________________
G, K. Bhat
This descriptiou is presented as Visnu's prediction of the coming event. Later, when Kamsa actually smashes the babe, she rises up as a very beautiful divine girl, laughing and dancing in sky and promising that she will tear Kanisa's body and drink his hot blood24.
The Bhagavatu account is much similar. Here she is Yogamäyä whom the Divine Lord orders for assistance. She is promised worship and offerings from men. She will be known in many places and by many names like Durga, Bhadrakali, Vijayä, Vaişnavi, Kumuda, Candika Krsņā, Madhavi, Kanyaka, Maya, Narayani, Isäni, Sarada, Ambika2. In the actual miracle she is described as the younger sister of Vişnu, eight-armed, weilding eight Weapons (bow, spike, arrow', skin or armour, sword, conch, discus, mace) and heavenly garments, garlands, unguents, jewels and ornaments 26
The significant variations present in the dramatic story will now be apparent : (i) The dramatic detail that on smashing a portion of the babe's body falls to the ground and another portion rises up in sky is not present in the purāna versions (ii) The dramatist calls this Vision by the name Kailyāyani. This name does not occur in ihe puräna list, One of the names, Kälaratri, is found in the drama, But it is significant to reme. mber that it occurs not as a nane but in an imagery which Kamsa uses before the Vision rises up. (iii) The purāņa accounts refer to the accompa. nying host with a vague term 'Bhutagaña'. The drama gives four specific games which are not found elsewhere. (iv) The personal appearance, number of arms, weapons etc, connected with the Vision are again different in the dramatic and purāņic accounts. (v) The connection of this Vision with Visu's pre-planned arrangement is naturally absent in the dramatic Story.
I am not attempting here a study of the Krsna legend in its gradual phases of growth and evolution. It is a subject that must take a separate treatment. I am concerned for the moment with Bhāsa's treatment of the legend, And the comparative study so far indicates the followiog conclusions:
(1) Some details in the dramatic version, like the relation between Vasudeva and Nandagopa, the visions of Vişnu's weapons and of Kārtyäyani, may have been introduced for a dramatie purpose and for a spectacular stage effect.
(2) Some variations, however, like Krsna being the seventh child of Devaks, absence of the mention of Sankarşaņa as well as of the prearranged plan of the exchange of babes, and in that case Nandagopa being shown as the serf of Vasudeva, cannot be completely justified by dramatic necessity. There is a possibility that some such details may refer to an early phase of the Krsna legend which was known to the dramatist,
