Indian Antiquary Vol 62

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

Page 128

116
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JUNE, 1933
report is better far than the folded hands of servility. This was the road that was taken of old by Drona's son when he slew the sleeping kings.'
Two of the words require some explanation. Paribhava, 'shame,' is hardly possible, the proper meaning being 'contempt,' 'insult.' I would prefer to take it to the earlier use of paribhú, not uncommon in the epics and occurring in this very play at iii, 4, in the sense of master,''get the better of.' Paribhava is not recorded in this sense, except possibly at Saptasataka (ed. Weber), 366, but there is no reason why it should not have it. The compound therefore should mean 'getting the better of by deceitful means.' Kárkaśyata is an odd form; the meaning of cruel' for karkasa only appears in the later lexica and is due apparently to a misunderstanding of the statement that krûra and karkasa are both synonyms for 'hard' (e.g., cf. the Amarakosa). The proper meaning is firm,' 'hard'; in the Ramayana it often signifies steadfast' in battle, and it is common later, especially in erotic literature, of the firmness of women's bodies or the hardness of their minds. One possible meaning here is therefore 'hardness of mind,' 'insensibility to moral issues,' and atikarkasa is so used in the next verse. The alternative is to apply the Amarakośa's synonym of sahasika, one who does deeds of violence,' more particularly 'a robber' as opposed to a thief, who avoids violence (cf. Meyer's translation of the Kaut. Arthasástra, p. 801, note on 303, 37). Sajjalaka calls his theft sahasa in the next act, p. 74, and sahasika, Act ii, p. 37, means robber.'
Turning now to the construction, I see only one way of interpreting the verse, as it stands; for I agree with the translators in rejecting Ganapati Sastri and Morgenstierne's solution of construing sauryam na bhavati, kárkaśyata bhavati. The construction with kamam is unusually frequent in this play, occurring twice again, at i, 13, without any corresponding particle in the main sentence, and at i, 18, where hi introduces the main sentence. If Sûdraka's text read hi in this latter passage, he found it difficult, for his corresponding verse reads tu. Hi may govern the whole sentence, i.e., Vasantasenâ, you are perceived now; for, although you are not seen in the dark. , your perfume.. will betray you.' Alternatively it may be taken as introducing the speaker's asseveration against somebody else's belief or argument, a usage not uncommon in the dialogue of plays, but generally coupled with tena and never elsewhere following kâmam, i.e., though (you think) you are not seen in the dark (I say) your perfume, etc.' This would do here, although the wiseacres call it... I say it is heroism, not violence.' In the other plays PN, iii, 5, has the regular kamam.. tu, but Dútaghatotkaca, 14, kâmam.. hi, unfortunately in a verse, the sense of which in its context is not clear to me (the difficulty lies in tulyarûpam, whose equivalence to yuklaripam, as suggested by the editor, is impossible in itself and reduces the verse to nonsense).
But I regard this method of interpreting the verse as doubtful, and it has the disadvantage of not explaining tu in the third pada, while the fourth pada follows clumsily on the third, being rather an illustration of the proposition contained in the second. Accordingly I would suggest that the second and third pâdas have been transposed. This must have happened at a very early date; for Sûdraka, whose alterations of the verse shows that he felt the same difficulties in it that we do, has the same order as the text of the DC. With this slight change the whole verse falls into order and is entirely free from objection. The translation would run, Let the wiseacres, if they like, tell us this sort of behaviour to folks asleep is a low affair, yet independence though of ill report is far better than the folded hands of servility. For getting the better of the trustful by deceitful means is heroism, not unjustifiable violence, and this was the road the son of Drona took when he slew the sleeping kings.' Another, but perhaps inferior, alternative is to amend the second påáda so as to make it a parenthetical explanation of the opinion of the vibudhah in the first pada. Thus the reading might conceivably be viśvaste hi na, etc., let the wiseacres call it low, on the score that getting the better of the trustful by deceitful means is not merely not heroism, but has not even