उत्तररामचरितम् (महाकवि भवभूति - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी व्याख्या)

UTTARARĀMACHARITA ix
IV Literary estimate
Bhavabhuti is a great poet. From very early times
Sanskrit critics have looked upon Bhavabhūti as contesting
with Kālidāsa for the first place among Sanskrit poets. Most
however would give the palm of superiority to Kālidāsa.
The muse of Kālidāsa is always smooth and polished and
never grates upon the ear, while that of Bhavabhūti is often
rugged and jarring. Kālidāsa is a consummate artist, and his
execution is always even. Bhavabhūti is inferior as an artist
and his execution is most uneven. While there are passages
in Bhavabhūti's works that are unrivalled in their beauty,
force and loftiness of sentiment, there are many others
that are marred by verbosity and slovenliness. Kālidāsa was
a court poet, while Bhavabhūti hardly ever dwells upon the
pomp and luxuries of royalty. Kālidāsa seems to have moved
in a world of conventionalities, while Bhavabhūti is an
unsophisticated child of Nature. But there are certain
provinces in which Bhavabhūti admits of no equal. We
shall briefly point out some of the merits of the autho-
(1) The tone of the whole drama and of every part of
it is highly elevated. Every one of the characters is an
ideal one in its own way. Even Durmukha, a spy and as
such hated by all, is painted as a high-souled public servant,
who faithfully does his duty towards his master, though
with the greatest reluctance and sorrow. It is not necessary
to say anything about Rāma and Sītā, the hero and heroine
of the drama. These two have been cherished for thou-
sands of years by all classes in India as the loftiest ideals of
manly and womanly virtues respectively. It is difficult to
find another work in Sanskrit where the conflict of generous
feelings in elevated walks of life is depicted so deftly and in
such impressive colours. In connection with the tone of
gravity that pervades Bhavabhūti we may note that none of
his three works contains a buffoon.
(2) Bhavabhūti shows a true love of Nature in its
beautiful and sublime moods. He was a minute observer of
Nature, and could draw out lessons from the most trivial
aspect of it. His descriptions of scenery are always realistic,
vivid and forcible. What can be more graphic and picture-
sque than his description of the Daṇḍakā forest and
Janasthāna in the second Act of the Uttararāmacharita?
2