Indian Antiquary Vol 60

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 56

42
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(MAROM, 1931
author of a play called Svapnavdsavadatta, adds Rajasekhara ; and the Swapnavdsavadattam of the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series is very similar (according to the editor) to the other plays published in the same series in style and structure. Therefore, the editor has arrived at the conclusion that the person referred to by Kalidasa, Bana and Rajasekhara is one and the same and, further, that he is the author of all the plays under discussion.
No one, however, would say after a second thought that this conclusion was rendered inevitable by the logic of the data. No one, too, should be surprised if the same data were to lead to an opposite conclusion. For, even such close resemblances could be due to imitation. This assumption would be supported by the quotations which MM. T. Ganapati Sastri cites side by side from Daridra-Carudatta and Mrcchakafikam. Verses are to be found in the latter which follow or resemble those in the former, word by word and phrase by phrase. Could it justifiably be suggested that both are by one and the same author! He may be Sadraka; he may be BhAsa ; or he may be that lucky Dhavaka, who is ready to own up to any unclaimed work. Or, on the other hand, Daridra-Carudatta and Msechakarikam may be two different provincial recensions of one and the same play. This suggestion is not really as fantastic as it looks. A glance at the Southern and the Northern recensions of the Maha. bharata would reveal the ingenious and independent tendenoy, 'as well as the pedantic and solemn irresponsibility, of some of our old editors.
But is it at all necessary to look only to the similarities between any two works under such circumstances? Would not the oonclusion arrived at in such a manner appear premeture, if not presumptive ! To mistake chalk for cheese betrays a hasty judgment or a tendency to avoid an undesirable, though inevitable, conolusion. Why should we not place the dissimilarities as well side by side with the similarities at the least as a background to the pioture! Elimination, too, is as logical an argument as analogy.
The object of this note, therefore, is to marshal all possible data in array for the moment of decision. If no oonclusion be possible at this stage, reasonable suggestions may at least be put forward.
With all respect to the oritioal aoumen of MM. T. G 8Astri, a casual reader like myself regrets to note that one simple, striking internal feature of the plays has been missed by the learned editor. That piece of evidence may help one, not only in discussing the age of the author or authors, but also in settling the authorship of the plays. That evidence, in my opinion, seems to be provided by the number and the characteristics of the Slokas (i.e., verses in anutup metre). To enable my readers to follow the discussion below, the slokas may be thus tabulated :
Title of the Play. No. of the slokas. Total no. of verses. 1. S. V.
67 2. P. Y.
66 . 3. P. R.
4. Avi. 5. BAI.
103 6. M. V. 7. D.V. 8. D. G.
62 9. K. B.
25 10. U. B.
66 From the above table it will be seen that in some plays the proportion of blokas to the total number of verses is strikingly greater than in others. If, for a moment, we divide the plays from this point of view into two groups, the division, of course, would be artificial, it not somewhat arbitrary. Still thore is no harm in classifying 8. V., P. Y., P, R., M. Y.. D, V., and D. G. as one group, Avi., BAL., K. B. and V. B. constituting the other.
162
56
12