________________
1 64
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(JUXE, 1904.
But this text, borrowed from the Nirnaya-Bāgar edition (Kavya-måla collection), is almost inexplicable. The Dasa-ripa, which follows and some up Bbarata, says :dēvah samiti npipatir bhțityair bhattēti chādhamaih!
[ii. 64.7 And the Sāhitya-darpana, $ 431: -
svāmiti yuvarijas ta kamärö bbartsidangkah saumya bhadramukhēty ēvam adhamais ta kumarakah
rājā svāmīti dēvēti bhrityair bhattēti chādhamaih The comparison of the texts enables us to obtain some clear sense. Evidently the reading srāmiti of the Sahitya-darpaņa must be substituted for Bharata's inadmissible snámi tu, and the obscure precept "hēpurvara vädhamani wadēt" must be interpreted by the aid of the words : "adhamais tu kumarakah" supplied by the Sahitya-darpana. From this we arrive at the following rule:
"The crown-prince must be addressed as svāmin, a prince of the [97] royal family as saumya or bhadramukha ; with the addition of hê, one may also in the same way address a personage of inferior rank" (Bh.). Bat the Sah-D, modifies the latter precept: * People of inferior rank may also address children in this manner." The English translation of the Sahitya-darpana gives a different interpretation to the latter part of this line: "A prince is addressed by low men - Saumya' (gentle sir) or Bhadramukha' (you of benign face);" and I have followed this interpretation in my Thédtre Indien (p. 129). It was at that time impossible to refer to the then anpublished text of Bharata ; but in fact, in this interpretation, the Word lumärakah became superfluous and unjustifiable; it repeated the kumāro of the first half line, with the addition of a suffix of which no notice was taken. The modification introduced by the Sahitya-darpana into Bharata's traditional text, as attested by manuscripts of various origin, is doubtless founded on the use of the words saumya and bhadramukha in certain passages in dramas, e. g., Mrishobhakatikā, Act X. p. 160, 1. 14 (Stenzler's ed.), where the vidūshaka, addressing the little Rõhasēna, says to him: tuparadu tuvaradu bhaddamuho. Pida de maridum miadi. On the other hand, Bharata's precept is applicable to ease equally attested by the Msichchhakatikā, and in the same package (p. 161, 1. ult.) : the vidūshaka addresses himBelf this time to the Chandalas who are oonducting Chāradatta to torture : bho bhaddamuha muñchëdha piavaassanit. We [98] here obtain a clear idea of the processes of minute and persistent observation which serve as a basis to the general formula of the theoriste of Hindu literature.
The Dasa-rüpa, slavishly followed by the Sahitya-darpana, gives yet another use of the appellation samin which Bharats appears to have ignored. According to this, courtiers should employ it in addressing the king.
If we follow the more important indications of Bharata, the two titles of svamin and Chadramukha are confined to personages who come immediately after the king in reyk, i.e. the crown prince and royal princes. The extension of the latter title to persons of inferior rank, and the application of it to children by people of inferior rank, are casualities which threaten titles of high nobility in all societies and in all times; the people sneer at them, turn them into ridicole till the moment when, deprived of their primitive dignity, they become definitively degraded. It is enough to recall in classic language what happens in the case of the word here, "Herr," and in popular dialect the value of the expressions : “My Prince !” and “My Emperor !" Without leaving India, the bistory of the word dēvänänpriya which I have already had occasion to study, constitutes & notable precedent; the majestic title which sufficiently designated the powerful Asoka, master of the whole of India, has, in classic Sanskrit, taken the sense of "silly fellow, imbecile."
