Indian Antiquary Vol 55

SR No.: 032547
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1985
Total Pages: 370
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 16 MB

Page 252

238
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ DECEMBER, 1926
traveller who wishes to meet a Bhattia or Bania, a Jain or a Marwadi, a northern Hindu milkman or a Maratha, a Memon or a Khoja, & Brahman or a Parsi, a Sidi or a Muhammadan weaver from the United Provinces, a Native Christian or a Bene Israel, a Pathan, an Afghan, or & Jew from Baghdad, a Hindu ascetic or a dancing-girl, a Musalman hackney carriage driver from Kathiawar or a Persian ship-owner,-must direct his steps to the particular street or quarter which these classes severally monopolise. An immense field of study is afforded by the characteristics and customs of the diverse population of a city, in which about sixty different languages and dialects are said to be spoken, and in which will be found patives of every part of India as well as of other parts of Asia, of Europe, Africa, and America.
BOOK NOTICES. BHASA'S WORKS, & Criticism by A. KRISHNA followed the usual course of withholding the PISHAROTY. Translated from the Rarikatanam, author's name from his dramas."
On the second point-peculiarity of form and • quarterly Malayalam Joumal. Trivandrum,
technique, Mr. Pisharoty shows tp. 10) that certain 1925.
of the peculiarities relied on are not confined to these The Editor, Mr. A. Krishna Pisharoty, of the
thirteen draman, and (p. 12) dismisses the whole Rasitaratnam, a Malayalam Journal of literary
argument. renoarch, in 1923, published a series of objections
On the argument of the evidence of eminent to the attribution of the authorship to Bhase of
critics. After going boardedly into this contention thirteen dramas by Brahmakri Mahamahopadhyaya
Mr. Pisharoty states (p. 17) that his " findings are Gapapati Sastrigal, Curator of Old Manuscripts,
diametrically opposed to Mr. Sastrigal's. There Trivandrum. These objections are now (1926)
is here a downright disagreement of opinion, and translated into English to secure for them a wider
the final conclusion on the point is that the eviaudience than was possible as long as they were
dence produced by the latter is a thoroughly inconfined to the Malayalam language. It will be
adequate to justify such an atttribution to Bhma, readily noon that the pamphlet of some seventy and crediting the dramos to Bhas must be regarded pages contains highly controversial matter, b . as unjustiflable." is n well to know what can be said against the
The next argument is that passages common hthin of Bham of the said thirteen dramas, to them point to a common authorship. On this it is worth while to examine and set forth the Mr. Pisharoty remarks (p. 17) that "technique can objections. I do not propose to do more in this be imitated " and that "the common passages notice.
are not confined to these thirteen dramas, but are The author observes that all the thirteen dramas
found in others of known authorship." And from are anonymous and that their titles are to be found,
his dissertation on the point one might surmise that not in the prologue, but at the end of the M88.,
ho thinks Baktibhadra or Bhasa to be the author and he then proceeds to summarise Mr. Sastrigal's
wanted. However, on p. 22 we find, not that argument for believing them to be by Bhasa.
Saktibhadra should be credited with the authorship, 1. Anonymity, an indication of antiquity.
but that his name would be "a leas absurd sugges2. Peculiarity of form and technique.
tion than Bbasa's." 3. Evidence of ominent critics.
The fifth argument is based on antiquity and 4. Pasages common to them point to a common individuality of diction. Here we have a point authorship.
that is obviously one not casily dealt with. How. 5. Antiquity and individuality of diction.
ever, Pisharoty tackles it valiantly. He thinks 6. Parallel ideas and passages.
Hir. Sastrigal vague in his statements, states the Mr. Pisharoty then proceeds to examine, and diction of the dramas is not uniform, and is of incidentally to controvert, oach argument. After opinion that diction is not always a reliable test, giving his roanons in detail, and showing on p. 5 particularly in works in the classical languagee. that anonymity does not prove antiquity, he Ho concludes (p. 26) that the evidence of diction concludes on p. 8" that the custom of mentioning is "insufficient to prove conclusively that even the name of the author has certainly prevailed one of the dramas can rightly be atttributed to from the time of Bharata, and that it is not right that ancient poet (Bhass)," and here he becomes to surmise that the custom was not prevalent in
constructive in his criticism: "The very same the days of Bham, or to conclude on the basis of evidence, when critically examined, leads to sunb surmise that the thirteen dramas are the A contrary conclusion that these dramas are not work of Bhasa. This anonymity can be cop by Bhasa but by some Kerala poet like the authori clolvo evidence for attributing them to Bhasa, 1 of Aacharya-chuddmapl. only if we have other convincing evidence to This takes him to the last point : parallel ideas prove that Bhasa alone among Sanskrit dramatists and passages. Mr. Pisharody gone more deeply