________________
DECEMBER, 1916|
THIRTEEN NEWLY DISCOVERED DRAMAS TO BHASA
195
data to prove that our Pseudo-Bhása is earlier than Vômana and Chanakya. I admit that the verse
"tregalia Trafarga Arai
काशपुष्पलवेनेदं साश्रुपातं मुखं मम ||" is quoted by Vâmana. But the author of the so-called Svapnavísavadatta is the author of an adoptation of the Mrichchakarika, i.e., Charudatta-ndjaka. Hence, he is in the habit of utilizing others' composition. Then the above Anush/ubh may be a borrowing in the printed Sva pravasavadatta. We find the following sentence in the Chirudatta-notaka. gia I WaferaTETEZ ESTE ACTE" (Charudatta, page 8.)
A similar quotation is found in Vamana's work. व्यसनं हि नाम सोच्छासं मरणम्,
(IV. 3. 23.) It is improbable that in quoting a passage as an illustration one would have modifica it. The modification is unnecessary for Vamana, while it is quite a necessity to the dramatist. It is reasonable, therefore, to think that our dramatist is indebted to Vamana at least for this passage. Moreover, there has been another play having the same plot as that of the Sva pnarásavadatta. It is called the Tapasavatsaraja.31 The following quotations clearly prove the identity of plots of the two dramas:
“दृष्टा यूयं निर्जिता विविध प्राप्ता देवी भूतधाचीच भूवः।
Para er for at ( 8: ( ) raha 11" " राज्यप्रत्यायिवृत्त्या (प्रत्यापत्या) हि सचिवनीतिमहिमोपनतया तरङ्गभूतपत्रावतीलाभानुगतयानपाण्बमानरूपा [परमामभिलषणीयतमतां प्राप्ता] वासवदत्ताधिगतिरेव तत्र फलम् ॥" (Dhvanyaloka-Lochana p. 151 and Hemachandra's Kavyanusdsana p. 122.)
We are not in a position to roalizo the exact amount of the development of the plot which our author owes to the author of the Tapasavatsardja. The following quotation from the Sarasvatikanthabharana shows that there is at least one event, which is not touched in the present Stapnavasavadatta, but described in the Tapasavatsaraja;
किं च दग्धायामपि वासवदत्तायां वैरप्रतिधिकर्षिया पद्मावती मबोढा भवसिते च समीहिते तवा विना क्षणमपि न जीवामीत्वविज्ञातवासवदत्तासंनिधेः वत्सराजस्य अभिप्रवेशाध्यवसावः प्रिवाहलवतो Siyah Terala TTTTA (Sarasvatikanthábharana (Calcutta 1894) p. 809.) Perhaps the verse T T TT etc., is found in the T'âpasavalsardja.
As regards Bhamaha's quotation I am certain that Bhamaha's criticism of the original story of the false elephant is well-known to our dramatist, for the latter introduces the speech ag fesur first nigroi etc.,32 to meet the gravest of the objections raised by the former in the verse:
"art #TEA Araar Art !
ford wirft me for a 11" 38 Otherwise, if as Mr. Ganapati Sastri thinks, Bhâmaha criticises the Pratijñdnjaka, it would have been absurd of Bhâmaha to raise a question which is answered in the text itself. So "9079T TOT " etc., must have been borrowed by the author of Pratijfiandiaka from Bhâmaha's work, and not by Bhämaha from the Pratijfia-Yaugandhardyana.
Thus the dramas discovered by Mr. Ganapati Sastri seem to be quite moderu and unworthy of being attributed to Bhâsa.
31 A fragmentary MS. of the play is noticed in the Catalogus Catalogorum. My Brother 8 P. V. Ranganathavani Aryavaraguru of Vizagapat am tried to get a copy of it, but failed owing to his ignorance of the actual place of its deposition. 32 Seapna. Int. Part. XLIV.
33 Bhamaha IV. 47.
