Chapter 1 - Authorship of the plays by Bhasa

CHAPTER I. AUTHORSHIP OF THE PLAYS. The discovery and publication of the thirteen plays ascribed to Bhasa in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series will go down to posterity as the most epoch-making landmark in the History of Sanskrit Drama. In spite of Dr. Raja's dissenting note', refusing to acknowledge the discovery, the event has everywhere been hailed with greatest delight, and rightly regarded as equal in importance to the discovery of the Arthasastra. The South has thus laid the world of Orientalists under an obligation once more, by delivering a casket of precious jewels, that was hitherto known only by mere name. 2 Much has been written in support as well as against the Bhasa theory, and Dr. Charpentier regards the question as 'beyond discussion' against the authorship of Bhasa. Opinion is yet sharply divided and nothing like a definite solution of the problem seems to have been reached. Various Universities in India have included some of these Trivandrum plays in their course of studies as Works of Bhasa', and the fact of there being numerous editions of the plays as also the number of critical studies and articles on the problem in many Indian and European languages testifies to the world-wide interest attracted by these plays. Messrs. Abhyankar, Asuri, Banerji Sastri, Baston, Belvalkar, Bhide, Dhruva, Dikshitar, Ghatak, Guleri, Sesha Iyer, Jacobi, Jayaswal, Jolly, Kale, Keith, Konow, Krishna Sastri, Lacote, Lesny, Lindenau, Meerwarth, Morgenstierne, Paranjape, Pavloni, Printz, Ray, Sarup, Haraprasad Sastri, Harihar Sastri, 1 Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, pp. 250-51, 2 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1927, p. 605.

2 Shireff, Suali, Sukthankar, Thomas, Weller, Winternitz, and others accept the theory of Bhasa's authorship; while Messrs. Barnett, Bhattanatha Swami, Charpentier, Devdhar, Kane, Ramakrishna Kavi, A. K. Pisharoti, K. R. Pisharoti, C. K. Raja, K. G. Sankar, Ramavatara Sarma, Hiranand Sastri, Kuppuswami Sastri, Raddi Sastri, Sylvain Levi, Woolner and others refuse to accept the theory and pronounce the Trivandrum plays as spurious. It does not matter much which of these parties has the majority; for, as stated by Dr. Winternitz, "in science truth is not found out by the majority of votes but by the majority of arguments. 22 1 Discovery of the plays. In 1909, MM. T. Ganapati Sastri in his tour for search of Mss came across a palm leaf Maharastra Sahitya containing 105 leaves in Malayalam characters in the Manalikkara Matham, near Padmanabha Puram. The Maharastra Sahitya was more than 300 years old, and was found to contain the following ten rupakas and the fragment of one more rupaka ;-Svapna, Pratijna, Panc, Cur, Dgh, Avi, Bal, Mv, Karna, Uru. 2 During subsequent tours, two more Natakas viz. Abh and Prat and also other copies of these and the rupakas already discovered were unearthed from private collections at Kailasa Puram, Haripad, Chengannur and Manganam and in the Palace Library. A complete copy of the fragmentary play was found at Puttiyal revealing its name as Dv. The subsequent manuscript of the Svapna mentioned its title as Svapnavasavadattam All these manuscripts were in Malayalam characters and over 300 years old. On the testimony of Bana and Rajasekhara, the learned discoverer ascribed these dramas to Bhasa, the predecessor of Kalidasa and placed his researches before scholars in 1912 in his introduction to the Svapna. Almost simultaneously with the above discovery, the Svapna responded to the twang of the spade of an archaeologist, MM. R. Narsimhachar, head of the Arch. Deptt., Mysore State, in the archives of the Govt. Oriental Mss. Library at Madras. Dr. Vincent Smith's notice of this rare find acquainted the 1 Calcutta Review, Dec. 1924, p. 330. 2 Critical Study, pp. 1, 18, 19; Svapna, Intr. pp. 1, 2, 4-5.

3 world of orientalists about the discovery of the works of Bhasa before MM. T. Ganapati Sastri's researches were known'. Works of Bhasa. In addition to the 13 Trivandrum plays already mentioned, Mr. Kavi ascribes the authorship of Damaka and Traivikrama to Bhasa, Mr. S. Narayana Sastri adds Ghatakarpara to the list, while Krishnamachariar mentions Kiranavali and Udatta Raghava; tradition credits Bhasa with havin composed over twenty plays. The claims of all these latter works to be ranked among the works of Bhas will be considered in a subsequent chapter. At presen we shall deal with the 13 plays published by Dr. Ganapat Sastri. 5 ng The plays have been variously grouped and classified. Following Dr. Sarup we may group the plays according to their subject matter as under: I. Udayana or historical Plays: Svapna, Pratijna. II. Fiction or original Plays: Avi, Car. III. Mahabharata Plays: Bal, Dgh, Dv, Karna, Mv, Panc, Uru. IV. Ramayana Plays: Prat, Abh. These plays can be isolated from the classical Sanskrit dramas on account of their technique. The stage direction nandyante tatah pravisati sutradharah precedes the benedictory stanza, and the prologue is called sthapana; in Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti and other classical dramatists, the stage direction nandyante etc. follows the benedictory stanza or stanzas, and the prologue is termed prastavana. South Indian Plays, e. g. the Matta vilasa, Kalyanasaugandhika, Tapati Samvarana, Subhadra Dhananjaya, etc. and Southern MSS of the Sakuntala, Nagananda, Vikramorvasiya etc. on the other hand, display the same structural peculiarities. Some of these 1 Smith, Indian Antiquary, 40, pp. 87-89; Mysore Arch. Report for 1909-10, Para 116. 2 Kavi, OC, III, pp. 82-85. Damaka, Ed. V. Sarma, Lahore, 1926. Traivikrama, published in Shama'a, 4, pp. 213-222, edited and trans. by K. Rama Pisharoti. S. Narayana Sastri, Priyadarsika, Intr., p. XXII. Ghatakarpara, Pub. Venkateshwar Press. Bombay. Samvat 1966 (1910 A. D.) 3 Hist. Class. Sansk. Lit., p. 67. 4 All India Drama Conference, Bangalore, 1927 p. 131; Priyadarsika, Vanivilas Press, 1927, p. XXIII; Lokasiksana, Poona, 5, 1917, p. 325. 5 Winternitz, Ostasiatisch Zeitschrift, Jg, IX, followed by Devdhar, Plays etc, p. 2; Lindenau, Bhasa-Studien, p. 16; Hivargaonkar, Marathi translation, Vol. I, pp. 2-3; Jahagirdar, Indian Antiquary, 1931, pp. 42-44; Sarup, Vision,, Intr., p. 10.

4 also employ the lines sraye kinnu khalu mayi vijnapanavyagre sabda iva sruyate etc. to introduce the play. But our plays can be distinguished on account of the complete absence of any mention of the name of the poet or the title of the work. It is this important particular which has been overlooked by many an enthusiastic critic that is responsible for ascribing a Southern origin for our plays. Thus, these plays can be isolated from all other plays, Northern or Southern. As observed by Dr. Sarup, they exhibit a family likeness and form a group by themselves ".1 Before handling the question of the authorship of the group, it will have to be considered whether these plays are the works of one author or of different authors written at different periods. Are These Plays The Work Of One Or Several Authors? Nearly all the supporters of the Bhasa theory and some of the antagonists believe in a common authorship of these plays. It would not be out of place here to note the views of some eminent scholars as to the authorship of the plays before we proceed with our investigation. MM. Dr. Ganapati Sastri ascribes all the plays to one author; and so do Dr. Keith, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Sarup, Dr. Lindenau, Dr. Banerji Sastri, Prof. S. M. Paranjape and Prof. Devdhar. Prof. Jahagirdar ascribes the Svapna, Pratijna and Panc to Bhasa and classifies the remaining plays into two groups belonging to different periods. Dr. Winternitz (in his earlier writings) and Dr. Sukthankar pronounce the Svapna and Pratijna as coming from Bhasa and opine that in the present state of our knowledge, the authorship of the remaining plays is still uncertain. According to Dr. Sten Konow, it is 3 མ་ 1 Vision, Intr, p. 10. 2 G. Sastri, Critical Study, p. 16; Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 12; also letter dated 16-3-32; Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1922, pp. 80-81; Sarup, Hindustan Review, 1927, p. 118; Vision, Intr., p. 20; letter dated 17-2-32; Lindenau, Bhasa-Studien, I; Banerji Sastri, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921, p. 378; Paranjape, Pratima, Intr, pp. V-VII; Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 19-20. Prof. Devdhar excludes Car. Dr. Jayaswal, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1913, pp. 259-269, impliedly seems to have accepted common authorship as he deals with all the plays without any exception. 3 Indian Antiquary, 1931, pp. 43-44. 4 Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 143. In his 'Problems' p. 129, also Calcutta Review, Dec. 1924, p. 340, Dr. Winternitz stated that all the plays had one author; but in his letter dated 22-12-31, the learned Doctor stated his opinion as given above. Latterly, however, he seemed to have changed his opinion, as would appear from his letter to me in October 1936. In his recent article, unfortunately the last one on the subject, the late Dr. Winternitz expressed much doubt as to the common authorship of even the epic plays

2 5 possible that also the remaining plays belong to him' (i. e. Bhasa). Prof. Kane and Prof. Bhide who had accepted the common authorship, now doubt the correctness of their decision." Dr. Weller enumerates under the common authorship the Car, Bul, and Avi, in addition to the Svapna and Pratijna. Prof. K. H. Dhruva, who had impliedly accepted the authorship of Bhasa for all the plays, now rules the Abh, Karna, Uru, Dv, and Dgh out of order as of different authorship. Dr. Barnett says that the plays belong to different periods; so state also Messrs. Pisharotis." Dr. Woolner seems to postulate different periods for different groups of these plays. Dr. Johnston also finds a number of different groups. There seems, however, to be a consensus of opinion as to the common authorship of the Svapna and Pratijna. 4 7 We shall proceed with our study of the common authorship or the opposite of these plays now, right from the beginning and this brings us to the consideration of 1. STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES. i. All the plays begin with the stage directionnandyante etc. ii. Sutradhara recites only one mangala sloka (which is absent in the Car). In the Svapna, Pratijna, Panc and Prat, the mechanical device of Mudralamkara, which introduces the names of the important dramatis personae of the play in the mangala sloka, is used. in the group. The whole article (Bulletin of the Ramavarma Research Institute, 5, 1937, pp. 1-15) is full of scepticism. He was "no longer a believer in Bhasa's authorship of these plays." ib, p, 73. 1 Letter dated 14-7-32. 2 Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, pp. 97-102; Letter dated 11-6-32. Bhide, Svapna, Intr., p. 4; Postcard dated 16-10-31. 3 Letter dated 4-8-32. It is in Sanskrit, and the portion relevant for this note reads: svapnavasavadattam pratijnayaugandharayanam ca bhasakrte natake, param tu kalena vikaram prapte | carudattam balacaritam cavimarakamapi prayo bhasanatakani bhaveyuh | avasistanam visaye tu mahati samsi tirasmakam | 4 Svapnani Sundari, Ahm, 1923, Intr. pp. 22-25 Contra, Pratima, Ahm, 1931, Intr, p. 19 N. 29; and letter dated 23-6-32; and Thakkar Vasanji Lectures, p. 205, N. 18. 5 Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, 521; Pisharoti, A Criticism, p. 23: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 107-117. 6 Thirteen Trivandrum Plays, Vol. I. preface, pp. VI-VIII. _7 Indian Antiquary, 1933, pp. 95-99. 8 We believed in structural similarities of these plays when we originally wrote these lines before five years. Non-mention of the anonymity of these plays as one of the characteristics of Bhasa's works noted by Bana in the well known verse etc leads us to think that the prologue of these plays is badly tampered with after Bana's time, though it seems only the portion containing the name of the author and the work was lost. It may perhaps be that some peculiarities such as the introductory stanzas containing Mudralamkara, etc, may be due to uniformity of process of some Kerala school which staged these dramas. We have, however, embodied the above section wholesale without any change in the text, as we intend to draw the attention of the readers to the mechanical similarities.

6 iii. The prologue is called sthapana instead of the usual classical term prastavana. Only the Karna employs the term prastavana. iv. These prologues are very brief (excepting that in the Car) and are silent as to the name of the author or the work. It is only towards the end of the play that we come across the name of the work. V. The form evamaryamisran vijnapayami | aye kinnu khalu mayi vijnapanavyagre sabda iva sruyate | anga pasyami | is used in the sthapana of most of the plays. The Pratijna, Car, Avi and Prat use a different form. vi. With slight variations the epilogues in nearly all the plays are identical, using the verse imam sagaraparyantam himavadvindhyakundalam | mahimekatapatrankam rajasimhah prasastu nah || in one form or the other. The Car and Dgh have no epilogues at all. Close similarity in the above particulars leads one to infer the common authorship of all the plays. Next, we shall consider the 2. AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO TECHNIQUE. 1. All the plays disregard the rules of the Natyasastra in bringing scenes on the stage which will never occur in classical dramas."" Such are the (i) deaths on stage of Dasaratha in the Prat (Act II), Valin in the Abh (Act I) and Duryodhana in the Uru; (ii) Slaughter of Canura, Mustika and Kamsa; and (iii) the violent struggle between Krsna and Arista ending in the death of the demon in the Bal (Acts V and III); (iv) Sport (Act II) and sleep (Act V) in the Svapna; (v) calling aloud from a distance in the Panc (Act II); (vi) non-mention of the name of the author or the work in the prologue; etc.2 Some words are used in a sense different from that assigned to them by the Natyasastra; e. g. in the Svapna (p. 128) and Bal (p. 65), 'Aryaputra' is used as a term of address from a servant. Winternitz, Problems, p. 120. 2 Cf. Banerji Sastri, Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 1923, pp. 62-65; Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 348; Tatke, Maharastra Sahitya, 5, p. 105.

7 2. There is a rapidity in the progress of action for which the frequent stage direction niskramya pravisya ' is used.' As each play abounds in such scenes using the stage direction, citation of instances seems unnecessary. 3. There is a frequent recourse to Akasabhasita, a kind of monologue in which one person only speaks repeating the speeches of other persons not on the stage, and answers them. This device is employed in the Dv (pp. 6, 8), Avi (pp. 5, 8, 15, 23), Abh (p. 60), Car (pp. 8, 9), Pratijna (p. 64), etc. 4. For describing battles, duels, battlefields, sacrifices or some events the poet selects the narrator or narrators from amongst the Brahmins, warriors or fairies. Triads are employed in the Abh (fairies), Uru (warriors), Panc and Mv (Brahmins); in the two former, for detailing fights on the battlefield; in the latter for describing the sacrifice and the demon Ghatotkaca respectively.² 2 A warrior (Bhata) gives the news of fight and at times describes it in the Panc (Act II pp. 52-71), Bal (Act V pp. 57-59), and Abh (Act III pp. 36-38;V, p. 63). 5. The entry of a person of high rank such as a king, a princess or a minister is announced with the identical words ussaraha ussaraha | ayya ! ussaraha | . This is found in the Svapna (pp. 6, 8), Pratijna (p. 63), Prat (p. 63, 66) and Uru (p. 99). 6. The audience is acquainted with the intervening events in the action of the play necessary for the furtherance of the plot by a chamberlain, who generally addresses the female door-keeper with the stereotyped words ka iha bhoh ! kancana (or ratna ) torana dvaramasunyam kurute | and on the entry of the door-keeper asks the latter to communicate the news (of those intervening events) to the king or someone- nivedyatam nivedyatam . Muat aquat ........etc. In Act VI of the Svapna (p. 119), the Kancukiya tells Udayana about the arrival of a Brahmin and the nurse of Vasavadatta from Mahasena, in the above formula. Similarly in the Abh, Act III (p. 33), the news 1 Winternitz, Calcutta Review, Dec. 1924, p. 340. 2 Abh, Act VI (pp. 68-74); Uru (pp. 92-96); Panc, Act I (pp. 4-15); Mv, (pp. 5-6).

8. about the destruction of the pleasure-garden and the death of Aksa is broached with similar preliminaries. Cf. also, the Prat, Act VI (p. 111) where the news is about the return of Sumantra. The second form alone, viz. nivedyatam nivedyatam maharajaya etc. to deliver the news is found in the following places: Panc, Act II (p. 52); Karna (p. 72); Dgh (p. 50). 7. A character knows what passes in another's mind from the face of the latter. Cf. tuvam kim vi vattukama via | f fa (Prat, p. 13) ; prativacanarthinimiva tvam pasyami | ( Prat, p. 95 ) ; natu kimcihnaktukamasi | ( Avi, p. 1) ; sugriva ! vaktukamamitra tvam laksaye (Ab 72, p. 50 ) ; vaktukamamiva tvam laksaye | (Pratijna, p. 25) ; bibhisana ! nirvigana mitra (Abh, p. 40). The similarities that we have noticed above in disregarding the rules of Bharata's Natyasastra and in the recurrence of certain dramatic devices and situations could not have been mere accidents. They certainly show the working of the same hand. 3. COMMUNITY OF IDEAS 66 found in all the plays of the group also strengthens the case of common authorship. "A particular author takes fancy to a particular idea and cannot help repeating the same in more than one place"; and hence the same idea expressed in identical words leaves no question as to the unity of authorship. Some of the striking instances are given below. 2. Our poet is very fond of the idea that natural arm is the most appropriate weapon for the brave. This is found in the Bal, Mv, Panc and Avi.2 ii. Narada is described as an expert at lute and fond of instigating quarrels. Cf. Avi, VI, II ganankalahamsca loke | with Bal, I. 4. tantrisca vairani ca ghattayami | a iii. Dhrtarastra is described as being created blind owing to the jealousy of gods, as the latter were afraid he would trouble the heavens. Cf. Uru, 36 (p. 100) with Dgh, 35 (p. 64).³ 1 Sarup, Vision, intr, p. 15. See pp. 15-16 for instances from Oscar Wilde. 2 Bal, III. 11. bahu mametau, praharanam ... (p, 45 ). Mo, 42. bahurayudham sadrsam mama (p. 32) ; Pane, II. 55. sahajau me praharanam bhujau (p. 88), Avi, II. 11. vayamapi ca bhujayudhapradhanah (p. 31 ). 3 Devdhar, Plays etc, p. 7.

9 iv. Arjuna's deeds of valour e. g., his encounter with Sankara in the form of a Kirata, fights with the Nivatakavacas are almost similarly expressed in the Dv, 32-33, Dgh., 22 and Uru, 14. V. The inference from the trees being watered, that the city must be somewhere in the vicinity is found in the Prat and Abh. Prat, p. 57. qaga gamafua: khalvayobhyaya bhavitavyam | Abh, p. 6. sopasnehataya vanantarasyabhitah khalu kiskindhaya bhavitavyam | | vi. The insistence of a particular idea in different situations and in different works indicates one individuality." Cf. Avi, III. 2 etc. with Car I. 13. fer etc. vii. The idea that kings though dead in body live through their sacrifices and good works is found expressed in the Panc I. 23 :: and Karna 17. hatesu dehesu guna dharante | viii. That wealth or prosperity revels in adventurous spirit is told in the Car, Dv, Panc and Svapna. It is also said therein that it does not rest in contentment. A consideration of the above similarities would rather indicate linking together of all the plays, viz., the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the historical and original plays (including the Car). Important for the study of the common authorship is the use of 4. PATAKASTHANAKA AND SIMILAR DRAMATIC DEVICES which is found in most of the plays. Following are some of the many instances: . i. In the Pratijna, Act II (pp. 29-30), King Malusena, in conference with his queen to select a suitable match for the princess, asks the queen, after enumerating a list of worthy suiters; "which of these do you find worthy of our daughter ?" Presently a chamberlain 1 A similar idea is found in Car (p. 23- grhavisista evayam bhavavinyasah | ) 2 Sarup. Vision, intr, p. 18. 3 Car, p. 93 sahase khalu srirvasati |, Do, 24-rajyam nama nrpatmajaih sahrdayairjitva ripun bhujyate | Pane II. 8. srinam santosamicchati| Svapna V. 6-7, prayena hi narendrasrih sotsahaireva bhujyate |

10 enters with the words 'Vatsaraja.' He had come to announce the news of the capture of Vatsaraja. Here the word 'Vatsaraja' serves as an answer to the king's question, though the chamberlain does not mean it. ii. In the Abh (V. 10), Ravana asks Sita, when both Rama and Laksmana have been killed at the hands of Indrajit, "by whom will you be set free ?" A raksasa enters and says "by Rama." He comes to convey the news of the death of Indrajit "by Rama." iii. In the Avi, Act II. p. 41, Vilasini asks Nalinika, while talking about the marriage of the princess, "when. is the marriage to take place?" At which somebody behind the curtain is heard to say "today." The speaker wants to tell of the absence of the minister "today." iv. In the Panc (Act I. p. 41) Drona gets the answer naming the place whence he can get the news of the Pandavas. V. In the Prat (Act I. pp. 33-34) while Rama is asking for bark-garments of Sita, a maid-servant enters accidentally with new bark-garments from Arya Reva. These are instances of 'verbal irony. Often times the irony of remark and situation are united. himself In the Mv (pp. 21-36) Bhima presents before Ghatotkaca in answer to his call for 'Madhyama.' The latter does not know that he is talking with his father and hence his remarks are essentially provocative of mirth. The Panc presents a similar situation of comic irony (pp. 80-90). An instance of tragic irony is furnished by the Dgh (pp. 52-53) where, on hearing of the ruthless slaughter of Abhimanyu, Duhsala remarks that "the killer of Abhimanyu has brought widowhood on the maidens on the Kauravas' side," not knowing who the actual killer Later on it transpires that her own husband, Jayadratha, was the culprit. At this news Dhrtarastral exclaims hanta ! jayadratho nihatah which brings the significance of her previous utterance to the unhappy Duhsala, and she weeps. was. The Svapna and Pratijna abound in numerous instances of these patakasthanakas. Frequency of these

11 instances of dramatic irony in our group lends one more chain to the link of common authorship. We also find 5. SIMILAR DRAMATIC SITUATIONS in these plays. i. The following from the Prat and Abh speak for themselves : sita ( sarosam ) - satto si | ravanah - hahaha | sraho pativratayastejah | yo'hamutpatito veganna dagdhah suryarasmibhih | asyah parimitairdagdhah sapto'sityebhiraksaraih || Prat, V. 20 (p. 107). sita - satto si | ravanah hahaha | aho pativratayastejah | devah sendradayo bhagna danavasca maya rane | so'ham moham gato'smyadya sitayastribhiraksaraih || Abh, II. 18 (p. 27) These identical situations present Sita as rejecting Ravana's overtures with a curse, which thoroughly unnerves the latter. Sakara is replied in the same way by Vasantasena (Car, p. 22). A confusion between af and is found in the Cur, doubtless suggested by similar wording in the Prat, where a fa is a variant for if (p. 86, 1 st edition)'. This would indicate the linking together of the Prat and Car, and of the former and Abh. ii. The spirited question that the young heroes put when asked to pay respects to the king (Maharaja) is identically worded ah kasya maharajah in the Bal (p. 61 ) and Panc (p. 87). iii. The Panc and Prat present similar situations in following one order (krama), and getting it corrected after srayamakramah and atha kah kramah | See Prat (p. 48); Panc (p. 19). iv. When a report, apparently incredible, is brought to the master, he naturally doubts its authenticity and the veracity of the messenger, to which the latter humbly retorts by saying that he has never given out a lie to his master. Thus, we have in the Pratijna (p. 32): when the Kancukiya brought the news of the capture of Vatsaraja which Mahasena refused to believe the Kancu- 1 'sranto'si B 'sapto'si In the verse also Prat (V. 20) 'S' is a variant for 'f' . A mere copyist or a simple imitator would not be able to appreciate the significance, importance and connotation of the readings and variants. The author himself must have used them in all the three.

12 kiya apologetically remarks: prasidatu mahasenah | vrddho'smi brahmanah khalvaham | na mahasenasamipe'nrtamabhihitapurvam | So, in the Bal (p. 27) when Kamsa doubts the news of the birth of a son to Devaki brought by the Kancukiya, the latter says maharaja ! anrtam nabhihitapurva maya | The same remarks are found in the Abh (p. 63) and Panc (p. 65). v. Dasaratha, Valin, Duryodhana, in their vision that they have at the time of their death, have the same experience, and the incidents are similarly worded. Cf. Prat (p. 51); Abli (p. 16); Uru (p. 114). The consideration of similar dramatic situations naturally brings us to the study of 6. DRAMATIC SCENES. In the Pratijna (Act II) a scene is described in which the powerful Mahasena is depicted as worrying over the question of the selection of a suitable match for his daughter, and consulting the queen in the matter. It is quite a domestic scene which is disturbed by the entry of a chamberlain with some news. Act I of the Avi presents a similar scene. The powerful king like another Mahasena boasts of having vanquished powerful enemies but still he feels no pleasure as he is worried in the matter of choosing a suitable husband for his daughter. He sends for the queen and speaks over the matter to her. It is also a domestic scene which comes to an end by the entry of a chamberlain. These two scenes are in their essence quite identical. The scene in the Pratijna is an amplified version of that in the Avi; so the Avi, was written first. Prof. Jahagirdar assigns the two plays to different ages but the difference in treatment is explicable on the ground of the plays being the products of different periods in the poet's career. None can expect a mechanical uniformity in all the works of an author. Both plays display the same workmanship." The opening scene in the third Act of the Bal is similar to that of the second Act of the Panc. Both paint the pastoral life. In the Panc, the cattle are to be gathered for a ceremony and an old herdsman calls out to others Sarup, Vision, Intr, p. 30. Indian Antiquary, 1981, p. 44.

13 to be ready for song and dance. In the Bal also, an old cowherd calls out to the maidens and young herdsmen to participate in song and dance. In both the plays, blessings on the cows and villagers are invoked, and the close of the dance is marked by hi hi buttu gaccidam suttu gaidam | java aham pisaccemi from the old man. According to Prof. Devdhar, "there can be no reasonable doubt that these lively and truly bucolic scenes come from the same hand"." The Car (Acts I and III) and Avi (Act 111) describing the city at night present many similarities. A close study of the plays will reveal that there are numerous similes and images that are peculiarly used in these plays. Prof. Devdhar has given an exhaustive list of such parallelisms under 7. COMMON IMAGERY." It is not necessary, therefore, to cover the same ground. There are some conventional and accepted similes of Sanskrit rhetoricians, but many of the images used in these plays are specialities of our poet and hence prove common authorship. Note especially the comparison of a powerful adversary with a lion or tiger and of his weaker rival with an elephant, deer or fawn." Equally notable is the comparison of a person to the moon in the midst of stars.* "That the plays have one author is also made probable by the fact that certain words and phrases occur in all or several of them". We may, therefore, consider these under 8. AGREEMENT OF VOCABULARY AND EXPRESSION. Prof. Devdhar takes exception to the inclusion of such words as ko kalo, ka gatih, badham prathamah kalpah, ekatapatra etc. etc. under this heading, which have been cited by Dr. Winternitz as indicating common authorship. 6 1 Plays etc., p. 13. 2 Plays etc., pp. 3-6. 3 Abh, III. 20 katham lambasadah simho mrgena vinipatyate | Prat, V. 18. navyanam mrgasisavah pradharsayanti | Mo. 3. vyaghranusaraca kito vrsabhah samdhenuh | Car I. 9 vyaghranusaraca kita harini ... | Me, 44. rusto'pi kunjaro vanyo na vyaghram dharsayedvane | Dv, 10. harimiva mrgapotau tejasabhiprayatau | Also, Abh, II. 13; Bal, IV. 13, etc. 4 Do, 3. naksatramadhya iva parvagatah sasankah | Prat, VII. 14. candram sanaksatramivodayastham | Abh, p. 26. durdinantargata candralekheva | Me, 83. vipracandrasya ... rahuriva | 5 Winternita, Problems, P. 118. 6 Plays etc, p. 8.

14 i. Be that as it may, there should be no difference of opinion as to the importance of the following words for signifying common authorship. 'Yavanika' in the sense of 'a curtain, carpet or veil' occurs in the Svapna (p. 140), Prat (p. 52), Uru (p. 114) and Avi (p. 88). 'Vismita' is used in the sense of 'proud or vain' in the Svapna (p. 9), Dv (p. 12) and Panc (p. 28). The root vyapasri' in the sense of 'pray, beg, request,' finds its place in the Svapna (p. 21), Mv (p. 11) and Panc (p. 24). 'Samasa' in its peculiar meaning occurs in the Avi (p. 31), Pratijna (p. 32) and Panc (p. 54). The Svapna and Avi employ the words (Svapna, p. 17; Avi, p. 12); (Sapna, p. 61; Avi, p. 54); (Svapna, p. 70; Avi, p. 47) ; etc. ii. The following are some of the expressions that are often used in the plays: 1. aho hasyamabhidhanam | Pratijita, pp. 67, 71; Panc p. 108; Dgh, p. 66. 2. alamidanim bhavanatimatram santapya | Swapna, p. 123; Ari p. 83; Cur, p. 12 ( alam dani bhavam sradimattam santappi sra ). 3.: Pratijna, p. 52; Avi, p. | 4. (sanghaariyo anattha ) 14 (tassa ) avasa egva gacchami| Avi, p. 14; Cur, p. 10. 5. : Abh, p. 8; Prat, p. 105; Bal, p. 15 ( bunadu bhatta mama bala ( pala ?) kamam ) Cf. also, Svapna, p. 134 and Panc, p. 103; Svapna, P. 52 and Abh, p. 30. Another striking evidence about the common authorship of these plays is the 9. RECURRENCE OF STANZAS, HEMISTICHES AND VERSES, AS ALSO OF SHORT AND LONG PROSE PASSAGES. Dr. Sukthankar in his 'Studies in Bhasa, IV has given an exhaustive list of the above-mentioned "Recurrences and parallelisms" and their total number is 127. The number itself should lead us a long way along our passage into the unsettled and slippery path beset with many thorns and help us towards the solution of common authorship. 1 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 4, 1928, Extra Issue, pp. 167-187.

15 A few of the notable repetitions are given below:- 1. Svapna, VI. 15; Abh, i. IV. 7. ii. iii. iv. V. Pratijna, II. 7; Abh, VI. 23. etc. Bal, I. 15; Cur, I. 19. Dv, 7; Car, IV. 3. Prat, I. 20; Abh, III. 22. Regarding the short and long prose passages that recur in these plays, it would be an unnecessary repetition to detail them here. They will be found in sufficient number in this chapter alone, and a mere reference to them will be, it is hoped, sufficient. i. See above Sec. 2 Sub-section (6) ii. 92 122. iv. 3 77 5 77 " (v). (v). 8 ** (2). ** some of the plays we find 10. A PREDILECTION FOR CERTAIN DESCRIPTIONS. such as is generally found in works of one and the same poet.' Descriptions of darkness are found in the first Act of the Bal, the third Act of the Avi and the first Act of the Car. A city at night is described in the Car and Avi. The poet is a master-hand at describing battles, combats and battle-fields, and the various particulars are so minutely and realistically portrayed that the scenes present themselves before our eyes. We have such descriptions in the Abh (pp. 68-74) and Uru (pp. 89-95). 11. A CONSIDERATION OF METRES also points to common authorship. Excepting some early works of the poet, we find preponderance of the epic sloka in these plays. Metrical irregularities are in a line with the epic usage and tradition. As the 'Metrics' will be dealt with in detail later on, some facts only are stated below. 1 Ct. Winternitz, Calcutta Review, 1924, p. 338.

16 Suvadana and Dandaka which are not used by the Panc, 1. 6; Dv, 15; classical dramatists are found in Prat, III. 7, III. 11; and Avi, V. 6. A peculiarity of the metrical portions of these plays is the occurrence of split up verses'. A verse is divided into quarters or hemistiches and each part is used as a speech for a character in the play. Sometimes a prose passage intervenes the metrical speeches. Three characters also share some verses between themselves. Though split-up verses are not a general feature of this group, still their presence in some of these plays shows them to have come from the hands of a single author. Instances of split-up verses used by the same speaker are Avi, II. 6, 11. 14; Pratijna, I: 2. Portions of verses used as speeches for two characters are found in the Prat, I. 31, III. 1, 14, IV. 24, VII. 14 Tru, 66; Avi, VI. 21; Bal, V. 10 and Panc, II. 34, 37. Three speakers use a a verse between themselves at the following places; Uru, 21; Abh, VI. 1, 5. As justly stated by Dr. Winternitz, "it is also worth mentioning that in such small details as the names of persons of secondary importance several of the plays agree with one another." 12. SAME NAMES OF DRAMATIS PERSONAE in different plays, therefore, constitute a strong argument in favour of their common origin. The chamberlain of Duryodhana in the Dv and of Mahasena in the Pratijnu is named Badarayana. A female door-keeper is introduced by the identical name Vijaya in the Svapna, Pratijnu, Abh, and Prat. Vrsabhadatta and Kumbhadatta are the names of herdsmen in the Panc and Bal. The most striking evidence of the common authorship of these plays is their 1 13. GRAMMATICAL SOLECISMS AND PRAKRIT ARCHAISMS These are not peculiar to some of the plays only as Some of the important verses are given in extenso in appendix II. Here all the verses are merely referred to. 2 Problems, p. 119.

17 is maintained by Prof. Jahagirdar,' but are common to all the plays. Many of the grammatical forms are justified by Dr. Sukthankar on the ground of epic usage; but for our present purpose it would suffice to show that they are found in all the plays of the group. Dr. Ganapati Sastri's list would show that no solecisms occur in the Karna and Urus That these dramas present the same Prakrit archaisms will be clear from our study of the "Prakrit" of these plays. Some instances are the following:-"" Cur, pp. 45,96; Svapna, pp. 68, 92; Prat, p. 12; Uru, pp. 104, 105; Pratijna, pp. 40, 43; Bal, p. 34; Avi, pp. 15, 77. "g" Dgh, p. 51; Mv, p. 37; Uru, pp. 105, 108; Pratijna, pp. 4,20; Abh, pp. 20, 27; Bal, p. 9; Avi, pp. 14,49; Prat, pp. 116, 126; Svapna, pp. 66, 106; Cur, pp. 3, 61. "" Partijna, pp. 8, 10; Panc, p. 48; Car, p. 2. "¸" Pratijna, pp. 11, 15; Car, p. 60; Svapna, p. 107. Panc, p. 49; ahmaam Mv, p. 7. '' Cur, p. 5; Abh, p. 19; Prat, p. 117; Svapna, pp. 54, 136; Bal, p. 11; Avi, pp. 29,85; Pratijna, pp. 35, 47. Though these be taken not to help us in fixing the date of the plays, they may yet be taken as products of the same age, presumably of the same author. Uniformity with regard to solecisms and archaisms "is the most unquestionable proof that places beyond all doubt the common origin of these plays". If it were not so, it is quite inexplicable why the imitator, the adaptor or compiler-one or more-should follow the original in its. mistakes also. Hence, it is almost certain that all these plays with all their merits and defects show the working of the same hand. 14. REMARKABLE SIMILARITY IN SOCIAL CONDITIONS in these plays is also another strong ground for common origin. Some notable features are mentioned below. 2. All the plays reveal the author to be a strict follower of orthodox Brahmanical system, and a zealous worshipper of Visnu. The militant Brahmanism of the author is not so conspicuous in the Avi, Svapna, Pratijna and Car, as it is in the Mahabharata and Ramayana plays, 1 Indian Antiquary, 1931, p. 44. 2 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 41, pp. 107-130. 3 Critical Study, appendix I. Dr. G. Sastri's list would show a solecism in the Car also; See Journal of the American Oriental Society, 41, p. 129. 4 Paranjape, Pratima, Intr, p. VII.

18 but there is nothing in the former that should contradict the assumption that the author was a Brahmana and a Vaisnava. ii. Brahmanas were held in high esteem, the truth of their statements was never questioned." iii. Noteworthy also is the use of metronyms in the Bal, Svapna, Prat, Panc and D-a, putrah, kausalyamatah, etc. iv. Music is approvingly referred to in the Pratijna (Act I), Svapna (Act V, VI), Car (Act III), and Avi (Act III). Another very peculiar feature that we come across in a number of these plays is the 15. ACTUAL BRINGING OF WATER ON THE STAGE after a demand for it which is found probably nowhere in Sanskrit dramas. Water is required for purifying purposes, by a dying or sorrowing person, for honouring a superior, for giving sanctity to a pledge, and so on. The demand is usually made in the form, while the bearer comes with ima apah | This occurs no less than eleven times and in seven dramas of the group. Thus we find the demands made by Dasaratha and Valin at the time of their death." ii. In the Pratijna, Yaugandharayana asks for water for declaring his vow." iii. Ghatotkaca and Bhima in the Mv demand water for chanting mantras. iv. iv. In the Dv and Prat, required for paying homage to the Lord and as a pudya for the guests respectively. v. Demand is also made for washing the face of a person who has been weeping." It was reputed to remove the impurity attached to tears. Po water is "Water" introduced so frequently has led Prof. 1 1 Cf. Devdhar, Plays etc, p. 17; Winternitz, Problems, pp. 116-117. 2 Cf. Mv, p. 30. pujyatamah khalu brahmanah | Karna, p. 84. brahmanavacanamiti | na mayatikrantapurvam | Bal, p. 27. brahmanavacanamanrtamapi satyam pasyami | Panic, I. 22. viprotsange vittamavaye sarva rajna deyam capamatra sutebhyah | The prayer in Panic and Bal for happiness for Brahmins, 3 Prat, p. 51; Abh, p. 60. 4 Pratijna, p. 21. 21. 5 Mv, pp. 34, 35. 6 Dv, p.24; Prat, p. 98. 7 Panc, p. 26; Prat, p. 86; Svapna, pp. 86, 87. 8 Cf. Panc, p. 26 asrupatocchistasya mukhasya kriyatam saucam | also nisthivane tathabhyange tatha padavasecane | ucchistasya ca sambhasadasucyupahatasya ca ||

19 Devdhar to style the poet asminna side by side with jvalanamitra . Probably there is unanimity of opinion that 16. THE SVAPNA AND PRATIJNA 2 are by the same author. The former is a sequel to the latter. Names and characters of the dramatis personce are the same. The Svapna has numerous allusions to the Pratijna. (Cf. VI. 18 last scene). Further comments are deemed unnecessary. 17. THE PRATIMA AND ABHISEKA show so many literal agreements that unity of authorship in their case can scarcely be doubted. Rama is addressed as "Arya" in both, and Sita addresses him as 'Aryaputra '. Arya' is the normal form of address to be used in Iksvaku family.³ There is a remarkable similarity in these plays regarding 18. STYLE, DIALOGUE AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS. The language of these dramas according to Dr. Ganapati Sastri is "clear, lofty and majestic as well as sweet and charming. The sentences are everywhere replete with a wealth of ideas beautifully expressed ".* "7 4 66 Prof. Devdhar has mentioned copious use of alliteration and yamaka as well as the use of long compounds as an indication in the line of common authorship. But on closer study the proportion of such poetic conceits will be found to be too small to the usual simple elegant style, to warrant the inference of common authorship therefrom. From considerations of style, Mr. A. K. Pisharoti would link the Svapna, Prat, Abh and Pratijna as earlier dramas, and the Avi, Panc and Uru are linked as modern ones. It is interesting to note in this connection, that 1 Plays etc., p. 12. 2 Sarup, Vision, Intr, pp. 11-12; Devdhar, Plays etc, p. 80; Winternitz, Calcutta Review, 1924, p. 337; Bulletin of the Ramavarma Research Institute, 1937, p. 1; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 142. Even the antagonists admit common authorship of these two plays. Cf. Johnston, Indian Antiquary, 1933, pp. 95-99; Jahagirdar, Indian Antiquary, 1931, pp. 41-45; Devdhar, Plays etc, pp. 19-20. 3 Dr. Winternitz seems to assign a 19: D 942' 1 (Prat, p. 64) to Bharata (Problems, p. 118). It would seem that the mistake crept in through oversight as the above is the speech of Devakulika. Dr. Winternitz's opinions, as already stated, are now changed. 4 Critical Study, p. 27. 5 Plays etc, p. 19. See Contra, Jayaswal, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1913, p. 261. 6 Criticism, p. 23.

20 Prof. Jahagirdar on the same grounds unites the Svapna and Pratijna with the Panc and assigns the Avi, Prat and Urn to a later date.' plays. There are short dialogues seen everywhere in the All the plays are one and all the works of a born dramatist wonderfully adapted to the stage"." The epithets sutradharakrtarambha, bahubhumika and sapataka can be applied to all these plays and they also show the of the poet, as will be shown in the next chapter. Dandin's remarks grange: etc. admirably suit all these works. A familiar feature of many of these plays is the interest in, one might almost say the 19. SYMPATHY WITH KINGS AND WARRIORS ON THE BRINK OF RUIN, Own whether this be due to a curse or to their wickedness. Karna in the Karna, Duryodhana in the Uru and Panc, and Valin in the Abh are instances in point. Finally, the most convincing proof of common authorship, as noted by Kirata, is furnished by the prevalence of one underlying note in all these plays, viz., of 20. SVARAJYA. The prayer in the epilogue of some of the plays is paracakram prasamyatu | Udayana plays are permeated with the idea of regaining the Vatsa kingdom. The Mahabharata plays. also breathe the note of recovering the kingdom for the Pandavas. In the Bal, Krsna places Ugrasena on the kingdom of Mathura after slaying Kamsa. In the Rama plays, Rama is crowned king towards the end, king of Svarajya. The Avi also gives to its hero the kingdom, and the Car, to judge from its sequel as found in the Mrcchakatika, also tells of the good government being guaranteed to the people by the dethroning of the tyrant Palaka and the crowning of Aryaka. As this idea is found pervading all the plays, it proclaims their common authorship. 1 Indian Antiquary, 1931, pp. 41-45. 2 Winternitz, Problems, p. 129. 3 Woolner and Sarup, Thirteen Trivandrum Plays, Vol. II, p. 145. 4 Marathi translation. pp. 25-26.

21 Thus, a careful study of the problem, under various heads, leads us to the definite conclusion that all the plays are the products of one and the same brain. All the plays are found to be linked and interwoven, inter se, by strong chains. The Car which has been excluded by Prof. Devdhar who vouchsafes for the common authorship of the twelve plays,' has also been proved by us to show many common characteristics. 2 Dr. Raja would deny one author for this group as, according to him, the maximum number of works by a single author is only three, generally one. This does. not seem to be cogent and sound. Against this, the tradition noted above may prove a different thing; further, it may be stated that six dramas of one Vatsaraja have been published in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series. The Pratima is not given a place in the Bhasa dramas as, it is alleged, it refers to it refers to the Bhasya of Medhatithi. But the boast of Ravana of having studied the Manubhasya" would be such a ridiculous anachronism that we must refuse to credit even an alleged plagiarist of tenth or eleventh century with such an abysmal absurdity". Further, the Prat is already shown to be closely related with other plays of the group. SOME CONTRARY VIEWS REFUTED. In Dr. Keith's opinion, "the arguments of Mr. Jahagirdar seem quite insufficient to establish two groups". The differences in style, proportion of metres etc, are due to the exigencies of the subject, different sentiments requiring different styles, and due to the works being written in different periods of the poet's life. Some are his earlier productions, while some are the products of his mature genius. This answers Dr. Barnett, Messrs. Pisharotis, Prof. Woolner, Mr. Sankar, Dr. Johnston and others." Even the works of Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Shakespeare etc. do not show uniformity. 8 As to Prof. Dhruva's arguments, all the MahaPlays etc., pp. 19-20. 2 Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, p. 257. 3 See above, also Gaekwad’s Oriental Series No. 8, Rupakasatkam by Vatsaraja. 4 Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 35; Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 100. 5 Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 132. The point is considered in detail later 6 Letter dated 16-3-32. 7 Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 521; Pisharotis, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 107-108; Woolner, Thirteen Trivandrum Plays, Vol. 1, Intr; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 64; Johnston, Indian Antiquary, 1933, pp. 95-99. 8 Pratima, Ahm, Intr, p. 22, Thakkar Vasanji Lectures, p. 205 N. 18. on.

22 bharata plays are very closely related as would appear from our study above. So the four plays stated by him (viz., the Dv, Dgh, Karna and Uru) cannot be separated from the Mv, and Panc. The Prat and Abh must: definitely be from the pen of the same author as the striking similarities pronounce. The verse tretayugam *** taddhi na maithili sa fan referred to by Abhinavagupta as coming from Bhasa fits in suitably in the Abh and not in the Prat as suggested by Prof. Dhruva.' The discrepancies in the two works observed by Prof. Dhruva are due to the Abh being an earlier work, and also due to the poet's non-observance of the unities of time and place. The points of affinity between the Prat and Abh are so remarkable and convincing that they oust the idea of different authorship or imitation. The similarities in thought noted by us above, cannot be passed over too lightly. The style may be easily imitated, but not the spirit, and many other peculiarities that appertain to an individual. Hence, it is our considered opinion that there are very strong grounds for holding a common authorship. In conclusion, the result of our investigation may thus be expressed in the words of Dr. Sarup: The community of technique, language, style, ideas, treatment and identity of names of dramatis personce, prose and metrical passages and scenes are so remarkable that conclusion of their common authorship is inevitable."* The 1 Dhruva, Pratima, Intr, pp. 28-29. Dv. Abh. Gr, p. 364. We have shown in the next chapter in detail the place of the verse in the Abh. Abhinavagupta cites the verse as coming from Bhasa, and Prof. Dhruva assigns the authorship of seven plays of the group to Bhasa. So the ibh cannot be ruled out. 2 Hindustan Review, 1927, p. 118.