the fact of the conformity of the subject-matter of
his three plays to the narration given in the Kathásaritságara
clearly proves that he was directly indebted for the subject-matter
of his plays to the बृहत्कथा which was extant in his time and to
which Bánabhatta, the court-poet of S'ri Harsha, declares himself
to be indebted in the introductory stanzas of his Kádambari.
Original and Shri Harsha's deviations.—In the Kathásaritságara
the story of Udayana is divided into three stages. It the first
stage which is not important to us is the miraculous incident of
Udayana's birth, the rescue of a serpent-lord by him from a
fowler and the presentation of a magical lute called Ghoshavati
(referred to in स्वप्नवासवदत्तम्) to him by the serpent-lord, are
related. The second stage relates the incident of the marriage
of Vásavadattá, the daughter of Chanda Mahásena of Ujjayini
with Udayana. Chanda Mahásena had a long-drawn enmity
with the family of the Vatsa kings. Udayana hankered
after the hand of the Vásavadattá but that could not be effected
due to that hostile feeling. Mahásena was also desirous of
having Udayana as his son-in-law. Now Mahásena taking the
advantage of the weakness of Udayana viz., his extreme fondness
for hunting, put an artificial wooden elephant with warriors
inside its belly in the forest and Vatsarája going to shoot that
elephant was captured by the hidden warriors and was taken
to Mahásena who appointed Udayana a tutor to train
Vásavadattá his daughter in lute-playing. Udayana remained
there as a captive for a long time, after which Yaugandharáyana.

[Header] INTRODUCTION xxvii

the chief minister and Vasantaka, the Vidushaka, rescued the King
by tricks. Vāsavadattá was also brought with him and the nuptials
were finished in the Kaus'ámbi palace. In the subsequent history
of Udayana a summary mention is made of the king's love with
Virachitá the harem-attendant and his intrigue with the captive
princess Bandhumati. The Queen detected their intrigues and took
Vasantaka captive. The reconciliation was made by Sámkrityáyani
who was the friend of Vāsavadattá.
The third stage of the story relates the political motive of
Yaugandhárayana who wanted to strengthen the foundation of
the kingdom on a more secure basis. With that objective in view
he had brought about the alliance between Mahásena and Udayana
by the marriage of Vāsavadattá. He now wanted to bring about
a matrimonial alliance with the royal family of Magadha.
Ajátas'atru the king of Magadha had a beautiful daughter named
Padmávati who was solicited in marriage for his master. But the
king of Magadha did not want his daughter to be put in the posi-
tion of a co-wife of Vāsavadattá for whom Udayana had an
unflinching love. In order to remove this obstacle Yaugandharáyana
took Vāsavadattá in confidence and one day in the absence of Uda-
yana announced that Vāsavadattá had perished in a big fire that
broke out in Lávánaka. Vāsavadattá under disguise travelled with
Yaugandharáyana who called her his sister. Now fresh proposals
for marriage of Padmávati with Udayana were made and Udayana
went to Magadha and after the conclusion of the nuptial ceremo-
nies returned to the capital. Vāsavadattá also returned to the
capital and the deep-laid design of the minister came out to be
successful as the king Udayana became a very powerful monarch
due to the alliance with those eminent royal families.
With this last stage of the story the subject-matter of Ratná-
vali is connected. The subject-matter of स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् of Bhása
strictly conforms to the story of the Kathásaritságara but in रत्नावली
the author has made some important modifications. He has taken

xxviii RATNAVALI
the broad fact of the original story upon which the subject-matter
of his play is based and the names यौगन्धरायण, काञ्चनमाला, रुमण्वान्,
वसन्तक, वासवदत्ता, लावणक of the original are found in the play ; but so
far as the development of the main action is concerned he has
made important modifications of the original. In the original the
foreteller predicted that the marriage with Padmávatí, the
daughter of the king of Magadha would make Udayana the
paramount monarch ; but in the present play, the marriage of
Udayana with Ratnávali, the daughter of Vikramabáhu, the king
of Simhala was predicted to be the assurance of the paramount
monarchy of the king Udayana. The shipwreck of Ratnávali (after-
wards named Ságariká while she was being brought across the sea
to the Vatsa kingdom) is the invention of the poet. The rumour
of Vásavadattá being killed in the Lávánaka fire is common.
In the original story Vásavadattá remained incognito in the
Magadha palace ; and after the nuptial ceremony was finished
with Padmávatí, Vásavadattá returned to the Kaus'ámbi palace.
Here Ratnávali under the name of Ságariká was put under the
care of Vásavadattá who could not recognize her until she was
rescued from the fire that broke out in the palace by the magical
skill of the magician. The introduction of the magician is the
poet's own creation.
General Estimate of the play.—Though Harsha is not original
so far as the subject-matter of the Drama is concerned yet the
inventive genius and the skill of a dramatist which he has shown
is praiseworthy though not unique. Dr. Keith observes, "The
originality of his Nátikás is not perhaps great, but he has effectively
devised the plot in both (Ratnávali and Priyadars'iká) ; the action
moves smoothly and in either play there is ingenuity. The scene
of the magician's activity in the Ratnávali is depicted with humour
and vivacity ; the parrot's escape and its chatter are sketched
with piquancy and the exchange of costumes in the Ratnávali is
natural and effective." Of all his plays the Ratnaváli specially