COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN DO- IRANIAN SERIES P p run L I ,4 ■ 1 . I JlAiViY. >■ Division Sectioi TK217I .C12 v. lO • I *N V i \ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library * https://archive.org/details/priyadarsikasansOOhars KING HARSHA’S AUTOGRAPH ON THE BANSKHERA PLATE (From Epigraphia Indica 4. 210. Sec Introduction to the present volume, page xliii.) [Reproduced by courtesy ot the Grolier Society, New York.l PRIYADARSIKA A SANSKRIT DRAMA BY KING HARSHA COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY INDOI RANI AN SERIES EDITED BY A. V. WILLIAMS JACKSON PROFESSOR OF INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Volume ®tn NEW YORK Columbia UJnfoersitp JDreSS 1923 All rights reserved ■ PRIYADARSIK A SANSKRIT DRAMA BY HARSHA KING OF NORTHERN INDIA IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY A.D. TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY G. K. NARIMAN HON. SECRETARY OF THE K. R. CAMA ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, BOMBAY A. Y. WILLIAMS JACKSON, Ph.D., L.H.D., LL.D. PROFESSOR IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND CHARLES J. OGDEN, Ph.D. CORRESPONDING SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY THE TWO LATTER TOGETHER WITH THE TEXT IN TRANSLITERATION NEW YORK Columbia flUntoertfttp 1923 All rights reserved An announcement of volumes of this series previously published, and of the volume in preparation, will be found at the end of this book. Copyright, 1923, by Columbia University Press Set up and electrotyped Published December , 1923 LANCASTER PRESS. INC. LANCASTER. PA. TO THE DEAN OF AMERICAN SANSKRITISTS CHARLES ROCKWELL LANMAN PROFESSOR IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY / NOTE FOR LIBRARIANS AND BIBLIOGRAPHERS The present volume contains the text and English translation of a Hindu drama composed in Sanskrit and Prakrit by Harsha (in more strictly scientific transliteration Harsa), who reigned as king in Northern India from 606 to 647 A.D. Harsha was the author also of two other dramas, the Ratnavali and the Nagananda, as well as of a number of stanzas that have been preserved (see pages xxxix-xlix, below). His name is found likewise in the fuller forms Harsha-deva and Harsha-vardhana, and, with the customary honorific prefix sri, as Sri-Harsha and §rI-Harsha-deva. This monarch was further des¬ ignated, especially in Buddhist texts, as Siladitya. This Harsha is not to be confused with the later Harsha, more properly Sriharsha, author of the epic poem Naishadhiya-carita and of a philosophical work entitled Khandana-khanda-khadya. The Library of Congress issues printed catalogue cards pre¬ pared according to rules that embody the best standard of modern library practice. The cards for this book bear the serial number 23-26791. Complete sets of these cards may be obtained at a nominal price upon application to * The Library of Congress— Card Division, Washington, D. C.’ To those not in a position to make use of these printed cards, the suggestion is offered that the present volume may be most helpfully recorded in library cata¬ logues under the following entries: Harsha [or Harshadeva], king (606-647) of Thanesar [as author] Jackson, Abraham Valentine Williams, 1862- [as joint translator] Nariman, Gushtaspshah Kaikhushro [as joint translator] Ogden, Charles Jones, 1880- [as joint translator] Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series [as series entry] Jackson, Abraham Valentine Williams, 1862- [as editor] Sanskrit drama. See also Harsha, king (606-647) of Thanesar [as subject cross-reference, if desired] Sanskrit literature—Translations into English. See also Harsha, king (606-647) of Thanesar [as subject cross-reference, if de¬ sired] Priyadarsika, etc. [as title entry, if desired] vi PREFACE The drama Priyadarsika, written in Sanskrit and Prakrit by Harsha (Harsha-deva, Harsha-vardhana), King of Northern India in the seventh century of our era, has been chosen for translation into English for the first time, because of the interest of its plot and because it has previously received less attention than the other plays by the same author, the Ratnavali and the Nagananda. The basis of the translation was a preliminary version sub¬ mitted a number of years ago by my Par si friend Gushtaspshah Kaikhushro Nariman, of Bombay, who sent it to me in a tentative form for later revision and editing before its inclusion in the Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. This led me to take up the Priyadarsika with my classes at Columbia, and I have read the drama several times with them, writing out also a translation of my own. My pupil Dr. George C. O. Haas likewise prepared a translation in manuscript, which has been of special service. Dr. Ogden, another of my students, then joined with me in re¬ peatedly working through the drama. The present translation is therefore in a way composite, but owing to Mr. Nariman’s resi¬ dence in India it was not possible to confer with him regarding the numerous problems involved. The rendering has been made fairly literal throughout, and the text has been reproduced in transliteration on the pages opposite, in order to aid students in rapid reading; there was no occasion to give the Sanskrit in the original Nagarl characters because no new edition of the text from manuscripts was contemplated. The Sanskrit text which has been taken as a basis is that in the edition of R. V. Krishnamachariar, Srirangam, 1906, although the text as printed by Vishnu Daji Gadre, Bombay, 1884, has also been consulted throughout, as indicated in Part 8 of the Introduction (see p. xciii) and in the Notes. The method followed with regard to the Prakrit forms is explained on pages xciv-xcv. As noted on the title-page, the Introduction and Notes are the work of Dr. VI1 Vlll PREFACE Ogden and myself alone; they have purposely been made rather full, for the benefit of students reading a Sanskrit drama for the first time, and for the sake of embodying information that may be useful for the general study of Harsha as a dramatist. It is with particular pleasure that grateful acknowledgments are here made to Dr. George C. O. Haas for his invaluable help in every way during the years in which the work has been in progress and while the volume was passing through the press. He has, moreover, contributed the account of the meters of the stanzas which constitutes Part 9 of the Introduction, and has prepared the Bibliography. Thanks are due to Dr. G. Payn Quackenbos, In¬ structor in Latin in the College of the City of New York, who was at one time a student in my Department, for collecting the material relating to trees, flowers, and shrubs which is included as Part 10 of the Introduction. It is a pleasure also to acknowledge the courtesy of Dr. E. W. Burlingame in placing at our disposal certain advance sheets of his Buddhist Legends (Harvard Oriental Series, vols. 28-30) and in supplying information from other Buddhist texts not readily accessible. The Grolier Society of New York and London have most kindly allowed me to reproduce from the History of India which I edited for them the facsimile of Harsha’s signature included as frontis¬ piece, and have also furnished the electrotype. The courtesy of the Oxford University Press in granting permission to insert (on p. xxxi) the map of India in Harsha’s time, from Vincent Smith’s Oxford History of India, is likewise heartily appreciated. To these ready helpers thanks are cordially expressed. But to another a special debt of gratitude is due—to my friend Alexander Smith Cochran, whose continued interest in the Columbia Uni¬ versity Indo-Iranian Series has rendered possible the publication of this latest volume in the set. A. V. Williams Jackson, Editor. Columbia University, July 3, 1923. CONTENTS Note for Librarians and Bibliographers . vi Preface . vii Abbreviations and Symbols . xiii Bibliography . xv A. Manuscripts . xv B. Editions of the Text . xvi C. Translation . xvi D. General Bibliography. xvii B. Special Bibliographical List on the Problem of the Authorship of the Drama. xxi Conspectus of Editions referred to . xxiv Introduction . xxvii 1. Life and Times of Harsha, or Sri-Harsha- vardhana . xxvii Introduction: Harsha’s reign an epoch in the history of Early India. xxvii Summary of history down to Harsha’s time.. xxvii Harsha’s father and elder brother as kings... xxviii Harsha becomes king (606 A. D.). xxix First six years of warfare. xxix Succeeding years. xxx Some other events and features of Harsha’s reign . xxxii The grand assemblies at Kanauj and Prayag. xxxiii Death of Harsha. .. xxxiv Estimate of Harsha. xxxiv 2. King Harsha as Author and Literary Patron. . xxxv A. Royal Authors and Patrons in India. xxxv Introduction. xxxv Poet-kings of Ancient and Early India. xxxv King Sudraka and authorship. xxxvi King Harsha and later Sanskrit poet-kings., xxxvii IX X CONTENTS Other parallels connected with India: Tamer¬ lane, Babar, Jahangir. xxxix B. Harsha’s Claims to Authorship. xxxix On Harsha’s direct claims as a literary mon¬ arch . xxxix Bana’s allusions to Harsha as a poet. xxxix Other direct allusions to Harsha as a royal author . xli Royal grants by Harsha. xliii Occasional stanzas attributed to Harsha in the Sanskrit anthologies... xliv Two poems of Buddhistic content bearing Harsha’s name. xliv Assured internal evidence of the three dramas in support of Harsha’s authorship. xlv Disposal of doubts as to Harsha’s authorship of the dramas. xlvi Conclusion as to authorship. xlviii The literary coterie at Harsha’s court. xlix 3. Plot of the Drama Priyadarsika. 1 Act One. 1 Act Two. li Act Three. Hi Act Four. lii 4. Time Allusions and Duration of the Action. . liv Plot of the play in brief. liv General observations. liv Analysis in detail. lvi Summary of the duration of the action. lxi 5. Sources of the Play, and the Legend of Udayana lxii Importance of the legend for the Priya¬ darsika . lxii Udayana as a historical personage. lxiii Possible origin of the legend. lxiv Literary sources for the legend. lxv The narrative of the Kathasaritsagara. lxvii CONTENTS xi The Brhatkathamanjarl. Incidental references in the Brhatkatha-sloka- samgraha . The testimony of Bhasa’s plays. Jain accounts of the legend. Employment of the legend in Harsha’s plays Characters from the legend. Incidents derived from the legend. Additional note on the site of Kausambl. ... 6. Relation between the Priyadarsika and the other Dramas of Harsha. Introduction. General unity of the three dramas. A. Parallels between Priyadarsika and Ratnavali Plot of the Ratnavali in brief. Characters common to both Priyadarsika and Ratnavali ... Parallel situations. Parallels in minor details of thought and style. B. Parallels between Priyadarsika and Naga- nanda (including two between Ratnavali and Nagananda). Plot of the Nagananda in brief. Repeated stanzas. Similarities in minor details. Two parallels between Ratnavali and Naga¬ nanda . C. Order of Composition of the Dramas. 7. Resemblances in the Priyadarsika to Kalidasa’s Dramas, and its Position in Sanskrit Litera¬ ture . Introduction. Priyadarsika and Malavikagnimitra. Priyadarsika and VikramorvasI. Priyadarsika and Sakuntala. lxx lxx Ixxi lxxii lxxiii lxxfiii lxxiv lxxvi lxxvii lxxvii lxxvii lxxvii lxxviii lxxviii lxxix lxxx lxxxiii lxxxiv lxxxv lxxxv lxxxvi lxxxvii lxxxvi i lxxxvii lxxxviii lxxxviii lxxxix Xll CONTENTS Harsha’s possible acquaintance with the dramas of Bhasa. xc Harsha’s position in Sanskrit literature. xc Merits of the Priyadarsika in general. xci 8. Language and Style of the Play, and Constitu¬ tion of the Present Text. xci Languages used in the play. xci Characteristics of the style. xcii Constitution of the present text. xciii Treatment of the Prakrit forms. xciv 9. Meters of the Stanzas in the Play. xcvi Number and variety of the stanzas. xcvi Description of the meters employed. xcvi List of the meters in order of occurrence. ... xcviii 10. Flowers, Trees, and Shrubs mentioned in the Play. xcix Introduction . xcix Floral terms (in Sanskrit alphabetical order) c Appendix: Notes on the Use of a Play within a Play on the Sanskrit Stage. cv Dramatis Personae. 2 Priyadarsika, Text and Translation. 4 Act One. 4 Act Two. 20 Act Three. 38 Act Four. 70 Notes. 97 Act One. 97 Act Two. 108 Act Three. 114 Act Four. 126 List of Works in the Columbia University Indo- Iranian Series. 133 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ad loc. AJP. B. c. ch. com. DR. ed. Ep. Ind. fasc. G. GGA. IA. ibid. id. Ind. Spr. JAOS. JRAS. K. K. Com. KP. Malav. MBh. Mdh. n. Nagan. n.d. n.s. (ad locum) ; with reference to this passage. American Journal of Philology. Banskhera Plate of Harsha. circa; about. chapter. commentary. Dasarupa, by Dhanamjaya. edition; edited by. Epigraphia Indica. fasciculus; fascicle. Vishnu DajI Gadre; text of Priya. edited by Gadre. Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. Indian Antiquary. {ibidem) ; in the same work. {idem) ; the same author. Indische Spriiche, by O. Bohtlingk, 2d edition, 3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1870-1873. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Krishnamachariar; text of Priya. edited by Krishna- machariar. the Skt. commentary in the edition of Krishnama¬ chariar. Kavyaprakasa, by Mammata (and Alata). Malavikagnimitra, by Kalidasa. Mahabharata. Madhuban Plate of Harsha. note. Nagananda. no date, new series. Xlll ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS xiv op. cit. pi. Priya. PWb. q.v. Ratn. SBE. SD. sec. Skm. Skt. st. s.v. tar. tr. V. Vikram. WZKM. ZDMG. (opus citatum ) ; the work previously cited, plate. Priyadarsika. (Petersburg Worterbuch) ; the great Skt. Diet, by Bohtlingk and Roth. (quod vide ) ; which see. Ratnavali. Sacred Books of the East. Sahityadarpana, by Visvanatha Kaviraja. section. Saduktikarnamrta, by Srldharadasa. Sanskrit. stanza. (sub voce ) ; under the word . . . taranga, i.e. chapter of the Kathasaritsagara. translation; translated by. Jibananda Vidyasagara; text of Priya. published by Vidyasagara. VikramorvasI, by Kalidasa. Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesell- schaft. <>, «», «<»> indicate single, double, or triple slesa, or paronomasia; see note 43 on Act 1, page 102, below. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. MANUSCRIPTS The following manuscripts of the Priyadarsika have thus far been recorded in catalogues of manuscripts and elsewhere (cf. Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, i. 364; 2. 82; 3. 78, Leipzig, 1891-1903) :— Rajendralala Mitra, Notices of Sanskrit MSS., vol. 3, Calcutta, 1876. Pages 132-133, no. 1179. [1 manuscript.] A. C. Burnell, A Classified Index to the Sanskrit MSS. in the Palace at Tanjore, London, 1880. Page 169, col. 2. [5 manuscripts.] Gustav Oppert, Lists of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Private Libraries of Southern India, 2 vols., Madras, 1880-1885. Vol. 1, nos. 1501, 2643, 343°. 5746, 6058; vol. 2, nos. 830, 5964, 9061. [8 manuscripts.] Lewis Rice, Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Mysore and Coorg, Bangalore, 1884. Page 258, nos. 2398 and 2399. [2 manuscripts.] E. Hultzsch, Reports on Sanskrit Manuscripts in Southern India, parts 1-3, Madras, 1895-1905. Part 1, no. 267a; part 2, no. 945; part 3, no. 1609 (2 copies). [4 manuscripts.] Theodor Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, vol. 3, Leipzig, 1903. Page 78, manuscript in the Burnell Collection, India Office. [1 manuscript.] In addition to these 21 manuscripts there was a 4 very old MS./ since declared to be lost, which served as a basis for Vidyasagara’s edition of the text; and an old manuscript used by Krishnama- chariar in addition to those in the Tanjore Palace Library may possibly be one that is not included in the above catalogues. The 3 manuscripts from the Tanjore Palace Library that were the basis of the edition of Gadre are doubtless included in Burnell’s list. See the notes on these editions, below. XV XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY B. EDITIONS OF THE TEXT Priyadarsika. [Without place or date; about 1870.] 56 pages. Priyadarshika: A Drama in Four Acts, by Sri Harsha. Edited with notes by Pandit Jibananda Vidyasagara. Calcutta, 1874. 61 pages. 1 This edition was based on one very old manuscript, which Vidyasa¬ gara later claimed to have lost; see Gadre, preface, p. 2, note. Priyadarsana by Harshadeva, with the Commentary of Nivasa Jagannatha Svamin. Vizagapatam, 1880. 102 pages. [In Telugu characters.] This edition was not available for use in the preparation of the present volume. The Priyadarsika of Sriharshadeva. Edited with Notes and Prakrita Chhaya by Vishnu Daji Gadre. Bombay, 1884. 7 + 56 + 3 2 pages. Gadre based his edition on 3 manuscripts from the Palace Library at Tanjore (doubtless included in Burnell's list; see above); cf. his preface, page 5. Priyadarsika, with a Commentary and Bhumika by Pandit R. V. Krishnamachariar. Srirangam, 1906. iv + xlviii + 97 pages. (Sri Vani Vilas Sanskrit Series, no. 3.) In the preparation of this edition Krishnamachariar used the Tan¬ jore Palace manuscripts and one other old one; see his preface, page 1. C. TRANSLATION Priyadarsika, piece attribute au roi Sriharchadeva, en quatre actes, precedes d’un prologue et d’une introduction. Traduite par G. Strehly. Paris, 1888. 88 pages. (Bibliotheque Orientale Elzevirienne, no. 58.) 1 Schuyler, in the preliminary bibliography of the plays of Harsha pub¬ lished in the Verhandlungen des xiii. Internationalen Orient alisten-Kon- gresses (see below), listed a second edition of this text, Calcutta, 1876, 124 pages. This was, however, an error for the text of the Ratnaval! pub¬ lished by Vidyasagara in that year, and the entry was accordingly omitted in Schuyler’s Bibliography of the Sanskrit Drama. BIBLIOGRAPHY XVII D. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dic¬ tionary. Poona, 1890. This must be distinguished from the Student's Sanskrit-English Dic¬ tionary by the same author, also published at Poona in the same year. Bana. Harsacarita, ed. A. A. Fiihrer. Bombay, 1909. Bana. Harsacarita, ed. K. P. Parab and S. D. P. Vaze. Bom- bay, 1892. Bana. Harsacarita, tr. E. B. Cowell and F. W. Thomas. Lon- don, 1897. (Oriental Translation Fund, new series, vol. 8 [wrongly numbered 2].) Beal, S. Si-yu-ki. See Hsuan-Chuang. Bohtlingk, Otto von. Indische Spriiche. 2d ed., 3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1870-1873. Burlingame, E. W. Buddhist Legends. 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1921. (Harvard Oriental Series, vols. 28-30.) Cimmino, Francesco. II terzo atto del dramma indiano Priya- dargika. In Atti dell’ Accademia Pontaniana, 31. 1-18, Naples, 1902. Cimmino, Francesco. Sui Drammi attribuiti ad Harshadeva. Naples, 1906. 15 pages. Cimmino, Francesco. II Tipo comico del “ vidushaka ” nell’ antico dramma indiano. In Atti della Rcale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti (di Napoli), 16, part 2, pp. 97-142. Cimmino, Francesco. L’Uso delle didascalie nel dramma in¬ diano. Naples, 1912. 75 pages. [Extract from Memorie della R. Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti ( di Napoli), 2 (1911), pp. 131-205.] Coomaraswamy, A. K., and G. K. Duggirala. The Mirror of Gesture, being the Abhinayadarpana of Nandikesvara, trans¬ lated. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. Ettinghausen, Maurice L. Harsa-Vardhana, empereur et poete de l’lnde septentrionale. Louvain, 1906. An exhaustive monograph on the subject. 2 XV111 BIBLIOGRAPHY Gray, Louis H. Vasavadatta, a Sanskrit Romance by Su- bandhu. New York, 1913. (Columbia University Indo- Iranian Series, vol. 8.) Haas, George C. O. The Dasarupa, a Treatise on Hindu Dramaturgy by Dhanamjaya. New York, 1912. (Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series, vol. 7.) Hiuen-Tsang. See Hsuan-Chuang. Hopkins, E. Washburn. Epic Mythology. Strassburg, 1915. (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, vol. 3, part 1 B.) Hsuan-Chuang. Si-yu-ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World, tr. S. Beal. 2 vols., London, 1906. This is a re-issue of the original publication in Triibner’s Oriental Series, 2 vols., London, 1884, a reprint of which was published at Boston in 1885. Hsuan-Chuang. Life of Hiuen-Tsiang [Hsuan-Chuang] by the Shaman Hwui Li, tr. S. Beal. New ed., London, 1911. Hsuan-Chuang. See also Watters, Thomas, below. Huizinga, J. De Vidusaka in het indisch Tooneel. Groningen, 1897. I-Ch'ing [I-Tsing]. A Record of the Buddhist Religion in India and the Malay Archipelago, tr. J. Takakusu. Oxford, 1896. There are references to Harsha on pages 163-164. Jackson, A. V. Williams. Certain Dramatic Elements in San¬ skrit Plays, with Parallels in the English Drama. First Series. In AJP. 19 (1898), pp. 241-254. Pages 242-247, on the employment of a play within a play, are re¬ printed in this volume as Appendix to the Introduction, below. Jackson, A. V. Williams. Disguising on the Stage as a Dra¬ matic Device in Sanskrit Plays. In Transactions and Pro¬ ceedings of the American Philological Association, 29 (1898), pp. xviii-xix. Jackson, A. V. Williams. Time Analysis of Sanskrit Plays. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY xix Second Series: The Dramas of Harsha. In JAOS. 21 (1900), pp. 88-108. The portion relating to the Priyadarsika is reprinted, with minor changes, in the present volume, as part 4 of the Introduction. Kavlndravacanasamuccaya. See Thomas, F. W., below . Konow, Sten. Das indische Drama. Berlin, 1920. (Grund- riss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, vol. 2, part 2D.) Harsha and his plays are discussed on pages 73-77.—This valuable work was not received until the present volume was nearly completed, but reference to Konow’s pages could fortunately be included in the course of the final revision. Lacote, Felix. Essai sur Gunadhya et la Brhatkatha. Paris, 1908. Levi, Sylvain. Le Theatre indien. Paris, 1890. This standard work has been referred to throughout. Levi, Sylvain. Une Poesie inconnue du Roi Harsa Qiladitya. In Actes du dixieme congres international des orientalistes ( 1894 ), part 2, sec. 1, pp. 189-203, Leiden, 1897. Moor, Edward. The Hindu Pantheon. New ed., Madras, 1864. * Narayana Sastrf, T. S. Sriharsha the Dramatist. [Disserta¬ tion.] Madras, [1902]. Expounds the bizarre theory that the plays were composed by Dhavaka = Bhasa; see the Special Bibliographical List on Authorship, below. Pannikar, K. M. Sri Harsha of Kanauj: a monograph of the history of India in the first half of the 7th century A.D. Bombay, 1922. This work was not available for consultation during the preparation of the present volume. Pischel, Richard. Adhyaraja. In Nachricliten der kgl. Gesell- schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1901, pp. 485-487 (= reprint, pp. 1-3), Gottingen, 1902. Pischel, Richard. Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Strass- XX BIBLIOGRAPHY burg, 1900. (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, vol. 1, part 8.) Quackenbos, G. Payn. The Sanskrit Poems of Mayura, . . . with Bana’s Candlsataka. New York, 1917. (Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series, vol. 9.) Schuyler, Montgomery, Jr. A Bibliography of the Plays at¬ tributed to Harsadeva. 2 In Verhandlungen des xiii. Interna- tionalen Orientalisten-Kongresses (1902), Leiden, 1904, pp. 33 “ 37 - Schuyler, Montgomery, Jr. A Bibliography of the Sanskrit Drama. New York, 1906. (Columbia University Indo- Iranian Series, vol. 3.) Schuyler, Montgomery, Jr. The Origin of the Vidusaka, and the Employment of this Character in the Plays of Harsadeva. In JAOS. 20 (1899), pp. 338-340. Smith, Vincent A. Early History of India!. 3d ed., Oxford, 1914. The reign of Harsha is treated on pp. 335-359. Smith, Vincent A. Oxford History of India. Oxford, 1919. The reign of Harsha is treated on pages 165-171. Speijer, J. S. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden, 1886. Thomas, F. W. Kavindravacanasamuccaya, a Sanskrit An¬ thology of Verses, ed. with Introduction and Notes. Calcutta, 1912. (Bibliotheca Indica, new series, no. 1309.) Anthology citations from Harsha on pages 117-120 (introd.). Wackernagel, Jakob. Altindische Grammatik. Vol. 1 and vol. 2, part 1, Gottingen, 1896, 1905. Warren, S. J. Koning Harsha van Kanyakubja. The Hague, 1883. 8 pages. [Extract from Bijdragen tot de Tool-, Land-, en Volkenkunde van Neerlandsch-Indie.] Watters, Thomas. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India 629- 2 This preliminary bibliography erroneously mentions a non-existent second edition of Vidyasagara’s text of Priya.; see the footnote in connection with Vidyasagara’s edition of the text in section B, above. SPECIAL LIST ON AUTHORSHIP OF THE DRAMA xxi 645 A.D. 2 vols., London, 1904-1905. (Oriental Transla¬ tion Fund, new series, vols. 14-15.) Whitney, W. D. A Sanskrit Grammar. 3d ed., Leipzig & Boston, 1896. Wilson, H. H. Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hin¬ dus. 3d ed., 2 vols., London, 1871. A translation of the Ratnavall is included in vol. 2, pages 255-319. Winternitz, M. Geschichte der indischen Litteratur. Vol. 3, Leipzig, [1922]. E. SPECIAL BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST ON THE PROBLEM OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE DRAMA 1835 Wilson, H. H., Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, 2d ed., vol. 2, pp. 259, 346: ascribes Ratn. to King Harsha of Kashmir, 12th cent.; mentions the Dhavaka tradition with approval. 1859 Hall, F., Vasavadatia, introduction, pp. 15-17, 51 f.: criticizes Wil¬ son’s date for Harsha; authority of the KP. commentaries not great; considers Bana’s claim to authorship of Ratn. as good as Dhavaka’s; the Ratn. stanza dvipad anyasmad etc. occurs also in Harsacarita, ch. 5. 1862 Hall, F., Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 31. 11-13: notes the identical stanza, sn-Harso nipunah kavih, in Ratn. and Nagan., and qualifies his previous statement as to Bana’s authorship. 1865 Hall, F., The Dasa-Rupa, preface, p. 36 n.: makes an allusion to Priya. which is probably the earliest reference made to that play by a Western scholar. 1868 Weber, A., Indische Streifen, 1. 356-357: in differing from Hall’s conclusions, does not think that the occurrence of the same stanza {dvipad etc.) in Ratn. and Harsacarita proves the identity of au¬ thorship of these two works. 1872 Cowell, E. B., in his preface to Boyd’s Nagananda, pp. 5-12: reviews Wilson’s and Hall’s opinions; thinks the religious tone, etc., shows Ratn. and Nagan. to be by different authors; inclines to Bana as author of Ratn., accepting Dhavaka as presumably the author of Nagan. 1872 Weber, A., Literarisches Centralblatt, 1872, col. 614: in reviewing Cowell and Boyd’s Nagananda, he rejects the view that Bana is the author of Ratn. and Dhavaka the author of Nagan.; Harsha’s con¬ nection with the dramas should be tentatively adhered to. 1873 Buhler, G., I A. 2. 127-128: adds Nrsimha Thakkura’s commentary on KP. to the other scholiasts who mention Dhavaka, but regards XXI1 BIBLIOGRAPHY the statement as not carrying much weight; quotes Madhusudana’s com. on the Suryasataka, which names Harsha as a poet and author of Ratn. (see Introduction to the present volume, pages xlii-xliii). 1875 Buhler, G., (letter, dated 1874) in Weber, Indische Studien, 14. 407: states that all Kashmir Mss. read ‘ Bana ’ instead of ‘ Dhavaka ’ (see Introduction to the present volume, p. xlviii) ; ‘Bana’ looks like * Dhavaka ’ in Sarada script. 1878 Weber, A., History of Indian Literature (Eng. tr. from the 2d Ger¬ man ed. of 1875), P- 204 n - 212, p. 207 n. 218: approves Hall's and Biihler’s attribution of Ratn. to Bana. [Weber’s 1st ed., Berlin, 1852, does not refer to the Harsha plays.] 1879 Weber, A., Indische Streifen, 3. 106: [reprint of the review of Cowell and Boyd’s Ndgananda ; see 1872, above.] 1882 Windisch, E., ‘ Der griechische Einfluss im indischen Drama,’ in Verhandlungcn des 5 . internat. Orientalisten-Kongresses (1881), part 2, 2, pp. 93-98: alludes (p. 95) to the problem of authorship, and surmises that the plays were produced at Ujjayini during the King’s absence. 1883 Pischel, R., GGA. 39. 1235-1241 (reviewing Fritze’s Kausika’s Zorn ) : believes Dhavaka to be a historic person; mention of a poet Dhava (cf. Weber, in Monatsberichte d. Berl. Akad. 1879, p. 469, for other Dhavas) ; regards the three plays as by one and the same author, not Bana; contends that the identity of the stanza ( dvlpad etc.) in Ratn. and Harsacarita does not prove Bana’s authorship; the Dhavaka tradition of the scholiasts is not to be rejected; Dhavaka was probably a contemporary of Bana, and his verses in anthologies pass under the name of Harsha. 1883 Warren, S. J., Koning Harsha van Kanyakubja (see Bibliography, above) ; argues that all three dramas are by Harsha; the dvlpad stanza in the Harsacarita was probably copied by Bana as a compli¬ ment to Harsha. 1883 Glaser, K., ‘ tjber Bana’s Parvatlparinayanataka,’ in Sitzungsb. d. kais. Akad. d. IViss. zu Wien , Phil.-hist. Klasse, 104. 575-664: seems to favor (p. 615) the attribution of Ratn. to Bana. 1886 Peterson, P., Subhasitavali, introd., p. 138, s.v. ‘Harsadeva’: ob¬ serves that the quotations are chiefly from Ratn. and Nagan., and thinks that Plarsha’s authorship is not excluded. 1890 Levi, S., Le Theatre indien, pp. 184-196: seems to accept Harsha as author of the plays, and regards the KP. tradition of Bana as proving nothing; yet in part 2, appendix, p. 42, he speaks of the plays incidentally as ‘ les drames de Harsa, dont le veritable auteur ne sera peut-etre jamais connu.’ 1893 Brahme and Paranjape, Nagananda, Poona, introd., pp. vi-x: reject the attribution of Ratn. to Bana; the dvlpad stanza does not occur in the printed editions of the Harsacarita; Bana had an independent SPECIAL LIST ON AUTHORSHIP OF THE DRAMA xxm fortune ( Harsacarita, ch. i) ; the style of his acknowledged works differs from that of the dramas. These editors, while inclining to the view (p. vi) that Harsha ‘ seems to have bought the honour of its authorship [i.e. that of Nagan. as well as of Ratn.] from Dhavaka/ and (p. ix) that ‘ Dhavaka sold all his works to others for money/ nevertheless allow (p. ix) that ‘ it is not quite impos¬ sible that Sriharsha might have written the play [Priya. as well as Nagan. and Ratn.]/ 1900 Macdonell, A. A., A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 362: thinks Ratn. is possibly by Bana, and Nagan. may have been written by Dhavaka. (No mention is made of Priya.) 1901 Pischel, R., Adhyardja (see Bibliography, above) : proves that Bana’s address to Adhyaraja refers to Harshadeva (see Introduction to the present volume, pp. xxxix-xl). 1902 Narayana Sastri, T. S., Sriharsha the Dramatist, Madras: presents the bizarre theory that Sri Harsha = Vikramaditya was prior to Kalidasa, and that the plays were written by Dhavaka = Bhasa! [Criticized by Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, pp. 100-102 n. 3; summarized with doubts by M. Krishnamacharya, History of Classi¬ cal Sanskrit Literature, pp. 83-85, Madras, 1906; and especially con¬ troverted by R. V. Krishnamachariar in his edition of Priya., Sri- rangam, 1906.] 1903 Cimmino, F., Nagdnanda, introd., pp. 7-22: reviews the arguments as to authorship and decides tentatively for Harsha. 1903 Oldenberg, H., Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 197: ‘ In einem der Dramen, die dieser Konig [Harsha] verfasste oder wohl richtiger von einem Hofpoeten verfassen liess, um ihnen dann seinen Namen zu geben/ 1904 Henry, V., Les Literatures de I’Inde, pp. 295, 313: accepts Harsha’s authorship without question. 1906 Krishnamacharya, M., History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, Madras, pp. 83-85: summarizes, with doubts, the views of Narayana Sastri (see above, 1902). 1906 Krishnamachariar, R. V., Priyadarsika, Srirangam, 1906, in the Sanskrit bhumikd, pp. i-xxi: accepts Harsha’s authorship and sup¬ ports it in detail (as stated also in the Eng. preface by T. K. Bala- subrahmanyam, p. ii). 1906 Ettinghausen, M. L., Harsa-Vardhana, pp. 98-102: reviews the main arguments and concludes (p. 102): ‘La paternite de Harsa est garantie.’ 1920 Konow, S., Das indische Drama, pp. 73-74: in a clear and concise summary he concludes that Harsha’s claim to authorship of the three plays is to be accepted and that the remarks of the KP. com¬ mentators are due to misunderstanding of Mammata’s own words. 1922 Winternitz, M., Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, vol. 3, Leipzig, [1922], page 226 n. 3: thinks there is no adequate reason for denying Harsha’s authorship of the plays. CONSPECTUS OF EDITIONS REFERRED TO The following list specifies the editions and translations of Sanskrit texts to which the citations in the Introduction and the Notes refer. The order of arrangement is that of the Sanskrit alphabet. Abhinayadarpana, by Nandikesvara. Tr. A. K. Coomara- swamy and G. K. Duggirala, Mirror of Gesture, Cambridge, Mass., 1917. Arthasastra of Canakya (Kautilya). Ed. R. Shama Sastri, 2d ed., Mysore, 1919. Tr. R. Shamasastry, Bangalore, 1915. Uttararamacarita, by Bhavabhuti. Ed. P. V. Kane and tr. C. N. Joshi, Bombay, 1915. Tr. S. K. Belvalkar, Cambridge, Mass., 1915 (Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 21). Kathasaritsagara, by Somadeva. Ed. Pandit Durgaprasad and K. P. Parab, Bombay, 1889. Tr. C. H. Tawney, 2 vols., Cal¬ cutta, 1880-1884. KarpuramanjarT, by Rajasekhara. Ed. S. Konow and tr. C. R. Lanman, Cambridge, Mass., 1901 (Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 4). Kavmdravacanasamuccaya. Ed 1 . F. W. Thomas, Calcutta, 1912 (Bibliotheca Indica, new series, no. 1309). Kadambari, by Bana. Ed. K. P. Parab, Bombay, 1890. Tr. C. M. Ridding, London, 1896 (Oriental Translation Fund, vol. 7). Kavyaprakasa, by Mammata (and Alata). Ed. B. V. Jhalakl- kara, 2d ed., Bombay, 1901. Tr. Ganganatha Jha, Benares, 1898. Ullasas 1 and 2, ed. and tr. D. T. Chandorkar, Poona, 1898. Ullasa 10, ed. and tr. D. T. Chandorkar, Poona, 1896. Dasarupa, by Dhanamjaya. Ed. and tr. George C. O. Haas, New York, 1912 (Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series, vol. 7). Nagananda, by Harsa. Ed. G. B. Brahme and S. M. Paran- jape, Poona, 1893. Tr. Palmer Boyd, London, 1872. XXIV CONSPECTUS OF EDITIONS REFERRED TO xxv Panini, i.e. Astadhyayi by Panini. Ed. and tr. Otto Bohtlingk, Pmini’s Grammatik, Leipzig, 1887. Pratijnayaugandharayana, by Bhasa. Ed. T. Ganapati Sastrl, Trivandrum, 1912 (Trivandrum Skt. Series, no. 16). Prabodhacandrodaya, by Krsnamisra. Ed. H. Brockhaus (2 vols. in 1), Leipzig, 1835-1845. Ed. Hrishikesh Sastri, Cal¬ cutta, n.d. Balaramayana, by Rajasekhara. Ed. G. D. Sastri, Benares, 1869. Brhatkathamanjan, by Ksemendra. Ed. Pandit Sivadatta and K. P. Parab, Bombay, 1901 (Kavyamala, no. 69). Brhatkathaslokasamgraha, by Budhasvamin. Ed. and tr. F. Lacote, Paris, 1908. [Only sargas 1-9 published.] Bharatiyanatyasastra, by Bharata. Ed. Pandit Sivadatta and K. P. Parab, Bombay, 1894 (Kavyamala, no. 42). Mahabharata, Ed. in 6 vols. (oblong folio), Bombay, 1863. Eng. tr. published by P. C. Ray (Roy), Calcutta, 1883-1896. Malavikagnimitra, by Kalidasa. Ed. in Sri Vani Vilas San¬ skrit Series, Srirangam, 1908. [The name of the editor is not given on the title-page.] Mudraraksasa, by Visakhadatta. Ed. A. Hillebrandt, in Indische Forschungen, no. 4, Breslau, 1912. Mrcchakatika, by £udraka. Ed. K. P. Parab, Bombay, 1900. Tr. Arthur W. Ryder, The Little Clay Cart , Cambridge, Mass., 1905 (Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 9). Meghaduta, by Kalidasa. Ed. N. B. Godabole and K. P. Parab, 2d ed., Bombay, 1886. Raghuvamsa, by Kalidasa. Ed. G. R. Nandargikar, 3d ed., Poona, 1897. Ratnavali, by Harsa. Ed. K. P. Parab and V. S. Josi, Bom¬ bay, 1888. Ed. N. B. Godabole and K. P. Parab, 2d ed., Bombay, 1890. Ed. K. Joglekar, Bombay, 1913. Ed. S. C. Chakravarti, 2d ed., Calcutta, 1919. Ramayana, by Valmlki. Ed. K. P. Parab, 2 vols., Bombay, 1888. XXVI CONSPECTUS OF EDITIONS REFERRED TO Vikramorvasi, by Kalidasa. Ed. G. Bh. Vaidya, Bombay, 1894. Viiddhasalabhanjika, by Rajasekhara. Ed. Bh. R. Arte, Poona, 1886. Tr. Louis H. Gray, JAOS. 27. 1-71. Sakuntala [Abhijnanasakuntala], by Kalidasa. Ed. R. Pischel, Kiel, 1877 (new ed., 1886). Ed. and tr. S. D. and A. B. Gajendragadkar, Bombay, 1920. Sarngadharapaddhati, by Sarrigadhara. Ed. P. Peterson, Bom¬ bay, 1888 (Bombay Skt. Series, no. 37). Saduktikarnamrta, by Sridharadasa. Ed. Ramavatara Sarma, fasc. 1, Calcutta, 1912. Sahityadarpana, by Visvanatha Kaviraja. Ed. E. Roer, Cal¬ cutta, 1851; tr. J. R. Ballantyne and P. Mitra, Calcutta, 1875 (Bibliotheca Indica). Paricchedas 1, 2, and 10, ed. P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910. Svapnavasavadatta, by Bhasa. Ed. T. Ganapati Sastri, 2d ed ! ., Trivandrum, 1915 (Trivandrum Skt. Series, no. 15). Harsacarita, by Bana. Ed. K. P. Parab and S. D. P. Vaze, Bombay, 1892. Ed. A. A. Fuhrer, Bombay, 1909. Tr. E. B. Cowell and F. W. Thomas, London, 1897 (Oriental Transla¬ tion Fund, new series, vol. 8 [wrongly numbered 2]). INTRODUCTION LIFE AND TIMES OF HARSHA, OR SRI-HARSHA- VARDHANA (King of Northern India, A.D. 606-647) Introduction: Harsha’s reign an epoch in the history of Early India. For many centuries prior to Harsha’s reign India had passed through stage after stage of political and national events that meant change, reconstruction, florescence, decadence, as rule followed rule and empire succeeded empire. The aim in the case of each constructive power was the same—to bring about general political unity by establishing sovereign sway in the north, and if possible by exercising control also over the south. Harsha’s rise to power in the seventh century a.d. was a reaffirmation of the imperial idea, and the period of his reign formed one of these great epochs in India’s early history. 1 Summary of history down to Harsha’s time. The general course of India’s history during the centuries that preceded the rise of Harsha needs only to be recapitulated in the briefest way from 1 An extensive collection of material for a monograph on Harsha, in connection with the dramas ascribed to him, was presented by A. V. W. J. at a meeting of the American Oriental Society in April, 1904, but was withheld at the time for expansion and for publication at a later date. Such use of the material, however, became unnecessary two years later, owing to the appearance of a valuable book by M. L. Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, empereur et poete, Louvain, 1906. Among other impor¬ tant contributions on the subject of Harsha since that date, special men¬ tion may be made of the chapter in V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 3d ed., pp. 335 - 359 , Oxford, 1914; idem, Oxford History of India, pp. 165-171, Oxford, 1919. Full advantage has naturally been taken of these admirable contributions, even though the present sketch rests in large measure upon the material originally gathered for the monograph that was left unpublished, as mentioned. xxvii XXV111 INTRODUCTION—PART ONE the establishment of the first great empire, that of the Mauryas, in 322 b.c., with the outstanding figures of Candragupta and Asoka as lords paramount. Amid the confusion of the minor dynasties in the succeeding period there stand out the eras of the Indo-Greek and Indo-Parthian kings on the northwestern frontier, followed by the Kushan, or Indo-Scythian, invasions, which culmi¬ nated in Kanishka’s sway in the first century a.d. The two subse¬ quent centuries of India’s history in the north form a special field for study until about the year 320 a.d., when the sovereignty of Northern India passed into the hands of the Guptas, who main¬ tained it for more than a century. The era of the Gupta Empire was that of a true Indian renaissance—the Augustan age of San¬ skrit literature, with Kalidasa as its brightest ornament. The de¬ cline and fall of the Gupta dynasty, about 455 a.d., was brought about largely by the inroads of the Hunas, or Huns, resulting in a period of chaos until the barbarians were finally driven back, about the end of the sixth century. The last successful strokes needed to complete this achievement appear to have been delivered through the prowess of the father and the elder brother of Harsha. To Harsha himself belonged the glory of then establishing a new era, literally, and of bringing the major portion of Northern India under one royal ‘ umbrella.’ Harsha’s father and elder brother as kings. In the veins of Harsha, Harshadeva, or Sri-Harsha-vardhana, as he was more fully entitled, flowed the royal blood of generations; indeed, his grandmother on the father’s side was by descent a princess of the Gupta line. The family name Vardhana, lit. 4 increase, growth,’ hence ‘bestower of prosperity’ (shared in ancient days by the great Asoka), seemed in itself to imply an augury. 2 His father, Prabhakara-vardhana (reigned 584?-6o5? a.d.), was an ambitious Raja who held the overlordship of Thanesar (Sthanesvara) in the latter part of the sixth century and won success by a series of wars waged against neighboring rulers in 2 Bana in his Harsacarita, p. 85 (tr. Cowell and Thomas, p. 64), speaks of Harsha, in consequence of his personal cognomen (Harsa, ‘Joy’), as being ‘ of well-chosen name/ LIFE AND TIMES OF HARSHA XXIX the west and northwest, which laid the cornerstone of a new fabric to be reared on the ruins of the fallen Gupta Empire. One of that spirited monarch’s last acts of warfare had been to send his elder son, Rajya-vardhana (four years the senior of Harsha), on a campaign against the remnants of Hun power on the northwest frontier, when death by a fever cut short Prabhakara-vardhana’s energetic career in 605 a.d . 3 Rajya-vardhana (605-606 a.d.) was only a youth of about nine¬ teen when he mounted the throne of his father. Almost immedi¬ ately he had to undertake a war of vengeance against the king of Malwa, who had slain the princely brother-in-law of Harsha and Rajya-vardhana and was holding their widowed sister, Rajyasri, a captive at Kanauj. Success crowned the campaign so far as re¬ garded taking vengeance upon the Malwa monarch; but after the final battle Rajya-vardhana was treacherously murdered by Malwa’s ally, £asanka, king of Central Bengal, during a parley. The young princess escaped from Kanauj and became a refugee in the Vindhya forest, 4 while Harsha, sixteen or seventeen years old, was left as the logical successor to the throne. Harsha becomes king (606 A.D.). The nobles united in choosing Harsha as their sovereign in October, 606 a.d., a date which is signalized in the chronology of India as the beginning of the ‘ Harsha era.’ For reasons that are not clear—whether he was acting as regent for a presumable infant son of his dead brother, or as a sort of joint ruler with his widowed sister— Harsha did not at once assume the kingly title, but apparently for a time termed himself simply Prince Siladitya, ‘ Sun of Virtue.’ First six years of warfare. His most pressing duty, however, was to recover his widowed sister. She was rescued when on the verge of suicide in the Vindhya forest, and was restored in safety to Harsha’s side, where she remained as a devoted companion. It 3 This date (605), though subject to correction, is accepted by Etting- hausen, p. 9, and by V. A. Smith, Early History, 3d ed., p. 336, although later V. A. Smith, Oxford History (1919), p. 165, gives the year as 604. 4 In the Priyadarsika the heroine is a princess captured in the Vindhya region, but only a very distant parallel could be drawn. XXX INTRODUCTION—PART ONE would seem that she influenced her royal brother in his later life in favor of the religion of the Buddha, to which she herself was ardently devoted. 5 Another, if not an earlier, obligation was the punishment of his brother’s murderer, Sasaiika. Regarding this campaign we have no information beyond the fact that the treach¬ erous monarch was still maintaining sway in 619 a.d., although the recreant’s realm appears to have come later under Harsha’s rule. 6 However that may be, it is certain that Harsha, directly after assuming the reins of government, entered upon a career of martial activity aimed at bringing Northern India under his domination. In the words of the Chinese pilgrim, Hsuan-Chuang (whose name is transcribed also as Yiian-Chwang and Hiuen-Tsang), ‘he went from east to west, subduing all who were not obedient; the ele¬ phants were not unharnessed, nor the soldiers unhelmeted.’ The successes of his large and triumphant armies resulted, within six years from the time of his accession, in Harsha’s being able to assume all the royal prerogatives that belonged to a ‘great king’ (mahdrdjddhirdja), in the year 612 a.d. Succeeding years. The dominant chord in the rest of Harsha’s life, for more than thirty years, was that of strife, organization, and pacification. To establish his rule in the south of India—the goal sought by every lord paramount—was a natural aim; but in this attempt, about the year 620 a.d., he met with defeat at the hands of Pulakesin II, the monarch of the Calukya kingdom of Maharashtra in the Western Deccan. Inscriptional evidence in the records of Pulakesin II shows that the southern monarch ‘ caused the interruption of the joy ’ of King Harsa (lit. ‘ Joy ’) by a triumphant repulse of the northern forces. So far as is known, this abortive attempt by Harsha to extend his rule beyond the Vindhya range and the Narmada river was his sole defeat. In the north, with the exception of the Panjab, Harsha remained Lord Paramount; eighteen kings became vassals at his feet, 7 and in 5 Thus much can be gathered from the accounts of Harsha by Bana and Hsuan-Chuang (Yiian-Chwang, Hiuen-iTsang). 6 See Vincent A. Smith, Early History of India, 3d ed., p. 339. 7 For references see note 14 on Act 1, below. GEORGE PHILIP £ SON, LTO. MAP OF INDIA IN HARSHA’S TIME (Reproduced, by courtesy of the Oxford University Press, from The Oxford History of India by Vincent A. Smith.) \ xxxii INTRODUCTION—PART ONE addition to these the monarchs Kumara (Bhaskaravarman) of Kamarupa (Assam) on the extreme east of India and Dhruvabhata (Dhruvasena) of Valabhl (Gujarat) on the extreme west became his tributary lieges, thus acknowledging him as supreme sovereign. Harsha’s last known feat of arms was that of bringing into sub¬ jection the district of Ganjam (Kongoda) on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, south of the Mahanadi River, in 642-643 a.d., four years before his death. Some other events and features of Harsha’s reign. The long reign of Harsha was marked not only by deeds of conquest but also by a vigorous administration of the regions subjugated, a task in which his organizing and controlling hand was ever felt. The capital was transferred from Thanesar to Kanauj (Kanyakubja) on the Ganges, which became a city of regal splendor, although hardly a trace remains today to establish its precise site, since it was finally destroyed in the sixteenth century through the ravages of local warfare. Education was zealously promoted throughout Harsha’s imperial realm, and as king he recognized that his claim to the remembrance of posterity must be evidenced not by deeds alone or inscribed in records of bronze and stone, but perpetuated in monuments raised by the men of letters whom he gathered about him at his court. 8 His own education in youth was of the best; a specimen of his handwriting, preserved on an engraved grant, 9 shows Harsha to have been a master of calligraphy; while his interest in letters is proved not merely by the patronage which he bestowed upon authors, but still more by his own efforts in literary composition. Religious tolerance marked Harsha’s sway, iron though his ruling hand may otherwise have been. Freedom in matters of faith seems to have been an inherited trait in the family, for his father and his ancestors worshiped equally §iva and the Sun in the Hindu pantheon, while his elder brother and his sister were 8 Regarding the literary circle at the court of Harsha see below, p. xlix. 9 Regarding this grant and the autograph signature of Harsha see below, p. xliii, and the reproduction given as Frontispiece. LIFE AND TIMES OF HARSHA XXXlll devotedly attached to the teachings of the Buddha. Harsha him¬ self paid homage to Siva, to the Sun, and to the Buddha alike, but inclined more especially to Buddhism in his later years. This lat¬ ter fact is testified to by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Hsuan- Chuang, who spent a large part of the last eight years (635 to 643) of his long sojourn in India within the borders of Harsha’s domin¬ ions, and who, toward the end of his travels, was received as an honored guest at the imperial court. To this pious follower of the footprints of the Buddha we owe, as is well known, the fullest account of India in Harsha’s reign, tinged though the narrative may be by a natural Buddhistic bias on the part of the pilgrim. The grand assemblies at Kanauj and Prayag. Most note¬ worthy among the occurrences chronicled by Hsuan-Chuang, after he had met the Emperor in Bengal in 643 a.d ., 10 were the grand religious assemblies held at Kanauj and Prayag (Allahabad), which were witnessed by the pious pilgrim. At these royal cere¬ monies, elaborately described, eighteen vassal kings were in attend¬ ance, and additional homage was paid by the two great tributary monarchs of Kamarupa (Assam) and Valabhl (Gujarat). The imposing functions began at Kanauj with royal pomp and were continued with equal magnificence at Prayag, where they lasted two months and a half. A feature of the first day of the cere¬ monies at Prayag was the dedication of an image of the Buddha; similar consecrations of votive images of the Sun and of Siva marked the second and third days of the festival. It has been conjectured—somewhat fancifully, perhaps—that Harsha’s play Nagananda, with its Buddhist theme, may have been performed on the first day, and that the other two plays, Priyadarsika and Ratnavall, in which Siva is especially invoked, may have been pro¬ duced on the second and third days. 11 Then followed a distribu¬ tion of the royal treasures to the devout and poor of the various religious sects, Buddhist, Brahmanical, and Jain, assembled in 10 This celebration took place after the subjugation of Ganjam in that year. 11 See Cowell’s suggestion in the introduction to Palmer Boyd’s transla¬ tion of the Nagananda, pages x-xi. 3 XXXIV INTRODUCTION—PART ONE thousands, until nothing was left of the accumulated wealth except enough to administer the government. At the close, Harsha donned a worn-out cloak handed him by his sister, to symbolize his poverty. This was the sixth quinquennial celebration of the kind which he had held during his long reign. Hsuan-Chuang returned to the Celestial Empire shortly afterward to chronicle his Indian sojourn. Death of Harsha. Harsha at last could return the royal sword to its scabbard; the restless soldier, the busy king and emperor, the untiring administrator and promoter of his people’s welfare could finally seek repose. Probably, like Asoka, he found peace and comfort in religion, though we do not know how his remaining three years of life were occupied. Death closed his remarkable career toward the end of the year 646 or the beginning of 647 a.d. It belongs to the historian, not the biographer, to record the anarchy which followed soon after his mighty hand was withdrawn from control. Estimate of Harsha. Harsha had not the exalted character of Asoka, though in certain aspects he doubtless strove to emulate the example of that great predecessor, who ruled nearly a thousand years before him. With Kanishka he could be compared only in respect of his martial career and his predilection for Buddhism. Some resemblances between him and the Gupta emperor Candra- gupta II might be found. In the distinction of being a man of letters as well as a warrior he resembled Babar, the founder of the Mughal Empire centuries later. More numerous points of like¬ ness between Harsha and Akbar the Great could possibly be pointed out, including a talent for organization and administration, although Harsha’s empire died with him. But taken for all in all, Sri-Harsha-vardhana—king, emperor, military genius, organizer, patron of letters, poet—stands out as one of the most noteworthy figures in India’s long roll of great men. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON XXXV 2 KING HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND LITERARY PATRON A. ROYAL AUTHORS AND PATRONS IN INDIA Introduction. Kings as patrons of literature are not uncom¬ mon, but kings themselves as authors are more rare. The names of the Hebrew psalmist King David, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, the philosophic emperor Marcus Aurelius, King Alfred the Great, James the Sixth of Scotland and First of England, and Frederick the Great of Prussia rise at once to our memory as instances of royal authors, and the list might readily be extended. India, in its turn, can claim a place on the honor roll of monarchs who wielded the pen as well as the scepter and the sword. Poet-kings of Ancient and Early India. From Visvamitra, the priest-king and bard of Rigvedic antiquity, to the age of King Harsha is a tremendous span. In the interval it may seem fanci¬ ful to catch an early strain in the Pali chant that sprang from the lips of Prince Gautama Siddhartha at the moment when he became the Buddha, or to hear echoes in the rhythmic Gathas of the En¬ lightened One, sung after he had resigned world-sovereignty for world-teaching. 1 We may be sure, however, that the lyric note in India’s voice had never been lost, and certain it is that its crescendo tone broke forth in full unison in the Gupta period of Sanskrit literature four centuries after the beginning of our era. Samudragupta, who reigned as emperor about 330-375 a.d., was not only skilled in music and singing, 2 but he is said to have pos¬ sessed marked talents likewise in the realm of literary composition. Although no specimen of his work in the latter line has been pre- 1 For the text of the first chant of Prince Siddhartha, Sakyamuni, after attaining the Buddhahood see Jataka, ed. Fausboll, 1. 76; Dhammapada 153-154 (tr. Burlingame, Buddhist Legends, part 2, p. 345, Cambridge, Mass., 1921). 2 Evidence to prove his musical interest is given by his coins, which represent Samudragupta as playing on the lute; see Vincent A. Smith, Early History of India, plate facing p. xii, no. 10; and cf. also the first part of line 27 ( gandharwa-lalitair ) in the Gupta inscription noted below in note 3. XXXVI INTRODUCTION—PART TWO served, we have an inscription, bearing the impress of royal sanc¬ tion, which records the fact that 4 his title as “ King of Poets” ( kavirdja ) was established by various poetical achievements that would have served as a means of livelihood for the learned class/ 3 In any event, on the patron roll, his son and successor Candragupta II, Vikramaditya (c. 375-413 a.d .), 4 and his grandson Kumara- gupta I (413-455 a.d.) were fervent fosterers of literature, be¬ cause in this era flourished Kalidasa, if the accepted dates for the Indian Shakespeare be correct. King Sudraka and authorship. Furthermore, in the dramatic field itself, the authorship of the Mrcchakatika, or ‘ Clay Cart,’ is assigned, according to the prologue of the play and tradition, to King Sudraka, whatever the date (3d cent, a.d .?) 5 and identity of that ruler may have been. 6 Sudraka was likewise a royal patron, as we may judge from the fact that he is mentioned as the lord of a literary circle ( sabhapati ) in a list of royal literati— Vasudeva, Satavahana, Sudraka, and Sahasanka—cited by Raja- sekhara (900 a.d.) as royal poet-patrons whose example is worthy of emulation. 7 3 Sanskrit text: vidvaj-janopajivyaneka-kdvya-kkriydbhih pratisthita- kavirdja-sabdasya, in the inscription of Samudragupta, Corpus Inscrip - tionuni Indicarum, vol. 3, The Gupta Inscriptions, no. 1, pi. 1, line 27 = text, p. 8, tr. p. 15, Calcutta, 1888; cf. also lines 6 and 16 in the same inscrip¬ tion. Fleet, as editor, rightly notes that ‘ the title kavirdja, “ king of poets," answering somewhat to our “ poet-laureate," is still in use in Native States.’ Possibly the discovery of some Sanskrit work bearing Samud- ragupta’s name as author may yet be made and thus substantiate his title to rank as a king among poets (kavirdja ). 4 See especially below, page xxxviii, n. 14. 5 So now (‘Mitte des 3. Jahrh.’) Sten Konow, Das indische Drama, p. 57 (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie, 2. 2, part D), Berlin and Leipzig, 1920. [This work was not available until the present Introduc¬ tion was completed, though in time for the inclusion of references.] 6 In relation to the problem of Sudraka as an author, mentioned also as a patron below, n. 7, consult, among other references, the remarks by H. Jacobi (in reviewing Pischel’s Rudrata ) in Literaturblatt fur Orient. Philol. 3. 74 *~ 75 *, Leipzig, 1886; Sylvain Levi, Le Theatre indien, index, p. 96; and Georg Morgenstierne, Uber das Verhdltnis zwischen Cam - datta und Mrcchakatika, Leipzig, 1921, esp. pp. 24-25. 7 Sanskrit text: Vdsudeva-Satavdhana-Sudraka-Sdhasdhkadm sakaldn HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON XXXVll King Harsha and later Sanskrit poet-kings. As shown be¬ low, King Harsha in the 7th century of our era combined in a notable manner the qualities of illustrious ruler, literary patron, and author of renown. His contemporary, the Pallava king Ma- hendra-vikrama-varman, wrote a farce, the Mattavilasa. 73, Yaso- varman (c. 735 a.d.), king of Kanauj and patron of Bhavabhuti, was the author of a drama on the fortunes of Rama, entitled Ramabhyudaya, 8 as well as of occasional verses that have been preserved. An inscription of King Jayadeva of Nepal (8th cent. a.d.) contains five stanzas composed by the king himself. 9 A Kalacuri prince, named Mayuraja (8th~9th cent, a.d.), is men¬ tioned as the author of a drama, Udattaraghava, though no sabhdpafin ddnamanabhyam anukuryat —see Rajasekhara, Kavyamimamsa, ed. C. D. Dalai and R. A. Sastry (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. 1), Baroda, 1916, p. xxi (summary) and p. 55 (text). Regarding these royal names, which are given apparently in chronological order, a query may be raised as to identification. Is Vasudeva to be identified with the first Kanva king, 1st century B.C., or is he to be associated with Vasudeva I (reigned c. 140 — c. 178 A.D.) or with some other king of that name in the late Kushan line? Consult Vincent A. Smith, Early History of India, 3d ed., p. 204, cf. pp. 272-278; id., Oxford History of India, pp. 138, 146. Probably Satavahana is the king of Kathasaritsagara fame, perhaps identifiable with the Andhra king Hala, the reputed author of the Halasaptasati, 1st century A.D., cf. V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 3d ed., p. 208. It seems plausible, moreover, to associate Sahasanka with ‘the illustrious (king-)poet Sahasanka’ ( srl-Sdhasdhkah kavir ) in a list of authors found in a stanza by Rajasekhara quoted in Sarrigadhara’s Paddhati (text, Aufrecht, ZDMG. 27. 77, and Peterson, no. 188—see Quackenbos, Mayilra, p. 11; Gray, Vasavadatta, p. 4; cf. also Etting- hausen, Harsa-Vardhana, p. 101 note) ; and it is likely that Pischel was correct in accepting for this * beriihmte Personlichkeit ’ the identification with Vikramaditya-Candragupta II, as suggested by Bhandarkar on the basis of a statement by Ratnesvara, a commentator on the Sarasvatl- kanthabharana, who explains Sahasanka as Vikramaditya, cf. Pischel, Adhyaraja, pp. 2-3 = 486-487 (see below, note 18). According to another passage of the Kavyamimamsa (p. 50), Satavahana ruled over Kuntala in the Deccan, and Sahasanka in Ujjain. 7a See Barnett, in Bulletin School Or. Stud., London, 1920, pp. 37-38. 8 Cited by Abhinavagupta, see Aufrecht, ZDMG. 36. 521, and mentioned in SD. 427; also referred to by Dhanika on DR. 1. 90, ed. and tr. Haas, p. 27; cf. also Levi, Le Theatre indien, pp. 211-212; and now Konow, Das indische Drama, pp. 79, 82. 8 See Indraji and Biihler, ‘Inscriptions from Nepal,’ IA. 9. 178-182. XXXV111 INTRODUCTION—PART TWO extant copy of the work is known. 10 In a minor way Amogha- varsha I, who reigned in the Deccan in the 9th century (815-877 a.d.), was probably himself an author, besides being a patron of literature. 11 The same qualities of authorship and literary patron¬ age are well illustrated in King Munja, who reigned toward the end of the 10th century (974-995 a.d.), and in King Bhoja early in the nth century. 12 A stanza by Munja is quoted by the later Paramara king Arjunavarman (see below) ; and the names of Munja and Bhoja, combined with that of Harsha and the still earlier Vikramaditya (= Candragupta II, see above, p. xxxvi and end of n. 7), are instanced by Soddhala (nth century a.d.) as examples equally of ‘the monarch’ ( bhilpala ) and ‘the poet- prince’ or ‘prince of poets’ ( kavlndra ) 13 who headed a literary court ( sablia ). 14 Still later, in the 12th century, we have the in¬ disputable evidence of a royal dramatist, King Vigraharajadeva, of Sakambharl in Raj putana, as contained in his own epigraphic rec¬ ords. In a Sanskrit inscription discovered at Ajmir, bearing his royal authorization and dated 1153 a.d., there are preserved por¬ tions of a drama entitled Harakelinataka, in prose and verse, from his own pen, showing certain reminiscences of Bharavi, five cen¬ turies earlier, and possibly of Kalidasa. 15 The Paramara king Arjunavarman, who ruled early in the 13th century, wrote a com¬ mentary on the Amarusataka entitled Rasikasamjivani, in the 10 See the stanza quoted by Dhanika on DR. 2. 92, ed. and tr. Haas, p. 73 ; cf. now also Konow, Das indische Drama, p. 82. 11 See J. F. Fleet, ‘Notes on Indian History/ IA. 33. 197-200; cf. id. I A. 38. 256. (This name is not to be confused with Amoghavarsa, an epithet of Munja Vakpatiraja; cf. Biihler, Ep. Ind. 1. 226.) 12 For detailed references see Haas, Dasarupa, pp. xxii-xxiii; Quacken- bos, Mayura, pp. 41-42. 13 Regarding the appellation kavlndra see the remark on kavirdja, note 3. above. 14 Sanskrit text: kaznndrais ca Vikramdditya-sYi-Harsa-Munja-Bhoja¬ de vadi-bhupalaih —see Soddhala, Udayasundarlkatha, ed. C. D. Dalai and E. Krishnamacharya, p. 150 (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. 11), Baroda, 1920. Furthermore, regarding Soddhala’s dubbing sn-Harsa as gir-Harsa see below, p. xlii. 15 See F. Kielhorn, ‘ Sanskrit Plays partly preserved as inscriptions at Ajmere/ IA. 20. 201-212, Bombay, 1891. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON XXXIX course of which he quotes King Munja, whom he calls 'our ancestor Munja/ 16 Other parallels connected with India: Tamerlane, Babar, Jahangir. Quite apart from Sanskrit literature, yet directly con¬ nected with India’s history, may be mentioned parallels drawn from the line of the Mughal emperors. With a passing allusion to the Turkish-Persian Memoirs of their distant ancestor Timur Lang, or Tamerlane, who sacked Delhi in 1398 and thus opened the gates for his later descendants, special mention may be made of the delightful autobiographic Journal of Babar, the founder of the Mughal Empire in India. 17 Babar was not only a master of prose narrative, but was also a skilled craftsman in verse, whether in his native Turk! or in Persian. Nor must we forget the per¬ sonal Annals of his great-grandson Jahangir, 'the Great Mogul.’ Later examples might be cited of Hindu rulers who have written both in the vernaculars and in English. The ideal of kingship in India from early times was supposed to embody all gifts; the talent of authorship might well be among them. B. HARSHA’S CLAIMS TO AUTHORSHIP On Harsha’s direct claims as a literary monarch. It has been shown above, on the grounds of external evidence, precedents, and parallels, that there is good reason for including Harsha as a 'king-poet.’ Abundant evidence, partly external and partly in¬ ternal, may furthermore be brought forward to prove that this title to literary craftsmanship is certainly assured for Harsha. We may begin with statements by Bana. Bana’s allusions to Harsha as a poet. Bana, the friend and biographer of Harsha’s earlier life, speaks two or three times in his prose romance, Harshacarita, of the king’s acknowledged poetic 16 See Amarusataka, ed. Durgaprasad and Parab, p. 23, Bombay, 1889; cf. Haas, Dasarupa, p. xxiii. The poetic skill of Arjunavarman is men¬ tioned in stanza 18 of an inscription of this ruler published by Fitzedward Hall, JAOS. 7. 24-31 (1861). 17 See Memoirs of Babur, tr. Leyden and Erskine, rev. by King, 2 vols., Oxford, 1921. xl INTRODUCTION—PART TWO talent. In a metrical introduction, of twenty-one verses, to his prose narrative of Harsha’s deeds, Bana (with a courtier’s grace, it is true) leads up through a long line of poets to a climax (stanza 18) in alluding to his generous patron under the title of Adhyaraja (lit. ‘ Rich King ’) as a recognized poet. 18 He writes: ‘ My tongue seems checked from utterance through the performances ( utsahair = literary achievements as well as deeds of prowess) 19 accom¬ plished by Adhyaraja (i.e. Harsha) even when merely remem¬ bered as abiding in my heart, and it can proceed no further in poetry.’ 20 Then, mentioning Harsha expressly by name in stanza 21, Bana turns to prose as the medium in which to narrate the events of the earlier life of his royal patron. Even if a question should be raised as to the interpretation to be given to the above passage, there is no question as to the fact that twice later in the course of his account Bana definitely alludes to his patron’s poetic talents. One of these references is found among a long list of Harsha’s achievements as a king, and affirms that ‘his gift in poetry could hardly find expression in words, just as his valor lacked sufficient range for its exercise.’ 21 The other allusion by Bana emphasizes Harsha’s originality in composition, 18 The identification of Adhyaraja with Harsha was first made by R. Pischel, ‘Adhyaraja,’ in Nachrichten der kgl. Gesellsch. der IViss. zu Gottingen, Phil-hist. Klasse, 1901, pp. 485-487 (= reprint, pp. 1-3), Gottin¬ gen, 1902. 19 See the note by Cowell and Thomas, The Harsacarita, p. 3 n. 6, who draw attention to the fact that' utsdha seems to refer to a pantomimic recitation as well as to general energy.’ Consult furthermore Etting- hausen, Harsa-Vardhana, p. 98. But differently Pischel, op. cit., p. 486 (= p. 2 of the reprint). 20 For the Sanskrit text, Adhyaraja-krtotsahair hrdayasthaih smrtair api jihvd ’ntah krsyamdne ’va na kavitve pravartate, see Bana, Harsacarita, ed. Fiihrer, p. 9, Bombay, 1909; ed. Parab and Vaze, p. 6, Bombay, 1892; and cf. the transl. of Cowell and Thomas, p. 3, Lon¬ don, 1897. 21 Sanskrit text: api cd *sya . . . kavitvasya vdcah . . . na parydpto visayah, see Bana, ed. Fiihrer, p. 121, lines 8-11; ed. Parab and Vaze, p. 86, lines 6-9; cf. tr. Cowell and Thomas, p. 65, lines 2-9; cf. also Etting- hausen, Harsa-Vardhana, p. 98. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON xli "pouring forth, in art-poesy and in stories, a nectar unquaffed [from other sources].’ 22 Other direct allusions to Harsha as a royal author. Supple¬ mentary to what has been instanced already regarding Harsha as both king and poet, attention may be drawn to an interesting state¬ ment by the Chinese Buddhist traveler I-Ch'ing (I-Tsing), who spent many years in India in the last quarter of the 7th century, being absent from his home between the years 671 and 695 a.d . 23 This noted authority expressly records that " King Slladitya (i.e. Harsha) was exceedingly fond of literature ’; and that, besides causing a collection of poetry to be made, * King Slladitya versified the story of the Bodhisattva Jlmutavdhana (Chinese, "Cloud- borne’), who surrendered himself in place of a Naga; this version was set to music (lit. ‘string and pipe’) ; he had it performed by a band accompanied by dancing and acting, and thus popularized it in his time.’ 24 This statement, as is well known, contains an allu¬ sion to the Sanskrit drama Nagananda, which bears Harsha’s name, and thus adds external evidence to the internal evidence brought out below to prove the King’s authorship. It is interesting, furthermore, to find that Damodaragupta, who lived under King Jayapida of Kashmir (800 a.d.), gives excerpts from the Ratnavall, which he designates as the work of a king. 25 Thus additional testimony is given regarding that play. 22 Sanskrit text: kdvyakathasv apltam amrtam udvamantam —see ed. Parab and Vaze, p. 79, lines 3-4, and ed. Fiihrer, p. 112, line 12. It should be observed that Cowell and Thomas, p. 58, lines 5-7, render kavyakathasu as ‘ in poetical contests ’; but that translation can hardly be accepted in view of the natural version of the words offered above, even though it might be difficult to show from extant texts that Harsha was an author of both kdvyas and kathas, unless the dramas bearing his name are to be understood as including both. 23 See I-Tsing, A Record of the Buddhist Religion in India and the Malay Archipelago, tr. J. Takakusu, pp. xxv-xxviii, lv, and p. 163, Ox¬ ford, 1896. 24 See Takakusu, op. cit. pp. 163-164. 25 See Levi, Le Theatre indien, pp. 389-391, and now also Sten Konow, Das indische Drama, p. 74; cf. Kuttanlmata 777-787, 856-857, in Kavyamdla, pt. 3, pp. 98-99, 104-105, Bombay, 1887; tr. J. J. Meyer, pp. 129-130, 143- 144, Leipzig, n.d. xlii INTRODUCTION—PART TWO Attention may here be called again to the statement of Soddhala (nth century a.d.), cited above as mentioning Harsha among poet- kings and patrons of literature. 26 In another passage, 27 to which special attention may be drawn, Soddhala punningly refers to Harsha (lit. ‘Joy’) as ‘the illustrious Harsha’ ( sri-Harsa ), whose ‘Joy was in diction’ ( gir-harsa ). The text, which is difficult to imitate in an English version, runs as follows:— Sri-Harsa ity avanivartisn pdrthivesu ndmnai *va kevalam ajdyata; vastutas tu gir-harsa esa nijasamsadi—yena rdjha sampujiiah kanakakotisatena Banah ‘ There arose among the princes dwelling upon earth [One who was] SrI-Harsha merely by name; but, in reality, That one was Speech-Joy (or * rejoicing in diction’) in his own assembly— A king by whom Bana was honored with [a gift of] a hundred crores of gold.’ 28 Additional evidence along the same general line may be found in Jayadeva (about 13th century a.d .), 29 who joins Harsha’s name as author with that of the earlier Bhasa and Kalidasa, as well as with his contemporaries Bana and Mayura and with the later Cora, in a stanza on poetry that contains punning allusions to these writers. 30 In a somewhat similar connection, associating Bana and Mayura with Harsha’s court, Madhusudana (1654 a.d.) speaks of the king as ‘ Maharaja £ri-Harsha, the chief of poets, the composer 26 For the text see page xxxviii, note 14, above. 27 Soddhala’s Udayasundarikatha, ed. C. D. Dalai and E. Krishnama- charya, p. 2, Baroda, 1920 (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. 11). 28 On Harsha’s liberality toward Bana cf. below, p. xlviii. 29 This date for Jayadeva is tentatively assigned by H. Chand, Kalidasa et Part poetique de I’lnde, p. in, Paris, 1917; but cf. Konow, Das indische Drama, pp. 87-88, who would place him not later than the nth century. In any event, the view formerly entertained, that he flourished in the 16th century (cf. Quackenbos, The Sanskrit Poems of Mayura, p. 54 n. 4), must now be abandoned, since stanzas by Jayadeva are quoted in Sarnga- dhara’s Paddhati (1363 A.D.). 30 For the Sanskrit text of this stanza, and for references, see Quack¬ enbos, Mayura, p. 54. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON xliii of the Natika called Ratnavall, who was lord of Malava, and whose capital was Ujjain.’ 31 In concluding, it may furthermore be noted that the comparatively late anthology entitled Subhasitaratna- bhandagara contains a stanza of four lines (stanza 70, ed. Parab, 3d ed., p. 56, Bombay, 1891) which includes Harsha’s name in a somewhat longer list of well-known writers who "gladden this universe by their compositions/ 32 Royal grants by Harsha. In addition to the general evidence brought forward above with regard to Harsha as a writer, we have also epigraphic data that have a bearing in this connection. Pass¬ ing over the Sonpat Seal of Harsha, we may refer directly to two records inscribed on copper plates, namely, the well-known Bans- khera Plate (628 a.d.), bearing Harsha’s own signature, and the almost identical Madhuban Plate (631 a.d.), unsigned. This royal signature, attesting the Banskhera Plate, expressly states that it is "the own hand of me, the Overlord of Maharajas, the Illustrious Harsha’ (svahasto mama Maharajadhiraja-sri-Harsasya ), and is written in a very handsome hand that shows high culture. 33 Both of these records, which relate to grants of land, were manifestly dictated by the King, and besides giving genealogical data they contain likewise some metrical stanzas, common to them both, which deserve to be specially considered. One of these stanzas (B. 5-6 = Mdh. 6-7, rajano, etc.), in four verses written in the sardulavikrldita meter, feelingly refers to the death of Harsha’s brother, Rajyavardhana, through treachery at 31 The text reads : Malavardjasyojjayinlrajadhamkasya kavijanamurdha- nyasya Ratndvalyakhyanatikdkartur Mahardjasflharsasya . See text and translation in Biihler, ‘ On the Authorship of the Ratnavall,’ I A. 2. 127-128 (1873), who further remarks that Madhusudana ‘is probably inaccurate in making Ujjain Sriharsha’s capital.’ 32 Cited by Gray, Vasavadatta, p. 5, New York, 1913, and by Quacken- bos, Mayiira, p. 55. 33 Compare the reproduction included as a frontispiece in the present volume. For the text of the Banskhera Plate see G. Biihler, Epigraphia Indica, 4. 208-211 (1896-1897). For text and translation of the Madhuban Plate see G. Biihler, Ep. Ind. 1. 67-75 (1892) ; F. Kielhorn, Ep. Ind. 7. I 55 ~ 160 (1902-1903). Cf. also Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana , pp. 143-151, 179- 180. xliv INTRODUCTION—PART TWO the hands of enemies, and may well be Harsha’s own composition . 34 A second stanza of four lines (B. i3 = Mdh. 1 6 , asmat-kula, etc.), written in the vasantatilakd meter and containing a somewhat graphic image of ‘ Fortune unstable as lightning or a bubble of water/ urges upon his family and others the faithful sanction of his royal gift. It is directly followed in the next line (B. 13-14 = Mdh. 16-17) by a couplet in sloka meter: karmmand man as d vdcd karttavyam prdnine 38 hitam Harsenai } tat samdkhyatam dharmmdrjjanam anuttamam 1 By deed, thought, and word one should do good to the living; This Harsha has declared to be the highest way of earning religious merit/ On the evidence furnished by the two epigraphic records presented there are apparently good grounds for recognizing Harsha’s gift for writing occasional verse. Occasional stanzas attributed to Harsha in the Sanskrit an¬ thologies. Further proof of Harsha’s poetic achievement may be sought in the stanzas quoted under his name in the Sanskrit anthol¬ ogies, although the shifting attributions in several cases leave more or less uncertainty concerning the actual authorship. The majority of the stanzas ascribed to Harsha are taken from the extant dramas (only one, however, being from the Priyadarsika 36 ), but about a dozen others in addition are quoted in the various anthologies, notably in the Kavlndravacanasamuccaya, the Saduktikarnamrta, and the Subhasitavali . 87 Two poems of Buddhistic content bearing Harsha’s name. There exist two relatively short Sanskrit poems (Buddhistic in tenor) to which Harsha’s name is attached and which bear the stamp of authenticity, particularly because they harmonize with the 34 Such also is the view of Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, pp. 179, 145. 35 So Mdh.; B. reads prdnibhi[r], ‘good should be done by the living/ 36 See Skm. 1. ii4 = Priya. 1. 1; cf. note 2 on Act 1, below. 37 The anthology citations from Harsha are fully indicated in the valuable edition of the first-mentioned work by F. W. Thomas, Kavln¬ dravacanasamuccaya, a Sanskrit Anthology of Verses, edited with Intro¬ duction and Notes, Calcutta, 1912 (Bibl. Ind., new series, no. 1309), cf. especially pp. 117-120. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON xlv King’s later Buddhistic tendencies . 38 One of these is the Supra- bhatastotra, a Matin Hymn in praise of Buddha as the Illuminator, composed in twenty-four stanzas, or ninety-six lines, principally in the malirii meter, and bearing Harsha’s name in the colophon . 39 The other, entitled Astamahasrlcaityasamskrtastotra, an Encomium of Eight Buddhist Shrines, is preserved in a Chinese transliteration from the original Sanskrit, as was first cleverly recognized by Professor Sylvain Levi, and is attributed, on the authority of Hsuan-Chuang, to an Indian king called in Chinese ‘ Sun of Virtue,’ which is the equivalent of Slladitya, the name by which Harsha is best known in Buddhist writings . 40 This short poem consists of five stanzas, comprising twenty lines in all, the first stanza being composed in the mandakrdnta meter and the other four in the meter named sragdhard. In addition to all the cumulative data collected above in support of Harsha’s claim to having been an author as well as a king, we have the convincing evidence of the three dramas. Assured internal evidence of the three dramas in support of Harsha’s authorship. Every student of these plays is familiar with the fact that Harsha’s name as author is woven into a stanza which is repeated nearly verbatim in the Induction of each of the dramas Priyadarsika, Ratnavali, and Nagananda . 41 Such devices to assure title-claim to authorship are found not only in Sanskrit but also in the Greek Anthology, in Persian odes, and in Anglo- Saxon poems. A closing stanza of benediction is likewise repeated in the case of the two plays first named 42 ; and there are two in¬ stances of identical stanzas also in the Priyadarsika and the Naga¬ nanda . 43 In addition to these there are repeated phrases, parallels 38 On Harsha’s leanings toward Buddhism see above, p. xxxiii. 39 See Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, pp. 168-175; also Thomas, JRAS. 1903 , PP- 703-722. 40 See S. Levi, ‘ Une Poesie inconnue du Roi Harsa Qiladitya,’ Actes du dixieme congres international des orientalistes {1894), part 2, sec. 1, pp. 189-203, Leiden, 1897; and cf. Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, pp. 176-179. 41 See note 20 on Act 1, below. 42 See note 79 on Act 4, below. 43 Priya. 3. 3 = Nagan. 4. 1; Priya. 3. io=Nagan. 1. 14. xlvi INTRODUCTION—PART TWO in situation and turns of thought, and structural similarities or the like, all of which are well enough known to the specialist and go to prove the unity of authorship of the three plays . 44 These simi¬ larities are pointed out in detail in part 6 of the present Introduc¬ tion, below. Thus the assignment to Harsha, the poet-king, is certainly justifiable . 45 Disposal of doubts as to Harsha’s authorship of the dramas. It remains only to dispose of some doubts in regard to Harsha’s claim to the authorship of the plays, because that question has been much discussed by European and Indian scholars, although the trend of opinion has been steadily growing in favor of Harsha’s title. No doubts on this subject appear to have existed in the seventh or the ninth century, because in those centuries, as already shown , 46 the Nagananda and the Ratnavall (and hence, as a corol¬ lary, the Priyadarsika) were definitely assigned to Harsha. The doubt first arose, so far as the evidence at hand indicates, through a Sanskrit comment made by some Hindu exegetes on a passage in the opening of the Kavyaprakasa, several centuries after that work itself. The passage referred to in the Kavyaprakasa (i, stanza 2), a work by the Kashmirian writer Mammata (about 1100 a . d .), al¬ ludes to the gains accruing from the practice of the poetic art, among them being the fact that ‘poetry redounds to fame and makes for wealth ’ ( kavyam yasase J rthakrte), which statement the author himself illustrates in a prose remark, ‘ fame, as in the case of Kalidasa and others; money, as in the case of Dhavaka and others from SrI-Harsha and the like ’ ( Kalidasadinam iva yasah, sn-Harsader Dhavakadmam iva dhanam ). 47 This merely repeats 44 See Pischel, GGA. 1883, pp. 1235-1241; ibid. 1891, pp. 366-367; S. J. Warren, Koning Harsha van Kanydkubja, pp. 1-8, The Hague, 1883; F. Cimmino, Sui Drammi attribuiti ad Harshadeva, Naples, 1906. 45 This is the conclusion likewise of Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, p. 102, and of the latest authority, Konow, Das indische Drama, p. 74. 48 See above, page xli. 47 Kavyaprakasa, ed. B. V. Jhalakikara, 2d ed., pp. 8-9, Bombay, 1901; tr. G. Jha, pp. 1-2, Benares, 1898; ed. of ullasa 1 and 2 by D. T. Chandor- kar, p. s, Poona, 1898. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON xlvii the fact that Harsha was well known as a generous patron, what¬ ever interpretation we are to place upon the problematical and otherwise unknown Dhavaka. So much for the text itself. Now, it must be noted that several late Sanskrit scholiasts, be¬ longing to the seventeenth century or thereabouts, in commenting upon this passage in the Kavyaprakasa ascribe the Ratnavall to Dhavaka, although allowing that it bears Harsha’s name. These scholiasts (as cited by Fitzedward Hall, Vdsavadattd, preface, pp. 15-17; see also pp. 51 if., Calcutta, 1859) are Jayarama in his Kavyaprakasatilaka, Vaidyanatha in his Prabha (or, in full, Kavyapradipaprabha), and Nagoji (or Nagesa) in his Uddyota (or Kavyapradlpoddyota), regarding all of whom Hall adds the criticism that their authority is not great. Thus the following statement is from the Uddyota of Nagoji (about the end of the 17th century), who recounts a 4 report ’: ‘ Dhavaka was a poet, and having composed the Ratnavall in SrI-Harsha’s name obtained much wealth; such is the report’ ( Dhdvakah kavih; sa hi srl- Harsandmnd Ratndvalim krtvd bahu dhanam labdhavdn: iti pra- siddham). 48 Still another scholiast, Paramananda, repeats the story that ‘a poet, by name Dhavaka, having sold his own work, a play called Ratnavall, obtained much wealth from the king named Sri-Harsha; so it happened of old ’ ( Dhdvakanamd kavih, svakrtim Ratndvalim ndma ndtikdm vikrlya, srl-Harsanamno rdjhah sakdsad bahu dhanam, avdpe } ti purdvrttam) . 49 Based upon these statements by late commentators, a long dis¬ cussion has been carried on by various scholars, although the best- qualified authorities today tend to reject the assertions of the scholiasts as later fictions, lacking foundation, and to accept the authenticity of Harsha’s claim. 50 Long ago, for example, Fitzed¬ ward Hall rightly observed that "Hindu authors frequently use 48 See Chandorkar, op. cit., p. 5. 49 Cited by Pischel, GGA. 1891, pp. 366-367, from a manuscript in Bhandarkar, Report for 1882-1883 on Skt. Manuscripts (no. 208, fol. 8 b). 50 See the special bibliographical list on the authorship of the dramas, which is appended to the general Bibliography, above. xlviii INTRODUCTION—PART TWO the formulas “ old story ” and “ matter of notoriety,” while simply repeating what they have read, and after no particular pains to test the credibility of what they accept as facts.’ 61 In addition to this, Biihler noted that all the manuscripts of the Kavyaprakasa found in Kashmir, to which region Mammata belonged, read 4 Bana ’ instead of ‘ Dhavaka,’ and he furthermore pointed out that in the Sarada script it would be quite possible for a copyist to mistake the reading of Bana’s name as Dhavaka. 52 It is known, moreover, that Bana, as a protege and litterateur at Harsha’s court, received recompense for his literary activity, 53 but nothing more, even though he may possibly have lent a hand in polishing his patron’s dramas. On the financial aspect of Bana’s position at court we may draw attention anew to the Soddhala passage which has been quoted above (page xlii) to the effect that ‘ Bana was honored with [a gift by Harsha of] a hundred crores of gold.’ On the whole we may feel justified in disposing of the interpre¬ tation given by the late scholiasts on the Kavyaprakasa passage as one to be discredited, and as not militating against Harsha’s real claim to creative literary genius. 54 [It may be added that this same view is expressed by Konow in his work Das indische Drama, p. 74 (just now available), where a clear and concise summary of the controversy on the authorship of the plays ascribed to Harsha is given, and with like results.] Conclusion as to authorship. In summing up the question it 51 See Hall, Vasavadatta, p. 16, Calcutta, 1859 (Bibl. Indica, and re¬ print). 82 Biihler, Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Skt. Mss. in Kasniir, 1877, p. 69; cf. also notice by Weber, Indische Studien, 14. 407, Leipzig, 1876. Pischel, GGA. 1883, pp. 1235-1236, expresses some doubt as to the confusion in the Sarada script. 53 Cf. Harsacarita, ch. 2, end, ed. Parab and Vaze, p. 91, and see note by Brahme and Paranjape, Nagananda, p. viii, n. 15. 54 As further proving the untrustworthiness of the later rhetoricians it may be noted that Acyutaraya (Saka 1753 = 1831 A.D.) in his own commentary on his Sahityasara, p. 4 (ed. Panshikar W. L. Shastri, Bom¬ bay, 1906), makes Dhavaka the author of the Naisadhiyacarita, on the authority of the Kavyaprakasa, wholly regardless of the fact that this poem was composed by the later Harsha and was subsequent to the date of the Kavyaprakasa itself. HARSHA AS AUTHOR AND PATRON xlix may safely be said that, whatever may be urged on the side of the king’s having possibly received literary help, there can remain no reasonable doubt that Harsha was actually a king-poet, the author of the three dramas that bear his name, and the writer of some occasional verses and poems assigned to him by Sanskrit literary tradition. The literary coterie at Harsha’s court. From the various allusions that have been given above, it is clearly proved that Harsha was the patron of a literary coterie, and there flourished also in his time several noted writers who were not connected with the court. 55 Paramount in his own cherished circle were Bana and Mayura, whose writings are well known. 56 There is mentioned also a poet Divakara, spoken of as Matariga-Divakara or Candala-Divakara (lit. ‘ outcast Divakara ’), whose skill in verse was such that, according to a stanza of Rajasekhara, this ‘ Outcast Divakara became a member of the coterie of Sri-Harsha, on equal terms with Bana and Mayura’ ( Mdtanga-Divakarah | sn-Harsasya ’bhavat sabhyah samo Bana-Mayurayoh) , 57 and his name is linked, in another stanza by the same author, with that of Bana into a compound (Bana-Divakarau) . 68 Regarding this shadowy person, however, nothing tangible seems thus far to have been brought out 59 ; but his literary merits must have been considerable to have won the fostering favor of King Harsha, warrior, poet, and patron of letters. 55 See Ettinghausen, Harsa-Vardhana, p. 96, for a table. 56 On the whole subject of these two authors see the introduction to Quackenbos, The Sanskrit Poems of Mayura, . . . with Bana’s Candi- sataka, New York, 1917 (C. U. Indo-Iranian Series, vol. 9). 57 Quackenbos, Mayura, pp. 9-10. 58 Quackenbos, Mayura, pp. 10-n. 59 It would be fanciful and hazardous to conjecture that this alien who was admitted to the coterie might possibly be the same as the Buddhist monk Divakaramitra who was helpful in bringing about the rescue of Harsha’s sister and was afterwards honored by the king’s friendship, according to Bana’s Harsacarita, text, pp. 261-289; transl. pp. 233-258. 4 1 INTRODUCTION—PART THREE 3 PLOT OF THE DRAMA PRIYADARSIKA This four-act drama derives its title (as often in the case of a natikd) from the name of its heroine Priyadarsika, or Priya- darsana, who up to the time of the denouement is called Aranyaka, i.e. ‘ Sylvia/ from having been found in the forest, and is then discovered to have been a princess in disguise. The plot is in out¬ line as follows: Act i. The heroine’s father, Drdhavarman, king of Anga, had pledged his daughter in marriage to King Vatsa of Kausambi, the hero of the play, although her hand had been repeatedly sought by the king of Kalinga. Angered by the rebuff, Kaliiiga waged war against Drdhavarman, ravaged his kingdom, and made him pris¬ oner. Drdhavarman’s daughter, Priyadarsika, was rescued amid the turmoil of battle by her father’s trusty chamberlain and placed for safety in the keeping of his ally, the forest-king Vindhyaketu. The chamberlain then departed on a short pilgrimage, but returned to find that in a surprise attack by unknown foes Vindhyaketu had been slain with all his followers, the camp had been burned, and no trace of the princess was to be found. These events are narrated in the Explanatory Scene by the chamberlain himself, who expresses his intention of rejoining Drdhavarman in the latter’s captivity. He adds that he has learned that King Vatsa, the hero, who had been held a captive by a powerful monarch, Mahasena-Pradyota, of Avanti (Ujjain), had meanwhile escaped from bondage, carrying off his captor’s daugh¬ ter, Vasavadatta, whom he had made his queen. The scene now shifts to King Vatsa’s palace at Kausambi, and the King appears with his boon companion, the Jester Vasantaka. Their banter is interrupted by the entrance of Rumanvant, the prime minister, and Vijayasena, the generalissimo, who proves to be the unknown assailant of Vindhyaketu, against whom he had PLOT OF THE DRAMA li been sent by Vatsa in pursuance of some unmentioned grudge. He relates his triumph in detail and adds that he has brought among the spoils of war a captive maiden, supposedly the daughter of Vindhyaketu. The King at once gives orders that the young girl shall be placed in charge of his queen, Vasavadatta, and taught the accomplishments befitting her presumed rank, and directs that he shall be notified when it is time for her to wed, so that an appropriate marriage may be arranged. Finally, as the act closes, he declares his intention of dispatching his successful general to uproot the implacable Kaliiiga. Act 2. (A year, perhaps more, has elapsed.) Queen Vasava¬ datta is observing a religious fast. At a moment when the King is walking with the Brahman Jester, Vasantaka, in the palace gar¬ den to dispel his loneliness, he happens to catch sight of Aranyaka, now grown to be a maiden of rare beauty. She has been sent to the garden by the Queen, in the company of one of the Queen’s attendants, Indivarika, to gather lotuses for an offering in con¬ nection with the religious ceremony. The King, attracted by her charm, hides with the Jester behind a clump of bushes to overhear the conversation between the two maidens. He learns that Ara¬ nyaka is none other than the supposed daughter of his late enemy Vindhyaketu, now arrived at marriageable age. Aranyaka, while her companion has momentarily withdrawn to a distance, is suddenly attacked by bees lurking in the cluster of lotuses which she is picking (cf. Sakuntala, act i). Covering her face with her mantle, she calls to Indivarika for help. Urged by the Jester, the King rushes to the rescue, drives off the tormenting insects, and thus finds a chance to embrace her. Unfortunately, however, he disregards the Jester’s advice to remain silent, and endeavors to comfort the maiden in a stanza of impromptu poetry. This startles Aranyaka, who had supposed her rescuer to be Indivarika, but now learns that it is none other than King Vatsa, whom her father Drdhavarman had designated as her future bride¬ groom. Despite her sudden infatuation, she calls in alarm to Indivarika, whose return forces the King to retire again to hiding. lii INTRODUCTION—PART THREE Deep in the pensiveness of first love, Aranyaka retires regretfully with her companion, while the King, likewise infatuated, departs with the Jester, filled only with a desire for a meeting soon again with the object of his new passion. Act 3. (A short interval of perhaps a few days has elapsed.) Saiikrtyayanl, a learned lady and friend of Queen Vasavadatta, has composed for the diversion of her royal mistress a dramatic performance representing an incident in the courtship of Vasava¬ datta and her husband, the King. In this little play Aranyaka is entrusted with the Queen’s part; the role of King Vatsa is to be performed by her friend, the Queen’s attendant Manorama. All this we learn from Manorama’s monologue in the Introductory Scene. She then overhears Aranyaka in the garden lamenting her hopeless passion and seeks to find a way for her to see the King again. At this juncture the Jester enters in search of Aranyaka by the King’s command, and the mutual affection of hero and heroine is thus made manifest. Manorama whispers to the Jester an artful device for bringing the two together. The action on the stage now shifts to a room in the palace, arranged as a theater, where the Queen with her retinue and SarikrtyayanI come to witness a scene from the latter’s play. It begins in due form, with Aranyaka appearing in the part of the Queen; but the King, entering secretly, reveals that it has been arranged for him to assume his own role, instead of Manorama’s playing it, and thus have a chance to make love to Aranyaka in person. This he proceeds to do, but with such ardor as to arouse the suspicion of the Queen. She soon learns the truth from the lips of the Jester, who has been asleep in the adjoining room and in his drowsiness confesses the ruse. Vasavadatta breaks up the play in anger and commands that both Aranyaka and the Jester, as an accomplice, shall be thrown into prison. She leaves the stage in high dudgeon, despite the King’s endeavors to apologize, while the King departs bent on finding some means for a reconciliation. • Act 4. (A short interval of time has elapsed.) Manorama ( PLOT OF THE DRAMA liii appears in the Introductory Scene and reveals that Aranyaka is still kept imprisoned by the relentless Queen and in her despair is meditating suicide. Kancanamala, the Queen’s attendant, enters and informs Manorama that the Queen is also distressed by a letter from her mother telling that King Drdhavarman, husband of her mother’s sister, is still a captive of the accursed Kalinga, and reproaching her for Vatsa’s failure to act. (The Queen ap¬ pears to be ignorant of the fact that her royal consort had dis¬ patched an expedition against Kalinga a twelve-month or more before, in order to destroy him and effect Drdhavarman’s release.) The disconsolate Vasavadatta is now disclosed seated in the ‘ ivory tower ’ of the palace, while Sarikrtyayam vainly seeks to assure her of the King’s continued affection. The latter enters, discussing with the Jester, now released, the best means of placat¬ ing the Queen and of securing Aranyaka’s freedom as well. He finally confides to his royal spouse the word that he is daily ex¬ pecting news of the complete overthrow of Kalinga. At this moment the triumphant Vijayasena is announced, who brings the tidings of Kaliriga’s death in battle. He is accompanied by the chamberlain of Drdhavarman (already familiar to the spectators from the Explanatory Scene of the First Act), who renders the grateful homage of his master, now restored to his throne through Vatsa’s aid. The only jarring note in the harmony of the rejoicing is the Chamberlain’s tale of the disappearance long since of Drdha¬ varman’s daughter Priyadarsika, who had been placed for safe¬ keeping in Vindhyaketu’s charge at the time of the first war. Queen Vasavadatta, who had meanwhile given orders for Ara¬ nyaka’s release, is deeply afflicted by the sad news of the loss of her cousin Priyadarsika, of whom no trace can be found. At this instant Manorama enters with the shocking news that Aranyaka, in despair, has taken poison. Filled with remorse, the Queen bids that she be conveyed at once into the royal presence, in the hope that the King, being skilled in the use of magic spells that counteract the effects of poison, may save her life. Aranyaka is led on the stage in a dying condition. The chamberlain of Drdha- liv INTRODUCTION—PART FOUR varman recognizes her immediately as the lost daughter of his master. All are in consternation. King Vatsa comes to the res¬ cue, and by using formulas that are potent charms against the poison, he gradually restores the heroine to consciousness. Vasa- vadatta, rejoiced at finding her cousin Priyadarsika (no longer Aranyaka) restored to life and to the royal family, bestows her hand upon the King to be a lawful wife in fulfilment of Drdhavar- man’s pledge. Thus all ends happily, and the play concludes with universal felicitation. 4 TIME ALLUSIONS AND DURATION OF THE ACTION 1 [Plot of the play in brief. Priyadarsika, or Aranyaka, as she is called in the play, is brought in early girlhood as a captive to the court of King Vatsa Udayana, and is placed under the care of Queen Vasavadatta, until she shall be of marriageable age. The king later falls in love with her, and she is discovered to be the daughter of a friendly monarch, Drdhavarman, who had been taken prisoner by an enemy more than a year before, or at the very moment when Priyadarsika was accidentally captured and brought to Vatsa’s court. King Vatsa restores Drdhavarman to his throne by overcoming his captor, the king of Kaliiiga. The princess Priyadarsika, as she now turns out to be, is united to Vatsa at this happy moment as the play closes. Number of acts, four.] General observations.—An analysis of the time covered by the action of this play is more difficult than in the case of the Ratna- vall, with which it has many points of resemblance (see part 6 of 1 This section is reprinted, with minor changes, from Jackson, ‘ Time Analysis of Sanskrit Plays, II/ JAOS. 21 (1900), pp. 94-101. DURATION OF THE ACTION Iv the Introduction, below). The chief personages, King Vatsa and his companion, the Jester Vasantaka, Queen Vasavadatta and her attendant Kancanamala, are the same as in that drama. Ruman- vant, however, who was the leading general in the Ratnavali, is now prime minister; and Yaugandharayana, who figured as min¬ ister in the Ratnavali, is now mentioned only in the Mimic Play (garbhanataka) , which is introduced in the third act of the present drama and which recounts certain incidents in King Vatsa’s earlier career (cf. susamvihitam sarvam Yaugandharayanena, page 56). Once in this drama, moreover, allusion is made to Vatsa’s second wife, Padmavatl, and to other wives (cf. devinam Vasavadatta- Padumavadinam annanam ca devinam, pages 42-44), of whom no mention is made in the Ratnavali. But too much stress must not be laid on this point, nor on the change of ministers, to show that the Priyadarsika refers to a somewhat later period in Vatsa’s married life. See part 5 of this Introduction, below, p. lxxiii. One point comes out clearly when the time element in this play is studied; it is that Harsha in this play has followed the conven¬ tion of compressing events that occupy more than a year into a period that seems to be a year, as laid down by the laws of Hindu dramaturgy. 2 Thus the events which play a part at the opening of this drama, the escape of King Vatsa with his bride Vasava¬ datta, the misfortunes of King Drdhavarman, and the overthrow of King Vindhyaketu which brings Priyadarsika to Vatsa’s court, can hardly have been almost simultaneous, as the play for dramatic purposes treats them to be. It is for harmonizing such matters that the conventional Explanatory Scene ( viskambhaka ) is made use of by the author (consult on this subject SD. 308, 314; DR. 1. 116, ed. Haas, p. 34; and Levi, Le Theatre indien, p. 59). The growth of Priyadarsika to marriageable age and the release of her kingly father, Drdhavarman, who has been in captivity ‘ more than a year’ ( samahio samvaccharo, page 70) by the time that the play closes, are compressed into a single year so as to follow the dra¬ matic dictum that ‘ business extending beyond a year should be 2 For quotations from the canon on this point see Jackson, ‘ Time Analysis of Sanskrit Plays, 1/ JAOS. 20 (1899), p. 343. lvi INTRODUCTION—PART FOUR comprised within a year ’ ( varsad urdhvam tu yad vastu tat syad varsad adhobhavam, SD. 306). So much for the first general results of an examination into the time system of this play. Let us now turn to the details. Analysis in detail. Explanatory Scene. —King Vatsa has been promised the hand of Priyadarsika, daughter of King Drdhavar- man. The latter’s chamberlain, Vinayavasu, appears in the Ex¬ planatory Scene ( viskambhaka ) and informs us that a rival king, Kaliriga, has taken Drdhavarman prisoner because the latter had promised his daughter’s hand to King Vatsa instead of to him. Drdhavarman’s captivity has therefore begun. At the very time when Drdhavarman’s realm was being invaded by Kalinga, King Vatsa himself was in captivity to another mon¬ arch, Pradyota, but he had escaped and had carried off the latter’s daughter, Vasavadatta, as his bride. She is the jealous queen in this play as in the Ratnavall. We are furthermore told that some unknown foe is warring against the king of the Vindhya forest. From the chamberlain’s speech we learn that a battle had taken place on the very day on which he is speaking (cf. kathitam ca ’dya mama Vindhyaketund etc., page 8). Vindhyaketu is slain, and the young girl Priyadarsika, who had been temporarily left for safety in Vindhyaketu’s forest abode, disappears and is no¬ where to be found. Further news than this the chamberlain who had lost her cannot tell. He knows only that his own lord, Drdhavarman, is a prisoner to Kalinga ( baddhas tisthati, page 8). From the chamberlain’s closing words we learn also that the season of the year is autumn ( aho atiddrunata saraddtapasya, page 8) ; the sun is passing from the zodiacal sign Virgo to Libra (kanydgrahandt pardm tulam prdpya, stanza 5, page 8), which likewise implies a covert allusion to the king’s escape from captivity and his marriage with Vasavadatta. Time of the Explanatory Scene: duration of the action itself, i.e. some part of a day. Interval of several days. —A slight interval separates the Ex¬ planatory Scene ( viskambhaka ) from Act 1. There are several DURATION OF THE ACTION lvii things which show this. In the first place the Jester speaks of Drdhavarman’s having been imprisoned by Kalinga ( Didhavamma baddho tti, page 12). Furthermore, King Vatsa says it is ‘many days’ ( bahuny ahani, page 12) since he has sent his own chief general, Vijayasena, against Vindhyaketu. These days must be accounted for, since they fall in part within the present action. In some degree it is possible to do this. The victorious general re¬ turns in the first part of Act 1; from his own words we know that it required a forced march of ‘three days’ ( divasatrayena, page 14) to reach Vindhyaketu and that the battle began at daybreak after his arrival. The day of the conflict was the very one in which the scene of the Explanatory Scene ( viskambhaka ) is laid, as we have already found (cf. adya, page 8). It must have taken almost as much time again for the general with his army to return. This period of at least six days may well form a good part of the ‘many days ’ which King Vatsa impatiently feels have elapsed since the general was first dispatched—unless we are to regard bahuny ahani as a mere dramatic exaggeration. In any case it seems fair to allow no less than three days for the interval between the viskambhaka and Act 1. We may now turn to the act itself. Act 1. —King Vatsa comes upon the stage and his general re¬ turns victorious. He brings in his triumphant train a young girl who is supposed to be the daughter of the dead Vindhyaketu (cf. Vindhyaketor . . . tadduhite 'ti, page 16). She is really, how¬ ever, Priyadarsika, the child of the imprisoned Drdhavarman. Vatsa appoints the girl to be a maid in waiting upon Vasavadatta, and he directs the Queen to remind him when Aranyaka (i.e. ‘ Sylvia’), as she is henceforth called, is old enough to be married (yada varayogya bhavisyati tada mum smaraya, page 16). At the close of the act, when all are leaving the stage, the hour is mid-day (cf. nabhomadhyam adhyaste bhagavan sahasradidhitih, page 18, and other similar allusions). Plans are to be made for a celebra¬ tion in honor of the victorious Vijayasena, who is next to be sent against Kalinga (page 18), a campaign which plays a part in the sequel (Act 4). Time of the First Act: the forenoon of one day. lviii INTRODUCTION—PART FOUR Interval of fully a year. —An interval of at least a year is to be assumed between Act i and Act 2. This is shown in several ways. First and foremost we must account for the expression ‘ more than a year ’ used in the Fourth Act regarding the length of Drdhavar- man’s imprisonment (cf. samahio samvaccharo, page 70). The present place between Act 1 and Act 2 is the only one in the drama where we can allow for this longer lapse of time, since there is not any break of importance either before Act 3 or before Act 4. Again, as already stated, the King had bidden that Priyadarsika, or Aranyaka, as she is called in the play, should be the Queen’s maid of honor until she should reach a marriageable age (cf. page 16). In the Second Act the Queen is reported as saying ‘today’ (ajja, page 28) that she must inform the King that Aranyaka is now marriageable, as he had commanded to be reminded when she attained that age. When the King now sees her he speaks of ‘having long been robbed’ (ciram musitdli smo vayam, page 28) of a pleasure he would like to have enjoyed. Moreover, Aranyaka and her associate, Indlvarika, seem to have become such devoted friends in the interval that has elapsed that they can hardly be separated (cf. na sakkunomi tue vind ettha asidum, page 28), although Aranyaka has well kept the secret of her exalted birth all the time (cf. page 24). The time is now the rainy season of autumn once again, as is shown by the allusions to the luxuriance of the flowers and to the autumnal rains (pages 22, 26). 3 But more especially is it shown by the reference to the grand autumnal celebration of the full moon, or the Kaumudl-festival, in Asvina- Karttika (September-November). This is mentioned at the be¬ ginning of Act 3 and again in Act 4, and both of these Acts follow in sequence after Act 2 without any important break. It is to be supposed, therefore, that an interval of fully a year has elapsed between Act 1 and Act 2. The interval may possibly have been even longer owing to the tendency, for dramatic purposes, to com¬ prise events within a year, as explained above. In that event the 3 Compare also the allusion to the Agastya-offering in Act 2, page 24, and see note 26 thereon regarding the season (early autumn). DURATION OF THE ACTION lix expression ‘ more than a year/ as found in the Fourth Act, would be a milder expression for a somewhat longer period. See above. Act 2. —At the opening of the Second Act the Queen is tempo¬ rarily absent, as she has undertaken a vow and a fast (cf. sotthi- vdana, page 20), and the lonely king is in need of diversion (cf. kadham eso piavaasso ajja devle virahukkanthavinodananimittam dharagharujjdnam jevva patthido, and also stanza 1, ksdmdm . . . adya priydm, page 20). It is late afternoon (cf. atthdhildsind sujjena maiildvianti, page 24) when the meeting of the King and Aranyaka unexpectedly takes place, and the sun is setting when their interview closes (cf. atthamadhildsl bhaavam sahassarassi and parinataprdyo divasah, page 34). The whole action is swift and unbroken. Time of the Second Act: the latter part of an afternoon. Possibly a very slight interval. —Only a very slight interval of time separates Act 3 from Act 2, for the Queen is again present after her fast; and the allusions made by one of the girls to Aranyaka’s distracted air ‘yesterday’ ( hio, page 38) and to the absent-minded acting of her role as Vasavadatta in the mimic play which is about to be given seem to imply that the meeting with the King had taken place recently. The miniature play itself is to be performed ‘today, at the great KaumudI-festival’ ( ajja . . . ko- mudlmahusave, page 38) ; and if Aranyaka does not play her part better ‘today’ {ajja, page 38) there is danger of the Queen’s dis¬ pleasure. Aranyaka’s conversation with her confidante Manorama, moreover, seems to imply that little time could have elapsed since the preceding Act. The disguised princess recognizes the very spot where she had been embraced by the King, as if but shortly before (cf. aam so uddeso jassim etc., page 40). The interval was long enough, however, to give a show of credibility to the exaggerated statements about Aranyaka’s sighing ‘ day and night ’ (. divasam rattim, page 42) and also to Vasantaka’s jesting com¬ plaint that Vatsa had not slept ‘day or night,’ nor allowed him to do so (cf. tena saha mae rattimdivam nidda na ditthd, page 58), lx INTRODUCTION—PART FOUR while the affairs of state are simply neglected by the King (cf. pariccattaraakajjo, page 42). In this interval, furthermore, the Jester has made an unsuccessful search for Aranyaka in the women’s apartments (page 44). Act 3.—The Third Act itself opens on the evening of the Kaumudl-festival, the occasion when the Mimic Play is to be pre¬ sented (cf. adya ratrau, page 54, ajja . . . komudlmahusave, page 38, and also kaumudlmaliotsave, page 72). The autumnal day has been a hot one (cf. saradadavena samtappidaim ajja etc., page 40) and the twilight is already past by the time they are ready to begin the performance of the Mimic Play (cf. adikkanta khu samjhd, page 48). By the close of the Act it is bedtime ( idariim sayanlyam gatvd, page 68). The King retires for the night planning some means to propitiate his jealous Queen, who has hurried Aranyaka and the Jester off to prison. Time of the Third Act: part of an evening, which is devoted to the incident of the Mimic Play. Slight interval. —Some interval, not long however, separates Act 3 from Act 4. This is shown especially by allusions in the Introductory Scene, or pravesaka. Aranyaka is now in prison by order of Vasavadatta, and, as her confidante Manorama says, has been so for some time ( ettiam kdlam, page 70). Yet the interval cannot have been a long-extended one, because the Queen’s allusion to the incident between Aranyaka and the King in the Mimic Play would seem to imply that that occasion was more or less recent (tuha una eso Aranniae vuttanto paccakkho, page 72). A like inference may be drawn from Sankrtyayanl’s reference to the same episode during the full-moon festival (cf. kaumudlmaliotsave, page 72). The only other time-allusion which needs mention in this connection is found in a speech of the King. As commented on below, he says that it is ‘ several days ’ ( katipaydny ahani, page 78) since he received the news of his general Vijayasena’s expected victory over Kalinga and of the impending rescue of the long- imprisoned Drdhavarman. Allowing, therefore, for this slight in¬ terval we may take up the final Act of the drama. DURATION OF THE ACTION lxi Act 4 .—The importance of the Fourth Act with reference to the rest of the play is that we learn from its Introductory Scene that ‘more than a year’ (samahio samvaccharo, page 70) has elapsed since Drdhavarman was taken prisoner by Kaliiiga, the hated foe against whom King Vatsa at the close of Act 1 had determined to send his general Vijayasena after the victory over Vindhyaketu had been duly celebrated. In the midst of Act 4 the King tells the news which he received from his general ‘ several days ’ before (katipayany ahdni, page 78), announcing that the fall of Kalinga might be expected ‘today or tomorrow’ (adya svo vd, stanza 5, page 78). The siege has apparently been a long and exhausting one (cf. page 78). At this very moment the general himself enters to announce his triumphal success. He is accom¬ panied by Vinayavasu, the old chamberlain of Drdhavarman who appeared in the Explanatory Scene at the opening of the play. Through the victory of Vatsa’s forces Drdhavarman is reseated on his throne (page 80). On this same occasion of news-giving, the old chamberlain of the restored monarch recognizes Aranyaka as Priyadarsika, the lost daughter of Drdhavarman, and he explains her relationship to the Queen, who is her cousin. As the Fourth Act closes, Priyadarsika is united to the King as another wife, and all ends happily after the various vicissitudes filling the space of a year or more which forms the time of the action of the play. Time of the Fourth Act: part of a day. SUMMARY OF THE DURATION OF THE ACTION Days Represented Explanatory Scene ( viskambhaka ) : part of one day in the rainy season of autumn 1 [Interval of several days] Act 1: part of day, forenoon until mid-day 1 [Interval of at least a year—see discussion above] Act 2: the latter part of an autumn afternoon 1 [Interval — possibly a very slight one, hardly more than a couple of days] lxii INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE Act 3: part of an evening during the Kaumudl- festival I [Only a slight interval] Act 4: part of one day i Thus the whole action of the play covers ‘ more than a year/ from autumn until autumn. The long interval falls between Act I and Act 2. The handling of events gives the impression that they have been compressed into the space of not much over a year, so as to comply with certain rules of the dramatic canon. SOURCES OF THE PLAY, AND THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA Importance of the legend for the Priyadarsika. In the In¬ duction of our play (Act 1, page 4), it is termed apurvavastnraca- nalamkrta, ‘ graced by the treatment of a novel subject ’ or, perhaps, ‘ graced by a novel treatment of the subject/ an expression that recurs in the Inductions of the other dramas ascribed to Harsha. 1 The novelty to which the author lays claim in these words would seem to consist in his arrangement of the details of the plot, for the incidents in their general outline are those regularly found in the natika, or romantic comedy, namely, the love-intrigue of a king with a disguised princess, their secret meetings, the jealousy of the chief queen, and her final acceptance of the situation in the last act, when the heroine is discovered to be her long-lost cousin. Yet, while the course of the action is thus shaped by the writer’s invention, in accordance with the rules of Hindu dramaturgy, 2 the theme in a wider sense is related to literary tradition through the central character of the hero, Udayana Vatsaraja, 4 Udayana, King 1 See note 16 on Act 1, below, p. 99. 2 See SD. 539, natika klptavrttd sydt, ‘the natika, should have an invented action.’ THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxiii of the Vatsas,’ the popularity of whose story the dramatist is at pains to attest. 3 The Priyadarsika is thus a blending of old and new material, as is its companion piece, the Ratnavall, and in order to realize the effect that it was designed to produce we must bring before us the legendary figure of the gay and gallant prince as known to Harsha and his circle. In fact, one long scene, that of the Mimic Play in the Third Act, is woven out of fragments of the Udayana story in a manner that presupposes an intimate ac¬ quaintance with this on the part of the hearers. Udayana as a historical personage. The historical Udayana appears in the Puranas as a ruler of the Paurava dynasty, who traced their lineage back through Arjuna, the great hero of the Mahabharata, and who held sway in KausambI 4 after Hastina- pura, their earlier capital, had been destroyed by an inundation; but the jejune chronicles merely mention him as the fifth from the last king of the line and as successor of Satanlka and predecessor of Vahlnara. 5 A passage in one of the Buddhist canonical writ¬ ings shows that he was believed to have been reigning shortly after the decease of the Buddha, 6 and consequently indicates that he was a contemporary of Ajatasatru, king of Magadha, and Pradyota, king of Avanti or Ujjain, 7 even though the earlier Buddhist texts 3 Act i, stanza 3; see page 7, below. 4 Regarding the site of KausambI see the Additional Note at the end of this part of the Introduction, p. lxxvi, below. 5 See F. E. Pargiter, The Parana Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age, pp. 3-8, Oxford, 1913, and cf. especially p. 7, lines 23-24; cf. id., Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, p. 285, London, 1922. 6 Cullavagga 11. 1. 12-15, ed. H. Oldenberg, The Vinaya Pitakam, 2. 290- 292, London, 1880; tr. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, Vinaya Texts, part 3, pp. 381-385, Oxford, 1885 ( SBE . vol. 20). The passage relates how Ananda, after the Council of Rajagaha, visits KosambI (KausambI) in order to pronounce sentence of excommunication upon the monk Channa, preaches to the ladies of the zenana, and explains to Udena (Udayana) himself the manner of disposing of the monks’ worn-out robes. 7 See the historical reference to the relations between Ajatasatru and Pradyota in Majjhima-Nikaya 108 (Gopakamoggallanasutta), ed. R. Chal¬ mers, 3. 7, London, 1899: ‘ On that occasion [not long after the Buddha’s decease] the king of Magadha, Ajatasattu the son of the Videha princess, was refortifying Rajagaha, being suspicious of King Pajjota.’ lxiv INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE do not bring him into relation with these sovereigns. 8 His city of KausambI, however, which was situated on a navigable river, 9 pre¬ sumably the Jumna, 10 was frequently visited by the Buddha, and many sites there are mentioned, especially the Ghositarama park. 11 Udayana, or Udena (the form that his name assumes in Pali), does not receive the royal appellation Vatsaraja in the earlier texts, 12 but his subjects are mentioned, under the name Vamsa, as one of the sixteen ‘ great peoples ’ of the time. 13 Possible origin of the legend. We can only conjecture what caused legend to gather around the figure of Udayana, but even in the canonical Pali writings there are hints of amorous traits that would make him a suitable hero of romantic adventures, 14 just as his contemporary Pradyota early gained an unenviable reputa- 8 The view set forth by Harit Krishna Deb ( Udayana Vatsa-rdja, 9 pp., Calcutta, 1919), that Udayana ultimately extended his sway over the king¬ doms of Magadha and Avanti and became the first ‘ emperor ’ of ‘ Middle India,’ rests upon a strained interpretation of variant readings in the Purana texts of the dynastic lists, and finds no real support in the historical tradition. 9 See Cullavagga 11. 1. 12 (cf. note 6, above): navdya ujjavanikdya Kosambiyd paccorohitvd, ‘having disembarked at Kosambi (KausambI) from a boat going up-stream.’ 10 See the Additional Note on the site of KausambI, p. lxxvi, below. 11 See the references in E. Muller, ‘A Glossary of Pali Proper Names/ in Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1888, pp. 26, 30. 12 He is king of the Vatsas (Vamsas) in the Sanskrit Buddhist writings; see Mahavastu, ed. E. Senart, 2. 2, line 12, Paris, 1890; and cf. Lalitavistara, ed. S. Lefmann, 1. 21, Halle, 1902; tr. P. E. Foucaux, Annales du Musee Guimet, 6. 22, Paris, 1884. See also the Tibetan sources translated in W. W. Rockhill, The Life of the Buddha, pp. 16-17, 74, London, 1884. 13 See Anguttara-Nikaya 8. 42. 4; 8. 43. 4; 8. 45. 4, ed. E. Hardy, 4. 252, 256, 260, London, 1899. Compare, however, ibid. 3. 70. 17, ed. R. Morris, 1. 213, London, 1885, in which passage the Vaiigas are substituted in the enumeration.—On the Buddhist sources in general see Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, pp. 3-8, 23, 27, 36, New York, 1903; id. in The Cambridge History of India, 1. 187-188, London, 1922. 14 Cullavagga, loc. cit. (Udayana converses with the ladies of his zenana) ; Samyutta-Nikaya 35. 127 (Bharadvaja-sutta), ed. L. Feer, 4. 110-113, Lon¬ don, 1894 (he questions the monk Pindolabharadvaja about monastic chas¬ tity) ; Udana 7. 10, ed. P. Steinthal, p. 79, London, 1885; tr. D. M. Strong, pp. 109-110, London, 1902 (his zenana is destroyed by fire and five hundred ladies perish, headed by Samavati). THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxv tion for ferocity. 15 It is therefore not surprising that popular fancy should have woven a story that brings the two monarchs together in dramatic contrast, narrating the capture of Udayana through Pradyota’s stratagem and his subsequent escape with the heart and hand of his captor’s daughter as a prize. And who shall say, in view of the romantic annals of Rajput chivalry, that there may not have been a kernel of truth in the incident? 16 Literary sources for the legend. It is unnecessary here to re¬ count the legend as it is found in the writings of the Pali com¬ mentators and in those of the Northern schools of Buddhism 17 ; for Harsha, despite his leanings towards that religion, seems not to have drawn from its literary sources in either of his plays that 15 See the story of the physician Jivaka, in Mahavagga 8. i. 23-29, ed. H. Oldenberg, The Vinaya Pitakam, 1. 276-278, London, 1879; tr. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, Vinaya Texts, part 2, pp. 186-191, Oxford, 1882 (SBE. vol. 17). The she-elephant Bhaddavatika, on whom Jivaka made his escape, appears also in the Udayana legend, see p. lxix, below, and cf. Jataka 409 (Dalhadhammajataka), ed. V. Fausboll, 3. 384-385, London, 1883; tr. Francis and Neil, 3. 233, Cambridge, 1897. 16 D. R. Bhandarkar, Lectures on the Ancient History of India, pp. 58-63, Calcutta, 1919, in his summary of the traditions regarding Udayana seems to accept the historical character of the main events, relying especially on the evidence of Bhasa’s dramas, cf. pp. lxxi-lxxii, below. 17 The fullest treatment of the Udayana legend in the Pali literature is found in the Dhammapada Commentary (5th century A.D.), ed. H. C. Norman, 1. 2. 161-231, London, 1909; tr. E. W. Burlingame, Buddhist Legends, part 1, pp. 247-293, Cambridge, Mass., 1921 (Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 28). For the account of Udayana’s earlier years see text, pp. 161-169, tr., pp. 247-252; for his wooing of Vasuladatta, daughter of Canda- Pajjota, see text, pp. 191-199, tr., pp. 270-274. These portions of the story are also told very briefly by Buddhaghosa in his Majjhima-Nikaya Com¬ mentary entitled PapancasudanI, cf. the Siamese edition (A.B. 2463 = 1920 A.D.), 3. 300-302. For the allusion in the Jataka Commentary see note 15, above. The numerous references to Udayana in the Northern Buddhist texts have been collected by F. Lacote, Essai sur Gunddhya et la Brhatkathd, pp. 231- 273, Paris, 1908; cf. especially the summary of the episode of Vasavadatta (pp. 242-244) extracted from the legends about Pradyota in the Kandjur, which have been translated in full by A. Schiefner, ‘ Mahakatjajana und Konig Tshanda-Pradjota,’ Memoires de VAcademie Imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, 7th series, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 35-40, St. Petersburg, 1876. See also Burlingame, op. cit., introd., pp. 51, 62-63, for a conspectus of the sources of the whole story-cycle of Udayana. 5 lxvi INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE have Udayana as their hero. That the theme had long had a place in the secular literature of India is indicated by the statement of Iiarsha himself, 18 by its employment in two dramas of the early poet Bhasa, the Svapnavasavadatta and the Pratijnayaugandhara- yana, 19 and by incidental references to it in such technical treatises as the Kautillya Arthasastra 20 and Patanjali’s Mahabhasya, 21 as well as by the more literary allusions in the Mrcchakatika 22 and 18 Act i, stanza 3: ‘The story of Vatsaraja is a popular subject.’ 16 The Svapnavasavadatta and the Pratijnayaugandharayana have been edited by T. Ganapati Sastri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, nos. 15 and 16, Trivandrum, 1912; also 3d ed., with commentary by the editor, in 1916 and 1920 respectively. The authenticity of these as well as of the other dramas ascribed to Bhasa has been questioned, cf. Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. 45. 189-195 (1916); L. D. Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233-234; ibid. 1921, pp. 587-589. The weight of opinion, however, is in favor of accepting them as genuine, cf. Konow, Das indische Drama, pp. 51-56; F. W. Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79-83; M. Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, 3. 644-645, Leipzig, [1922]. Bhasa flourished after Asvaghosa and before Kalidasa, between the end of the 2d century A.D. (so Konow, op. cit., p. 51; id., Aufsdtse . . . Ernst Kuhn . . . gewidmet, pp. 106-114, Miinchen, 1916) and the beginning of the 4th century (Winternitz, op. cit., pp. 186-187; id., Ostasiatische Zeitschrift, 9. 282-299, Berlin, 1922). 20 See Arthasastra, book 9, ch. 7, ed. R. Shama Sastri, 2d ed., p. 360, Mysore, 1919: drsta hi jivatah punardvrttih, yathd Suyatrodayanabhyam, ‘ for the return [to power] of one living has been witnessed, as in the case of Suyatra and Udayana.’ It is not certain that this work as a whole goes back to the time of its reputed author Canakya (c. 320 B.C.), cf. A. B. Keith, JRAS. 1916, pp. 130-137; A. Hillebrandt, ZDMG. 69. 360-364; Win¬ ternitz, Gesch. d. ind. Litt. 3. 517-523; but it is in any case anterior to Harsha by some centuries. On the employment of such quasi-historical examples in the Arthasastra cf. J. Charpentier, ‘ Sagengeschichtliches aus dem Arthasastra,’ WZKM. 28. 211-240, esp. pp. 219, 239. 21 Mahabhasya, ed. Kielhorn, 2. 313, Bombay, 1883, in commenting on Panini 4. 3. 87, mentions an akhydyikd or ‘tale’ called Vasavadatta after its heroine; and Vasavadattika is the name for one who is familiar with it, ibid. 2. 283-284 (on Panini 4. 2. 60). That this Vasavadatta is the same as the bride of Udayana cannot be definitely proved, but it is at least highly probable. 22 See Mrcchakatika, act 4, stanza 26c, d, ed. N. B. Godabole, p. 190, Bombay, 1896 (=ed. K. P. Parab, p. 113, Bombay, 1900): jhdtln . . . uttejaydmi suhrdah parimoksanaya | Yaugandharayana ivo ’dayanasya rdjhah, ‘ The kinsmen ... I will arouse for the deliverance of my friend as Yaugandharayana did for that of King Udayana.’ This stanza occurs in THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxvii in Kalidasa’s Meghaduta. 23 Yet, as chance would have it, we must follow the main current of Sanskrit literature down to the eleventh century before we find a consecutive presentation of the tale in two works by Kashmirian writers, the famous Kathasarit- sagara of Somadeva (written between 1063 and 1081 A.D.) and the slightly earlier Brhatkathamanjarl of Ksemendra. Both profess to be abridgments of the ancient Brhatkatha, or ‘ Great Story,’ composed by Gunadhya in Paisaci Prakrit 24 ; but it has been shown by Lacote that they represent in fact a much altered Kashmirian adaptation of it, and that another abridgment recently brought to light, the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha of Budhasvamin (probably earlier than 1000 A.D.), is closer to the antique original. 25 Since, however, this last-named work passes over the story of Udayana, we must have recourse to the Kashmirian accounts, more especially to the fuller one of Somadeva, even if their testimony is always to be accepted with reserve. 26 The narrative of the Kathasaritsagara. According to the one of the Aryaka episodes of the play and is not found in the Daridracaru- datta of Bhasa. 23 See Meghaduta, 1. 30a, ed. Godabole and Paraba, 2d ed., p. 24, Bombay, 1886: prdpyd ’vantm Udayanakathakovidagramavrddhan, ‘reaching Avanti, whose village elders are conversant with the story of Udayana.’ The second of the interpolated stanzas following 1. 31 {ibid. p. 26) contains a reference to Udayana’s elopement with Vasavadatta and to the fury of the elephant Nalagiri, cf. Act 3, page 49, below. 24 Concerning the original work of Gunadhya, who must have flourished not later than the 3d century A.D., see F. Lacote, Essai sur Gunadhya et la Brhatkatha, pp. 1-59; Winternitz, Gesch. d. ind. Litt. 3. 312-315. 25 See the careful discussion by Lacote, op. cit., pp. 61-145 (the Kash¬ mirian versions), pp. 146-195 (the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha), pp. 207-218 (comparison of the faithfulness of the two recensions). Winternitz, op. cit., pp. 315-317, considers that Budhasvamin is an independent author rather than a mere epitomator, though he has probably adhered to Gunadhya’s narrative in the main. 26 It is also possible that the legend of Udayana existed as an independent literary work apart from the Brhatkatha; for an Udayanacarita is men¬ tioned in the commentary on Dasarupa, ed. Parab, 2. 57, p. 75, Bombay, 1897 (cf. ed. Haas, p. xxxviii). There is, however, nothing to indicate whether this was a drama, as Levi (Le Theatre indien, part 2, p. 39) seems to assume, or a work in narrative form. INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE lxviii Kathasaritsagara, 27 Udayana was the grandson of Satanlka and the son of Sahasranlka, who were in succession rulers of Kau- sambi in the land of Vatsa. While the latter’s queen Mrgavatl was pregnant, she was snatched away by a great bird in conse¬ quence of a curse and was abandoned on the ‘ Sunrise Mountain ’ (Udayaparvata), where she brought forth her son Udayana under the protection of the hermit Jamadagni. One day, as the growing boy was wandering in the forest, he rescued a beautiful snake from a snake-charmer by giving the man a bracelet on which the name of Sahasranlka happened to be inscribed. The grateful serpent, who was none other than Vasunemi, the eldest brother of Vasuki, chief of the snake-deities, rewarded Udayana with the gift of a lute and with the bestowal of various magical powers. Thereupon, through the bracelet’s coming into the king’s hands, the latter dis¬ covered the whereabouts of his wife and his son, and set out to seek them. After joining them at the hermitage, he returned in pomp to KausambI and made Udayana crown-prince, giving him as counselors Vasantaka, Rumanvant, and Yaugandharayana, who were the sons respectively of the king’s boon companion, of his commander-in-chief, and of his prime minister. At length, on the approach of old age, Sahasranlka abdicated in the prince’s favor. 28 After his accession, Udayana gradually gave himself up to pleasure, especially that of the chase, and delighted in taming wild elephants by the strains of his lute Ghosavatl. He set his heart on obtaining for a wife Vasavadatta, daughter of the stern King Candamahasena of Ujjain and of his queen Angaravatl; but the enmity between the two monarchs prevented the consummation of the alliance by diplomatic means. 29 Candamahasena therefore had recourse to stratagem. Knowing Udayana’s weakness for hunting, he had an artificial elephant constructed and stationed it, filled with soldiers, in the Vindhya forest. Udayana immediately set out to 27 Ed. Durgaprasad and Parab, Bombay, 1889; tr. C. H. Tawney, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1880-1884. 28 For the foregoing account, see tarangas 9 (Skt. text, pp. 28-31; tr. Tawney, 1. 51-56) and 10. 202-217 (Skt. text, p. 37; tr. Tawney, 1. 66-67). 29 See tar. 11 (Skt. text, pp. 37-40; tr. Tawney, 1. 67-71). THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxix tame the supposed elephant with his lute and was seized by the concealed warriors of his adversary. He was brought captive to Ujjain, but was kindly treated by Candamahasena, who at once ordered him to teach Vasavadatta music. The lessons were given in the music-room of the palace, but love was the unspoken theme . 30 Meanwhile the minister Yaugandharayana, on learning of his master’s captivity, had gone to rescue him in company with Vasan- taka, leaving Rumanvant in charge of the kingdom. Arriving at Ujjain, Yaugandharayana by means of a charm altered his appear¬ ance to that of a madman and likewise gave Vasantaka a deformed shape. In this guise they penetrated into the zenana and made themselves known to the fettered king, the minister in order to concert plans for his escape, the jester to entertain him and Vasa¬ vadatta with tales . 31 When the princess had at length been won to side with Udayana against her father, the lovers fled away by night on her elephant Bhadravatl, the way having been prepared by the schemes of Yaugandharayana. With them went the faithful Vasantaka and Kancanamala, the friend and confidante of Vasavadatta. As soon as the alarm was given, Palaka, the son of Candamahasena, pur¬ sued the fugitives on the royal elephant Nadagiri, but the latter refused to attack his mate, and Palaka was induced to turn back by the persuasions of his brother Gopalaka. Udayana and his bride, after suffering hardship in the Vindhya forest, were met by Rumanvant with the army and escorted to KausambI, where their nuptials were formally celebrated with the approval of Canda¬ mahasena . 32 The subsequent history of Udayana as related in the Katha- saritsagara has but few points of contact with our play. Sum¬ mary mention is made of two intrigues of the king, with the harem- attendant Viracita and the captive princess Bandhumatl, and in the latter case the intervention of the female ascetic Sankrtyayanl, 30 See tar. 12. 1-33 (Skt. text, pp. 40-41; tr. Tawney, 1. 72 - 73 )- 31 See tar. 12. 34-77 (Skt. text, pp. 41-42; tr. Tawney, 1. 73 ~ 75 )- 32 See tar. 13. 1-50 (Skt. text, pp. 46-47; tr. Tawney, 1. 82-84) and 14 1-32 (Skt. text, pp. 52 - 53 ; tr. Tawney, 1. 94 - 95 )• lxx INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE who was a friend of Vasavadatta and had come from her father's court, is said to have effected a general reconciliation. 33 Tarangas 15 and 16 are occupied with the story of Udayana’s marriage with Padmavatl after the pretended death of Vasavadatta, which is the theme of Bhasa’s Svapnavasavadatta and of the Tapasavatsaraja- carita of Anangaharsa Matraraja. 34 In the Ratnavali the report of Vasavadatta’s death by fire is alluded to several times in another connection, 35 but the Priyadarsika merely mentions the name of Queen Padmavatl once (Act 3, page 45). The Brhatkathamanjarl. The legend as thus told in the Katha- saritsagara is found also in Book 2 of the Brhatkathamanjarl, 36 with less detail but without significant variation except in one par¬ ticular. According to Ksemendra’s account, the serpent who was rescued by the youthful Udayana took him to Patala, the abode of the snake-deities, where he married a female Naga and obtained his lute Ghosavati. 37 Incidental references in the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha. Un¬ like the Kashmirian versions, the more faithful abridgment of the Brhatkatha known as the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha does not re¬ late the story of Udayana, but it furnishes some significant details about various of its personages and episodes. 38 Thus the events connected with the birth and early years of Udayana are narrated 33 See tar. 14. 65-72 (Skt. text, p. 54; tr. Tawnev, 1. 97). The incident of Bandhumatl has some resemblance to the plot of the Priyadarsika; thus the king accompanied by Vasantaka sees the heroine in an arbor, and the queen is angry and has Vasantaka imprisoned. Other details are unlike, however, and it is improbable that we have here the source of the plot, as has been suggested by Krishnamachariar, Priyadarsika , introd., p. xlii; cf. Lacote, Essai, p. 71. 34 This author flourished between 650 and 800 A.D., cf. Konow, Das indische Drama, p. 82; and he is mentioned by Damodaragupta (800 A.D.) in his Kuttanimata 777, cf. page xli, note 25, above. 35 See Ratnavali, ed. Godabole and Parab, act 4, pp. 72, 73, 79. 36 Ed. Sivadatta and Parab, pp. 33-68, Bombay, 1901. 37 See Brhatkathamanjarl, 2. 1. 56-60, p. 38. 38 The text of the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha is incomplete, only 28 cantos or 1 sargas * being extant, of which the first nine have been edited and trans¬ lated by F. Lacote, Budhasvamin, Brhat-Kathd Qlokasamgraha I-IX, Paris, 1908. See also p. lxvii, above, and note 25 thereon. THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxxi at length, 39 including his visits to the city of the Serpents and his acquisition there of the magic lute Ghosavatl and of the art of taming elephants. 40 His two queens Vasavadatta and Padmavatl are often mentioned, as well as his four ministers Rsabha, Ruman- vant, Yaugandharayana, and Vasantaka. 41 In the royal family of Ujjain we hear of Mahasena, who is also called Pradyota, as in the Buddhist forms of the legend, 42 and of his queen Aiigaravati. 43 In one passage there is a covert allusion to Udayana’s elopement with Vasavadatta, 44 and the elephants Bhadravati and Nalagiri, which figure in the Kathasaritsagara account of it, are mentioned in a way that proves them to have had a similar part in the earlier Brhatkatha. 45 The testimony of Bhasa’s plays. Another witness to the legend in its more antique form may be found in the two plays by Bhasa already mentioned, Svapnavasavadatta and Pratijnayaugandhara- yana 46 ; but in dealing with these one must reckon with the possi¬ bility that the dramatist may have recast the story to satisfy the exigencies of his plots. Yet, as Lacote has pointed out with regard to the former, 47 the allusive way in which Bhasa develops his theme proves that it was already familiar to his hearers, and the details that he casually introduces are therefore likely to be derived from the popular tradition. Leaving aside the Svapnavasavadatta, which concerns a later period of Udayana’s career, we find in the Pra- tijnayaugandharayana that his capture through the stratagem of Mahasena (or Pradyota, as he is also called) is the incident from 39 Sarga 5. 89-174 (text, pp. 56-63; tr., pp. 32-37). 40 Cf. ibid. 5. 138-151; also 2. 41, where King Palaka, son of Mahasena, says that Vatsaraja taught him the lore of elephants. 41 See especially sarga 4. 18-20; also, for Vasantaka as the boon com¬ panion of the king, 4. 69; 5. 191. 42 Sargas 1. 5-10, 34-48; 2. 48-73; 5 - 285-295. 43 Sarga 3. 27-40, 78-79. 44 See 5. 293, where Udayana, in addressing his father-in-law, calls him¬ self ‘ a thief,’ caura. 45 Sarga 5. 316-318. 46 See p. lxvi, note 19, above. 47 ‘ La source de la Vasavadatta de Bhasa,’ Journal Asiatique, 1919, 1. 493-525, esp. pp. 496-498. lxxii INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE which the entire action develops; but the whole affair has a more serious cast than in the Kathasaritsagara account. There had been no previous negotiations by Udayana for Vasavadatta’s hand, and Mahasena’s purpose in seizing him was the crushing of a proud and dangerous enemy. 48 The king relents, indeed, when his cap¬ tive is brought to him severely wounded, but he nevertheless keeps Vatsaraja in close confinement. 49 It is through an accident that the prisoner sees Vasavadatta and falls in love with her; and he apparently obtains his position as her music-teacher only after he has tamed the royal elephant Nalagiri in consequence of a scheme devised by Yaugandharayana. 50 We may therefore hazard the conjecture that this more dramatic version of the story, which in its emphasis upon Udayana’s mastery of elephants accords with the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha, contains at least some older ele¬ ments that have been effaced in the Kashmirian redaction of the Brhatkatha. 51 Jain accounts of the legend. Attention may here be called to the occurrence of the Udayana legend in several Jain works, namely the Trisastisalakapurusacarita of Hemacandra (12th century), the Kumarapalapratibodha of Somaprabha (1195 A.D.), 52 and the Mrgavatlcaritra of Maladhari-Devaprabha (13th century). 53 It 48 Act 2, pp. 25, 32-34 (ed. T. Ganapati Sastri, Trivandrum, 1912). It must be observed that in Svapnavasavadatta, act 6, p. 78, Queen Ahgaravati, in a message to Vatsaraja, says that he was brought to Ujjain in order that he might marry Vasavadatta; but the contradiction may be explained through the Queen’s desiring to put the best face on the matter, cf. Pratijna., act 4, p. 72. 49 Act 2, p. 38; act 3, pp. 47-48. 50 Act 3, pp. 49-51; act 4, p. 70. 51 Lacote, in the article cited above, note 47, has shown that the episode of the wooing of Padmavatl has been similarly remodeled in the Kathasarit¬ sagara. 52 Ed. Muniraja Jinavijaya, pp. 76-83, Baroda, 1920 (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. 14) ; cf. P. D. Gune, Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, 2. 1-21, Poona, 1920-1921, who gives a summary of Somaprabha’s account and compares it with the Pratij nayaugandharayana and the Kathasaritsagara. According to Gune, p. 1, note, Hemacandra’s work contains the same legend in a more detailed form. 53 Summarized by J. Hertel, ‘Jniaklrtis “ Geschichte von Pala und THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxxiii seems unnecessary, however, to analyze the contents of these nar¬ ratives, which produce the impression of being centos from various sources and which present no traits that closely parallel the allu¬ sions in the plays of Harsha. 54 Employment of the legend in Harsha’s plays. Using as a background the foregoing sketch of the story of Udayana as it is more or less fully told in the various sources, we may proceed to fit into it the fragments of character and of incident that Harsha uses in the Priyadarsika. The scantier allusions in the Ratnavall may also be cited here as helping in some measure to fill out the picture. Characters from the legend. The list of characters in each play exhibits Udayana Vatsaraja 55 as the hero with the Jester Vasantaka as his boon companion, and Vasavadatta as his chief queen with Rancanamala for her principal attendant, all in exact conformity with the legend. His chief councilors Yaugandhara- yana and Rumanvant also figure in the two plays, but their roles in each show a noteworthy difference. In Ratnavall, as in Katha- saritsagara and the other sources, Yaugandharayana is the astute minister who conducts the intrigue and Rumanvant is merely men¬ tioned as a victorious general. 56 The Priyadarsika, however, in¬ troduces Rumanvant as ‘ minister ’ ( amdtya ) in Act i and gives the part of general to a new personage, Vijayasena. Yaugan- Gopala,” ’ Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der Kgl. Sdchsischen Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 69. 4. 105-123, Leipzig, 1917. 54 Hertel, op. cit., pp. 148-149, calls Devaprabha’s account a new and inde¬ pendent source of equal rank with the Brahmanical and the Buddhistic ver¬ sions, and says that Harsha’s dramas are ‘ completely worthless for the determination of the original form of the legend ’; but the Mrgavaticaritra shows in parts a very close resemblance to the Kathasaritsagara and the Tapasavatsarajacarita (see p. lxx, note 34, above), while other portions are reminiscent of the Buddhist story. 55 Since the scene in each case is at the court of the hero, he is usually styled Vatsaraja, his throne-name, but is sometimes called Udayana by out¬ siders, such as the chamberlain of Mahasena in the Mimic Play (Priya., Act 3, p. 51), which is itself entitled ‘The Adventure of Udayana’ {ibid. p. 55 ). See also Ratn., act 1, p. 15, ed. Godabole and Parab (speech of the heroine), and the punning stanza (24) immediately preceding. 56 See Ratn., act 1, explanatory scene, and act 4. lxxiv INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE dharayana is mentioned only once, in the Mimic Play (Act 3, p. 57). Perhaps the simplest explanation would be that the plot of the Priyadarsika afforded no opportunity for the display of Yaugandharayana’s traditional cunning, and the dramatist conse¬ quently thought it better to omit entirely a character that could not be adequately portrayed. Of the other subsidiary personages, SahkrtyayanI, the friend of the Queen and author of the Mimic Play, appears in a very much abridged episode of the Katha- saritsagara 57 ; and it is scarcely a mere coincidence that the Por¬ tress should be named Yasodhara both in the Priyadarsika and in the Brhatkatha-slokasamgraha (4. 26). Vasavadatta’s father, who figures so prominently in the legend, is spoken of several times under the name Pradyota, 58 as in the older sources (Bhasa, Brhat¬ katha-slokasamgraha), though he is also called by his throne-name Mahasena in the Mimic Play (Priya., p. 49) ; and a letter from his queen, Angaravatl, 59 contributes to the denouement in the last act of our drama. Finally, Vatsaraja’s second wife, Padmavati, is named once in the Priyadarsika (Act 3, p. 45), as if to show that Harsha was acquainted with her story, 60 even if he could not introduce it into his plot. Incidents derived from the legend. While in both Priyadar¬ sika and Ratnavali the characters of the hero and the chief mem¬ bers of his entourage are thus in a measure traditional, the main action in each play centers about the heroine and is independent of the legend. Yet there are, especially in the Priyadarsika, some passages that hark back to it, mostly in the opening scenes of Act 1 and in the Mimic Play of Act 3. We are told in the Explanatory Scene of Act 1 (p. 9) that ‘ Vatsaraja has escaped from captivity, carrying off the daughter of Pradyota, and has reached KausambI/ and the same events are punningly alluded to in the following stanza (1. 5). When Vatsaraja himself and the Jester appear on the scene (pp. 11-13), their first conversation concerns this same captivity and the wooing of Vasavadatta. The Mimic Play actu- 67 See pp. lxix-lxx, above. 58 Priya., pp. 9, 13, 57; Ratn., p. 4 (at p. 75 he is merely ‘king of Avanti ’). 69 Her name appears in Priya., p. 71. 60 See p. lxx, above. THE LEGEND OF UDAYANA lxxv ally purports to depict this incident, but it is presented in such a fragmentary way that one can do no more than observe its general resemblance to the account in the Kathasaritsagara. 61 Thus the scene is in the ‘ music-room ’ of Mahasena’s palace, Vasavadatta holds the lute Ghosavati, Vatsaraja is called ‘ music-teacher,’ and there is even mention of a * crazy fellow,’ who is doubtless the disguised Yaugandharayana (pp. 51-53). There is agreement, too, in the particular that Vatsaraja was in fetters when he taught Vasavadatta to play the lute (p. 57). Earlier in Act 3 there is also an allusion to Mahasena’s delight at Vatsaraja’s ‘ capture of Nalagiri ’ (p. 49), an incident not described in the Kathasarit¬ sagara, but hinted at in the Pratijnayaugandharayana, pp. 49, 70. Of the events in the hero’s youth only one is mentioned in the Priyadarsika, his visit to the abode of the Nagas 62 (Act 2, stanza 6 , pp. 27-29), where, as another passage says (Act 4, p. 85), he acquired the knowledge of poisons and their antidotes. We have no means of knowing whether this last detail belongs to the origi¬ nal story or is invented for dramatic convenience in resuscitating the heroine. The Ratnavall contains one other allusion to a legendary incident, the pretended burning of Queen Vasavadatta at Lavanaka 63 ; but this in the play is disjoined from the wooing of Padmavatl and is brought into relation with the fortunes of the heroine Ratnavall herself. It would be futile, in the present state of our knowledge, to attempt to reconstruct the precise version of the Udayana legend that Harsha followed, and the inquiry would not greatly profit in any event, for the stories of the Brhatkatha, not possessing any sacred character, might have been freely handled by any writer who chose to use them. It is enough to have pointed out the general outlines of the story that must have been familiar to every cultivated audience in Harsha’s day, so that the modern reader may feel something of the pleasure that comes when the heroes of old time are brought to life once more upon the stage. 61 See pp. lxviii-lxix, above. 62 See pp. Ixx, lxxi, above; cf. also Ratn., act 1, st. 13. 63 Ed. Godabole and Parab, pp. 72, 73, 79; cf. p. Ixx, above. lxxvi INTRODUCTION—PART FIVE ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE SITE OF KAUSAMBI Like so many famous cities of ancient India, Kausambi declined in impor¬ tance during the centuries following the Christian era, and in Muhammadan times it fell into utter ruin, so that even the memory of its site passed out of general knowledge. In 1861 Cunningham was led to identify it with the extensive remains at the modern villages of Kosam on the Jumna, about 30 miles above Allahabad (see Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, 1. 301-312, Simla, 1871) ; and he corroborated this conclusion on his subsequent visits (cf. ibid. 10. 1-5; 21. 1-3; also Fiihrer, Arch. Survey Reports, New Imperial Series, 12. 140-143). This identification was first challenged by Vincent Smith (JRAS. 1898, pp. 503-519), on the ground that it did not agree with the data of Hsuan-Chuang’s itinerary, which seem to place Kausambi about 500 li (approximately 84 to 100 miles) south-west of Prayaga or Allahabad (see Si-yu-ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World, tr. S. Beal, 1. 234-239, London, 1906; Life of Hiuen-Tsiang, tr. Beal, new ed., pp. 90-91, 190, London, 1911). Smith therefore suggested that the famous Buddhist ruins at Bharhut (Bharahat) might be the site. Vost (JRAS. 1904, pp. 249-267) and Watters (On Yuan Chwang’s Travels, I. 365-372) agree with Smith in rejecting the claims of Kosam, though not accepting his alternative suggestion. In favor of Cunningham’s view the following considerations may be pre¬ sented as outweighing even the apparently adverse testimony of Hsuan- Chuang. The Pali texts speak of Kosambi, or Kausambi, as being on a navigable river (Cullavagga, 11. 1. 12; see p. lxiv, n. 9, above), which is called either the ‘Great Jumna’ (Buddhaghosa, Anguttara-Nikaya Commentary, Siamese ed., 1. 333-336; cf. Dhammapala, Thera-Gatha Commentary, as summarized by Mrs. Rhys Davids, Psalms of the Brethren, pp. 159-160, London, 1913) or the Ganges (Samyutta-Nikaya, ed. L. Feer, 4. 179, London, 1894, but with variant reading; Sutta-Nipata Commentary, ed. H. Smith, 2. 514, Lon¬ don, 1917). These statements, though vague, are in favor of a site in the Doab rather than one in the central highlands. Furthermore, the Brhat- katha-slokasamgraha explicitly states that Kausambi was on the Kalindi or Jumna (4. 14; cf. 8. 21). The epigraphic material indicates the persistence of a local identification of Kausambi with Kosam, as asserted in the Jain inscription of 1824 A.D. (Ep. Ind. 2. 243-244) and the goldsmiths’ inscription of 1565 A.D. (Ep. Ind. II. 89-92). The earlier inscription of King Yasahpala (1036 A.D.), which was formerly at Karra on the Ganges, not far from Kosam, mentions not only the ‘ district of Kausambi ’ but probably also the neighboring village of Prabhasa or Pabhosa, though the stone is much defaced (see the text in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 5. 731). Finally, the ancient re¬ mains, epigraphic, numismatic, and archeological, which have been found at Kosam, prove that its site was a place of considerable importance in the early period of Indian history, as Kausambi undoubtedly was (cf. Rapson, in Cambridge History of India, 1. 524-526, London, 1922). RELATION TO HARSHA’S OTHER DRAMAS lxxvii 6 RELATION BETWEEN THE PRIYADARSIKA AND THE OTHER DRAMAS OF HARSHA Introduction. The cumulative data in support of Harsha’s hav¬ ing been a royal author have already been presented in Part 2 of this Introduction, and reference has been made (especially on pp. xlv-xlvi) to internal evidence which bears out his claim to the authorship of all three of the dramas, Priyadarsika, Ratnavall, and Nagananda. General unity of the three dramas. The fact that Harsha’s name is woven into a stanza which is repeated nearly verbatim in the Induction of each of the plays (see note 20 on Act 1, page 99, below), and that the benedictory stanzas at the close of the Priya¬ darsika and the Ratnavall form another repetition (see note 79 on Act 4), in addition to the recurrence of two identical stanzas in the Priyadarsika and the Nagananda (Priya. 3. 3 = Nagan. 4. 1; Priya. 3. 10 = Nagan. 1. 14), needs only to be recalled here. For the purpose, however, of adding further internal evidence regard¬ ing the unity of authorship, it is worth while to present some de¬ tails with respect to repeated phrases, parallels in situations and in turns of thought, structural similarities, and the like, even though the main points of this evidence are familiar to specialists in the Sanskrit drama. 1 A. PARALLELS BETWEEN PRIYADARSIKA AND RATNAVALI The closest likeness exists between the Priyadarsika and the Ratnavall in the general similarity of theme, method of treatment, parallel situations, kindred ideas, and manner of diction, although the latter is a much more elaborate play and shows a distinct ad- 1 See especially Pischel, GGA. 1883, pp. 1235-1241; ibid. 1891, pp. 366- 367; S. J. Warren, Koning Harsha van Kanyakubja, pp. 1-8, The Hague, 1883; F. Cimmino, Sui Drammi attribuiti ad Harshadeva, Naples, 1906; id., Nagananda . . . traduzione, pp. xxxi-xxxvi, Naples, 1903; S. Levi, Le Theatre indien, pp. 184-196, Paris, 1890. Due acknowledgment is here made to these scholarly works. lxxviii INTRODUCTION—PART SIX vance in grasp over the former. Before proceeding to other com¬ parisons, an outline of the plot of the Ratnavall is given, to bring out the structural similarities to the Priyadarsika. Plot of the Ratnavall in brief. Ratnavall (or Sagarika), daughter of the King of Ceylon, has been destined by a prophecy to become an additional wife to King Vatsa Udayana, who is already married to Vasavadatta. While on her journey to con¬ summate this royal alliance, she is shipwrecked at sea, but is hap¬ pily rescued and brought to King Vatsa’s capital, where his chief minister places her in the keeping of Queen Vasavadatta without revealing her identity as a princess. She is known in the play as Sagarika, because of having been rescued from the ocean ( sdgara ), just as Priyadarsika is called Aranyaka because of having been rescued in the forest ( aranya ). A meeting by chance in the palace- garden results in mutual love between Sagarika and the King. This amorous intrigue, in which the use of disguise plays a part, is helped on by the damsel’s friend and by the King’s Jester, but is discovered by the Queen, who causes both Sagarika and the Jester to be thrown into prison at the close of the third act. A solution of the difficulties is soon found. A fire in the palace, caused by a magician’s artifice, places the imprisoned maiden in imminent danger, but she is gallantly rescued by the King. At this moment the opportune entrance of her royal father’s minister, who had escaped from the shipwreck in which the princess was thought to have been lost, results in an immediate recognition of Sagarika as Ratnavall, the destined bride of King Vatsa Udayana. The Queen, to whom she is related as a cousin, accepts her as a co-wife, while the joy of the occasion, in which the Jester, who has been previously released, takes a part, is made more complete through the happy news that King Vatsa’s general Rumanvant has triumphed over the rival monarch of Kosala. Thus all ends well at the close of the fourth act. Characters common to both Priyadarsika and Ratnavall. Characters common to both of these plays are King Vatsa Udayana, Queen Vasavadatta and her attendant Kancanamala, as well as the RELATION TO HARSHA’S OTHER DRAMAS lxxix royal Jester Vasantaka. 2 Likewise Rumanvant, who acts as min¬ ister in the Priyadarsika, appears in the Ratnavall in the role of the victorious general whose military successes are there narrated by his soldier-nephew. Yaugandharayana is the important min¬ ister in the Ratnavall, though in the Priyadarsika he is merely referred to in connection with the King in the Mimic Play in Act 3. The characters of the female attendants, whether in the posi¬ tion of confidante or of maidservant, are practically the same in both plays, even if different names are assigned them except in the case of Kancanamala. The parallelism throughout between the two heroines, Aranyaka and Sagarika, is too marked to be the result of chance. Parallel situations. The convention of the explanatory scene introducing Act 1 of the Priyadarsika, in which the Chamberlain of Priyadarsika’s father tells of her disappearance in the forest- battle, has its parallel in the introductory scene to the first act of the Ratnavall, where Vatsa’s Minister tells of Sagarika’s rescue from shipwreck. The whole scene in the garden, in Act 2 of the Priyadarsika, with Aranyaka and the maidservant Indivarika dis¬ covered by King Vatsa and the Jester, has numerous points of resemblance in situation and style to the garden scene in the second act of the Ratnavall, where Sagarika, through the intervention of her confidante Susamgata, is made known to Vatsa and his fun¬ making companion. The situation at the beginning of Act 3 of the Priyadarsika, where the heroine avows her hopeless passion, corresponds very closely with that at the opening of the second act of the Ratnavall. Later in Act 3 of Priyadarsika, intrigue between the Jester and Manorama leads up to the dramatic episode of the Mimic Play, in which Aranyaka, disguised as the Queen, is wooed by the King (who, aided by the concealment of his mantle, replaces Manorama, who was cast for his role), until the Queen herself discovers the ruse and imprisons Aranyaka and the Jester. In the third act of the Ratnavall, though in a slightly different way, a scheme is devised by the Jester and the maidservant to arrange 2 Consult furthermore Part 5 of the Introduction, above, p. lxxiii. lxxx INTRODUCTION—PART SIX a rendezvous between the King and Sagarika in a bower by moon¬ light, on which occasion Sagarika is to come disguised as the Queen. Meanwhile, however, the Queen learns about the scheme, and, having concealed her identity by means of a veil, plays the supposed role in person, greatly to the King’s discomfiture, and sends both her youthful rival and the Jester to prison. Among the parallel episodes in the fourth act of each of the plays are the release of the Jester by the relenting Queen, the rescue by the King of the heroine supposed in each case to be at the point of death, the recognition of her as a lost princess related to the Queen, and her acceptance as a co-wife by the latter amid the gen¬ eral rejoicing over the victory of the royal armies, conventionally announced. While it may be allowed that a number of such paral¬ lels are due to the conventionality of the Hindu drama, yet, when considered in connection with the minor details that are next to be noted, they are too striking to admit of anything but a single authorship for the two plays. Parallels in minor details of thought and style. The numer¬ ous parallels between Priyadarsika and Ratnavall in certain minor details of thought and style need not be exhaustively recorded here, especially as many of them are referred to in the Notes; never¬ theless the principal ones are brought together in the following conspectus, so as to be evident at a glance. The references for the Priyadarsika are to the pages of the translation (facing the text) in this volume; those for the Ratnavall are to the pages of the Sanskrit text in the edition of Godabole and Parab, Bombay, 1890. Priya. p. 11 (act 1, st. 6). The King expresses his satisfaction with his fortunate condition with respect to his councilors, people, military success, and devoted queen. Ratn. p. 4 (act 1, st. 10). The kingdom is described as freed from foes, the burden of administration as placed on a capable minister, the sub¬ jects as appropriately protected and relieved of all troubles, while the King is blessed in having as his queen the daughter of Pradyota (i.e. Vasavadatta). RELATION TO HARSHA’S OTHER DRAMAS lxxxi Priya. p. 15 (act 1). Report of the general to the King regarding the march against Vindhyaketu, be¬ ginning with the words : ‘ Your Maj¬ esty, hear. With an army of ele¬ phants, cavalry, and infantry, as di¬ rected by Your Majesty’s command, we . . .’ ( deva, sruyatam. ito vayam devapadadesad . . .). Priya. p. 19 (act 1). The victo¬ rious general Vijayasena is sent ‘to destroy Kalinga ’ {Kalihgocchittaye). Priya. p. 21 (act 2). The Jester’s use of the motive of a gift for him¬ self as a Brahman, though conven¬ tional, is brought out especially in connection with the sotthivdana rite. Priya. p. 23 (act 2). Description of the garden of the fountain-house, and its trees and flowers. Priya. p. 33 (act 2). Aranyaka says, on seeing the hero: * So this is the great king to whom I was given by my father! ’ ( jassa aham tadena dinna). Priya. p. 39 (act 3). Aranyaka, sighing: ‘ O my heart! why dost thou make me so unhappy by longing for a person who is hardly to be obtained?’ ( hiaa dullahajanam pat- thaanto . . .). Priya. pp. 43, 45 (act 3). Lotus- leaves ( nalinlpattdim ) are used to cool Aranyaka’s burning heart. The Jester appears at this moment. Ratn. p. 64 (act 4). Report of the march against Kosala, beginning with the words: ‘Your Majesty, hear. With a large, invincible army of elephants, cavalry, and infantry, as directed by Your Majesty’s com¬ mand, we . . .’ {deva, sruyatam. vayam ito devadesat . . .). [The account of the battle shows a rather close parallelism in structure.] Ratn. p. 3 (explan, scene). Gen¬ eral Rumanvant is sent ‘ to destroy Kosala’ (Kosalocchittaye). Ratn. p. 9 (act 1). The same Jes¬ ter expresses his hope for such a present {sotthivdana). Ratn. pp. 9-10 (act 1, prose and st. 18). Detailed description of the Makaranda garden. Ratn. p. 15 (act 1, after st. 24). Sagarika similarly exclaims : ‘ What! is this King Udayana to whom I was given by my father?’ {jassa aham tadena dinna). Ratn. p. 17 (act 2). Sagarika, love-lorn: ‘ O my heart, have pity, pity! why this longing for a person who is hardly to be obtained? ’ {hiaa . . . dullahajana-ppatthana . . .). [Cf. further Ratn. p. 20 (act 2, st. 1) : ‘passion for a person who is hardly to be obtained.’ Cf. likewise Nagan. p. 20: ‘ O my heart, then for this person . . .’ {ai hiaa tadha ndma tassim jane . . .).] Ratn. p. 20 (act 2, before st. 1). Lotus-leaves are similarly applied to the heart of Sagarika. The Jester appears shortly afterward. [For a like use of sandal-shoots in Nagan. (p. 24) see below.] 6 INTRODUCTION—PART SIX lxxxii Priya. p. 53 (act 3, st. 5). The King’s agitation and intensity of feel¬ ing as he enters before the beginning of the Mimic Play. Priya. p. 57 (act 3 ) r The King, when he enters disguised in a mantle to meet Aranyaka in the Mimic Play, fears he is recognized and exclaims: ‘ What! am I recognized by the Queen?’ ( katham pratyabhijhato ’smi devya). Priya. p. 63 (act 3, st. 11). The King, taking Aranyaka’s hand, says: ‘ Ambrosia, recognized under the guise of perspiration, it is plain, flows without ceasing ’ (jnatarn svedapadesad aviratam amrtatn syan- date vyaktam etat). Priya. p. 67 (act 3). Manorama, when binding the Jester, says: ‘You rascal! Now reap the fruit of your own ill-behavior!’ ( hadasa, idanim anubhava attano dunnaassa phalam). Priya. p. 67, 69 (act 3, st. 13, 14). The King describes the Queen’s sup¬ pressed anger and frowning brows (bhriibhahga) . Later (p. 69) he tells the Jester that he is devising some means of conciliating her. Priya. p. 69 (act 3). The King, after falling at the Queen’s feet with the words: ‘ My Queen, pardon, par¬ don ! ’ exclaims: ‘ What! has the Queen gone without granting par¬ don? ’ Ratn. p. 49 (act 3, st. 10). The King’s excitement before the rendez¬ vous with Sagarika. Ratn. p. 49 (act 3). The Queen, conversely, when disguised by a veil, to impersonate her rival Sagarika at the rendezvous, exclaims : ‘ What! am I recognized by the Jester?’ (kadham paccabhinnada mhi edena). Ratn. p. 35 (act 2, st. 17). The King, holding Sagarika’s hand, ex¬ claims : ‘ How otherwise can there flow this stream of ambrosia in the disguise of perspiration?’ ( kuto ’nyatha sravaty esa svedacchadma- mrtadravah ). Ratn. p. 58 (act 3). Kancana- mala, in binding and beating the Jes¬ ter, exclaims: ‘You rascal! Reap now the fruit of your misbehavior! ’ ( hadasa, anubhava dava attano avi- naassa phalam). Ratn. pp. 39-40 (act 2, st. 20). The King gives a description of his consort’s anger, beginning: ‘ Al¬ though her frowning brow was sud¬ denly raised . . .’ ( bhrubhahge saha- sodgate ’pi . . .) ; he determines to go within to conciliate her ( devlm prasddayitum abhyantaram eva pra- visavah). Ratn. p. 53 (act 3). The King, after falling at the Queen’s feet, implores pardon in exactly the same words: devi, prasida praslda . . . katham akrtvai ’va prasadam gatd devl? RELATION TO HARSHA’S OTHER DRAMAS lxxxiii Priya. p. 81 (act 4). Vijayasena, general of King Udayana, says to the Chamberlain: ‘ In truth I feel a kind of ecstatic joy, beyond compare, at the thought of seeing my master today’ ( adya svamipada drastavya iti yatsatyam anupamam kam a pi sukhatisayam anubhavdmi ). Priya. p. 91 (act 4). In the rec¬ ognition scene the heroine exclaims: ‘ What! the chamberlain, the worthy Vinayavasu? {In tears.) Alas, my father! Alas, my mother ( ajjue) ! ’ Priya. p. 91 (act 4). The Queen says to Aranyaka: ‘ {In tears.) Come, you cheat of a girl! Now show your cousinly affection. ( Clasp¬ ing her around the neck.) ’ Priya. p. 93 (act 4, st. 11). The King, directly before the Epilogue, refers to the fortunate recovery of Priyadarsana ( Aranyaka). Ratn. p. 70 (act 4). Babhravya, Udayana’s chamberlain, says to Vasu- bhuti, the minister from Ceylon: ‘ In truth I feel a kind of unusual experi¬ ence because of the ecstatic delight at the thought that I am to see my master today after so long a time ’ {adya khalu chat svaminam drak- sydml ’ti yatsatyam anandatisayena kim apy avasthdntaram anubhavdmi). Ratn. p. 77 (act 4). Sagarika similarly exclaims: ‘ {In tears.) What! the minister Vasubhuti? . . . Alas, my father! Alas, my mother {amba) ! ’ Ratn. p. 78 (act 4). The Queen addresses Sagarika: ‘ {In tears.) Come, you very cruel cousin! Now come, show your affection. {Clasps her around the neck.) ’ Ratn. p. 80 (act 4, next to last stanza). The King similarly refers to the recovery of Ratnavali (Saga¬ rika). [The general tone resembles also that of the next to last stanza of Nagananda.] B. PARALLELS BETWEEN PRIYADARSIKA AND NAGANANDA (including two between Ratnavali and Nagananda) The parallels between the Priyadarsika and the Nagananda are less striking than those noted between the Priyadarsika and the Ratnavali, because the subject and general character of the Naga¬ nanda are of a different nature from that of the Priyadarsika, as shown by the analysis of the plot given below. The Nagananda, moreover, is a five-act nataka, or more serious drama, in contrast to the four-act natika, or lighter type of play, which is exemplified in the Priyadarsika and the Ratnavali. The resemblances to the Priyadarsika, however, in the first two acts of the Nagananda, lxxxiv INTRODUCTION—PART SIX where the tenor of the subject admits such similarities in tone and treatment, together with certain likenesses to the Ratnavall, are sufficiently strong to assure the unity of authorship of all three plays. A sketch of the plot of the Nagananda will show where the resemblances occur, as well as where the development of the subject gives rise to points of natural divergence. Plot of the Nagananda in brief. This play, which is Buddhistic in tone in its last two acts and whose introductory invocations are addressed to Buddha, has as its hero Prince Jimutavahana, son of the king of the Vidyadharas, who falls in love with Malayavati, daughter of the king of the Siddhas, then living in the forest. Jimutavahana catches sight of the heroine in the hermit-grove as she is playing upon the lute while attended by a handmaiden. En¬ chanted by the music, the prince in concealment praises her art in a metrical stanza which is identical with one found in the Priya- darsika (p. 61). Love at first sight springs from the meeting, though the two have to part for the time being. In the second act the heroine, tormented by her passion, seeks comfort in the sandal bower with her maiden, who places sandal-leaves as a balm upon her bosom (cf. Priya. and Ratn.) just at the moment when the hero and his companion approach. Through a misunderstand¬ ing of something which the hero says, the heroine, in despair of having her love requited, is about to commit suicide (cf. Ratn., act 3) ; he comes to the rescue, reveals his passion by a portrait which he has drawn of her, and the consummation of their love is assured. Their marriage takes place in the third act; but hardly has the wedding feast been celebrated before the hero is led, in the fourth act, to offer his own life to save that of a snake-deity who is doomed to be devoured by Garuda, the bird who is a foe to the serpent race. The sacrifice is made in the fifth act, but the savage bird is caused to relent, and the hero, though cruelly torn, is restored to life by the goddess Gaurl and is reunited with his wife and parents. In the ensuing pages the references for the Nagananda are to the pages of the Sanskrit text in the edition of Brahme and Paran- RELATION TO HARSHA’S OTHER DRAMAS lxxxv jape, Poona, 1893, while those for the Priyadarsika are, as before, to the pages of the translation (facing the text) in the present volume. Repeated stanzas. Allusion has previously been made (see also notes 51 and 99 on Act 3, below) to the recurrence of two identi¬ cal stanzas in the Priyadarsika and the Nagananda. These stanzas are the passages descriptive of the Chamberlain’s office (Priya. 3. 3, p. 49 = Nagan. 4. 1, p. 61) and of the heroine’s musical accom¬ plishments (Priya. 3. 10, p. 61 = Nagan. 1. 14, p. 10). Attention has already been drawn likewise to the almost identical stanza in the Induction to all three of the plays of Harsha, in which his name is given as author. Similarities in minor details. Certain similarities in minor details, including stylistic resemblances, may also be pointed out. Priya. p. 9 (act 1). The Cham¬ berlain, after deliberation, decides: * I will go now to my master and will devote the remainder of my life to his service (pada-paricaryayd) ' [There is here a slight resemblance in wording to the juxtaposed Nagan. passage.] Nagan. p. 3 (end of Induction). The Stage-manager, about to assume the role of the hero, deliberates, be¬ fore reaching a decision: ‘ Shall I remain at home and forego the hap¬ piness of service upon my parents? (guru-car ana-paric ary d-sukham) Priya. p. 27 (act 2). When the King catches sight of Aranyaka in the garden, the Jester surmises that she is ‘ the goddess of the garden ’ (ujjanadevada), while the King (st. 6) dismisses his own fancy that she may be ‘a Naga-maiden (Ndga- kanya ) risen from Patala.’ Priya. p. 29 (act 2). Comment of the King, addressing the Jester, that ‘the maiden may be looked at with¬ out doing wrong ’ (nirdosadarsana kanyaka). Priya. p. 43 (act 3). Lotus-leaves (nalinlpattrani) are used as a balm for the heart [as noted above in connection with Ratn.]. Nagan. p. 11 (act 1). In a simi¬ lar situation the Jester wonders whether Malayavatl is ‘ a goddess or a Naga-maiden’ (devl adha vd Nda- kannad), and the Prince (st. 15) comments upon these surmises in a kindred manner. Nagan. p. 11 (act 1). In a similar situation is found the phrase: ‘ Maidens may be looked at without doing wrong’ (kanyakd hi nirdosa- darsana bhavanti). Nagan. p. 24 (act 2). The maid places a crushed sandal-shoot (can- danapallavam) upon Malayavati’s heart. lxxxvi INTRODUCTION—PART SIX Priya. p. 43 (act 3). When the Jester unexpectedly approaches, the handmaiden of Aranyaka, ‘ listening ’ (dkarnya), exclaims: ‘I hear some¬ thing like the sound of footsteps.’ Priya. p. 63 (act 3). After the performance on the lute, Aranyaka says to the attendant: ‘From play¬ ing so long I have become tired; my limbs now have no strength’ (dram khu mama vadaantle parissamo jado. idanim nissahdim ahgdim) ; where¬ upon the handmaiden says: ‘ The Princess is completely tired out; . . . her fingers tremble’ ( parissantd bhattiddrid . . . vevanti aggahatthd ). Nagan. p. 27 (act 2). Malaya- vati’s handmaiden, ‘ hearkening ’ {karnam dattvd), exclaims, in the very same words: padasaddo via sunladi. Nagan. p. 10 (act 1). The maid- in-waiting says to Malayavatl: ‘ Princess, you have played so long; are not your fingers tired?’ ( bhatti - ddrie ciram khu tue vadidam, na kkhu de padissamo aggahatthdnam). Priya. p. 65 (act 3). Sankrtya- yani says to the Queen: ‘ Princess, this is the Gandharva form of mar¬ riage ( gdndharvo vivahah ).’ Nagan. p. 38 (act 2, near end). The Jester says to the Prince: ‘ Sir, your Gandharva form of marriage (gandhavvo vivdho ) has now taken place.’ Two parallels between Ratnavali and Nagananda. The fol¬ lowing additional parallels are worth noting here. Ratn. pp. 17-18, etc. (act 2). The heroine, Sagarika, draws a picture of the hero, which helps in develop¬ ing the action. Ratn. pp. 53-55 (act 3). Saga¬ rika, despairing of the King’s love, attempts to commit suicide by hang¬ ing herself by a jasmine creeper ( mddhavi-latd ) to a branch of an asoka-tvte, but is rescued by the King. Nagan. pp. 30, 36-38 (act 2). The hero, Jimutavahana, conversely, draws a picture of the heroine and thus gives a proof of his love. Nagan. pp. 34-36 (act 2). Mala- yavati, similarly in despair, attempts to hang herself by a trailing creeper (atimukta-latd) to an asoka-bough, and is rescued in like manner by the hero. [Cf. Aranyaka’s veiled hint at suicide in Priya. p. 25 (act 2), when she despairs of the King’s love; her actual attempt at suicide in act 4 is differently motivated.] It would not be difficult to add to this list of resemblances in the three plays, but a sufficient number have been pointed out to indicate the general likenesses that these dramas possess in common. RESEMBLANCES TO KALIDASA’S DRAMAS lxxxvii C. ORDER OF COMPOSITION OF THE DRAMAS With regard to the order of composition of the three dramas, it will be generally conceded that the Priyadarsika, on account of its relative simplicity, is the earliest of the trio. A question may be raised concerning the order of the other two, both of which are superior to the Priyadarsika in general merit. One might nat¬ urally be inclined to assign the Nagananda to the second place in order, and to reserve the elaborate Ratnavali for the latest posi¬ tion. 3 While such an arrangement would be agreeable, a careful study of the plays, taken in connection with the circumstances of King Harsha’s life, particularly his Buddhistic leanings in his later years, has led to the conclusion that the dramas were most prob¬ ably composed in the following order: (i) Priyadarsika, (2) Ratnavali, (3) Nagananda. 7 RESEMBLANCES IN THE PRIYADARSIKA TO KALI¬ DASA’S DRAMAS, AND ITS POSITION IN SANSKRIT LITERATURE Introduction. With his dramatic interests Harsha must nat¬ urally have been familiar with Kalidasa. This fact, as has often been pointed out, is apparent in the royal author’s plays. The principal instances which indicate influence of Kalidasa on Harsha are recorded in the Notes (pages 97-131, below) and merely re¬ quire to be summarized, with some additions, here. 3 So, incidentally, Brahme and Paranjape, Nagananda, page x, since they hold that the heroine’s attempt at suicide ‘ seems to have been used first in Nagananda, in imitation of the story of Gunadhya which contains it, and next in the Ratnavali, the poet being evidently well pleased with it.’ Ixxxviii INTRODUCTION—PART SEVEN The editions of Kalidasa’s dramas to which reference is made are the same as those cited in the Notes and listed in the ‘ Con¬ spectus of Editions referred to* above. Priyadarsika and Malavikagnimitra. It is natural to expect that a conventional play of court intrigue like the Priyadarsika should present certain resemblances to Kalidasa’s Malavikagni¬ mitra, which has a somewhat similar theme. 1 It is possible that the exhibition of singing and dancing in the playhouse ( pekkhd- gharaa) by the heroine Malavika, as arranged by the rival teachers of the histrionic art in the Malavikagnimitra (cf. Malav., act I end, and act 2) may have given the suggestion for introducing the Mimic Play in the playhouse ( pekkhaghara ) in the Priyadarsika (act 3). The situation of Malavika with her attendant, observed by the King and his Jester in concealment in the garden (Malav., act 3, pp. 67-75), ma y perhaps have given a suggestion for the episode in the garden in Priya. (act 2, pp. 27-31). The imprison¬ ment of Malavika by the jealous Queen (cf. Malav., act 3 end, act 4 beg.) is a motive utilized also in Priya. (act 3 end, act 4 beg.). The role of the religious lady ( parivrajika ) KausikI, as a friend of the Queen throughout the Malavikagnimitra, is similar to that of Sankrtyayam in the third and fourth acts of the Priyadarsika (see note 38 on p. 116, below). The Jester’s talk in his sleep about Malavika (Malav., act 4, p. 120) betrays the secret of her meeting with the King, somewhat as Vasantaka’s sleepy talk dur¬ ing the Mimic Play in Priya. (act 3, p. 65) reveals the intrigue of the King with reference to a meeting with Aranyaka. The magic use of the snake-stone to counteract the poison in the case of the Jester’s feigned sting by a serpent in the fourth act of the Malavikagnimitra (pp. 101-105) may indirectly have given a hint for the employment of the magic formula to counteract the effect of the poison actually taken by Aranyaka in the fourth act of Priya. (pp. 85, 89). Priyadarsika and Vikramorvasl. The Chamberlain’s stanza 1 On these resemblances see the observations of R. V. Krishnamachariar in his edition of the Priyadarsika, Srirangam, 1906, Sanskrit introd. ( bhu - mika ), pp. xlii-xlviii. RESEMBLANCES TO KALIDASA’S DRAMAS lxxxix relating to his duties, in VikramorvasI (act 3, stanza 1), has some natural resemblances to that spoken by the Chamberlain in the Mimic Play in Priya. (act 3, stanza 3). The Jester’s description of the stone seat covered with fallen blossoms in the garden in the VikramorvasI (act 2, pp. 20-21) reminds one of that by the Jester in the second act of Priya. (p. 23; cf. note 13 on p. 109). The last stanza of the second act of Vikram. (p. 37), with its description of the mid-day heat and its effect upon the peacock, bee, and waterfowl, may have been a prototype, though perhaps natural, for the similar picture of the heat in the last stanza of the first act of Priya. (p. 19). The allusion, moreover, to the leaping of the saphara -fish in that particular stanza of Priya. is similar in expression to a verse in Kalidasa’s Meghaduta, 1. 40 (see note 87 on page 106, below). In the explanatory scene of the third act of VikramorvasI (pp. 38-39) the heroine’s absentmindedness is re¬ ferred to as having caused trouble through her making a mistake in a part assigned to her in a play; similarly, Aranyaka’s absent- mindedness is stated to have led to her enacting poorly her role in the play that was being prepared (Priya., act 3, p. 39; cf. note 4 on p. 114). The King’s humility in apologizing to the Queen in Vikram., act 3, stanza 13 (p. 49), has a parallel (perhaps only natural under the circumstances) in a phrase in the apology in Priya., act 4, stanza 2 (p. 77; cf. note 24 on p. 127). ««* Priyadarsika and Sakuntala. There are certainly reminis¬ cences of the first act of the Sakuntala in the second act of the Priyadarsika. For instance, the ‘ idle talk ’ between the heroine and her maid in Sakuntala (act 1, prose after stanza 27) is recalled by a passage in the second act of Priya. (p. 29; cf. note 48 on p. 112) ; and the incident of the bees tormenting the heroine, in the first act of Sakuntala, surely suggested the episode in the second act of Priya. (p. 31; cf. note 53 on p. 112). The ruse on the part of the heroine to delay her departure, in the Sakuntala (act 1, after stanza 32), reminds one of that in the second act of Priya. (p. 33; see note 61 on p. 112, below), while it might naturally be ex¬ pected that there should be an allusion to obstacles in the path of xc INTRODUCTION—PART SEVEN love in the third act of Sakuntala (prose near end) and in the second act of Priyadarsika (p. 35; cf. note 63 on p. 113). Harsha’s possible acquaintance with the dramas of Bhasa. In Part 5 of this Introduction (p. lxxi) attention has been called to Harsha’s dramatic predecessor Bhasa in connection with the use of the Udayana legend. The possibility of Harsha’s having some acquaintance with the plays of Bhasa is not precluded, even though the subject requires fuller investigation in the future. The allu¬ sion in the third act of the Priyadarsika (p. 51; cf. note 63 on p. 119) to King Vatsa Udayana’s devoted follower Yaugandhara- yana, who assumed the disguise of a madman in order to release his master from captivity, as recorded in the legend, may perhaps have been suggested by Bhasa’s Pratij nayaugandharayana, act 3 (see note 63 on p. 119, below), especially since the fire-episode in the fourth act of the Ratnavall may possibly be reminiscent of the fire-incident in Bhasa’s Svapnavasavadatta (act 1). A common interest in the general legend of Udayana may have attracted Harsha to Bhasa, but no close verbal parallels have thus far been observed. Harsha’s position in Sanskrit literature. The importance of Harsha as a king, author, and patron of letters (see Part 2 of this Introduction) naturally lent special luster to his name and works in after times. In the eyes of all later Hindu writers the Ratna- vali, because of its excellence, was accorded a place of honor, and its influence was most marked. In this respect neither the Naga- nanda nor the Priyadarsika can compete with it. Nevertheless the Priyadarsika comes in for recognition through quotation for purposes of illustration, and an instance where it may have exer¬ cised a direct influence has been recorded below (note 75 on p. 131). As there noted, the next to the last stanza in the fourth act of Rajasekhara’s Viddhasalabhanjika presents a general, if not striking, resemblance to the next to the last stanza of Priya¬ darsika, act 4. Search in the later dramatists would doubtless re¬ veal a number of similar instances as evidence of the presumable influence of Harsha. LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE PLAY xci In the Sanskrit anthologies only one excerpt from the Priya¬ darsika has thus far been noted: the opening stanza of the play is quoted under Harsha’s name in the collection of elegant extracts entitled Saduktikarnamrta (i. 114), by Srldharadasa (see note 2 on p. 97, below). Among the writers on Hindu dramaturgy, Dhanika (end of 10th century A.D.), in commenting on Dhanam- jaya’s Dasarupa (2. 82 and 92), twice cites the Priyadarsika as illustrating certain elements of literary composition (see note 61 on p. 104, note 68 on p. 120) ; and, in elucidating DR. 4. 10, he quotes one of its stanzas (Priya. 1. 4), though without indicating its source (see note 28 on p. 100). In other rhetorical works no citations of the Priyadarsika have as yet been noted. Merits of the Priyadarsika in general. While the play is con¬ ventional and does not exhibit any striking originality, it is never¬ theless marked by a noteworthy simplicity in its general style and by the skill shown in the construction of its plot, the handling of incidents, and the portraiture of character. The metrical passages descriptive of nature and feeling are admirable, as a rule, and the language is not overstrained in reaching after effects. 2 Perhaps the most original feature that has been noted is the introduction of a play within a play, the Mimic Drama inserted in the third act constituting, as in Hamlet, an integral part of the action. 3 8 LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE PLAY, AND CONSTI¬ TUTION OF THE PRESENT TEXT Languages used in the play. As is customary in the classic drama of India, the characters in the Priyadarsika speak two 2 The style of the play is more fully discussed in part 8 of this Intro¬ duction, below. 3 See below, note 50 on p. 118, and the Appendix to the Introduction. XC11 INTRODUCTION—PART EIGHT different languages, or one might almost say dialects, since in the nature of the case they are mutually intelligible. The Stage- manager and the male personages in the play proper, who all belong to the court circle, use the distinctively literary language, Sanskrit, with the single exception of the Jester, who as a comic character speaks Prakrit, a stereotyped form of ancient colloquial speech. The women of all ranks use Prakrit, except that the learned lady Sarikrtyayanl speaks in Sanskrit throughout. 1 Characteristics of the style. The style of the play is markedly simple for a work of its kind and period, when the literature of conscious art, the so-called kdvya or ‘ art-poetry/ was producing the elaborate ingeniosities of Harsha’s contemporary, the romancer Bana. The dialogue and narrative portions are for the most part in unadorned prose, though the language at times rises with the theme, as in the account of the attack on Vindhyaketu in Act i. There are also a few descriptive passages in Prakrit characterized by the abundant use of compound words 2 ; but they are relatively brief and do not unduly halt the progress of the action. The stanzas, which are the ‘ high lights ’ of a Sanskrit play, are in the Priyadarsika often an emotional or esthetic comment on the dra¬ matic situation rather than a necessary part of it, and as such they are generally introduced with appropriate effect. Except for the occasional slesas, or puns, 3 which can be only approximately ren¬ dered into English, and the alliteration or sound-repetition, 4 which a literal translation dare not attempt to reproduce, the style of the metrical portions offers no especial difficulties; but, in accordance with Krishnamachariar’s commentary, attention has been called in the notes to the various rhetorical figures ( alamkaras ) that are exemplified, since such ‘ ornaments ’ are regarded in the literary theory of ancient India as a vital part of the poetic effect. 1 On the dialects used in the dramas and their conventional assignment to the various roles, see DR. 2. 97-99, ed. and tr. Haas, p. 75; SD. 432; Levi, Le Theatre indien, pp. 129-131. 2 Note especially the Jester’s descriptions of the King’s captivity (Act 1, p. 11) and of the palace garden (Act 2, p. 23). 3 See Act 1, st. 5; Act 2, st. 5, 7; Act 3, st. 3, 8. 4 Notably in Act 1, st. 9; Act 4, st. 11, 12. LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE PLAY xcm Constitution of the present text. Although manuscripts of the Priyadarsika are fairly abundant, 5 the printed editions show no divergences of such consequence as to establish the existence of different recensions, as in the case of the Sakuntala, and there is not even question, as in the Ratnavali, concerning the interpola¬ tion of single stanzas. The comparative neglect of our play 6 may have protected it from this form of textual corruption; but the fact that one stanza (Act 3, st. 6) is metrically defective, in con¬ junction with minor difficulties in other passages, 7 shows that the manuscript tradition is not above suspicion. In constituting a working text for the purposes of the present volume, as indicated in the Preface, the edition of Krishnamachariar has generally been followed, the more important variants in Gadre’s text being men¬ tioned in the notes. The fewer instances in which Gadre’s read¬ ings have been adopted in preference to Krishnamachariar’s are stated in the following list. Not included are mere variations in orthography and in the application of the rules of euphonic com¬ bination ( samdhi ), nor, for the reasons discussed below (p. xciv), most of those relating to the form of Prakrit words. Gadre Krishnamachariar Act 1, p. 4, bottom desad dgatena desagatena p. 6, top snitam srutd p. 6, bottom Viskambhakah [wanting] p. 12, middle niskrantd niskrdntah Act 2, p. 34, top tathd kurutah [wanting] Act 3, p. 44, top iha vi iha p. 44, bottom kirn cit paranmuklii [wanting] tisthati p. 52, middle java se java p. 54, middle pattidasi pattiesi p. 68, top kaham na dndsi kaham jdnasi Act 4, p. 74, middle padikka padi p. 82, middle Vdsavadattam apavarya apavarya 6 See the list in the Bibliography, p. xv, above. 0 See part 7 of this Introduction, pp. xc-xci, above. 7 Especially in the first speech of the Jester, Act 1, p. 10; cf. notes 54 and 56 thereon, at p. 103. XC1V INTRODUCTION—PART EIGHT The earlier edition by Vidyasagara (Calcutta, 1874) has also been consulted in doubtful passages, but it contains so many gross errors that a collation of its readings would yield little profit. The Vizagapatam edition of 1880 was unfortunately not available for reference. Treatment of the Prakrit forms. The constitution of the Prakrit portions of the text was a more difficult problem, which could not well be settled by adhering to the printed editions but demanded a certain degree of independent judgment. According to the usual rules, the Prakrit of the prose passages should be the Saurasenl, and the two stanzas (Act 3, stanzas 8 and 9) sung by the heroine should be in the Maharastrl dialect. 8 The editions of Ivrishnamachariar and Gadre do indicate this distinction to some extent, but they very frequently, and in some cases consistently, give the Maharastrl forms in the prose parts of the text, e. g. always taha instead of tadhci, and kaham for kadham 9 Not only do they thus confuse the two dialects, but they present many forms which are not correct in either and in some instances offend against the elementary rules of Prakrit phonology. To reprint the Prakrit passages in the condition in which the Indian editors have left them would therefore have perplexed the students for whom the transliterated text was especially intended, besides being contrary to the practice of the best scholars, who have not hesitated, in editing the dramas, to depart from manuscript authority in this regard. 10 8 See the references in note 1, above; also Pischel, Grammatik der Prakrit- Sprachen, §§ 12, 22. For a convenient list of some of the chief differences between these two dialects, see Konow and Lanman, Karpura-manjarl, p. 200. 9 Conversely, in Act 3, st. 8, the texts of K. and G. have the Saurasenl ednm in place of the Maharastrl form eum. 10 The following remarks by Hillebrandt in the preface to his edition of the Mudraraksasa, pp. ii-iii, Breslau, 1912 (with reference to the MagadhI dialect), state the guiding principle clearly. ‘At all events, by following the rules of the grammarians we gain firm ground, while by following the manu¬ scripts and their varying practice we are constantly troubled by the feeling of inconsistency. It is, of course, impossible to write once gasca, and at another time in the same dialect gaccha, and therefore we are forced to normalize the text even where no manuscript authorizes us to do so.’ LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE PLAY xcv It has therefore seemed advisable to normalize the Prakrit in the Priyadarsika in general accordance with the rules of the gram¬ marians and the readings of the most authoritative texts as com¬ piled and discussed by Pischel in his monumental Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen; but in cases where there was the possibility of a doubt the readings of Krishnamachariar or Gadre have been retained. 11 Cappeller’s editions of the Ratnavall (in Bohtlingk’s Sanskrit-Chrestomathie , 3d ed., pp. 326-382, Leipzig, 1909) and of the Sakuntala (Leipzig, 1909) have been compared for the par¬ allel forms found therein, and much help has been derived from the Prakrit vocabularies and the apparatus criticus in Konow’s edition of the Karpuramanjari and in Hillebrandt’s edition of the Mudraraksasa. That a wholly satisfactory result cannot be ob¬ tained without full manuscript evidence must be admitted; but it is hoped that the form of the Prakrit text here presented will approximate that which we should expect to find in a work of the classic period. 11 Thus, for example, the present passive participle parittaanti (p. 32, top), the gerund baddhia (p. 64, middle), and vodia, ‘physician’ (p. 90, middle, cf. also vodittanam, p. 88, bottom), though difficult of explanation, have been retained. On the other hand, the gerundive sumardidavvo has been emended to sumaravidavvo (p. 28, middle), because of the form sumardvemi immediately following; and the anomalous participle samtappdi has been changed to sanitappidaim (p. 40, bottom), since samtappidena occurs shortly before. On p. 46, top, the reading naccidasesam of the texts has been cor¬ rected to naccidavvasesam, because the gerundive is demanded by the sense and actually occurs in the parallel passage at the beginning of Act 3 (p. 38). XCV1 INTRODUCTION—PART NINE 9 METERS OF THE STANZAS IN THE PLAY 1 [For the preparation of this section relating to the meters particular thanks are due to Dr. George C. O. Haas,, sometime Fellow in Indo- Iranian Languages, Columbia University.] Number and variety of the stanzas. The Priyadarsika con¬ tains fewer stanzas and shows less variety of metrical structure than either of the other dramas attributed to Harshadeva. 2 3 In its 49 stanzas only 8 different verse-forms are employed, three of these occurring only once each; and 21 stanzas, or somewhat less than half, are in a single meter, the sardulavikridita. Description of the meters employed. In the order of fre¬ quency the meters used are as follows:— a. sardulavikridita. 21 stanzas: i. i, 3, 6, 7, 11; 2. 1, 3, 6, 7, 10; 3. 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15; 4. 1, 3, 9, 11. -, w ^ ^ ^ | -- (Hindu scheme: ma sa ja sa ta ta ga.) z A caesural pause ( yati ) is required after the 12th syllable.— When, at a caesural point in any meter, final and initial vowels are merged as a result of euphonic combination, the samdhi-syllable generally precedes the pause; in a number of cases, however, 1 The data of Stenzler (Kiihnau, ‘ Metrische Sammlungen aus Stenzler's Nachlass,’ ZDMG. 44. 43-44) are not entirely accurate for this play. 2 In the Ratnavall there occur 83 stanzas in 12 varieties of meter; in the Nagananda, 120 stanzas in 13 varieties. (In this statement of the number of varieties a few unclassified Prakrit stanzas are disregarded.) 3 The mnemonic definition-sloka of this compendious Hindu system of metrical description is :— adimadhyavasanesu ya-ra-td ydnti Idghavam, bha-ja-sd gauravam ydnti, ma-nau tu guru-laghavam. (Halayudha’s Mrtasamjivanl, introductory stanza 9; cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 8. 216.) All that need be added is that la (suggesting laghu) represents a single light syllable, and ga (suggesting guru ) a heavy one. METERS OF THE STANZAS XCVll the samdhi-syllable follows the pause (as in kamalen\alokyate, sta- nabharen\dyam) —an arrangement declared allowable by Hala- yudha on Pingala 6. I (cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 8. 464-465). The lines in which this occurs are: 1. 2 a; 2. 6 d, 10 d; 3. 5 b, 10 a, 14 c, 14 d. b. dryd. 10 stanzas: 1. 5, 8; 2. 5, 9; 3. 1, 6, 9, 12; 4. 6, 7. A jdti (i.e. merely quantitative) meter consisting of two lines of 30 and 27 syllabic instants (morae) respectively, with a pause after the 12th mora in each line. For a graphic scheme see Ballini, ‘ La poesia prof ana,’ Studi Italiani di Filologia Indo-Iranica, vol. 8 (1912), pp. 91-94.—The stanza Priya. 3. 6, the text of which is defective, has been regarded as probably composed in the dryd meter, although in its present form the second line is irregular.— The sixth foot of the first line of Priya. 4. 6 is ^ v v v. Al¬ though the usual form for this foot is w the form with four light syllables is specifically mentioned as permissible in Pingala 4. 17, 18. (The statement of Lanman, Sanskrit Reader, pp. 316- 317, that this foot must be ^ - «, should thus be slightly modi¬ fied in the direction of greater latitude.)—One dryd stanza, Priya. 3. 9, is in Prakrit. c. sragdhara. 8 stanzas: 1. 2, 9, 12; 2. 2, 4; 3. 11; 4. 5, 12. -I V V, W W W, W - | -V-■, w- (Hindu scheme: ma ra bha na ya ya ya.) Caesural pauses occur after the 7th and 14th syllables. d. vasantatilakd. 5 stanzas: 1. 10; 3. 2; 4. 2, 4, 8. — — V — u U u — V u — V — — ) 1 ) ) 1 (Hindu scheme: ta bha ja ja ga ga.) There is no caesura. (Borooah, Sanskrit Grammar, vol. 10 [Prosody], p. 116, § 273, Calcutta, 1882, demands a caesural pause after the 8th syllable, but some of his own examples refute his statement, and the caesura is probably purely optional. It is not 7 INTRODUCTION—PART NINE xcviii mentioned by Halayudha on Pingala 7. 8.)—Whereas in most of the so-called samavrtta meters syllaba anceps is allowed only at the end of the even padas, we find a light syllable (counting as heavy) at the end of Priya. 1. 10 a; 4. 2 a, c; 4. 8 a—a license which is declared to be allowable in vasantatilakd and the like by SD. 575, com. (tr. Ballantyne and Mitra, p. 283). e. upajdti. 2 stanzas: 1. 4; 3. 3. mmm ■■ mm m ^ ^ mm ^ mm mm | * ’ ’’ y in any combination. w w " -J (Hindu scheme: ta ta ja ga ga and ja ta ja ga ga.) This meter is merely a combination of padas of indravajrd and upendravajrd; or, in other words, the first syllable is syllaba anceps. There is no caesura. f. sikharim. 1 stanza: 4. 10. \J V Uj \J — } — — (Hindu scheme: ya ma na sa bha la ga.) This meter has a caesura after the sixth syllable. g. mdlini. 1 stanza: 2. 8. \J \J } V V — — I , V — — (Hindu scheme: na na ma ya ya.) A caesura follows the eighth syllable of each pada. h. giti. 1 stanza: 3. 8. A jdti meter consisting of two lines of 30 syllabic instants (morae) each, with a pause after the 12th mora in each line. For a graphic scheme see Ballini, 4 La poesia prof ana/ Studi Italiani di Filologia Indo-Iranica, vol. 8 (1912), pp. 100-101.—This stanza, is in Prakrit. List of the meters in order of occurrence. The meters of the several stanzas are set forth in the following list:— FLOWERS, TREES, AND SHRUBS XC1X Act i 1. Sdrdulavikridita 2. sragdhard 3. sdrdulavikridita 4. upajdti 5* dryd 6. sdrdulavikridita 7. sardulavikndita 8 dr yd 9. sragdhard 10. vasantatilaka 11. sardulavikndita 12. sragdhard Act 2 1. sardulavikndita 2. sragdhard 3. sardulavikndita 4. sragdhard 5- aryd 6. sardulavikndita 7. sardulavikndita 8. malini 9. dryd 10. sardiilavikridita Act 3 1. ary a 2. vasantatilaka 3. upajdti 4. sardulavikndita 5. sardulavikndita 6. dryd [defective] 7. sardulavikndita 8. giti [in Prakrit] 9. dry a [in Prakrit] 10. sardulavikndita 11. sragdhard 12. dryd 13. sardiilavikridita 14. sardulavikndita 15. sardulavikndita Act 4 1. sdrdulavikridita 2. vasantatilaka 3. sdrdulavikridita 4. vasantatilaka 5. sragdhard 6. dryd 7. dryd 8 . vasantatilaka 9. sdrdulavikridita 10. sikharinx 11. sdrdulavikridita 12. sragdhard 10 FLOWERS, TREES, AND SHRUBS MENTIONED IN THE PLAY [The material presented in this section relating to the flora was col¬ lected by Dr. G. Payn Quackenbos, Instructor in Latin at the Col¬ lege of the City of New York, who was at one time a student in the Indo-Iranian Department at Columbia University.] Introduction. The range of flowers, trees, and shrubs men¬ tioned in the Priyadarsika, as well as the identification of the indi¬ vidual plants, may be ascertained from the following list of floral terms. In order to facilitate further investigation, references are given to W. Roxburgh, Flora Indica, 3 vols., Serampore, 1832; E. Balfour, Cyclopaedia of India, 3d ed., 3 vols., London, 1885; and J. D. Hooker, The Flora of British India, vols. 1-5, London, 1872- 1890 [vols. 6-7 were not available]. The passages in which the several words occur are indicated by reference to the translation c INTRODUCTION—PART TEN (in which they can be more easily found than in the text), the words top, middle, and bottom denoting respectively the upper, middle, and lower third of the page. Words occurring in the stage-directions are distinguished by the affixed letters ‘ s.d.’, and the total number of occurrences of each term is appended within square brackets at the right margin. FLORAL TERMS (IN SANSKRIT ALPHABETICAL ORDER) ambhoruha: lotus, Nelumbium speciosum. See kamala. Act 2, stanza 4 c, page 27. [1] utpala: water-lily, Nymphaea (Roxburgh, .2. 576-579; Hooker, 1. 114-115). Cf. nllotpala. Act 3, stanza 15b, page 69 (tr. ‘lotus’). [1] \ kadali: the plantain (or ‘banana’), Musa sapientum (Roxburgh, 1. 663-664). A plant with a stalk about 12 feet in height, with smooth, vivid green leaves, 6 feet long by 2 wide, large purple flowers, and bearing from 150 to 180 plantains. See Balfour, 2. 1015, col. 2. Act 1, stanza 9 d, page 15. Act 2, page 33, middle. page 33, bottom (s.d.). Act 3, page 39, middle. page 43, middle. [5] kamala: lotus, Nelumbium speciosum (Roxburgh, 2. 647-650; Hooker, 1. 115-116). See Balfour, 2. 1080, col. 2. Act 2, page 23, middle, page 25, middle, stanza 6 d, page 29. page 31, top (s.d.). page 31, top. page 33, bottom, stanza 9, page 35. Act 4, stanza 8, page 87. [8] FLOWERS, TREES, AND SHRUBS ci kamalini: a lotus plant; a group of lotuses. See kamala. Act 2, page 29, middle (s.d.). page 31, middle. Act 3, page 41, bottom. page 45, middle (s.d.). [4] kuvalaya: water-lily, Nymphaea. Cf. utpala. Act 2, stanza 8 d, page 33. [1] kusuma: flower. Act 2, page 23, middle, page 23, bottom, page 27, bottom. Act 3, page 43, top. [4] gulma: clump of bushes. Act 2, page 29, top. Act 3, page 39, middle. [2] tamala: name of a medium-sized tree. PWb. says: ‘ Xantho- chymus pictorius Roxb.; die Bliithe ist weisslich.’ Apte: ‘ Name of a tree with a very dark bark.’ Monier-Williams : 4 dark-barked (but white-blossomed), Xanthochymus pic¬ torius; [also] a sort of black Khadira tree, Lexicogra¬ phers].’ Balfour, 3. 1098, col. 2: 4 This beautiful tree is remarkable for its black [! ] flowers. ... [It grows in mountainous and wooded districts] and is cultivated in gardens. (Roxb. 2, p. 633.)’ [Evidently Balfour has con¬ fused the color of the bark and that of the flowers.] Hooker, 1. 269, calls it Garcinia Xanthochymus and states that the flowers are white. Act 2, page 23, middle. [1] taru: tree. Act 1, stanza 12 c, page 19. Act 2, stanza 4 b, page 27. [2] Cll INTRODUCTION—PART TEN nalinl: lotus, Nelumbium speciosum; a group of lotuses; a place abounding in lotuses. See kamala. Act 2, page 29, middle. stanza 10 c, page 37 (meaning: ‘pool’). Act 3, page 43, top. page 43, top (s.d.). page 45, top. page 45, middle. page 45, bottom. [7] nilotpala: blue water-lily, Nymphaea cyanea (Roxburgh, 2. 577- 578), Nymphaea stellata, var. cyanea (Hooker, 1. 114). Balfour, 2. 1117, col. 1: ‘has large bluish flowers/ Act 2, page 31, middle. Act 3, page 57, bottom. page 57, bottom (s.d.). page 67, top (s.d.). page 67, top. [5] pankaja: lotus. See kamala. Act 2, stanza 5 b, page 27. [ 1 ] padma : flower of the lotus, Nelumbium speciosum. See kamala. Act 1, page 5, bottom. Act 2, stanza 2 c, page 23. page 29, middle, stanza 7 d, page 31. stanza 8 b, page 33. stanza 10 a, page 35. Act 3, stanza 11a, page 63. [7] pallava: twig, shoot, bud (always with reference to hands). Act 2, page 27, bottom, page 31, top. stanza 9 c, page 35. [3] puspa: flower. Act 2, page 29, bottom (s.d.). [1] FLOWERS, TREES, AND SHRUBS cm bakula: a rather tall tree, Mimusops Elengi, Linn. (Roxburgh, 2. 236-238; Hooker, 3. 548). Balfour, 2. 950: 4 It has dark, evergreen, oblong, alternate leaves, and small pale brown or white, sweet-smelling, fragrant flowers, of moderate size/ According to the convention of poets, it puts forth blossoms when sprinkled with mouthfuls of wine or nectar by lovely young women; cf. Ratnavali, act 1, stanza 19, ed. Godabole and Parab, p. 10. Act 2, page 23, middle. [1] bandhujiva: name of a plant, Pentapetes phoenicea. See ban- dhuka. Act 3, stanza 14 b, page 69. [1] bandhuka: name of a plant, Pentapetes phoenicea (Roxburgh, 3. 157-158; Hooker, 1. 371-372). Balfour, 3. 178, col. 1: ‘ Its flowers yield a mucilaginous cooling juice, used in special diseases; considered to be astringent. It is an erect growing plant; flowers axillary, large, expand at noon, of a bright red colour, and drop by daylight next morning/ Balfour refers to Powell [?], 1, p. 333. PWb. gives the alternative botanical designation Terminalia tomentosa; on this, which is a tall tree, see Balfour, 3. 850, col. 2. Act 2, page 23, middle. stanza 3 c, page 25. [2] malati: jasmine, Jasminum grandiflorum, Linn. (Roxburgh, 1. 100; Hooker, 3. 603). PWb.: * mit weissen, sehr wohl- riechenden Bliithen, die sich gegen Abend offnen/ Balfour, 2. 420, col. 1: ‘It is the most exquisitely fragrant species of the genus, and is very generally cultivated, the oil being much prized as a perfume; and the large white flowers, having a most powerful scent, and being in blossom through¬ out the year, are used in garlands on all festive occasions/ Act 2, page 23, middle. Act 3, page 41, bottom. [ 2 ] CIV INTRODUCTION—PART TEN lata: a creeper. Act 2, page 23, middle ( malati ). page 27, bottom (reference to arms). [2] sirisa: name of a tree, Mimosa sirissa (Roxburgh, 2. 544-545), Albizzia Lebbek (Hooker, 2. 298), with fragrant, but very delicate flowers (R. Schmidt, Beitrage zur indischen Erotik, 1st ed., pp. 221, 325, Leipzig, 1902). This same tree is called also Acacia speciosa (Acacia sirissa, Buch.). Bal¬ four, 1. 14-15: ‘ Attains an extreme height of 30 feet, and circumference 4^4 feet, the height from the ground to the intersection of the first branch being 22 feet/ Act 2, stanza 3 a, page 23. [1] sephalika: a small tree, Nyctanthes arbor-tristis, Linn. (Roxburgh, 1. 86-87; Hooker, 3. 603-604). Balfour, 2. 1116, col. 1: 1 ‘ A charming little tree, with rough scabrous leaves, well known for the delicious though evanescent perfume of its flowers. ... Its delicate orange and white blossoms pour the most delicious fragrance on the evening air and then fall in showers/ Act 2, stanza 2 a, page 23. page 25, top. page 25, bottom. page 29, middle. [4] saptacchada: a tree (Echites scholaris, Linn.), Alstonia scholaris (Hooker, 3. 642). PWb.: * benannt nach der Zahl ihrer quirlformig gestellten Blatter/ Balfour, 1. 82-83: 4 con¬ siderable-sized tree; . . . the whole plant abounds in a milky juice.’ See saptaparna. Act 2, stanza 2 b, page 23. [1] saptaparna: a tree ( padapa ), Alstonia scholaris. The feminine in -l is the name of the plant Mimosa pudica (on which see Balfour, 2. 950, col. 1), but the masculine (as here) is a synonym of saptacchada, q.v. Act 2, page 23, bottom. [1] USE OF A PLAY WITHIN A PLAY cv APPENDIX NOTES ON THE USE OF A PLAY WITHIN A PLAY ON THE SANSKRIT STAGE 1 The introduction of a play within a play, or the employment of such dramatic interludes, is familiar to every student of the English stage since the days of Hamlet’s * Mousetrap.’ The same dramatic device was known to the playwrights of India, and it is interesting to find that the import and character of these episodic performances were duly taken into consideration by Sanskrit dra¬ matic critics of antiquity. An episodic play is likened by De Quincey to a picture within a painted scene. Its purpose, dramatically, is to develop the action or to bring out character. On the English stage, for example, the play scene in Hamlet is a turning-point in the drama; and the action is similarly advanced by the inserted dramatic performance in Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy and in Greene’s James the Fourth. An example of the employment of a play within a play chiefly in order to develop character is found in the Sir Thomas More (perhaps the earliest instance of such a dramatic interlude in English), or again in the Interlude of the Nine Worthies in Love’s Labour’s Lost. The double usage of this dramatic element seems to be united in just proportion and in even balance when we come to the trades¬ man’s play of Pyramus and Thisby in Midsummer Night’s Dream. So much by way of introduction. From the histrionic standpoint, the occurrence of a play within a play implies a considerable previous dramatic development and history: this is not a dramatic device that naturally belongs to the infancy of the drama; it occurs usually in the more advanced stages of the art. The preliminary steps that gave rise to the play within play we can easily trace in England. Its growth is readily 1 Reprinted with minor alterations from an article by A. V. Williams Jackson, ‘ Certain Dramatic Elements in Sanskrit Plays, with Parallels in the English Drama,’ in American Journal of Philology, vol. 19 (1898), pages 242-247. CV1 INTRODUCTION—APPENDIX seen from the old Interlude, which was the last piece of scaffolding used in the pre-Elizabethan drama before we have the completed edifice of the actual great drama under Renaissance influences. In India, unfortunately, we cannot trace [aside from the plays of Bhasa] the evolution of the pre-Kalidasan drama, nor do we have the play within play in Kalidasa’s dramatic works, and yet in his successors the episodic performance appears fully developed. In the Sanskrit dramatic canons the name of a little play incor¬ porated within an act is garbhdnka or garbhandtaka, ‘ embryo- play ’; this is defined in the Sahityadarpana, ch. 6, 279, ed. Roer, p. 127; tr. Ballantyne and Mitra, p. 176:— ahkodarapravisto yo rangadvaramukhadiman ahko J parah sa garbhdnkah sabijah phalavdn api ‘ A secondary act which is incorporated into the body of an act, and which has its own Preliminaries, Introduction, etc., and has a Germinal Scene (lit. ‘seed’) and a Denouement (lit. ‘ fruit ’), is known as a Garbhdnka (i.e. interlude, play within play).’ The Sanskrit commentary to the passage cites the dramatic inter¬ lude of ‘ Sita’s Svayamvara ’ in Rajasekhara’s Balaramayana as an illustration of the Garbhanka: yathd balardmdyane . . . sita- svayamvaro ndma garbhdnkah (text, p. 127; transl., p. 176). Three instances of the Garbhanka will be examined here (cf. also PWb. and Apte, Skt.-Engl. Diet.), and one or two other scenes in the Sanskrit drama that are somewhat kindred to the Garbhanka will be noticed in addition. These latter stand in about the same rela¬ tion to the episodic play as the masque and dumb-show scenes in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, Pericles, and Hamlet. If space allowed it, attention might also be given to the nature of the Viskambhaka, or Explanatory Scene, which is inserted between the acts as an induction or prelude, and serves somewhat the same dramatic office as that discharged by the Chorus in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth [cf. Dasarupa 1. 116, ed. and tr. Haas, p. 34, New York, 1912]. The discussion, however, is limited to the single point under con¬ sideration, the Garbhanka. Neither in Sudraka, the reputed author of the Mrcchakatika, nor in Kalidasa’s three dramas, have we an example of a play USE OF A PLAY WITHIN A PLAY evil within play. The intermezzo of the dancing and song scene in the Malavikagnimitra (act 2) is not a point for consideration here. In the Vikramorvasi the Garbhaiika might perhaps have been in¬ troduced with advantage. In this drama Kalidasa might possibly have arranged as a play within a play the brief story of ‘ LaksmI’s Choice/ the dramatic production in which the divine nymph UrvasI made the fatal blunder in speaking her line falsely. This he has chosen instead to give in narrative in the Viskambhaka (see also the definition of viskambhaka in SD. 308). The first real instance of the play within play is to be found in the Priyadarsika of SrI-Harshadeva (7th century A. D.). The extensive dramatic allusions in this piece and the elaborate prepa¬ rations for this cleverly introduced scene on which the play turns remind one remotely of the numerous dramatic references in Love’s Labour’s Lost, Hamlet, or Midsummer Night’s Dream. The plot of the Priyadarsika is a story of love and court intrigue at the palace of King Vatsa, or Udayana. On the evening of the Kau- mudl festival, a play is to be presented for the entertainment of the Queen. The circumstances of the scene are to represent, in a complimentary manner, how King Vatsa first won the love and the hand of his royal consort by giving her lessons upon the lute. The queen’s maid-in-waiting (the lost princess Priyadarsika in disguise) is to play the role of the erstwhile princess Vasavadatta. One of the court maidens is to assume male disguise and to impersonate the king. But King Vatsa has actually fallen deeply in love with Priyadarsika, and by cunning intrigue it is arranged that he himself shall assume the role of instructor in music, and shall play the part of love-making to the fair Priyadarsika in the very presence of the Queen. So real does the action seem that the Queen heartily applauds, until the realism surpasses ordinary bounds and she dis¬ covers the ruse to which she has been a victim and interrupts the scene, when the performance is stopped somewhat as in the Hamlet episode. This interpolated play-scene occupies the major part of the third of the four acts which make up this bright little comedy, and it forms an integral part of the drama; for, after it, the in- CV111 INTRODUCTION—APPENDIX cognito heroine is discovered to be the long-lost princess whom Fate and her father had before betrothed to the king, and she is received as his youngest wife. The whole scene is one that is well managed, and the situation which is brought about by this Gar- bhanka is cleverly designed. The next dramatist of India who makes use of the dramatic i interlude is the renowned Bhavabhuti, in the eighth century of our era. In the last act (act 7) of his well-known drama, the Uttara- ramacarita, or Latter Deeds of Rama, there occurs a theatrical representation which is as much essential to the solution of the piece as is the kindred masque in the last act of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline. The story is the familiar one; the play is a sort of Sanskrit Winter’s Tale. Like Leontes in the Winter’s Tale, Rama has banished his faithful wife Slta, and he has never seen the twin sons, Kusa and Lava, that were born in the forest wilds. Like Guiderius and Aviragus, reared by old Belarius in the Cym¬ beline, they have grown to be youths of heroic mold. In the sixth act of the play, Fate has restored these manly striplings to their father’s arms. But the joy is not complete; Sita, the counterpart of the patient Griselda, must be restored, and for this touching scene Bhavabhuti has chosen the device of a miniature play or masque in which the circumstances of the birth and youth of the royal lads are re-enacted before the father. A sense of the lapse of time that has taken place in the play is produced as in the Cymbeline. The scene is worth describing in the next paragraph, as it conveys a good idea of the manner in which such a masque- production was conducted on the Sanskrit stage, and it brings out the point which was noted above, that of adding reality to a play by making its own actors spectators at a mimic play within itself. The principal details of the scene may be gathered from the fol¬ lowing notes and parallels. Rama, filled with grief for the loss of his banished wife, comes to the banks of the Ganges, where a play of the revered sage Valmiki is to be presented. One is reminded of Shakespeare’s lines in the Midsummer Night’s Dream: ‘ this green plot shall be USE OF A PLAY WITHIN A PLAY cix our stage, this hawthorn-brake our tiring house.’ The audience take their seats as in the Hamlet play. The stage-manager ( siltra- dhdra, Uttara. act 7, near beg.), in strict dramatic fashion, speaks the prologue. The circumstances attending upon the birth of Rama’s sons in the forest are now enacted, even with such graphic detail as bringing, or pretending to bring, the infant babes upon the stage. The divine promise of their future greatness is made, and the purity of their mother, the chaste Slta, is vindicated. So vivid does the scene become that Rama is moved to tears and grief; but his cup is turned from bitterness and sorrow to overflowing sweetness and joy when the fictitious Slta of the mimic play, like Hermione of the Winter’s Tale, is found really to be his wife and she takes her place by his side as queen, instead of the golden statue which Rama had set up ( hiranmayi sitdydh pratikrtih, acts 2, 3, and 7). The third example of the Garbhanka is the illustration given in ♦ the commentary to the Sahityadarpana passage cited above (ch. 6, 279). It is found in act 3 of the long ten-act play Balaramayana of Rajasekhara, whose date is placed between the ninth and the tenth centuries of our era. For the text see Balaramayana, ed. Govindadeva Sastri, pp. 58-85. The story is the familiar one in the Rama cycle, and it is excellently summarized in Levi’s Le Theatre indien, pp. 272-277, of which I have made use. The demon-king Ravana, as an unsuccessful suitor for the hand of the beautiful Slta, has become the sworn enemy of her husband, Rama. The play describes how he pines away with hopeless love. A dramatic troupe visits his palace under the directorship of Kohala; arrangements are made to have a performance before the king (Balaramayana, act 3, p. 58, ed. G. Sastri). By happy or un¬ happy chance, the subject of the miniature play is the betrothal of Slta to Rama ( sitdsvayamvara iti ndtakam). The Garbhanka, interlude or interpolated spectacle, begins; and its action, as before noted, serves to make the actual drama itself more realistic. The very scene is enacted of Rama’s triumph over all rivals; the en¬ raged Ravana can scarce suppress the fury of his heart, in spite cx INTRODUCTION—APPENDIX of efforts made to pacify him and despite the assurance that it is a mere exhibition or spectacle ( preksana ) [cf. note 84 on Act 3 of the Priyadarsika, in the present volume, page 121]. The play¬ ers’ scene is interrupted as in Hamlet, and the Garbharika comes to a close: iti niskrdntdh sarve, sitdsvayamvaro ndma garbhahkah, p. 85, ed. Govindadeva Sastri. A similar interruption of a mimic play was recorded above in the case of the Priyadarsika. While speaking of the Balaramayana from the dramatic standpoint, men¬ tion might be made in passing of the idea of the use of the mario¬ nettes or puppet representation which is alluded to in the Viskam- bhaka to act 5 of this play and developed in the course of the act, but the likeness is more remote. Three plays, accordingly, have here been examined as illustrating the use of an interpolated act or miniature play. These are Harshadeva’s Priyadarsika, Bhavabhuti’s Uttararamacarita, and Rajasekhara’s Balaramayana. The list may be extended by fur¬ ther reading. Finally, attention may be drawn in this connection to an element or dramatic incident that is akin to the dumb-show or Prospero’s beautiful masque in the Tempest: it is the scene in Harshadeva’s Ratnavali (act 4, p. 68, ed. Godabole and Parab; cf. Wilson, Theatre of the Hindus, 2. 306 ff.) in which the king and the queen sit and watch the magician Samvara-Siddhi waving his bunch of peacock feathers ( picchakam bhrdmayan) and conjuring up before the mind’s eye marvels and wonders that surpass even the surprises which Prospero’s wand called forth for Ferdinand and Miranda. It is true that this scene is merely a performance to the mind’s eye and does not strictly come within the scope of a play within a play, but it requires mention because it resembles the masque element or dumb-show incident and causes the regular action of the drama to be suspended for the time being and also contributes to the denouement. Another example comparable with this, but really one that is more important, as it forms the opening of the action of the play in which it occurs, is the magic scene in Rajasekhara’s Karpuramanjarl [act 1, ed. Konow and Lanman, text, pp. 26-36, USE OF A PLAY WITHIN A PLAY cxi transl., pp. 236-242]. In this the sorcerer Bhairavananda, through his art as a wizard, brings upon the stage the fair heroine, with whom the king falls in love. The scene reminds one in its char¬ acter of the parallel situation in Marlowe’s famous play in which Faustus beholds the vision of Helen of Troy (Doctor Faustus, ed. Ward, pp. 38-41, Oxford, 1892). Both these illustrations, it is true, lie strictly outside the present subject, but there is at least an indirect kinship with the interpolated play. In conclusion it may be said that enough has been brought for¬ ward to show that the device of a play within a play was employed with good effect in the Sanskrit drama. The employment of this element in the far-away dramas of India is not without interest, for it is a device that was unknown to the classic drama of Greece and Rome; nor does it seem to have been elaborated elsewhere until we find it fully developed and flourishing in our own drama at its rise during the great age of Queen Elizabeth. The gar - bhanka of early India is therefore the play within a play of later Europe. Orient and Occident, after all, are not so remote from each other in art. TEXT AND TRANSLATION DRAMATIS PERSONAE Stage-manager (sutradhara), who appears in the Induction and probably recites the two stanzas of the Invocation at the open¬ ing of the play. Vatsaraja, or Udayana, King of KausambI, hero of the drama. Vasantaka, Jester (vidusaka ), friend and confidant of the King, Rumanvant, minister to Vatsaraja. Vijayasena, general of the army of Vatsaraja. Vinayavasu, chamberlain ( kancukin ) of Drdhavarman, King of the Arigas. Vasavadatta, daughter of King Mahasena-Pradyota, Queen to Vatsaraja. Aranyaka, whose real name is Priyadarsika (or Priyadarsana), daughter of King Drdhavarman and heroine of the play, living unknown at Vatsaraja’s court as attendant to the Queen. Manorama, a female attendant, confidante of Aranyaka. Indlvarika, a maidservant ( ceti ) of the Queen. Kancanamala, a handmaiden of the Queen. Sankrtyayani, an elderly lady of rank and associate of the Queen. Yasodhara, portress ( pratihdri ), female doorkeeper at Vatsa- raja’s court. A Bard, behind the scene at the close of Act i. Retinue attendant upon the Queen. CHARACTERS OF THE MIMIC PLAY Vasavadatta, daughter of King Mahasena—acted by Aranyaka. Vatsaraja—acted by himself. Kancanamala, handmaiden of Vasavadatta— acted by herself. Chamberlain of Mahasena—presumably acted by a chamberlain of Vatsaraja. DRAMATIS PERSONAE 3 NOTE. The heroine is the daughter of King Drdhavarman and his un¬ named consort, who is the sister of Angaravati, mother to Queen Vasava- datta (Act 4, notes 6, 41, 51). Consequently the heroine and the Queen in our drama are daughters of sisters and therefore first cousins, as shown in the denouement. Place: The scene is laid at the palace of Vatsaraja at Kausambi. The Explanatory Scene of Act 1, however, is laid in some part of the Vindhya Forest. Time: Fifth century B.C., in the first part of the reign of Udayana Vatsaraja. (See Introduction, part 5.) Duration of the Action: Somewhat more than a year, from one autumn to the next. (See Introduction, part 4.) SW* The superior figures in the Translation refer to the Notes, pages 97- 131. In order to avoid cumbersome figures, the Notes on each Act are numbered separately. PRIYADARSIKA PRATHAMO ’NKAH [Prastavana] [Nandi] Dhumavyakuladrstir indukiranair ahladitaksi punah pasyanti varam utsuka ’natamukhi bhuyo hriya Brahmanah sersya padanakhendudarpanagate Gangam dadhane Hare sparsad utpulaka karagrahavidhau Gaurl sivaya ’stu vah [ i ] api ca:— Kailasadrav udaste paricalati Ganesu ’llasatkautukesu krodam matuh Kumare visati Visamuci preksamane sarosam padavastambhasidadvapusi Dasamukhe yati Patalamulam kruddho J py aslistamurtir bhayaghanam Umaya patu tustah Sivo nah [2] ( nandyante ) Sutradharah. ( parikramya) adya ’ham vasantotsave sabahumanam ahuya nanadigdesad agatena rajnah sri- Harsadevasya padapadmopajivina rajasamuheno ’ktah: yatha ’smatsvamina sri-Harsadevena ’purvavasturacanalamkrta 4 PRIYADARSIKA ACT I [INDUCTION] 1 [Invocation] Her glance is troubled by the smoke [of the altar], and yet her eyes are gladdened by the moonbeams; She looks with longing at the bridegroom, but again bows down her face through modesty in Brahma’s presence; She feels jealousy [when she beholds], reflected in the mirror of the moonlike nails of her feet, Hara (Siva) supporting Ganga; Yet she is thrilled by his touch in the rite of hand-clasping.—May She, Gauri (Parvatl), be gracious unto you! 2 [i] And again 3 :— Mount Kailasa 4 upheaved is quaking, the Ganas 5 manifest their amazement, Kumara 6 clings to his mother’s lap, the poison-venting Serpent 7 glares with rage, his frame tottering on his firm-set feet 9 ; And the Ten-headed One (Ravana) descends to the depths of Patala, 8 Yet Siva, for all his wrath, is delighted at being embraced by Uma (Parvatl) in the excess of her fear.—May He protect us! [2] {At the end of the Invocation 10 :) Stage-manager . 11 {Walking around.) Today 12 at the Spring Festival 13 I was very respectfully summoned by the group of kings 14 assembled from various regions as vassals at the lotus-feet of His Majesty King Harsha, and was thus addressed: 'We have heard by a series of rumors that our lord, His Majesty King 5 6 PRIYADARSIKA Priyadarsika nama natika krte ’ty asmabhih srotraparamparaya srutam, na tu prayogato drsta. tat tasyai Va rajnah sarva- janahrdayahladino bahumanad asmasu ca ’nugrahabuddhya yathavat prayogena tvaya natayitavye ’ti. tad yavan nepa- thyaracanam krtva yathabhilasitam sampadayami. ( parito ’valokya) avarjitani samajikamanamsl ’ti me niscayah. kutah, sri-Harso nipunah kavih parisad apy esa gunagrahinl loke hari ca Vatsarajacaritam natye ca daksa vayam vastv ekaikam api ’ha vanchitaphalaprapteh padam kim punar madbhagyopacayad ayam samuditah sarvo gunanam ganah [3] (nepathydbhimukham avalokya) aye katham prastavanabhyu- dyate mayi viditasmadabhiprayo ’ngadhipater Drdhavarmanah kancukino bhumikam krtva ’smadbhrate ’ta eva ’bhivartate. • • tad yavad aham apy anantarabhumikam sampadayami. (iti niskrdntah) iti prastavana [ Viskambhakah] (tatah pravisati Kancukl) KaneukI. (sokasramani ndtayan nihsvasya) kastam bhoh kastam. • • rajno vipad bandhuviyogaduhkham desacyutir durgamamargakhedah asvadyate ’syah katunisphalayah phalam mayai ’tac cirajlvitayah [4] ACT ONE 7 Harsha, has composed a play 15 called Priyadarsika, graced by the treatment of a novel subject 16 ; but we have not seen it produced. So you ought to have it acted in appropriate style out of high respect for the King himself, who gladdens 17 the hearts of all men, and also with the idea of conferring a favor on us/ Ac¬ cordingly, after arranging the costumes , 18 I shall proceed to do as requested. ( Looking around.) I am convinced that the minds of the audience are favorably inclined. For, His Majesty Harsha is a skilful poet, this assemblage, too, is appre¬ ciative of merit, The story of Vatsaraja 19 is a popular subject, and we are expert in acting. Any one of these facts assures the attainment of the desired result, But how much more so does this whole set of excellences when com¬ bined through my abundant good fortune ! 20 [3] {Looking toward the dressing-room.) Why, here comes my brother, just as I am engaged in the Induction 21 ; he has learned of my intention, and has assumed the part of the chamberlain of Drdhavarman , 22 king of the Angas . 23 So I shall proceed to enact the next part . 24 {Exit.) End of the Induction [EXPLANATORY SCENE ]*» {Enter the Chamberlain [Vinayavasu] .) Chamberlain . 26 ( Acting 27 as if sad and weary; sighing .) Alas, oh, alas! The misfortune of my king, the grief of separation from my kinsmen, Exile from my country, the fatigue of a hard journey— This I taste as the fruit of a long life, Bitter and fruitless ! 28 [4] 8 PRIYADARSIKA (sasokam savismayam ca) tadrsasya ’pi nama ’pratihatasakti- trayasya Raghu-Dilipa-Nalatulyasya devasya Drdhavarmano matprarthyamana ’py anena svaduhita Vatsarajaya datte ’ti baddhanusayena Vatsarajo bandhanan na nivartata iti ca labdharandhrena sahasa ’gatya Kalingahatakena vipattir Idrsi kriyata iti yatsatyam upapannam api na sraddadhe. katham ekantanisthuram Idrsam ca daivam asmasu. yena sa ’pi raja- putri yatha katham cid enam Vatsarajayo ’paniya svaminam anrnam karisyami ’ti matva maya tadrsad api pralayakala- darunad avaskandasambhramad apavahya devasya Drdhavar¬ mano mitrabhavanvitasyai ’va ’tavikasya nrpater Vindhyaketor grhe sthapita sat! snanaya na ’tiduram ity Agastyatlrtham gate mayi ksanat kair api nipatya hate Vindhyaketau raksobhir iva nirmanusikrte dagdhe sthane na jnayate kasyam avasthayam vartata iti. nipunam ca vicitam etan maya sarvam sthanam. na ca jnatam kim tair eva dasyubhir nlta ’tha va dagdhe ’ti. tat kim karomi mandabhagyah. (vicintya) aye evam srutam maya: bandhanat paribhrastah Pradyotatanayam apahrtya Vatsarajah Kausambim agata iti. kim tatrai Va gacchami. ( nihsvasya ’tmano ’vastham pasyan ) kim iva hi rajaputrya vina tatra gatva kathayisyami. aye kathitam ca ’dya mama Vindhyaketuna: ma bhaisih. jivati tatrabhavan maharajo Drdhavarma gadhapraharajarjarikrto baddhas tisthati ’ti. tad adhuna svaminam eva gatva pada- paricaryaya jlvitasesam atmanah saphalayisyami. ( parikramyo ’rdhvam avalokya) aho atidarunata saradatapasya, yad evam anekaduhkhasamtapitena ’pi maya tlksno Vagamyate. ghanabandhanamukto ’yam kanyagrahanat param tulam prapya ACT ONE 9 (With sadness and amazement.) To think [that it could have happened] to such a one 29 as King- Drdhavarman, the possessor of the three irresistible powers , 30 the equal of Raghu, Dillpa, and Nala ! 31 [Yet] the accursed Kaliiiga , 32 harboring resentment be¬ cause Drdhavarman had given his daughter 33 to Vatsaraja, al¬ though he himself had sought her in marriage, and finding his opportunity in the fact that Vatsaraja was still in captivity, has suddenly appeared and brought about this disaster. I cannot believe it, though it has actually come to pass. How excessively cruel is such 34 a fate for us! For I had thought to free my master of his obligation by bringing the princess somehow or other to Vatsaraja; accordingly I carried her out of the turmoil even of that onslaught which was terrible as doomsday, and placed her in the house of the forest-king Vindhyaketu , 35 who was ami¬ cably disposed toward my lord Drdhavarman. When I had gone to the Pool of Agastya 36 to bathe, because it was no great distance away, in a moment some foes made an attack like demons, slew Vindhyaketu, destroyed the people, and gave the place to the flames. Now I do not know in what plight the princess is, and, although I have carefully searched the entire place, I have not found out whether she was taken away by those savages or was burned. So what am I, unhappy man, to do? (Reflecting .) Ah! I have heard that Vatsaraja has escaped from captivity, carrying off the daughter of Pradyota, and has reached Kausambi . 37 Shall I go thither? ( Sighing as he be¬ holds his plight.) What in the world 38 am I to say if I go there without the princess? Ah, Vindhyaketu said to me today: ‘ Have no fear . 39 His Majesty 40 King Drdhavarman is alive, but he is disabled by severe wounds 41 and is a prisoner.’ So I will go now to my master and will devote the remainder of my life to his service. ( Walking around, glancing upward.) Oh, how pitiless is the consuming heat of the autumn sun ! 42 For I feel its pene¬ tration, consumed as I am by many miseries. The sun , 43 set free from , 44 has reached «Libra next after occupying Virgo », 45 10 PRIYADARSIKA ravir adhigatasvadhama pratapati khalu Vatsaraja iva [5] (iti niskrdntah) iti viskambhakah • • (tatah pravisati Raja Vidiisakas ca) Raja. bhrtyanam avikarita parigata drsta matir mantrinam mitrany apy upalaksitani viditah pauranurago ’dhikam nirvyudha ranasahasavyasanita striratnam asaditam nirvyajad iva dharmatah kim iva na praptammaya bandhanat [ 6 ] Vidusakah. ( sarosam) bho vaassa, kadham tam jewa dasle uttam bandhanahadaam pasamsesi. tam danim visu- marehi. jam tadha navaggaho via gaavadi khalakhalaamana- lohasinkhalabandhapadikkhalantacalano sunnadukkara [pisunl- antajhiaasamtavo rosavasuttambhidaditthi garuakaraphodida- dharanimaggo raanisu vi aniddasuham anubhudo si. Raja. Vasantaka, durjanah khalv asi. pasya. drstam carakam andhakaragahanam no tanmukhenduidjmtih plda te nigalasvanena madhuras tasya giro na srutah krura bandhanaraksino ’dya manasi snigdhah kataksa na te ACT ONE II And blazes forth, having regained «