Chapter 3 - The date of Bhasa

Chronology in the history of Indian literature is shrouded in mystery and in spite of the efforts of many research scholars, most of the riddles still remain unsolved. The problem of the date and birth-place of Kalidasa has engaged the attention of eminent Sanskritists for over a century and still we are without any date or place for the Shakespeare of India, that may be acceptable to all. One is rather tempted to quote the oft-repeated utterance of a celebrated American orientalist: "All dates given in Indian literary history are pins set up to be bowled down again." 79 1 The date of Bhasa is one of the most vexed questions in Indian chronology and one is surprised to find a difference of over fifteen hundred years in the earliest and latest dates ascribed to him by different scholars. We have already seen that these dramas are neither compilations nor adaptations, and also that the earliest reference to them by name is from Bana (7 th 1 Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, Leipzig, 1879, Intr. 2 Cf. R. Garbe, Festgabe Jacobi, p. 127; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 26, p. 233; Kirata, Bhasa's works, Marathi translation, pp. 215-216. Some of the names and dates including new ones are given below:Bhide, Dikshitar, Ganapati Sastri Haraprasad Sastri, Khuperkar, Kirata and Tatake. Jahagirdar, Kulkarni, Shembavnekar, Chaudhury, Dhruva and Jayaswal Konow, Lindenau, Sarup, Suali, and Weller. Banerji Sastri, Bhandarkar, Jacobi, Jolly and Keith. Lesny and Winternitz. Sankar. Barnett, Devdhar, Hirananda Sastri Nerurkar, Pisharoti and Saraswati. Kane and Raja. Ramavatar Sarma. Raddi Sastri. 6 th-4 th century B. C. 3 rd century B. C. 2 nd-1 st century B. C. 2 nd century A. D. 3 rd century A. D. 4 th century A. D. 5 th or 6 th century A. D. 7 th century A. D. 9 th century A. D. 10 th century A. D. 11 th century A. D.

62 century A. D.). Therefore all dates later than the 7 th century assigned to Bhasa are clearly out of order. In coming at our own conclusions as to the problem INTERNAL EVIDENCE which fixes the upper limit of the date, may be considered first. 1. Concerning the sources of the plays, we find that the epic and the Ramayana plays are based on the two great epics, the Udayana plays are drawn from historical traditions, the Avimaraka from popular folklore (or preferably a Jataka story) and the Carudatta is possibly of the poet's own creation. Now, Udayana, Pradyota and Darsaka are historical personages and their period has been generally accepted to be not later than the 6 th century B. C. The epics were certainly known before this period, though in a different form to that we have at present. Avimaraka may be a legendary hero who can be placed before this period, and Carudatta also is not later. Thus, Bhasa dramas are not earlier than the 6 th century B. C. 2. We find some 'historical data' in the Pratijna, Avi and Svapna. The Pratijna enumerates the royal families of Northern India whose very memory would have been lost in the post-Mauryan period after their subjugation by Mahapadmananda of Magadha before 384 B. C., and later by Candragupta, along with many small Gana States. Bhasa's mention of them shows that he must have been not far later in time than the period of the Nandas or Candragupta. The kingdom of Kasi mentioned in the Pratijna and Avi had ceased to exist long before the 5 th century B. C. Again, the poet is aware of Rajagrha as the capital of Magadha, rightly placed in Darsaka's time, and it was transferred to Pataliputra subsequently. The Carudatta, which has no historical background if stripped from the Mrcchakatika mentions Pataliputra in such a way as to raise doubts in the readers' mind as to its being a capital. We would not 1 Smith, Early History of India, pp. 38, 39, 51; Rapson, Cambridge History of India, pp. 311-313; Jayaswal, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, pp. 267-269; Ghosh, OG, VIII, Summaries, pp. 66-67; Ketkar, Pracina Maharastra, pp. 140-148; Bhandarkar, Carmichael Lectures , pp. 69-71. 2 Cf. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 285, 309; Venkataraman, Modern Review, 1914, p. 598. C. V. Vaidya places the last redaction of the Molt before third Century B. C. Cf. Upasamhara, p. 185. H. Sastri, OC. V, p. 97; Prabuddha Bharata, 1929, p. 131; Bhide, Svapna, Intr, p. 40.

63 be far from right in holding the Car as depicting the events of the poet's time. This would put This would put the poet somewhere in the 5 th or 4 th century B. C. 3. References to Nagavana, Venuvana, Rajagrha and Pataliputra, all of which rose into prominence after Buddha's time, as also to Sakyasramanaka, Nagnasramanika etc. clearly show that the poet lived after Buddha's time, i. e. 6 th century B. C., and hence Dr. G. Sastri's attempt to place him in pre-Buddhistic times is not acceptable.' 4. In the Prat (page 99) various Sastras (treatises). are mentioned with the names of their respective authors: sangopangam vedamadhiye, manaviya dharmasastram, mahesvaram yogasastram, barhaspatyamarthasastram, medhatithenyayasastram, pracetasam sraddhakarupam ca | We do not agree with Mr. Sankar in holding that "the reference is not to specific treatises, but to the sciences and their mythical founders, Manu etc."" That all these treatises actually existed has been vouched for from earliest times. The Vedas with their sub-heads are available even now and their composition is placed much before eighth century B. C. manaviyam dharmasastram Manaviya Dharmasastra is the original of our Manusmrti. Though the latter may have been composed according to some scholars in the second century A. D., there is no doubt as to the prevalence of the former since a very long time. Gautama, the oldest Dharmasutrakara according to Dr. Buhler, refers to Manu, doubtless to Manaviya Dharmasastra. Similarity between a Buddhist canonical work and the extant Manusmrti led Max Muller to think of the priority of Manu to the former which is earlier than the third century B. C. Thus Manaviyam Dharmasastram may be placed centuries anterior to the sixth century B. C. some mahesvaram yogasastram That the Yogasastra has first been promulgated and practised by the great God Siva is quite well known. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar has proved the existence of the Lakulisa sect for at least two thousand years and also that Lakulisa was the last incarnation of 1 Critical Study, pp. 68-69. 2 Problem of Bhasa, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 42. 3 MaxMuller, SBE, X. Intr. Jolly, Recht und Sitte, pp. 5-6, places Gautama in the fifth or sixth century B. C., and the Manaviya Dharmasastra is earlier, since Gautama refers to it.

64 Mahesvara, the propounder of Yoga.' This Sastra, therefore, roughly belongs to the period we have assigned to the Manaviya Dharmasastra. baspatyamarthasastram The science of politics by Brhaspati is referred to in the Mahabharata and Kautilya in his Arthasastra expressly says that he has laid it under contribution.* It is, therefore, quite old and being earlier than the fourth century B. C., it may have been composed some centuries earlier. A small treatise published by Dr. Thomas in the Punjab Oriental Series is not the work referred to above. Barhaspatya Arthasastra is yet to be discovered. pracetasam sraddhakalpam also like the previous works is yet to be unearthed. In the Catalogue of the Calcutta Sanskrit College there exists a Sraddhakalpa ascribed to Prajapati, and Pracetas is a Prajapati (Manu, I. 35). So, perhaps, the work in the Sanskrit College may have some connection with the Pracetasa Sraddhakalpa. Pracetas Smrti is cited in many legal works. Nothing militates against placing this work in the period we have assigned to the works we have considered above. Lastly we come to medhatitheyayasastram which has been the focus of a sharp controversy. The articles by Dr. Keith and Dr. Sukthankar on the point make it sufficiently clear that the work cannot refer to the Manubhasya of Medhatithi (tenth century A. D.). In the first place, the context is against such an interpretation. Separate Sastras are mentioned and there is no place for a commentary therein. Again, all the Sastras mentioned along with this Nyayasastra are of a hoary antiquity and the natural presumption is that the Nyayasastra must also belong to the same period. There is no authority, further, for holding the Manubhasya as a Nyayasastra. The parallel instance from the Mahabharata of the separation of a text from its commentary by the interposition of a different work adduced by Dr. Barnett is imperfect as shown by Dr. Keith. In 1920, MM. 1 Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 22, pp. 151-167; also Mahabharata, Santiparva, 349, vv 64-67; Cf. Bhagavadajjukiya, p. 76. 2 Mahabharata, Santiparva, 59, vv 59, 75, 76, 81-84. Kaut. Arth, p. 1 : and also pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192, 375. Banerji Sastri (Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 1923, p. 67) seems to take Brhaspati as the customary designation of Kautilya, but both cannot be identified since Kautilya definitely refers to Brhaspati as distinct from Kautilya (Arthasastra, above references). 3 Keith, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, p. 625 n. 4. 4 Keith, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 295, 623-625; Sukthankar, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1925, pp. 131-132 also Winternitz, Calcutta Review, Dec. 1924, p. 348. 5 Barnett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3.

65 Vidyabhusana identified this Medhatithi with Gautama, since "in the Mahabharata we find that Medhatithi and Gautama were the names of one and the same person, one being his proper name and the other his family name". Gautama is credited with the composition of a Nyayasastra, and 'Nyaya', prima facie means 'logic'. Placing the name of a tenth century commentator in the mouth of a prehistoric personage such as Ravana, is such an obviously absurd anachronism that even the plagiarist of the tenth or eleventh century would blush to plead guilty of the charge. Again, by identifying Medhatithi's Nyayasastra with the Manubhasya, we make Rama, the hero of the play, liable to be considered as a person below average understanding since he could not detect such a simple blunder in the speech of Ravana, as would appear from the former's acceptance of this obvious catch without any comment. Ravana is certainly not represented as a 'braggart'; for, the poet, evidently. a devout Vaisnava, would not picture his hero as not being able to know what an average spectator would immediately understand. understand. The mentioning of the Barhaspatya Arthasastra and Mahesvara Yogasastra, where the plagiarist could easily have specified Kautiliya Arthasastra and Patanjala Yogasastra, are against identifying Nyayasastra with Manubhasya. The poet evidently wants to create an atmosphere of antiquity. All these texts are very old, 'of venerable age' and may safely be placed prior to the sixth century B. C.2 The Pratijna mentions 'Hastisiksa.' No such work is found in Sanskrit literature; but it may be presumed to old. be very LANGUAGE AND PRAKRIT EVIDENCE, if properly studied, would land us into safe chronological limits. Meerwarth suggests this as a criterion to determine from the style of a particular period, the age of any given work. But, unfortunately as noted pp. 520-521; Keith, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, 3, pp. 623-625. 1 History of Indian Logic, p. 18. This interpretation has been accepted by Keith, Winternitz, Paranjape, Devdhar, etc. 2 Prof. Kane who stated that the Nyayasastra of Medhatithi was the Manubhasya, in 1920 ( Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 100) is not satisfied with the evidence brought forth and still doubts the equation, MedhatithiGautama (Letter dated 11-6-32). His argument that Gautama is not referred to as Medhatithi i in any work on Nyayasastra is strong enough; but the identity of the two is the only solution of the absurdity created by bringing in Medhatithi's Manubhasya.

66 by Prof. Pisharoti, "constituent elements of style of any age" are yet "to be analysed" and hence no theorizing can be based under this head.' The following observations are tentatively put in the hope of seeing whether they help in some way in arriving at some date. Archaisms or solecisms in contravention of Panini cannot assign to an author a date anterior to the grammarian as observed by Dr. G. Sastri. Panini should be placed according to Dr. Bhandarkar before the 7 th century B. C. So Bhasa is later than the seventh century B. C. From the flowing tone of Bhasa's Sanskrit and the conversational style of his dialogues which are short, easy, graceful and colloquial, we are inclined to think that Sanskrit was a spoken language in Bhasa's time, and so we place Bhasa after Panini before the latter's grammar got a strong foothold, and possibly before Katyayana (350 B. C.). The following words also show the same date approximately. 'Mahabrahmana' in a good sense is found in ancient literature (Brhad Up. ii. 19. 22), while in later times the word has degenerated, meaning 'a funeral priest.' 'Aryaputra' is used in these dramas in the sense of a 'prince', which is found in Asokan inscriptions. Later dramatic works use the term as a form of address by wife to her lord. 'Yavanika' in these plays means 'a veil' and not 'curtain', which meaning was attached to the word probably after Greek influence. These words tend to show the antiquity, if not the exact date, of the plays.* Considerations of METRICS AND PRAKRIT, if properly pursued, ought to simplify the problem. The problem of Prakrit has been much obscured by the mass. of literature grown around it. We have considered these problem selsewhere in this book, but they do not lead us to any definite conclusion. It may, however, be safely stated that the data furnished by these do not, at any rate, militate against the atmosphere of antiquity that the facts we are now considering imply. Closely allied to the language question is the study of these plays from the point of DRAMATIC TECHNIQUE, 1 Meerwarth, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1917, p. 279; Pisharoti, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1, p. 331. 2 Critical Study, pp.62-66. 3 18. Early History of the Deccan, p. 8; for Katyayana, Ibid, p.7. 4 Jayaswal, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1913, p. 262.

67 Positive evidence as to the antiquity of Bharata's Natyasastra is lacking and there are many interpolations and possibly revisions in the text. It is extremely doubtful, if this Natyasastra, even if it existed in Bhasa's time, was in the same form, as we have it today. Panini mentions Natasutras' and further, Bhasa is credited with having written a Natyasastra. This also forms part of a later chapter, but as no definite chronological data are forthcoming, dramatic technique does not help us in coming to a definite date. SOCIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS reflected in the works also constitute a factor in fixing the date of the plays within certain limits. Only a few such cases of known date will be dealt with below. A custom of throwing sand in the enclosures of temples is recorded in the Prat (Act III, pp. 54, 59) and according to MM. Haraprasad Sastri, this is found in Apastamba's work only, belonging to the fifth century B. C. This fact shows the author of these plays to have flourished in a period not far from Apastamba. ii. From the Pratijna and Svapna, we find that Udayana did not think Avanti and Magadha in any way inferior in social status to himself, from the fact of his contracting marital relations with princesses of those countries. That Sindhusauvira was not looked upon as of mixed origin, is evident from Narada's coming to Kuntibhoja, a relative of Sugrhita, a king of Sindhusauvira, and also consenting to the marriage of the former's daughter with Avimaraka, a Sauvira prince. Baudhayana has dubbed the residents of Avanti, Anga, Magadha, Surastra, Sindha, Sauvira, as of mixed origin and out of Aryavarta. Baudhayana belongs to the seventh century B. C. (Indian Antiquary 41, p. 230). The treatment accorded by Bhasa to these inhabitants shows that they were freed of the taint attached to them and were included in Aryavarta. Some period must have elapsed between Baudhayana and Bhasa for such a change, and two or three centuries would not 97; 1 Panini, IV, 3, 100-101. 2 Keith, Sanskrit Drama, p. 105; Sarup, Vision, Intr. p. 37; Arthadyotanika, a commentary on Sakuntala speaks of it. 3 00, V, p. Prabuddha Bharata, 1929, p. 131. For Apastamba's date, Kane, History of Dharmasastra, I, p. 45 (600-300 B. C. ); Jolly, Recht und Sitte, p. 3 (500-400 B. C. ). 4 Cf. Bhide, Svapna, Intr. pp. 15-17. For Baudhayana's date, Kane, Op. Cit., p. 30 ( 500-200 B. C. ); Jolly, Op. Cit. p. 4 (600-500 B. C. ).

68 be unreasonable. Bhasa, therefore, comes to somewhere between the fifth and the fourth century B. C. iii. The Avimaraka shows that marriages between prohibited degrees of consanguinity, e. g. those with maternal uncle's or aunt's daughter, were recognized in those days. Manu looks down upon such a custom and so does Kumarila. The Mahabharata mentions Arjuna's marriage with his maternal uncle's daughter. So the custom seems to be fairly ancient, testifying to the antiquity of the drama. Perhaps the portion in the present version of the Manusmrti condemning marriages was not there in ancient times, as the composition of the Manusmrti is placed between the second century B. C. and the second century A. D. ch iv. The ethos of the Brahmanical system, glorification of sacrifices, contemptuous attitude towards Buddhists and Jains, point to a period not far off from the origin of these religious systems. Buddhism and Jainism do not seem to have obtained a sway either over the ruling Princes or over the public when these plays were written. This places Bhasa at a point very near the sixth century B. C. b. The Prat, Svapna and Pratijna testify to the fact of avagunthana (veiling) system being current among ladies. The veil could be done away with on some specified occasions.³ Belief in black art and magic is seen from the Avi, and almost the same masters are mentioned as in Kautilya. This shows that our poet is at least a contemporary of Kautilya, if not earlier, showing thereby, the fourth century B. C. as the later limit. In dealing at length later on with the sociological conditions as revealed from Bhasa's works, we have given parallel references from the Kautiliya Arthasastra and the Jatakas and this shows that Bhasa belongs to the fifth or the fourth century B. C. BHARATAVAKYAS in these plays are not uniform, except in stating the 1 Cf. Hindu Exogamy, p. 14, Gopajataka. Kumarila, however, in his Tantra Vartika tries to justify Arjuna's marriage with Subhadra as she was not, according to Kumarila, Arjuna's Matula Kanya. Sabarabhasya, Vol. I., Poona, p. 210. 2 Svapna, p. 140; Pratijna, p. 50; Prat, p. 36, also I. 29; Uru, p. 101, v. 38; Car, p. 89. 3 Avi, p. 46; Arthasastra, XIV, 148, p. 419.

1 69 territorial limits of the kingdom of a Rajasimha. The prayer is varied, being in some and in others These variations unmistakably show vicissitudes in the political career of the king and cannot be due to the influence of a particular school. These dramas have already been found to be free from the handling of Kerala dramatists. Hence identification with Pandya and Pallava kings does not arise. Opinion is almost unanimous over the point that Rajasimha is not the proper name of a king. Sten Konow has identified the king with Ksatrapa, Rudrasimha I, Dhruva with Sunga Pusyamitra, Jayaswal with Kanva Narayana and Bhide with Udayi. Now the first line of the Bharatavakyas indicates that the whole of Northern India, bounded by Vindhya and Himavat, was under the sceptre of one king. The upshot of our investigations on internal evidence shows the fifth or the fourth century B. C. as the period of the poet. Candragupta is said to be the first monarch to bring under his sway the whole of Northern India. But we think that Ugrasena Nanda may be said in a sense to deserve the appellation. MM. Haraprasad Sastri also identifies Rajasimha, without mentioning any name, with "one of the Nandas". It will be shown later in this chapter that Bhasa must be placed before Kautilya, and hence before Candragupta also. Therefore, Bharatavakyas show the poet to have lived earlier than the fourth century B. C. The cumulative effect of all the factors considered under 'Internal evidence' is therefore to place the period of these plays between the fifth and the fourth century B. C. In turning to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE we are treading on unsettled grounds. Kautilya, Kalidasa and Sudraka among others, come forward to give testimony in this respect. And there is a sharp controversy regarding their own dates. We have, therefore, followed what appeared to us to be a sound view, and have assigned Kautilya to the fourth century B. C., Kalidasa to the first century B. C., and regarding the date and identification of 1 Barnett, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1919, p. 233; Kavi, Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, 2, p. 143; Kane, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 99; etc. 2 Konow, ID, pp. 51-56; Dhruva, Svapnani Sundari, Intr., pp. 12, 30-59; Jayaswal, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1913, pp. 264-265; Bhide, Svapna, Intr., pp. 40-41. 3 Ganapati Sastri, Critical Study, p. 54, footnote. Dr. Ghoshal in fact describes Ugrasena Mahapadma as "the founder of the first real Indian Empire." (Modern Review, Octr. 1930, p. 438). Cf. also Deb, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1983, pp. 349-350; Bhandarkar, Carmichael Lectures, 1919, p. 85.

70 Sudraka we prefer not to complicate matters by our own conclusions though it may be stated that Sudraka appears to have preceded Kalidasa. In a subsequent chapter we shall prove the priority of the Car to the Mrcchakatika without entering into the discussion of the date and authorship of the latter, as it is not necessary for our purposes." Now, we have already treated the direct evidence furnished by Bana, Dandin, Abhinavagupta, Ramacandra and Gunacandra, Saradatanaya, Bhojadeva, Sagaranandin and Sarvananda, which covers a period from the seventh century A. D. to the twelfth century A. D. Other literary references not dealt with earlier, and belonging to this and later periods will, for the sake of convenience, be given in an appendix. Among the references from or to the Trivandrum plays in the works of authors subsequent to Bana, we have dealt with only the important writers as also those about whose quotations there is a difference of opinion. We shall begin with the KUNDAMALA of DINNAGA (? DHIRANAGA) and proceed in an ascending chronological order. The Kundamala at one time was taken to have been composed somewhere in the earlier part of the fifth century A. D., and we also contributed to the view; but later on, it has been proved that the author of the work is Dhiranaga or Viranaga, and that no reference to the Kundamala earlier than the 12 th century A. D. has been found. A comparison between. the Kundamala and Uttararamacarita and a close examination of the two works has convinced us that the author of the Kundamala is the borrower. In the Kundamala, there is a passage in which padimagado maharao is mentioned with regard to Dasaratha. vaccha lakha (kkha ? ), panamidanva tue mama vaanado rahavaula adhani bhaavadi ayojja, sussasidabbo padimagado maharao, sahidanva ajjuाm ayatti, samassa- sidagva piamvada mama pitrasahi, sumaridavva savvakalam mandabhaini | ' Kundamala, Daksina Bh. Series p. 10. 1 We have, however, written a short note on the 'Authorship of the Mrcchakatika', in Chap. VI. We submitted a paper on the "Authorship and Date of the Mrechakatika" to the Ninth All-India Oriental Conference held at Trivandrum; the same has been accepted for publication in the Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society 2 Kundamala, Daksina Bharati Series, Intr., p. vi; Journal of the University of Bombay, 2, p. 179. 3 K. A. Subramania Iyer, Kundamala and the Uttararamacarita, OC, VII, pp. 91-97 on p. 97. 4 vatsa laksmana, pranamitanya tvaya mama vacanadraghava kularajadhani bhagavati ayodhya, susrusayitavyo pratimagato maharajah sadhayitavya svabhrunamajnaptih samasvasayitavya priyamvada mama priyasakhyah, sartavya sarvakalam mandabhagini |

71 Prof. Mankad takes it as referring to the Pratima. There is absolutely nothing to be found in the Ramayana about statue-houses, nor is there any other reference in Sanskrit literature excepting the Prat that would render padimagado ( pratimagatah ) intelligible. So we must take in these words a clear reference to the Prat. Prof. Kane, on the other hand, finds the above explanation "very far from convincing". Though nothing prevents the author from improving on the Ramayana, particular reference to the susrusa of pratimagata maharaja reminds one of Bhasa and all that he says about the upkeep of statue-houses, especially as the latter's works were in circulation at the period in which the Kundamala was composed. With due deference, we beg to differ from Prof. Kane. VAMANA in his KAVYALAMKARASUTRAVRTTI (IV. 3. 25) quotes a verse: saraccandramsugaurena vataviddhena bhamini | kasapuspalavenedam sasrupatam sukham krtam || as an instance of Vyajokti. The same verse occurs in the Svapna IV. 3. with such slight variations, as quoting from memory may involve, for example for any, and candramsu, mama for krtamh It will not be denied that the verse in its context in the play serves as a great illustration of Vyajokti. In the first adhyaya of the fifth adhikarana there is found a stanza (IV. 1. 3) yasam balirbhavati madgrhadehalinam hamsaisca sarasaganaisca viluptapurvah | anda zinfa faesquizug bijanjalih patati kitamukhavalidhah || which occurs in the Car (1.2) and Mrcchakatika (1.9). That Vamana was familiar with the Mrcchakatika is seen from another quotation dyutam hi nama purusasyasimhasanam rajyam | ( IV. 3. 23) from the latter. Vamana's quotation tallies more with the Car than with the Mrcchakatika, and hence it will not be unreasonable to suppose that he quotes from memory from the Car. We have shown in a later chapter that the Mrcchakatika is an enlarged version of the Car, and so the occurrence of that verse in the former does not stand against our Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 9, pp. 333-334; 12, pp. 97-98. 2 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 10, p. 155.

72 conclusion. Vamana's testimony, therefore, proves the existence of the Svapna and Car before the eighth century A. D. In the second adhyaya of the same adhikarana the passage etc. is cited as an ungrammatical prayoga on V. 2. 13, and the correctness of ga is examined. Now this happens to be the fourth pada of identical verses found in the Pratijna (IV. 2.) and Kautiliya Arthasastra (X. 3, p. 368). Apart from the question whether the verse originally belonged to Bhasa or Kautilya, it would be natural to suppose that Vamana is quoting from a literary work (Kavya) and not from a work on politics. Besides, we know that Vamana was acquainted with two other works of Bhasa (viz. the Svapna and Car) which proves their existence before the eighth century A. D. Then comes BHAMAHA, whom Dr. T. G. Sastri unsuccessfully tries to place in the first century B. C. He belongs to the seventh or the eighth century A. D.' In the fourth pariccheda of his Kavyalamkara, Bhamaha quotes (IV. 42) hato'nena mama bhrata mama putrah pita mama | matulo bhagineyasca rusa samrabdhacetasah || as an instance of Nyayavirodha. This has been taken to refer to the following speech of Hamsaka from the Pratijna (p. 13)2:- anesa mama bhada hado, agena mama pida, anena mama sudo, mama va assa tti | Bhamaha gives the whole situation in stanzas 38-45 of the same pariccheda, and it will clearly show that it is quite different from that detailed in the Pratijna. To give only a few notable differences: the elephant as described in the work criticized by Bhamaha is a faked one covered by leather, while that in Bhasa is real; the soldiers are placed in the body of the mechanical elephant by Bhamaha's author, while in Bhasa they are concealed in surrounding thickets; Vatsaraja in Bhamaha's author is fighting alone, Bhasa places twenty soldiers with him; the incident takes place according to Bhamaha's author 1 Kane, Sahitya Darpana, Intr., pp. XXV,-XLI on p. XXXIX; Raddi Sastri, Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 47, pp. 222-225; Hirananda Sastri, Memoirs of the Archaological Survey of India, 28, pp. 12-18. 2 G. Sastri, Critical Study, pp. 21-22; Sarup, Vision, Intr., p. 40; Banerji Sastri, Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 1923, pp. 79-80; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 45.

173 on the boundary of Vatsa country, while in the Pratijna it takes place in the Nagavana of Avanti. Thus it is clear that Bhamaha directs his criticism against a different work and not the Pratijna. Years ago, Prof. Kane suggested that the criticism referred to the Brhatkatha." But now thanks to the publication of the MSS of different works from the South, we are in a position to identify the work which formed the object of Bhamaha's attack. It seems that the criticism applies in all particulars to the incidents as described in the Vinavasavadatta (being published in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras) which, as we have shown, may be the Unmada. The situation and incidents mentioned by Bhamaha are all found in the Vina. The similarity between Bhamaha and the Pratijna, as noted by Prof. Dhruva, is merely "accidental'." Mr. V. Venkatarama Sarma in his introduction to the Abhiseka (p. v) states that ILANKOVADIGAL in the CILAPPADIKARAM, an ancient Tamil poem of the second century A. D., mentions one Balacarita Nataka, which treats of the story of Srikrsna in the following words:-"mayavanudan rammu nadiya Balacaritainatakangalil venedunkat Pinnai yodadiya kuravai yadutum". (Cilappadikaram edited by M. Svaminatha Aiyer, 1920, Madras, page 442). We are obliged to Mr. Sankar for supplying us with a transliteration and translation of the passage. For easy reference we herewith append his transliteration and translation:- "Ayarpadiyil erumanrattu Mayavan udan tan mun adiya balacaritai-natakangalil vel nedum kat Pinnaiyodu adiya kuravai adutum yam enral". He translates: "She said, 'let us dance the Kuravai dance, which Krsna of old in Gokula on the refuse-heap danced with Pinnai of lancelong eyes, among the many dances played with him and before him in the frolic of childhood". Mr. Sankar further writes that there is no reference to the Balacarita, and that two commentators support him in his interpretation. Prof. Dikshitar also thinks likewise.' The passage speaks of the Kuravai dance which Krsna of old danced in Gokula. Being quite ignorant of the Southern 1 Vividha Jnana Vistara (Marathi Monthly Magazine), 1920, p. 98; also Sahityadarpana, Intr., pp. XXXVIII-XXXIX. 2 Pradhanani Pratijna, p. 27. 3 In his letter dated 7-8-32. 4 In his letter dated 25-10-34.

74 vernaculars, we are not competent to hazard any guess; but supported as we are by a South Indian Scholar, we think that the word 'Balacarita' in the passage is purposely used, suggesting the drama of that name. It may be contended that the reference may be to another Balacarita; but we have not yet come across any other Balacarita, and again, especially in dramatic literature two works bearing identical titles are not found. We think there is no reason to infer the existence of another Bal by Bhasa dealing with Rama's childhood. The verse quoted by Visvanatha in his Sahityadarpana as from a Balacarita, viz. utsahatisayam vatsa tava balyam ca pasyatah | mama harsavisadabhyamakrantam yugapanmanah || (Kane's Edition, App. E., p. 73). may very well find a place in our play. It is the commentator of the Sahityadarpana that has given the reference (which made MM. Dr. G. Sastri to postulate the existence of another Bal by Bhasa) in his prefatory remarks attached to the verse, which read as follows: ramam prati parasuramasyoktiriyam ' and it is quite possible that he may not be right. The reference ought to have been a samkarsanasyotiriyam | We locate the stanza utsahatisayam etc. in our text at p. 42 after the last speech by Damodara and before the stage direction ( samkarsanastaih saha niskrantah | ) There is an occasion for the concern shown by Samkarsana for the safety of Damodara: Cf. again ( Samkarsana's speech on page 49; and further, Damodara has been addressed as 'Vatsa' by Samkarsana. So we think the verse fits in well with the context shown and hence the commentator on the Sahityadarpana is unhappily wrong. There are many instances of such mistakes by commentators.³ Thus, assigning a suitable reads dasarathasya for 1 Critical Study, p. 21. 2 Khuperkar, however, parasuramasya in ramam prati parasuramasthoktiriyam | (Lokasiksana, 5, p. 326 ). cf. also the Sahityadarpana, com. Ramacarana, Bombay, 1922, p, 304. 3 There are many instances of similar mistakes by commentators, e. g. st. 96 from Damodaragupta's Kutttinimata has been quoted in the Kavya Prakasa (X. 452) as an illustration of Atisayokti, but most of the commentators on the Kavya Prakasa are wrong in tracing the quotation. According to Kamalakara Bhatta, the verse is from the Malati-Madhava, while Mahesvara wrongly reading Malavi for Malati in the verse, refers it to the Malavikagnimitra. etc. is given in the Kavya Prakasa (X. 453 ) as an illustration of Prativastupama; but one commentator takes the verse as the speech of Vatsaraja to Ratnavali, while another takes it as the lamentation of the Pandavas after Draupadi was engaged as Sairandhri. Prof. Paranjape has given many instances in his introduction to the Pratima, pp. XX-XXIII.

75 place for the verse obviates the necessity of an awkward inference (of the existence of two dramatic works bearing identical titles), which these very Bhasaites were at pains to dislodge while dealing with the Svapna. Further, our Bal is known as the earliest version of the Krsna story on account of the absence of the erotic element which is a characteristic of the later description of Radha and Gopis.' Dr. Konow would "safely ascribe the Bal to an early date". In view of these statements therefore, and also on account of the absence of another Bal, we think, we are not far from right in taking the Tamil work as referring to our Bal. Asvaghosa's date is not yet settled, but none would place him later than the second century A. D. Asvaghosa's BUDDHACARITA contains one verse (XIII. 60): kastham hi mathnan labhate hutasam bhumim khanan vindati capi toyam | nirbandhinah kincana nastyasadhyam nyayena yuktam ca krtam ca sarvam || which is almost identical in expression with Bhasa's Pratijna (I. 18): kasthadagnirjayate mathyamanad bhumistotram khanyamana dadati | sotsahanam nastyasadhyam naranam margarabdhah sarvayattrah phalanti || In considering and evaluating these verses we are treading on delicate grounds where there is an ample scope for difference of opinion. It is a matter of taste only. Aesthetic beauty of a particular verse can be appreciated by some, while it may fail to appeal to others. Thus, in the present case, Dr. Sastri takes Bhasa's verse to be original from its easy and graceful flow; while Mr. Sankar takes Asvaghosa's verse to be free and direct. Subjective considerations, therefore, must be supplemented by other objective reasons. Prakrits of Bhasa show an earlier period; and the profuse use of short metres and preBharata dramatic technique are in favour of the priority of Bhasa to Asvaghosa. Next, we come to Kalidasa. The celebrated poet 1 Weller, Die Abenteuer des Knaben Krischna, trans., Intr., p. 13. 2 Indian Antiquary, 49, p. 234. 3 G. Sastri, Critical Study, p. 48; Sankar, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 53. 4 To do some justice to the problem of the date of Kalidasa at least 100 pages will be required, and the determination of the date in detail is not thought necessary. Main lines of our argument will merely be indicated here with reference to the recent contributions on the subject. There was a difference of some 1200 years between the earliest and latest dates assigned to Kalidasa but the Mandasore inscription rules out

76 in the prologue to the Malavikagnimitra pays a tribute to Bhasa of 'established renown'. His use of vartamana kavi in describing himself in contradistinction to Bhasa and other famous poets indicates the lapse of a considerable period between the two. Further, there are to be seen many faint Bhasa echoes in the works of Kalidasa." Court life of the kings in Bhasa is much simpler than in the plays of Kalidasa. These tend to show that Bhasa was quite well known by the first century B. C. and hence was considerably earlier. 2 Then comes Sudraka,³ Sudraka, the author of the Mrcchakatika. There occur various similarities, conceptual and verbal, between the Car and the Mrcchakatika, and in a later chapter we have attempted to prove the priority of the Car to the Mrcchakatika Finally, we come to Kautilya's Arthasastra, which, according to us, places us in possession of the later limit for the date of Bhasa. We prefer to follow Prof. Kane, all dates subsequent to the 5 th century A. D. Prof. Shembavanekar's articles on the subject (Journal of the University of Bombay, 1, pp. 232-246) sets many doubts at rest, and clearly shows the existence of a Vikramaditya, son of Mahendraditya, in the 1 st century B. C., confirming the traditional date. Cowell's theory as to the indebtedness of Kalidasa, was vitiated by the presumption of the priority of Asvaghosa and the comparisons by Prof. Chattopadhyaya (All. Univ. Studies, 2, pp.80-114) and Prof. Ray (Sakuntala, Intr., pp. 19-28) conclusively proves Kalidasa to be the model and fountain of inspiration for Asvaghosa. Dr. Pathak's theory about the Hunas based on a wrong variant, and again, it is shown that the Hunas were known to the Indians from pretty early times (Journal of the University of Bombay, 1, p. 245: All. Univ. Studies, pp. 126-133; Journal of Indian History, 15, pp.93-102 Sakuntala, Intr., p.81. It is not necessary to take the Meghaduta as the work of another Kalidasa as Prof. Dhruva argues (Parakramani Prasadi, Intr., pp.26-27; Thakkar Lecture, pp. 229-236). Dinnaga theory is also untenable on various grounds (Chattopadhyaya, All, Univ, Studies, pp. 164-167). Kaumudi Mahotsava (Dasaratha Sarma, Indian Historical Quarterly, 10, pp. 763-766; 11, pp. 147-148; OC, VIII, Summaries, pp. 25-26; Mankad, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 16, pp. 155-157) and Padyacudamani (Intr. by K. Sastri) also confirm the first century B. C. theory. The religious, social, political, astronomical etc.. conditions, as well as the language and Prakrit evidence (Ray, Sakuntala, Intr.,. pp. 1-19; 28-30; Vaidya, Lokasiksana, 7, pp. 9-17; K. Ray, Evolution of Gita, I 201-222, Dhruva, Thakkar Lectures, pp. 207-213; and Apte, Kane, Paranjape, etc. ) point to the same period. Prof. Shembavanekar's article further brings out the hollowness of the Gupta theory in that the Guptas were avowed Vaisnavas (Journal of the University of Bombay, 1, p: 238); Candragupta II was not the first Vikramaditya (Ib. p. 280); all the sastras that Kalidasa was acquainted with belong to the pre-Gupta, even the pre-Christian period (Ib. p. 241); beyond a few isolated inscriptions there is no literary composition that can authoritatively be ascribed to the Gupta period, 'the Augustan period of Sanskrit literature' (Ib. p. 242). Thus the first century B. C. theory must be accepted, as stated by Prof. Shembavanekar, "until some historical evidence of an unimpeachable character is brought to light" (Ib. p. 245). pp. 1 G. Sastri, Critical Study, pp. 35-36, 40-47; Paranjape, Sahityasamgraha, 1, pp. 157-160. 2 Winternitz, Problems, p. 122. 3 Many orientalists seem to hold the opinion that Sudraka preceded Kalidasa: cf. Belvalkar, OC, I, p. 204; Konow, ID, p. 57; Winternitz, Calcutta Review, Dec. 1924, p. 334; V. Smith, ERI. p. 324 n; Kavi, Avantisundarikatha, Intr, pp. 8-10; Caturbhani, Intr., pp. i-iii; etc. The view of some European orientalists that the Mroch was the earliest Sanskrit drama also tells the same story.

77 Dr. Bhandarkar, Dr. Jayaswal, Dr. N. N. Law, Dr. Ganapati Sastri, Dr. Jacobi and a number of other scholars in identifying Kautilya with the Brahmir. minister of Candragupta Maurya of the fourth century B. C. It is interesting to note in this connection that those of the pro-Bhasaites who assign a late date for Kautilya regard Bhasa's verse as the original source; while Kautilya is credited with originality by those who place him in the fourth century B. C. The passage: apiha slokau bhavatah --- | yan yajnasanghaistapasa ca viprah svargaisinah patracayaisca yanti | ksanena tanapyatiyanti surah pranan suyuddhesu parityajantah || navam saravam salilasya purna susamskrtam darbhakrtottariyam | tattasya ma bhunnarakam ca gacched yo bhartrpindasya krte na yudhyet || | (Arthasastra, X. 3, pp. 367-368) occurs as a quotation in the Arthasastra, but the source is not mentioned. It is presumed by some that the quotation may be from a Smrti now lost." The second verse occurs in the Pratijna (IV. 2) in the same connection as a war-song to encourage the soldiers. It would seem fairly unlikely at first sight that Canakya should quote from a piece of dramatic literature. But at times we meet with proverbial sayings from dramas in non-secular scientific works given as pramanas; eg satam hi sandehapadesu vastusu etc. in the Tantravartika of Kumarila. Kautilya found the quotation quite appropriate and hence incorporated it in his book. Had the quotation been from a Smrti, the author would certainly have mentioned the name of the Smrti or at least in general terms fat. The inference as to Manuniti being the source of Kautilya arose out of the suggestion of a commentator on the Arthasastra; but the commentator seems to be venturing a guess "which is not based on any authority". The evidence of the 9 1 Kane, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 7, pp. 85-100; Bhandarkar, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 7, pp. 65-84; Jayaswal, Hindu Folity, App. I; Ganapati Sastri Critical Study, p. 25; Dikshitar, Mauryan Polity, p. 19; Sama Sastri, Arthasastra, Intr., and preface to the translation, pp. VII-XXXIII; Fleet, Arthasastra, Eng. trans,, 1929, pp. V-VI; Thomas, Cambridge History of India, 1, pp. 467-ff. R. Mukerjee, Studies in Indian Polity, preface. 2 Sarup, Kautilya (2 nd century A. D.) the borrower, Vision, Intr., p. 41; Keith, Kautilya (4 th century A. D.) the borrower, Sanskrit Drama, p. 102; Banerji Sastri, Kautilya (4 th century B. C.) the original, Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 1923, p, 65; Sankar. Kautilya (4 th century B. C,) the original, Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 52. 3 R. Kavi, OC, III. p. 82; Kuppuswami Sastri, Ascarya, Intr., pp. 22-23. 4 Sabarabhasya, Vol. I., Anandasrama S. S., Poona, No. 97, p. 207.1. satam hi sandehapadesu vastusu occurs in Salcuntala, I. 19. 5 Dikshitar, Hindu Adm. Ins, p. 126 n.2. It is interesting to note that Dr. Jayaswal also approved this

78 Pratima where Kautilya is not mentioned but his predecessor Brhaspati is enumerated, is against the priority of the latter. Thus the external evidence places the fourth century B. C. as the later limit. The cumulative effect of the internal and external evidence is to place Bhasa in the fifth or the fourth century B. C. Dr. Banerji Sastri has considered Bhasa's priority to Vatsyayana and Bharata, but disputes his priority to Manu, Kautilya etc. Bhasa is certainly later than Manu (i.e. Manaviya Dharmasastra) but not the Manusmrti as we have it at present. chun chun ARGUMENTUM EX SILENTIO' 97 • derive by itself is possibly of no avail. If it supports the date arrived at by other sources, the argument would some force. The silence must be of such a type as not. to be explicable except on the ground of priority of the writer to the facts about which he is silent. There must, further, be a definite occasion for the poet or the writer to mention the fact on which he happens to be silent. In Bhasa, the non-mention of the following things indicates the antiquity of the author. The first thing that would strike a student of Bhasa in this connection is that all the characters of his plays are Northerners. Not only that; the place of action also is mostly North India, the only exceptions being the Rama plays, where the action takes place in the South. Only one place and one mountain is all that our poet knows of the topography of the South. Now we know that in Asoka's time much of Southern India was known, and that the mission headed by his son Mahendra penetrated as far as Ceylon. Tamraparni is mentioned in Rock Edicts II and XIII, which also refer to Ceylon.2 Mamulanar, an ancient Tamil author, speaks of the Mauryan invasions in the past as far as Tinnevelly District. Greek writers and some Mysore inscriptions suggest "that the first Maurya did conquer a considerable portion of trans-Vindhyan India". Our poet on the view about the quotation in the Arthasastra while reviewing Prof. Dikshitar's work in the Modern Review, 1930, June, p. 73. 1 Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 1923, pp. 66-67, 76-77. 2 Roy Chaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, 2 nd edition, p. 208; Contra, Smith, Asoka, 3 rd edition, p. 162. 3 Roy Chaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, 2 nd edition, p. 168.

79 contrary betrays a thorough ignorance of the country beyond Narmada. Hence it is not unreasonable to suppose him to have flourished before Candragupta's conquest of the South." Whenever our poet has to convey the sense of a coin, he uses the word Suvarna or Suvarnamasaka and not Nanaka which is found to be current in the later literature. Coins as such were unknown in ancient India, and as observed by Mr. Sankar, the word Nanaka was named from the Elamite Goddess Nanaia, who first appears in India on Kaniska's coins, i. e., 150 A. D.3 Some maintain that the coins of Kausambi date from the third century B. C. Latest researches in numismatics have shown that coins were struck in India from very early times. So the period of Bhasa is considerably earlier, there being no coins properly so called, but only pieces of gold of particular weights in his time. The silence of Bhasa as to the solar signs of Zodiac (rasis) also shows high antiquity. Bhasa mentions naksatras that are of Indian origin but excludes the mention of rasis in that connection, though on proper occasions. Rasis find a place in Hindu astrology through Hellenic influence. Kautiliya Arthasastra (fourth century B. C.) is also ignorant of rasis. Astronomical references in Kautilya are pre-Greek and entirely Indian. Rasis were first included in Hindu astrology not before the fourth century B. C.,³ and hence Bhasa is much earlier than the Greek contact with India. words: Bhasa refers to Jain mendicants in the following jadi vattham avanemi samatra homi | ( 40a, P. 85 ). That Sramanaka means a non-Brahmin, seems to follow 1 The recent excavations in Sind clearly show that the ancient inhabitants of the Indus Valley had trade relations and maritime intercourse with the whole world including the Southern India (Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization (Ch. XXVI (p. 546); XXVIII (pp. 563-564); XXXIII (pp. 675, 676, 678, 680, 683). In face of this it seems rather strange that the Indian writers of the pre-Mauryan period should betray a lamentable ignorance of the countries beyond the Narmada. It seems probable that the mercantile community and the trading guilds held this knowledge in the Indus Valley period and the general populace was in the dark beyond the Northern India bounded by the Himalayas and the Vindhya range. Further after the desertion of the Indus Valley due to natural or political upheaval no memory of the past remained and the people were confined to their own houses. Asutosh Memorial Volume, 2, p. 62; Cf. Kulkarni, Sanskrit Drama and Dramatists, p. 100; Deb, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1933, p. 345 n 2. 3 Ray, Modern Review, 1929, p. 254; Vaidya, Mahabharata, Upasamhara, pp. 42-47. 2

80 from the way they are spoken of (Pratijna, p. 43, za bahmanabhavam | ihamattaena samanaena abhayam dipradi | p. 46, edana ihamattaena ...). In the Avi (p. 84) also, 'Sramanaka' is used in contrast to Brahmana. The remark of the Vidusaka quoted above (etc.) clearly points to there being Digambara Jainas. As nakedness has been specified as a characteristic of Jaina Sramanakas, it follows that the writer was not aware of the other sect of Jainas, the Svetambara sect. The great schism dividing the ey originated at about 300 B. C., and Bhasa is certainly to be placed prior to this period, as he knows but one sect of the Jainas. Generally speaking, it may be safely said that these plays are free from Greek influence, as is evident from non-mention of many terms and ideas, as also the absence of the royal paraphernalia that found place in the Indian literature after Greek contact. It would be found that in all these cases, the inference of the priority of our poet from his non-mention or silence as to the above facts is a necessary one. The cumulative effect of all the arguments ex silentio is to place our plays in a pre-Mauryan period, and the internal and external evidence also point at the same period. Taking the Bharatavakyas into account, Bhasa may be posted to the period of Ugrasena Mahapadmananda, 'the precursor of Candragupta Maurya', or may be taken to be a senior contemporary of the great Maurya. Prof. Dikshitar on the strength of the arguments adduced by two learned Mahamahopadhyayas Ganapati Sastri and Haraprasad Sastri, also arrives at the same date. The difference of many centuries between the various dates assigned to Bhasa by different protagonists arises out of the atmosphere of uncertainty about the dates of Kalidasa, Sudraka and Kautilya. There is also a good deal of difference of opinion as to the priority or posteriority of Bhasa to Asvaghosa. If universally accepted dates could be found for Kautilya, Sudraka, Kalidasa and Asvaghosa, there will be no possibility of any difference as to the date 1 Cambridge History of India, p. 165. 2 Roy MM. Haraprasad Sastri quoted audhuri, Political History of Ancient India, 2 nd edition, p, 163; also in the Pratima, G. Sastri's p, 15; Dr. Upendranath Ghoshal, Modern Review, Octr, 1930, p, 438; Deb, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1933, pp. 349-350. 3 The Mauryan Polity, pp. 18-19; G. Sastri, Critical Study, pp. 74-75, 54 footnote : Haraprasad Sastri, Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 5, p. 560.

81 of Bhasa, his priority, at least to Kalidasa and Sudraka being beyond doubt. Thus it is that we place Bhasa in the pre-Mauryan epoch, Kautilya being the later limit for the date of Bhasa.