________________
194
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[DECEMBER, 1916
not under that impression ? Mr. Ganapati Sastri concludes that Dandin knows the Charudata and Balacharita, simply because he quotes a line which is found in those two dramas.17 But the line is also found in the first act of Mrichchhakatika.18 So there is absolutely no proof to say that Dandin knew the two works unknown to Vámana.
A few words about [Daridra] Charudatta will not be out of place here. Mr. Sastri hinks that the Charudatta is an incomplete work.19 But it seems to me that it is complete. Its author wanted to abridge the richchhalalika so as to be acted in one night. This necessitated its completion with Vasantasena's Abhisarana to Chirudatta in the fourth act. In finishing it there he carefully omitted all passages and scenes which indicated events of the last six acts of the Mvichchhakatika. That is why the last words of Samvâhaka, which are as follows, are omitted in the Charudatta-nataka :"AT TI *fis T
a re TAITEET MITT V 40 " (Mr. p. 117.) Every reference to Aryaka in these four acts is omitted. Sakâra's words " fano 18 1 9 20 are omitted because they indicate that there would be a trial scene. Reference to. Palaka in the Prastávana is also omitted purposely. Once he failed in doing so; he faild to omit the line "gro 91 *
T r e ", which is meant to indicate Chârudatta's accusation in the ninth act. He who fails to acknowledge the significance of the passage must be the borrower. Moreover, in the seventh act of the Msichchhakatika We find IT TATT I TEYTT FETT (p. 305). In Charudalla & The TT. That 971 (p. 60) is in the third act. If Sûdraka is the author that has adopted from the other, we see no reason why he should change the context of the above expression. If we take the author of Charudalia as the borrower, we see that he not only adopts the Mrichchhakatika. but omits the last acts of it; so unwilling to loose such an expression full of fun, he may have ineertod it in one of the first four acts. The author of the Charudatta also replaces some difficult words by ordinary 'ones. See in Chârudatta 22 instead of war 2 in Mrichchhakatika; * ZERTH : for w a imbito: 24. Also by changing 3 9 : TIH TI etc., into a prose passage , TTTTTTTA HIT IT नस्यति where the sense is spoiled. संकटेषु डडम: is changed into संकटेच तिमिरम् 20. These show that the author of Charudatta, but not of Mrichchhakatika, is the modifier.
Let us turn to our subject. The Daridra-Chârudatta referred to by Abhinavagupta is supposed to be the Chirudutta of this collections. I cannot admit this inference unless I actually see the passage, consider its context, and be assured that it cannot but be a reference to a play and that it cannot be another name of the Mrichchhakalika. Anyhow, I am sure that an authority of Abhinavagupta's rank will not at all think the Charudattanataka, certainly a slavish adoptation of the M ichchhakarika, worth notico.
Vâmana's knowledge of the Pralijña-Yaugandharayana is open to doubt. Mr. Ganapati Saxtri's statomont is based upon Vâmana's quoting i waingia ma, which is found in the said drama.29 But it is also found in Kautilya's Arthaiástra.30 Wo have no
1 Svapna. Intro. P. XXIII.
18 Michchhakali ka (Bombay Sanskrit series Vol. LII.) p. 41. 19 Pratimavátoaka. Intro. P. XXXII.
20 M ich. p. 59 and Charudatta p. 25. 1 Mrich. p. 43 and Charu. p. lo.
Charulatto p. 10. 2 M ich. p. 22.
# Nich. p. 134 and Charu. p. 50. * Mrich. p. 137 and Charu. p. 63.
* Mich. p. 150. and Charu. p. 57. 2 In page 63 of the Charulata we find (TTF ) ari HT, which shows that the persons who adopted the Msichchka. is a Southerner. Can these N akas be productions of the Chakya actors of the past. See Int. to Pratima. p. XI. * Int. to Swapna. p. XXII.
Svapna. Int. p. XXII.
30 Ibid. p. XXVII.
