Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 60
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 57
________________ MARCE, 1931 A NOTE ON THE TEN PLAYS OF BHASA It is interesting to note that in no play belonging to the second group does the first verse suggest the dramatis persona, as happens, for example, in S. V., P. Y. or P. R. As regards the bharatavdkya, the usual form seems either to be a later interpolation, or is missing entirely, or is to be found in quite a different form in these four plays. (See the quotations at the end.) In Avi.(*) it repeats the sense of the previous verse. In BAI.(5) it is probably a later addition. [Cf. D. V. (©) and see below.) As for K. B.(4), it may be mentioned that one MS. does not give the bharatavákya at all. In U. B. (9 it is not to be found in the usual form. (The editor, however, writes a footnote in such cases to the effeot, itah prak bharata. vákyam iti apéksitam bhati.) Even as regards the sthå pand, which is supposed to be a com mon characteristic of the whole group of plays under discussion, the four plays belonging to our second class have something interesting to say. In Bal., for example, there is no iti sthapaná after the exit of the stradhdra, while K. B. has prastavand instead of stha pand. Lastly, mention may be made of the fact that in all these four plays Krena, in some form or other, is praised not only in the opening verse but also in the last. Any reference to “R&jasimha, the lion of kings" comes so abruptly as to leave no doubt about its being a leter interpolation. In our first group itself, M. V., D. V. and D. G. could be distinguished from S. V., P. Y. and P. R. (For the sake of convenience we would refer to the last three as Group A1, the first three as Group A, the other four discussed above forming Group B.) In the first place, the opening verge in Group A does not, like that in Group A1, suggest the characters of the play. Nor does the bharatvakya in A' appear as the usual prayer in the sloka form. D. V. () and Bal. have an ending identical word by word. As for the sthapand, though we find it in Group A', we are tempted to regard it as an imitation, if not a later addition in imitation, of the three plays in Group Al Is there not evidence for this supposition in the plays themselves in verses like the opening one of D. G., viz. Narayanas tribhuvanaika-pardyand vah Päydd upaya-gata-yukti-karah surandm, Loka-traydvirata-nataka-tantra-vastu Prastavand-pratisama pana-sutradharah. In the last two lines the sutradhára is mentioned in connection with the prastávand of . nataka; nay, he is said to arrange the prastávand business in a nd taka. Could we suppose for a moment that after writing plays like S. V., P. Y. and P. R., Bhasa or whoever their author was, learnt, or attempted to put into practioe his knowledge of, the nd tyasastra ? In all the later plays the prastávand is the soene in which odtradhara figures.* No, this would be an unnecessarily severe judgment on the poor poet. It should be noted, in passing, that the bharatavákya in Group Al is consistently laudatory of Sri-Krona. Now we are in a position to classify these plays into more logical groups. The first group consists of S. V., P. Y., and P. R., which resemble each other closely and agree in differing from the remainder. These latter form the second group by the fact that all of them are clearly spurious imitations of the first group; they have certain features as, 6.g., the bharatavákya, which, though different from the first group, ere mutually common. If they do differ among themselves these differences seem to be due to the attempts of the imitators to stick to the norm as accurately as possible. One thing, however, stands clear from the discussion above. The two groups are not, and cannot be, the products of one end the same poet. As regards the first group the touches of one and the same hand are most strik. ing. If, in these circumstances, RAjasekhara can be shown to have referred to the same Sva pnavdsavadatta as we have now, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Bhåsa was the author of S. V., P. Y. and P. R. only. Is it possible that Rajasekhara, too, ohallenged . Cf. Naţi vid Asako odpi pdripartvaka boa vd stradhdrena sahith samidpam yatra kurvate citrair odkyaiḥ wakaryothai prastutdkrepibhir mithah amukham tal mu vijAlyans namnd prandwand, pi ad -Sahitya-darpana, VI, 31-32.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394