Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c10: IV. Bhāsa

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c10

Language
English

Contents

IV. Bhāsa

1. The Authenticity of Bhāsa's Dramas

c10.s1.1

UNTIL 1910 the existence of any drama of Bhāsa's was unknown in Europe, and only in 1912 appeared under the editorship of T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin, the first of a series of thirteen dramas which their discoverer attributed to that poet. The fact, however, that the dramas themselves are silent as to the authorship rendered careful research necessary to determine their provenance, and the proofs adduced have not won entire satisfaction.

c10.s1.2

What we knew before the publication of Bhāsa was simply his high reputation. Kālidāsa in his first work, the Mālavikāgnimitra, refers to Bhāsa, with Saumilla, Kaviputra, and others as his great predecessors in the art, whose fame renders difficult the acceptance of the work of an untried author. Bāṇa,¹ at the beginning of the seventh century, states that Bhāsa attained fame by his dramas, begun by the Sūtradhāra, with many rôles and including episodes, as one might by the erection of temples, begun by the architect, with many stages, and beflagged. It would be unwise to prove by this that Bhāsa innovated in these regards; what is essential to Bāṇa is to celebrate Bhāsa's fame, and to show his wit by the comparison in the same words with some not very obvious object of comparison. A century later Vākpati² declares his pleasure in Bhāsa, friend of fire (jalamitte), in the author of the Raghuvamśa, in Subandhu and Hāricandra. Rājaçekhara (c. A. D. 900) places him among the classical poets, and a verse records a curious incident: ‘Critics cast on the fire, to test it, the discus composed of the dramas of Bhāsa; the Svapnavāsavadattā did not succumb to the flames'.¹ The verse, however, contains a *double entendre* strangely ignored by Professor Konow;² it denotes of course the superiority of the *Svapnavāsavadattā* to the other dramas of Bhāsa—a fact which the published plays bear out to the full—but it also alludes to a reason; the play itself contains a fire, which was feigned by the minister to permit the possibility of the king's new marriage, and it is only appropriate that, as that fire could not burn the queen, so the fire which tried the play was unable to prevail against it. The passage throws the necessary light on the term 'friend of fire' of Vākpati, which should not be rendered meaningless by attributing it to the fact that Bhāsa often mentions fire in his dramas.

c10.s1.3

¹ Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.

c10.s1.4

² Gaüḍavaha, 800.

c10.s1.5

¹ Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.

c10.s1.6

² ID., p. 51, who also misses the point of *Bhāsanāṭakacakra* by taking it to refer to one play only.

c10.s1.7

These facts are, it must at once be admitted, extremely favourable to the authenticity of the dramas; taken all in all they are clearly the work of a very considerable writer; in technique they are less finished than those of Kālidāsa; the Prākrit is clearly earlier than that of the works of Kālidāsa or the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*; the *Svapnavāsavadattā* is clearly the best, and it explains Vākpati and Rājaçekhara's references. Bāṇa's statement regarding the opening of the plays by the Sūtradhāra is proved by the dramas. There is also substantial evidence to be derived from the writers on rhetoric. Bhāmaha, who may belong to the beginning of the eighth century A.D., criticizes severely the plot of the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*; Vāmana, in the eighth, cites from that play, the *Svapnavāsavadattā*, and the *Cārudatta*; Abhinavagupta (*c.* A.D. 1000) twice names the *Svapnavāsavadattā*, and mentions the *Cārudatta*. These references are not in themselves conclusive, for they do not mention Bhāsa as the author of the plays, even when these are named,³ and not merely cited from or discussed, but they show that the critics knew and were prepared to cite these dramas, which means that they accepted the view that they were by an important author. The ascription of the *Svapnavāsavadattā* to Bhāsa gives us the right to accept his authorship of the rest if internal evidence supports it. That this is so is undeniable, even by those who suspect the attribution to Bhāsa the coincidences in technique, in the Prākṛits, in metre, and in style are overwhelming. Finally, there is the evidence of the Cārudatta; it is undeniably and obviously the prototype of the Mṛcchakaṭikā, and it proves, therefore, that the dramas are older than that work which was well known by Vāmana, and is certainly a good deal earlier.

c10.s1.8

³ Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.

c10.s1.9

The arguments¹ against the authenticity are all inconclusive. They are based on the fact that a drama, Mattavilāsa, of Mahendravikramavarman, of the seventh century A. D. presents the same characteristics as regards the form of opening the drama as the plays of Bhāsa, and the suggestion that Rājasinha is to be identified with a prince of the south of that name (c. A. D. 675). The evidence is clearly inadequate; Bhāsa's fame was evidently more prevalent in the south than in the north, for a scene from one of his plays has survived in a mutilated form in the popular theatre there, and it is easy to understand how a seventh-century writer imitated him in technique. Moreover, the imitation is very partial; the omission of the name of the author and the play is not followed, and this is certainly a sign of a later date for the Mattavilāsa. The guess regarding the identification of the king is without probative force, for the term seems deliberately vague, and is in keeping with the silence of the author regarding his own name and that of his drama. The introduction of immediate reality is incongruous, and, therefore, avoided.

c10.s1.10

¹ 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.

2. The Date of Bhāsa's Dramas

c10.s2.1

It is difficult to arrive at any precise determination of Bhāsa's date. That Kālidāsa knew his fame as firmly established is clear, and, if we may fairly safely date Kālidāsa about A. D. 400, this gives us a period of not later than A. D. 350 for Bhāsa. The fact of his priority to the Mṛcchakaṭikā leads us to no definite result, for the view that this play is to be placed before Kālidāsa in the third century A. D. is not at all plausible. An upper limit is given by the fact that Bhāsa is doubtless later than Açvaghoṣa, whose Buddhacarita is probably the source of a verse in the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, and whose Prākrit is assuredly and unquestionably older in character. It is useless to seek to estimate by the evidence of the Prākrit whether Bhāsa is more closely allied in date to Kālidāsa than to Açvaghoṣa, because changes in speech and the representation of them in literature are matters which do not in the slightest degree permit of exact valuation in terms of years. The most that can be said is that it may be held without improbability that Bhāsa is nearer to Kālidāsa’s period than to Açvaghoṣa’s.

c10.s2.2

An effort at more exact determination is made by Professor Konow¹ on the ground that Bhāsa’s dramas in part deal with the story of Udayana, of which Ujjayinī was specially fond, as we know from Kālidāsa. Hence we may assume that the home of the poet was Ujjayinī, an assumption which obviously is not legitimate in any degree. Further we may assume that he lived under one of the Western Kṣatrapas, which again goes too far. Now the usual ending of a drama is not regularly observed in Bhāsa’s dramas; the introductory question is found only in the *Avimāraka*, *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, *Bālacarita*, and *Dūtavākya*. The description of the final benediction as Bharatavākya is omitted in the *Madhyamavyāyoga*, where Viṣṇu is praised; in the *Dūtaghaṭotkaca*, where his commands are given; in the *Pañcarātra*, where the wish is expressed that the king (*rājasinha*) should rule the whole earth; and in the *Ūrubhaṅga*, where the wish is that the prince should conquer his foes and rule the earth. In the other plays a change of form of the Bharatavākya is asserted; in the *Karṇabhāra* there is the desire for the disappearance of misfortune; in the *Pratimānāṭaka* the wish is that the king may fare as Rāma who was reunited with Sītā and his kinsmen; in the *Avimāraka*, the *Abhiṣekanāṭaka*, and the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, that the king should, after destroying his foes, rule the whole earth, while in the *Svapnavāsavadattā*, *Dūtavākya*, and *Bālacarita*, the wish is for universal rule. This suggests that for a time the king reigned in peace; then enemies arose and disturbed his power; finally he again won the upper hand, and his friends could without absurdity pray for his attaining imperial rank. This would agree with the history of the Kṣatrapa Rudrasiṅha, who held from 181-8, and again from A. D. 191-6 the high rank of Mahākṣatrapa, and whose name may be hinted at in the use of the term rājasimha. That the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* is older than the *Svapnavāsavadattā* is held to support this suggestion, but it is clearly without any merit save ingenuity.

c10.s2.3

¹ KF. pp. 109 ff.

c10.s2.4

Nor is there more to be said for Konow's other suggestions of date; the fact that the term Nāṭaka is used, and that the Vidūṣaka appears, cannot show that he is early, for they are used on continuously to the latest days of the drama, and the view that Bhāsa was an innovator who shortened the preliminaries, which is given as a reason for making him early, because the *Nāṭyaśāstra* gives the preliminaries in detail, is abandoned *sub silentio* in the author's later work,¹ where it is candidly admitted that we do not know whether he shortened the preliminaries at all. Nor can we say anything regarding his relation to the *Nāṭyaśāstra* which will aid us to a date; there is even a tradition that he himself wrote on the theory of the drama. Nor can any weight be attached to the view that Bhāsa stands nearer Aṣvaghoṣa in technique than Kālidāsa; these matters do not permit of precise evaluation in time, and, (if we place Bhāsa about A. D. 300, we go as far as the evidence allows.)

c10.s2.5

¹ ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.

3. The Dramas and their Sources

c10.s3.1

The derivation of the drama in part from epic recitations is peculiarly clear in Bhāsa, who shows the influence of the two great epics in its clearest form. In the *Madhyamavyāyoga*² we have a reminiscence of the tale of the love of the demon Hiḍimbā for Bhīma, the third of the five Pāṇḍavas, and their marriage which has Ghaṭotkaca as its fruit, though the parents part. The play opens with preliminary rites, after which the director pronounces a benediction on the audience, and begins to address them, but is suddenly interrupted by a sound, which is revealed as the cry of a Brahmin, who with his three sons and his wife is being pursued by the demon Ghaṭotkaca. The demon has received orders from his mother to bring her a victim; he offers, therefore, to spare the rest of the family, if one is willing to go with him, and the midmost, Madhyama, of the sons decides to go, though there is a generous rivalry among the three in self-sacrifice. He asks, however, time to go to perform a rite of purification, and, as he tarries, the demon in anger calls aloud for him. Bhīma responds, as the midmost of the Pāṇḍavas; he will go in the boy's place, but not by force. The demon, not knowing his father, seeks to compel him, but, failing, accepts his offer to go willingly. Hiḍimbā greets her husband with joy, and reproaches her son and bids him express regret. She explains that her demand was made expressly to win for her a visit from Bhīma, who suggests that they should all accompany the aged Brahmin and his family to their destination, and with a verse in praise of Viṣnu the piece ends.

c10.s3.2

² All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912-15 by T. Gaṇapati Ṣāstrin; 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.

c10.s3.3

Ghaṭotkaca is again the leading figure of the Dūtaghaṭotkaca, which may also be classed as a Vyāyoga, a term indicating primarily a military spectacle. The Kurus are jubilant over the defeat of Abhimanyu, Arjuna's son, at the hands of Jayadratha, though Dhṛtarāṣṭra warns them of the dangers that overshadow them. Ghaṭotkaca appears to them and predicts their punishment at the hands of Arjuna. Of the same general type apparently is the Karṇabhāra which deals with Karṇa's armour; he makes himself ready for his fight with Arjuna, and tells Ṣalya, the Madra king, of the trick by which he won it from the great Paraṣurāma, though the latter retaliated for the deception by the curse that the arms should fail him in the hour of his need. The curse is fulfilled, for Indra comes in the guise of a Brahmin and obtains from Karṇa his weapons and earrings. Karṇa and Ṣalya go out to battle, and the sound of Arjuna's chariot is heard. In the Ūrubhaṅga the fight between Bhīma and Duryodhana, greatest of the Kurus, ends in the breaking of the thigh of the latter, who falls in agony; his son comes to him in his childish way, but his father is fain to save him the sorrow of his plight. His parents and wives surround him; he seeks to comfort them; Aṣvatthāman swears vengeance despite his counsels of peace; visions of his brothers and Apsarases float before him, and he passes away.

c10.s3.4

These four plays have each but one Act; the Pañcarātra, on the other hand, has three, and may perhaps be classed as a Samavakāra, in so far at least as it is a drama in which there are more heroes of sorts than one, and they more or less attain their ends, which seem to be the chief features of that dubious kind of play in the theory. It reflects the period when efforts are being made to save the Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas from the fatal conflict, which ends in the ruin of the former and grave loss to the latter. Droṇa has undertaken a sacrifice for Duryodhana, and seeks as the fee the grant to the Pāṇḍavas of half the realm to which they had a just claim. Duryodhana promises on condition that they are heard of within five days. Virāṭa, however, is missing from those present at the offering; he has to mourn the loss of a hundred ¹ Kīcakas. Bhīṣma suspects that Bhīma must be at the bottom of this illhap, and on his instigation at the end of Act II it is decided to raid Virāṭa's cows, as he hopes thus to bring the facts to light. The foray, however, fails, for the Pāṇḍavas are with Virāṭa in disguise; Abhimanyu is taken prisoner and married to Virāṭa's daughter. The charioteer in Act III brings back the news, showing clearly that Arjuna and Bhīma have taken part in the contest, but none the less Duryodhana decides to keep faith.

c10.s3.5

¹ One in the *Mahābhārata*, but Bhima slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kicaka being of that class.

c10.s3.6

The *Dūtavākya*, a Vyāyoga in one act, is again from the *Mahābhārata*, but deals with the Kṛṣṇa legend. Bhīṣma is made chief of the Kuru forces; the arrival of Nārāyaṇa is announced, but Duryodhana forbids that any honour be shown to him, and seats himself before a picture, in which is depicted the indignity shown to Draupadī, when her husband gambled her away at dice. Kṛṣṇa enters, making a deep impression on all by his majesty; even Duryodhana falls from his seat. The messenger demands the half of the realm for the Pāṇḍavas; Duryodhana refuses and seeks to bind the envoy. Enraged, he calls for his magic weapons, but finally he consents to lay aside his wrath, and receives the homage of Dhṛtarāṣṭra. It is interesting to note that the play, in describing the picture, omits any allusion to the miracle by which in the epic Kṛṣṇa himself is represented as providing the unhappy Draupadī with fresh raiment as soon as each garment is dragged from her in insult. But it would be extremely unwise to assume with Professor Winternitz ² that this fact proves that Bhāsa did not know of this episode, and that it was interpolated after his time in the epic. Obviously it would have ruined the effect of the picture if such a fact had been hinted at in it, apart from the difficulty of exhibiting this by the painter's art, and Bhāsa is clearly justified on artistic grounds in allowing this episode to be passed over.

c10.s3.7

² KF. pp. 301 f.

c10.s3.8

Of far greater importance is the *Bālacarita*,¹ which presents us with a lively and vivid picture of the feats of Kṛṣṇa, culminating in the slaying of Kaṃsa, a brilliant exemplification of the value of Patañjali's evidence as to the growth of drama. The director enters, pronounces a verse of benediction asking the favour of the god, who is Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, Rāma, and Kṛṣṇa in the four ages of the world; he announces the advent of the sage Nārada and retires. Nārada explains that he has come from the heaven to gaze on the young Kṛṣṇa, born in the family of the Vṛṣṇis as son of Devakī and Vasudeva, who is in truth Nārāyaṇa incarnate to destroy Kaṃsa. He sees the infant, pays homage, and departs. Devakī and Vasudeva appear on the stage; they have joy in the birth of a son, but terror, for Kaṃsa has slain already six sons of theirs and will slay the seventh—a deviation in number from our other sources which make Kṛṣṇa the eighth child. Vasudeva takes the infant and decides to remove it from Kaṃsa's reach. He leaves the city, but the child's weight is as colossal as that of Mount Mandara; the darkness is impenetrable, but a marvellous light comes from the child, and the Yamunā makes dry a path for him to cross. The spirit of the tree under which he rests brings to him the cowherd Nanda, bearing a dead maiden, an infant just borne by his wife Yaçodā, who, fallen in a faint, does not know whether the child is a boy or a girl. Nanda gives aid reluctantly, but in memory of past favours. He seeks first to purify himself from contact with the dead, but a spring of water shoots forth and renders labour needless. He takes the boy, but his weight proves too great. Now appear in the guise of herdsmen the weapons of Kṛṣṇa and his steed, who present themselves each with a verse, ‘I am the bird, Garuḍa,’ &c., ‘I am the discus’, ‘I the bow’, ‘I the club’, ‘I the conch’, and ‘I the sword’: At the request of the discus the infant consents to become light, and Nanda bears him away. Vasudeva finds the dead child awakened to life in his arms, and the weight of it is oppressive, but the Yamunā once more gives dry passage, and he returns to Mathurā and Devakī. Act II opens with an entr’acte in Kaṃsa’s palace. The curse pronounced on him by the seer Madhuka enters, guised as a Caṇḍāla in hateful form with a necklace of skulls; he and his retinue of Caṇḍālis force their way into the heart of the palace; the royal fortune, Rājaçrī, would bar their way, but the curse announces that it is Viṣṇu’s will that he enter, and she yields; the curse seizes then hold of Kaṃsa. The Act then presents Kaṃsa uneasy and distressed by the portents of the night; he summons his astrologer and his domestic priests, who warn him that the portents presage the birth of a god. Kaṃsa has Vasudeva summoned, is told of the birth of a daughter, refuses to spare the child, and hurls it against a rock. But part only of the lifeless body falls to earth; the rest rises to heaven, and the dread figure of the goddess Kārtyāyanī appears to the king. Her retinue come also, announcing each his advent with a verse, and declare their purpose to destroy Kaṃsa. In the meantime, in herdsmen’s guise they will go to the home of the child to share in the sports of the herdsmen.

c10.s3.9

¹ Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.

c10.s3.10

The entr’acte before Act III tells us in the mouths of the herdsmen of their joys since Kṛṣṇa came to live with them, and an old man relates in a long Prākrit speech his wonderful deeds, including the destruction of the demons, Pūtanā, Çakaṭa, Yamala and Arjuna, Pralamba, Dhenuka, and Keçin. We are told then that Kṛṣṇa or Dāmodara, the name won from an adventure, has gone to the Vṛndā wood for the Halliçaka dance; the dance is performed by Dāmodara, his friends, and the maidens, to the music of the drum and to song. The advent of the demon Ariṣṭa is announced; Dāmodara bids the maidens and herdsmen mount a hill, and watch the struggle. It proves unequal; the bull demon recognizes the superiority of his foe, and that he is Viṣṇu himself, and meets death with resignation. The victory accomplished, the news is brought of a new danger, the snake Kālīya has appeared on the Yamunā bank, menacing cows and Brahmins. Act IV shows the maidens seeking to restrain Kṛṣṇa from the new struggle, but he persists and overcomes the demon, plunging into the waters to grapple with him. He brings him out, learns that he had entered the waters in fear of Garuḍa who slays snakes at pleasure, makes him promise to spare cows and Brahmins, and puts on him a mark that Garuḍa must respect. A herald then enters to challenge Dāmodara and his brother Balarāma to the festival of the boys at Mathurā.

c10.s3.11

Act V shows us Kaṃsa plotting the overthrow of the youths. A herald reports the arrival of Dāmodara, and his great feats of strength, the mocking of the elephant let loose on him, the making straight of a female dwarf, the breaking of the bow of the guardsman. The king orders at once the boxing to begin; Kṛṣṇa, however, easily overcomes Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra, the king's chosen champions, and completes his victory by a sudden onslaught which leaves the king dead. His soldiers would avenge him, but Vasudeva announces Kṛṣṇa's identity with Viṣṇu, and appoints Ugrasena king in Kaṃsa's place, freeing him from the confinement in which his son had placed him. Nārada with Apsarases and Gandharvas appears to glorify Kṛṣṇa, who graciously permits Nārada to return to heaven, and a benediction, spoken apparently by the actor, closes the play.

c10.s3.12

The precise source of the drama is unknown; it differs in detail widely from the stories of Kṛṣṇa in the Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇu, and Bhāgavata Purāṇas, but none of these works, as we have it, is probably older than Bhāsa. The erotic element, which is so closely associated with Kṛṣṇa in later tradition, is lacking here as in the Harivaṃśa and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, and similarly the figure of Rādhā is missing.

c10.s3.13

The merits of the Bālacarita are not reproduced in Bhāsa's treatment of the other chief Avatāra of Viṣṇu. The Pratimānāṭaka shows us the death of Daśaratha, when he realizes the departure of Rāma, deprived of his inheritance by Kaikeyī's wiles, with Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa into the forest; his statue is added to those of his predecessors in the statue (pratimā) hall. Bharata returns from a visit, learns of the news, pursues Rāma, but is induced to return to rule, bearing with him Rāma's shoes as token that he regards himself but as viceroy. Rāma decides to offer the sacrifice for the dead for his sire; Rāvaṇa appears under the guise of an expert, and bids him offer a golden antelope, by this device securing Rāma's absence when Sītā is stolen by him, slaying Jaṭāyu who seeks to protect her. Rāma goes to Kiṣkindhā, and makes alliance with Sugrīva against Vālin. Bharata learns that Kaikeyī’s ruse had been induced by the curse of an ascetic, whose son Daçaratha had unwittingly slain, and that she had but meant to ask for a banishment of fourteen days, but had by a slip said years. He sends his army to aid Rāma, who ultimately defeats Rāvaṇa, and recovers Sītā. He brings her with him to Janasthāna, where he is begged to resume his kingdom; all then go by the magic car Puṣpak to Ayodhyā. The seven acts of the play are matched by the six of the *Abhiṣekanāṭaka*,¹ the drama of the consecration of Rāma which follows, like its predecessor, the *Rāmāyaṇa*. It tells of Vālin’s death at the hands of Rāma; Hanumant’s success in reaching Laṅkā and in comforting Sītā and affronting Rāvaṇa. Vibhīṣaṇa advises the coercion of the ocean to attain a passage for the army; Rāvaṇa vainly seeks to win Sītā, showing her in appearance the heads of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa, but she repudiates his advances; he is compelled to fight, and the play ends with Rāma’s coronation. The epic apparently has weighed too heavily on the author, whose resource in incident is remarkable by its absence.

c10.s3.14

¹ Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.

c10.s3.15

A far more favourable opportunity is afforded to Bhāsa when he derived his story from the Kathā literature,² as is doubtless the case in the *Avimāraka*, a drama in six acts. The daughter of king Kuntibhoja, the young Kuraṅgī, is saved from an elephant by an unknown youth, who, in reality son of the Sauvīra king, is with his father living as a member of a degraded caste for a year, as the outcome of a curse. His low status forbids his aspiring to the princess, but love triumphs, and the maidens of Kuraṅgī, arrange a secret meeting to which the youth comes in the guise of a thief. But the news leaks out and he must fly; in despair of reunion he seeks death in the fire, but Agni repulses him; he would have thrown himself from a rock, but a Vidyādhara dissuades him, giving him a ring which enables him unseen to re-enter the palace and save Kuraṅgī, likewise desolated, from suicide. The way for a happy issue from the impasse is found by the fact that Nārada reveals the true history of Avimāraka; he is not in fact the son of the Sauvīra king; he is the son of the god Agni by Sudarçanā, the wife of the king of Kāçi, who gave him over on his birth to Sucetanā, her sister, wife of the Sauvīra king. The marriage thus takes place with the approval of all those connected with the pair.

c10.s3.16

² Cf. KSS. cxii. and *Kāmasūtravyākhyā* in ed. of *Pratimānāṭaka*, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.

c10.s3.17

Equally from the Kathā literature, and in this case from a source known to us, the *Bṛhatkathā* of Guṇāḍhya, which, written in Paiśācī Prākṛt has vanished, but is preserved in a version from Nepal and two from Kashmir, is the subject of the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*,¹ styled in the prologue a Prakaraṇa, which has four Acts and resembles in part that form of drama as recognized by the theory, though its hero is the minister of Udayana, the Vatsa king. The latter goes on an elephant hunt, armed with his lyre to charm his prey, but is taken prisoner by a clever trick of his enemy, Pradyota Mahāsena, of Ujjayinī, a counterfeit elephant being employed for his overthrow. Yaugandharāyaṇa determines to revenge the king. In Ujjayinī Mahāsena discusses with his wife the question of the marriage of their daughter Vāsavadattā, when the news of the capture of Udayana arrives. They decide that she shall take lessons in music from the captive, and, not unnaturally, the two fall in love. Yaugandharāyaṇa comes to Ujjayinī in disguise with his friends, and through his machinations the king is enabled to escape with Vāsavadattā, though the minister is himself, after a gallant fight, captured. Mahāsena, however, appreciated the minister's cleverness, and has the marriage of the pair depicted.²

c10.s3.18

¹ The story is referred to in the *Mālatīmādhava*, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte, *Le Bṛhatkathā*, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.

c10.s3.19

² The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.

c10.s3.20

The play is criticized severely, though not by name, by Bhāmaha,³ on the score that Udayana could never have been deceived by an artificial elephant, and if deceived his life would not have been spared by the enemy forces. The contentions are obviously of little value in this form; the essence, of course, is that such an incident which may pass in a tale seems too childish for a drama, but, if this troubles us, we may console ourselves with the reflexion that the trees were thick, and Udayana ardent in the chase. Vāmana⁴ cites the end of verse 3 in Act IV which occurs also in the *Arthaśāstra*,⁵ a work which need not be older than Bhāsa, and may be a good deal later.

c10.s3.21

³ iv. 40 ff.

c10.s3.22

⁴ v. 2. 28.

c10.s3.23

⁵ p. 366.

c10.s3.24

The *Svapnavāsavadattā*,¹ or the *Svapnanāṭaka*, in six Acts forms in substance the continuation of the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*. The minister is anxious to secure for Udayana an extension of his power by wedding him to Padmāvatī, daughter of the king of Magadha. But Udayana will not leave his beloved Vāsavadattā, so that strategy is needed. The minister induces Vāsavadattā to aid in his scheme, and, taking advantage of a temporary separation, he spreads the rumour that the queen and he have perished in a conflagration. The king is thus induced to consider marriage with Padmāvatī, in whose care the minister has entrusted the queen, giving out that she is his sister. Padmāvatī is willing to accept the love of the king, but, learning that he has never ceased to cherish the memory of his beloved, she is seized by a severe headache, and the king comes to comfort her. He does not find her, and lies down, sleep overcoming him; Vāsavadattā who had come to aid Padmāvatī sits down beside the sleeping form which she mistakes for that of her new mistress, but, as he begins to speak in his sleep she rises and leaves him, but not before he has caught a glimpse of her, in a dream as he thinks. He is summoned to the palace, and finds the good news that his foes have been defeated, and a messenger has come from Mahāsena and his wife to console him, bearing the picture of the nuptials of himself and Vāsavadattā. Padmāvatī recognizes in the lady the features of the sister left in her care by Yaugandharāyaṇa, who arrives to explain to the satisfaction of all the plan he has devised to secure Udayana's ends.)

c10.s3.25

¹ Tis. A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér. 11, xiii. 493 ff.

c10.s3.26

The fame of the work in Rājaçekhara's time is attested, and already before him the imaginary conflagration of the queen had excited the imitation of Harṣa in the *Ratnāvalī*; Vāmana ² cites from it, and Abhinavagupta ³ knew it. Nor is there any doubt that it is the poet's masterpiece and the most mature of his dramas. (Great promise, however, in a different vein is shown in the *Cārudatta*, of which we have only a fragment in four Acts without beginning or final verses. Cārudatta, a merchant whose generosity has impoverished him, has seen a hetaera Vasantasenā at a festival, and they have fallen in love. Pursued by the king's brother-in-law, Saṃsthāna, Vasantasenā takes refuge in Cārudatta's house, and, when she goes, she leaves in his care her gold ornaments. She generously ransoms from his creditors a former servant of Cārudatta, who then renounces the world and becomes a monk. In the night the ornaments, which she had deposited, are stolen by a thief Sajjalaka who breaks into Cārudatta's house, in order to gain the means to purchase the freedom of a slave of the hetaera with whom he is in love. Cārudatta is overcome with shame at learning of the theft of goods deposited in his care, and his noble wife sacrifices a pearl necklace, which she gives to the Vidūṣaka to hand over to Vasantasenā in lieu of her lost jewels. He takes it to the hetaera, who has learned of the theft, but accepts it to have the excuse of visiting the merchant once more. She therefore hands over the slave girl to Sajjalaka, and starts out to Cārudatta's house. At this point the play ends abruptly, but it seems as if Cārudatta were accused of theft, and that Vasantasenā herself is in grave danger of her life.

c10.s3.27

² iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.

c10.s3.28

³ *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).

c10.s3.29

A verse of this play is cited by Vāmana¹ and another,² found also in the Bālacarita³ and the Mṛcchakaṭikā,⁴ is quoted by Daṇḍin in the Kāvyādarça.⁵ We need not doubt that Bhāsa is his source, especially as there is possibly elsewhere in the Kāvyādarça an allusion to the dream scene of the Svapnavāsavadattā and its sequel. The Daridracārudatta mentioned by Abhinavagupta is most probably the same work. From it are derived the first four Acts of the Mṛcchakaṭikā.⁶ The source of the drama is not certain; we have the motif of the love of a merchant and a hetaera elsewhere, but not with the special developments given by Bhāsa.

c10.s3.30

¹ i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.

c10.s3.31

² i. 19.

c10.s3.32

³ i. 15.

c10.s3.33

⁴ i. 34.

c10.s3.34

⁵ ii. 233.

c10.s3.35

⁶ G. Morgenstierne, *Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā* (1921). Cf. Mehendale, *Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.* pp. 369 ff.

c10.s3.36

Verses attributed to Bhāsa are also found which are not contained in the extant dramas, so that, even allowing for misquotation and confusion, it is probable that he may have written further plays, or he may have illustrated the book of the dramatic art which he is credited with writing,¹ by inserting examples of his own composition. Why his plays should have fared so badly as to disappear from popular use apparently for centuries does not appear. The most plausible view is that he was a poet of the south, and that his dramas suffered from the general Mahomedan objection to everything Hindu, and especially to the dramas of an earnest devotee of Viṣṇu such as Bhāsa was. But this is mere conjecture.

c10.s3.37

¹ *Arthadyotanikā*, 2.

4. Bhāsa's Art and Technique

c10.s4.1

The number of Bhāsa's dramas, and the variety of their themes, indicate the activity and originality of his talent. Even the limitations imposed by the choice of epic subjects are often successfully surmounted. In the Rāma dramas only is there lacking any sign of his ability; the *Abhiṣekanāṭaka* is a somewhat dreary summary of the corresponding books (IV-VI) of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, nor is the *Pratimānāṭaka* substantially superior. The variations are in the main few and unimportant; the two struggles between Sugrīva and Vālin are condensed into one, which leaves the treacherous slaying of Vālin without shadow of excuse, and casts a blemish on Rāma's character which later dramatists avoid. The pathetic scene of the epic in which Tārā, his wife, laments Vālin's death is omitted, Vālin forbidding any woman to gaze on him in his fall. The two efforts of Rāvaṇa to deceive Sītā, first by showing her Rāma's head, and later Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa bound and seemingly dead, are reduced to one, the showing of the heads of both, and Sītā's constancy is made inhuman by denying her the comfort of a consoler. To secure a happy ending, Agni is made to vindicate Sītā by the test of fire, and to hand her over to Rāma as Lakṣmī and his fit mate. The characters remain stereotyped and dull; Rāvaṇa is nothing more than a *miles gloriosus*, if not comic, and Lakṣmaṇa cuts a very poor figure.²

c10.s4.2

² 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.

c10.s4.3

The pieces based on the *Mahābhārata* shows more invention and interest. The *Madhyamavyāyoga* exploits neatly the theme of Hiḍimbā's longing to see her husband of many years before, and the obedience of a son to a mother exemplified both by Ghaṭotkaca and by Madhyama; a mother's bidding outweighs even that of a father. The struggle of father against son, both unknowing, is original, though not tragic. In the *Karṇabhāra* the nobility of the haughty Karṇa is emphasized; in the epic he surrenders his armour to Indra, but demands a price, the lance that never fails; in the play it suffices the prince that he has conferred a boon on the god himself. There is the same martial spirit, evoking the sentiment of heroism in the audience, in the *Dūtaghaṭotkaca* where the joy of the Kurus is contrasted effectively with the doubts of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, and the grave warning which Ghaṭotkaca brings of the revenge to be wreaked by Arjuna for his son's death. The *Dūtavākya* is admirable in his contrast between the character of Duryodhana and the majesty of Kṛṣṇa; the picture motif is effectively elaborated, and the deep admiration of the poet for Kṛṣṇa as the embodiment of the highest of gods Viṣṇu, of whom he was an adorer, is plainly manifest. In the *Ūrubhaṅga* Duryodhana's hauteur to the highest of gods meets with its just punishment; Duryodhana is the chief subject, but not the hero, of the piece which manifests the just¹ punishment of the impious. The death of Duryodhana is admirably depicted; his child who loved to sit on his knees comes to him, but must be repulsed; the touch that brought joy aforetime would now be an agony.² But Duryodhana, with all his demerits as a man, remains heroic in his death.

c10.s4.4

¹ Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.

c10.s4.5

² v. 43.

c10.s4.6

The *Bālacarita* reveals the originality of Bhāsa's genius; the entr'acte to the second Act is extremely effective in its terrors, and the poet has no hesitation in asking the audience to conceive for themselves the strange figures of the attendants of Viṣṇu or the host of the goddess Kātyāyanī, or the bull Ariṣṭa, or the snake demon Kāliya, all of whom appear on the stage, but doubtless in costumes which left most to the mind's eye. The miracles of the light emanating from the child Kṛṣṇa, the crossing of the Yamunā, and the water springing from the ground, are innovations on the tradition, as is the apparent death and revival of the child of Yaçodā. Kṛṣṇa is heroism incarnate, Kaṃsa without merit, and his slaying just, but the heroic sentiment is blended with the erotic, and with that of wonder. As a drama, however, the play suffers unquestionably from the wholly undeniable disparity between the two opponents; Kṛṣṇa is never in danger, and his feats are too easily achieved to produce their full effect.

c10.s4.7

The *Avimāraka* is a drama of love, primitive in its expression and intensity; Bhāsa's love for rapid action is here, as always, strongly marked, as is also his willingness to repeat incidents and situations; the hero twice seeks suicide, and the heroine does so once. The dénouement is artificial, though something of the kind was necessary to secure the possibility of the marriage of the pair. There is a far more interesting hint of youthful love in the amours of Udayana and Vāsavadattā in the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, where the rapidity of action is in entire harmony with the skill attributed to the minister, whose address, courage, and loyalty, make him an attractive figure. The *Svapnavāsavadattā* itself reveals Udayana as a faithful and devoted husband, very different from the careless if courteous gentleman of Harṣa's dramas. His love for the queen he imagines lost ennobles and elevates his character, while motives of statecraft and the affection shown him by Padmāvatī easily explain his wooing of that maiden. Vāsavadattā herself is not the jealous if high-minded wife of Harṣa's plays; she is the devoted and self-sacrificing lover who is willing to postpone her own feelings and wishes to the good of her husband. The king and queen are the finest products of Bhāsa's characterization of lovers. In the *Cārudatta*, however, we have clever studies in the hetaera, the merchant and the minor figures, though the value of the play must seem less to us than when completed and elaborated in the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*.

c10.s4.8

Bhāsa undoubtedly excels in suggesting heroism; this characteristic is admirably depicted in Yaugandharāyaṇa, and above all in Duryodhana, who in the *Dūtaghaṭotkaca* effectively replies to the menaces of the envoy by promising an answer in deeds of war, not in harsh words. But his power is not confined to heroism, love, pathos, or the marvellous. The Vidūṣaka in his hands attains the characteristics which mark him in the later drama, and, though much was doubtless traditional, it may safely be assumed that he tended by his example to stereotype the figure. In the *Avimāraka*¹ he distinguishes himself by devotion to his master; he is set on finding him, dead or alive, when he is missing, and he is prepared if need be to follow him beyond the grave. Avimāraka himself portrays the character of his friend; he places first, doubtless deliberately, the amusement he produces in social intercourse (*goṣṭhīṣu hāsyaḥ*), but he describes him also as brave in battle, a wise friend, a comforter in sorrow, a violent foe to his enemies. If in the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*² he seems to abandon the idea of succouring his master, it is only because he is convinced thst Vatsa is dead, and that nothing can be done to save him. The other side of his character is his devotion to the pleasures of the table and his feeble attempts at wit and humour. Vāsavadattā he remembers fondly because she used to see that he never lacked sweetmeats.³ When in the *Avimāraka*⁴ the heroine weeps in love-sorrow, he would like to weep also in sympathy; but no tears come, and he recalls that, even when his own father died, he could hardly weep. When addressed as a man, he insists that he is a woman. He is, however, a Brahmin in his prejudices; he will not drink brandy, a pleasure which he permits to the Gātrasevaka, the disguise assumed by one of Yaugandharāyaṇa's following in the attempt to rescue Udayana. This worthy favours us with a eulogy of drink, which is an interesting fragment of the drinking songs which must have existed in ancient India:⁵

c10.s4.9

¹ p. 69 and v. 21.

c10.s4.10

² iii. p. 53.

c10.s4.11

³ *Svapnavāsavadattā*, iv. p. 43.

c10.s4.12

⁴ v. p. 83.

c10.s4.13

⁵ *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, p. 57.

c10.s4.14

*dhaṇṇā surāhi mattā dhaṇṇā surāhi aṇulittā;*
*dhaṇṇā surāhi liṇādā dhaṇṇā surāhi saṃṇavidā.*

c10.s4.15

‘Blessed those that are drunk with drink, blessed those that are soaked with drink; blessed those that are washed with drink, blessed those that are choked with drink.’ Amusing also is the figure of Yaugandharāyaṇa as an Unmattaka, devoted to eating and dancing, and of Rumaṇvant in his guise of a Çramaṇaka. There is genuine humour in the scene in the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*⁶ between the Gātrasevaka and the servant, when the former makes ready the elephant Bhadravatī, which is to be the means of carrying off the king and Vāsavadattā beyond the reach of all pursuit, without raising any suspicion on the part of the entourage of Mahāsena. Quiet humour is shown in the episode of the bringing of Bhīma by Ghaṭotkaca to his mother Hiḍimbā; Ghaṭotkaca has difficulty in describing his victim, and is much amazed to find his mother, whose curiosity is aroused by his lack of precision, finding him to be his deity and hers in his capacity as husband and father.¹ In the same vein is the compliment paid by Rāma to Sītā, when the latter accurately predicts the action he would take when his father offered him the throne: ‘Thou hast guessed well; few pairs are there of like character in the world (*suṣṭhu tarkitam alpaṃ tulyaśīlāni dvandvāni sṛjyante*).’² Quite distinctly amusing is the scene at the close of the *Avimāraka*,³ where the facts of the relationships are being disclosed to the king Kuntibhoja. That sovereign may be justly excused his difficulty in apprehending the situation; he is reduced to such confusion that he is dubious about his own capital Vairantya, but finally, when assured that the hero is the son-in-law of Kuntibhoja, asks who that worthy may be, to be reminded politely that he himself is Kuntibhoja, father of Kuraṅgī, son of Duryodhana, and lord of Vairantya. This power explains the description of Bhāsa as the laughter (*hāsa*) of poetry given to him by Jayadeva in the *Prasannarāghava*, a title which is also merited by such verses as one cited in the anthologies,⁴ though not found in the extant dramas:

c10.s4.16

⁶ pp. 59 ff.

c10.s4.17

¹ *Madhyamavyāyoga*, p. 22.

c10.s4.18

² *Abhiṣekanāṭaka*, i. p. 13.

c10.s4.19

³ vi. p. 102.

c10.s4.20

⁴ *Subhāṣitāvali*, 1994.

c10.s4.21

*kapāle mārjāraḥ paya iti karāṅ leḍhi ćaćinas*
*tarucchidraprotān bisam iti karī saṃkalayati*
*ratānte talpasthān harati vanitāpy aṃśukam iti*
*prabhāmattaś candro jagad idam aho viplavayati.*

c10.s4.22

‘When its rays fall on its cheeks the cat licks them, thinking them milk; when they are caught in the cleft of a tree the elephant deems them a lotus; when they rest on the couch of lovers the maiden seizes them, saying, “’Tis my robe”; the moon in truth, proud of its brilliance, doth lead astray all this world.’

c10.s4.23

Of deeper sentiments we need expect nothing from Bhāsa;

c10.s4.24

in this respect he sets the model for his successors. From Kālidāsa he differs in being a devotee of Viṣṇu rather than Çiva, but he is equally an admirer of the established Brahminical order. In the *Pañcarātra*,¹ the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*,² and in the character of Nārada in the *Avimāraka*,³ we find clearly expressed his appreciation of the high rank of the Brahmin, and the obligations due to him from kings and other classes.

c10.s4.25

¹ i. 25.

c10.s4.26

² pp. 43 ff.

c10.s4.27

³ pp. 99 ff.

c10.s4.28

Care in the delineation of even minor characters is normally displayed; the number of these is considerable; sixteen each in the *Svapnavāsavadattā* and the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, about twenty in the *Avimāraka*, *Abhiṣekanāṭaka*, and *Pañcarātra*, twelve in the *Cārudatta*, and about thirty in the *Bālacarita*. But there are traces of the anxiety of Bhāsa to avoid adding needlessly to the number of those appearing; in the *Avimāraka* neither the king of Kāçi nor Sucetanā appears on the scene despite their part in the play. The silence of Sītā, though at the close of the *Abhiṣekanāṭaka* she appears on the stage, is doubtless explicable by the same dramatic touch which makes Euripides refuse to assign any words to Alkestis on her return from the dead.

c10.s4.29

In technique Bhāsa does not accord entirely with the later rules of the theorists. The *Nāṭyaçāstra*, it is true, when it forbids the exhibition of battle scenes contradicts itself, and Bhāsa freely permits them, as must have been the case in the primitive drama in which Kṛṣṇa slew Kaṃsa. The maidens, however, he bids watch the mortal combat of Ariṣṭa and Kṛṣṇa from afar. Daçaratha's death he admits; the bodies of Cāṇūra, Muṣṭika, and Kaṃsa lie on the stage, and Vālin perishes there as well as Duryodhana, but all these are evildoers, and their death evokes no sorrow. The same simplicity doubtless accounts for the introduction of the mythological figures of the *Bālacarita*, whom we need not imagine to have been elaborately costumed; they announce their nature or are described,⁴ and the spectator supplies the imagination requisite to comprehend them.

c10.s4.30

⁴ Cf. Duryodhana's description of Kṛṣṇa's manifestation in the *Dūtavākya*.

c10.s4.31

We find already in Bhāsa the formal distinction of introductory scenes into Viṣkambhakas of two kinds, according as Sanskrit alone or Sanskrit and Prākrit are used and Praveçakas;

c10.s4.32

in the former the number of interlocutors is three in two¹ cases against one or two as usual later; there are other signs of his fondness for triads.² The introduction normally is styled Sthāpanā,³ not as later Prastāvanā, and it is extremely simple; after a Nāndī, not preserved, has been pronounced--perhaps behind the scene--the director enters, utters a benediction, and is about to make an announcement when a sound is heard which leads up to the actual drama. No mention of the poet's name or the work is found, but these we may suggest were left to the preliminaries which even in the Nāṭyaçāstra were elaborate, and which doubtless were performed before Bhāsa's plays, as they were essentially religious rites in honour of the gods. On the other hand, the close, the Bharatavākya, of the later theory is varied in Bhāsa. The conventions as to the use of speech, aloud, aside to another, or to the audience alone are well known, and effective use is made of the voice from the air or behind the scene, as in the Abhiṣekanāṭaka, when Rāvaṇa taunts his prisoner and asks, who can set her free when her rescuers are dead; the voice replies, ‘Rāma, Rāma’.⁴

c10.s4.33

¹ Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa's fight; Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana's sacrifice.

c10.s4.34

² In the Madhyamavyāyoga there are three sons of the Brahmin; Ūrubhaṅga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.

c10.s4.35

³ Prastāvanā is given in the Karṇabhāra.

c10.s4.36

⁴ 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.

c10.s4.37

There are unquestionably primitive traits in Bhāsa's art; he uses with dangerous freedom the device by which some one departs and returns straightway, to narrate what must have taken long to happen; thus in the Abhiṣekanāṭaka, Çaṅkukarṇa is bidden send a thousand men against Hanumant; he departs at once, to return and tell that they have fallen. Free use is made also, as in the epic, of magic weapons in the conflict, as in the battle of Duryodhana and Kṛṣṇa in the Dūtavākya. So also in the Madhyamavyāyoga we find Ghaṭotkaca employing his magic power to produce water from a rock; then he binds Bhīma in a magic noose, from which he is delivered by a magic formula. In the Dūtavākya the discus of Kṛṣṇa secures water from the heavenly Ganges by magic means; it has the power to move the mountains of the gods, to set the ocean in motion, and to bring down the stars to earth, ideas which are less unintelligible when we remember the wide-spread Indian beliefs in the powers of magicians, which we find later in Harṣa's *Ratnāvalī*, and which are earlier recorded of those who have attained high degrees of intuition in both the Upaniṣads and Buddhism. In the *Avimāraka* we have the magic ring of the Vidyādhara playing a decisive part in the action, since by its use the hero can enter unseen the harem and visit his wife Kuraṅgī in secret. It is clear that both in the epic and in the popular tale Bhāsa found adequate precedent for the stress laid on these means of evoking in his audience the sentiment of wonder.

c10.s4.38

The use of the dance as an ornament to the drama which is seen in Kālidāsa is frequently resorted to in Bhāsa. In Act III of the *Bālacarita* there is a performance of the Halliçaka dance, in which both the herdsmen and the cowherdesses take full part; the dance is accompanied by music and song, and the maidens are gaily attired. A similar dance is mentioned in Act II of the *Pañcarātra*,¹ a reflex no doubt of the ritual dance of the winter solstice in the Mahāvrata rite. It is conceivable also that the conception in the *Bālacarita* of the appearance of Viṣṇu's weapons as figures on the stage in the dress of herdsmen is a reminiscence of a cult dance in honour of Viṣṇu, but this idea must not be pressed unduly, for the poet there invents also the figures of the Curse and the King's Fortune as *personae dramatis*. There is, it is clear, a certain similarity between the personification of these abstractions and the allegorical figures of the Buddhist drama, which come again into being in the *Prabodhacandrodaya* of Kṛṣṇamiçra. Song as an important element in the drama again appears in the *Abhiṣekanāṭaka*, where the Gandharvas and Apsarases sing the praises of Viṣṇu.²

First 90 of 198 passages. Read on

Linked texts (39)