A History of Sanskrit Literature c3.41

c3.41

The ascription suggested by the evidence given above has recently been confirmed in the most gratifying manner by the discovery of fresh references in works on poetics and dramaturgy, inaccessible in Europe. The *Çr̥ṅgāraprakāça* of Bhoja in the eleventh century a.d. attests the currency of a drama in essentials as regards substance in accord with Act V of the *Svapnavāsava-* *dattā*; the *Bhāvaprakāça* of Çāradātanaya (13th century), knew a work not merely very similar in structure, but actually containing a verse found in the Trivandrum text. Sāgaranandin in the *Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakoça* ascribes to the *Svapnavāsavadattā* a passage which undoubtedly, as T. Gaṇapati Çāstrī shows, is a paraphrase of a passage at the beginning of our text, not a citation from a variant text as Professor Lévi suggested.¹ I agree also with T. Gaṇapati Çāstrī that the passage cited by Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra in the *Nāṭyadarpaṇa* from Bhāsa's *Svapnavāsavadattā* could easily have found a place in our text, while in any event it is clear that that play contained a scene parallel with one in our play. The most that can be made out from these facts against the ascription to Bhāsa is simply that there were probably varying recensions of the plays. That, of course, may be taken for granted; it was the fate of every much-studied and used play, and we have it exemplified to perfection in the case of Kālidāsa,² the variations regarding whose works seem to have been unknown to or forgotten by those who refuse to recognize Bhāsa's authorship of these dramas. There is no evidence at all to show that any of the versions of the *Çakuntalā* can be credited with any greater fidelity to the original of Kālidāsa than is possessed by the Trivandrum *Svapnavāsavadattā* in relation to Bhāsa's original. Moreover, it seems too often to be forgotten that variants may be due to the dramatist himself, who can hardly be supposed to have given his dramas a single perfectly definite text. It is, of course, tempting to adopt with Hermann Weller³ the belief that the actors of Kerala have the responsibility for mangling our texts, and to accept the view that Bhāsa is preserved to us in a deteriorated form, and that, for example, the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* and the *Svapnavāsavadattā* made up a single piece. But I am satisfied that to accept this view is uncritical and is to substitute our preferences for reality; the pedestrian character of some of Bhāsa's stanzas can far better be explained by the simple fact of his early date; Kālidāsa exhibits the influence of increased refinement of style in his dramas, just as in his epics he normally avoids the pedestrian traits which are easily to be found in the epics of his forerunner Açvaghoṣa. The dramatic defects of Bhāsa need not be ascribed to actors, for Kālidāsa himself in any version of even the *Çakuntalā* is far from perfect, and Shakespeare's flaws are notorious. On the other hand, we owe a very considerable debt to Hermann Weller¹ for showing in detail, with true insight into the nature of Bhāsa's poetic talent,² that six of the stanzas which by the anthologies are attributed to Bhāsa bear remarkable resemblance to the style of stanzas in our dramas. We may dismiss as far-fetched the suggestion that the makers of anthologies ascribed them to him because they felt in them the spirit of his poetry; it is common sense to assume that the ascriptions are correct, and that they add one more link to the chain of evidence which ascribes the dramas to Bhāsa, and vindicates the suggestion of a great Indian scholar.