Triveni Journal
1927 | 11,233,916 words
Triveni is a journal dedicated to ancient Indian culture, history, philosophy, art, spirituality, music and all sorts of literature. Triveni was founded at Madras in 1927 and since that time various authors have donated their creativity in the form of articles, covering many aspects of public life....
Dr. A. N. BANERJEA
Head of the Sanskrit Department, University of Gorakhpur
In the galaxy of the classical Sanskrit dramatists the two brightest stars are undoubtedly Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti. While Kalidasa excels in the depiction of the sentiment of love, Bhavabhuti, expounding the philosophy of love, is according to some, unrivalled in the treatment of tender feelings and pathos. The traditional verdicts of the Sanskrit critics, e. g.,
Govardhanacharya in the Aryasaptasatigoes to the extent of saying that the poetic muse of Bhavabhuti assumes the form of a hilly tract – how else in the creation of pathos would the stone cry?
apparently referring to the famous verse of the “Uttararamacharitam
It would be necessary to analyse the situations and the feelings of the characters presented by Bhavabhuti in his dramas in order to assess the competence of the great dramatist in describing in an inimitable manner the pathetic or the tragic Rasa. It is wellknown that the extant works ascribed to Bhavabhuti are only three–the Malatimadhavam, the Mahaviracharitamand the Uttararamacharitam. While the first is a fictitious romantic love-story of the middle-class life and purely invented by the great dramatist, the last two are based on the earlier and later parts of the story of Rama as depicted in the Ramayana. It would be futile indeed to find evidence of the poet-dramatist’s capabilities to suggest the tragic element or sentiment in the Prakarana where the love of separated lovers (vipralambhasringara) is depicted and that too, not in a manner worth emulation. In the second, which deals more with the feud of Ravana against Rama, the diplomacy of Malyavat in instigating Parasurama and the despatch of Surpanakha in the disguise of the nurse-maid Manthara and also the intrigue of Malyavat and Valin, which are all innovations made in the original Rama-story, than the separation of Rama and Sita, it would be again a fruitless endeavour if we were to estimate the poet’s capability at the handling of the tragic themes.
In the Uttararamacharitam, however, Bhavabhuti himself indicates the emphasis on pathos. In the Seventh Act, which is technically called the garbha-nataka– a within a drama – the Sutradhara or the stage-manager of the garbha-natakacomposed by Bhavabhuti himself says that it is a sweet and nectar-like purifying composition resulting from the sage-like perception and contains the sentiments of pathos and wonder.
Similarly, while describing the grief of Rama the dramatist himself says that the pathetic condition of Rama, unmanifest due to profundity and causing great torment inside is like the boiling of some drug in a closed vessel:
and implies the intensity of grief unmanifest, as providing the foundation for the feeling of pathos which reaches its high watermark with the change in the situation. Lastly, but not insignificantly, the controversial verse too, of the poet himself, formulates the theory that the only sentiment that predominates is that of pathos, while all other sentiments are transformations thereof, as the eddies, bubbles and waves are all but the various modifications of water–
Now these three references to Karunarasa – specifically as coming from the pen of the dramatist himself directly, theoretically prove that the dramatist should be at his best in the depiction, description or suggestion of the pathetic sentiment. It would, however, be fruitful to review briefly how far in practice the poet bas been able to achieve this none-too-easy task.
Heights of Pathos
The first and the third acts of the “Uttararamacharitam”, according to modern critics bear testimony to the heights of pathos and renderness that the dramatist could reach and convey to the audience. In the first act, the good king Rama (Ramabbadra) although prepared to abandon without a pang affection, compassion and felicity, nay Sita herself, for the sake of his subjects
faints at the fall of the thunderbolt of words in the form of a mere whisper from Durmukha about the stigma that is attached to Sita of dwelling in Ravana’s abode and still being accepted by the righteous Rama. The valiant ideal hero Rama, on regaining consciousness is led to a pathetic reflection on the cruel fate that has fallen on his beloved Sita, who is an embodiment of purity and gave succour to the worlds and yet is now rendered an orphan. Arising, however, to the occasion the new king (now turned into a tyrant) issues orders at once to Lakshmana to take Sita to the hermitage of Valmiki. The king in Rama turns at the very departure of Durmukha into a creature of more vital life and the lament bursts forth – I have turned into a performer of the most cruel and heinous deeds. have as if delivered Sita into the hands of death as a butcher the domestic bird. I am rendered untouchable now: the world is now turned upside down, what purpose is there for Rama to live any further, the world paled into insignificance undoubtedly life was instilled into Rama for experiencing sorrow The climax is reached when Rama places the feet of Sita, who is asleep, on his head and weeps bitterly saying that this is the last obeisance that he would make to her. This portrayal of Rama’s conduct is indeed a picture of pathos and tenderness.
In the third Act where the scene is laid in the Panchavati and the two rivers Tamasa and Murala through a dialogue prepare the audience for the meeting of Sita and Rama unknown to each other, the dramatist has again risen to great heights in the suggestion of pathos. Remarkably suggestive is the soulful and pathetic statement or the recollection of Rama (behind the scenes) of the kinship of the trees and the deer in the company of the beloved on the banks of the Godavari, Later on, although more poetic than real, the comparison of the sorrow in the heart of Rama with the pile of smoke of the fire that is about to burn also brings out the poignancy of the sorrow. The climax is here too reached as in the first Act in the outpouring of Rama:
“My heart is bursting, the body falls asunder, the world is void, I burn within, my soul sinks and wretched that I am, what shall I do?”
Thus we see that the poet-dramatist has laboured persistently in suggesting the pathetic sentiment and thus at times committed the fault of expressing too much that which could be suggested by a mere phrase. Viewing thus the potentialities of the great poet-dramatist Bhavabhuti in the field of suggesting the tragic sentiment, one cannot but agree with De that” this sentiment, becomes sentimentality and his pathos the spectacular sensibility of the man of feeling rather than the poignant rush of tragic sorrow; he is a master of aggravated pathos rather than of heroic agony.” ‘
I conclude with a suggestion that although Bhavabbuti attempts no Karuna synthesis in he indeed attempts to bring on par with Karuna, the supreme primeval Rasa which gave birth to poetry–
–Courtesy: Akashvani
apparently referring to the famous verse of the “Uttararamacharitam It would be necessary to analyse the situations and the feelings of the characters presented by Bhavabhuti in his dramas in order to assess the competence of the great dramatist in describing in an inimitable manner the pathetic or the tragic Rasa. It is wellknown that the extant works ascribed to Bhavabhuti are only three–the Malatimadhavam, the Mahaviracharitamand the Uttararamacharitam. While the first is a fictitious romantic love-story of the middle-class life and purely invented by the great dramatist, the last two are based on the earlier and later parts of the story of Rama as depicted in the Ramayana. It would be futile indeed to find evidence of the poet-dramatist’s capabilities to suggest the tragic element or sentiment in the Prakarana where the love of separated lovers (vipralambhasringara) is depicted and that too, not in a manner worth emulation. In the second, which deals more with the feud of Ravana against Rama, the diplomacy of Malyavat in instigating Parasurama and the despatch of Surpanakha in the disguise of the nurse-maid Manthara and also the intrigue of Malyavat and Valin, which are all innovations made in the original Rama-story, than the separation of Rama and Sita, it would be again a fruitless endeavour if we were to estimate the poet’s capability at the handling of the tragic themes. In the Uttararamacharitam, however, Bhavabhuti himself indicates the emphasis on pathos. In the Seventh Act, which is technically called the garbha-nataka– a within a drama – the Sutradhara or the stage-manager of the garbha-natakacomposed by Bhavabhuti himself says that it is a sweet and nectar-like purifying composition resulting from the sage-like perception and contains the sentiments of pathos and wonder. Similarly, while describing the grief of Rama the dramatist himself says that the pathetic condition of Rama, unmanifest due to profundity and causing great torment inside is like the boiling of some drug in a closed vessel: and implies the intensity of grief unmanifest, as providing the foundation for the feeling of pathos which reaches its high watermark with the change in the situation. Lastly, but not insignificantly, the controversial verse too, of the poet himself, formulates the theory that the only sentiment that predominates is that of pathos, while all other sentiments are transformations thereof, as the eddies, bubbles and waves are all but the various modifications of water– Now these three references to Karunarasa – specifically as coming from the pen of the dramatist himself directly, theoretically prove that the dramatist should be at his best in the depiction, description or suggestion of the pathetic sentiment. It would, however, be fruitful to review briefly how far in practice the poet bas been able to achieve this none-too-easy task. The first and the third acts of the “Uttararamacharitam”, according to modern critics bear testimony to the heights of pathos and renderness that the dramatist could reach and convey to the audience. In the first act, the good king Rama (Ramabbadra) although prepared to abandon without a pang affection, compassion and felicity, nay Sita herself, for the sake of his subjects faints at the fall of the thunderbolt of words In the third Act where the scene is laid in the Panchavati and the two rivers Tamasa and Murala through a dialogue prepare the audience for the meeting of Sita and Rama unknown to each other, the dramatist has again risen to great heights in the suggestion of pathos. Remarkably suggestive is the soulful and pathetic statement or the recollection of Rama (behind the scenes) of the kinship of the trees and the deer in the company of the beloved on the banks of the Godavari, Thus we see that the poet-dramatist has laboured persistently in suggesting the pathetic sentiment and thus at times committed the fault of expressing too much that which could be suggested by a mere phrase. Viewing thus the potentialities of the great poet-dramatist Bhavabhuti in the field of suggesting the tragic sentiment, one cannot but agree with De that” this sentiment, becomes sentimentality and his pathos the spectacular sensibility of the man of feeling rather than the poignant rush of tragic sorrow; he is a master of aggravated pathos rather than of heroic agony.” ‘ I conclude with a suggestion that although Bhavabbuti attempts no Karuna synthesis in –Courtesy: Akashvani
Heights of Pathos