The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c16.s6: 6. Bhīmaṭa and Kṣemīçvara
The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c16.s6
- Language
- English
6. Bhīmaṭa and Kṣemīçvara
c16.s6.1
A verse attributed to Rājaçekhara mentions the five dramas of Bhīmaṭa, of which the *Svapnadaçānana* won him chief fame. He is described as a Kaliñjarapati, whence the suggestion has been made that he was a connection of the Candella king Harṣa of Jejākabhukti, who, we know, was a contemporary of Mahīpāla of Kanyakubja, patron of Rājaçekhara, but we have no ground for positive assertion.¹
c16.s6.2
The case is different with Kṣemīçvara, who in his *Caṇḍakauçika* wrote for Mahīpāla, doubtless the king of Kanyakubja, patron of Rājaçekhara. Kṣemīçvara asserts his patron’s victory over the Karṇāṭas, which was doubtless the view taken in royal circles of the contest against the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra III, who for his part claims victory over Mahodaya, or Kanyakubja.¹ A variant of the name is Kṣemendra, but he is not to be identified with the Kashmirian poet of that name. His great-grandfather was called Vijayakoṣṭha or Vijayaprakoṣṭha, who is designated as both Ārya and Ācārya, and was, therefore, a learned man of some sort.
c16.s6.3
¹ Konow, ID. p. 87; Peterson, *Reports*, ii. 63; Bhandarkar, *Report* (1897), p. xi.
c16.s6.4
Kṣemiçvara has left two dramas. The *Naiṣadhānanda*¹ in seven acts deals with the legend of Nala, famous in the epic and later. The *Caṇḍakauçika*² reveals the stupid story of Hariçcandra, who, seeing as he thought the sacrifice of a damsel on the fire rebukes the Kauçika Viçvāmitra, and in return for his gallant action is cursed by the irascible sage, who was merely bringing the sciences under his control. He secures pardon by the surrender of the earth and a thousand gold pieces; to secure the latter he sells wife and child to a Brahmin, and himself to a Caṇḍāla as a cemetery keeper. One day his wife brings the dead body of their child, but it turns out merely to be a trial of his character; his son is alive and is crowned king. The plot is as poor as the execution of the piece. He shows in metre a special fondness for the Çikhariṇī, which occurs 20 times, nearly as often as the Çārdūlavikrīḍita (23), while the Vasantatilaka appears 27 times and the Çloka 36. His Prākṛits, Çaurasenī and a few Māhārāṣṭrī stanzas, are artificial.
c16.s6.5
¹ Peterson, *Reports*, iii. 340 f.
c16.s6.6
² Ed. Calcutta, 1884; trs. L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1883. On the same theme is Rāmacandra’s *Satyahariçcandra* (twelfth cent.); see Keith, JRAS. 1914, pp. 1104 f.
c16.s6.7
The compilers of anthologies make little of Kṣemiçvara, with sufficient reason, for his verses do not rise above mediocrity. The second stanza of the three-verse benediction in the *Naiṣadhānanda* is on a common theme, but not unhappily expressed; it follows a verse in honour of Puruṣottama and Çrī, with the usual impartiality of this period:
c16.s6.8
*asthi hy asthi phaṇī phaṇī kim aparam bhasma bhasmaiva tac*
*carmaiva carma kiṁ tava jitaṁ yenaivam uttāmyasi*
*naitāṁ dhūrta paṇīkaroṣi satataṁ mūrdhni sthitāṁ Jāhnavīm*
*ity evaṁ Çivayā sanarmagadito dyūte Haraḥ pātu vaḥ.*
c16.s6.9
‘A skull is but a skull, a serpent a serpent; what more? The ashes and the skin also which thou dost wear are but ashes and skin. What of thine hast thou lost that thus thou art outworn? Ah, rogue, it is that thou wilt not stake Jahnu’s daughter that rests ever on thy crest. May Hara guard you, Hara to whom Çivā once spake playfully when they diced.’
c16.s6.10
This amusing play on the unwillingness of Çiva to prolong the dicing after he has unsuccessfully staked his necklace of skulls and serpents, and his clothing of ashes and hide, is followed by a wearisome eulogy of the glances of the god in the Tāṇḍava dance, alluding to the great moments in his history. Similar bad taste is shown in the curious and unusual form of the last verse of the drama:
c16.s6.11
*yenādiçya prayogaṁ ghanapulakabhṛtā nāṭakasyāsya harṣād*
*vastrālaṁkārahemnāṁ pratidinam akṛçā rāçayaḥ sampradattāḥ*
*tasya kṣattraprasūter bhramatu jagad idaṁ Kārttikeyasya kīrtiḥ*
*pāre kṣīrāmbhusindho ravikaviyaçasā sārdham agresareṇa.*
c16.s6.12
‘Through all the universe beyond the ocean of milk, heralded by the fame of his bard, the sun, may the fame wander of that scion of heroism, that god of war, who bade this drama be performed and who in keen delight at the pleasure he found in it gave daily to the poet abundant store of raiment, jewels and gold.’ Such a mode of immortalizing himself, and his patron can hardly be regarded as precisely dignified, and it certainly is not in harmony with the traditions of the drama.