certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon;
Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by
the study of such representations. [796] Doubtless the Mahomedan
conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was
obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with
the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who
had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared
from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition
of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed
to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of
the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the
Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans
made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court
life of the highest circles. [797]
NOTES
[1] i. 2 ff.
[2] Hopkins, Great Epic of India, pp. 7, 10, 53.
[3] Keith, JRAS. 1911, pp. 981 ff.
[4] Sieg, Die Sagenstoffe des Ṛgveda, p. 27.
[5] SBE. xxxii. 182 f.
[6] TI. i. 307 f.
[7] i. 92. 4.
[8] xii. 1. 41.
[9] Mysterium und Mimus im Rigveda (1908); VOJ. xxii. 223 ff.; xxiii. 1
ff., 270 f.
[10] VOJ. xviii. 59 ff., 137 ff.; xxiii. 273 ff.; xxiv. 117 ff. Cf.
Charpentier, VOJ. xxiii. 33 ff.; Die Suparṇasage (1922) is somewhat
confused and uncritical.
[11] See ch. xi., § 9; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 130 f.
[12] See also Jarl Charpentier, Die Suparṇasage (Uppsala, 1922).
[13] This is quite consistent with the ritual use in a Soma ‘wish’
offering suggested by Oldenberg, GGA. 1909, pp. 79 ff. Cf. his remarks
on vii. 103 in Ṛgveda-Noten, ii. 67.
[14] Oldenberg, GGA. 1909, p. 77, n. 4.
[15] Keith, JRAS. 1911, p. 1006.
[16] Cf. Sansk. Phil. pp. 404 ff.
[17] ZDMG. xxxvii. 54 ff.; xxxix. 52 ff.; GGA. 1909, pp. 66 ff.; GN.
1911, pp. 441 ff.; Zur Geschichte der altindischen Prosa (1917), pp. 53
ff.; Das Mahabharata, pp. 21 ff.
[18] VS. ii. 42 ff. GGA. 1891, pp. 351 ff.
[19] Compare Oldenberg, Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 241.
[20] See Keith, JRAS. 1911, pp. 981 ff.; 1912, pp. 429 ff.; Rigveda
Brāhmaṇas, pp. 68 ff.
[21] Die indische Balladendichtung (1913). Cf. G. M. Miller, The
Popular Ballad (1905).
[22] The existence of this type in the Epic is certainly most
improbable, and in the Jātakas it is not frequent; cf. Charpentier, Die
Suparṇasage, and Winternitz’s admissions, GIL. ii. 368 with Oldenberg,
GN. 1918, pp. 429 ff.; 1919, pp. 61 ff.
[23] Hillebrandt, Ved. Myth., i. 69 ff.
[24] Keith, Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, pp. 72 ff.
[25] Keith, HOS. XVIII. cxxxv.
[26] VS. xxx. 4; TB. iii. 4. 2.
[27] AID. pp. 22 f.
[28] ID. pp. 42 ff.
[29] xxix. 5.
[30] ii. 7. 3.
[31] The Prākritic form of the term as opposed to Vedic nṛtu and nṛtta
is legitimate evidence for the development of pantomimic dancing in
circles more popular than priestly. But it does nothing to show that
such dancing was originally secular, or that it rather than religious
dancing gave a factor to drama.
[32] Çān̄khāyana Gṛhya Sūtra, i. 11. 5.
[33] Caland, Die altindischen Todten- und Bestattungsgebräuche, pp. 138
ff.
[34] Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 237; Macdonell, Sanskrit
Literature, p. 347.
[35] Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 241. In Mexico we have the
material of a ritual drama (K. Th. Preuss, Archiv für Anthropologie,
1904, pp. 158 ff.), but not the epic element.
[36] Hopkins, The Great Epic of India, pp. 55 ff. Nāṭaka in ii. 11. 36
is very late; JRAS. 1903, pp. 571 f.
[37] xii. 140. 21.
[38] xiii. 33. 12.
[39] ii. 88 ff. See § 3 below.
[40] ii. 67. 15.
[41] ii. 69. 3.
[42] ii. 1. 27; Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 229, n. 1; contra, SBAW.
1916, p. 730.
[43] Barth, Inscr. Sansc. du Cambodge, p. 30. At the close of the
Mahābhārata the existence of such recitations is clearly recognized;
Oldenberg, Das Mahabharata, p. 20.
[44] Max Müller, India, p. 81. Cf. Winternitz, GIL. iii. 162, n. 1.
[45] E. Schlagintweit, India in Wort und Bild, i. 176.
[46] vii. 93.
[47] Lévi, TI. i. 311 f.
[48] Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index, ii. 94 ff.
[49] Konow, ID. p. 9; Lévi, TI. ii. 51. On these rhapsodes, cf. Jacobi,
Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 62 ff.; GGA. 1899, pp. 877 f.; Hopkins, The Great
Epic of India, pp. 364 ff.
[50] iv. 3. 110 f.
[51] iii. 2. 111.
[52] ye tāvad ete çobhanikā nāmaite pratyakṣaṁ Kaṅsaṁ ghātayanti
pratyakṣam Balim bandhayantīti. citreṣu katham? citreṣv apy udgūrṇā
nipātitāç ca prahārā dṛçyante Kaṅsakarṣaṇyaç ca. granthikeṣu kathaṁ
yatra çabdagaḍumātraṁ lakṣyate te ’pi hi teṣām utpattiprabhṛty ā
vināçād ṛddhīr vyācakṣāṇāḥ sato buddhiviṣayān prakāçayanti. ātaç ca
sato vyāmiçrā hi dṛçyante: kecit Kaṅsabhaktā bhavanti, kecid
Vāsudevabhaktāḥ. varṇānyatvaṁ khalv api puṣyanti: kecit kālamukhā
bhavanti, kecid raktamukhāḥ. See iii. I. 26. The text, uncertain in
detail, must be corrected by replacing buddhīr for the absurd ṛddhīr of
some manuscripts only, defended by Lüders. See Weber, IS. xiii. 487 ff.
Çaubhika is a variant.
[53] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff. Cf. Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227 f.;
Keith, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, I. iv. 27 ff.
Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 118 ff.) ineffectively supports Lüders, though
he recognizes the extraordinary difficulties of this view. The error is
due to the idea that one can only describe (ācaṣṭe) in words, ignoring
art and action.
[54] TI. i. 315. The words are: Kaṅsādyanukāriṇāṁ naṭanāṁ
vyākhyānopādhyāyāḥ.
[55] Weber might be interpreted as believing in an actual killing, but,
if so, he was clearly in error, and in point of fact he merely gives
this as possible (IS. xiii. 490). That Çaubhikas did manual acts and
were not talkers primarily, if at all, is suggested by the use
elsewhere of the term; thus in the Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 55, they are
classed with rope-dancers and wrestlers.
[56] ye ’pi citraṁ vyācakṣate ’yam Mathurāprāsādo ’yaṁ Kaṅso ’yam
bhagavān Vāsudevaḥ praviṣṭa etāḥ Kaṅsakarṣiṇyo rajjava etā udgūrṇā
nipātitāç ca prahārā ayaṁ hataḥ Kaṅso ’yam ākṛṣṭa iti te ’pi citragataṁ
Kaṅsaṁ tādṛçenaiva Vāsudevena ghātayanti. citre ’pi hi tadbuddhir eva
paçyatām. etena citralekhakā vyākhyātāḥ. On Lüders’ view the second
sentence is useless.
[57] Genesis des Mahābhārata, pp. 163 ff. Granthika occurs in MBh. xiv.
70. 7; cf. granthin, Manu, xii. 103.
[58] SBAW. 1916, p. 736. Hillebrandt (ZDMG. lxxii. 228) criticises
effectively Lüders’s interpretation. Cf. granthagaḍutva in R. i. 243.
[59] It is a confirmation of the incorrectness of Lüders’s view that he
is driven to render vṛddhīr, which he reads for buddhīr, as
‘Schicksale’. Now vṛddhi cannot possibly be used in this sense; it
means ‘prosperity’, and, applied to Kaṅsa or Bali, it is ludicrous.
What is meant is that, by forming parties, the Granthikas make real to
the audience the feelings of the characters, a doctrine entirely in
keeping with the duty of an actor according to N. Hillebrandt’s view of
the Çaubhikas as explaining the subject of the play to the audience,
like the Sthāpaka later (N. v. 154 ff.; DR. iii. 3; SD. 283),
contradicts the word pratyakṣam.
[60] Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 122) desires inversion, even on Lüders’s
theory, although Lüders attaches importance to the text.
[61] i. 4. 29 (naṭasya çṛṇoti, granthikasya çṛṇoti); ii. 4. 77 (agāsīn
naṭaḥ); ii. 3. 67 (naṭasya bhuktam); iii. 2. 127 (naṭam āghnānāḥ); iv.
1. 3.
[62] vi. 3. 43.
[63] Keith, ZDMG. lxiv. 534 f.; JRAS. 1911, pp. 979 ff.; 1912, pp. 411
ff.
[64] The Cults of the Greek States, v. 233 ff. The variant theory of
Miss Harrison, Prof. Gilbert Murray, and Dr. Cornford in Themis, and of
Dieterich, Archiv f. Religionswissenschaft, xi. 163 ff., is much less
plausible.
[65] Dawkins, Journ. Hell. Stud., 1906, pp. 191 ff.
[66] Lüders (SBAW. 1916, p. 718, n. 3) is responsible for the view that
Duryodhana is the hero. Lindenau (BS. p. 30) accepts this, but gives
the true facts (pp. 32, 33), without apparently realizing that the
views are contradictory. The Ūrubhan̄ga’s conclusion is happy, not
tragic, for the worshipper of Kṛṣṇa.
[67] Poetics, 1449 a 10 ff.
[68] Cf. the connexion of Greek Comedy with ritual cathartic cursing;
Keith, JRAS. 1912, p. 425, n. For less plausible theories see F. M.
Cornford, The Origin of Attic Comedy (1914); Ridgeway, Dramas and
Dramatic Dances, pp. 401 ff.
[69] AID. p. 27. Cf. below, p. 51, n. 1.
[70] Weber, Ueber die Kṛṣṇajanmāṣṭamī (1868).
[71] The influence of the Kṛṣṇa legend is suggested on the
Vikramorvaçī; Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 33
ff. Cf. below, p. 130.
[72] Lévi, TI. i. 331 f. Cf. Bloch, Langue Marathe, pp. ix. 12 f.
[73] Mathurā, pp. 91 f., 101 f.
[74] JPASB. v. 351 ff.
[75] Megasthenes ascribed the Kordax to the Indian Dionysos (Çiva);
Arrian, Ind. 7. Bloch (ZDMG. lxii. 655) exaggerates his importance.
[76] Cf. Ridgeway, Dramas and Dramatic Dances, p. 190, and pp. 192 ff.
on modern Indian drama in general.
[77] Lévi, TI. i. 319 ff. That any of the early Buddhist texts (e.g.
Padhānasutta, Pabbajjāsutta; Mārasaṁyutta, Bhikkhunīsaṁyutta;
Chaddanta-, Ummadantī-, Mahājanaka-, or Candakinnara-jātaka;
Theragāthā, 866 ff.; Therīgāthā, 912 ff.) is really dramatic is out of
the question; cf. Winternitz, VOJ. xxvii. 38 f.
[78] xii. p. 178. Drama is alluded to in Divyāvadāna, pp. 357, 360,
361.
[79] Schiefner, IS. iii. 483, Indian Tales, pp. 236 ff.
[80] ii. 24 (75).
[81] E. Schlagintweit, Buddhism in Tibet, p. 233; JASB. 1865, p. 71.
Ridgeway’s Dramas, &c., ignores Tibet. For similar Chinese
performances, see Annales Guimet, xii. 416 f.
[82] Āyāraṁga Sutta, ii. 11. 14; Rājapraçnīya, IS. xvi. 385. The love
of the Indians for song and dance is recorded by Greek tradition;
Arrian, Anabasis, vi. 2.
[83] Unfortunately the date of this change of view is uncertain. No
early Jain drama is certainly recorded. A number of mediaeval works
have recently been printed; see E. Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 59 ff.
[84] JA. sér. 9, xix. 95 ff. If this had been the case, one would have
found references freely to the literature in Hāla, where only v. 344
alludes to the Pūrvaran̄ga of the Nāṭaka (raiṇāḍaapuvvaraṁgassa).
[85] The Origin of Tragedy (1910); Dramas and Dramatic Dances of
non-European Races (1915); JRAS. 1916, pp. 821 ff.; Keith, JRAS. 1916,
pp. 335 ff.; 1917, pp. 140 ff. G. Norwood (Greek Tragedy, pp. 2 f.)
rejects Ridgeway’s view for Greece, and see Keith, JRAS. 1912, pp. 411
ff.
[86] Drama, &c., p. 129 asserts this as the view of ‘the best
authorities’; very wisely he does not refer to these amazing
authorities. Cf. E. Arbman, Rudra (Uppsala, 1922); Keith, Indian
Mythology, pp. 81 ff.
[87] ii. 88.
[88] ii. 91. 26 ff.; 93. 1 ff. Cf. Hertel, VOJ. xxiv. 117 ff.;
Ravivarman, Pradyumnābhyudaya, Act III, p. 23.
[89] Cf. von Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 292 ff. That this was
originally a ritual drama is most improbable.
[90] AID. pp. 22 ff.
[91] ID. pp. 42 ff.
[92] Hardy, Album Kern, pp. 61 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1914, pp. 392 f.
[93] ERE. iv. 868.
[94] AID. p. 25. Lindenau (BS. p. 45) sees in Vṛṣākapi of Ṛgveda, x.
86, the prototype of the Vidūṣaka, as a maker of mischief and as the
god’s companion, but this is far-fetched. Hertel (Literarisches
Zentralbl. 1917, pp. 1198 ff.) lays stress on the fact that at the
royal courts the king had normally a jester to amuse him. This may
easily have served to affect the figure of this character, if of
religious origin. For older views, cf. J. Huizinga, De Vidûṣaka en het
indisch tooneel (Groningen, 1897); F. Cimmino, Atti della reale
Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti (Naples, 1893), xv. 97
ff.; M. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.; P. E. Pavolini, Studi italiani di
filologia indo-iranica, ii. 88 f.
[95] TD. pp. 43 f. Cf. Niṣikânta Chattopâdhyâya, The Yâtrâs (1882).
[96] Die Heimat des Puppenspiels (1902). Obvious objections are given
by Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 164 ff.
[97] iii. 30. 23; v. 39. 1.
[98] Vikramorvaçīya, pp. 4 f.
[99] AID. p. 8; ZDMG. lxxii. 231.
[100] SBAW. 1906, pp. 481 ff.
[101] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff. Contra, Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 230 f.
Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 120) reduces the Çaubhikas to people who tell
tales of what is depicted on pictures, a clearly impossible version,
but valid against Lüders.
[102] Based on Kaiyaṭa’s version of Çaubhika: Kaṁsādyanukāriṇāṁ naṭānāṁ
vyākhyānopādhyāyāḥ. This is clearly incompatible with Lüders’s view, as
he admits (pp. 720 f.). Kaiyaṭa is far too late for useful evidence.
[103] See Vincent Smith, Asoka, (ed. 3), pp. 166 f.
[104] Bloch, Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.
[105] p. 344.
[106] xii. 295. 5.
[107] Bṛhatsaṁhitā, v. 74; see Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227.
[108] ZDMG. lxxv. 69 f.
[109] See ch. xi, § 8 below.
[110] See ch. xiv, § 2 below.
[111] AID. p. 8, n. 2. On Javan drama, cf. Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp.
216 ff.
[112] IS. ii. 148; Ind. Lit.2 n. 210; SBAW. 1890, p. 920; cf. IS. xiii.
492.
[113] Die Recensionen der Çakuntalā (1875), p. 19; SBAW. 1906, p. 502.
[114] Der griechische Einfluss im indischen Drama (1882); Sansk. Phil.
pp. 398 ff. Cf. E. Brandes, Lervognen (1870), pp. iii ff.; Vincent
Smith, JASB. lviii. 1. 184 ff.
[115] Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra, ii. 16 f. Cf. Keith, Buddhist Philosophy,
p. 217.
[116] TI. i. 345.
[117] Or Kuṣāṇa; CHI. i. 580 ff.
[118] Plutarch, Alex. 72; Fort. Alex. 128 D; Crassus, 33. Marshall
(JRAS. 1909, pp. 1060 f.) suggests a reproduction of a motif of the
Antigone in a vase at Peshawar, but dubiously.
[119] ii. 32.
[120] TI. ii. 60.
[121] Periplus, 48.
[122] Cf. Hultzsch, JRAS. 1904, pp. 399 ff. on the Kanarese words found
in a fragment of a Greek comedy preserved in a papyrus of the second
century A.D.
[123] This does not appear in the dramas of Menander so far as
recovered, and is of uncertain date. Cf. Donatus on Terence, Andria,
Prol.
[124] Konow, ID. p. 5, n. 5; Lévi, TI. i. 348; for the generic sense,
cf. Amara, ii. 6. 3. 22; Halāyudha, ii. 154.
[125] Already in Bhāsa: cf. Lindenau, BS. p. 41, n. 2; Lévi, Quid
de Graecis, &c. (1890), pp. 41 f.; on Greek influence, cf. Kennedy,
JRAS. 1912, pp. 993 ff., 1012 ff.; 1913, pp. 121 ff.; W. E. Clark,
Classical Philology, xiv. 311 ff.; xv. 10 f., 18 f.; Weber, SBAW. 1890,
pp. 900 ff.
[126] Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra, i. 21; Megasthenes, frag. 26; Strabo, xv.
1. 55.
[127] For this motif cf. Gawroński, Les Sources de quelques drames
indiens, pp. 39 ff. On recognition in the Greek tragic drama see
Aristotle, Poetics, 1452 a 29 ff.; Verrall, Choephorae, pp. xxxiii–lxx.
Its alleged essential character as an element of primitive tragedy,
the recognition of the god, is disposed of by Ridgeway, Dramas, &c.,
pp. 40 f.
[128] Cf. Bhāsa’s Svapnavāsavadattā, vi. pp. 51 ff.
[129] Poetics, 1449 b 12 ff.
[130] TI. i. 358.
[131] ID. p. 15.
[132] Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff., rashly
followed by Lüders, ZDMG. lviii. 868. See Hillebrandt, AID. pp. 23 f.;
GIL. iii. 175, n. 1.
[133] Der Mimus, i. 694 ff.; DLZ. 1915, pp. 589 ff.; E. Müller-Hess,
Die Entstehung des indischen Dramas (1916), pp. 17 ff.; Lindenau,
Festschrift Windisch, p. 41.
[134] Cf. Oldenberg, Die Literatur des alten Indien, pp. 241 ff.
[135] JA. sér. 9, xix. 95 ff.; IA. xxxiii. 163 ff. Cf. Bloch, Mélanges
Lévi, pp. 15 f.; Franke, Pāli und Sanskrit, pp. 87 ff.; Keith, Sansk.
Lit. ch. 1.
[136] ID. p. 49.
[137] ID. p. 50. Contrast CHI. i. 583.
[138] xvii. 75; cf. Sāhityadarpaṇa, 431; R. iii. 314.
[139] Cf. IS. xiii. 483 ff.; Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.
[140] Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, pp. 11, 64. Contrast his views
in SBAW. 1912, pp. 808 ff., when he accepts the much later date,
advocated by Oldenberg, GN. 1911, pp. 427 ff.
[141] Jacobi, Ausgew. Erzählungen in Mâhârâshṭrî, pp. xiv ff., suggests
the fifth century A.D. for Sātavāhana. V. Smith’s date (first cent.
A.D.) is certainly wrong. The poetry may probably be as early as the
third century; Weber’s ed., p. xxiii; Lévi, TI. i. 326; GIL. iii. 102
f.
[142] Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, pp. 40 f.; SBAW. 1913,
pp. 1003 ff.
[143] See Keith in CHI. i. 123 f.
[144] TI. i. 331.
[145] IA. xxx. 556.
[146] A transitional stage of Prākrit may, perhaps, be seen in the
Nāṭyaçāstra, but the text is very corrupt; cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha,
pp. 84 ff.
[147] Cf. Aischylos in Athen., p. 347.
[148] 559. See Daṇḍin, Kāvyādarça, i. 14 ff., and cf. the analyses of
Man̄kha’s Çrīkaṇṭhacarita (twelfth cent.) and Haricandra’s
Dharmaçarmābhyudaya in Lévi, TI. i. 337 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 38
ff.
[149] See Jacobi, Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 119 ff.; Walter, Indica, III.
[150] Such a drama as the Haragaurīvivāha of Jagajjyotirmalla of Nepal
(A.D. 1617–33), which is really a sort of opera with the verses,
written in dialect, as the only fixed element (Lévi, Le Népal, i. 242)
is of no cogency for the early drama. The Maithilī beginnings of drama,
based on the classical, give song in dialect, dialogue in Sanskrit and
Prākrit (Lévi, TI. i. 393).
[151] Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.; Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer
Dramen, p. 63.
[152] Cf. Weber, IS. viii. 181 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 615 f.
[153] ID. p. 50. For the fragments see Lüders, Bruchstücke
buddhistischer Dramen (1911); SBAW. 1911, pp. 388 ff. For his
philosophy, cf. Keith, Buddhist Philosophy, Part III, ch. iii. The
Saundarananda is earlier than the Buddhacarita and it than the
Sūtrālaṁkāra.
[154] N. xix. 102.
[155] Similarly in the Pārthaparākrama of Prahlādanadeva (twelfth
cent.) Vāsava pronounces the benediction.
[156] Açvaghoṣa’s dramatic powers are also exhibited in the Māra legend
of the Sūtrālaṁkāra, which is preserved in the Divyāvadāna (pp. 356
ff.; Windisch, Māra und Buddha, pp. 161 ff.); cf. Huber, BEFEO. iv. 414
f.
[157] In the Jain Moharājaparājaya (below, ch. xi, § 3) the real and
the ideal characters converse.
[158] Cf. Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.
[159] That any date is given in the inscription is wholly uncertain;
see discussions in IA. xlvii. 223 f.; xlviii. 124, 206 f.; xlix. 30, 43
ff.; JRAS. 1910, pp. 324 ff.
[160] Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.
[161] Gaüḍavaha, 800.
[162] Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.
[163] ID., p. 51, who also misses the point of Bhāsanāṭakacakra by
taking it to refer to one play only.
[164] Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.
[165] Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G.
Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā,
p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.;
Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.
[166] KF. pp. 109 ff.
[167] ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.
[168] All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin;
this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI.
xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of the Mahābhārata is
used.
[169] One in the Mahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the
original Kīcaka being of that class.
[170] KF. pp. 301 f.
[171] Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.
[172] Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.
[173] Cf. KSS. cxii. and Kāmasūtravyākhyā in ed. of Pratimānāṭaka,
Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.
[174] The story is referred to in the Mālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the
Kathā, see Lacôte, La Bṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’
motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.
[175] The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.
[176] iv. 40 ff.
[177] v. 2. 28.
[178] p. 366.
[179] Trs. A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G.
Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér. II,
xiii. 493 ff.
[180] iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.
[181] Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on
N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya
Sarvānanda (A.D. 1159).
[182] i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.
[183] i. 19.
[184] i. 15.
[185] i. 34.
[186] ii. 233.
[187] G. Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und
Mṛcchakaṭikā (1921). Cf. Mehendale, Bhandarkar Comm. Vol. pp. 369 ff.
[188] Arthadyotanikā, 2.
[189] In the Pratimānāṭaka the poet invents the episode of Bharata’s
learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of
government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In the
Pañcarātra the gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.
[190] Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.
[191] v. 43.
[192] p. 69 and v. 21.
[193] iii. p. 53.
[194] Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.
[195] v. p. 83.
[196] Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.
[197] pp. 59 ff.
[198] Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.
[199] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.
[200] vi. p. 102.
[201] Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.
[202] i. 25.
[203] pp. 43 ff.
[204] pp. 99 ff.
[205] Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in the
Dūtavākya.
[206] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and
Rāvaṇa’s fight; Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe
Duryodhana’s sacrifice.
[207] In the Madhyamavyāyoga there are three sons of the Brahmin;
Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of
the preliminaries to the drama.
[208] Prastāvanā is given in the Karṇabhāra.
[209] v. p. 56; cf. Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt
interruption in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of
the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s
capture.
[210] p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be
meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder, Arische Religion, ii.
114 ff.
[211] The idea that prathamakalpa is a technical term of dramaturgy
(DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term,
apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.
[212] The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but
there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.
[213] Karṇabhāra, 22.
[214] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.
[215] Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.
[216] Bālacarita, i. 13.
[217] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.
[218] i. 20.
[219] v. 1619.
[220] Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.
[221] Ibid., i. 18.
[222] Ibid., iii. 24.
[223] Pañcarātra, ii. 28.
[224] Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.
[225] i. 18.
[226] Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.
[227] iv. 9.
[228] i. 12.
[229] Avimāraka, i. 5.
[230] ii. 7.
[231] i. 18.
[232] iii. p. 25.
[233] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.
[234] Ibid., i. p. 10.
[235] Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.
[236] See Pratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.
[237] W. Printz, Bhāsa’s Prākrit (1921). The evidence of retention of
older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p.
589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.
[238] āni in Pāli, āṇi in the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders,
SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.
[239] Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1)
⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.
[240] Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107
ff.
[241] - - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in the Mṛcchakaṭikā of
classical dramas.
[242] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.
[243] ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.
[244] ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in the Caitanyacandrodaya.
[245] T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin, Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.
[246] i. 17.
[247] p. 7.
[248] v. 3.
[249] i. 16.
[250] v. 11.
[251] iv. 8, 11, 13.
[252] p. 107.
[253] v.
[254] vi. 1, 2.
[255] vi. 11, 13.
[256] Kālidāsa, p. 103.
[257] cxxxiii. 40.
[258] v. 2227.
[259] Lévi, TI. i. 198; Vāmana, iii. 2. 4.
[260] Rudraṭa, pp. 16 f. But see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 78 f.
[261] iii. 343.
[262] Wilson, Works, ix. 194.
[263] IS. xiv. 147; JBRAS. viii. 240.
[264] He is later the hero of a Parikathā, the Çūdrakavadha
(Rāyamukuṭa, ZDMG. xxviii. 117), and of a drama, Vikrāntaçūdraka
(Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 378).
[265] KF. pp. 107 ff. Cf. Bhandarkar, Anc. Hist. of India, pp. 64 f.;
CHI. i. 311.
[266] Berichte der Sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wissenschaften, 1885, pp. 439
f.
[267] Jacobi (Bhavisattakaha, p. 83) believes in Çūdraka as a king, but
thinks Kālidāsa older.
[268] See G. Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und
Mṛcchakaṭikā (1921).
[269] Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures, 1883, pp. 68 f.) compares the
procedure of the Smṛtis.
[270] KSS. lviii. 2–54.
[271] Daçakumāracarita, ii.
[272] xii. 92; xviii. 121.
[273] Cf. Çlokasaṁgraha, x. 60–163.
[274] His errors in the field of mythology are appalling, e.g. Kuntī
for Sītā, i. 21.
[275] Stenzler’s ed. pp. 325 ff.; Wilson, i. 177.
[276] i. 48.
[277] v. 42.
[278] i. 13; cf. Cārudatta, i. 5.
[279] i. 22; cf. Cārudatta i. 11, on which it improves.
[280] v. 49.
[281] v. 15.
[282] v. 16.
[283] v. 25.
[284] v. 26.
[285] v. 32.
[286] Ryder, The Little Clay Cart, p. xvi.
[287] Jayadeva, Prasannarāghava, i. 22.
[288] Mahāvīracarita, i. 4.
[289] Cf. Pischel, Prākrit-Grammatik, pp. 25 ff.
[290] JRAS. 1913, p. 882; 1918, p. 513. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 51.
[291] Used in verse even, e.g. by the Vidūṣaka.
[292] — — — —, — — — —. In no other classical drama is it found.
[293] The apparent occurrence of Māhārāṣṭrī stanzas is in all
probability not in accordance with the original text, which knew only
the Prākrits given in § 4; see Hillebrandt, GN. 1905, pp. 436 ff.
[294] Hillebrandt, Kālidāsa (1921), pp. 7 ff.
[295] JRAS. 1901, pp. 578 ff.
[296] e.g. Konow, SBAW. 1916, pp. 812 ff.
[297] JRAS. xii. (1880), 268 f.
[298] India (1883), pp. 281 ff.
[299] JRAS. 1909, pp. 89 ff.
[300] JBRAS. xix. 39 ff.
[301] iv. 68.
[302] Meghadūta (ed. 2), pp. vii ff. In v. 67 he reads Van̄kṣū = Oxus,
for Sindhu; see Haranchandra Chakladar, Vātsyāyana, p. 23.
[303] JRAS. 1903, pp. 183 f.; 1904, pp. 158 f.
[304] Huth, Die Zeit des Kâlidâsa, pp. 29 ff.
[305] Thomas’s suggestion (Hillebrandt, p. 12) of a reference to the
Sārasvata school in the same passage only adds to the improbability of
the reference.
[306] Keith, Indian Logic, p. 28.
[307] Pathak, IA. xl. 170 f.; Hoernle, 264; Haraprasād, JPASB. i.
(1905), 253; JBORS. ii. 35 f.; 391 f.
[308] Jacobi, ZDMG. xxx. 303 ff.; Monatsber. d. kgl. Preuss. Akad. d.
W., 1873, pp. 554 ff.; Huth, op. cit., pp. 32 ff., 49 ff.
[309] Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 433 ff.; Bloch, ZDMG. lxii. 671 ff.;
Liebich, IF. xxxi. 198 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 59 f.; Winternitz, GIL.
iii. 43 f.
[310] Ed. F. Bollensen, Leipzig, 1879; trs. A. Weber, Berlin, 1856; V.
Henry, Paris, 1889; C. H. Tawney, London, 1891. The existence of a
variant recension is shown by the divergence of a citation from it in
comm. on DR. iii. 18 from the manuscript tradition.
[311] That the Meghadūta is younger is suggested, not proved, by the
lesser lyric power shown (Huth, p. 68). The Ṛtusaṁhāra, however, is
doubtless earlier; its authenticity is demonstrated by me in JRAS.
1912, pp. 1066 ff.; 1913, pp. 410 ff. The relation of the
Kumārasambhava and Raghuvaṅça to the two later dramas is uncertain.
[312] For the history, see CHI. i. 519 f.
[313] Ed. F. Bollensen, Leipzig, 1846; S. P. Paṇḍit, Bombay, 1901; M.
R. Kale, Bombay, 1898; trs. E. B. Cowell, Hertford, 1851; L. Fritze,
Leipzig, 1880; E. Lobedanz, Leipzig, 1861. The Bengālī recension is ed.
Pischel, Monatsber. d. kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. W., 1875, pp. 609 ff.
[314] Cf. Huth, op. cit., pp. 63 ff.
[315] The prototype here is clearly Rāma’s search for Sītā; Rāmāyaṇa,
iii. 60. The Sudhanāvadāna, cited by Gawroński (Les sources de quelques
drames indiens, pp. 19, 29) draws probably from the same source.
[316] Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, p. 58; Bloch, Vararuci und Hemacandra,
pp. 15 f.
[317] Bengālī recension, R. Pischel, Kiel, 1877; M. Williams, Hertford,
1876, and M. R. Kale, Bombay, 1908, represent the Devanāgarī version,
and so mainly S. Ray, Calcutta, 1908; C. Cappeller, Leipzig, 1909.
There are South Indian edd., Madras, 1857, 1882. See also Burkhard, Die
Kaçmîrer Çakuntalā-Handschrift, Vienna, 1884.
[318] Konow, ID., pp. 67 f.; Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 243 ff.; B. K.
Thakore, The Text of the Śakuntalā (1922); Windisch, Sansk. Phil. pp.
344 f.
[319] De Kâlidâsae Çâkuntali recensionibus (1870); Die Recensionen der
Çakuntalā (1875).
[320] TI. ii. 37. The erotic passages in Act III in the Bengālī
recension must be judged by Indian taste; cf. Thakore, p. 13 for a
condemnation.
[321] IS. xiv. 35 ff., 161 ff. Cf. Bühler, Kashmir Report, pp. lxxxv
ff.
[322] Cf. above, p. 121, n. 1 as to the variation in correctness in
different classes of MSS.
[323] For a warm eulogy, see V. Henry, Les littératures de l’Inde, pp.
305 ff.
[324] xxiv; Viṣṇu, iv. 6; Bhāgavata, ix. 14; Pischel and Geldner, Ved.
Stud. i. 243 ff.; L. v. Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 242 ff. A.
Gawroński (Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 19 ff.) suggests
a popular legend, comparing the Sudhanāvadāna, No. 30 of the
Divyāvadāna.
[325] i. 74. Winternitz’s denial (GIL., i. 319 f.) of priority is
impossible; cf. Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp.
40, 91.
[326] The absurd silence as to Mālavikā’s origin in the
Mālavikāgnimitra is rendered acceptable by belief in prophecy.
[327] See S. D. and A. B. Gajendragadkar, Abhijñānaçakuntalā, pp. xxxvi
ff.; below, chap. xii.
[328] See Hari Chand, Kālidāsa et l’art poétique de l’Inde (1917), pp.
68 ff. On his suggestiveness, cf. Ekāvalī, p. 52.
[329] Çakuntalā, i. 15.
[330] Ibid., i. 20.
[331] Ibid., vi. 9.
[332] Ibid., vii. 19.
[333] Ibid., vi. 22.
[334] Ibid., vii. 32.
[335] Vikramorvaçī, iv. 55.
[336] Ibid., iv. 68.
[337] Ibid., iii. 11; for the text see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, p. 231.
[338] Vikramorvaçī, iii. 19.
[339] Ibid., i. 9. The parallelism is, of course, complete in Sanskrit,
but inexpressible directly in English.
[340] Mālavikāgnimitra, iii. 2.
[341] Ibid., iv. 14.
[342] Ibid., v. 19.
[343] Ibid., v. 12.
[344] Ibid., v. 11.
[345] Traces of Çaurasenī in verses appear in the Çakuntalā. Cf.
Hillebrandt, Mudrārākṣasa, p. iii; GN. 1905, p. 440.
[346] Cf. Pravarasena’s Setubandha. On Hāla and Kālidāsa, cf. Weber’s
ed., p. xxiv.
[347] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — | ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — bis.
[348] 16 + 18 bis: normal type ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — — | ⏑ ⏑ — — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑
— ⏑ — —.
[349] ⏑ — ⏑ —, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ —.
[350] — ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ —.
[351] ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ —, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — — ⏑ —.
[352] Huth, op. cit., Table.
[353] Hillebrandt (Kālidāsa, p. 157) points out the complexity of the
position.
[354] H. A. Shah (Kauṭilya and Kālidāsa (1920), p. 5), argues that
Raghuvaṅça, ix. 53, shows a more advanced view of hunting as a useful
sport when regulated (Arthaçāstra, p. 329) than the Çakuntalā. But the
dramatic propriety of the passage of the Çakuntalā renders the
contention uncertain. Whether Kālidāsa knew precisely our Arthaçāstra
is also uncertain.
[355] Lévi, BEFEO. iii. 38 f.; Liebich, Das Datum des Candragomin und
Kalidasas; Konow, ID. pp. 72 f.; GIL. iii. 185, 399 f.
[356] v. 2275.
[357] v. 1629.
[358] p. 163; Subhāṣitāvali, 1916; Çārn̄gadhara, cxvii. 14; text
uncertain.
[359] Subhāṣitāvali, 66.
[360] Subhāṣitāvali, 69.
[361] M. Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, Louvain, 1905; S. P. Paṇḍit,
Gaüdavaho, pp. cvii ff.; K. M. Panikkar, Sri Harsha of Kanauj, Bombay,
1922. It is impossible to connect the dramas with any definite incident
of his reign such as the Prayāga festival celebrated by Hiuan-Tsang.
[362] i. 2. Cf. Soḍhala (A.D. 993) in Kāvyamīmāṅsā (GOS. i), p. xii.
[363] Trs. Takakusu, pp. 163 f.
[364] vv. 856 ff.
[365] Ed. C. Cappeller, Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Chrestomathie, 3rd ed., pp.
326 ff.; trs. Wilson, ii. 255 ff.; L. Fritze, Schloss Chemnitz, 1878.
It was performed at a spring festival of Kāma.
[366] Ed. R. V. Krishnamachariar, Srirangam, 1906; trs. G. Strehly,
Paris, 1888.
[367] Ed. Calcutta, 1886; TSS. 1917; trs. P. Boyd, London, 1872; A.
Bergaigne, Paris, 1879; E. Teza, Milan, 1904.
[368] KSS. xxii. 16–257; xc. 3–201; BKM. iv. 50–108; ix. 2. 776–930.
[369] xv.
[370] Many traces of the Svapnavāsavadattā can be seen in the
Ratnāvalī, especially in the characterization of the Vidūṣaka.
[371] Āraṇyikā suggests that assertion would be undignified, seeing her
actual condition. In the Mālavikāgnimitra a prophecy is made to do
service as a motif.
[372] Cf. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.
[373] Ratnāvalī, iv. 6.
[374] Ratnāvalī, iv. 1.
[375] Ibid., iv. 16.
[376] Ibid., iv. 6/7. Cf. Priyadarçikā, i. on Vindhyaketu’s death.
[377] iii. 15.
[378] iii. 17.
[379] v. 25.
[380] i. 1.
[381] Or bodhau, ‘on his enlightenment.’
[382] iii. 4.
[383] iii. 2.
[384] iv. 7.
[385] iii. 15.
[386] Māgadhī is found in the Nāgānanda spoken by the servant. On the
variation of forms in the northern and southern editions see Barnett,
JRAS. 1921, p. 589.
[387] The Mattavilāsa, ed. TSS. lv. 1917.
[388] EI. iv. 152; South Ind. Inscr. i. 29 f.; G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, The
Pallavas, pp. 37 ff.
[389] A Sarvacarita is attributed to a Bāṇa in Rājarāma Çastrin’s
Sūcīpatra, but it may really be Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s as is the
Pārvatīpariṇaya (against Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, pp. 122 f.). The
Mukuṭatāḍitaka of Bāṇa is cited in Caṇḍapāla’s comm. on the Nalacampū,
p. 227.
[390] This verse is attributed to Bhāsa by Somadeva in his Yaçastilaka;
Peterson, Reports, ii. 46.
[391] pp. 7, 8, 9.
[392] So the Unmattaka in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa of Bhāsa.
[393] Antiquity is claimed by the editors of Caturbhāṇī (1922) for the
Bhāṇas, Ubhayābhisārikā of Vararuci, Padmaprābhṛtaka of Çūdraka,
Dhūrtaviṭasaṁvāda of Īçvaradatta, Pādatāḍitaka of Ārya Çyāmilaka, but
no reliance can be placed on the first two ascriptions, and none of the
plays need be older than 1000 A.D. Their technique is similar to that
of the Mattavilāsa.
[394] Pādavākyapramāṇajña; see Belvalkar, HOS. XXI. xxxvi. ff. where
the attempt to identify Padmapura with Padmāvatī as Pavāyā near Narvār
and the shrine of Kālapriya with Kālp on the Jumna is disproved. On his
Vedic studies, see Keith, JRAS. 1914, pp. 729 f. He knew the Kāmasūtra;
JBRAS. xviii. 109 f.
[395] iv. 144. On the dates, see Stein’s Intr., § 85, and notes on iv.
126 and 134.
[396] v. 799.
[397] i. 2. 12 (anonymous). That Bhavabhūti knew Bhāsa may be assumed;
his use of the rare Daṇḍaka metre may be borrowed, and similarities
between Uttararāmacarita, Act II and Svapnavāsavadattā, Act I, &c.,
exist.
[398] Ed. R. G. Bhandarkar, Bombay, 1876 (2nd ed., 1905); trs. Wilson,
ii. 1 ff.; G. Strehly, Paris, 1885; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1884. Cf.
Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 43 ff.; Cimmino,
Osservazioni sul rasa nel Mālatīmādhava, Naples, 1915.
[399] Ed. F. H. Trithen, London, 1848; NS. 1901; trs. J. Pickford,
London, 1892.
[400] Ed. and trs. S. K. Belvalkar, HOS. xxi–xxiii; trs. C. H. Tawney,
Calcutta, 1874; P. d’Alheim, Bois-le-Roi, 1906.
[401] The deplorable effort in Act IV of the Uttararāmacarita at
deliberate humour shows his weakness in this regard. A certain measure
of irony of situation is all that he ever attains, e.g. in connexion
with Rāma’s ignorance of the identity of his sons, cf.
Uttararāmacarita, iv. 22/3; vi. 19/20.
[402] xiii.
[403] KSS. xviii.; xxv. (Açokadatta and the Rākṣasas): cxxi. (Kāpālika
and Madanamañjarī); DKC. vii. (Mantragupta and Kanakalekhā).
[404] Kumārasvāmin, Pratāparudrīya, i. 38.
[405] Uttararāmacarita, vi. 12.
[406] Ibid., i. 12.
[407] Mahāvīracarita, v. 59. Cf. Uttararāmacarita, iv. 13, 14.
[408] Ibid., i. 39.
[409] Uttararāmacarita, iii. 18.
[410] Cf. ibid., i. 5.
[411] Ryder, The Little Clay Cart, p. xvi.
[412] G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 121 ff.
[413] i. 27.
[414] i. 38.
[415] v. 16.
[416] iii. 27.
[417] i. 29.
[418] i. 34.
[419] v. 10.
[420] Vāmana, i. 2. 12; SD. 627; Kāvyādarça, i. 40 ff.
[421] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ —.
[422] VOJ. ii. 212 ff.; contra Dhruva, VOJ. v. 25; Charpentier, JRAS.
1923, pp. 585 f.
[423] ID. pp. 70 f. Cf. Antani, IA. li. 49 f.; Winternitz, GIL. iii.
210.
[424] Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 145 f.; Hertel, ZDMG. lxx. 133 ff. It is
later than the Mṛcchakaṭikā, the Raghuvaṅça (vii. 43 as compared with
v. 23), and the Çiçupālavadha (i. 47 as compared with the last verse).
[425] Ed. A. Hillebrandt, Breslau, 1912; trs. Wilson, ii. 125 ff.; L.
Fritze, Leipzig, 1886; V. Henry, Paris, 1888.
[426] Or Parvataka. For an effort to extract history, see CHI. i. 470
ff. It must be regarded as very dubious.
[427] TI. i. 226 f.
[428] His ability in this regard can be seen in the jingle of
Malayaketu’s lament in v. 16.
[429] v. 1728.
[430] Mudrārākṣasa, v. 5.
[431] iii. i.
[432] v. 7.
[433] ii. 14.
[434] ii. 19.
[435] vi. 21.
[436] p. 154.
[437] p. 189.
[438] p. 153.
[439] Ed. KM. pp. 80, 150.
[440] Konow, ID. p. 77.
[441] Ed. J. Grill, Leipzig, 1871; Bombay, 1905; trs. S. M. Tagore,
Calcutta, 1880. Traces of different recensions exist.
[442] ii. 41.
[443] ii. 47.
[444] v. 120.
[445] v. 122.
[446] i. 15.
[447] i. 25.
[448] vi. 197.
[449] v. 157.
[450] E.g. vi, p. 87 (Sanskrit); v, p. 59 (Prākrit).
[451] i. 27.
[452] v. 146.
[453] v. 144.
[454] vi. 178.
[455] SD. 408. Lévi, however, is in error (TI. i. 35, 224) in
suggesting that SD. 406 censures as inappropriate Duryodhana and
Karṇa’s dialogue in Act III.
[456] pp. 139, 140.
[457] See Aufrecht, ZDMG. xxxvi. 521.
[458] v. 36; Lévi, TI. ii. 87. The citations are mainly from his
Kapphiṇābhyudaya; Thomas, Kavīndravacanasamuccaya, p. 111.
[459] Pischel, ZDMG. xxxix. 315; Hultzsch, GN. 1886, pp. 224 ff.
[460] Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 139 f.; Bhandarkar, Report (1897),
pp. xi, xviii; Peterson, Report, ii. 59. The name is variously given as
Māyūrāja.
[461] Subhāṣitāvali, 1766.
[462] Ibid., 1366.
[463] Ibid., 1364.
[464] Ibid., 1634.
[465] i. 42; SD. 390; N. xix. 94; Lévi, TI. ii. 9.
[466] DR. ii. 54 comm.
[467] DR. iv. 26 comm.
[468] DR. i. 41 comm.
[469] DR. iii. 13 comm.
[470] DR. iii. 17 comm.
[471] DR. iii. 12 comm.
[472] DR. iii. 38 comm.; SD. 512.
[473] DR. iii. 56 f. comm.; SD. 516.
[474] vi. 30/31 is cited in i. 6/7.
[475] xxxviii. 68. For his date cf. Bühler, Kashmir Report, p. 42. See
Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 141; Lévi, TI. i. 277.
[476] ID. p. 83. Dhanika (DR. ii. 1) cites, anonymously as usual, iii.
21.
[477] xxv. 74.
[478] ZDMG. lxxv. 63.
[479] ii. 34, as compared with vii. 83.
[480] Ed. KM. 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 125 ff.
[481] v. 6.
[482] vii. 87.
[483] vii. 82.
[484] vii. 107.
[485] vii. 90.
[486] Ed. p. 1, note.
[487] Konow, Karpūramañjarī, pp. 177 ff.; Hultzsch, IA. xxxiv. 177 ff.;
V. S. Apte, Rājaçekhara, Poona, 1886. Of special virtue is his
Kāvyamīmāṅsā on rhetoric, which is better than his dramas.
[488] Winternitz, GIL. iii. 47; Lévi, TI. i. 183 f.
[489] Ed. Calcutta, 1884.
[490] Ed. C. Cappeller, Strassburg, 1885; Weber, IS. xviii. 481 ff.
[491] Ed. S. Konow, trs. C. R. Lanman, HOS. iv. 1901; J. Charpentier,
Monde oriental, ii. 226 ff.
[492] Ed. Poona, 1886; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxvii. 1 ff.
[493] ii. 30. The translation of this and the next verse is taken from
Lanman’s version.
[494] ii. 47.
[495] ii. 49.
[496] Konow, ID. p. 87; Peterson, Reports, ii. 63; Bhandarkar, Report
(1897), p. xi.
[497] Peterson, Reports, iii. 340 f.
[498] Ed. Calcutta, 1884; trs. L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1883. On the same
theme is Rāmacandra’s Satyahariçcandra (twelfth cent.); see Keith,
JRAS. 1914, pp. 1104 f.
[499] Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp.
129 ff.
[500] Cf. Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith, Indian Logic, pp.
33 f. The verses common to the play and the Mahānāṭaka are clearly not
evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He
is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to
Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.
A.D. 1330), iii. 171 f., and the Çārn̄gadharapaddhati.
[501] Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.
[502] Ed. KM. 1896.
[503] Ed. TSS. 1910.
[504] Ed. KM. 1903.
[505] Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.
[506] Ed. KM. 1888.
[507] Ed. KM. 1894.
[508] Wilson, ii. 404.
[509] Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.
[510] Ed. GOS. 1917.
[511] Kielhorn, Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.
[512] Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf.
GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.
[513] Lévi, Le Népal, ii. 242.
[514] Haraprasād, Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.
[515] Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.
[516] Ed. Kielhorn, op. cit.
[517] Ed. Bombay, 1891.
[518] Ed. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of
Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’s Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana and Someçvara’s
Kīrtikaumudī.
[519] Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar, Report (1907), pp.
15 ff., who equates Mīlacchrīkāra with Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).
[520] We hear of a Rājarājanāṭaka performed annually in a temple of
Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh
century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in
Ridgeway’s Dramas, &c., p. 204.
[521] India Office Catal., no. 4194.
[522] Ed. Madras, 1912.
[523] Kumbhakonam, 1892.
[524] Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W.
Boissevain, Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.
[525] Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy
Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.
[526] Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date, c. A.D.
1550.
[527] Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is the Amṛtodaya of Gokulanātha,
Haraprasād, Report (1901), p. 17.
[528] Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of the Vidyāpariṇayana (Vedakavi,
nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.
[529] Ed. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.
[530] This is probably the nuance intended, as in saumyatā.
[531] Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.
[532] Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.
[533] Ed. KM. 1895. The late Mṛgān̄kalekhā of Viçvanātha son of
Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.
[534] Hultzsch, Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a
Prahasana, and the Ḍamaruka in ten Alaṁkāras; Madras Catal. xxi. 8403
ff.
[535] KM., Part 8, p. 51.
[536] Ed. Calcutta, 1878.
[537] Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.
[538] Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.
[539] ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.
[540] Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.
[541] Famous from the Nala onwards.
[542] Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.
[543] Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites an Ānandakoça.
[544] Ed. in Lassen’s Anth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād, Nepal
Catal., p. xxxvii.
[545] Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.
[546] Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.
[547] Wilson, ii. 407.
[548] Cappeller, Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.
[549] Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknown Çṛn̄gāramañjarī as a
specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.
[550] Ed. KM. 1894.
[551] Ed. Madras, 1874.
[552] Wilson, ii. 384.
[553] Ed. KM. 1902.
[554] Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.
[555] Ibid., 1889.
[556] Ed. in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.
[557] Ed., with the other five plays, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no.
viii. 1918.
[558] Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.
[559] Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.
[560] Bendall, Brit. Mus. Catal., no. 273.
[561] Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.
[562] Konow, ID. p. 114.
[563] Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.
[564] Ed. KM. 1889.
[565] Konow, ID. p. 118.
[566] Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.
[567] Ed. KM. 1888.
[568] See above, ch. ii. § 4.
[569] Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The
play borrows from the Bālarāmāyaṇa (ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and the
Mahānāṭaka.
[570] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.
[571] Loc. cit.
[572] For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in
Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly
in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is
only in some manuscripts.
[573] Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,
saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.
[574] Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze, Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.
[575] Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.
[576] Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA.
xlix, 232 f.
[577] The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,
Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.
[578] In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public
representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle, Rhetoric,
iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.
[579] Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-century Citrayajña, described by
Wilson, ii. 412 ff.
[580] Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint
misreading.
[581] See Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is
probable; Windisch, Sansk. Phil. p. 407.
[582] Contrast Aristotle’s doctrine of plot as the soul of tragedy
(Poetics, 1450 a 38).
[583] See above, pp. 38, 96, 106.
[584] Contrast Aristotle’s doctrine of ἁμαρτία (Poetics, 1453 a 10
ff.), as in Euripides’s Hippolytos; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 209
f., 213 f.
[585] Greek tragedy progressively reduced the lyric element in the
drama, in harmony with the rhetorical trend of the Greek intellect, and
approximated in language to ordinary speech; Aristotle, Poetics, 1450 b
9; Rhetoric, iii. 1 and 2; Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch.
vi, § 3.
[586] Contrast Greek tragedy; Butcher, Greek Genius, pp. 105 ff.; G.
Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 97 f., 114 f., 128 f., 177, 318, 324; W.
Nestle, Euripides (1901).
[587] For its extension and popularity outside Athens, see Haigh, The
Tragic Drama of the Greeks, chap. vi, § 4.
[588] Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 1 ff.
[589] See also Schmidt’s Beiträge zur indischen Erotik.
[590] pp. 57 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit. pp. 29 ff.
[591] Man̄kha, Çrīkaṇṭhacarita, xxv; Bhojaprabandha;
Vikramān̄kadevacarita; Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 49 ff.
[592] The translation by Ryder.
[593] Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 49 ff.
[594] Ibid., p. 33.
[595] Ibid., p. 78.
[596] Ibid., p. 53.
[597] AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31.
[598] Ed. KM. 1894, i–xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii–xx, xxxiv
in F. Hall’s Daçarūpa; xv–xvii (xiv–xvi), in Regnaud, Annales du Musée
Guimet, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset’s Contribution à l’étude de la
musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud, Rhétorique
sanskrite.
[599] Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that the
Çāstra is largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras.
For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see
Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, p. 89. It is probable that the Çāstra is
related to an original Sūtra in the same way as the Kāmandakīya
Nītiçāstra to the Arthaçāstra. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff.
[600] Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him;
Arthadyotanikā, 2.
[601] That in the Çāstra itself there is contradiction in this regard
between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34.
[602] Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third
century; the Prākrit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development;
Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity
to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8.
[603] Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912.
Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but
the difference of the name is fatal.
[604] Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1909.
[605] Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1903; cf. R. G. Bhandarkar, Report
(1897) pp. lxviii f.
[606] Ed. BI. with trs., 1851–75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910.
[607] Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses the Daçarūpa. Cf. Seshagiri,
Report for 1896–97, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited.
[608] For the authorship of the Kāvyaprakāça see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa,
pp. 103 ff.
[609] cc. 337–41. On Dhvani see Keith, Sansk. Lit. ch. x.
[610] Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. on Anargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR.
i. 7; SD. 274.
[611] Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f.
[612] N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27.
[613] DR. i. 15; iii. 20–22.
[614] N. xix. 2–6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323.
[615] N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320–3; R. iii. 13 f.
[616] N. xix. 7–13; DR. i. 18–20; SD. 324–9; R. iii. 22–5.
[617] N. xix. 19–21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317–19. The parallelism is
faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to
Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33,
admits this in effect; there is no episode in Ratnāvalī, III. Cf. R.
iii. 22.
[618] N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11
n.) suggests nibarhaṇa as correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii.
26–74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in the
Bālarāmāyaṇa is given in R. iii. 23–5.
[619] Abhinavagupta (Dhvanyāloka, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās
as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the
Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi
rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted in Pratāparudrīya,
iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306–8; R. iii. 26 f.
[620] SD. 321.
[621] N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33.
[622] N. xix. 103; SD. 406.
[623] N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407.
[624] SD. 342, 407.
[625] N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278.
[626] The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows
the performance of essential religious rites.
[627] Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff.
[628] SD. 278, no doubt by misreading.
[629] N. xviii. 14 f., 22–4; DR. iii. 27, 32–4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205;
JAOS. xx. 341 ff.
[630] N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109–16; DR. i. 52–6; SD. 305–13; R.
iii. 178 ff.
[631] Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says
Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow,
ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’s Tripuradāha, II.
[632] R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between
one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e.g.
Bālarāmāyaṇa, VII.
[633] Mātṛgupta in Arthadyotanikā, 20.
[634] xix. 53–7, 105–9; R. iii. 95; 79–92.
[635] SD. 279.
[636] N. xix. 30–4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299–303; R. iii. 15–17, where N. is
cited with variant readings.
[637] This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to
Vāsavadattā’s anger to come.
[638] DR. i. 57–61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff.
[639] DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff.
[640] N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4–6; DR. ii. 3–5; SD. 67–9; R. i. 72–8.
[641] DR. ii. 4.
[642] ii. 10, 16; iv. 22.
[643] DR. ii. 6; SD. 71–5; R. i. 80–2. R. i. 79, 83–8 has a division
into husbands, adulterers (upapati), and the connoisseur of hetaerae
(vaiçika). For the courteous lover, see p. 205.
[644] DR. ii. 9–13; SD. 89–95; R. i. 215–19; 64, 69.
[645] DR. ii. 8; SD. 159.
[646] DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf. Kāmasūtra, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90.
[647] DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96–100; R. i. 94–120, who takes the unusual
view that Irāvatī in the Mālavikāgnimitra is a hetaera.
[648] N. xxii. 197–206; DR. ii. 22–5; SD. 113–21; R. i. 121–51.
[649] N. xxii. 4–29; DR. ii. 28–39; SD. 126–55; R. i. 190–214, with
Bhoja’s views.
[650] N. xii. 121 f.; xxi. 126; xxiv. 106; DR. ii. 8; SD. 79; R. i. 92.
[651] N. xii. 97; xxiv. 104; DR. ii. 8; SD. 78; Kāmasūtra, p. 58;
Schmidt, Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, pp. 200 ff.
[652] N. xii. 130; xxiv. 105; DR. ii. 42; SD. 81.
[653] SD. 86 f., 158.
[654] N. xxiv. 107; DR. ii. 41; SD. 82.
[655] N. xxiv. 60 ff.
[656] N. xxiv. 15 ff. The Kāmasūtra, of course, covers much the same
ground.
[657] N. xxiv. 50 ff.
[658] SD. 426. R. iii. 323–38 gives very elaborate details.
[659] N. xvii. 73 ff.; DR. ii. 62–6; SD. 431 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 129,
corrected JA. sér. 9, xix. 97 f.; R. iii. 306–22.
[660] A child may thus be addressed by persons of low rank, SD. 431;
cf. Mṛcchakaṭikā, x. p. 160.
[661] For another style, cf. Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi, p. 124; Upādhyāya, R. iii.
309.
[662] P. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, pp. 266 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi.
394 f.; M. Lindenau, Beiträge zur altindischen Rasalehre, Leipzig,
1913. See N. vi. and vii.; DR. iv.; SD. iii.; R. i. 298–ii. 265.
[663] Mātṛgupta (Hall, DR., p. 33) subdivides sentiment as vācika,
produced by words; nepathya, generated by appropriate garlands,
ornaments, clothes, &c.; svābhāvika, produced by such natural
excellencies as beauty, youth, grace, firmness, courage, &c.
[664] Ekāvalī, iii, pp. 86 ff.; Kāvyaprakāça (ed. 1889), pp. 86 ff. Cf.
R., pp. 173–5.
[665] See also Abhinavagupta, Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 67 f.;
Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 9.
[666] The term is vyutpatti; it is explained by Abhinavagupta, op.
cit., p. 70; GGA. 1913, p. 305, n. 1.
[667] The reference to Brahman shows that we have here the same fusion
of doctrine as in Sadānanda’s Vedāntasāra.
[668] In the same sense we have rasika and bhāvaka (e.g. R., p. 170).
[669] vi. 7 ff.; Huizinga, De Vidūṣaka in het indisch tooneel, pp. 67
ff.
[670] vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ
ānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ. (iv. 1.) Cf. R.
ii. 169.
[671] iv. 36 ff.
[672] iv. 41; R., p. 175, l. 1.
[673] vi. 39–41.
[674] Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 68, 70.
[675] See § 6 below.
[676] iv. 33. Cf. R., p. 171.
[677] SD. 41. This possibility is denied by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.
[678] xxvi. 18 f. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, xvii. 1455 a 30.
[679] SD. 50 ff. So such a great actress as Sarah Bernhardt might feel
emotion in acquiring her part, but not in the daily performance.
[680] Ekāvalī, p. 88; DR. iv. 40.
[681] Vyaktiviveka (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. v).
[682] iv. 47 ff. Cf. R. ii. 170 ff.
[683] Cf. Haas, DR., pp. 133, 150; R. ii. 178–201, where a list of
twelve, with desire and eagerness prefixed, is rejected.
[684] Cf. R., pp. 189 f.
[685] Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, v. 1449 a 36.
[686] Save for a late reading in vi. 15.
[687] See Dhanika, DR. iv. 33; SD. 240; Ekāvalī, pp. 96 ff. Other
sentiments are sometimes recognized, such as friendship, faith, and
devotion; cf. Rasagan̄gādhara, p. 45. Bhoja admits love only. An example
of calm is the Prabodhacandrodaya. Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 395; R., p.
171.
[688] N. xx. 25–62; DR. ii. 44–57; iii. 5; SD. 285, 410–21; R. i.
244–94, which expressly denies a fifth manner composed of the four.
[689] Ratnāvalī, ii. R. i. 275 gives pā pā pāhi hi hīti as an instance
of comic fear exhibited in speech.
[690] Or narmasphañja.
[691] An alternative is love enjoyment interrupted, as in the
Ratnāvalī, ii. 17; R. i. 278.
[692] A variant ascribed to Bharata is given in R. i. 279, where a hero
dies and another fills his place, e.g. Rāvaṇa replaced by Vibhīṣaṇa.
[693] N. xviii. 106–16; DR. iii. 11–18; SD. 289, 293, 521–32; R. i.
164–74.
[694] The first kind is illustrated by Uttararāmacarita, i; the second
by a citation from the Chalitarāma.
[695] As in the Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa, R. i. 168.
[696] As in the Abhirāmarāghava.
[697] SD. 471–503.
[698] N. xvii. 6–39; SD. 435–70; 36 bhūṣaṇāni, R. iii. 97–127.
[699] The Saṁgītadāmodara merges them in one (Lévi, TI. i. 104). Cf.
DR. iv. 78.
[700] xvii. 40 ff. The Alaṁkāra doctrine later develops enormously; cf.
Jacobi, GN. 1908, pp. 1 ff.
[701] xvii. 99 ff.
[702] See Weber, IS. viii. 377 ff.
[703] i. 41 ff.
[704] iii. i and 2; cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, ch. v.
[705] Kāvyaprakāça, pp. 542 ff.; Ekāvalī, pp. 147–9; Alaṁkārasarvasva,
pp. 20 f. R. i. 229–43 has the ten Guṇas and komalā, kaṭhinā, and miçrā
as the three names.
[706] Mammaṭa, Kāvyaprakāça, viii. 1 ff.; Ekāvalī, v.; Sāhityadarpaṇa,
viii; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 7.
[707] iii. 1. 1–3.
[708] pp. 57, 60. Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 68.
[709] vi. 147. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 48 ff.
[710] Jacobi, GN. 1911, pp. 962 f.; 1912, p. 841 f.
[711] Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 74, 76. Cf. Haranchandra Chakladar,
Vātsyāyana (1921).
[712] N. xvii. 31 ff.; DR. ii. 58–61; SD. 432; R. iii. 299–305.
[713] Including, of course, persons assuming such rôles, e.g. in the
Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa and Mudrārākṣasa. For the use of Sanskrit by
women, usually in verse, as by Vasantasenā in the Mṛcchakaṭikā, and by
inferior characters, see Pischel, Prākrit Grammatik, pp. 31 f.
[714] R. iii. 300 assigns it as Prākṛta to low persons and Jains. He
assigns Apabhraṅça to Caṇḍālas, Yavanas, &c., but admits that others
give Māgadhī, &c.
[715] Grierson, JRAS. 1918, pp. 489 ff. Cf. R. i. 297 which has seven;
Çabara, Dramiḷa, Andhraja, Çakāra, Abhīra, Caṇḍāla, foresters.
[716] Contrast the Aristotelian doctrine as to the use of the lyric
choruses; Poetics, 1456 a 25 ff.; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 75–80;
Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. v, § 6.
[717] xviii. 117–29; DR. iii. 47 f.; SD. 504–9. On gesture see the
Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. R. iii.
236–48 gives other details of the Lāsya from the Çṛn̄gāramañjarī;
dialect is allowed in the Saindhava. He follows N. in having Trimūḍhaka
as expressing male emotions in smooth words, and has Dvimūḍhaka.
[718] Lévi, TI. ii. 18 f. For N. xxviii see J. Grosset, Contribution à
l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888. The hints as to musical
accompaniment in Vikramorvaçī iv. and the Gītagovinda are unfortunately
largely unintelligible. Cf. also Çivarāma on Nāgānanda, i. 15.
[719] v. 1 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 23 ff.
[720] These nine acts gratify the Apsarases, Gandharvas, Daityas,
Dānavas, Rakṣases, Guhyakas, and Yakṣas. They are performed behind the
curtain according to Konow, but cf. Lévi, TI. i. 376.
[721] N. v. 149 ff.; DR. iii. 2 ff.; SD. 283 ff. Cf. R. iii. 150 ff.
[722] An effort to discriminate Prastāvanā and Sthāpanā is made, R.
iii. 158.
[723] These are more common than formerly thought; the Sthāpaka is
found in various connexions in the Pārthaparākrama of Prahlādana, and
Vatsarāja’s Kirātārjunīya, Rukmiṇīharaṇa, Samudramathana. But the
Rasārṇavasudhākara ignores him. Çivarāma’s comm. on Nāgānanda, i. 1
shows that great doubt then existed both as to the preliminaries (p.
2), and the Sūtradhāra, Sūcaka, or Sthāpaka (pp. 6, 7). Cf. p. 273.
[724] GGA. 1883, p. 1234; 1891, p. 361. Bhāsa’s use of Sthāpanā for the
prologue suggests accord with the Daçarūpa.
[725] E.g. Tapatīsaṁvaraṇa and Subhadrādhanaṁjaya, where Sthāpanā is
used.
[726] A classification of poets on the basis of their confidence in
themselves as expressed in this place is given in R. i. 246 f.;
Kālidāsa is elevated (udātta) in the Mālavikāgnimitra; Bhavabhūti
haughty (uddhata) in the Mālatīmādhava; self assertion (prauḍha) is
seen in the Karuṇākandala; modesty (vinīta) in the Rāmānanda.
[727] Konow, ID. p. 25.
[728] Lévi, TI. i. 135, 379; ii. 26 f., 64, 66. Cf. Harivaṅça, ii. 93;
Kuṭṭanīmata, 856 ff.
[729] Lévi, TI. i. 132 f.; ii. 24 f.; Hall, DR., pp. 25 f. The
Veṇīsaṁhāra has six stanzas. R. iii. 137 f. takes Pada as word, giving
the Mahāvīracarita, Abhirāmarāghava, and Anargharāghava as examples of
8, 10, and 12 Padas.
[730] For a general reference see Pañcarātra, i. 1. In a Jain drama
like the Moharājaparājaya, the benediction is addressed to the three
Tīrthakaras; in the Nāgānanda to the Buddha.
[731] N. xviii. 10 ff.; DR. iii. 1–34; SD. 278, 433, 510; R. iii. 130
ff.
[732] Ghanaçyāma’s Navagrahacarita has three acts; Madhusūdana’s
Jānakīpariṇaya (A.D. 1705) has four.
[733] N. xviii. 41 ff.; DR. iii. 35–8; SD. 511 f.; R. iii. 214–18, who
gives Kāmadatta as the name of a hetaera drama.
[734] N. xviii. 57–70; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 56–61; SD. 515 f.; R. iii.
249–64.
[735] N. xviii. 72–6; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 66–8; SD. 518; R. iii. 284–8
(type Māyākuran̄gikā).
[736] N. xviii. 78–82; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 51–3; SD. 517; R. iii.
280–4 (type Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa).
[737] N. xviii. 83–5; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 54 f.; SD. 514; R. iii.
229–32 (type Dhanaṁjayajaya).
[738] N. xviii. 86–9; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 64 f.; SD. 519; R. iii.
224–8 (type Karuṇākandala) who differs.
[739] N. xviii. 93–8; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 49 f.; SD. 534–8; R. iii.
268–79 (type Ānandakoça).
[740] N. xviii. 99–101; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 44–6; SD. 513; R. iii.
232–5.
[741] N. xviii. 102 f.; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 62 f.; SD. 520. Konow (ID.
p. 32) is in error as to N. R. iii. 265–70 has Mādhavī-Vīthikā.
[742] SD. 276.
[743] Hall, DR., p. 6.
[744] cccxxxvii. 2–4. R. iii. 218–23 denies the separate character of
the Nāṭikā or Prakaraṇikā.
[745] DR. i. 8.
[746] xviii. 54–6; DR. iii. 39–43; SD. 539.
[747] SD. 554.
[748] SD. 542. Cf. the Bharhut bas-relief of a dance, Sāḍika; Hultzsch,
ZDMG. xl. 66, no. 50.
[749] SD. 540.
[750] SD. 541. Cf. Hall, DR., p. 6.
[751] SD. 555.
[752] SD. 543.
[753] SD. 544.
[754] SD. 556; for the others see 546 ff. Names of plays are given, but
they are lost, and were probably late.
[755] vii. 90 f.; xi. 36.
[756] ii. 18.
[757] iv. 3.
[758] Mālatīmādhava, p. 79.
[759] vi. 48, and see pp. 108 f.; Lévi, TI. ii. 38.
[760] Cf. the later view in Rome, which forbids death on the stage,
Horace, Ars Poetica, 183 ff., with Aristotle, Poetics, 1452 b 10 ff.,
which approves the presentation of death and other acts on the stage.
[761] M. Lindenau, Festschrift Windisch, pp. 38 ff.
[762] Poetics, 1449 b sq. with Butcher’s trs. and Bywater’s notes.
[763] Poetics, 1449 b 13. For time analysis in Kālidāsa, see Jackson,
JAOS. xx. 341–59; in Harṣa, xxi. 88–108.
[764] Bloch, Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.
[765] ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.; Çilparatna (ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.
Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.
[766] For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of
similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld, Das griechische
Theater; Haigh, Attic Theatre (3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in
Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.
[767] The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not
supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.
[768] Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.
[769] The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which
resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain,
has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp.
274 f.
[770] W. Crooke, The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh,
ii. 20 ff.
[771] Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf. naṭagrāma, Epigr. Ind. i. 381.
[772] xxiv. 85 f.
[773] Cf. Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.
[774] xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.
[775] Weber, IS. xiii. 493.
[776] viii. 362; cf. Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8; Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.
[777] vi. 1. 13.
[778] xvi. 8.
[779] ii. 1. 2. 13.
[780] Kauṭilīya, p. 7.
[781] Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.
[782] Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.
[783] iii. 57.
[784] N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not
normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.
[785] N. xxi.
[786] N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. the Mahābhāṣya,
iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.
[787] Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.
[788] N. xxi.
[789] Cf. the Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy
and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.
[790] 856 ff. Cf. the accounts in the Harivaṅça, ii. 88–93.
[791] Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.
[792] Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of the
Mṛcchakaṭikā (Lévi, TI. i. 210).
[793] xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.
[794] Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.
Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.
[795] Tagore, Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were
excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.
[796] Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.
[797] A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century;
e.g. the Citrayajña of Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for
the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā about A.D.
1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’s Āçcaryamañjarī
and Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of the
Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style of Mantrān̄kanāṭaka, and the
Nāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637; Pratimānāṭaka (ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K.
and V. R. Pisharoti, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, III.
i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are
compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding
that the Cārudatta is an adaptation of the Mṛcchakaṭikā (contrast p.
131), the Pratimānāṭaka is later than Kālidāsa, and the Avimāraka than
Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in the Pratimā (iv. 9 f.) is that of
Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the
inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts
Pisharoti’s views, holding the Nyāyaçāstra of Medhātithi (Pratimā, v.
8/9) to be the Manubhāṣya (tenth century), but this is wholly against
the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the
priority of the Cārudatta to the Mṛcchakaṭikā which he admits, and the
absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.