Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c11.s3: 3. Dramatic Writings

Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c11.s3

Language
English

3. Dramatic Writings

c11.s3.1

The *Caitanya-candrodaya* of Kavikarṇapūra makes our transition easy to the dramatic writings of Rāmānanda Rāya and Rūpa, which, however, deal exclusively with Kṛṣṇa-līlā, and not with Caitanya-līlā, with legendary and not with historical themes. With the exception of Rāmānanda's small operatic sketch, the other works are elaborate compositions, meant deliberately to convey religious edification or to glorify sectarian theology. They do not fail entirely on the literary side but as specimens of dramatic writing they reveal little sense of what a drama really is.

c11.s3.2

The *Jagannātha-vallabha*¹ of Rāmānanda begins with Namaskriyā to Kṛṣṇa but contains no reference to Caitanya or to the peculiar tenets of Caitanyaism. It is not known whether it was composed before or after Rāmānanda met Caitanya, and it is difficult to say if it really belongs to the body of works composed for the Caitanya sect. The play is not quoted in the *Padyāvalī*, but two quotations are given in the *Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi* of Rūpa, and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja distinctly refers to it as the Nāṭaka-gīti of Rāmānanda Rāya, which Caitanya relished greatly, as he relished also the *Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta* and the *Gita-govinda*, as a means of his ecstatic devotional emotions. The Prologue to the work calls it *Jagannātha-vallabha*, and describes it as a Saṃgīta-nāṭaka of Rāmānanda-rāya, son of Pṛthvīśvara Bhavānanda-rāya, composed and staged at the direction of Gajapati Pratāparudra, who is eulogised in one stanza (I. 10) as the conqueror of Sekandhara, of the Kalavarga chiefs and of the kings of Gurjara and Gauḍa.

c11.s3.3

¹ See above, p. 92-93.

c11.s3.4

The *Jagannātha-vallabha* deals, in five Acts, with an episode of Kṛṣṇa-līlā, in which are described the first love and union of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā in the groves of Vṛndāvana. The theme is simple, and the Acts are short. The first Acts (Pūrva-rāga) depicts the first meeting of Kṛṣṇa, accompanied by his jester friend Ratikandala¹, and Rādhā entering with her companion Madanikā. They fall in love at first sight, and in Act II (Bhāva-parīkṣā) Rādhā's companion Śaśimukhī approaches Kṛṣṇa with a billet-doux (Anaṅga-lekha) from Rādhā, containing only one Prakrit verse on her lovelorn condition:

c11.s3.5

¹ And not Madhumaṅgala of Rūpa's dramas and Jīva's Campū.

c11.s3.6

suiraṃ vijjhasi hiaaṃ lambhai maaṇo kkhu dujjasam
baliaṃ/.
ḍisasi saala-disāsu tumaṃ disai maaṇo ṇa kuttāvi||

c11.s3.7

But Kṛṣṇa, to test her love, playfully pretends to be shocked and indifferent to the solicitation, and rudely advises Śaśimukhī to dissuade Rādhā from such improper sentiment. In Act III we find Rādhā in Viraha, filled with love and longing; and when Śaśimukhī delivers her message Rādhā, distracted by feelings of love, shame, self-pity and despair, resolves to die. But another companion Mādhavī enters with a tablet for painting (Citra-phalaka), on which is inscribed a Sanskrit verse containing Kṛṣṇa's apology and declaration of love. The Act IV (Rādhābhisāra), in its turn, describes Kṛṣṇa in Viraha love-sick and penitent in the Bakula-bower, where Madanikā comes and, on his confession of love, goes to fetch Rādhā; and they unite in the bower during the night. Next morning, in Act V (Rādhā-saṃgama), Madanikā and Śaśimukhī approach the bower and talk among themselves of what they have seen of the sports of the young couple at night! Kṛṣṇa enters with the shame-faced Rādhā, but the advent of the bull-demon Ariṣṭa breaks up the party. Kṛṣṇa rushes forward, kills the demon with much bravado behind the scene and comes back in triumph. The Act ends with the reunion of the lovers.

c11.s3.8

In the Prologue, the author claims that his play is entirely novel (abhinava-kṛti) and original (anya-cchāyayā no nibaddham), but it is clear that neither the theme nor its treatment displays much variety or originality. It is a pretty little amourette, modelled obviously on the Nāṭikā type of Sanskrit plays. But perhaps in these idyllic and romantic little plays, which aim at nothing more than picturing the pretty sentiment in a pretty environment, elegance was more expected than originality, and poverty of invention need hardly be regarded as a defect. The work employs the familiar motifs and devices common to such erotic playlet (the romantic commonplaces, for instance, of love at first sight, pangs and sentimental longings of separated lovers, love-letter, dream-vision, painting-tablet, minute portraiture of the personal beauty of the lovers, and their ultimate union effected by the effort of their companions), and makes use of conventional words and imageries to depict them. Here is, for instance, pure rhetoric in Kṛṣṇa's description of Rādhā's lovely face:

c11.s3.9

*yad api na kamalaṃ niśākaro vā*
*bhavati mukha-pratimo mṛgekṣaṇāyāḥ|*
*racayati na tathāpi-jātu tābhyāṃ*
*upamitir anya-pade padaṃ yad asya||*

c11.s3.10

Similarly conventional but elegant is the description of Rādhā's Viraha:

c11.s3.11

*yadā nāsau doṣaṃ gaṇayati gurūṇāṃ ku-vacane*
*na vā toṣaṃ dhatte sarasa-vacane narma-suhṛdām|*
*viṣābhaṃ śrikhaṇḍaṃ kalayati vidhuṃ pāvaka-samaṃ*
*tad asyās tad-vṛttaṃ tvayi gaditaṃ atrāham agamam||*

c11.s3.12

Kṛṣṇa's Viraha and his lamentations are also in the same approved manner and style of the conventional hero of the sentimental type. But, at the same time, it cannot be said that the little play is not fluent and graceful. The situations are trite and stale, but they are not over-embellished; and in the emotional or descriptive comments, their poetical stanzas are neither tediously profuse nor inappropriate. Perhaps the play was meant as a musical and spectacular entertainment, its characteristic feature being the introduction of Padāvalis or songs, set to different tunes, after the manner of Jayadeva's *Gita-govinda*. It invests the play with a delightful operatic atmosphere, and justifies the description that it is essentially a small *Samgita-nataka*. The number of such songs is twenty-one, there being four in each Act, excepting five in Act IV; and each song contains the author's *bhanita* and the name of his patron Gajapati Prataparudra. We give here one of the songs, which describes the youthful Krsna, as a specimen (Act I):

c11.s3.13

(Kedara-ragena)

c11.s3.14

mrdutara-maruta-vellita-pallava-valli-valita-sikhandam/
tilaka-vidambita-marakata-mani-tala-bimbita-sasadhara-khandam||
yuvati-manohara-vesam/
kalaya kala-nidhim iva dharanim anu parinata-rupa-visesam||
(Dhruva)
khela-dolayita-mani-kundala-ruci-ruciranana-sobham/
hela-taralita-madhura-vilocana-janita-vadhujana-lobham||
gajapatirudra-naradhipa-cetasi janayatu mudam anuvaram/
ramananda-raya-kavi-bhanitam madhuripu-rupam udaram||.

c11.s3.15

One should recognise that this is not a mean imitation of Jayadeva's music and manner.

c11.s3.16

The dramatic works of Rupa Gosvamin are more serious compositions of an entirely different character, although all of them deal with certain aspects of Krsna-lila and its mystic-erotic possibilities. The old Krsna legend is daringly modified in details, in the light of the peculiar dogmas of Bengal school; and the works are deliberately composed in conformity with its Rasa-sastra, in order that they may illustrate the hundred niceties of its elaborate scheme of devotional sentiments. It is natural, therefore, that profuse quotations are given from these works in the two Rasa-treatises of Rupa himself by way of illustration. The works are rightly held in high esteem by the devotees of the faith, and are marked by considerable and careful literary effort; but there is no high merit in them as dramatic pieces, nor are they remarkably brilliant on the poetic side. Nominally dramas, they are a peculiar type of composition in which the Vidagdha and the Vidvat combine with the Rasika and the Bhakta.

c11.s3.17

Of the three dramatic works of the Rūpa Gosvāmin, the Dāna-keli-kaumudī,¹ which calls itself a Bhaṇikā,² of the Uparūpaka class, is the shortest, being in one Act. The theme is slight, but the working out is elaborate. Vasudeva is performing a sacrifice. Rādhā, with the Gopīs, is carrying fresh Ghee in pitchers to the sacrificial ground near the Govinda-kuṇḍa; but Kṛṣṇa with his companions is up to his usual youthful pranks, obstructs the way and playfully demands his toll (Śulka), as he is the lord of the forest through which they pass. There is a dispute regarding the right of demand, amount and method of payment and offer of ransom, until the elderly go-between Paurṇamāsī intervenes and settles the lively dispute by the equally lively offer of Rādhā herself as the most handsome and appropriate Śulka to Kṛṣṇa. The advocates on Rādhā's side are her companions Lalitā and Viśākhā (to whom also Kṛṣṇa's audacities extend!).

c11.s3.18

¹ See above, p. 153.

c11.s3.19

² Rūpa Gosvāmin wrote his dramaturgic work, Nāṭaka-candrikā, chiefly to explain and illustrate the various features and elements of his own dramatic works, from which a large number of illustrative quotations are given; but he does not define Bhaṇikā. Viśvanātha explains its characteristics as an Uparūpaka in his Sāhitya-darpaṇa, vi. 308-12, to which, however, Rūpa's play does not strictly conform. On the other hand, it agrees more with the definition of Śāradātanaya in his Bhāva-prakāśana (ed. Gaekwad's Orient. Series, Baroda 1930) p. 262, in having Hari-carita as its subject-matter, the erotic as the chief sentiment in a small theme, song and dance as its elements, and creating excitement by clever turns of speech (see D. R. Mankad, Types of Sanskrit Drama, Karachi 1936, pp. 107-8).—The Nāṭaka-candrikā, however, is a work notable for the enthusiasm with which its author grafts on a compilation of commonplace definitions a long series of fervent erotic verses on Kṛṣṇa-līlā, as he also does in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi.

c11.s3.20

while Kṛṣṇa's case is put by his friend Subala and the jester Madhumaṅgala. There is no action, no dramatic situation, nor any diversion of song and dance, but there is only a series—rather a tiresomely lengthy series—of erotic dialogues in prose and verse, with clever, but audacious, innuendoes and punning repartees. Some of the verses are fine, but most of them are laboured and employ conventional expressions, imageries and conceits. The opening Maṅgala-verse in Śārdūlavikrīḍita metre :

c11.s3.21

antaḥ-smeratayojjvalā jala-kaṇā-vyākīrṇa-pakṣmāṅkurā
kiṃcit-pālitāñcalā rasikatotsiktā puraḥ kuñcati|
ruddhāyāḥ pathi mādhavena madhura-vyābhugna-tārottarā
rādhāyāḥ kilakiñcita-stavakinī dṛṣṭiḥ śriyaṃ vaḥ kriyāt||

c11.s3.22

is, in spite of its laboured ingenuity, a typical instance of Rūpa's gracefully refined composition. It describes the loving glance of Rādhā, when Kṛṣṇa bars her way, by an implied comparison to a full-blown flower (stavakinī), with its lovely bunch of seven conflicting emotional expressions (as a result of feminine pride, desire, jealousy, fear and anger, accompanied by smile and tears), which complex combination of erotic gestures is defined in rhetorical works as Kilakiñcita.¹

c11.s3.23

¹ This is in accordance with Rūpa's own definition (Ujjvala°, p. 255) garvābhilāṣa-rudita-smitāsūyā-bhaya-krudhām| saṃkarīkaraṇaṃ harṣād ucyate kilakiñcitam, where the present verse of his own is quoted as an illustration. But it is defined thus in the Sāhitya-darpaṇa (III. 101): smita-śuṣkarudita-hasita-trāsa - krodha - śrāmadīnam| saṃkaryam kilakiñcitam abhiṣṭarama-saṅgādijād harṣāt, and the Daśa-rūpaka states briefly : krodhāśru-harṣa-bhītyādeḥ saṃkaraḥ kilakiñcitam (ii. 37a), which is paraphrased as: śoka-roṣāśru-harṣadeḥ saṃkaraḥ kilakiñcitam in Rasārṇava-sudhākara.

c11.s3.24

The Vidagdha-mādhava² is a more extensive work. It is a regular Nāṭaka in seven Acts, which is meant to present in a dramatic form the entire Vṛndāvana-līlā of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, beginning with Pūrva-rāga and ending with Saṃkṣipta Saṃkīrṇa Sambhoga¹ from first love to first union, as defined and described in Rūpa's *Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi*. In a sense, the theme is the same as that of Rāmānanda's little play, but it is more elaborately worked out. It pays homage to Caitanya as Śaci-nandana (1. 2) in a famous verse;² and we are told that Rūpa was inspired in a dream by Saṃkara-deva (the Gopīśvara Śiva of the temple at Brahmakuṇḍa, as the commentator Viśvanātha Cakravartin explains) to compose the drama. It is noteworthy that the Pāripārśvaka, in the Prologue, ascribes the work to the Sūtradhāra, with the obvious implication that Rūpa himself must have taken the rôle of the stage-director in the enacting of the play at Vṛndāvana.

c11.s3.25

² See above, p. 153.

c11.s3.26

¹ *yatra saṃkīryamāṇāḥ syur vyallka-smaraṇādibhiḥ / upacāraḥ sa saṃkīrṇaḥ kimcit taptekṣu-peśalaḥ //* (*Ujjvala*, p. 468).

c11.s3.27

² Quoted above p. 431, footnote 1.

c11.s3.28

In Act I we learn that Rādhā, with Lalitā and Viśākhā, is going to worship the sun-god Sūrya, while Candrāvalī, with Padmā and Śaivyā, is preparing to go to Gaurī-tīrtha to worship Caṇḍikā there; but the elderly, resourceful and kind-hearted Paurṇamāsī, who intends to promote their love-affairs, is scheming to effect the secret union of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. From her Kṛṣṇa hears of Rādhā, united already by a semblance of marriage to Abhimanyu; while the sweet and enchanting music of his flute, from which the Act itself is called Veṇu-nāda-vilāsa, as well as a picture of Kṛṣṇa shown by Viśākhā, fills Rādhā with the longings of Pūrva-rāga. In Act II, we have the wails of love and separation of Rādhā, as well as of Kṛṣṇa in the approved Kāvya manner. Paurṇamāsī suggests to Rādhā the composition of a love-letter to Kṛṣṇa (from which central incident the Act is entitled Anaṅga-lekha) with the petals of Karṇikāra flowers. The letter, as well as a garland of black-and-red berries of Guñjā (Abrus precatorius), is delivered by Lalitā; but Kṛṣṇa pretends to spurn them and displays mock-righteousness, although in the end he gives in return a garland of Rañjana flowers to Lalitā. Kṛṣṇa's show of indifference makes Rādhā desperate, and she wants to throw herself into the Yamunā. Kṛṣṇa overhears all this, and makes his appearance on the scene, but the chance of a pleasant meeting is spoiled by the old duenna Jaṭilā (Rādhā's mother-in-law), who suddenly arrives and breaks up the party. The third Act, called Rādhā-saṃgama, describes the union of the lovers through the contrivance of Paurṇamāsī, aided by Lalitā and Viśākhā. The fourth Act introduces the motif of jealousy by describing the Pūrva-rāga of Rādhā's rival Candrāvalī; and we have a series of picture of Rādhā's moods and situations as Abhisārikā, Vāsakasajjā, Utkaṇṭhitā, Vipralabdhā and Khaṇḍitā, depicted in accordance with the prescriptions of Rasa-śāstra. But the main theme of the Act, which is called Veṇu-haraṇa, is the playful stealing of Kṛṣṇa's mischievous flute by Rādhā, a feat which, we are told, no other Gopī could perform. This completes the morning sports after union overnight. The fifth Act proceeds to describe the midday sports and to depict Rādhā as a Kalahāntaritā heroine, separated by a love-quarrel, her Māna and propitiation by Kṛṣṇa, and the erotic sports in the forest involving the Prema-vaicittya Bhāva (loving apprehension of separation) of Rādhā¹. The sixth Act, as its title indicates, is concerned with the Śarada-vihāra, not as the commentary explains, with the entire autumnal Rāsa-līlā described in the Bhāgavata, but only with a part of the sports at night, chiefly with Rādhā. The seventh and last Act, entitled Gaurī-tīrtha-vihāra, deals with the secret meeting with Candrāvalī who had gone, with her companions Padmā and Śaivyā, to Gaurī-tīrtha ostensibly to worship Caṇḍikā; but the meeting is frustrated by Paurṇamāsī who sends Rādhā there with Lalitā. Candrāvalī is forced to retreat by the intervention of the old duenna Karālikā, Candrāvalī's grandmother, while Kṛṣṇa disguises himself as the goddess Gaurī, deceives Rādhā's chaperon, the old Jaṭilā, and ultimately unites with his beloved Rādhā.

c11.s3.29

¹ *priyasya saṃnikarṣe'pi premotkarṣa-svabhāvataḥ | yā viśleṣa-dhiyārtis tat prema-vaicittyam ucyate ||* (Ujjvala°, p. 449). See above, p. 218.

c11.s3.30

The *Lalita-mādhava*,¹ a more extensive drama in ten Acts, is more complicated in theme and plot, although it is, like the other works, more narrative than dramatic in conception and execution, there being a great deal of talk but little incident. This work was also inspired in a dream by Gopīśvara Śiva, and was enacted to entertain an assembly of Vaiṣṇava devotees, gathered at the temple of Mādhavī-mādhava on the Rādhā-kuṇḍa at Vṛndāvana, on the occasion of the worship of the Govardhana hill during the Dīpāvalī festival. There are Namaskriyās to Caitanya as Śacī-suta, and to Sanātana as the incarnation of the mythical sage of the same name.

c11.s3.31

¹ See above, p. 153.

c11.s3.32

The commentary, which is anonymous, explains that the object of the drama is to illustrate the main features and characteristics of Samṛddhimat Sambhoga defined by Rūpa in his *Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi*;² but the Vipralambha aspect of the erotic Rasa is as prominent in it as the Sambhoga is in the *Vidagdha-mādhava*. It describes not merely the episode of Kṛṣṇa's erotic sports at Vṛndāvana (Acts I-III), but also comprehends Kṛṣṇa's erotic career at Mathurā (Acts IV) and Dvārakā (Acts VI-X). But since the theology of the Bengal Vaiṣṇava school regards the moments of the Vṛndāvana-līlā and Kṛṣṇa's sports with the Gopīs to be of supreme importance, a complicated scheme is ingeniously evolved, by a daring modification of the old legends and by the employment of the familiar Kathā-device of rebirth and change of personality, to prove that Candrāvalī, Rādhā and other Gopīs of Vṛndāvana were no other than Rukmiṇī, Satyabhāmā and other princesses, whom Kṛṣṇa abducted and made his queens at Dvārakā.

c11.s3.33

² *durlabhālokayor yūnoḥ pāratantryād viyuktayoḥ / upabhogātireko yaḥ kiryate sa samṛddhimān* // (p. 472). The *Lalita-mādhava* is cited in illustration. See above, p. 219.

c11.s3.34

In Act I, we have a preliminary scene in which Paurṇamāsī, mother of the sage Saṃdīpani and disciple of Nārada, reveals the mythical origin of Candrāvalī and Rādhā who, as two daughters of the Vindhya mountain, are related as sisters, a fact of which they were themselves unaware. The infant Candrāvalī having been stolen by the demoness Pūtanā, an emissary of Kaṃsa, fell from her hands into a stream and became the daughter of Bhiṣmaka, king of Vidarbha, being recovered as Rukmiṇī! Rādhā's story is related later on. Of the sixteen thousand and one hundred Gopīs, who worshipped the goddess Kātyāyanī and Kāmākhyā of Kāmarūpa and received the boon of obtaining Kṛṣṇa as their husband, we are told (iv. 7) that the five chief Gopīs, Padmā or Nāgnajitī (daughter of king Nagnajit), Bhadrā or Lakṣaṇā (daughter of the king of Kekaya), Śaivyā (daughter of the king Śaivya), Śyāmalā or Mādrī (daughter of the king of Madra), as well as Lalitā, were all originally princesses, while Viśākhā was the incarnated river Yamunā, daughter of the sun-god! We are also told that there was regular marriage of Candrāvalī and Rādhā with Kṛṣṇa; their being the wives respectively of the Gopas, Govardhana and Abhimanyu, is described as the effect of Māyā (Māyā-vivarta). This is also true in the case of the other Gopīs, whom their so-called husbands, the Gopas, could never look upon as their wives! The object of the Act, however, which is entitled Sāyaṃ-utsava (evening festival), is to describe Pūrva-rāga, chiefly with reference to Candrāvalī and Rādhā. It depicts the return home of Kṛṣṇa in the evening after tending cows all day, and his meetings, separately, with Candrāvalī and Rādhā; but both the meetings are interrupted by the vigilance of their respective mothers-in-law, Bhāruṇḍā and Jaṭilā. The next morning opens, in Act II.

c11.s3.35

¹ patimanyānāṃ ballavānāṃ mamatā-mātrāvaleśā kumārīṣu dāratā yad eṣāṃ prekṣaṇam api tābhir ati-durghaṭam.

c11.s3.36

with a reference to Kṛṣṇa's nocturnal sports with the Gopīs, and gives the poet an opportunity of presenting Padmā and Śyāmalā, the two companions of Candrāvalī, as Vipralabdhā and Svādhīna-bhartṛkā heroines respectively. In the meantime, the demon Śaṅkhacūḍa is sent by Kamsa to carry away Rādhā, who is reported to have been married to Kṛṣṇa, and who is enthroned as the chief of the Gopīs. She goes to worship the sun-god; Kṛṣṇa, in disguise, appears as a Brahman priest to officiate at the ceremony; but the little comedy is upset by the reported arrival of Śaṅkhacūḍa whom Kṛṣṇa duly kills behind the scene. This is the only demon-killing in the play, and the Act is called Śaṅkhacūḍa-vadha from this incident. In Act III, Akrūra comes to fetch Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma to Mathurā, and the sorrows of the various Gopīs at their departure are described; but the main theme of the Act, which is called Unmatta-rādhikā, consists of Rādhā's wailing and mad search after Kṛṣṇa, somewhat after the manner of Purūravas's demented search after Urvaśī, Rādhā's condition being described in the Vaiṣṇava Rasa-śāstra as Divyonmādamayī Udghūrṇā Daśā¹. She jumps into the river Yamunā and becomes lost with Viśākhā, but a voice in the air reveals that she has gone to the other world by passing through the orb of the sun. Lalitā, her other companion, also jumps from the top of a hill to kill herself.

c11.s3.37

¹ See above p. 216.

c11.s3.38

The fourth Act changes the scene from the joyless Vṛndāvana to Mathurā, and reveals the corresponding sorrow of Kṛṣṇa at being separated from Candrāvalī, Rādhā and his beloved Gopīs. In the meantime Candrāvalī, who is really Rukmiṇī, has been carried away by her brother Rukmin, who is ashamed of her being brought up at Vṛndāvana, in order that she, a princess, should be suitably married to Śiśupāla, king of the Cedis. The sixteen thousand one hundred Gopīs were also forcibly abducted by the demon Naraka, so that one must imagine that Vṛndāvana was by this time desolated.

c11.s3.39

In order to entertain the sorrowing Kṛṣṇa, Paurṇamāsī arranges the enacting of a play which Kṛṣṇa witnesses, the theme of the inset play (Garbhāṅka) justifying the naming of the Act as Rādhābhisāra; but the device of a play within a play is not very effective here. It describes an episode of Kṛṣṇa-līlā at Vṛndāvana, in which Kṛṣṇa manages to deceive Jaṭilā by assuming the disguise of Abhimanyu, her son and Rādhā’s husband, and obtains her permission to sport with Rādhā! The Act V (Candrāvalī-lābha) gives a new version of the abduction of Rukmiṇī (=Candrāvalī) at Kuṇḍina-nagara, contrived by the scheming Paurṇamāsī. Kṛṣṇa, accompanied by Garuḍa, enters the palace in the disguise of an actor, and abducts Rukmiṇī with the connivance of her father but against the opposition of her brother.

c11.s3.40

The sixth Act is entitled Lalitopalabdhi (the winning of Lalitā, who is reborn as Jāmbavatī, daughter of Jāmbavat), but it is concerned chiefly with a new version of the winning of Satyabhāmā, daughter of Satrājit, and recovery of the Syamantaka jewel. Satyabhāmā, we are told, is transformed Rādhā, who, along with the Syamantaka jewel, was given by the sun-god as a reward of devotion to Satrājit. Viśvakarman, father of the sun-god’s wife Saṃjñā, builds a Nava-vṛndāvana at Dvārakā, where Rukmiṇī-Candrāvalī is installed as the queen, and Satyabhāmā-Rādhā is left in her protection in the manner of Vāsavadattā left to the care of Padmāvatī. The idea of a token or Abhijñāna is also introduced, for Satyabhāmā would not be recognised as Rādhā until Kṛṣṇa presents her with the Syamantaka jewel recovered from Jāmbavat, along with his daughter Jāmbavatī (=Lalitā). The seventh Act (Nava-vṛndāvana-saṃgama) describes, after the familiar plot-device of the Nāṭikā, the secret meeting of Satyabhāmā-Rādhā with Kṛṣṇa, who shows her a speaking image of Rādhā constructed by Viśvakarman, but Rukmiṇī-Candrāvalī, of course, comes upon the scene and interrupts the meeting. The eighth (Nava-vṛndāvana-vihāra) and the ninth (Citra-darśana) Acts continue the love-affairs at Dvārakā in a new atmosphere. The eighth Act arranges a little comedy of errors, based upon Rukmiṇī-Candrāvalī's jealousy of Satyabhāmā-Rādhā, by the exchange of two caskets of ornaments made by Viśvakarman for the two ladies. Incidentally is related the rescue of Viśākhā, reborn as a woman ascetic, by Kṛṣṇa who brings her to Dvārakā. The ninth Act reports similar rescue of Padmā, Bhadrā and Śyāmalā, as well as of the sixteen thousand one hundred Gopīs; but its principal theme is the depiction of reminiscent love (after the manner of Bhavabhūti's Citradaṛśana scene) by Kṛṣṇa's showing to Satyabhāmā-Rādhā a series of cave-frescoes, made by Viśvakarman, bearing on the Vṛndāvana-līlā. The tenth and last Act (Pūrṇa-manoratha) describes the dénouement with an all-round happy ending. The Syamantaka jewel at last arrives, sent by Satrājit. Kṛṣṇa enters in the disguise of one of the maids sent by the king with the jewel, but the trick is discovered. This brings about Candrāvalī's recognition of Rādhā and graceful acceptance of the situation, in the approved style of similar situations of the Nāṭikā. The play ends with reunion effected with Nanda, Yaśodā and others who come to Dvārakā, which is now converted into a really new Vṛndāvana.

c11.s3.41

In spite of an elaborate effort to bring about variety by bold and ingenious modification of the simplicity of the original legend, it will be seen that the construction of the drama, complicated as it is, reveals little originality or invention; for most of the motifs and devices, though cleverly applied, are literary commonplaces clearly borrowed from the Nāṭikā and the Kathā. Rūpa Gosvāmin certainly possesses considerable literary skill, and is always elegant, often picturesque, and sometimes touching; but the general artificiality of his style and treatment cannot be mistaken. The central idea of the superiority of the Vṛndāvana-līlā, no doubt, supplies a dramatic motive; but, in spite of the unity of action which it imparts, the works are really a series of narrative episodes loosely strung together by a semblance of dramatic form. Here, as elsewhere, most of the important incidents are reported instead of being represented. In a narrative we are told what occurs, in a drama we see the actual occurrence; in Rūpa's so-called dramas, comparatively little happens, though much is said. The poverty of action and weakness of characterisation are characteristics common enough in the later decadent Sanskrit drama, but Rūpa Gosvāmin, out of respect for texts and traditions, writes more for literary and theological, than really dramatic, effect. Even if he is a poor dramatists, he adheres laboriously and conscientiously to the prescriptions of Nāṭya-śāstra and Rasa-śāstra; but Śāstra is, of course, neither drama nor poetry.

c11.s3.42

There can be no doubt, however, that if he is not a real dramatist, Rūpa Gosvāmin is certainly a poet, and not a mere pedant; a devotee, and not a mere dogmatist. But deliberate pedantry and dogma very often get the upper hand and impair the value of his poetry. Witness, for instance, Kṛṣṇa's flattering witticism to Rādhā (Vidagdha-mādhava, iii, p. 234):

c11.s3.43

muktānām upalabhyam eva kucayoḥ sālokyam ālokya te
hitvā saṅgam ahaṃ samasta-suhṛdām kaivalyam āsedivān|
vaiṣamyam tilam apyanāśritavatoḥ sāndrāmṛta-syandibhir
māṃ pūrṇam kuru tanvi tūrṇam anayoḥ sāyujya-dānotsavaiḥ||

c11.s3.44

which, in its śleṣa on the words muktānām, sālokyam, kaivalyam and sāyujyam, is witty indeed, but the wit consists of a theological conceit! Or, take, for instance, Kṛṣṇa's clever compliment, where the conceit of the ten incarnations is ingeniously employed (iv, p. 299):

c11.s3.45

rādhe, tavādhīno nāham eva kevalo'smi
tu me daśāvatārāś ca, tathā hi :
cañcan-mīna-vilocanāsi, kamaṭhotkṛṣṭa-stanī, saṃgatā
kroḍena sphuratā, tavāyam adharaḥ prahlāda-saṃvardhanah|
madhyo'sau bali-bandhano, mukha-rucā rāmās tvayā nirjitā
lebhe śrī-ghanaṭādya mānini manasyaṅgīkṛtā kalkitā||

c11.s3.46

to which Rādhā makes an equally clever retort by a variation of the same idea in a verse which is perhaps more recondite:

c11.s3.47

vanyāntar guru-cāpalaṃ kaṭhinatā go-saṃgatiḥ pāṇija-
krauryam dambha-ruci su-caṇḍima-dhurālaṅkeśa-
vidhvaṃsanam/
aśrāntonmada-laulyam iṣṭa-kadaṃ nistriṃśa-lilonnatir
mīnedrādyavatārataḥ sphuṭam amī bhrājanti bhāgas
tvayi||

c11.s3.48

To Śiśupāla's suit, again, in his metrical epistle (*Lalita-mādhava*, v. pp. 256-257):

c11.s3.49

praṇayo damaghoṣa-nandane śiśupāle tava yauvanāñcite/
naradeva-vare śrutaśravo-hṛdayānandi-guṇe vijṛmbhatām||

c11.s3.50

Similar ingenuity is shown by Rukmiṇī's reply, which consists of the change of a few syllables in the verse:

c11.s3.51

praṇayo mama ghoṣa-nandane paśupāle nava-yauvanāñcite/
para-deva-vare druta-sravo-hṛdayānandi-guṇe vijṛmbhatām||:

c11.s3.52

but such facetious witticism hardly befits a lady in distress!

c11.s3.53

Even when Rūpa Gosvāmin rises above his literary and theological prepossessions, he is seldom natural, but produces verses of the usual artificial kind. Here is a purely rhetorical description of Rādhā's lovely face by means of a well-worn¹ conceit (*Lalita-mādhava*, i. p. 68):

c11.s3.54

¹ Cf. Kavīndra-vacana-samuccaya, ed. F. W. Thomas, Bibl. Ind., Calcutta 1912, no. 208.

c11.s3.55

samīkṣya tava rādhike vadana-bimbam udbhāsuram
trapā-bhara-parīta-dhīḥ śrayitum asya tulya-śriyam/
śaśī kila kṛśībhavan suradhunī-taraṅgokṣitas
tapasyati kapardinaḥ sphuṭa-jaṭāṭavīm āśritaḥ||.

c11.s3.56

The same remark applies to Rādhā's wailing as an Utkaṇṭhitā heroine by means of Anyāpadeśa (Vidagdha mādhava. iii, p. 176):

c11.s3.57

nālinīm niśi ghanotkalikām aśaṅkam
kṣiptvāvtīr atanu-vanyagajaḥ kṣuṇatti/
atrānurāgiṇī cirād udite'pi bhānau
hā hanta kim sakhī sukham bhavitā varākyāḥ||.

c11.s3.58

It is not very often that Rūpa Gosvāmin divests himself of conscious rhetoric and rant and writes simply and finely as follows (Vidagdha-mādhava, iv, p. 313):

c11.s3.59

mudrām dhairyamayīm kṣaṇam vitanute tāruṇya-lakṣmīm
kṣaṇam
sopekṣāḥ kṣaṇam ātanoti bhaṇitīr autsukya-bhājāḥ
kṣaṇam/
śuddhām dṛṣṭim itaḥ kṣaṇam praṇayati preṅkhat-
kaṭākṣam kṣaṇam
roṣeṇa praṇayena cākulita-dhī rādhā dvidhā bhidyate||.

c11.s3.60

It is needless to multiply examples, for the poet has verses enough for anything. The verses have often the fascination of sonorous sound and sentimental sense, but their frequency and extravagance become undramatic and tiresome. Sometimes they have resonance but no melody; and being industriously multiplied with set phrases and conceits, they have, when they are not deliberately recondite, little originality in idea and expression. The prose and the dialogue contain much smart repartees and witty erotic suggestions, but they have hardly any dramatic quality, for the simple reason that everything of importance, according to the established dramaturgic tradition, is expressed in verse. In the leisurely progress of the elaborate verse and diligently witty prose, the action and the plot, for which the themes do not afford much scope, are left to take care of themselves; dramatic motive or unity is of little concern; a panorama of painstaking pictures or a loosely connected series of narrative incidents is supposed to be sufficient. The devotees of the faith think highly of these productions of Rūpa Gosvāmin; that is perhaps not for their dramatic or poetic excellence, but chiefly because they are deliberate scholarly attempts to illustrate the doctrinal nuances of the emotional Bhakti in terms of the freshly and ingeniously interpreted Kṛṣṇa-legend. The works undoubtedly constitute a departure, and are inspired by a strange combination of acute scholastic learning, literary dexterity and great devotional fervour of a refined erotico-religious character; but their real interest is other than literary, and they have little pretension either to the dramatic or the poetic in the proper sense.

Linked texts (8)