Indian Antiquary Vol 60

SR No.: 032552
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 394
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 57

MARCE, 1931
A NOTE ON THE TEN PLAYS OF BHASA
It is interesting to note that in no play belonging to the second group does the first verse suggest the dramatis persona, as happens, for example, in S. V., P. Y. or P. R. As regards the bharatavdkya, the usual form seems either to be a later interpolation, or is missing entirely, or is to be found in quite a different form in these four plays. (See the quotations at the end.) In Avi.(*) it repeats the sense of the previous verse. In BAI.(5) it is probably a later addition. [Cf. D. V. (©) and see below.) As for K. B.(4), it may be mentioned that one MS. does not give the bharatavákya at all. In U. B. (9 it is not to be found in the usual form. (The editor, however, writes a footnote in such cases to the effeot, itah prak bharata. vákyam iti apéksitam bhati.) Even as regards the sthå pand, which is supposed to be a com mon characteristic of the whole group of plays under discussion, the four plays belonging to our second class have something interesting to say. In Bal., for example, there is no iti sthapaná after the exit of the stradhdra, while K. B. has prastavand instead of stha pand. Lastly, mention may be made of the fact that in all these four plays Krena, in some form or other, is praised not only in the opening verse but also in the last. Any reference to “R&jasimha, the lion of kings" comes so abruptly as to leave no doubt about its being a leter interpolation.
In our first group itself, M. V., D. V. and D. G. could be distinguished from S. V., P. Y. and P. R. (For the sake of convenience we would refer to the last three as Group A1, the first three as Group A, the other four discussed above forming Group B.) In the first place, the opening verge in Group A does not, like that in Group A1, suggest the characters of the play. Nor does the bharatvakya in A' appear as the usual prayer in the sloka form. D. V. () and Bal. have an ending identical word by word. As for the sthapand, though we find it in Group A', we are tempted to regard it as an imitation, if not a later addition in imitation, of the three plays in Group Al Is there not evidence for this supposition in the plays themselves in verses like the opening one of D. G., viz.
Narayanas tribhuvanaika-pardyand vah Päydd upaya-gata-yukti-karah surandm, Loka-traydvirata-nataka-tantra-vastu
Prastavand-pratisama pana-sutradharah. In the last two lines the sutradhára is mentioned in connection with the prastávand of . nataka; nay, he is said to arrange the prastávand business in a nd taka. Could we suppose for a moment that after writing plays like S. V., P. Y. and P. R., Bhasa or whoever their author was, learnt, or attempted to put into practioe his knowledge of, the nd tyasastra ? In all the later plays the prastávand is the soene in which odtradhara figures.* No, this would be an unnecessarily severe judgment on the poor poet. It should be noted, in passing, that the bharatavákya in Group Al is consistently laudatory of Sri-Krona.
Now we are in a position to classify these plays into more logical groups. The first group consists of S. V., P. Y., and P. R., which resemble each other closely and agree in differing from the remainder. These latter form the second group by the fact that all of them are clearly spurious imitations of the first group; they have certain features as, 6.g., the bharatavákya, which, though different from the first group, ere mutually common. If they do differ among themselves these differences seem to be due to the attempts of the imitators to stick to the norm as accurately as possible. One thing, however, stands clear from the discussion above. The two groups are not, and cannot be, the products of one end the same poet. As regards the first group the touches of one and the same hand are most strik. ing. If, in these circumstances, RAjasekhara can be shown to have referred to the same Sva pnavdsavadatta as we have now, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Bhåsa was the author of S. V., P. Y. and P. R. only. Is it possible that Rajasekhara, too, ohallenged
. Cf. Naţi vid Asako odpi pdripartvaka boa vd stradhdrena sahith samidpam yatra kurvate citrair odkyaiḥ wakaryothai prastutdkrepibhir mithah amukham tal mu vijAlyans namnd prandwand, pi ad
-Sahitya-darpana, VI, 31-32.