A History of Sanskrit Literature c3.30

c3.30

The question of the authenticity of the dramas ascribed to Bhāsa by the late T. Gaṇapati Çāstrī has been frequently discussed since my *Sanskrit Drama* appeared, but without results of value, largely because the true issues have been misunderstood and effort has been devoted to proof of the obvious. It is true that it is not a matter of much importance whether the dramas be ascribed to Bhāsa or to an unknown poet, but it is important to consider whether (1) they are all by one hand, and (2) by a writer earlier than Kālidāsa and the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*. Both these propositions seem to me clearly established, for, though some Indian and, less excusably, some European² scholars still seem not to have weighed the evidence adduced by Dr. Morgenstierne, the English protagonist against T. Gaṇapati Çāstrī's theory recognizes that the *Cārudatta* must be placed before the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*. Priority to Kālidāsa seems established by evidence of use by that poet, and of greater antiquity in technique, style, diction, metre, and forms of Prākrit; it is significant that Kālidāsa has Māhārāṣṭrī, unknown to Bhāsa. Moreover, it is perfectly clear that Bhāsa's Prākrits, as revealed by the manuscripts of his plays, occupy a position intermediate between the Prākrits of Açvaghoṣa and of Kālidāsa as shown by European critical³ editions. It is no reply to this fact to point out that manuscripts of Kālidāsa's works of similar provenance to those of Bhāsa's dramas show Prākrit forms similar to those of Bhāsa's plays, for the obviously correct explanation is that Kālidāsa's works in these southern manuscripts have been affected by the usage of Bhāsa. It is clear that quite late dramas use forms of the Prākrits of Bhāsa, doubtless as a result of his great influence, just as the dramas recently published from southern manuscripts show frequent signs of borrowing of ideas and style from Bhāsa, as in the case of the *Dāmakaprahasana* absurdly ascribed to him.¹ Moreover, it must be noted that the most searching criticism has failed yet to find any proof of borrowing by Bhāsa from Kālidāsa, or references to matters later than that poet. The effort to turn the term *rājasiṁhaḥ*—a mere variant of *rājā*—into a proper name has found no general acceptance, and the identification of the *Nyāyaçāstra* of Medhātithi, mentioned in the *Pratimānāṭaka*, with Medhātithi's commentary on Manu is clearly due to forgetfulness that Medhātithi is obviously Gautama, the famous author of the *Nyāya Sūtra*. Unity of authorship is proved by style, a consideration which unfortunately seems often to be ignored, as when, for instance, it seems seriously to be suggested³ that the author of the *Āçcaryacūḍāmaṇi*,⁴ Çaktibhadra, who obviously imitated Bhāsa, might be the author of the works. This evinces the same curious lack of discrimination which ascribes to Daṇḍin the *Avantisundarīkathā*, credits Bāṇa with the *Pārvatīpariṇaya*, and would rob Kālidāsa of the *Ṛtusaṁhāra*.