________________
DECEMBER, 1916)
THIRTEEN NEWLY DISCOVERED DRAVAS TO BHASA
193
possible, nay, even probable, that a drama on the love of Vasavadatta and Udayana, properly named Svapnavasavadatta, exists. It is also established that there are references which cannot he explained unless such a drama has existed.
Now comes the question whether there are any references to the Swapnivå sa va dallu which we have in print. In Abhinavagupta's Bharata-Natyaveda-virriti a reference * ET UT FITTET " is found by Mr. Ganapati Sastrilo? But we cannot conclude that it is a reference to the published work, unless we are in a position to positively state that the other Svapnavâsavadatta is devoid of a description of Krida. As a love story it may possibly contain it. Rajasekhara's verse quoted above can be a reference to any one of these two Svapnavâsavadattas. It is safe, however, to conclude that it is a reference to the other Svapnavasavadatta yet unpublished and not to the present one, the existence of which, in all probability, was unknown to any one of our reliable authors. Similarly we cannot accept Bhâsa's authorship of other dramas of this collection. It entirely rests on the identification of the author of the present Svapnavasavadatta with Bhâsa, and we are certain that that identification is dubious.
In his introduction to the Pratimanataka Mr. Ganapati Sastri sayall'ithe Svapnavasavadatta and Pratijña-yangandha râyana were, beyond doubt, in vogue at the time of the rhetorician Vamana ; and the Bâlacharita and the Charudatta in the time of Dandin, as is seen from their having extracted verses, as examples, from them. From the fact that Abhinavaguptâcharya mentions in his Natyavedavivriti the names of Svapna vasavadatta and Daridra-chârudatta, it could be concluded that the said Rapakas used to be studied in his time. The other Rapakas might have been forgotten during the times of Vâmana anit others, and henco, I think, o verses have been quoted by them from those works." In other places he says "the said poet lived in times previous to the age of Vâniana, Dandin and Bhâmaha, who have quoted from these Nâtakas ad verbum, ad sensum."'13 and “it is quite proper that Chanakya quoted the verse occurring in the Pratijnd-Nataks and that Bhasa lived considerably long before Chânakya." Taking all these to be granted, the Sastri enters into numerons conjectures. I do not wish to discuss all of them here. I briefly state iny opinions upon some of his seemingly strong conclusions,
He thinks that Charudatta is known to Dandin and not to Vamana. But Vâinana quotes the following verse, which is found both in Chârudaltanataka and Mrichchhakalika:
वासां बलिर्भवति मङ्गहरेहलीनां हंसैश्च सारसगणश्च विलुप्तपूर्वः।
तास्वव पूर्वबलिरूढयवाङ्कराम बीजाचलिः पतति कीमुखावलीतः ।। . But another quotation af 95 EMFATH TU" (Kavyalaikarasútra p. 56. Kavyamåla ed. 1889) is not found in the Charudatta-ndjaka. So this is certainly taken from the second act of the Mrichchhakalika. Moreover, Vâmana praises Sadraka in the following sentence -
Tetrag URUTE (III. 2-4.)15 If Sadraka's adoptation of the Chârudatta-națaka has been known to Vâmana, he would not have been justified in praising Sadraka, and not Bhasa, for his skill in developing the plot. If we admit Mr. Ganapati Sastri's estimation of Sadraka, we must think that Vamana too has been "under the false impression that hele is the original author." But who was
30 Introd. to Swapna. p. XXII. 12 Ibid. p. Xxxv. 14 Svapna. Int. pp. XXII and XXIII.
11 Ibid. p. XXXIX. 13 Ibid. p. XXXVL 16 Scil. Adraka.
15 Ibid. p. XLII.
