Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 145

JUNE, 1912.]
MAYURAJA
141
Of these dramas we know that Anargharághava was written by Murâri'; Uttarardmacharita and Mahdviracharita by the illustrious Bhavabhûti; Balaramdyana, by Rajasekhara ; and lastly, Rimdbhyudaya by the poet king Yasovarman. The authorship of the remaining dramas is cloaded in mystery. One of these, Udáttardghava, is unhesitatingly attributed to the poet Bhisa by some learned men of Southern India. In his History of the Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 67, Mr. M. Krishnamacharya, M.A., B.L., M.R.A.S., says " At least the names of three of his
Bhâss's) works we have known on reliable authority. The Udattardghava develops the eminent sidle of the character of Rama. The Svapnavdskvadatta occupies itself with the story of Udayana's marriage with Vasavadatta. The Kiraņávali is said to be a Nalikd in the mode of the Ratnávali.' Here the author says that “on reliable authority" he has known the names of the three dramas of Llisa. Butat the same time he does not mention who is his " reliable authority." We can howerer secept Bhâsa's authorship of Svapnaddsavadatta on the authority of Rajasekhara.
भासनाटकचक्रेऽपिच्छेकैः क्षिप्ते परीक्षितुम् ।
स्वमवासवदत्तस्य दाहकोभून पावकः ॥' Moreover, Dhyanyálokálochana quotes from this drama. As to Kirananali, I very much doubt that a drama of the name of Kirandvali by Bbåsa or any other poet ever existed.
Now as to the third drama, Udáttarághava, the attribution of the authorship of this drama to Bhâsa is not supported by any evidence. Though a drama of that name is quoted in the work on rhetorio, we do not find a single statement in support of Bhasa's authorship thereof and in fact, we find a statement in contradiction to it. Even in the Catalogus Catalogorum the name of the author of the drama is not given, but the name only of the work in which it is quoted. In a lengthy disoussion on the subject, in his preface to Priyadarsika, Pandit R. V. Krishnamacharya says, pur TT H
a rf II fawarafta. "In works like Sahityadarpaņa, only the name Udattardghava is heard of; but the anthor is not mentioned.
But from the ordinary works on rhetoric it can be shown that neither the author of the History of the Classical Sanskrit Literature nor the editor of the Priyalarsild is right. Moreover, Murkri it quoted by Markha in his Srikanthacharita
प्रक्रमैहठवक्रिम्णो मुरारिमनुधावतः। श्रीराजशेखरागिरी नीवी यस्योक्तिसंपदाम् ॥
XXV, 74) And he is not quoted or referred to by Bhoja in his Satpatikanthabharana or by any author previous to Bhoja. So Marari may be assigned a date between A. D. 1050 and 1135.
Pandit Durgapraadd says that Murari lived before the middle of the 9th century and giros the quotation from Har vijaya sereierring to Murari. भो कुनाटकवोत्तमनायकस्य नाशं कविय॑धित वस्य मुरारिरिस्थम् ॥
[XXXVIIT, 69.] . (See introduction to Subhashitavall, p. 91 and Anarghardghava, p. 1, note.
Darg&prasad thinks that here the word it has two meanings. But it is not so. The poot comparer Marari or Vighpu with the author of bad drama,-the former destroyed the hero Hirapyakulipu in his aika or lap, and the latter exhibits the murder of the hero in an aot. In Murfri's dram, the death of the hero does not take placo in any sot. Murari cannot, therefore, be the poot referred to in the verse. The commentator Alaka also says that there is a pan on the words and 24h only, and not on werfe.
See Dhvanyaloka, p. 148 (Commentary). Yalovarman is the patron of Bhavabhati and Vakpatirkja, Prakrit poet: of. Introduction, Subhashitavall, p. 95.
5 This verse is taken from Saktimuktavall. See proface to Karperamaljarf, p. 7. [Vide, above VOL.XL. p. 83D.R.B.) • Divanyloka, p. 152 (Commentary).
Introduction to Priyadardika, (Vani-Vilas Press Edition), p. XXVL