Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c16.s2: 2. Murāri

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c16.s2

Language
English

2. Murāri

c16.s2.1

Murāri tells us that he was the son of Çrīvardhamānaka of the Maudgalya Gotra and of Tantumati; he claims to be a Mahākavi, and arrogates the style of Bāla-Vālmiki. His date is uncertain; he is certainly later than Bhavabhūti since he cites from the *Uttararāmacarita*,³ while we have evidence from the anthologies that he was reckoned by some as superior to Bhavabhūti, apparently his predecessor. A further suggestion as to date may be derived from the Kashmiri poet Ratnākara,⁴ who in his *Haravijaya* makes a clear reference to Murāri as a dramatist, for the effort of Bhattanatha Svamin to disprove the reference must be deemed completely unsuccessful. As Ratnākara belongs to the middle of the ninth century A. D., this gives us that period as the latest date for Murāri. Curiously enough, Professor Konow,⁵ who accepts the disproof of the reference to Murāri in Ratnākara, admits that the reference to Murāri in Maṅkha’s *Çrikaṇṭhacarita*⁶ (c. A. D. 1135) suggests that he was regarded by that author as earlier than Rājaçekhara, a fact which accords excellently with his priority to Ratnākara, and is far more important than the fact that he is not cited by the authors on theory of the eleventh century A. D. A further effort to place him late is that of Dr. Hultzsch,⁷ who infers from verse 3 of the *Kaumudīmitrānanda* of Rāmacandra, pupil of Hemacandra, that that dramatist was a contemporary of Murāri. But the evidence is clearly inadequate; the words used are perfectly compatible with the fact that Murāri was dead, and there are grave chronological difficulties in the way of the theory. It is practically impossible that a contemporary of Rāmacandra could have been cited by Maṅkha at the date of the *Crikaṇṭhacarita*. Moreover Murāri seems to have been imitated by Jayadeva in the *Prasannarāghava*.¹

c16.s2.2

³ vi. 30/31 is cited in i. 6/7.

c16.s2.3

⁴ xxxviii. 68. For his date cf. Bühler, *Kashmir Report*, p. 42. See Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 141; Lévi, TI. i. 277.

c16.s2.4

⁵ ID. p. 83. Dhanika (DR. ii. 1) cites, anonymously as usual, iii. 21.

c16.s2.5

⁶ xxv. 74.

c16.s2.6

⁷ ZDMG. lxxv, 63.

c16.s2.7

¹ ii. 34, as compared with vii. 83.

c16.s2.8

Of his place of activity we know nothing definite. He mentions, however, Māhiṣmatī as the seat of the Kalacuris, and it has been suggested that this indicates that he lived under the patronage of a prince of that dynasty at Māhiṣmatī, now Māndhātā on the Narmadā.

Linked texts (6)