Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c16.s1: 1. The Predecessors of Murāri

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c16.s1

Language
English

1. The Predecessors of Murāri

c16.s1.1

WE know definitely of very few dramatists of the eighth and ninth centuries. Kalhaṇa¹ mentions expressly Yaçovarman of Kanyakubja as a patron of literature, who, as we have seen, patronized Bhavabhūti and Vākpati, and we learn of his drama *Rāmābhyudaya*, which is mentioned by Ānandavardhana in the *Dhvanyāloka*, by Dhanika and Viçvanātha, but has not yet been found. To Kalhaṇa² also we are indebted for knowledge of the period of Çivasvāmin, who lived under Avantivarman of Kashmir (A. D. 855-83) and was a contemporary of the poet Ratnākara. He wrote many Nāṭakas and Nāṭikās, and also Prakaraṇas, but save an occasional verse in the anthologies his fame is lost.

c16.s1.2

¹ See Aufrecht, ZDMG. xxxvi. 521.

c16.s1.3

² v. 36; Lévi, TI. ii. 87. The citations are mainly from his *Kapphiṇābhyudaya*; Thomas, *Kavindravacanasamuccaya*, p. 111.

c16.s1.4

Anaṅgaharṣa Mātrarāja,³ on the other hand, is known to Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, and his play *Tāpasavatsarājacarita* is a variation on the theme of the ruse of Yaugandharāyaṇa to secure the marriage of Vatsa and Padmāvatī, in face of the deep love of the king for Vāsavadattā. Vatsa in this drama, which is of little poetic or dramatic value, becomes an ascetic on learning of his queen’s supposed fate, whence the title of the play. Padmāvatī, who had become enamoured of the king from a portrait sent by the minister, follows suit. Eventually Vāsavadattā and Vatsa are united in Prayāga when each is about to commit suicide in sorrow at separation, and the usual victory is reported by Rumaṇvant to give a happy ending.

c16.s1.5

³ Pischel, ZDMG. xxxix. 315; Hultzsch, GN. 1886, pp. 224 ff.

c16.s1.6

There seems little doubt that the author used the *Ratnāvalī*, which gives the upper limit of his date. His father's name is given at Narendravardhana.

c16.s1.7

Māyurājā¹ has been less fortunate in that his *Udāttarāghava* is known only by reference. Rājaçekhara represents him as a Karaculi or Kulicuri, which suggests the possibility that he was a king of the Kalacuri dynasty, of which unhappily we know little during the period in which he is probably to be set. He seems to have known Bhavabhūti. Like him he eliminated treachery from the slaying of Vālin by Rāma, and he represents Lakṣmaṇa as first to follow the magic gazelle, and Rāma as going later in pursuit. He is cited more than once in Dhanika's commentary on the *Daçarūpa*.

c16.s1.8

¹ Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 139 f.; Bhandarkar, *Report* (1897), pp. xi, xviii; Peterson, *Report*, ii. 59. The name is variously given as Māyurāja.

c16.s1.9

No other dramatist of this period is known with any certainty; the *Pārvatīpariṇaya* once ascribed to Bāṇa is now allotted to Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa (c. A. D. 1400), and the *Mallikāmāruta*, wrongly thought to be Daṇḍin's, is the work of one Uddaṇḍin of the seventeenth century.

c16.s1.10

Of these dramatists Yaçovarman has had the honour of being considered worthy of quotation by the writers on theory who have preserved for us some interesting verses:²

c16.s1.11

² *Subhāṣitāvali*, 1766.

c16.s1.12

*ākrandāḥ stanitair vilocanajalāny açrāntadhārāmbhubhis*
*tvadvicchedabhuvaç ca çokaçikhinas tulyās taḍidvibhramaiḥ*
*antar me dayitāmukhaṃ tava çaçī vṛttiḥ samāpy āvayoḥ*
*tat kiṃ mām aniçaṃ sakhe jaladhara dagdhum evodyataḥ.*

c16.s1.13

‘My moans are like thy thunder, the floods of my tears thy ever-streaming showers, the flame of my sorrow at severance from my beloved thy flickering lightning, in my mind is her face reflected, in thee the moon; like is our condition; why then, O friend, O cloud, dost thou ever seek to consume me with the burning pangs of love?’

c16.s1.14

This is decidedly pretty, and there is elegance and beauty in another verse:³

c16.s1.15

³ *Ibid.*, 1366.

c16.s1.16

*yat tvannetrasamānakānti salile magnaṃ tad indīvaram*
*meghair antaritaḥ priye tava mukhacchāyānukāraḥ çaçī*
*ye 'pi tvadgamanānukāragatayas te rājahaṃsā gatās*
*tvatsādṛçyavinodamātram api me daivena na kṣamyate.*

c16.s1.17

‘The blue lotus which rivalled thine eyes in beauty is now sunk in the lake; the moon which imitated the fairness of thy face, beloved, is hidden by the clouds; the royal swans which aped thy lovely gait are departed; cruel fate will not grant me even the consolation of thy similitude.’

c16.s1.18

This verse is appropriated by the *Mahānāṭaka*, and so is the following,¹ which deals elegantly enough with the commonplace contrast between the sad lover and the Açoka tree, whose name is interpreted as ‘sorrowless’, and which flowers, as the poets never weary in telling us, when touched by the foot of a fair lady especially one young:

c16.s1.19

¹ *Ibid.*, 1364.

c16.s1.20

*raktas tvaṁ navapallavair aham api çlāghyaiḥ priyāyā guṇais*
*tvām āyānti çilīmukhāḥ smaradhanurmuktāḥ sakhe mām api*
*kāntapādatalāhatis tava mude tad api mamāvayoḥ*
*sarvaṁ tulyam açoka kevalam ahaṁ dhātrā saçokaḥ kṛtaḥ.*

c16.s1.21

‘Thou are proud in thy new shoots, I in the glorious excellences of my beloved; the bees resort to thee, to me the arrows shot from love’s bow; like me thou dost delight in the touch of thy dear one’s foot; all is alike for us both save only that, O tree Sorrowless, the creator hath made me a man of sorrows.’

c16.s1.22

*kāmavyādhaçarāhatir na gaṇitā saṁjīvanī tvaṁ smṛtā*
*no dagdho virahānalena jhaṭiti tvatsaṁgamācāmṛtaiḥ*
*nīto ’yaṁ divaso vicitralikhitaiḥ saṁkalparūpair mayā*
*kiṁ vānyad dhṛdaye sthitāsi nanu me tatra svayaṁ sākṣiṇī.*²

c16.s1.23

² *Ibid.*, 1634.

c16.s1.24

‘I have not recked of the wound given by love, the hunter, for the memory of thee hath been my elixir; the fire of separation hath not consumed me straightway because of the nectar of the hope of union with thee; all this day hath been spent by me in limning thy fancied form; nought else have I done, as thou thyself art witness, for dost thou not live in my heart?’ We may regret the loss of a work which contained verses as pretty as these, even on the outworn topic of Rāma and Sītā.

c16.s1.25

It might be interesting to know whether Yaçovarman was successful in introducing any new element into the established plot. The play is cited in the commentary on the *Daçarūpa*³ to illustrate the device called deception or humiliation (*chalana*) and the parallel cited is that of the treatment of Vāsavadattā in the *Ratnāvalī*. The definitions of the theory leave this idea far from clear; Viçvanātha seems to treat it as the bearing of insult for the sake of the end to be reached, and the allusion in the case of Sītā may be to her abandonment by Rāma as an act of duty.

c16.s1.26

³ i. 42; SD. 390; N. xix. 94; Lévi, TI. ii. 9.

c16.s1.27

A much less favourable impression is left by the few fragments of the *Udāttarāghava* which are preserved. The poet seems to have affected the horrible, as two of his few stanzas deal with it; the better is :¹

c16.s1.28

¹ DR. ii. 54 comm.

c16.s1.29

*jīyante jayino 'pi sāndratimiravrātair viyadvyāpibhir*
*bhāsvantaḥ sakalā raver api rucaḥ kasmād akasmād amī*
*etāç cograkabandharandhrarudhirair ādhmāyamānodarā*
*muñcanty ānanakandarānalamucas tīvrā ravāḥ pheravāḥ.*
‘The victors are vanquished; thick darkness invades the sky and triumphs over the brilliant rays of the sun; why this inexplicable event? Why these jackals, whose bellies are swollen with the blood sucked from the wounds of bleeding corpses, and whose gaping jaws belch flame, utter these piercing cries?’

c16.s1.30

A somewhat flat passage illustrates the conflict of thought in Rāma’s mind when appealed to by Citramāya on the score that Lakṣmaṇa is in danger from a Rākṣasa :²

c16.s1.31

² DR. iv. 26 comm.

c16.s1.32

*vatsasyābhayavāridheḥ pratibhayam manye katham rākṣasāt*
*trastaç caiṣa munir virauti manasaç cāsty eva me sambhramaḥ*
*mā hāsīr Janakātmajām iti muhuḥ snehād gurur yācate*
*na sthātuṃ na ca gantuṃ ākulamater mūḍhasya me niścayaḥ.*
‘The boy is an ocean of valour; how can I fear danger for him from a Rākṣasa? Yet the sage here is terrified and calls for aid, and my own mind is confused; my master too in his affection ever begs me not to leave Janaka’s daughter alone; my heart is troubled, and in my confusion I cannot resolve either to go or to stay.’

c16.s1.33

Another Rāma drama, the *Chalitarāma*, is also referred to by Dhanika in his comment on the *Daçarūpa*; it may belong to this period, or fall somewhat later; we have from it a picture of the leading captive of Lava :³

c16.s1.34

³ DR. i. 41 comm.

c16.s1.35

*yenāvṛtya mukhāni sāma paṭhatām atyantam āyāsitam*
*bālye yena hṛtākṣasūtravalayapratyarpaṇaiḥ krīḍitam*
*yuṣmākaṃ hṛdayaṃ sa eṣa viçikhair āpūritāṃsasthalo*
*mūrchāghoratamaspraveçavivaço baddhvā Lavo nīyate.*

c16.s1.36

‘He who caused such trouble to the Sāman reciters turning to look at him in his childish play, who amused himself by stealing and giving back strings of beads and bracelets, he, your heart’s joy, his shoulder pierced by arrows, powerless through entry into the dread darkness of fainting, is being led away bound, even Lava.’

c16.s1.37

Another stanza refers to Bharata; Rāma returning to Ayodhyā in the celestial chariot declines thus to enter the town, since it is not his, but under the rule of Bharata; scarcely has he descended when he sees before him his brother:¹

c16.s1.38

¹ DR. iii. 13 comm.

c16.s1.39

*ko’pi siṁhāsanasyādhaḥ sthitaḥ pādukayoḥ puraḥ*
*jaṭāvān akṣamālī ca cāmarī ca virājate.*

c16.s1.40

‘There stands some one, below the lion throne, before a pair of sandals, wearing his hair long, bearing a rosary, resplendent beneath the chowrie.’

c16.s1.41

The same play² contains an amusing slip by Sītā where she bids her boys go to Ayodhyā and tender their respects to the king. Lava naturally replies by asking why they should become members of the king’s entourage, and Sītā answers because the king is their father, a slip which she explains away as well as she can by saying that the king is father of the whole earth.

c16.s1.42

² DR. iii. 17 comm.

c16.s1.43

Yet another drama of which we know nothing else is revealed to us by Dhanika, the *Pāṇḍavānanda*, from which is cited a stanza interesting in its series of questions and answers, a literary form of which the dramatists are fond:³

c16.s1.44

³ DR. iii. 12 comm.

c16.s1.45

*kā ślāghyā guṇināṁ kṣamā paribhavaḥ ko yaḥ svakulyaiḥ kṛtaḥ*
*kiṁ duḥkhaṁ parasamśrayo jagati kaḥ ślāghyo ya āśrīyate*
*ko mṛtyur vyasanaṁ śucaṁ jahati ke yair nirjitāḥ śatravaḥ*
*kair vijñātam idaṁ Virāṭanagare channasthitaiḥ Pāṇḍavaiḥ.*

c16.s1.46

‘For the good what is there praiseworthy? Patience. What is disgrace? That which is wrought by those of one’s own blood. What is misery? Recourse to another’s protection. Who in the world is enviable? He to whom one resorts for aid. What is death? Misfortune. Who escape sorrow? Those who conquer their foes. Who learned this lesson? The Pāṇḍavas when they dwelt in concealment in the city of Virāṭa.’

c16.s1.47

We learn also from Dhanika of two further dramas, of unknown authorship and date; they are mentioned¹ as illustrating the two kinds of Prakaraṇa as a dramatic form, the basis of distinction being whether the heroine is the wife of the hero and therefore a lady of good family or whether she is a courtesan. Of the latter class we have an example in the *Taraṅgadatta*, and of the former in the *Puṣpadūṣitaka*; the latter name occurs in the slightly altered form of *Puṣpabhūṣita* in the *Sāhityadarpaṇa*. As an example of the Samavakāra the *Daçarūpa*² mentions the *Samudramanthana*, a title doubtless as well as the description of the drama in question.

c16.s1.48

¹ DR. iii. 38 comm.; SD. 512.

c16.s1.49

² DR. iii. 56 f. comm.; SD. 516.

Cites (17)