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

The provided image appears to be completely blank and contains no text to transcribe. Please upload a clear image of the page you would like transcribed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abhijnana Shakuntalam Ed. by M. R. Kale.
2. A History of Sanskrit Literature - Dr A. B. Keith.
3. Amarakosha with Bhanuji's Commentary
   ( Nirnayasgar )
4. Aristotle's Poetics.
5. Bhāsanātakachakram by Prof. C R. Devadhan.
6. Brihatkathāmanjari,
7. Chandomanjari.
8. Concise Oxford Dictionary.
9. Dasharupaka ( Niranayasagar Ed. ).
10. Encyclopaedia Britanica.
11. Haradatta's Padamanjari.
    12 Harivamsha.
12. Hudson's History of English Literature.
13. Katha'saritsagara.
14. Loci Critici by Saintsbury.
15. Mahābhārata.
16. Nātya Shāstra of Bnarata ( Benares Ed. ).
17. Prākrita prakasha of Vararuchi.
18. Prākrita-Paingala.
19. Ratnavali by Prof. C. R. Devadhar & N. G. Suru.
20. Ratnāvali ( Eng. Trans. ) by H. H. Wilson.
21. Ratnāvali by Prof. M. M. Krishnanath Nyāyapanchānana.
22. " Mr. M. R. Kale B. A.
23. " Pt. Narayana Sarma Nigudhbakar.
24. " " M.M. Dr. S. C. Vidyabhusana
    M. A., Ph., D.
25. " " S. C. Chakravarti, M. A.

( 2 )
27. Rámáyana of Válmiki.
28. Sanskrit Drama Dr. A. B Keith.
29. Sanskrit English Dictionary by V. S. Apte.
30. Sáhityadarpana by Prof. Kane.
31. Shabdakalpadruma.
32. Shakespeare's Works.
33. Shrimad Bhagavadgítá.
34. ,, ( Ch. XI ) Ed. by Prof. A. Shastri.
35. Shrimad Bhágavata.
36. Siddhánta Kaumudi with Tattvabodhini and
Balamanorama.
37. Theory of Drama by Mc. Nicol.
38. Tithitattva ot Raghunandana.
39. Uttararamacharitam. M. R. Kale
40. Váchaspatyam by Pandit Taranath Tarkavachaspati.

INTRODUCTION
Drama.—‘Drama’ is derived from the root ‘Dráo’ (Greek)—which
means ‘to act’ or ‘to do’. The term ‘Drama’ is used to indicate
those works of art which do imitate or represent actions by pro-
ducing personage taking part in them as real. In spite of the
different varieties of the drama as to their objects imitated and
matter represented, what is essential to all successful dramas is
the imitation of action. With this in view the author of Daśa-
rupaka, gives the definition of the dramatic art as “अवस्थानुकृतिर्नाट्यम्”
(The dramatic art is the imitation of circumstances or action).
The same author does not forget to style it as a representative
art—रूपं दृश्यतयोच्यते (the art which is called रूपम् on account of its
दृश्यता, i.e., what is capable of being seen and represented by
personage called actors).
**Action.—**Action is the thing represented as done in a drama.
The event or series of events real or imaginary governing the
subject-matter of a drama is styled as action. The imitation
of an action as set forth through proper characterization is the
foundation-stone upon which the whole structure of the drama
is constructed. ‘It is action which connotes character and implies
it. Through the very movement of a story and particularly through
its great crises and situations, the larger intellectual and moral
qualities of the persons who take part in it are necessarily im-
pressed upon us. We know them by what they do, as the tree is
known by its fruit’. So imitation which is the first step in the
drama, does not mean the imitation of person but the imitation of
action as set forth through the actors of the play who carry the
action. In a good play the question of successful plot comes first
and this plot again really rests upon character which evolves “as a

ii RATNAVALI
natural consequence of the fact that a number of given people
of such and such disposition and impelled by such and such
motives and passions are brought together in circumstances
which give rise to an interplay of influence or clash of interests
among them." "This being so, the evolution of the story in-
evitably reveals their dispositions, motives and passions which
are indeed actual forces behind the event of which the story is
composed" (Hudson). Thus dramatic art is not the imitation of
the persons actually but the imitation of action which qualifies the
characters.
Essential constituents—Drama in order to be successful and good
should have the following elements as its constituents :—

1. Plot.—A well-constituted plot shorn of its unessential and
   engrossing scenes is one of the most important factors in the
   drama. As it is a दृश्यकाव्य and as Aristotle holds that it is intended
   to be of a single hearing, care must be taken to leave out un-
   necessary details and eliminate everything not absolutely essential
   for the purpose of the dramatist in consideration of the limitedness
   of the physical endurance of the spectator. .So the Sanskrit
   dramaturgy says :—
   युक्तो न बहुभिः कार्यैर्बीजसंहतिमान् न च ।
   नानाविधानसंयुक्तो नातिप्रचुरपद्यवान् ।
   आवश्यकानां कार्याणामविरोधाद्विनिर्मितः ॥ सा. द. । (६ परि)
   In order to avoid the practical difficulty of a drama being
   unpopular and uninteresting Arsitotle has given the warning that
   the playwright should not attempt to construct the plot on an
   epic plan which means an episode composed of many other
   incidents and episodes. The Sanskrit drama Mahávíracharita
   by Bhavabhuti can be cited as an instance of a play being
   written on an epic plan. There the whole of the epic Rámáyana

INTRODUCTION iii
has been attempted to be dramatized with its all details of events
and episodes. So the dramatic plot should have relative brevity
compressing all minute details to a few that may suit the purpose
of contributing to the main action of the play.
2. Characterization—Next comes in importance the method
of characterization upon which the plot the of drama really
depends. With respect to the character, as Saintsbury holds, four
things are to be aimed at by the poet. First, it must be good—
which means that whatever disposition a character may
mainfest it must be good so far as the plot of the drama is con-
cerned. Secondly, the character should have propriety. The
manly character and bravery and fineness cannot be attributed
with propriety to a woman. The third requisite is versimilitude
and the fourth is consistency. The playright should be careful
to represent his persons as consistent throughout however, in-
consistent they might be in the original. Apart from these the
most important factor in the dramatic characterization is
what is called impersonality. The dramatist is to keep himself
entirely aloof from mingling his own personality in his men and
women and passing his own judgment as the author of the
fictions are allowed to do. Dramatic art being objective in its
nature, all subjective elements which mar the universality of
Art, are to be eliminated ; and with a view to doing so the
playwright should stand apart and give free scope to his
characters to move in their own natural way in revealing their
personalities through the medium of the plot. So there must
be everything direct concerning the characters and nothing
should be reserved as poet's own. For this reason the Sanskrit
Dramaturgy tacitly refers—
प्रत्यक्षनेत्रचरितो रसभावसमुज्ज्वलः ।
भवेदगूढशब्दार्थः क्षुद्रचूर्णकसंयुतः ।
प्रत्यक्षचित्रचरितैर्यु'क्ती भावरसोद्भवैः ॥ साः दः ( ६ परि )

iv RATNAVALI
3. Three unities—This means the unity of place, unity of
time and unity of action. These are the three principles governing
the structure of a drama and were introduced by Aristotle in
his Poetics and derived by the writers of the French Classical
school. As rigidly formulated they required that the action
of the play be represented as occuring in one place, within one
day and with nothing irrelevant to the plot. "Let the stage be
occupied to the end by a single completed action, which takes
place in one spot in one day." These theories were upheld by the
Neoclassicists and challenged by the writers of romantic bent. The
utility of three unities, specially those of time and place in the
Greek dramas, is owing to the prominence of Chorus. But gradually
the French Neoclassicists adopted them as a dramatic convention.
The utilitiy of the unities of time and place was disregarded by
the romantic playwrights, and the unity of action was faithfully
followed in all dramas, as its utility could not be avoided. Here is
an observation of a romantic writer against the unities of time and
place—"By their servile observations of the unities of time and
place, and integrity of scenes, they have brought themselves the
dearth of plot and narrowness of imagination, which may be
observed in their plays. How many beautiful accidents might
naturally happen in two or three days which cannot arrive with
any probability in the compass of twenty-four hours ?" In the
Sanskrit drama the provision of the unity of time has been made so
far as an act of the drama is concerned, but not the whole drama
as in Greek plays ; in Sanskrit Dramaturgy much liberality as to
the unity of time is found as the unity of time is extended from
twenty-four hours (as in Greek plays) up to one year—
या च स्याद्वर्षपर्यन्तं कथा दिनद्वयादिजा—साः दः ( ६ परि )
But this is also violated by eminent playwrights like Bhava-
bhuti and others. The unity of place meaning that the dramatic
subject-matter should be represented as occurring in one place is

INTRODUCTION v
not at all observed in Sanskrit plays by reason of the absence of
scenery. For the plays were often performed in the open courts of
the palaces, perhaps at times in large halls set apart for public
entertainments or in the open air.
Unity of action—Unity of action, which is the most
important element for a drama to be successsful, does not mean
one and only one action complete in itself undiversified
by subordinate incidents and uncomplicated by accompanying
episodes as the most rigorous Neoclassicists observed. Unity here
is not incompatible with complexity; it means merely organic
connexion and co-herence. Minor actions and subplots and
episodes inseperably linked with the main action are to be con-
nected in such a way that the seperation of any one of them from
the body of the play would mean nothing but the destruction of
the whole plot. That is, the organic—not mechanical—connexion of
the subplots with the main one is the unity or singleness of
action. The episodes or minor incidents which we come across in
S'ákuntala are each essentially meant for revealing the different
aspects of the character of the hero and the heroine. As for
example, the Dhanamitra episode in the 6th act makes us know the
feelings of Dushyanta as a sonless king and that knowing on one
part helps us to know how it was the high time for the king to
be introduced to his son in the 7th act. In the Sanskrit Drama-
turgy, the subject-matter has been classified into two heads—(1)
चाधिकारिक (the main plot) and (2) प्रासङ्गिक (subsidiary plots or
episodes) Cf :—
“इदं पुनर्वस्तु बुधैर्द्विविधं परिकल्पितम् ।
चाधिकारिकमेकं स्यात् प्रासङ्गिकमथापरम् ॥
अधिकारः फले स्वाम्यमधिकारी च तत्प्रभुः ।
तन्निर्वृत्तं कविभिराधिकारिकमुच्यते ॥” साः दः ( ६ परि )
The subsidiary plots contribute to the development of the
main one—cf. “अस्योपकरणार्थं तु प्रासङ्गिकमितीर्य्यते”—सा दः। The unity of

vi RATNAVALI
action is tacitly refered to in Sâhityadarpana as “गोपुच्छाग्रसमायं तु
बन्धनं तस्य कीर्तितम्” । “गोपुच्छायसमायमिति क्रमेणाङ्गाः सूक्ष्माः कर्तव्याः”—that is, as
the tip of the tail of a cow is gradually tapering towards the end,
so the action of the drama proceeds towards the end with all
subsidiary plots absorbed into it.
4. Dialogue.—The last but not the least is the dialogue which
is regarded as an essential adjunct to action and which is very
important by reason of its being the means to exhibiting passions,
motives, feelings with all the main constituents of characters.
When the interest of the drama is predominantly psychological,
dialogue is essentially helpful. On the whole the portrayal of
the character of a person and exhibition of his feelings and other
mental phenomena in a play mainly depend upon the successful
reference by dialogues. In a fiction or an epic by a detailed narration
the character is painted ; but as the compass of a drama is limited,
much worth is to be attained by short and intelligent dialogues
which more suggest about the character than express. In S'ákuntala
the pithy statement “सकृत्कृतप्रणयोऽयं जनः” by the king Dushyanta
throws much light upon the private character of the king, which
we cannot expect so impressively from a detailed exposition of
the situation. Thus a play to be successful should have good and
impressive dialogues.
Sanskrit Drama.—The origin of Sanskrit drama is religious. As
such it has its own distinguishing characteristics which fundamen-
tally determine its value as a type. Indebted as it is for its origin to
the surroundings and atmosphere of Vedic religion and ritualistic
practices full of Brahmanical influences at every point the
Sanskrit drama maintains its ideal character throughout being
isolated from other types of drama in the world. Sanskrit drama
regarded as the highest product of Indian poetry is essentially
aristrocratic mainly for the reason of its being an evolution of the
intellectual effort of two aristrocratic classes—the Brahmanas
and the Kshattriyas, the upholders of the supremacy of Brahmanic

INTRODUCTION vii
civilization. This is one of the notable reasons of Sanskrit drama
being inaccessible to the general mass and for this reason a qualified
audience (gunagrāhinī parishat) is always sought for and on
their satisfactions absolutely depended the success of dramatic
representation. As Dr. Keith holds, "The drama bears, therefore,
essential traces of its connection with the Brahmins. They were
idealist in their outlook, capable of large generalizations but
regardless of accuracy in detail, and to create a realistic drama was
wholly incompatible with their temperament. The accurate
delineation of facts or character was to them nothing ; they aimed
at the creation in the mind of the audience of sentiment, and what
was necessary for this end was all that was attempted". Following
this idealistic bent of the Brahmanic school the dramatists sometimes
thought it a necessity to effect changes in the original from which
their theme had been derived with a view to representing his
persons as consistently ideal in their character so that their
representation may evoke in the mind of the audience a perfection of
sentiment. Thus some changes are effected in Dushyanta and
S'akuntalā of the original epic with a view to removing all blemishes
from their character and thus the representation of their character
being far removed from reality presents an example of perfect
ideal sentiment of love-arousing emotion in the mind of
the learned audience. From the viewpoint of this idealistic
character Sanskrit drama cannot be described as national in the
broadest and the highest sense of the word as the Hellenic plays
are called. It is in short a drama of a literary class though as such
it exhibits many of the noblest and most refined as well as the most
characteristic features of Hindu religion and civilization. The
ethics of Indian drama are of a lofty character, but they are those
of a scholastic system of religious philosophy self-conscious of its
completeness. In the delineation of the characters and movement
of the plot the supremacy is attributed to the power of fate to
which the gods as well as the mortal world bow.

viii RATNAVALI

One of the distinguishing excellences of Sanskrit drama is 'its
poetic grandeur which envelopes it as flowers overspread the bosom
of the earth in the season of Spring.......It weaves the wreath of
idyllic fancies in an unbroken chain adding to its favourite and
familiar blossoms ever-fresh beauties from an inexhaustible garden.
Nor is it unequal to depicting the grander aspects of nature in
her mighty forests and on the shores of ocean. A profound
familiarity with its native literature can here alone follow its
diction through a ceaseless flow of phrase and figure, listen with
understanding to the home of the bee as it hangs over the lotus
and contemplate with S'akuntalā's pious sympathy with the
creeper as it winds round the mango tree. But the poetic beauty
of the Indian drama reveals itself in the mysterious charm of its
outline, if not in its full growth even to the untrained'. (En-
cy. Brita. )

To the Brahmanic supremacy in the evolution of the dramatic
art and its idealism another notable characteristic of Sanskrit
drama can be attributed ; that is the absence of tragedy. Though
the tragic elements are not wanting in Sanskrit drama, yet tragic
end is denied us most probably on the ground of peculiar conditions
of Indian thought in propounding the law of action' and exposing
the existence of human life which is nothing but the outcome
of the workings of the deeds done in the previous birth. In
explaining this view Dr. Keith holds, "The actions and status
of man in existence depend on no accident ; they are essentially
the working out of deeds done in a previous birth and these again
are explained by yet earlier actions from time without beginning.
Indian drama is thus deprived of a motif which is invaluable to
Greek tragedy and everywhere provides a deep and profound tragic
element, the intervention of forces beyond control or calculation
in the affairs of man, confronting his mind with obstacles upon
which the greatest intellect and the most determined will are
shattered. A conception of this kind would deprive the working

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