Chapter 2 - Authorship of Bhasa and authenticity of the Trivandrum plays

After having established at least a prima facie case. for holding all the plays to be the productions of one and the same author, the next point to be considered is the 'author' of these plays. The fate of Bhasa seems to be a peculiarly unhappy one. So long, the loss of his works was deplored; but now that the works have appeared before the public, they are "assured to be compilations and adaptations". Is it that the unlucky, inauspicious number thirteen, which happens to be that of the works so far available, has played the trick? I. SVAPNA AND SVAPNAVASAVADATTA -(tta) 2 When MM. Dr. T. Ganapati Sastri published the first edition of the Svapna, the MSS read svapnanatakam (or vasa- vadatta natika ) and the learned editor took them to be the contracted forms of the full name Svapnavasavadatta. Many were the scholars who held that both were quite distinct works. Bhattanatha Swami even objected to the title of the Svapna being given to the Trivandrum work and contended that the subject-matter of the real Svapna was quite distinct from that of the latter. The real Svapna, according to him, deals with the love and marriage of Udayana with Vasavadatta. But in his subsequent tours in search of MSS, Dr. G. Sastri came across four MSS from different sources of which some gave the name Svapnavasavadatta in the colophon." hitherto unutilised palm-leaf Maharastra Sahitya written in old Malayalam characters" used by Dr. Sarup also read Svapnavasava- "A" 1 Keith, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 295. 2 Raddi, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 47, pp. 210-211, 215; Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 35, 521-522; A. K. Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 14, 17; K. Rama Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 110; Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 639-642; Bhattanatha, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 190; Macdonell, India's Past, p. 103; Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1, pp. 233, 237-242, 245 (-printed Svapna abridgment of the first few acts of a bigger drama of that name by Bhasa). 3 Critical Study, p. 18.

24 datta as the title of the work and thus Dr. Sastri's conjecture was supported from a different source." Under these circumstances, it is rather remarkable that as late as in 1925, Prof .K. R. Pisharoti should say-" Local MSS never read Svapnavasavadatta". A further confirmation for holding the works designated by different titles as Svapna Nataka, Svapnavasavadatta or Svapnavasavadatta are identica is furnished by Sakuntalavyakhya, an in the Govt. Oriental MSS Library, Madras; many herein Maharastra Sahitya quotations from a Svapnavasavadatta are found, which are seen without any change in the Trivandrum play." Hence the name Svapnavasavadatta given to that play is indisputable, and the Bhasa theory cannot be assailed simply on account of difference in the title. In dramatic literature at least two works bearing identical titles are not found. Dramatists treating the same subject, e.g. Rama dramas, Udayana dramas, etc. select distinct titles, and the Car and the Mrcchakatika prove the same thing. One of the Kalyanasaugandhikas mentioned by Dr. Barnett is not a dramatic work' and there is nothing to support the existence of another Balacarita. We have shown elsewhere in this work that the quotation in the Sahityadarpana may well be from the Bal as published in the T. S. S. Thus, there being no evidence in support of two dramas bearing the same name, it may safely be assumed that there is only one Svapna in Sanskrit drama. Authorship of one of the plays will establish the authorship of the group. We find in the works on rhetori many references to a Svapnavasavadatta and a couple of references mention the work as well as its author. We shall first consider direct references to a Svapnavasavadatta in their chronological order and see whether the Svapnavasavadattas referred to therein are one or many, and whether they are identical with our work. The direct references are:Vision, preface, p. II. At the colophon, however, evidently through oversight, the name Svapna has been printed instead of Svapnavasavadatta (Vision, p. 62). 2 Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 640. 3 Abhiseka, Lahore, Intr, p. VIII; Venkatarama Sastri, Indian Historical Quarterly, 5, p. 724. 4 Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 33 N; 521; Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 656; Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 107. 5 G. Sastri, Critical Study, p. 21; Khuperkar, Lokasiksana, 5, p. 326; H. Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 10.

25 i. Acarya Abhinavaguptapada (10 th Century). 22. Bhojadeva in the Srngaraprakasa (11 th Century). iii. Saradatanaya in the Bhavaprakasa (12 th Century). iv. Sarvananda in the Amarakosatikasarvasva (12 th Century). Ramacandra and Gunacandra in the Natyadarpana (End of the 12 th Century). vi. Sagaranandin in the Natakalaksana Ratnakosa (13 th or 14 th Century). vii. Sakuntalavyakhya (14 th Century). ABHINAVAGUPTA. i. While commenting on Bharata's Natyasastra, I. 74, Abhinavagupta refers to the krida in a Svapnavasavadatti- kacit krida | yatha svapnavasavadattayam | This refers to the kanduka-krida mentioned in Act II, though Dr. Raja would take it to refer to the incidents in Acts V and VI of the printed Svapna. MM.Kuppuswami Sastri holds the Svapna mentioned by Abhinavagupta as different from our text, as hilarious merriment (krida) is not the chief feature (pradhana) in the plot of our play; while Bhattanatha Swami, accepting that our play has krida in it, doubts its authenticity on other grounds.2 After Pravesaka, the second act opens with the stage direction tatah pravisati kandukena israt quat quizaini angazaar a (Svapna, p. 40) and this should leave no doubt as to our play containing krida and Abhinavagupta referring to our text by 'Svapnavasavadatta." ii. A hot controversy has raged over the noninclusion in our present text of the verse mentioned by Abhinavagupta as occurring in a Svapna. The context is: drsyante ca kavayo'lamkara nibandhanaikarasa anapeksitarasah prabandhesu | from the Dhvanyaloka. Abhinavagupta illustrates the remark by: yatha svapnavasavadattakhye natake, sancitapaksmakavatam nayanadvaram svarupatadanena | udghatya sa pravista hrdayagrham me nrpatanuja || * | It appears from this that the verse from the Svapna is an instance where poets care only for figures (alamkaras) paying no regard to sentiments (rasas). This verse is not found in the present text and this has led many a 1 Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 234. 2 Kuppuswami Sastri, Ascarya, Intr., p. 26: Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 234, n. 3; Bhattanatha, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 193. 3 Dhvanyalokalocana, Uddyota 3, p. 152.

26 critic to regard our text with suspicion.' There is a difference of opinion amongst the Bhasaites as to the probability of the verse finding a place in our text. MM. Dr. T. Ganapati Sastri and others opine that the verse cannot find a place in our Svapna as it suits neither Padmavati nor Vasavadatta, since the verse, according to them refers to love at first sight. Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri endorses the same view stating: "This verse does not admittedly find any place anywhere in the Svapna of the T. S. S."; but remarks that Abhinavagupta's great authority cannot be impugned without very strong. grounds." Now, as we have found Abhinavagupta's testimony to be correct in one instance, the same presumption applies to it in the other instance. So We must assume that the verse etc. occurred in the text at the time of Abhinavagupta. The verse may find a place. in the dream-scene. The verse, in plain words, means that the speaker's eyes had been closed and a la lady's appearance opened them so that she entered his heart. The king in his half-drowsy state actually actually sees Vasavadatta going away from him and says to Vidusaka who enters at the moment : vayasya ! priyamavedaye| dharate khalu vasavadatta and by way of explanation repeats the verse in question." The context is admirably suited for the verse and pleads guilty to the charge of the sentiment (rasa) being subservient to the figure (alamkara), as "the occasion after the dream when the king actually saw for the first time that his beloved wife was alive was certainly an occasion fit for an outburst of an uncontrollable sentiment and not for a poor and plodding metaphor 27.5 1 H. Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, pp. 10-11; A. K. Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 14-15; Bhattanatha, Indian Antiquary, 45, pp. 190-192; Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 100; Bhavaprakasana, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, No. 40, Intr, p. 47. 2 G. Sastri, Critical Study, p. 19; Harihar Sastri, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 375 Journal of Oriental Research, 2, pp. 216-217; Hirananda Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 11; Bhattanatha Swami, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 190; Winternitz (on other grounds), Problems, p. 125; Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1922, p. 81; Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 104; Dr. Thomas has changed his opinion later on (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, pp. 985-989). 3 Ascarya, Intr, p. 24. 4 Svapna, p. 11. Paranjape, Pratima, Intr, p. XIX. The context for the verse is :- raja --- vayasya ! priyamavedaye | dharate khalu vasavadatta | 1 sancitapaksmakatratam nayanadvaram svarupatadanena | udghatya sa pravista hrdayagrham me nrpatanuja || (Svapna, p. 112.) according to Dhruva, Svapna upar navo prakas, Ahm., 1927, pp. 9-10; Paranjape, Pratima, Intr, pp. XVII-XX; Raja, Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, p. 257; Journal of Oriental Research, I, pp. 231-233; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 142, 272-273;-the verse may find a place in the printed text at the context given above. Mr. Sankar (Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 46) however, places it after Svapna VI. 1.

27 The omission of the verse from our text seems to be due to the scribe's mistake or probably the verse is purposely ousted in deference to the criticism levelled against it. In any way, it is too much. argue that Abhinavagupta is quoting from another Svapna, merely on the ground of the omission of a single verse, which can be explained. This does not, at any rate, prove that there have been very serious alterations in the text. The evidence of the Sakuntala, Uttararama carita, as also of Macbeth are quite in point. BHOJADEVA in the 12 th Prakasa of his Srigaraprakasa states: svapnavasavadatte padmavatimasvastham drastum raja samudragrhakam gatah | padmavatirahitam ca tadavalokya tasya eva sayaniye susvapa | vasavadattam ca svamavadasvapne dadarsa | svamayamanasca vasavadattamababhase | svapnasabdena ceha svapo va svapnadarsanam va svapnayitam va vivaksitam | mentioning some incidents from a Svapna. These incidents, it will be readily admitted, closely resemble the events described in the fifth act of our text, testifying at the same time to our text being the same as known to Bhojadeva. SARADATANAYA in the eighth Adhikara of his Bhavaprakasa illustrates Prasanta Nataka by discussing in detail the entire plot of a Svapna. It is admitted on all hands that our 1 Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, No. 40, pp. 238-239:- tu | prasantarasabhuyistham prasantam nama natakam | nyaso nyasasamudbhedo bijoktirbijadarsanam || tato'nuddistasamharah prasante panca sandhayah | satvati vrttiratra syaditi drauhinirabravit || svapnavasavadattakhyamudaharanamatra bhacchidya bhupad vyasanad devi magadhikakare | nyasta yatastato nyasanmukhasandhirayam bhavet || nyasasya ca pratimukham samudbheda udahrtam | padmavatya mukham viksya visesaka vibhusitam | jivasyavanti ketye tajjnatam bhumibhuja yatha || utkanthitena sodvegam bijoktinabhikirtanam | ehi vasavadatteti ca yasityadi drsyate || sahavasthitayorekam prapyanyasya gavesanam | darsana sparsanalapairetatsyad bijadarsanam || (atrodaharanam ) ciraprasuptah kamo me vinaya pratibodhitah |

28 text generally answers in structure and quotation, the details given by Saradatanaya. There are Some inconsistencies of a minor character, but they can be explained on the assumption of different recensions of the play. Thus, e. g. the verse does not padmavatya mukham viksya visesakavibhusitam | jivatyavanti ketye tajjnatam bhumibhuja yatha || occur in the extant work. But a similar incident is found in our Svapna and the verse has been assigned a proper place. Dr. Sarup thinks that the situation is contained in the portrait-incident in our text." It seems rather to be a far-fetched interpretation, and the two are not similar. Prof. Dhruva's attempt at getting the incident by amending Vidusaka's speech, has been rightly called a wholly unwarranted emendation by Prof. Devdhar. Dr. Ganapati Sastri has shown that we should read the verse padmavatya mukham viksya etc. after Swapna, V. 8 ( sayyayam etc) in our text. The last pada of the verse is required to be changed into eva pura maya | The change seems to have been made by Saradatanaya to suit his context. " Saradatanaya's testimony would thus be found quite insufficient to postulate the existence of another Svapna. tam tu devim na pasyami yasya ghosavati priya || kim te bhuyah priyam kuryamiti vagyatra nocyate | tamanuddistasamhara mityahurbharatadayah 1 Vision, Intr, p. 29. The incident referred to is :- dhatri - pekkhadu pekkhadu bhattidaria | [ citraphalakam darsayati ] (Svapa, VI. 3.) padmavati (drstva atmagatam ) - ham adimadisi khu iam ayyae bhavantikae | ( prakasam ) ayyautta sadisi khu iam bhayyae | sadisitti | raja-na sadrsi | seveti manye | ...... padmavati- bhayyauttarasa padikidi pekkhina janami iam ayyae sadisi na vetti | dhatri - pekkhadu pekkhadu bhattidaribha | padmavati (drstva ) - ayya uttassa padikidie sadisadae janami raja - devi citradarsanatprabhrti prahrstodvignamitra tvam pasyami | kimidam | padmavati - ayyautta imae padikidie sadisi iha evva padivasadi | raja -- kim vasavadattayah | padmavati ama | iam abhyae (Tision, Text, pp. 57-58) 2 Dhruva, Svapna upar navo prakas, p. 10; Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 58. 3 Srapna, (p. 113) commentary. See also Sankar, ANM, 2, p. 48,

29 It only shows that there were different recensions of the Svapna, and our text represents a different recension to that used by Saradatanaya. Similar omissions are found in the Southern editions of the Sakuntala and Meghaduta, etc.¹ SARVANANDA in his Amarakosatikasarvasva mentions three divisions. of Srngara, viz. dharma, artha and kuma srngara.2 Nandayanti' is cited as an instance of the first, and the third has been exemplified in a Svapna by the marriage of Udayana with Vasavadatta. Thus, Sarvananda apparently says that the Svapna is concerned with the marriage of Udayana with Vasavadatta, and as our text deals with Udayana's marriage with Padmavati, Bhattanatha Swami, Pisharotis, and others declare our text as spurious and only an actors' version." But, it will be seen that the quotation is rather defective and faulty, in that it mentions artha-srngura but leaves out of account the example therefor. Editorial pruning" is therefore necessary to give symmetry and completeness to the quotation; it requires the transposition of a single word viz. svapnavasavadatte before trtiyah, and reading tatraiva for tasyaiva . Thus the quotation would read: 66 ... dvitiyah svadisamatmasatkartumudayanasya padmavatiparinayo'rtha srngarah svapnavasavadatte | trtiyastatraiva vasavadattaparinayah kamasrngarah | Further, Bhojadeva, Saradatanaya and Sagaranandin (as we shall presently see) concur in making Padmavati's. marriage, the theme of the Svapna. Hence Dr. Ganapati Sastri's emendation is an a priori solution of the difficulty"." So the Svapna illustrates artha-srngara (political marriage). ae That the Svapna includes kama-srngara has been 1 In the Sakuntala the following verses among others are omitted in the Southern recensions; I. 10 7 GG I EZ : etc (Ray's edition, 1935, pp. 90-91); kulyambhobhih pavanacapalaih ete (ib. p. 102) ; apyautsukye mahati etc. (ib. p. 337) ; also pp. 341--344 (9 verses). Srirangam Edn. ofthe Meghaduta based on the commentary of Purnasarasvati omits ten verses which formed part of the poem in 800 A. D. 2 trividhah srngarah dharmarthakamabhinnah | tatradyo yatha nandayantyam brahmanabhojanam | dvitiyah svadisamatmasatkartumudrayanasya padmavatiparinayo'rthasrngarah | trtiyah svapnavasavadatte tasyaiva vasavadattaparinayah kamasrngarah | 3 Bhattanatha, Indian Antiquary, 45, p. 190; A.K. Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 14-15. K. R. Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly,.1, p. 106. 4 G. Sastri, Critical Study, p. 19; Harihar Sastri,I HQ, 1, pp. 374-375; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 47; Sarup, Vision, Intr., pp. 25-27. 5 Sukthankar Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 142.

30 shown by referring to the dream-scene, but it does not refer to Vasavadatta-parinaya; therefore, according to Dr. Sarup, Dhatri's speech in the sixth act referring to the romantic marriage of Vasavadatta illustrates kama-srngara (love marriage). Sarvananda's quotation being thus quite reasonably explicable, it cannot help to proclaim our text as spurious or stage version. The most important evidence throwing a flood of light over the authorship of Svapna is the one from the Natyadarpana of RAMACANDRA AND GUNACANDRA, first given by Dr. Levi in Journal Asiatique, 1923, p. 197 (foot-note). It runs: yatha bhasakrte svapnavasavadatte sephalika silatalamavalokya vatsarajah-- padakrantani puspani sopma cedam silatalam | nunam kacidihasina mam drstva sahasa nata || (V. L. gata ) " The words bhasakrte preceding svapnavasavadate in the above quotation are used, according to Dr. Levi, to distinguish it from another Svapna by a different author. There are no instances of two dramatic works being docketted by the same title as was pointed out above. The term was prefixed to the word Svapnavasavadatta as the public were unfamiliar "with the play or its authorship"." That it does not presuppose another Svapna is proved by the fact that the same treatise describes the Mrcchakatika as sudrakaviracitam, which could not have been appended to distinguish it from the Daridra Carudatta which is already distinct. Now, the printed Svapna does not contain the above verse (and also the context, according to Dr. Levi) and hence it is not the 'authentic' Svapna according to Dr. Levi, nor is it by Bhasa. We shall see whether it can find any place in the printed drama. It will be seen that it can occur, if at all, in the fourth act of the play, where Dr. Levi finds 'dislocated' elements of the original Bhasa scene. Dr. Sukthankar has explained the situation in detail and 1 Cf. Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 238, says that Vasavadatta-parinaya might have formed the concluding portion of the real Svapna; but, as we shall show later on, there is only one Svapna, represented by the printed text. 2 Sarup, Vision, Intr, p. 27. The context is on p. 133 of the Svapna; Vision of Vasavadatta, Text, p. 57. Mr. Sankar, however, leaves Kama-srngara without an example, as no example was needed, it being a common theme of most Sanskrit plays. Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 47. Natyadarpana, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series No. 48, p. 84. 4 Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, pp. 106-107; Winternitz, Calcutta Review, December 1924, p. 341. 5 Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 101; cf. Levi, Journal Asiatique, 1923, p. 199.

31 has rightly concluded that the verse may occur after tattabhodi pahumavadi iha aacchi niggada bhatre (p. 72 ) as - raja ( sephalika etc. (Svapna, IV.2 a).' That is the right place for the verse, and after what Dr. Sukthankar has written about it, we deem it unnecessary to cover the same ground. There is no great "dislocation"-no lacuna of the elements of the original scene. All that is needed is the replacement of the verse at a point where there is a hiatus in our version. Dr. Raja objects to the above suggestion on the ground of the repetition of the king's speech by the jester." We see no repetition of the sense of the king's speech in the jester's remarks. The jester observes the plucking and gathering of flowers, while the king refers to the crushing of flowers. The jester's inference as to the lady being Padmavati stands to reason, because what he means to say is that the royal pleasure-garden being rather under the exclusive control of Padmavati, none but her ladyship alone would collect flowers from her sephalika bower. Dr. Raja recasts some of the passages and gives his version of how the scene might have read originally. Prof. Dhruva also tries a similar device as the text is a according to him." We find that no such emendations are necessary. The verse is simply to be placed in the context. MM. Dr. G. Sastri places the verse at Svapna, p. 45, but the context there does not suit the verse. The usual mistake of the scribe or the ultra-cleverness of some hyper-critical Kerala Pandita is responsible for the loss of the verse from the text. Instances of changes in the Northern and Southern recensions of the same Maharastra Sahitya are not rare, and the absence of a verse or two is not a sufficient reason for arguing the existence of a different text by a different author. The above quotation from the Natyadarpana leaves no doubt as to the authorship of Bhasa of the Svapna, and if our text is proved to be identical with the Svapna that we read of in the Sanskrit literature (which by now we have sufficiently proved) the whole series of thirteen dramas published in the T. S. S. will have to be ascribed to Bhasa. 1 Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 135-137, 271-272; Levi, Journal Asiatique, 1923, pp. 198-199. 2 JOB, 1, p. 236. 3 Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1, p. 236; Dhruva, Svapna upar navo prakas, pp. 6-7.

32 Dr. Levi, in the same article, refers to another treatise on dramaturgy quoting an extract therefrom bearing on the present question. in SAGARANANDIN his Natakalaksanaratnakosa while discussing the manner of transition from the prologue to the main scene, apparently cites from a Svapnavasavadatta.- yatha svapnavasava- datte, nepathye sutradharah ( utsaranam srutva pathati ) | sraye katham tapovane'pyutsarana (vilo- kya ) katham mantri yaugandharayani vatsarajasya rajyapratyanayanam kartukamah padmavatiyajaneno- saryate | ityutsarana sabdo'na purvakaprayogamutsarya natakarthasucaka iti prayogatisayah | not tally with the printed text. prologue is worded thus : sutradharah - sranga pasyami | This doe (nepathye ) ussaraha ussaraha | ayya ! ussaraha | sutradharah -- bhavatu, vijnatam | bhrtyairmagadharajasya snigdhah kanyanugamibhih | dhrstamutsaryate sarvastapovanagati 37: 11 There the On account of the difference between the two, Dr. Levi, Prof. Pisharoti and others regard our text with suspicion as an adaptation. Dr. Raja finds in Sagaranandin a support for the particular meaning he attaches to the expression MM. Dr. G. Sastri, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Sukthankar, Prof. Dhruva and others on the other hand, explain the difference on the ground that Sagaranandin was quoting from memory or giving in his own words the contents of the prastavana or quoting from a variant text. The above assumptions, especially that of stating in his own words, seem to be confirmed by the wording of the quotation, e. g such words as padmavatiya, nepathye sutradharah, utsaranam srukha in place of the usual padmavatijana, nepathye utsaranam srutva sutradharah etc. The extract from the Sakuntalavyakhya which will be considered next, also shows that Sagaranandin was stating the contents of the sthapana in his own words. The two extracts discovered by Dr. Levi show that our Trivandrum play is a Southern recension of the drama of Bhasa. Finally, we come to 1 Levi. 2 kalaksanaratnakosa, edited by M. Dillon, 11, 1923, p. 217. has recently been published by the Oxford University Press (London, 1987). This quotation occurs in that work on p. 51. 2. Levi, J 4, 1928, pp. 179-217; Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 108; Devdhar, Plays etc, p. 60; Hirananda, MAST, 28, p. 11. 3 Journal of Oriental Research 1. p. 237. 4 G. Sastri, Critical Study, pp. 117-118; Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, p. 103; 1928, p. 878; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 275; Dhruva, Svapna upar navo prakas, 5 pp. 5-6. Sarup, Vision, Intr, pp. 29-35; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 137-138. 274-276.

- 33 SAKUNTALAVYAKHYA' referred to above. It refers (p. 30) to the prastavana of a Svapna in identical words as are found in our svapnavasavadattayam - evamaryamisranu vijnapayami | sraye ! kinnu khalu mayi vijnapanavyagre sabda iva sruyate | anga pasyami | ( nepathye ) ussaraha ussaraha ayya ussaraha | etc. We thus find that this writer was familiar with the southern recension of Bhasa, which is identical with the printed text, and and that our conclusion that differences in quotations are due to different versions of the same text is supported. Direct references to the Svapna, so far as we know, are all given above. All of them refer to one and the same Svapna, and the printed text represents a southern recension of the same in some cases. Thus, Abhinavagupta refers to the second and fifth act of our play, Bhojadeva to the fifth, Saradatanaya to the first, fourth, fifth and sixth, Sarvananda to the third, fourth and fifth, Ramacandra and Gunacandra to the fourth, and Sagaranandin and Sakuntalavyakhya to the prologue of our play. All the references being found in the printed text, there is no ground to support multiplicity of the Svapna by different authors. The Natyadarpana mentions in clear and unmistakable terms, Bhasa as the author of the Svapna, which we have proved to be identical with our text. Some quotations from the printed Svapna are found in works of different rhetoricians and authors without mentioning either its name or that of its author. Dandin in his Kavyadarsa (II. 280), without mentioning the work or the author, quotes the following:- mrteti pretya samgantum yaya me maranam matam | saisavanti maya labdha kathamatraiva janmani || Though this does not occur in the Svapna nor has it been specifically assigned by its author to a Svapna, we are inclined to think that it might have belonged to the northern recension of our play. Its place in our text is after VI. 17.3 Nearly all the above citations, direct as well as inIHQ, 5, pp. 721-728; R. No. 2778 in Govt. Oriental MSS Library, Madras. Sakuntalavyakhya quotes from the Car, Dgh, Panc, Bal, Svapna, and Avi. 2 Dhruva, Svapna upar navo prakas, pp. 4-6. 3 Lindenau (Bhasa-Studien, p. 18) and Devdhar (Plays etc. p. 61) mention only the stanza by Dandin. It probably formed part of the King's speech, after Svapna, VI. 17. (p. 141) satyamevedam | mrteti pretya samgantum etc. (Kavyadarsa, II. 280)

34 direct, postulate the existence of one Svapna only, and that also from Bhasa. Some authors, notably Abhinavagupta, Ramacandra and Gunacandra, Sarvananda etc., seem to militate against the unity of the Svapna, but "the most that can be made out from these facts against the ascription to Bhasa is simply that there were probably varying recensions of the plays". Having ascribed the Svapna to Bhasa on the authority of the Natyadarpana, further evidence in support is to be considered. That is supplied by RAJASEKHARA who in his Suktimuktavali states: bhasanatakacakre'pi chekaih ksipte pariksitum | svapnavasavadattasya dahako'bhunna pavakah || The wording, expression and sense of the verse is so simple that it need not detain us long. It says: when critics subjected the cycle of Bhasa's dramas to the test of fire ordeal, fire did not burn the Svapna. It thus speaks of two things: Bhasa wrote a number of dramas and the Svapna was one of them. The idea of a rival Svapna worked out by Dr. Raja on the strength of this stanza is, as noted by G. Harihar Sastri, absurd for a number of reasons." the Leaving aside the question of the authenticity of quotation for a moment, we think it will be acceptable that the meaning is quite clear that "the Svapna of Bhasa survived exposure to the fire of criticism, when his dramas were exposed to the ordeal by experts". This is confirmed by the tradition recorded in the Prthvirajavijaya, and its commentary. Messrs. Pisharotis, Dr. Raja and others, have tried to reduce the statement of Rajasekhara to an absurdity by quoting stanzas from Kavivimarsa alleged to be from Rajasekhara, which identify Bhasa (the pre-Kalidasan poet) with Dhavaka (a post-Kalidasan poet) and credit 1 So according to Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. XV. 2 Journal of Oriental Research, I, p. 227. It is interesting to see how Dr. Raja comes to the meaning: Bhasa's dramas contained conflagration scenes. These fires burnt all other dramas (i. e. excelled them); but Svapna alone remained safe this interpretation the Svapna was a rival to Bhasa's works. Journal of Oriental Research, 2, p. 216. 4 Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. XIII. 5 Pythvirajacarita, 1. 3. bhasasya kavyam khalu visnudharmanso'pyananaptaratavanmumoca | Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 43; G. Sastri, Critical Study, App. II (b). 3

35 him with the authorship of the Priyadarsika, Ratnavah, Nagananda, Udattaraghava, Kiranavali and Svapnavasavadatta. ! The context of the verses in the Kavivimarsa has been shown by Messrs. Sesha Iyer, G. Harihar Sastri to be a recent forgery, and Dr. Keith accepts the conclusion taking the forgery as "gross and palpable"." The extract from the Kavivimarsa is a patchwork of truth and falsehood. The spuriousness of the stanzas I would be evident from the curious statements they make, e.g. Kiranavali, a work on logic by Udayanacarya, is a tragedy of Bhasa, and Udattaraghava also is a Nataka of Bhasa. There is no reference to Kavivimarsa in whole of Sanskrit literature. 8 the It seems that some Pandit, in imitation of the genuine stanzas of Rajasekhara, composed verses in praise of Dhavaka and inserted the genuine Rajasekhara stanza viz. bhasanatakacakre spi o etc. in them. In condemning the extract as fraudulent and spurious, the stanza bhasanatakacakre'pi o etc. cannot be dismissed 1 K. R. Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, pp. 105-106; Indian Historical Quarterly, 5, pp. 552-554; A. K. Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 13-14 ; Raja, Journal of Oriental Research, 1, pp. 226-227. The stanzas are: karanam tu kavitvasya na sampanna kulinata | dhavako'pi hi yad bhasah kavinamagrimo'bhavat || adau bhasena racita natika priyadarsika | niriyasya rasajnasya kasya na priyadarsana || tasya ratnavali nunam ratnamaleva rajate | dasarupakakaminya vaksasyatyantasobhana || naganandam samalokya yasya sriharsavikramah | amandanandabharitah udattaraghavam svasabhyamakarotkavim || nunamudattarasagumphitam | yadviksya bhavabhutadyah praninyurnatakani vai || sokaparyavasana ya navanka kiranavali | makandasyeva kasyadya pradadati na nirvrtim || bhasanatakacakre'pi chekaih ksipte pariksitum | svapnavasavadattasya dahako'bhunna pavakah || | 3. 12 Sesha Iyer, THQ, 1, p. 361; G. Harihar Sastri, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, pp. 370-378; Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. XIV. "Dr. Sukthankar's acceptance (in Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925) of this foolish and obvious forgery is regrettably uncritical". Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. XIV. 3 Cf. Bhattanatha, Mayuraja, Indian Antiquary, 41, pp. 141-142; G. Haribar Sastri, THQ, 1, p. 372; also bhumika to Priyadarsika by Krishnamacharya, pp. XXV to XXVI. 4 Genuine stanzas collected by Peterson in Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 17, pp. 57-71. The composer of the stanzas is said to be Narayana Sastri (Potti's Intr. to Avi,). Cf. also Sesha Iyer, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 361.

36 as a 'forgery', "of doubtful authority", and "proving nothing" its authenticity has been proved by the independent evidence of the Suktimuktavali of Jalhana ( 12 th Century A.D.), where it is definitely ascribed to Rajasekhara. tu Assuming that the whole context, alleged to be from the Kavivimarsa vis. etc., is a genuine one, we shall see whether any meaning can be extracted from it. Dr. Sarup tries to bridge over the absurdity by noting the tradition that makes Dhavaka a contemporary of Sri Harsa and the real author of the works that pass off as Sri Harsa's. Dr. Sarup takes 'Bhasa' in the verses preceding bhasanatakacakre'pi e etc. to mean 'illustrious', and translates: "Neither wealth nor noble descent can account for poetic power, for the illustrious (Bhasa) Dhavaka became the foremost of poets. By the illustrious (poet) (Bhasena) was composed in the beginning a play called Priyadarsika 'Thus interpreted,' says Dr. Sarup, 'the passage neither clouds the reliability of Rajasekhara's statement nor gives any indication of the existence of two Bhasas'." The interpretation, however, appears to be unsatisfactory and far from convincing. We think that the extract compares Dhavaka with Bhasa. In the two genuine Rajasekhara stanzas, viz. sarasvatipavitranam etc. and aho prabhavo vagdevyah etc., the poet has compared a potter ( kulula) Drona to Vyasa, a matanga ( untouchable) Divakara to Bana and Mayura, and similarly a washerman Dhavaka to Bhasa. Now the tradition ascribing the authorship of the Priyadarsika, Nagananda etc. has been shown to be genuine and a long-standing one. The comparison of Dhavaka with Bhasa seems to have been instituted on account of the modelling of the Priyadarsika and Ratnavali on the Svapna 1 K. Rama Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 5, pp. 553-554. 2 Vision, Intr., pp.21-25. sarasvatipavitranam jatistatra na dehinam | vyasaspardhi kulalo'bhudyad drono bharate kavih || aho prabhavo vagdevya yanmatangadivakarah | sriharsasyabhavatsabhyah samo banamayurayoh || 4 Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 373; Sarup, Vision, Intr., pp. 22-23; Paranjape, Sahityasamgraha, 1, pp. 141-186. Prof. Paranjape worked out the parallelisms and analogies between the Priyadarsika, Ratnavali and Nagananda on the one hand and the Trivandrum Bhasa plays on the other, to prove Bhasa's authorship of all these works. The whole attempt, however, is already discredited as subversive of the accepted chronology of Indian writers.

37 and Pratijna of the latter. Bhasaina az ma:, we translate as : (as if Bhasa; like the genuine Bhasa) and in the next stanzas (etc.), the poet apparently identifies Bhasa with Dhavaka; but the previous stanzas referring to a kulala Drona and a matanga Divakara remind us that the modern Dhavaka is compared with ancient Bhasa. The last stanza bhasanatakacakre'pi etc. brings together all the works of Bhasa (the ancient, as well as modern, i. e., including the works of Dhavaka) and pronounces its judgment in favour of the Svapna. Thus we find that in either case, Rajasekhara's statement testifies to Bhasa's authorship, among a number of dramas, of the Svapna. This testimony of Rajasekhara, coupled with that of the Natyadarpana, conclusively proves Bhasa's authorship of the Svapna. BANA in the introductory stanzas to his Harsacarita mentions some of the characteristics of Bhasa's dramas: sutradharakrtarambhairnatikairbahubhumikaih | sapatakairyaso lebhe bhaso devakulairiva || Cowell and Thomas have translated the verse: "Bhasa gained as much splendour by his plays with introductions spoken by the manager, full of various characters and furnished with startling episodes, as he would have done by the erection of temples, created by architects, adorned with several storeys and decorated with banners". A hot controversy has raged over the interpretation, meaning and significance as also the applicability of this stanza, and we shall consider it in parts sutradharakrtarambhaih ; bahubhumikaih and sapatakaih | The statement sutradharakrtarambhaih which has been mentioned as a characteristic of Bhasa, prima facie applies to the Trivandrum plays as they are begun by the Sutradhara. after the performance of nandi in the green-room. ( nandyante tatah pravisati sutradharah ) It is to be noted in this connection that we are not proving the authorship or authenticity of the Trivandrum plays on this statement of 1 Harsacarita, trans. Cowell and F. W. Thomas, London, 1897. p. 3.

38 Bana, but we are confirming our conclusion, already arrived at from the Natyadarpana and Rajasekhara. In their enthusiasm to 'kill' Bhasa,' many scholars have unfortunately lost sight of the clear issues and have brought in much that is irrelevant and that obscures the problem; some of the protagonists also have fallen into the same pit. It is said, that if the stage direction nandyante tatah pravisati be taken as characterizing Bhasa's works, the number of such works would be infinite. Many of the South Indian plays such as the Tapatisamvarana, Subhadradhananjaya, Mattavilasa, Ascaryacudamani, Caturbhani etc. and Southern MSS of Kalidasa, Harsa, Visakhadatta etc. also begin in the same way. Prof. K. Rama Pisharoti has further strengthened his position by adducing Maharastra Sahitya evidence. The expression etc. is thus said to be vitiated by ativyapti, as it extends to a number of Sanskrit dramas that are definitely known to be by other writers. Now, the statement by Bana must evidently be taken to refer to the works written either before his time, or at best contemporaneous with him. It would be absurd to suppose. that Bana was "presuming to give the characteristics of plays which were to be written after his death". Thus all the South Indian plays fall out of the list. Again, these and the Southern MSS of Kalidasa, Harsa etc. are quite distinct and need no inference as to their authorship from ara etc, on account of the names of their authors being mentioned in explicit terms. So, if at all, the ativyapti would cover the Bhagavadajjukiya, Traivikrama and Damaka Prahasana. Of these, the first has been shown to be by Bodhayana; and Traivikrama, apparently later than Bana's time being composed in the middle of the twelfth century, has been ascribed to a Cakyar, possibly Nilakantha, by K. Rama Pisharoti. As to Damaka, Dr. Jolly has proved it, as we shall subsequently see, to be a compilation by Cakyars. Thus, the statement etc nandyante 1 Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 4, p. 631. 2 Paranjape, Pratima, Intr. p. XIII. 3 Hirananda Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India,28, pp. 4-6; A. K. Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 8-12; Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 42-44; K. Rama Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, pp. 333-334, SSOS. 6, pp. 819-821; Barnett, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921, pp. 87-89. 4 Bhagavadajjukiyam, Int., by Achan and preface by Winternitz; Pisharoti, Shama'a, 1924, pp. 213-222; Jolly, Festgabe Garbe, pp. 115-121.

39 is not wide enough as is contended. In this connection, the presence of the same peculiarity of ra etc in the Mattavilasa of Mahendravikramavarman furnishes us with some interesting information which, though strictly not relevant here, is given here on account of its importance. From the dates generally ascribed to Bana and Mahendravikramavarman both appear to be contemporaries; it is not clear who was the senior of the two. Now, Bana refers to the state of affairs of his time. If he is earlier than Mahendravikrama, there is no doubt as to his statement applying only to Bhasa. But if Bana is later than Mahendravikrama there are two possibilities: either the MSS of the Mattavilasa in Bana's time might have read differently, or if the MSS read a etc. as now, Bana must be taken to have known for certain that Bhasa was the pioneer in that field, for Bana cannot be taken to include a contemporary work among Bhasa's works. It may be asked why we do not dismiss the Mattavilasa from the list, as in the case of others, on account of its being ascribed to a definite author. But the Mattavilasa stands distinct from the other MSS in that it is contemporaneous with Bana, and Bana does not mention : as a characteristic of Bhasa. The natural inference from this is that Bhasa MSS in Bana's time did contain the name of the author in their prastavana or sthapana; and therefore, that the present sthapanas are, as Dr. Sukthankar and Prof. Dhruva seem to suggest, mutilated and contain some later additions.' The portion containing the name of the author and the piece in the prastavana which existed in Bana's time is now not to be seen. If the changes be due to some uniform process worked in the South, MSS of Bhasa if unearthed in the North will, it is hoped, solve the problem conclusively. Further, much is sought to be made of the testimony of Visvanatha of the fifteenth century, who observes in connection with the position of Nandi and Sutradhara :- ataeva praktanapustakesu 'nandyante sutradharah ' ityanantarameva 'vedantesu- ' ityadi sloka- likhanam drsyate | yacca pascat 'nandyante sutradharah ' iti likhanam tasyayamabhiprayah- nandyante sutradhara idam prayojitavan itah prabhrti natakamupadiyata iti kaverabhiprayah sucita iti | 1 Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 138; Dhruva, Svapna upar navo prakas, pp. 6-11. Also, Sarup, Vision, Intr., p. 28; Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, pp. 877, 899.

40 (p. 63, Prof. Kane's edition). The Vikramorvasiya is here given as an instance of the practice of old MSS in deference to the views of some writer (f). From the critical apparatus to Hillebrandt's edition of the Mudraraksasa we know that one of the very best MSS of the Mudraraksasa places the words nanyante etc. before the introductory stanza. Visvanatha notices herein an exceptional case. And an exception only proves the rule, even according to Visvanatha, that the recital of the Nandi and not the entrance of the Sutradhara commenced a play; and under these circumstances Bana must have used the expression to distinguish Bhasa's plays from others which followed the usual practice of a Nandi beginning a play." sutradharakrtarambha In spite of the ingenious efforts by Dr. Banerji Sastri and Dr. Lindenau to show that refers to the stage reform of Bhasa, in combining the functions of the Sutradhara and the Sthapaka, the shortening of the preliminaries and relegating them to the green-room, we think that the verse, in this sense, is merely descriptive and does not serve as signifying any special characteristic of Bhasa. Bana wanted to compare Bhasa's plays with temples-"in the same words with some not very obvious objects of comparison."* At the same time, we do not see in these words any special features of Bhasa such as the Sutradhara taking part in the drama, as is maintained by Dr. Raja." To turn to the other pudas of the verse, noted Bhasa's dramas as bahubhumika and sapataka of these, Dr. Raja and others refuse to see characters and episodes in these dramas. Bana has As to both numerous As to it may be said that Bana uses the term taking into consideration the proportion of the length of the dramas to the number of characters, viz. small one act plays have comparatively many characters. Or perhaps it may be that Bana means by it, and every one will endorse the view that our dramas 1 Konow, Indian Antiquary, 49, p. 234. 2 Paranjape, Pratima, Intr., p. XIV. 3 Banerji Sastri, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921, pp. 368-369; Lindenau, Bhasa-Studien, pp. 36, 37. 4 Keith, Sanskrit Drama, p. 91; Cf. also Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 130-131; Raddi, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 47, p. 212; Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 97. 5 Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, 1 p. 254-255; Journal of Oriental Research, 1, pp. 228-230. We are inclined to take Bana's statement as referring to the particular mode of opening adopted in the Bhasa dramas which is generally uniform, viz. of the Prayogatisaya type. 6 Raja, Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, pp. 255-256; Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 44; Raddi, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 47, pp. 212-213.

41 introduce characters of various types and vicissitudes. or It has been boldly asserted that there are no patakas in our collection of dramas." True it is, that the episodes (patakas) in our dramas are not up to the standard of some of the best ones in literature, but that does not mean that they are not episodes, they are episodes all the same." Instances are: the episode of Padmavatiparinaya in the Svapna, Valivadha and Sugrivakatha in the Abh, Vidusaka Katha Angulikavrtta in the Avi, Sajjalaka-Madanika Katha in the Car, Bharata Katha in the Prat, Vina Kathanaka in the Pratijna, and Sankarsana Katha in the Bal. Out of the one-act plays, the episode of the Brahmanas may be taken as an instance of pataka from the Mv. It would thus be clear that nearly all the Trivandrum plays contain patakas and thus answer the description by Bana. 3 Some take 'pataka' to mean 'patakasthanaka'; but both are quite distinct terms and there is no chance of the one being mistaken for the other. Still, if pataka is taken to mean 'Dramatic irony', the instances of the latter given in the first Chapter (Sec. 4, Patakasthanaka) will show that the term is applicable to our plays in that sense also. Prof. Kane objects to the use of the term Nataka for all the plays in our group as, according to him, the term applies only to the Svapna, Bal, Avi, Abh and Prat. But it should be noted, as has been observed by the same scholar, that Bana was attempting a comparison in general terms, and further, the one-act plays also deserve to be called Natakas in general.s According to Prof. Ray by the comparison of Bhasadramas with so many temples, "Bana perhaps means to say that the dramas of Bhasa were entitled to the same amount of veneration as is ordinarily reserved for a Devakula"." We think that Bana has purposely used 1 Raja, Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, p.256; Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 44; Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 102. Bharata Natya Sastra XIX. 23 yad vrttam hi parartha syatpradhanasyopakarakam | pradhanavacca kalpyeta sa pataketi kirtita || Also, Sahityadarpana, VI. 67. vyapi prasangikam vrttam pataketyabhidhiyate | 3 Hivargaokar, Marathi translation, Vol. I, p. 20; Ghatak, Journal of the Department of Letters, 12, p. 16. Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 99. 5 Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 97; Dhruva, Madhyama, Intr., pp. 22-28; Svapna, Intr., pp. 20-22. 6 Svapna, Intr., p. XV.

42 the term 'Devakula' to convey the idea that there was an atmosphere of 'holiness', 'sublimity', round these Bhasadramas, such as is associated with temples. Otherwise, he could very well have compared Bhasa-dramas with 'palaces' (a) as all the epithets equally apply to royal palaces also. But as he intended to emphasize the holy, almost divine, halo attached to these dramas he employed the term 'temple' (). The term applies to our dramas as they deal with noble subjects, high ideals, are didactic, and there is no trace of low morality or anything that would be deemed sacrilegious by even an orthodox Brahmin. The whole verse: etc. has thus been proved to be applicable in general to the Trivandrum plays. It has not been proved by those who doubt Bana's statement that he was giving fanciful descriptions. His statements in the same context, concerning Pravarasena, Satavahana, etc. are found to be correct, and hence there is no reason why Bana should not be trusted. Thus it is that Bana gives an additional chain to our evidence in linking the Trivandrum plays to Bhasa. VAKPATIRAJA (Eighth Century) 'a in his Gaudavaha, v 800, describes Bhasa as friend of fire' (etc.). "The epithet" as Dr. Winternitz says, "would be extremely appropriate for our plays". Dr. Banerji Sastri and Prof. Ghatak have given an exhaustive list of references from the dramas wherever the term 'fire' occurs-expressions such as fire of anger, sacrificial fire, etc. being included in the list." It is neither necessary, nor correct, we think to go so far for proving the of the author of the Trivandrum plays. The appearance of Agni in human form (Abh, VI. 24-27; Avi, IV. 8) as also the mention and description of conflagrations and fires in a number of these plays (Panc, I. 6-19; Bal, II. 24; Dv, 32; Dgh, 22; Svapna, Act Lavanaka Dahana)-are sufficient, it is hoped, to justify the epithet. This also strengthens the conclusion of Bhasa's authorship of the Trivandrum plays. The next author, worth mention, referring to some Problems, p. 122; Calcutta Review, Dec. 1924, p. 341. 2 Banerji Sastri, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921, p. 380; Ghatak, Journal of the Department of Letters, 12, pp. 17-18.

peculiar feature of Bhasa, is 43 JAYADEVA (1200 A. D.) who in his Prasannaraghava says yasyascorascikuranikurah karnapuro mayuro bhaso hasah kavikulaguruh kalidaso vilasah | harso harso hrdayavasatih pancabanastu banah kesam naisa bhavati kavitakamini kautukaya || Bhasa is here described as the 'Laughter of Poetry, (f). Hasa, in other words, means 'humour,' and there are many instances of boisterous (Pratijna, pp. 59-61) and quiet (Prat, p. 13; Mv, p. 22) humour in our plays. Other examples are the scenes in which the characters of Santusta (Avi), Maitreya (Car), Vasantaka (Svapna), Sakara (Car), Sudhakara (Prat) etc. are presented. The scenes between Bhima and Ghatotkaca in the Mv and between Bhima and Brhannala and Abhimanyu (in the Panc) are also full of subtle humour. Hasa as used by Jayadeva does not mean 'alliteration', as taken by Dr. Levi. Curiously enough, Dr. Raja fails to see any trace of humour in these plays !" In the introductory verses in praise of gods and poets in the Avantisundarikatha which has been ascribed to DANDIN (?). there is the following verse (p. 2, verse 11) in glorification of Bhasa³ :- suvibhaktamukhadyangairnyaktalaksanavrttibhih | pareto'pi sthito bhasah sariraivi natakaih || Bhasa is herein said to be living through his dramas which are, as it were, his body. One Bhasa, like the God Vasudeva described in his Dv, has assumed so many forms! We are told in this verse about two characteristics of Bhasa's dramas, viz., that the five technical divisions known as sandhis, such as mukha etc., are clearly visible in these dramas, and that they possess. distinct differentiating characteristics such as different vrttis (styles of compositions), as suit the prevailing sentiments. These cannot be said to be the characteristics exclusively applicable to Bhasa, as the poet has to bring out his point through comparison; and our plays will 1 Banerji Sastri, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921, p. 381. 2 Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, p. 262. 3 Avantisundarikatha, Daksinabharati Series, No. 3, Madras, 1924.

44 deserve consideration to be ranked among Bhasa's works if they do not militate against these descriptions. That these plays answer the first characteristic will be seen from MM. T. Ganapati Sastri's commentaries on them, as also from the introductions by Prof. Dhruva and Venkatarama Sastri to the different plays in the group edited by them.' With regard to the second concerning the styles (vrttis), a close study of these dramas shows that the poet has recourse to different styles as befit the occasion. Such differences, even in the same drama, do not speak diversity of authorship. It will thus be seen that Dandin's characteristics apply to these plays and hence they may be taken to have come from Bhasa. We find, therefore, that the characteristics of Bhasa mentioned by Bana, Vakpati, Jayadeva and Dandin are all found in our plays. "It would certainly be a nonsequitur," as Dr. Keith says, "to conclude that the Trivandrum plays are Bhasa's, simply because they are begun by the Sutradhara."* But, as would be readily seen above, our conclusion is not based on that interpretation of Bana's testimony alone; it has been confirmed by other unimpeachable grounds. SOME BHASA VERSES AND THEIR BEARING ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TRIVANDRUM PLAYS. It is well known that there are thirteen verses in all that are ascribed to Bhasa by anthologists and none of them is found in the Trivandrum plays. Some of them clearly may not belong to him as they are attributed to others. One of them is found in the Mattavilasa. The topic of the anthology verses will be dealt with in detail later on. Here we shall consider only one verse from the anthologists, which the Sarngadharapaddhati has ascribed to Bhasa: and this ascription is not doubted by Dr. Weller, Dr. Sarup and Dr. Thomas." The verse runs thus: 1 tiksnam ravistapati nica ivaciradhyah srngam rurustyajati mitramivakrtajnah | Cf. e. g. Ganapati Sastri, Svapna, pp. 147-148; Panc, pp. 115-116; Pratijna, pp. 127-128; Dhruva, Madhyama (2 nd Edn.), Intr., pp. 30-32; Pradhanani Pratijna (2 nd Edn.), Intr., pp. 36-38; Venkatarama Sarma, Abhiseka, Intr., pp. XIV-XV; Hariyappa, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 23, pp.242-243. 2 Indian Antiquary, 52, p. 60. 3 Weller, Festgabe Jacobi, pp. 117, 120-122; Sarup, Vision, Intr., p. 3; Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, pp. 884-885.

This Avi, IV. 9 : 45 toyam prasidati muneriva cittamantah kami daridra iva sosamupaiti pankah || clearly shows points of connection with asita jaladavrndairmisrasandigdhasrngo gaganacarakulanam visramasthanabhutah | sukavimativicitro mitrasamyogahrdyo narapatiriva nico drsyate nisphaladhyah | The two verses, besides the simile of the "Nouveau riche," contain a number of common words (underlined above for easy reference) indicating a common authorship. Similar features to the above anthology verse are found in Car, I. 26; Panic, I. 6, 7, 18 ; Pratijna, I. 4 ; Avi, V. 1 'Adhya' 'rich' seems to be a favourite word with the writer of these plays. and Car, I. 28 ? "The resemblance shown is, be it noted," as aptly observed by Dr. Thomas, "not between the latter [i. e. the author of the Trivandrum plays] and the author of some Svapnavasavadatta, but between him and Bhasa nominatim".! Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri in his introduction to the ascaryacudamani (p. 25) quotes from Abhinavabharati, a commentary on Bharata Natyasastra by Abhinavagupta, the following passage which contains one verse from Bhasa : || adhuna raudram laksayati | atha raudro nameti | namagrahanasyayamasayah | anyaya- karita pradhanyena krodhasya visayah | tadrsi ca jane sarvo'pi manorathairapi rudhirapanamapi kuryat | tatha caha lokah | yadi labhyeta tattadiyam rudhiramapi pitva na trpyate | mahakavina bhasenapi svambandha uktam | tretayugam * * * taddhi na maithili sa ramasya ragapadavi mrdu casya cetah labdha janastu yadi ravanamasya karya 1 proskrtya tanna tilaso na vitrptigami || Abhinavagupta cites this as an instance of raudra." In deference to Prof. Dhruva's wish we herewith append our rendering of the verse. For the missing syllables in the first line we read and propose 'a khalu ' 'nasya ' for 'casya ' in the second line, and 'suvitrptigami ' for 'na vitrptigami ' We translate : that (divine) Tretayuga This 1 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, pp. 884-885.. 2 p. 320, of the Natyasastra, Vol. I, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series No. 36. occurs, with slight variations, at

46 may be said to have come to an end (since Ravana is intent on outrage); that Maithili does not at present seem to be the object of Rama's love par excellence (as she is in great danger). The heart of this man (, i. e., of Ravana) is not kind (as owing to lust he has become cruel). If this man (, i. e., the speaker of this verse whom we take to be Hanuman) were to catch hold of Ravana he (i. e., the speaker, Hanuman) will not be satisfied unless the latter's (, i. e., Ravana's) body was cut to thousands of pieces. in the second and third line has been taken to refer to Ravana, and 'jana ' ( in the sense of ayam janah ) to the speaker of the vers We are doubtful about the word t This verse is not found in the Trivandrum plays. Its context renders it probable that the verse must refer to some Rama play, and Prof. Dhruva connects the verse with the Prat after Bharata's speech:: hrteti | (mohamupagacchati ) . I We do not think the verse fits in with the sentiments of Bharata expressed in that speech that speech or later on. Sumantra reports the news of the abduction of Sita to Bharata and after uttering "what? (do you say Sita has been) abducted ?," the latter falls down unconscious. He has to be consoled, cheered up and is in an unhappy mood; afterwards he expresses his wrath sarcastically but he is angry with his mother, not with Ravana. It will be seen, therefore, that there is no occasion in Bharata's mood for uttering the verse verse quoted by Abhinavagupta which Prof. Dhruva assigns to Bharata. We find a suitable context for the verse in the Abh in the second act after verse 15. Hanuman is gradually becoming enraged towards Ravana, so much, that after verse 15, he says that he cannot restrain his anger ( na saknomi rosam dharayitum ) and he must have uttered the verse tretayugam etc. after bhavatu | ahamevaryaramasya karya sadhayami in the same context. It will be seen that both Maithili and Ravana are there; the latter is g cause for Hanuman to large etc. after weg 1 signeraries the weather of the express the sentiments contained in the verse (argi etc.) by his behaviour with Sita; and further, Hanuman in the height of his anger thinks of himself as performing the work of Arya Rama ( srahamevaryaramasya karya sadhayami ), which 1 Pratima, p. 115; Dhruva's edition, p. 72 (Text). Dhruva, Pratima, Intr., p. 29; Pratimanu lupta anga, Dv. Abh. Grantha, p. 364.

47 is, as the verse in question says, destroying Ravana to pieces ( tilasah protkrtya ). Second thoughts, however, convince Hanuman of the futility of such a course being followed by him, as he says immediately afterwards: athava | yadyaham ravanam hanmi karyasiddhirbhavisyati | yadi mam praharedrakso mahatkarya vipadyate || (Abh, II. 16) and so he reserves the task of killing Ravana for Sri Rama. There appears to be a break between bhavatu | ahamevaryaramasya karya sadhayami and athava ; and the verse tretayugam etc. must naturally come between the two to give expression to Hanuman's uncontrollable anger. If the above context suggested by us be correct, Prof. Dhruva's objection as to Bhasa's authorship of the Abh becomes invalid." The fact that as many as two verses from the Abh have been omitted in the Maharastra Sahitya and one in the Maharastra Sahitya as used by Venkatarama Sarma, lends an added plausibility to the view that the verse argi etc. might have slipped from the Abh.2 Thus, the two above-mentioned verses go to prove genuine Bhasa echoes in the Trivandrum plays; and we have already proved Bhasa's authorship of them on the testimony of the Natyadarpana and Rajasekara, confirmed by Bana, Vakpati, Jayadeva and Dandin. As aptly observed by Dr. Keith, "to ignore these coincidences and to leave us with an anonymous dramatist of the highest Indian rank is to demand too much from probability". SOME CONTRARY VIEWS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRIVANDRUM PLAYS. Apropos of the question of the authorship of these plays some contrary views need refutation and in the following pages an attempt will be made to answer the views held by the antagonists. The problem divides itself into four heads, viz. (i) whether Saktibhadra is the author of these plays; (ii) whether Sudraka is the author; (iii) whether these dramas show any Kerala influence; and (iv) whether they are stage adaptations or compilations. 1 Dhruva, Pratima, Intr., pp. 17-20. 2 Abh. II. 7, III. 9 and VI. 20 from Ganapati Sastri's edn. are not found in the MSS used for the Lahore edn. Cf-p. 23 n. 4; p. 38 n. 4; and p. 75 n. 3 of the latter. 3 Indian Antiquary, 52, p. 60.

48 i. BHASA VERSUS SAKTIBHADRA. On the basis of the structural and verbal similarities that exist between Saktibhadra's Ascaryacudamani and some of the Trivandrum plays, Saktibhadra is asserted to be the author of the plays or at least some of them. Much capital is made of the fact of the three Rama dramas viz. the Prat, Abh and Ascarya being found "comprised together in an old injured srital Maharastra Sahitya of Malabar". But "a Maharastra Sahitya copy just like any printed book of selections in modern times, may and can comprise within itself the writing of different authors without any harm" So this proves nothing. Prof. A., Krishna Pisharoti, who suggests the authorship of Saktibhadra, controverts it further on, on account of the author's name being found in the Ascarya, stating "we do not see why from these dramas alone (i. e. Tr. Bhasa plays) he should have withheld his name. Prof. Sastri also modifies his statement by saying that it is "without sufficient warrant".* 173 Mr. Menon, and probably Dr. Hiranand Sastri also, base their conjecture on the authority of Prof. Pisharoti and Prof. Sastri; and the latter, as shown above, are not very sure of their position. We shall first consider whether on internal evidence, the three Rama dramas could be assigned to a single author. The Prat and Ascarya stand quite distinct on account of the different. plans of action conceived by their respective authors to carry out the same events e. g. abduction of Sita, in the two dramas. Differences of temperament are visible in the use of the statue-house in the Prat and of Cudamani and Anguliyaka in the scarya, for helping the course of action. Rama is shown more dignified and having a keener sense of moral duty in the Prat. The Abh The Abh cannot be from the pen of the author of the Ascarya as there are many overlappings and repetitions (e. g. scenes of Asokavanika, fire-ordeal, etc.) which common sense would forbid a common author from introducing in a subsequent work of his.. In noting the similarities of the Ascarya with the 1 Kuppuswami Sastri, Ascarya, Intr., p. 19. 2 Paranjape, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 9, p. 5. 3 Criticism, pp. 21, 36, at p. 36. 4 4 Ascarya, Intr., p. 19. 5 Menon, Indian Historical Quarterly, 3, pp. 220-223; Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 7, pp. 431-434. Hirananda Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 10. 6 Paranjape, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 9, pp. 6-8; cf. also, Winternitz, Kuppuswami Commemoration Volume. Madras , pp. 6-8.

49 Trivandrum group, the above-mentioned scholars seem to have ignored points of difference between the two, which tell quite another story. The Nandi verse and prologue in the Ascarya are of the nature of classical dramas and not 'short and succinct' like the Bhasa plays, and they mention the name and works of the author. The Bharatavakya in the Ascarya is of quite different type from the normal ut etc. of the Trivandrum plays. Further, as stated by Prof. Paranjape, "ideas and expressions, words and phrases, characterization and plot-construction have very little in common with the salient features of the Bhasa plays"." Saktibhadra mentions the Unmadavasavadatta as one of his works in the prologue to the Ascarya and the anti-Bhasaites are at pains to identify it with some one or the other of the Trivandrum plays. Prof. Kuppuswami declares the Unmada to be "closely similar in spirit and plot to the Pratijna", or that it was another title for the Pratijna, having reference to Yaugandhar- ayana's ruse of feigned madness; the learned Professor makes a further guess of the Unmada being identical with a Maharastra Sahitya in Govt. Oriental MSS Library, R. No. 2784, docketted as Vinavasavadatta, but concludes that "in the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to lift up any of these statements above the sphere of a reasonable guess". The same Vinavasavadatta has been assigned to Sudraka by A. R. Sarasvati. Dr. Hirananda Sastri, on account of the words Unmada and Svapna being synonymous, and relying on the fact of the three Rama dramas being found in one Maharastra Sahitya, is "tempted to think of the probable identity of the Trivandrum play with the work of Saktibhadra". 2 8 The first three acts of the Vinavasavadatta have appeared in book form, and the later acts are in course of publication in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras.5 Dr. C. K. Raja, in a paper read before the Patna Oriental Conference, of which only a summary has appeared in the proceedings and transactions, states that the play consists of eight acts. Possibly this is the same work referred to in the Malati-Madhava, Act II, az a agua V 6 1 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 9, p. 9. 2 Kuppuswami Sastri, Ascarya, Intr., pp. 9, 20 at p. 20. 3 Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 12. pp. 276, 278. 4 Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, p. 10. 5 Madras Oriental Series, No. 2; Journal of Oriental Research, Dec, 1936, pp. 1-18. 6 OC, VI,p. 593.

50 as would appear from 'sanjayaya dasyamiti sulkam pratigrhya ' (p. 8, Vinavasavadatta, M. O.S.). We have carefully gone through the portion of the drama published so far, and find that it has much in common with the Pratijna of Bhasa. There are, however, important divergences in the plot from the Udayana plays of Bhasa and the known Udayana legends. Thus, this play speaks of the engagement of Vasavadatta with Sanjaya, dream of Mahasena, his plan to capture Udayana specially with the intention of making the the latter his son-in-law, Yaugandharayana also having an unlucky dream and spreading the news of the death of Udayana in the fight, Yaugandharayana's staging a fake funeral of himself in the presence of the public who were under the illusion of his magic (vidya), war between Pradyota and Vatsaraja's supporters, etc. There are to be seen many Bhasa echoes in the work, showing that the author was quite familiar with Bhasa's works. He also seems to be wellversed in classical dramas. Vinavasavadatta is only the name by which the work was known to the owner of the Maharastra Sahitya "There is nothing in the body of the Maharastra Sahitya", as has been observed by Prof. K. Sastri, "to warrant this title"." Much importance, therefore, need not be attached to it. We are inclined to think that this Vinavasavadatta is the same as the Unmadavasavadatta written by Saktibhadra, and that, therefore, there is no necessity to look up to any one of the Trivandrum plays for identification with the Unmada and subsequently, ascription of the whole lot to Saktibhadra. Prof. Dhruva brings forth the testimony of Saktibhadra himself, which is against the conjecture of assigning the Bhasa plays to him. The prologue to the Ascarya states in unmistakable terms that there was no Sanskrit drama in Kerala before Saktibhadra's time, i. e., tenth century. But we have references to Bhasa long before that time, at any rate, since the seventh century (a). Hence, Saktibhadra cannot be the author of the plays that were known centuries before his time. 1 Vinavasavadatta, Mad. Or. Series, p. 1. 2 Pratima, Intr., pp. 21-22 of. sutradharah - ayem daksinapathadagatamascaryacudamani nama natakamabhinayamreditasaubhagyamabhilasama ityaryamisranam sasanam | nati -ajja, accahidam khu edam | abhasa pasava s puskam sigadao a tellam uppadayanti jara dakkhinao disao gadabhanibandhanam |

51 Cumulative effect of what we have stated above is conclusively against the authorship of Saktibhadra. He was simply an imitator of Bhasa. Ascription of the Trivandrum plays to Saktibhadra, in Dr. Keith's opinion, "evinces the same curious lack of discrimination which ascribes to Dandin the Avantisundarikatha, credits Bana with the Parvatiparinaya and would rob Kalidasa of the Rtusamhara." come ii. u. SUDRAKA ? Of late, it has been seriously propounded by some that Sudraka may be the author of some of these Trivandrum plays.* Mr. A. R. Sarasvati identifies Sudraka with Vikramaditya and credits him with the authorship of the Mrcchakatika and Vinavasavadatta, the latter of which, as indicated above, may have from Saktibhadra. In the introduction to the 'Caturbhani' the editors follow the same view and ascribe the Mrcchakatika, Bal, Avi and Vatsarajacarita to Sudraka. Mr. Sankar tries to prove the identity of Bhasa and Sudraka placing Bhasa (that is, Sudraka, according to him) between 475-500 A. D. and ascribes to him the authorship of the Svapna, Pratijna, Abh, Panc, Dv, Bal, Avi, Padmaprabhrtaka and Mrcchakatika " All these scholars pronounce the Car to be an abridgment for stage purposes of the Mrcchakatika or a different recension of the latter, and on general grounds of similarity ascribe ascribe some of the Trivandrum plays to Sudraka. Relationship between the Car and Mrcchakatika will be considered in a later chapter and there it will be shown especially on account of the essential differences between the two, that the Mrcchakatika is the revised and enlarged version of the Car. Both these works can never be contemporaneous, nor can they be the work of the same author. It will thus be seen that in the view of the matter that we take, the question of Sudraka does not arise, he being later in time to the composition of the Trivandrum plays, and the latter works being from the pen of one author, there can be found no works from 1 History of Sanskrit Literature, p. XIII. 2 A. R. Sarasvati, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 12, pp. 268-282 Ramakrishna Kavi, Avantisundarikatha, Intr.; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, pp. 41-64. Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 12, p. 276. 4 Intr., pp. II-III. 5 Vatsarajacaritam is an alternative title for the Pratijna ('' Maharastra Sahitya used by T. G. Sastri, p. 73 printed Pratijna) No. 12542 in the Cat. Govt. MSS Library, Madras; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 60. 8492

52 amongst them to be fathered upon Sudraka or anybody else. iii. KERALA INFLUENCE. It has been contended that these plays show a Kerala influence as is evident from "Some Prakrit Three words from the Car have been picked passages. up by Dr. Raja as showing a Kerala origin, of which anthi has been shown by Dr. Thomas to be of Sanskrit paternity, and the other two also, are shown not to be due to any Kerala influence by Harihar Sastri.* Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri finds in the use of the word 'Sambandha,' a reference to the Sambandha marriages prevalent in Malabar. The learned scholar further finds in Mahasena's queen an elderly Malayalam lady and a Malayali in Yaugandharayana. We fail to see any special Malayali characteristic in them. As to Sambandha marriages, "Sambandha is neither more nor less than civil marriage with right of divorce. The presentation of a cloth by the vara to the vadhu with a social dinner constitutes the entire ritual. No Sanskrit mantras are recited... The wife does not share the religious life of her husband and the husband does not interdine with his wife Applying these tests to the marriages of Vasavadatta and Kurangi, which are alleged to be Sambandha marriages, we find that neither of these can be styled as such on any account. Mr. R. Kavi, another anti-Bhasaite, asserts on the contrary that these dramas show no Malayalam influence. Prof. K. Rama Pisharoti has tried to show, time and again, basing his conclusion on small details that can very well be found anywhere in India and not confined to Kerala alone, that these dramas proceed from Kerala ; such, e. g., are: (i) The queen's sympathy towards a low-born person has been taken to imply that she was a sudra woman in accordance with the practice of the Kerala kings. Obviously a far-fetched interpretation! The fact that the queen's brother was a king of Sauviras speaks against any such assumption. (ii) The form of address 'Matula' ('Uncle') to old persons 1 Journal of Oriental Research, 1, pp. 217-225. 2 Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, p. 890; Harihar Sastri, Journal of Oriental Research, 2, pp. 210-213. 3 Ascarya, Intr., pp. 26-27. 4 K. G. Sankar, letter dated 14-8-32. 5 Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, 2, p. 143. 6 Avi, Shama'a, Madras, 4, pp. 287, 289, 290 etc; 5, pp. 279, 283 etc.; Abh, JAU, 4, p. 141; 5, pp. 125, 248; Bal, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 1935-36, reprint, pp. 1, 12, 17, 21, 39 etc.; Pratima, Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 12, pp. 394-396; 14, pp. 47-48. Ct. for the latter statement, Shama'a, 5, p. 122 n. 1.

53 is not restricted to Kerala alone. (iii) At one place, Prof. Pisharoti is constrained to admit that the author was a non-Malayali, showing thereby the necessity of extreme caution required in jumping to conclusions from isolated instances. Messrs. Pisharotis on account of (1) the absence of Sita in the coronation, (2) reference to statue-houses, and (3). manner of worshipping the statues, find a local colouring therein.' As to the queen not partaking in the coronation, Dr. G. Sastri has shown that it was only in the first coronation of Rama in the Prat that Sita did not take part as it was a coronation as Yuvaraja and hence of secondary importance. Besides, Vasistha, Vamadeva and others knew before-hand that the coronation was not to take place. And further, by separating Sita the poet described the valkala-incident foreshadowing forest forest life. On the occasion of the main coronation of Rama as king, however, Sita is mentioned as having been with him. Similarly in the Abh at the main coronation, Sita 'is described as being with Rama. Prof. Paranjape, on the other hand, says that Sita did not take part in either and justifies Sita's absence in the first coronation on the authority of the Ramayana. As to the second coronation, he says that the Ramayana mentions Sita's accompanying Rama on the occasion and also of Satrughna and Bharata and the mothers; but Bhasa did not follow the Ramayana in making Rama alone leave the stage lest the stage would have been left empty. It was thus for the convenience of the stage and not for the custom of Kerala that Rama leaves the stage alone. 3. Turning to the second argument of the Pisharotis, viz. that the idea of the Pratima-grha is, suggested from the statue of a Chera king in a Siva temple at Tiruvanchikulam, Dr. Sastri distinguishes the Pratima-grhas in the drama from the statue in the Siva temple. The drama mentions the statue-house intended for the installations and worship of the departed kings and not a Siva or Visnu temple with the statue of as 1 Criticism, pp. 30-31. 2 Critical Study, p. 100; Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 630-631. 3 Prat, p. 131 tatah pravisati krtabhiseko ramah saparivarah | Abh, p. 81. tatah pravisati krtabhiseko ramah sitaya saha | Pratima, Intr., pp. XIII-XIX.

54 a departed king. "The sort of Pratima-grha described in the Pratima," says MM. Dr. G. Sastri, is to be found nowhere". But the fact that such statues are not confined to Kerala only stands proved by the discovery of Saisunaga statues some fifteen years ago. MM. Dr. Haraprasad Sastri has drawn attention to the prevalence of the custom of erecting stone images for the departed kings in Rajputana called Chatris, from ancient times. These statues are worshipped daily and food is offered to them. Curiously enough, kings dead in war are presented in statues on horseback, those dying natural death in other postures. It will be seen, therefore, that this contention also of the Pisharotis falls to the ground. White-washing of the statue-house, flowers and other preliminaries of worshipping described in the Prat are taken as showing Kerala influence. That such is the custom all over India may be seen even today. Further, Bhasa might have taken his description from the Ramayana itself. In order to strengthen the argument of Kerala origin, it is stated that the Prat must come after Kalidasa, the Car after Sudraka, and the Avi after Dandin.* As to the genealogy of Raghu's dynasty, it has been proved, that both Kalidasa and Bhasa have taken it from a common source, which Dr. G. Sastri says to be the Visnu Purana, and the two commentaries on the Raghuvamsa confirm him. This view finds further support from the Harivamsa (chapter 15) and the Brahmapurana, which give a similar order. Dr. Haradatta Sarma in "Padmapurana and Kalidasa" has shown that the Padmapurana is the source of Kalidasa for the Raghuvamsa. So borrowing from Kalidasa is not true nor consequently a late date for the Prat, i. e. for Bhasa. That the Car is the basis for the Mrcchakatika forms the subject matter of a subsequent chapter, and hence nothing need be said about it at this place. No evidence is adduced for dating the Avi after Dandin, except that in the "we Avantisundarikatha, 1 Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 629; Critical Study, p. 99. 2 Haraprasad Sastri, Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 5, p. 559; Prabuddha Bharata, 1929, p.181; 0 C, V, pp. 97-98; Paranjape, Pratima, Intr, pp. XL-XLI. 3 Pisharoti, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 107. 4 Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 627; Critical Study, p. 96.

55 may find many verses common to it and Avi," which proves nothing. Further it has not been shown that the story of the Avi was not existing before Dandin. Thus these arguments also fail to bring conviction home, and hence the efforts to show Kerala influence in these dramas and thereby indicate them as the compositions of a Kerala dramatist are fruitless. to " Dr. Ganapati Sastri experienced sweetness, directness and vigour in these dramas and he proclaimed these as the characteristic merits of our plays; but, as stated by Dr. Thomas, "that is not the character of the Kerala Sanskrit in general,-witness the Nalodaya and similar works"." Further, these dramas are quite well known in Kerala since the last ten centuries. Had they been the work of any Cakyar or a Kerala dramatist, the rhetoricians or anthologists might have embodied the names of the authors when they took verses from these plays. This clearly shows that they are not the works of any poet from the South. We do not know anything definitely about the ability of Prof. Ote Cakyars to compose dramas in Sanskrit. Prof. Otto Stein (Indoligica Pragnesia, 1, 1929, pp. 21 ff.) has already raised doubts as to how far the Cakyars were literary men who were capable of recasting classical dramas by shortening them and working them up into stage plays." Prof. K. Rama Pisharoti, on the other hand, declares them to be literary men and scholars, but this does not seem to be proved. Sanskritists must really be grateful to Prof. Pisharoti for the amount of varied information supplied by him with regard to the Kerala theatre." Illustrations also accompany his learned articles published in the Annamalai University Journal and therein he tells us about the various types of the spectacular entertainments in Kerala under three heads, the religious, secular and semi-religious. For the Bhasa controversy, we are concerned with the last head which deals with Sanskrit dramas especially the variety known as "Kutiyattam." The number of acts in which the Cakyars can can train 1 Pisharotis, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 107. 2 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, p. 881. 3 Winternitz, Bulletin of the Ramavarma Research Institute, 5, p. 11. Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, pp. 338-340; Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 246-251; Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 12, pp. 183-195; JAU, 1, pp. 91-113; 3, pp. 141-159; All India Drama Conference, pp. 48-56; Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 111-114 (in collaboration with A. K. Pisharoti).

56 themselves is seventy-two including some prahasanas and one-act plays. Many of these acts have been identified. The stereotyped sthapana is said to be due to Kerala reform. Now, the stage reform in Kerala is not placed earlier than the eighth century, while the Svapnavasavadatta (and the other plays of the group) existed in the form in which we have it at present, much before that time. It is, therefore, most reasonable to suppose that Bhasa's dramas were most popular in the South from early times on account of their being admirably suited for the stage. And the Kerala dramatists and actors were so much impressed by the different devices in these dramas employed for stage economy and the stage-worthiness of these plays, that they at once copied those peculiarities and embodied them in their manuals. In course of time when these dramas lost the prarocana from their sthapana, people forgot about Bhasa's authorship of them, and came to regard the innovations as those inaugurated by the Kerala dramatists. To sum up the whole discussion about the Kerala origin of the Trivandrum Bhasa plays, we may say with Prof. Paranjape, who would rather appear to be harsh on the so-called Kerala-pandits : 'The desecrating vandalism of the literary thieves. thieves of Kerala may certainly be able to mangle and mutilate old plays; but they can never build up a new superstructure of the delicacy of a Svapnavasavadatta or the grandeur of a Pratima" iv. ADAPTATIONS OR COMPILATIONS? were Finally it has been suggested as a last recourse that if these works cannot be the compositions of the Kerala poets, those poets must, at least, have brought out their compilation or adaptation. Dr. Barnett, however, holds that these plays worked over by the court poets of the Pandya kings, while A. R. Sarasvati and others take them to be from the Pallava kings. support of this Messrs. Pisharotis, Dr. Raja and Prof. K. Sastri bring forth no stronger argument than the existence of a living tradition among Malayalam pandits;* MM. Dr. T. G. Sastri, G. Harihar Sastri, S. Narayenan Potti In 1 Pratima, Intr., p. XXXI. 2 Barnett, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1919, p. 233; Sarasvati, Indian Historical Quarterly 1, pp. 263-264; also Kavi, Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, 2, p. 143. 3 Pisharotis, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 116; Raja, Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 2, p. 264; Kuppuswami Sastri, Ascarya, Intr., p. 19.

57 and others dispute the correctness of this tradition. Dr. Sukthankar finds "a substantial basis for this assumption" in Dr. Levi's discovery of two treatises on rhetorics . * Dr. Raja states that in Malabar there is a dramatized version of the Ramayana in twenty-one acts, presumably compilations by Cakyars! But this dramatized Ramayana Saga is nothing else than the Prat, Abh and Ascarya. Does the learned Doctor assign the Ascarya also to Cakyar authorship? * Dr. Thomas has proved that the plot and text of the original Svapna have not undergone any great transformation, and they have been attested "at such a date and in such a manner as to require us to dispense... with...all considerations of Kerala dramatic practice ". And the Svapna was, and is, the most popular piece on stage! The existence of other dramas of the group prior to the seventh century A. D. has been testified by Bana. The stage reforms in Kerala began long after that and the Ascarya hails as the first drama from the South. Hence the theory of adaptation or compilation by actors or Pandits is untenable. "A compilation", writes Dr. Winternitz, "is a literary work composed of materials, culled from different works and authors, like the Puranas or the Hanuman Nataka....every one of the thirteen Bhasa plays ...has the mark of originality. It is simply absurd to call plays like Svapna or Avi compilations. Macbeth and Julius Caesar remain works of Shakespeare even when they are adapted for the stage 9 always find some original idea [in these plays] which presupposes an original poet and not a compiler". Though there is a good deal of change in Dr. Winternitz's views regarding the authorship of these plays, he holds the same views about their not being Plays like compilations or adaptations. Says he:. Urubhanga, Pancaratra and Balacarita , to say nothing of such works as the Svapnavasavadatta and PratijnaYaugandharayana, or Avimaraka are original works, and cannot by any stretch of the term be designated as 66 1 G. Sastri, Critical Study, pp. 79, 105-106; Potti, Malayalam Intr. to Avi. 2 Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 134. It may, however , be noted that they prove only different recensions of the play. See Dr. Sukthankar himself, op. cit., p. 138; Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, 877-899. 3 pp. Dr. Sarup, Vision, Intr., p. 28; Dr. Thomas , Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, 2, p. 254. 4 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, pp. 877-890 . 5 Bhagavadajjukiya, 1925, preface, VII. p.

58 'Compilations'." Thus, these Trivandrum Bhasa plays cannot be called adaptations, since, though dramatic works such as those of Kalidasa or Shakespeare "are specially liable to recast", "they do not thereby forfeit their connection with their original authors. 21 2 Further, the Cakyars stage only select acts after giving different names to them, e. g. Mantranka, Dephalikanka, Mallanka, etc. with necessary changes." Hence the particular act would be adapted for the stage and not the whole dramatic work; so whole dramas cannot be set aside as adaptations. We find that all the acts from our plays present the same features of style and thought, which is quite impossible if a particular act is from the stage edition and the remaining part from the original. It is but a natural conclusion, therefore, that our plays are not stage copies. Damaka Prahasanam may be cited as the best instance of a compilation. The same argument may be used with regard to the Ascarya. Select scenes from this play also are enacted; so why is it ascribed to Saktibhadra? The Mattavilasa, Sakuntala and Nagananda also are not called adaptations though they form part of the repertory of Kerala actors. The Ascarya and Mrcchakatika have different names for different acts given by the Cakyars, still they pass under the names of their respective authors. It seems that our plays are called adaptations simply because in addition to their being included in the Cakyar repertoire, they are anonymous; and being so are thought capable of being assigned to any one as a common property. It is really the most unhappy thing that such should be the case with the works of the pioneer Indian dramatist. Though it was argued that a large number of plays. form part of the "Kerala Nataka Cakra", the term at present is confined only to Bhasa's works in the Trivandrum series. Why is it that in spite of diligent research no further MSS of the so-called Kerala Nataka Cakra are discovered? It may perhaps be that there are separate plays that can be designated as Kerala Nataka no 3 1 Bulletin of the Ramavarma Research Institute, 5, p. 11. 2 Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1928, p. 877. See also Winternitz, Bhagavadajjulya, preface, p. VII, and Thomas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1925, pp. 106-107. G. Sastri, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 9, p. 634; also K. Rama Pisharoti, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, p. 250; Pisharotis, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 112-114.

59 Cakra; that the Kerala actors, who are called dramatists by courtesy, were not original writers in Sanskrit; and that Sanskrit texts alone constituted what has been called Kerala Nataka Cakra. In spite of various articles elucidating the part the Cakyars played in the development of the Kerala stage, we as yet get no idea as to what they did with regard to the texts of Sanskrit works. As As justly observed by Dr. Johnston, "it would also be desirable to know what liberties this school of actors took with the text of other plays already known to us in standard recensions; for this would give us some measure of the extent to which the originals may have been manipulated for these acting versions." From the fact that no light has yet been thrown on this point by any anti-Bhasaite Kerala scholar, which would at once have settled the controversy to a great extent, we are afraid, there do not seem to be any serious differences between the authors' and the actors' versions of the same play. Why the anti-Bhasaites should not see the other way round is a thing that passes understanding. Why not take it that all the so-called peculiarities of the Kerala stage are imitations of and improvements on Bhasa after practical experience? If these Trivandrum plays are really the stage versions of different Sanskrit plays, where are the originals of which these plays are mere adaptations? Why is it that of the different dramatic pieces enacted by the professional players those of Bhasa only should be lost? Supposing these Trivandrum plays had in their prologues an explicit mention of Bhasa as their author, or by some good chance we come across MSS from the North of Bhasa plays identical with those published in the T. S. S., what about the traces of a later period, Kerala influence, etc. found in our plays by the antagonists? The kind of evidence demanded by some of the non-believers for establishing the authenticity of the Trivandrum plays is of such a nature that it can never comeforth. Thus, all the above arguments would strongly and conclusively establish, it is hoped, that these plays are original compositions and cannot be called compilations 1 Indian Antiquary, 62, p. 95.

th 3 60 or adaptations by any amount of provincialism or flight of imagination. Minor changes are inevitable and might have been introduced by the Cakyars for conveniences of stage. But that does not rob Bhasa of the authorship stage. of these plays. It is a relief to read from an antagonist "Bhasa's plays have come down to us almost intact with some omissions"." 1 Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 64.