The king finally marries not one, but two women of his antaḥpura with the help of his queen. One of them, as narrated before, was in the disguise of a man and proves to be a minor obstacle to the smooth flow of events. The poet might have the impression of having spiced up his story by the inclusion of this element; however, these segments make the play less natural. It is hard to believe that the queen’s maternal uncle’s daughter, her cousin, grew up in the royal quarters disguised as a man, without causing any suspicion to anyone around and not even to the queen. In the second act, the queen disguises one of her ceṭas as a female and gets him married to the vidūṣaka; the vidūṣaka, who felt humiliated because of this, shocks one of the ceṭīs; he makes her crawl between his legs as a sign of playful vengeance. These incidents are not proper for inclusion. They are neither profound nor necessary. In the fourth act, the queen comes up with a similar strategy to get the king married to Mṛgāṅkāvalī. To summarise, all the efforts that the playwright has put into making his play ‘catchy’ are in vain.
Karpūramañjarī is aesthetically superior to Viddhaśālabhañjikā in many ways. Rājaśekhara tells us that he staged the play upon his wife, Avantisundarī’s desire. The play is composed of four acts; the acts are termed javanikāntara here. The following is a summary of the story –
Once, when King Caṇḍapāla was spending a few happy moments with his queen Vibhramalekhā, a siddha named Bhairavānanda appears there. Using his yogic skills, the siddha conjures a beautiful maiden named Karpūramañjarī from the Vidarbha region. The girl was, in fact, Vibhramalekhā’s cousin – her mother’s younger sister’s daughter. The queen desires to retain the girl in her company for a few days and escorts her to the inner quarters (Act 1). A ceṭikā named Vicakṣaṇā and the vidūṣaka together conspire to make the king spot the maiden Karpūramañjarī during one of the festivals of dohada. (Act 2). The vidūṣaka leads the king to Karpūramañjarī’s chamber. They escape through an underground passage into the outdoors and enjoy happy moments under full light. Their escapade is revealed, and they hear noises from the palace. c goes back to her quarters through another hidden passage. (Act 3). The siddha Bhairavānanda tells the queen that the king will soon become an emperor if he marries a maiden named Ghanasāramañjarī and insists that she arrange their wedding. Accordingly, the queen makes preparations for her husband’s wedding in the shrine dedicated to Devī Cāmuṇḍī in the garden. The queen, who had sealed the secret passage way that led from Karpūramañjarī’s chamber, was not bothered by her. Bhairavānanda had another underground passageway made for Karpūramañjarī. She arrived at the wedding spot through this second path. The queen grew suspicious looking at the bride. She went a few times to the antaḥpura to check upon her, quoting different excuses. Whenever the queen went to the inner quarters, Karpūramañjarī went there as well, through the secret passageway. Only after all the wedding events were over, the queen realised that Karpūramañjarī and Ghanasāramañjarī were one and the same. (Act 4)
The play mostly resembles the nāṭikā Ratnāvalī; both plays share many elements – the prophecy of a siddha, magical occurrences, dohada, and romantic strategies; at their core, both stories are rooted in love. However, the Karpūramañjarī lacks the variety of characters and nuanced storyline seen in the Ratnāvalī; its rasas are not as deep or vivid as those in the latter. It seems that the poet did not intend to craft his play with such vividness and depth, as Karpūramañjarī is a sāṭaka or saṭṭaka. A saṭṭaka differs from a nāṭikā in its structure – it does not include praveśaka and viṣkambhaka. Therefore, structurally, the storyline is limited. As the pāripārśvaka states, the ‘play’ is meant to be danced. Nevertheless, the poet could have paid more attention to detail, even within the small scope of the saṭṭaka. For example, consider the description of the nāyikā. When she has just put away her clothes and ornaments and has had her bath, yoga-vidyā transports her elsewhere; she remains un-surprised or frightened, and her parents do not appear worried either. Renowned nāṭikās, such as Ratnāvalī, are crafted to avoid such shortcomings. The king, queen, and heroine of the Karpūramañjarī are not as lively as those in other nāṭikās. It seems the poet concentrated all his effort on creating a small, sophisticated antaḥpura – almost like a doll’s house – filling the harem with a few attractive women and romantic tales linked to them. Most events in the play occur in the evening or on a full moon night, in the sky-high palace and its gardens. When the Vasantotsava (Act 1), swing ceremony (Act 2), and carcarī (Act 3) take place, the guards are those whose names end with -senā, -miālā, -kelī, and -vatī. The second act is rich with details about Karpūramañjarī’s love letter, swing play, dohada, and dāna. The third act describes the dream of love and discusses facets of love. The fourth act has a play within the play. The first act also includes a ‘poetry competition’ between vidūṣaka and Vicakṣaṇā; though this segment appears extraneous to the play, it was important for the author of Kāvya-mīmāṃsā to include this in his play. A couple of utterances in the segment are quoted her to illustrate their unique emotions –
Vicakṣaṇā: “…काव्यमेव कवित्वं पिशनयति निन्दनीयेप्यर्थे सुकुमारा ते वाणी स्थविराया इव कटाक्षविक्षेपः, कर्तितकेशया इव मालतीकुसुममाला, काणायाव कज्जलशलाका, न सुष्ठुतरं भाति रमणीया
Vidūṣaka: “… तव पुना रमणीयेर्थे न सुन्दरा शब्दावली, कनक-कटि-सूत्र इव लोह-किङ्किणि-माला न चारुत्वमवलम्बते तथासि त्वं वर्ण्यसे.”
In the segment quoted above, one can also find śleṣa and virodhābhāsa embedded in the conversation.
The Karpūramañjarī is entirely in Prakrit. This is the only saṭṭaka available to us which is completely in Prakrit. The poet tells us the reason behind composing in the language. He says, “utkiviśeṣaḥ kāvyam. bhāṣā yā bhavati sā bhavatu” – poetry is essentially an attractive expression, irrespective of the language in which it is composed. He also says,
पुरुषाः संस्कृतगुम्फाः प्राकृतगुम्फोऽपि भवति सुकुमारः।
पुरुषमहिलानां यावदिहान्तरं तेषु तावत्॥
The following is a description of the nāyikā playing on the swing –
रणन्तमणिणेउरं झणझणन्त हारच्छडं
कलक्कणिद-किञ्किणीमुहर-मेहलाडम्बरम्।
विलोलवलआवली जणिद मञ्जु-सिञ्जारवं
ण कस्स मणमोहणं ससिलहीअ हिन्दोलणम्॥
(Compare with Viddhaśālabhañjikā 2.6-7)
Rājaśekhara was a good scholar. However, his scholarship is neither as deep nor as vast as Bhavabhūti’s. His plays do not display the emotional richness of the playwrights before him, nor do they contain insights into human life; he, however, is skilled in the use of language. He puts to use both Sanskrit and Prakrit in myriad ways, and for this, he should be revered.
It appears that Rājaśekhara was familiar with Karnataka; he describes the people of this land here and there. His utterances are sure to please the Kannadigas –
- अकण्डिप्रसरा हि पुरुषकाराः कर्णाटकानाम्
- कर्णाट्यो यत्र यत्रैव विक्षिपन्ति दृशो दिशि। विक्षेपाग्रेसरः कामस्तत्र तत्रैव धावति
- कर्णाटो युद्धतन्त्रे चतुरमतिः
- समरकर्मणि निसर्गोद्भटा एव कार्णाटाः
