The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c10.s2.2

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.