Indian Antiquary Vol 52

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 396

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[DECEMBER, 1923
case of ब्रह्मर्षि वशिष्ठ! He also tolls Rams through भटावक्र-" जामात यशेन वयं विरुद्धा एवं बाल एवासिनवेच राज्यम् But if राम was a बाल to the mind of वशिष्ठ, he ought to have given his instructions in such general terms for all time-" Don't take any important step without consulting me". But the poet could not make Vasistha do that; for in such a case Sit could not have been banished. But the poet ought to have seen that if afg did not take particular care of the 'new king' and the new kingdoms, he would fail in the performance of his duties as arter. Besides, Rama could have consulted Vasistha very easily; for he was at such a little distance from the capital that 1 could have come in a very
short time.
366
But there was no reason why Rama should be considered as a by Vasisthe. He himself speaks of him in वीरचरिष—
" क्षमायाः स क्षेत्रं गुणमणिगणानामपि खनिः प्रपन्नानां मूर्तः सुकृतपरिपाको जनिमताम् । कृपारामो रामो बहिरिह दृशोपास्यत इति प्रमादाद्वैतस्याप्युपरि परिवर्तामह इमे ॥
We cannot assume that Vasistha changed his opinion about Rama in a few years. Vircharita and Uttaracharita are inter-related. They are supplementary to one another. Such a contradiction is in no way in keeping with the talents of a real dramatist.
Besides these blunders in the technique of Uttaracharita, there are many linguistic defects, which it is unnecessary to point out here. They do not mar the effect so clearly as the other defects. The fame of a real dramatist depends on his handling of plot and the employment of proper devices. None can claim to be a dramatist by simply writing a few slokas, beautifully delineating बीभत्स and भवानक रसs.
It has been clearly shown above that Bhavabhuti utterly fails to fulfil the requirements of a dramatist. Just as a whole building deteriorates by reason of a weak foundation, so Bhavabhuti's dramas suffer by reason of his failure in the proper arrangements and handling of their technique.
Such are the few mistakes discovered' by Principal Roy in the Uttaracharita of Bhavabhuti. The present writer has no intention at present of examining his views and of showing how far they can really stand. He is, however, tempted to doubt whether these could have been the causes of Bhavabhuti's disparagement (if there was such disparagement at all). He further ventures to remark that if Bhava bhûti's two slokas (res, etc., and rara ferfte: etc.) cited above, have really any reference to the unfavourable opinions about him, these must have been mostly due, not to his poetic failures but to prejudice generated by his philosophic views. In philosophic circles, he was known as a and we do find disparaged in the 20th chapter of Bodhanacharya's agra in words like"अयं क्षपणकपक्षादपि पापीयानुम्बेकपक्ष इस्युपेक्ष्यते " 1 So far as concerns his poetic abilities he was greatly respected and admired. Vakpatirâja, the famous author at and a well-known contemporary of f, gratefully remembers him in the following worde
R
भवमूइ जलहिणिग्गय - कशामयरसकणा इव स्फुरन्ति । Greer farter oorfa fang sending 11
1 See geft, page 265 (Nirnayasagar edition).