Chapter 6 - Relation between Charudatta and Mricchakatika

The publication of the Carudatta (or DaridraCarudatta)' has thrown an unexpected light on the age of the Mrcchakatika which was so long regarded as the oldest of Sanskrit dramas, and has once for all exploded Pischel's theory which after first ascribing it to Bhasa later fathered it upon Dandin. But the Car instead of solving the problem finally has rendered it more complicated. The two plays furnish an uncommon phenomenon in Sanskrit literature in that they are very closely connected thereby excluding the hypothesis of their independent origin. For the purposes of our present study we are not concerned with the date and authorship of the Mrcchakatika AUTHORSHIP OF THE CARUDATTA it We have already shown that the Car can be linked along with the other plays in the series to a common author on account of the close resemblances it has with many plays of the group. It has, for example, a similar description of darkness as in the Avi and Bal; it presents the same liking for singing and music as the Svapna, Avi and Pratijna; it contains similar solecisms and and Prakritisms as the other plays. The author of the Car further pays no attention to the unity of time as is found in the Abh, Avi, Bal, Svapna, etc.2 Svapna, etc. It differs from the rest in having no benedictory stanza, nor is there the usual prologue, nor the Bharatavakya; but the absence can be explained on the ground that we have yet to come across 1 Cf. Dhruva, Svapnani Sundari, Intr., p. 10. 2 See Supra, Chapter IV. Critical Study Section 'Bhasa's Defects'.

151 a complete copy of the Car, though one Maharastra Sahitya wrongly states: avasitam carudattam | CARUDATTA : A FRAGMENT. The next point is to consider whether the Car is incomplete, and whether the remaining acts may be available in future. Dr. Sukthankar, Dr. Belvalkar, Prof. Paranjape and Mr. Mehendale have conclusively proved that the Car is a fragment, and the conclusion follows necessarily from the numerous passages which indicate that the poet wanted to continue the play." 1. Carudatta (Car, I. 6 ; p. 15) papam karma ca yatparairapi krtam tattasya sambhavyate | 2. sakara (A) Car, p. 33, ahake dava vamcide kudakavadasilae | sauva dukkhade kade | (B) Car, p. 34, ma dava tava a mama a dalo khoho hoditi | 3. Samvahaka p. 57 ko hi nama appana kimdam paccucacarena vinasedi | 4. Ganika p. 58. gacchadu x ayyo puno dasagaाca | Sajjalaka (Act / narah pratyupakararthi vipattau labhate phalam | IV. 7, p. 102 ) ( dvisatameva kalo sstu yo'sya bhavatu tasya va || 5. Ganika (p. 90 ) jada ayyacarudatto abhisaraidavvo tada mandemi- ti | 6. Ganika. Car, p. 103. ehi imam alankaram gania ayyacarudattam abhisarissamo | Ceti. Car, p. 103. ( ajjue ! taha ) edam puna abhisari srasaha- abhudam duddinam usnamidam | 7. Carudatta (Act I. 5, pp. 14-15) bhagyakramena hi dhanani punarbhavanti | 8. Bharatavakya is absent, and even towards the close of the last act there are signs of continuation, viz. No. 6 above. Dr. Belvalkar says with regard to 1, 2, 3 and 7 above that dramatic justice requires all these fulfilments.2 Carudatta's first statements about poverty are almost prophetic among other humiliating and insulting 1 Sukthankar, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 1918, pp. 181-186; Belvalkar, OC, I, pp. 189-192, Paranjape, Sahitya Sangraha, I, pp. 135-140; Mehendale, BCV, pp. 369-374. 2 OC, I, p. 191.

152 treatments a poor man is subjected to, Carudatta says that the guilt of another's evil deed is attached to a poor man. Sakara cannot be said to pour out empty threats; on the contrary his words are significant ; nor can he be said to brook the insult from Vasantasena by the return of his specially sent carriage. Samvahaka seeks an opportunity to repay his obligations. Carudatta is confident of better days coming to him. Vasantasena sets out to meet Carudatta. All these factors clearly and unmistakably show that the writer wanted to continue the play and not to end it abruptly. Dr. Charpentier, however, concludes that one more act would complete the Car and that (1) papam karma ca yatparairapi krtam etc. and (3) sg bean gonggonan are of a formal character." According to him the original Car had five acts corresponding to the first five acts in the Mrcchakatika But the cumulative effect of all the above passages, as will be readily seen, is against such an assumption; for the action is not complete even after the fifth act. Mr. Swami perhaps was the first to pronounce the Car as complete in itself, as it is according to him, an abridgment of the first four acts of the Mrcchakatika; and Prof. Pisharoti, Prof. Devdhar, Dr. Macdonell, Dr. Raja and others have accepted the position. Dr. Hirananda Sastri means the same thing though he seems to dismiss with scant courtesy the attempt of Dr. Sukthankar to prove that the Car is a fragment, by the remark "and so it is!" Later on, he qualifies his remarks by saying that the Car is incomplete "as compared with Mrcchakatika of which it is only a part" and concludes that the continuation of the Car will not be found." In addition to the passages from the work itself, there is some external evidence to support our view that the Car is incomplete and that its sequel may be found. In the fifth pariccheda of the Sarasvatikanthabharana, a verse is quoted as an example of the characteristics of Vita who is defined as: manyah kalatravan bhuktavibhavo gunavan vitah | . 1 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1923, pp. 600-601. 2 Svami, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 194; Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 32-33; Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 32-40; Macdonell, India's Past, p. 108; Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, I, pp. 243-245. 3 Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 21, note. 4 Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28 p. 24, also note. Mr. Deb, however, takes the Car to be complete, but earlier than the Mrech, which he places in the Kushan period. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1933, p. 345, n 2.

153 The verse is said to be addressed by Vita to Sakara, which runs:¹ sakara ! ki prarthanaya pravarena misena va | akaryavarja me bruhi kimabhistam karomi te || In the whole range of Sanskrit drama Sakara chiefly appears in the Car and the Mrcchakatika So we shall have to look up to these as containing the verse at the time the Sarasvatikanthabharana was composed. From the sense of the verse and the context in which it is quoted, the verse seems to have been spoken at the occasion of Vasantasena's murder effected in the eighth act of the Mrcchakatika But the Mrcchakatika does not contain the verse; it has instead a prose passage (p. 142 citah- badham | karomi varjayitva tvakaryam | ). The elements of the verse quoted in the Sarasvatikanthabharana seem scattered round about the above passage in the Mrcchakatika (viz., VIII. 32...). In view of the fact that the author of the Mrcchakatika has expanded the stray sentences. from the Car, or at least from the relation of the passages in the two plays, it seems possible that the verse has been omitted in the Mrcchakatika and its sense only has been given. So it may safely be assumed 7 at the continuation of the Car must have been developed on similar lines as found in the Mrcchakatika, and that the verse is from the second part of the Car which is lost to us. Dr. Levi has given the following citation from the Natakalaksanaratnakosa of Sagaranandin, which has given it as coming from a Daridra Carudatta: suskadrumagato rauti sradityabhimukham sthitah | kathayasyanimittam me vayaso jnanapanditah || The Natakalaksanaratnakosa knows both the Mrcchakatika and the Car and cites from both, and hence it is clear that it distinguishes between the two works. The stanza quoted above does not occur in the Mrcchakatika, but the identical sentiments and many of the phrases occur in the ninth act of the drama in the usually expanded form in the following two stanzas. Mrcchakatika, IX. 10-11. pp. 167-168: ruksasvaram vasati vayaso'yam mamatmabhrtya muhurahvayanti | 1 1 Dhruva, Svapnani Sundari, Intr., p. 21. 2 Journal Asiatique, 1923, pp. 216-217; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 274-276.

66 154 savyam ca netram sphurati prasahya mamanimittani hi khedayanti || suskavrjnasthito dhvamksa adityabhimukhastatha | mayi codayate vamam caksurghoramasamsayam || This would certainly lead one to style the Mrcchakatika as a 'reprise delayee', as has been rightly done by Dr. Levi." Incidentally it may be mentioned that Bhasa gives expression to similar ill omens in almost identical words in the Panc, (p. 48) which indicates Bhasa as the originator of these particular enumerations of ill omens. The conclusion, therefore, is that the DaridraCarudatta had at least nine acts and the two plays developed to the end on very similar lines. ACTS V-X OF MRCCHAKATIKA. Accepting the Mrcchakatika as an independent work having no connection with Bhasa's Car, the latter acts reveal the influence of Bhasa, thereby indicating the author's acquaintance with Bhasa's works. 1. The idea that natural arms are the fittest weapons for Bhima, a real warrior, is found in the Mv, Bal and Panc of Bhasa. The same idea is found expressed in bhimasyanukarisyami bahuh sastram bhavisyati | (Mrcchakatika, VI, 17). 2. The wonderful celerity with which the servants bring a news or announce the entry of the person invited, which is indicated by the stage direction (niskramya pravisya ), has been observed by us as a peculiar technique feature of Bhasa. This is found repeated in the trial-scene of the Mrcchakatika Cf. pp. 165, 167. 3. Mrcchakatika IX. 21 occurs in the Suvadana which is an unusual metre in classical Sanskrit drama. We have already shown Bhasa's liking for unknown metres and this metre in particular. (Panc, I. 6; Dv, 15; Prat, III. 3, 7, 11). 4. The fifth act of the Avi and the fifth act of the Mrcchakatika end in a similar way, the hero entering the inner apartments after thunder and rain. 1 Journal Asiatique 1923, p. 217.

155 5. A split up verse completed by different speakers which is already noted as a special feature of Bhasa, is found copied in the Mrcchakatika, VII. 7. 6. The inauspicious omens which Carudatta comes across in the Mrcchakatika (IX. 10-11) are similar to those mentioned in the Panc, p. 48.-ft argi gragad aluhi sukkhapakhanighattitundam adiccahimuham vissalam vilavadi | 7. Similarity of ideas and expression with Bhasa is found in such sentences as vidvesvanartha bahulibhavanti | karikarasamabahuh | yo'ham latam kusumitam ...| 8. The Bharatavakya in the Mrcchakatika expresses similar sentiments as are found in the normal epilogue. of the Bhasa dramas. These facts coupled with those given earlier while considering whether the Car was complete in itself, tend to show that the Car as we have it is a fragment; that it contained at least four more acts which developed on identical lines as found in the Mrcchakatika; and that the later acts of the Mrcchakatika, considered independently, betray Bhasa influences. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARUDATTA AND MRCCHAKATIKA. Drs. T. Ganapati Sastri, Sukthankar, Belvalkar, Winternitz, Sten Konow, Keith, Charpentier, Thomas, Morgenstierne, Banerji Sastri, Jolly, Profs. Dhruva, Bhide, Paranjape, Tatke, Messrs. Harihar Sastri, Khuperkar, Kirata and many other oriental scholars maintain the priority of the Car and consider the Mrcchakatika as an enlargement of it; while others like Profs. Kane, K. R. Pisharoti, Devdhar, Ramavatar Sarma, Bhattanatha Swami, R. Raddi, Mr. K. G. Sankar consider the Trivandrum plays as spurious and regard the Car as something little less than than a literary forgery. Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, Prof. Jahagirdar, Mr. Nerurkar, and Dr. H. Sastri opine that both the Car and the Mrcchakatika are the different recensions of the same play-the former possibly a Southern one-,and that the Car is purposely kept a fragment.' We shall consider the last view after we examine the relation between the Car and the Mrcchakatika 1 Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 245; Jahagirdar, Indian Antiquary, 1931, p. 42; Nerurkar, Mrcchakatika, 1924, Intr., pp. 18-19; Hirananda Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 22; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, P. 58.

156 "It must be painfully noted that barring the well considered and methodological writings of some of the distinguished orientalists, many have fallen into the pit of evaluating the merits of the two works only on subjective grounds." Drs. Morgenstierne, Sukthankar and Prof. Paranjape have subjected the texts to a critical test and have proved in their own way that the Car is the original of the Mrcchakatika Dr. Belvalkar comes to the same conclusion after considering the problem from the point of dramaturgy. In spite of Dr. Raja's statement that the theory of the priority of the Car is "once for all exploded", we still regard it as an open issue and after considering all the available evidence state our own view of the matter. In a genuine scholarly spirit, Dr. Barnett admits that "Dr. Morgenstierne's study has certainly established a fair possiblility for the contention that Mrcchakatika is an adaptation of Car". Dr. Morgenstierne has published the text of the Car with parallel passages from the Mrcchakatika to substantiate his contentions and his investigations have been generally accepted by all as proving the priority of the Car. Dr. Sukthankar's critical study of the text of the two works under four different heads viz., technique, Prakrit, versification, and dramatic incident, leads him to the same conclusion, and independently, Prof. Paranjape also comes to the same conclusion after a critical analysis of the plays. Reserving the refutation of such of the contrary opinions that remain to be answered for a separate section towards the close of the chapter, we shall consider the relationship between the two plays in brief under vocabulary, technique, Prakrit, and versification, in the light of the previous investigations of the scholars in this field. We have also studied the problem in our own way, showing that the Car and the Mrcchakatika cannot be assigned to the same period owing to the essential differences between them which rendered the theory of both works being different recensions of the same text quite untenable. Our study also shows that all these differences tell of a later date for the Mrcchakatika We have dealt with the question whether the Car and Mrcchakatika are 1 P. V. Kulkarni, Mrech, Nerurkar's Edn., 1924, App., p. 4, 2 Journal of Oriental Research, I, 3 Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 519-520. D. 244.

157 different recensions of the same play later on in this chapter in a separate section, owing to the importance of this aspect of the problem. 1. Vocabulary. Dr. Raja traces Malabar influence on the Car on account of the words "neyyubbhamana, anthi and naye," which are pure Malabar words "Pucchianti " is used in its Malayalam sense. Dr. Thomas pronounces the attempt "to be quite fruitless" and notes that " anthi" is merely a Prakrit form of Sanskrit as Mr. G. Harihar Sastri in his "Reply" justifies the inclusion of the words in the Car referring the Prakrit form "naye" to Sanskrit "nathe" or "nayike," and "neyyubbhamana" to Sanskrit "snehodbhavana." As regards "pucchianti," Mr. Sastri remarks that there is no authority to say that it has the sense of 'censure' as in Malayalam; it simply means 'spoken of' in the context in which it is used. An alternative explanation is offered, in that Mr. Sastri says that the original word "vucchianti" was wrongly copied as "pucchianti" owing to the similarity in Malayalam script of these two words.* So this does not help to shift the Car to a later date as contended. out 2. Technique. The Car has no Nandi nor the Bharatavakya. The latter omission may be explained as being due to the drama being a fragment as we have already proved. The absence of Nandi and the rudimentary sthapana in the Car is common with the other Bhasa dramas, but the Mangala stanza which we find in other plays, may possibly have slipped of the text as are the remaining acts. Or the absence may by due to the death of the poet before the final touches regarding the beginning and the end were given. The Mrcchakatika on the other hand has a Nandi verse and an elaborate prologue mentioning the name of the poet, and the work. Now all the classical dramas have their prologue in Sanskrit which implies that the Mrcchakatika must have had some authority for using Prakrit in the prologue" against the general vogue. That the Mrcchakatika copied the Prakrit speech of the Sutradhara from the Car is also clear from the explanation which precedes the Suradhara's speech in Prakrit : eso'smi bhoh, karyavasatprayogavasacca prakrtabhasi samvrttah | 1 Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 222. 2 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, p. 890 n. 3 Journal of Oriental Research, 2, pp. 211-213

158 showing that the poet thought it necessary to explain why Prakrit was introduced in the Prastavana. The absence of any such explanatory remarks in the Car indicates its priority.' gam tuvama kr 3. Prakrit. It is shown that the Car in common with other works of Bhasa retains old Prakrit forms against the Mrcchakatika which contains invariably the middle Prakrit. (1) The Car uses the old Prakrit form ahake of the pronoun of first person, and for second person; while the Mrcchakatika invariably uses or g, for the first. person, and tumam for the latter, which are later forms. (2) The absolutive of verbs and is represented by gacchinna and karia ( kalia ) in the Car, which the Mrcchakatika gives as gadua and kahua . (3) Neuter Plural of nom. and acc. of thematic stems ends in 'ani' in the Car while in the Mrcchakatika it ends in -'aim.' (4) The Car retains assimilated conjuncts, e. g. ff while the Mrcchakatika has disanti The form dissu is never met with in Mrcchakatika which uniformly uses f. (5) The old Prakrit 'ama' is found in the Car but never in the Mrcchakatika The former uses 'geha', while the latter has "ghala." (6) The Mrcchakatika further contains a number of Desi words like chivia, dhakkehi, uddhehi karatta, bappa, potta, etc., which denote a later date, while the Car has no such words. (7) The Car does not use Maharastri Prakrit, while the Mrcchakatika employs it. We have shown that Bhasa's Prakrit which is also found in the Car) is at least as old as the Turfan MSS and Pali: the absence of similar old forms shows a later date for the Mrcchakatika 4. Versification. That in the Mrcchakatika the verses are largely free from the flaws of the corresponding verses of the Car will be readily admitted on all hands; but that this is not invariably the case is shown by Dr. Belvalkar; and therefore as he has well remarked "an argument based upon an asthetic evaluation of certain verses is certainly misleading and illusive in character". He has simply noted the exception, and this should not, however, make us lose sight of the fact that regarding versification, "the text of the Mrcchakatika makes an 2 1 Sakuntala Vyakhya to which reference is made later on in this chapter, also assigns the originality to the author of the Car by stating (p. 12): carudatte punah sutradharasyapi prakrtam | 2 Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 25; Belvalkar, OC, I, p. 198.

159 advance upon the other play in the following directionsrectification of grammatical mistakes; elimination of redundancies and awkwa uctions; and introduction of other changes which may be claimed to be improvements in the form and substance of the verses" This fact is inexplicable unless the priority of the Car be accepted. It may be noted, further, that the Mrcchakatika in some places shows better judgment by placing the verses from the Car in a better and more suitable context, such as, e. g., etc. in Car, 1, 7, which has been posted in Act III. 28 in the Mrcchakatika, and ana gara etc. (Car I. 6) is placed later on in the same act in the Mrcchakatika (I. 36). This answers Bhattanatha Swami's objection in another connection where he argues that if the Mrcchakatika be the borrower there is no reason for it to change the context, and he has given an instance of some dialogues from the later acts of the Mrcchakatika appearing in the earlier acts of the Car But the M r c ch is shown above to have changed the context in the acts of the Car available to us. It is more reasonable to suppose that a later writer places verses and passages in a suitable context than to credit him with hssages in a mess of the whole thing for no apparent reason. The Mrcchakatika has effected many improvements in the Car and Car hence its author may also be taken to have seen the unsuitability of some verses at the places where they were kept by Bhasa and changed their context. 5. Dramatic incident. (1) Time analysis of the two plays reveals the improvements effected be the Mrcchakatika by omissions. The events of the Mrcchakatika, according to. Prof. Paranjape, take only five days. The Car ties down. the events of the first act to sasthi (6 th) and the events in the third act seem to have taken place on astami (8 th). But there are chronological inconsistencies in the Car by the description of moon-rise and moonset in the first and third acts respectively taken in conjunction with the tithi scheme. The Mrcchakatika has got 1 1 Sukthankar, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 42, p. 71. 2 Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 194, na vasantasena, vasantaseno occurring in the seventh act (p. 126) of the Mycch has been transferred to the third act (p. 79) of the Car by the writer of the latter work according to Bhattanatha Swami. 1. But in the view of the matter that we take as explained above, the contrary is the case. The author of the Mrcchakatika shifted the sentence to a more suitable context.

160, over the difficulty by omitting all references to tithi but one, and naming it as Ratnasasthi. (2) In the first act of the Car the hero's remarks on poverty come to an abrupt end by the scene introducing Vasantasena. The Mrcchakatika has improved on it by depicting Carudatta as wrapt in the concentration of mind. This device serves to connect the events in a sequel. (3) In the fourth act of the Car Sajjalaka calls out to Madanika, while the latter is attending on the heroine and it is strange that Madanika alone hears him. The Mrcchakatika gets over this by making Sarvilaka wait outside and call out only when Madanika is sent out by her mistress. At the close of his study, Dr. Sukthankar places two alternatives before the readers, and no apology is needed, we think, to quote in extenso that portion of his article owing to its importance, and the frank, just, and accurate statements that it contains: "Let us assume first, for the sake of argument, that the Carudatta contains older material....which was worked up later into the Mrcchakatika. "The differences in the technique neither support nor contradict definitely such an assumption. The nandi for all we can say, may have been lost. The words nandyante tatah pravisati sutradharah do not militate against such a supposition: they could be used with or without a nandi appearing in the text. Moreover, we cannot, in the present state of our knowledge, rightly evaluate the absence of all reference to the name of the play and the play-wright in the sthapana. To say that in pre-classical times that was the practice is begging the question. The only technique of introduction with which we are familiar is the well-known classical model. Again the only play which is definitely known to antedate the classical plays is the Turfan fragment of Asvaghosa's drama. Unfortunately, as the beginning of the Sariputraprakarana is missing, we are not in a position to say whether the prologue of the dramas of Asvaghosa conformed to the standard of the classical dramas, or that of the dramas of the group under consideration. We are therefore bound to admit that at present we have 1 Paranjape, Sahitya Samgraha, I, pp. 103-114; Sukthankar, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 42, pp. 70-74,

161 no clear evidence that can aid us in placing with any degree of a drama with the technical peculiarities of the Carudatta. a dramasurance, chronologically or topographically. "But the priority of the Carudatta version would explain, and satisfactorily explain, all the other differences between the two plays. It would explain the presence of archaisms in the Prakrit of the Carudatta. It would explain why many of the verses of the Mrcchakatika are free from the flaws of the corresponding verses of the Carudatta; the grammatical corrections one may be justified in regarding as an indication of an increasingly insistent demand for scrupulous purity of language. The hypothesis would lastly explain the reason for the differences in the incidents of the action of the play. All this is legitimate field of 'diaskeuasis', and is readily intelligible. "Let us now examine the other possibility, and try to explain the divergences on the assumption of the priority of the Mrcchakatika version. "The question of the technical differences between the plays has been dealt with already. It was submitted that this part of the evidence was inconclusive; it supported neither one side nor the other. 66 We will proceed to the next point, the Prakrit. On the assumption of the priority of the Mrcchakatika version, it is at first sight not quite clear, how the Carudatta should happen to contain Prakrit forms older than those found in (what is alleged to be) a still older play. But a little reflection will suffice to bring home to us the fact that it is not impossible to account for th anomaly. We have only to regard the Carudatta as the version of a different province or a different literary tradition, which had not accepted the innovations in Prakrit that later became prevalent. In other words we have to assume merely that the Prakrit neologisms of the Mrcchakatika are unauthorized innovations and that the Carudatta manuscripts have only preserved some of the Old-Prakrit forms of the original Mrcchakatika. This does not, however, necessarily make the Carudatta version older than the Mrcchakatika version. The Carudatta would become a recension of the Mrcchakatika with archaic Prakrit. Thus the Prakrit archaisms of

162 the Carudatta may be said to be not irreconcilable with the general priority of the Mrcchakatika version. 86 It is much more difficult to explain why the Mrcchakatika should consistently offer better readings of the verses. Some of the discrepancies could perhaps be explained away as the result of misreading and faulty transcript, but not all. We could not explain, for instance, why the excellent pada: tiksnam visanagram ivavasistam should have been discarded, and another, visanakotiva nimajjamana, be substituted, forsooth with the faulty nimajjamana. Why should there be a change in the first place, and why should the change be consistently for the worse? We could not reasonably hold the copyists guilty of introducing systematically such strange blunders and inexcusable distortions. "Let us combine the archaisms of the Prakrit with the imperfections of the Sanskrit verses. On the assumption of the priority of the Carudatta, we are asked to believe that while the compiler of the Carudatta had carefully copied out from older manuscripts all the Prakrit archaisms, he had systematically mutilated the Sanskrit verses, which is a reductio ad absurdum! "Let us proceed to the fourth point. The theory of the priority of the Mrcchakatika, which could with difficulty be supported in the case of the divergencies already considered, breaks down altogether when we try to account for the inconsistencies in the action of the Carudatta in general, and in particular the presence of the tithi-scheme, which latter serves no purpose, aesthetic or didactic, but on the other hand introduces gratuitously indisputable incongruity. The deleting of the whole tithi-scheme admits of a simple, self-evident explanation, acceptable to every impartial critic. But, assuming that the original play contained no trace of it, can any one pretend to be able to give a satisfactory reason for the deliberate introduction of the tithi-scheme? an "Taking all things into account, we conclude, we can readily understand the evolution of a Mrcchakatika version from a Carudatta version, but not vice versa. The special appeal of this hypothesis lies in the fact explains not merely isolated variations, but whole categories of them: it implies the formulation of a that it q

163 single uniform principle to explain diverse manifestations. "It It may be that I have overlooked inconsistencies and flaws in the Mrcchakatika version, absent from the other, which could be better explained on the contrary supposition of the priority of the Mrcchakatika version. If so, the problem becomes still more complicated, and will need further investigation from a new angle. I merely claim that I have furnished here some prima facie reasons for holding that the Carudatta version is on the whole older than the Mrcchakatika version; hence (as a corollary) if our Carudatta is not itself the original of the Mrcchakatika, then, we must assume, it has preserved a great deal of the original upon which the Mrcchakatika is based "." 1 The essential differences between the two plays also show the priority of the Car. Dr. Belvalkar, in a recent article, rightly states the position when he says: That Sudraka's Mrcchakatika completes (with certain 66 I deliberate modifications) the Daridraca of Bhasa is now a generally accepted proposition "." We do not mean hereby to pronounce the author of the Mrcchakatika as a mere amplifier. He is a dramatist and a humorist of no mean order and this would also be established from the renown he has been enjoying so far. Dr. Charpentier credits him with the later five acts as also with the composition of the gamblers' scene, and the description of Vasantasena's palace." Dr. Belvalkar, however, after a careful psychological investigation into the motives underlying the elaborations of the later author, finds that the gamblers' scene, political bye-plot, broad and rollicking humour are the creations of the later author. The additions, according to him, are motivated by (1) an exhibition of the author's knowledge and familiarity with highly technical and out of way sastras, (2) an introduction of low-life realism, (3) the addition of the political bye-plot, and (4) an appeal to the gallery by means of broad and rollicking humour." Dr. Hirananda, however, takes the gamblers' scene as a later interpolation in the Mrcchakatika, in addition to the incident of Dhuta's immolation, which has commonly 1 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 42. pp. 71-74. 2 Journal of the Benares Hindu University 1, p. 21. 3 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1923, p. 603. 4 OC,I, pp. 199, 204; Summaries, p. li-lii.

164 been accepted as an interpolation since the time of Nilakantha. This brings us to the consideration of the POLITICAL BYE-PLOT which has been asserted by some to have been excised from the Car by significant omissions." The question on the contrary should be to state the reason why the Car "carefully removed all allusions to Palaka and Aryaka if Sudraka's play were the original " The very fact that it could have been so removed tells very strongly against its having formed a structural unit with the whole play, and clearly postulates. its posteriority. It has been shown that the political episode is very loosely connected with the main story; the second half of the Mrcchakatika, therefore, "is partly spoilt by the contamination of two subjects that stood originally in no relation whatever to each other". It can be removed from the play without any prejudice to the development of the dramatic action. There is no necessity of Aryaka for the exchange of carriages, and Carudatta's innocence would be established without the intercession of Sarvilaka, simply by Vasanta sena's reappearance. The gamblers' scene in which we get a first hint about the political affair is, even according to one anti-Bhasaite, an interpolation. Prof. A. K. Pisharoti says that the scene was omitted from the Car on account of its not being fitted for the stage. This statement requires a further proof that the scene formed an integral part of the original drama, which, as we have seen, it did not. We have further, in the words of Dr. Belvalkar, shown causes that led the later writer to incorporate the bye-plot. The skill with which the later writer (Sudraka, for the matter of that) has executed the task Iweaving the two disconnected stories successfully, would be evident from the fact that it has come to be regarded as an inseparable whole. There is some difference of opinion as to the historicity of Aryaka and Palaka as also of the revolution." If Palaka and Gopala are identical with those connected with the Udayana legend, it seems 1 Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 23. 2 Bhattanatha, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 194; Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 32-40. 3 Winternitz, Problems, p. 114. 4 Charpentier, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1923, pp. 603, 606, 607 at p. 607. 5 Hirananda Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 23. 6 Criticism, PP. 33-34. 7 We have considered the problem as to the identities of Palaka and Aryaka and the historicity of the revolution in chapter VIII, under 'Carudatta -(6) Critical Study.

165 rather peculiar that Bhasa did not make use of the revolution incident in his play, especially as it would have made a wonderfully inseparable unit with the love story. Among a number of Sudrakas we identify the author of the Mrcchakatika with Andhra Simuka." AUTHORSHIP OF MRCCHAKATIKA. The prologue to the Mrcchakatika, no doubt, contains later additions and elements; but that does not justify us in discarding it altogether as untrue. It is more reasonable to take the traditional statements as true till the contrary is proved than to treat them the other way. The prologue in the Mrcchakatika must, therefore, be supposed to contain some elements of truth in it. The description of the regal author is generally seen to apply to Simuka, the Andhra king. It may be contended that Simuka had no time to compose dramas as he was engaged in wars; but most probably the Mrcchakatika is the work of some court poet of Sudraka, perhaps Ramila or Saumila or both. As the times were not peaceful, the poets took a ready-made drama to work upon. They found some political revolution, contemporary or earlier, and made additions to the original that would appeal to the gallery. This supposition explains to some extent the southern influence shown by the Mrcchakatika, as also the silence of Kalidasa about Sudraka though the latter preceded him. The Andhras were southerners, and also Kalidasa may be taken to have known that the Mrcchakatika was neither an independent work nor was it the composition of Sudraka. The influence of the Malavikagnimitra seen in the Mrcchakatika need not speak of a later date for the latter as both have copied from the common source, viz., Bhasa. The cumulative effect of all that has been stated regarding the relationship of the two plays would, it is hoped, convey to every unbiassed critic the priority of the Car over the Mrcchakatika and this in itself would different versions. of the same play. Importance of the point, however, requires a detailed treatment. contradict the opinion that the two are itself would 1 We have dealt with the "Authorship and date of the Mrcchakatika" at some length in a paper submitted to the Ninth All India Oriental Conference, Trivandrum; it has been accepted for publication in the JHARS.

166 CARUDATTA AND MRCCHAKATIKA; DIFFERENT RECENSIONS OF THE SAME PLAY? That the plays are known by different titles is a factor strongly against the above assumption. It is no answer to say that 'Vatsarajacarita' is an alternative title of the Pratijna. 'Vatsarajacarita' is known to be a work of Sudraka and it cannot be identified with the anonymous Pratijna. Abhinavagupta gives it as an alternative title for the Ratnavali in his Dhvanyalokalocana (p. 162, Kavyamala). Hence the Car and the Mrcchakatika also are distinct works. Rhetoricians down from Vamana distinguish between the Car and the Mrcchakatika testifying to their being different works. Vamana has in all three quotations, viz. (V. 1. 3) yasam balih etc., (IV. 3.23) dyutam hi nama purusasyasimhasanam rajyam | and (IV. 3.23) vyasanam hi nama socchrasam maranam | . Of these the first, as stated already, agrees more with the Car (I. 2) than with the Mrcchakatika (I. 9); the second one in the Mrcchakatika only (Act II, p. 38); and the last seems to be a misquotation for daridryam khalu nama manasvinah purusasya socchrasam maranam | occurring only in the Car (p. 11). Vamana, therefore, seems to have been aware of both the versions, and is possibly quoting from memory. Sudraka's works are further credited with having much slesa in them, "slesa obviously referring to the intricate and subtle evolution of the story and the plot". Thus Vamana can be shown to have knowledge of the Mrcchakatika being an amplified evolution of the Car by the infusion of the political plot. Or the expression may refer to the slesa-guna that has been incorporated into the other material by Sudraka which also imputes knowledge to Vamana of both plays. It is wrong to dismiss with scant courtesy the testimony of Vamana.³ Next, we come to Abhinavagupta who in his Bharatanatyavedavivrti refers to a Daridracarudatta; and Ramacandra and Gunacandra, in their Natyadarpana mention Daridracarudatta and Mrcchakatika side by side.* 1 That the Pratijna is quite distinct from the Vatsarajacarita is evident from Mr. Kavi's statement that the Vatsarajacarita by Sudraka will be published in the Daksina Bharati Series (Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, 2, p. 143). 2 Ganapati Sastri, Critical Study 4 Cf. Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925 p. 92. p. 272. 3 Cf. Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 21..

167 A Maharastra Sahitya of Sakuntalavyakhya in the Madras Oriental MSS Library (R. No. 2778) hitherto unpublished, at p. 12 mentions the Car among other dramas, and notes the Prakrit speech of the Sutradhara as a peculiarity to be found in the Car ( carudatte punah sutradharasyapi prakrtam | taccintyam | ). The Car is again mentioned on p. 23. This would imply that according to the commentator, the author of the Car was the originator of the device of employing Prakrit for the speech of the Sutradhara. The Maharastra Sahitya has been assigned to the fourteenth century A. D. and proves that 'Svapnavasavadatta' is the full title of the Trivandrum play. Thus, Vamana proves the existence of the Car and Mrcchakatika at his time. Abhinavagupta, Natyadarpana and the Sakuntalavyakhya show that Daridracarudatta is an alternative title for our Car. There are some writers subsequent to Vamana who mention only the Mrcchakatika and not the Car; but that does not establish the non-existence of the latter, as it is already mentioned by Vamana. The distinctness of the two works having been pronounced since a long time, it is rather strange how both are taken to be one and the same, especially when the Mrcchakatika is shown to contain later traits and improvements. In considering the relationship between the plays, essential differences that they show were reserved for consideration on a later occasion, and we shall deal with them here. They will also add one more chain to the evidence showing the priority of the Car, and once for all explode the theory of the two being different recensions of the same play. 1. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CARUDATTA AND MRCCHAKATIKA. The Car, in common with the other Bhasa plays, does not mention the word 'nanaka,' but uses the general term 'suvarna' in its stead. The Mrcchakatika, on the other hand, clearly uses the word nanaka (I. 23; II. 5 nisnanaassa [ nirmanakasya ]), which shifts the Mrcchakatika at any rate, to a later date than the works of Bhasa. 2 2. In the opening of the third act in the Car and 1 V. Sarma, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1929, p. 726. 2 Cf. Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 62.

168 the Mrcchakatika there is a reference to music and singing. It is significant to note in this connection that Bhasa uses no musical term, while Sudraka employs the terms 'murcchana' (III. 5), and 'kakali' (Mrcchakatika p. 53), which shows that the latter "improved upon Bhasa, the improvement consisting in the insertion of the musical terminology to make them [i. e. the statements of his predecessor] more effective".¹ 3. The elaborate and exhaustive description of the various courts of Vasantasena as given in the Mrcchakatika (Act IV, p. 78-86) corresponds closely with the Brhatkatha Slokasamgraha thus indicating a late date for the Mrcchakatika, while the Car has only a few sentences for the same ( p. 97 aho ganiavadassa sassiriada | nanapattanasa magadehi aamiehi puttaa vaianti | samprojaanti ca aharapparani | vina vadi- anti | suvannaara alankarappaarani adarena jojananti ); but we would not thereby place Sudraka to a period later than Brhathatha Slokasamgraha, as is suggested by Dr. Keith, especially on account of the probability of Sudraka's having access to the original of the Brhatkatha. 4. The Mrcchakatika betrays full astrology in the sixth act edge of planetary act (vv 9, 10). There is no corresponding portion of the Car available for comparison with the former, but in general it may be stated, having regard to the scanty knowledge which Bhasa possesses about astrology (i. e., naksatras and not rasis) it seems safe to presume that the later acts of the Car also did not have references to such developed stage of astrology. On this ground, Mr. Sankar fixes the lower limit of Sudraka as 505 A. D., but this is doubtful. This much, however, is certain that the Car is considerably earlier. 5. Opinion is unanimous that the Mrcchakatika shows a deeper sympathy towards Buddhism. The author of the Car is a champion of orthodox Brahmanism and, in the other plays of the group, tries to ridicule the Buddhist monk wherever he finds an opportunity. Cf. Car, p. 74. kattavyakaratthikidasankado visra sacivasamanao | Samvahaka leaves Vasantasena to turn a Parivrat in the Car, while in the Mrcchakatika he becomes a Sakyasramanaka. This has led Mr. Sankar to say that the Car represents a later stage 1 Bhide, Svapna, Intr. p. 26. 2 History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 271. 3 Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2. p. 64.

169 when Buddhism had deteriorated. Admitting this for a moment, how can Mr. Sankar explain the same derogatory remarks about the Buddhist monks in the Pratijna and Avi, which he has assigned to the author of the Mrcchakatika ?2 It is on the other hand a well-known fact that a new religion is generally looked down upon in its infancy, and gradually increases in its following. Dr. Winternitz surmises that Sudraka was really a Sudra who found better treatment from Buddhism than from the orthodox religion; but this is not borne out by the internal evidence since the author praises Brahmana-bhojana, Mr. Padhye, a well-known Buddhist scholar, has also shown that the religious atmosphere as portrayed in Bhasa, Sudraka and Kalidasa places Sudraka later than the Car, and Kalidasa the last of the three." etc. 6. The science of thieving as propounded by Sajjalaka in the Car (p. 75) and Sarvilaka in the Mrcchakatika (p. 57) tells the tells the same story. Sarvilaka mentions Kartikeya as the patron deity and Kanakasakti, Devavrata, Bhaskaranandin and Yogacarya as masters in the art. Sajjalaka, on the other hand, invokes the aid of Kharapata. As the name occurs in a later work from the South, viz., the Mattavilasa, it is contended that the Car got it from the Southern tradition and hence it is an adaptation of the Mrcchakatika Now, it should be noted that the Kautiliya Arthasastra also mentions Kharapata, stating that the details as to the particular implements of torture to be used in the particular case, measure of punishment, etc., should be learnt from Kharapata. This shows that before Kautilya, the treatise by Kharapata was well known. It is only in later literature, that a confusion is made between Kharapata and Muladeva, and hence it is useless to infer from the identity stated in later literature, that Kharapata is the same as Muladeva, and that the works mentioning Kharapata are later than Muladeva, the hero of Sudraka's Padmaprabhrtaka. Hence, the mention of Kharapata in Kautilya's 1 Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2. pp. 57-58. Cf. Pratijna, pp. 43-45 : agham bahmanabhavam | ihamattaena samanaena abhayam diadi | etc. Avi, p. 72 : kinnukhu jivadi naggandharasamania | Mr. Sankar enumerates these two viz, Pratijna and Avi among the works of Sudraka, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 64. 3 Geschichte der indischen Lit, III, pp. 205 ff. 4 OC, VII, Summaries, pp. 168-170; also, Indian Culture, 1937, pp. 61-72 5 Kaut. Arth., IV, 8 p. 221: tasyopakaranam pramanam praharanam pradharanamavadharanam ca kharapattadagamayet | 6 Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 56,

170 $71 Arthasastra disproves this identity "in as much as Muladeva is said to be a contemporary of Pusyamitra," Thus Kharapata in the Car instead of proving the work to be an adaptation confirms an old tradition. The cumulative effect of all the factors noted above should be, it is hoped, to establish the priority of the Car and to discredit the suggestion of the two works being different recensions. If, however, by different versions of the same play it is meant to convey the idea of improvements and additions at a later date, it may be acceptable to style these as versions of the same play. Dr. Raja maintains that the Southern MSS of the Mrcchakatika, if found, will prove the play to be nothing other than the Car. His failure to get another Maharastra Sahitya of the Vina as well as of other Bhasa plays clearly shows that Dr. Raja has failed to appreciate the importance of MM. Dr. Sastri's discovery. CARUDATTA: AN ABRIDGMENT FOR STAGE PURPOSES? The priority of the Mrcchakatika implies its subsequent adaptation for purposes of stage. We have already proved that none of the plays of our group can be called adaptations or abridgments. The case of the Car, however, stands on a different footing; for, in spite of the inclusion of the name of the Car in the handbooks of the Cakyars, down to his latest article on "The Kerala Theatre", the champion of the Kerala origin has been constrained to admit that "regarding the Car, no information is yet available as regards its ever having been popular on the Kerala stage." Thus notwithstanding his intimate knowledge and acquaintance with the Kerala actors and everything connected with South Indian Drama and Theatre in general, Prof. K. R. Pisharoti was unable to get confirmation of his surmise as to the alleged popularity of the Car in Kerala. Yet, this sufficed for him to explain the crudities in style and technique, as well as the cases of bad. judgment to be met with in the Car which are inconsistent with its later date, by supposing the adaptation to have been made 'in haste'. On the contrary, the stage version ought to be more perfect and more presentable. Rightly 1 G. Harihar Sastri, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 1, pp. 224-227 at p. 227. 2 Journal of Oriental Research, 1, pp. 244-245; letter dated 26 th November 1936. 3 Annamalai University Journal, 3, 1934, p. 158. Cf. Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 339; Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 250.

171 has Dr. Charpentier remarked about these arguments that they "do not seem to be convincing so far as concerns this special question." There are many instances to disprove the view that the Car is an abridgment; e. g., at some places it is more exhaustive and at times has many dialogues and verses that are altogether absent in the Mrcchakatika Further, there is no motive for excluding the political bye-plot altogether and yet present the play as a harmonious whole and preserve its main features, which cannot be accomplished by simple actors especially when they are 'in a hurry'. Dr. Belvalkar takes just the opposite view in the case which appears to be the correct one, that "Mrcchakatika of Sudraka is a deliberate amplification of the earlier play of Bhasa, undertaken from specific dramaturgic motives."." 2 REFUTATION OF CONTRARY VIEWS. Prof. Devdhar deals at length about marutabhilasi pradosah and pravesyatamabhyantaracatuhsalam (Car, p. 36) and concludes that this is a significant inadvertence of the epitomizer." But this is not so. marutabhilasi pradosah means that the evening is hot (lit. expects cold) and hence there is no longer any necessity of the mantle to Carudatta and he asks the maid to take it inside. pravesyatamabhyantara catuhsalam has been explained by the learned Professor himself by stating that this reading occurs in some MSS of the Mrcchakatika also, signifying thereby that the latter improved upon it. Unmotivated remarks are made to look natural, dialogues are cleverly worded and suitable amplifications and omissions are effected by the later writer of the Mrcchakatika, as already stated above. This answers some of the other arguments of Prof. Devdhar. It is against common sense and unnatural why the later writer should always omit a good sentence, use archaic language, show no judgment, which is again inconsistent with his being a 'clever' man. The additions of the political bye-plot, the gamblers' scene, etc. testify to the cleverness of the later playwright and do not prove omissions. Vidusaka is said 1 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 245. The learned Doctor would still venture to look upon (the Mrcchakatika) as a later and extended version of the Car'. (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 245) Cf. Pisharoti, Journal of Oriental Research, 2, p. 385. 3 OC, I, p. 204. 4 Plays etc., pp. 27-28. 2

172 to make an unauthorized statement in the Car, and this has been assigned to the bad memory of the adaptor." But Vidusakas are privileged to make any statement, though not authorized by the hero, in the latter's interest. in it." There is no serious mistake 8. " As regards the failure of Vidusaka to answer the question af (Car, p. 37), and the awkwardness iyamidanim ka of putting the same remark (viz. Car, p. 93) in the mouth of two characters in different parts of the house, which have been taken as the instances of overmuch condensation, we say, they are not really so; they are explicable without any reference to the Mrcchakatika In the first instance, Vidusaka's silence may be taken to be due to his being aware of the fact that Carudatta would come to know the name of the woman in the course of the message of Sakara which Vidusaka was presently going to deliver to Carudatta. In the latter case, the remarks of both at the same time but at different places are quite appropriate, as both hear the same story; and the spectators actually see both and can appreciate those remarks. So the above instances show that the author of the Mrcchakatika in his anxiety to leave nothing for the imagination of the spectators has filled up up the lacuna. The number of such instances proclaims the author of the Mrcchakatika to be simply a writer of bookish dramas having no sense of the effects on the stage; many additions that cannot be represented on the stage also point in the same direction. That the Car and all the plays in our group are "the works of a born dramatist, wonderfully adapted to the stage," and thus the author "is a dramatist of a very high order" does not necessarily mean that the Car has been specially abridged for the stage as Prof. Devdhar and others contend, especially as there is no proof of the popularity of the Car on the stage. Regarding Prof. Devdhar's objection as to the omission of the references to the law-suit, etc., we reply that the later acts of the Car might have contained the incidents. The present state of affairs does not justify the inference that the references were purposely ousted. 5 1 Plays etc., p. 31. 2 Cf. Vidusaka in the Svapna, Act IV, pp. 88-89. 3 Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 28-30. 4 Cf. Winternitz, Problems, p. 129; Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 26; Pisharoti, Journal of Oriental Research, 2, p. 385; A. K Pisharoti, Criticism, p. 33. In an earlier paragraph in this chapter (p. 170) we have referred to the alleged popularity of the Car on the stage. 5 Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 32-35.

173 The absence of Ceta in the first four acts does not prevent his being brought on the stage later on. Aryaka is not at all necessary for the 'swapping' of the bullockcarts. Rohasena also can easily be dispensed with. The answer to this aspect of the problem depends on the view we take of the integrity or otherwise of the political bye-plot with the story of the play. If the political bye-plot is the backbone, if it is necessary for the development of the plot, the author of the Car must be taken to have omitted the references. But this is open to the serious objection how it was that the original writer composed his work in such a way as to make it possible for the subsequent epitomizer to separate the bye-plot without harming the main story; besides "we can see no reason why the author of the Car should have carefully removed all allusions to Aryaka and Palaka, if Sudraka's play were the original"; while it is quite reasonable to suppose that the later amplifier added the bye-plot and weaved it so cleverly as to make of both a harmonious whole. The above also negatives the similar contentions of Prof. A. K. Pisharoti and others. 1 The inference that "the author desired to give a touch of finality to the play" from the sentence 66 (Car p. 103) and! (Car p. 104) is, in the opinion of Prof. Devdhar himself, too ingenious an interpretation." As noted above, there is an overwhelming evidence against such an interpretation. 66 Mr. Bhattanatha Swami and Dr. Raja trace Malabar influence in the Car [p. 82, ( karnau sprstva ) haddhi talipattam khu edam | ] and state that it refers to a local custom to wear rolls of palm leaf as an ear ornament." That this custom is not confined to Malabar but was prevalent in ancient India in the north also, is evident from vidhavevonmuktatalapatra in the description of Vindhya in Bana's Kadambari (p. 40, Nirnayasagar Edition). In the Mrcchakatika, Carudatta's wife is styled 'Vadhuh' while in the Car, she is called 'Brahmani. A reference has been found in the latter to the Malabar custom of the Brahmanas keeping the ladies of semi-Brahmana caste (known as Brahmanis in Malabar) as their wives without 66. 1 Winternitz, Calcutta Review, December 1924, p. 333. 2 Plays etc., p. 36. Bhattanatha, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 194 n 3; Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1 p. 224.

174 religious sanction or legal commitment." But, 'Brahmani' in the Sanskrit dramas means nothing to ore than a 'Brahmana's wife.' The argument loses its force when we find the same form used in the Mrcchakatika more than once.2 Thus, a careful study of all the available material and also the full consideration of the probabilities of the case lead us to the following conclusions: That the Car is the original play and it is incomplete as we have it;B that the Car had at least nine acts which developed on the same lines as the later acts of the Mrcchakatika; that the author of the Mrcchakatika added the political bye-plot, and the gamblers' scene and effected many improvements with regard to characterization, versification, etc. ↑ Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 224. 2 Cf. Mycch p. 65: mai aughqa i Myech, IX. 29.: ha brahmani ! dvijakule vimale prasuta | Myech, p. 209 : bhodie dava bahmanie ffffee Also Cf. Harihar Sastri, Journal of Oriental Research, 2, pp . 218-214.