________________
220
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[AUGUST, 1874.
"
much the same machinery as that used in the poem. The suggestion of the future marriage by Nârada; the direction by Himâlay a to his daughter to attempt to propitiate Śiva; the deputation of Cupid by Indra; the burning of Cupid; the consolation and reassurance of Rati by the word from Heaven;' the austerities of Pârvati; the appearance of Śiva in disguise, and his conversation first with the two attendants of Pârvati, and then with Pârvati herself: all this is common to this drama and the Kumarasambhava of Kâlidâsa. Of course it need scarcely be said that there are differences. The preliminary reconnoitering, so to speak, performed by Nandin in the drama has no place in the poemno more has the narration of Cupid's misfortune by Narada to Indra. Nevertheless, what with the verbal coincidences pointed out, and the other coincidences as to the main points in the action of the two pieces, the impression left on one's mind by a perusal of them is that some very close connexion subsists between them.
-
its learned translator has not drawn attention. In numerous places we find a most remarkable coincidence between the thoughts and even the expressions contained in it and the thoughts and expressions found in corresponding places in Kalidasa's Kumarasambhava. The first seven cantos of this last-named work deal with the same subject-matter as the Pârvatiparina y a drama, and the coincidences between the two in several points appear to me to be so close, that the only way to explain them is either to suppose an identity of authorship, or a conscious borrowing by one of the two authors from the other of them. I give below a few of the more important coincidences, so that the reader may judge for himself:Paratiparipaya
संनिकर्षपरिजिहीर्षया सह भूतगणेन भूतपतिरन्तर्धानमकरोत् । सखि पार्वति गृहीततनुरिव मथमाश्रमो युवा कोपि महापुरुष इतोमुख आगच्छति ॥ $
कामरत्या वसन्तेन चा
नम्
Kumarasambhava. सदेवदारुदुमवेदिकायां शार्दूवीयमानो महति देवदारुखण्ड- लचर्मव्यवधानवत्याम् आसी मण्डपे तरक्षुचर्मनिर्मितायामहि मशिलावेदिकायामासीनमन्तर्मुखनिहितचित्तवृत्तिमभ्यन्तरपवन- क्ष्यीकृत माणम् अपाभिवाधानिरोधनिश्चलाननं नासाग्रनिहि रमनुत्तरङ्गम् ।। तपक्ष्माण्यक्षीणि धारयन्तमपरअन्तश्चराणां मरुतां निरोधाFor fremg त्रिवातनिष्कंपमिव प्रदीपम् ।। खरमपश्यत् *
क्षणे तस्मिन्त्रयमेवावसर इतिसकामः कार्मुके समधत्त संमोहनं बाणम्+
संमोहनं नाम च पुष्पधन्वा धनुष्यमोचं समधन बाणम् ॥
श्रीसंनिकर्षं परिहर्तुमिच्छन्नन्तर्दधे भूतपतिः सभूतः शरीरबद्धः प्रथमाश्रमो यथा
These are some of the notable coincidences which strike one reading the two works together. Passages are exceedingly numerous in which the words differ, but the ideas are so much alike and so expressed that the thought of some near connexion between the two is strongly suggested जन्मान्ववाये प्रथमस्य धातुः || for instance, unmistakeably reminds one of प्रसूतिः प्रथमस्य बेधस: It is further remarkable that the action of the play is carried on by very
P. 66. + P. 70. IP. 76. § P. 100. P. 104. Kumara V. 141. P. 15. See Pandit Mahesachandra Nyayaratna's Introduction to the Kavya Prakása, p. 19. It is not, I think, strictly accurate to speak, as Dr. Bühler speaks, of Mahesachandra's position on this subject as the result of mere 'conser vatism' (Ind. Ant. II. 127). The Pandit gives reasons for not concurring with Dr. Hall entirely, and even he says
What is that connexion? "Hindu poets," Dr. Fitz Edward Hall has said in his learned Preface to the Vásavadattá, "Hindu poets not unfrequently repeat themselves; but downright plagiarism among them of one respectable author from another is unknown." And upon the strength of this principle, mainly, it is well known that Dr. Hall has ascribed the Ratnávali Nataka to Bana Bhatta. And although this conclusion of Dr. Hall's has been questioned,† I think it is one which is well supported. Are we then entitled to act on the principle of Dr. Hall in the case before us? In the face of the passage cited above from the Introduction to the play, in the face of the total absence of any tradition connecting the play with the poet Kâlidâsa, and further in the dearth of collateral circumstances to justify the application of the principle in this case, such as were available in the case of the Ratnávali, I will not venture on so bold a proceeding. I think the question must, for the present at least, be left an open
that Dr. Hall's arguments are enough to "raise a suspicion, though not enough for a final decision." I must confess that I fail to see how the passage adduced by Dr. Bühler adds strength to Dr. Hall's arguments. If that passage weakens the story about Dhâvaka, it weakens the story about Bâna in an equal degree. In point of fact, it appears to me to have little importance on the question between Bana and Dhavaka.
