Arts

Moonrise

किं पद्मस्य रुचिं न हन्ति नयनानन्दं विधत्ते न वा

वृद्धिं वा झषकेतनस्य कुरुते नालोकमात्रेण किम् ।

वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्ययं यदपरः शीतांशुरभ्युद्गतो

दर्पः स्यादमृतेन चेदिह तदप्यस्त्येव बिम्बाधरे ॥ (3.13)

Doesn’t your moon-face eclipse the beauty of the lotus? Doesn’t it make the flag-bannered Manmatha to swell, just by its appearance? Now, this other moon has risen. If there is pride on account of the presence of nectar (in the real moon), that too is present in your lower lip, which is like a bimba fruit.

In this way, the poet has pictured dāna-vīra rooted in dayā; śṛṅgāra, hāsya, karuṇa, and adbhuta rasas are secondary in the play. In other words, they become the aṅga-rasas, while dāna-vīra is the aṅgi-rasa. If the play were to be written by Bhāsa, it would have taken a shape similar to that of Karṇa-bhāra, and the hero would have succumbed to excessive generosity; in that case, karuṇa-rasa would have been the primary emotion.

Some wonder why and how Harṣa was inspired to write a story connected with the bodhi-sattva; it is not difficult to surmise a possibility. Though there is some flavouring of Buddhism at the beginning and end of the Nāgānanda, the elements of jāti-smaratva and pūrva-janma-vṛttāna (i.e., recollection of past lives) that are part of the original story are not found in the play.

There is nothing special in the characterisation in the Ratnāvalī and Priyadarśikā; the characters are well known through the works of Bhāsa and Kālidāsa; their names and nature were familiar to the readers of Harṣa. Vatsa-rāja is a dhīra-lalita-nāyaka, who is interested in various forms of art and is tender by heart; though he is not irresponsible, he desires luxury. His kingdom, treasury, and army are looked after by his ministers and commanders-in-chief.

Kathā-sarit-sāgara was composed in the eleventh century CE (between 1063 and 1081 CE) based on the Bṛhatkathā, which was in paiśācī prākṛta; the Bṛhatkathā-mañjarī, which is similar to this treatise, but smaller in size, also belongs to the same period. Another work which is older than the two and is probably closer in its narrative to the original is the Bṛhatkathā-śloka-saṅgraha – it was composed either in the eighth or the ninth Century CE.

Sāṅkṛtyāyanī had designed a play that showcased the manner in which Vatsa-rāja, who taught music to Vāsavadattā fell in love with her. The play was planned to be staged in the royal court; Araṇyakā was to play the role of Vāsavadattā and Manoramā, the role of Vatsa-rāja. Araṇyakā’s friends Manoramā and vidūṣaka planned to use the occasion to enable the king and his newfound love to unite with each other. Accordingly, instead of Manoramā, Vatsa-rāja himself ended up playing his role as a part of the play; he used the opportunity to engage in romantic exchanges with Araṇyakā.

Jayāpīḍa (around 800 CE) says that Ratnāvalī was authored by the king. Jayadeva (around 11^th Century CE) also concurs with this opinion – he says that the play is by Harṣavardhana. Madhusūdana (circa. 1654 CE) calls him kavi-jana-mūrdhanya and ratnāvalyākhya nāṭikā-kārtā.[1] In fact, we don’t even have to rely upon external testimonies to attest that Harṣa was a poet and a playwright.

We know the biographical details of only a few kings who ruled ancient India.  Other than Candragupta Maurya and Aśoka, the most famous of them, we know about Harṣavardhana to a great extent; Bāṇa-bhaṭṭa’s Harṣacarita, Hiuen Tsang’s (Xuanzang) travelogues as well as the inscriptions of Harṣa and Immaḍi Pulikeśi (Pulikeśi II) are valuable sources.

The nature of various characters in the play is clear. In the world of Sanskrit literature, it is rare to find such well-defined characters and sets of events that naturally progress from one to another. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that in the triad constituted by the plot, emotion, and characterisation, the last, i.e., the characterisation in the play merits the best applause; the plot naturally depends on character.

Because he was so smart, Cāṇakya always exercised caution in his actions; he was all eyes at all times; he was able to estimate the enemy’s strategy by merely listening to Dāruvarmā’s replies and Stanakalaśa’s poems; he gathered the kind of ploys Rākṣasa had plotted to eliminate Candragupta and came up with counter-strategies for each. He ensured that the deeds of his enemies only worked against those who had hatched the plans.