Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c17: The Decline of the Sanskrit Drama

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c17

Language
English

Contents

The Decline of the Sanskrit Drama

1. The Decadence of the Drama

c17.s1.1

WE have seen already in Murāri and Rājaçekhara the process which was depriving the drama of real dramatic quality. The older poets were, indeed, under the influence of the epic; they lived in the atmosphere of the poetry of the court and their dramatic instincts had always to fight against the tendency to introduce epic and lyric verses into their works, heedless of the ruin thus wrought on the drama. Had the stage been a more popular one, this defect might have been counteracted, but the audience for whose approval a poet looked was essentially one of men of learning, who were intent on discerning poetic beauties or defects, and who, as the theory proves, had singularly little idea of what a drama really means.

c17.s1.2

Other factors doubtless helped the decline of the drama. The invasion of the Mahomedans into northern India, which began in earnest with the opening of the eleventh century, was a slow process, and it could not immediately affect the progress of the dramatic art. But gradually, by substituting Mahomedan rulers—men who disliked and feared the influence of the national religion, which was closely bound up with the drama—for Hindu princes, the generous and accomplished patrons of the dramatists, it must have exercised a depressing effect on the cultivation of this literary form. The drama doubtless took refuge in those parts of India where Moslem power was slowest to extend, but even there Mahomedan potentates gained authority, and drama can have been seldom worth performing or composing, until the Hindu revival asserted the Indian national spirit, and gave an encouragement to the renewal of an ancient national glory.

c17.s1.3

Yet a further and most important consideration must have lain in the ever-widening breach between the languages of the drama and those of real life. In Bhāsa's days and even those of Kālidāsa we may imagine that there was not too great difficulty in following the main features of the drama both in Sanskrit and in Prākrit, but the gulf between the popular languages and those of learning went on widening every year, and Rājaçekhara, as we have seen, was, despite his boasted studies, of which we have no reason to doubt, unable to discriminate correctly his Prākrits. It in no wise disproves this view that the *Lalitavigraharājānāṭaka* of Somadeva shows a close connexion with the language as laid down in Hemacandra's grammar, for, as that work preceded the play in date and was produced at the court of Aṇhilvāḍ, which was in close connexion with that of Sambhār, where Somadeva lived, we need not doubt that copies of Hemacandra's work were available for the production of artificial Prākrit.

c17.s1.4

It was clearly a very different thing to compose in Sanskrit and Prākrit in A.D. 1000, when the vernaculars were beginning to assume literary form, than in A.D. 400, and the difficulty of composition in any effective manner must have rapidly increased with the years, and the growth of the realization that it was idle to seek fame under modern circumstances by the composition of dramas, for which there was no popular audience and only a limited market. What is amazing is that for centuries the Sanskrit drama continued to be produced in very substantial numbers, as the existence of manuscripts proves, and that so strong was the force of tradition that the first attempt to introduce the vernacular into the drama by Bidyāpati Ṭhākur in Behar took the form of producing works in which the characters use Sanskrit and Prākrit and the songs only are in Maithilī. So powerful has been the strength of the Sanskrit drama that it is only in the nineteenth century that vernacular drama has exhibited itself in Hindi, and in general it is only very recently that the drama has seemed proper for vernacular expression. But the writing in artificial languages has revenged itself on the writers; their works are reminiscent of modern copies of Greek or Latin verses, which only too painfully reveal through all the artifices suggested by careful study the impossibility of the production of real poetry, not to mention drama, in dead languages. It is significant in this regard that perhaps the most interesting of later dramas is the *Prabodhacandrodaya* of Kṛṣṇamiçra, a drama of allegory on philosophical topics, which claim as their right Sanskrit as a mode of expression. The Sanskrit of the author thus represents the medium of his habitual use in discussions and is appropriate to the matters dealt with.

c17.s1.5

This is essentially the period when the dramatic rules, strong in their hold earlier over the minds of dramatists, attain even greater sway. It is to this that we owe the few specimens we have of the rarer types of drama which are not represented among the scanty remains of the classical drama. There is no reason to suppose that these types were popular among the earlier dramatists; they had, it seems, their vogue in the time before the Nāṭyaśāstra assumed its present form, but were rejected as unsuitable by the classical drama. We have also specimens of types which may have been regularly produced in classical times, but none of which are represented in the extant literature. Finally, we have specimens of new forms, the result of efforts to introduce into Sanskrit dramatic forms which had sprung up in more popular circles.

2. The Nāṭaka

c17.s2.1

The Nāṭaka remains throughout the post-classical period of the drama the natural exponent of the higher form of the dramatic art. No change of importance appears in its character; it merely steadily develops those features which we have seen in full process of production in Murāri and Rājaśekhara, the subordination of action to description, and the degeneration of the description into a mere exercise in style and in the use of sounds.

c17.s2.2.1

The character of the decline is obvious enough in the Prasannarāghava,¹ a Nāṭaka in seven Acts, in which the logician Jayadeva (c. A. D. 1200), son of Mahādeva and Sumitrā, of Kuṇḍina in Berar, endeavours to tell again the story of the Rāmāyaṇa.² In Act I a disciple of Yājñavalkya appears and repeats from the speech of two bees heard behind the scene the news they are discussing; the Asura Bāṇa is to rival Rāvaṇa for the hand of Sītā. Two heralds then appear to describe the suitors for the maiden’s hand; they are interrupted and insulted by a gross and rough arrival who casts a contemptuous eye on the bow which the suitor must bend, and would forcibly seize the prize. The heralds soothe him, but he assumes the monstrous form of Rāvaṇa with his ten heads. Bāṇa then appears, tries in vain the bow, insults Rāvaṇa and retires. In Act II we have a ludicrous scene in which Rāma watches Sītā and her friend; both he and she describe the beauties of the union of the Vāsantī creeper and the mango-tree, an allusion to their own state to be, and confronted shyly whisper love. In Act III we have an intolerable series of compliments exchanged by all the parties, Viçvāmitra, Çaṭānanda, Janaka, Daçaratha, Rāma, and Lakṣmaṇa; Viçvāmitra bids Rāma bend the bow of Çiva, though a message from Paraçurāma deprecates such an insult. The bow is broken, there is great joy, and the marriage is celebrated. In Act IV Paraçurāma himself arrives;

c17.s2.2.2

his great feats are set out in a dialogue of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa; he encounters them, exchanges harangues, is dissuaded by Janaka, Çaṭānanda, and Viçvāmitra from battle, but an insult of his to Viçvāmitra breaks down Rāma’s patience; they fight, Rāma is victor, but falls at his rival’s feet and asks his blessing. In Act V we have a new and picturesque conception and one wholly aloof from drama. The river goddess Yamunā tells Gaṅgā of her grief at Vālin’s act in exiling his brother, Sugrīva. Sarayū joins them and reports the fate of Rāma until his departure for exile; her flamingo arrives to carry on the tale until Rāma’s fatal departure in pursuit of a golden deer. Anxious, the rivers hasten to the ocean, Sāgara, to learn the news; they find Godāvarī in converse with Sāgara; she tells of the rape of Sītā, the death of Jaṭāyu, the fall of Sītā’s jewels and their transport to Ṛṣyamukha. The Tuṅgabhadrā arrives with her tale; Rāma has slain Vālin and made alliance with Sugrīva and Hanumant. Suddenly a great mass flies over the ocean. Is it the Himālaya? the Vindhya? Sāgara goes out to see and the rivers follow. In Act VI we find that sorrow has all but driven Rāma mad; he asks the birds, the moon, for his beloved. Fortunately two Vidyādharas by magic art are able to show him the events in Laṅkā; Sītā appears, saddened lest Rāma suspect, or be faithless to her; Rāvaṇa seeks her love; she despises him;

c17.s2.2.3

angry, he reaches out his hand for his sword to slay her, but receives in it the head of his son, Akṣa, slain by Hanumant, who it is who has leaped the ocean and attacked Laṅkā. Sītā is desperate; she seeks to burn herself on a funeral pyre, but the coal changes to pearl, and Hanumant consoles her by news of Rāma’s fidelity. In Act VII Rāvaṇa is given by Prahasta a picture sent by Mālyavant showing the details of the enemy’s attack and the bridge; he refuses to regard it as more than a painter’s fancy; Mandodarī, his wife, enters; she has received an oracular response which terrifies her and also Prahasta, but Rāvaṇa scorns it. At last, however, he realizes that the city is attacked, sends Kumbhakarṇa and Meghanāda to their death, and at last himself issues forth to die; his fate is described by a Vidyādhara and his mate. Then enter Rāma, Sītā, Lakṣmaṇa, Vibhīṣaṇa, and Sugrīva, who all describe in turn the setting of the sun and the rise of the moon; they mount the aerial car, describe a few points of interest in the country over which they pass in their journey north, and then in turn solemnly describe the rising of the sun.

c17.s2.3

¹ Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.

c17.s2.4

² Cf. Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith, Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and the Mahānāṭaka are clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall's (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c. A. D. 1330); iii. 171 f., and the Śārṅgadharapaddhati.

c17.s2.5

The play is typical of the later drama; its one merit is Act V where the spectacle of the river goddesses grouped round the ocean affords admirable scope for an effective tableau, but it is wholly out of harmony with dramatic action. As usual, the author is fond of the long metres, though the Vasantatilaka is his favourite; then comes the Cārdūlavikrīḍita, Ҫloka, Ҫikhariṇī, and Sragdharā, while he shows decided fondness for the Svāgatā, which occurs a few times in Rājaçekhara and the Mahānāṭaka, but is not employed in the earlier drama. The drama is superior in merit to the other very popular Rāma drama, the Jānakīpariṇaya¹ by Rāmabhadra Dikṣita, who flourished and wrote many bad works at the end of the seventeenth century. The number of Rāma dramas already known is enormous; any one of merit appears still to be unearthed. The commentary on the Daçarūpa knows a Chalitarāma which would probably date before A.D. 1000, but its preservation is problematical. The Adbhutadarpaṇa² of Mahādeva, son of Kṛṣṇa Sūri, a contemporary of Rāmabhadra Diksita, shows Jayadeva’s influence in that it presents the events at Laṅkā as happening by means of a magic mirror. Its ten acts cover only the period from Aṅgada’s mission to Rāvaṇa to the coronation of Rāma, and it introduces, contrary to the rule in Rāma dramas, the figure of the Viḍūṣaka.

c17.s2.6

¹ Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.

c17.s2.7

² Ed. KM. 1896.

c17.s2.8

The Kṛṣṇa legend naturally attracted not less note; the Kerala prince Ravivarman, born in A.D. 1266, is the author of a *Pradyumnābhyudaya*.¹ The minister of Husain Shāh Rūpa Gosvāmin wrote about A.D. 1532 the *Vidagdhamādhava*² and the *Lalitamādhava*³ in seven and ten Acts respectively on the theme of the loves of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā, in pursuance of his eager support of the movement of Caitanya. For the son of Ṭodar Mall, Akbar’s minister, Ceṣa Kṛṣṇa wrote the *Kaṃsavadha*⁴ which in seven Acts covers the ground of Bhāsa’s *Bālacarita*, as well as other plays on the Rāma legend. The winning of Rukmiṇī by Kṛṣṇa is the theme of the *Rukmiṇīpariṇaya*⁵ by Rāmavarman of Travancore (1735–87), and Kṛṣṇa’s generosity to a poor friend, though in a surprising shape, is recounted by Sāmarāja Dīkṣita in the *Crīdāmacarita*⁶ written in A.D. 1681.

c17.s2.9

¹ Ed. TSS. 1910.

c17.s2.10

² Ed. KM. 1903.

c17.s2.11

³ Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.

c17.s2.12

⁴ Ed. KM. 1888.

c17.s2.13

⁵ Ed. KM. 1894.

c17.s2.14

⁶ Wilson, ii. 404.

c17.s2.15

The number of dramas based on the *Mahābhārata* is decidedly smaller. We have not the *Citrabhārata* of the indefatigable Kṣemendra of Kashmir, who wrote in the middle of the eleventh century. But from that century probably are the *Subhadrādhananjaya* and *Tapatisaṃvaraṇa*⁷ of the Kerala king Kulaçekharavarman, and from about A.D. 1200 the *Pārthaparākrama*,⁸ a Vyāyoga, to be discussed hereafter, of Prahlādanadeva, a Yuvarāja, brother of Dhārāvarṣa, lord of Caṇdrāvatī.

c17.s2.16

⁷ Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.

c17.s2.17

⁸ Ed. GOS. 1917.

c17.s2.18

Of other mythological subjects we have the *Harakelīnāṭaka*⁹ of the Cāhamāna king Visaladeva Vigraharāja, of whom we have an inscription of A.D. 1163, and whose work is partially preserved on stone. The *Pārvatīpariṇaya*¹⁰ of Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa, who wrote about A.D. 1400 under the Reḍḍi prince Vema of Koṇḍaviḍu, owes its fame to its being mistaken for a work of Bāṇa. The *Haragaurīvivāha*¹¹ of Jagajjyotirmalla of Nepal (1617–33) is interesting, because it is rather an opera than a play and the vernacular verses are its only fixed element, but this is not likely to be a primitive feature.

c17.s2.19

⁹ Kielhorn, *Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele*, Berlin, 1901.

c17.s2.20

¹⁰ Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.

c17.s2.21

¹¹ Lévi, *Le Népal*, ii. 242.

c17.s2.22

Of dramas with lesser personages of the saga as heroes we have the *Bhairavānanda*¹ of the Nepalese poet Maṇika from the end of the fourteenth century, and at least a century later the *Bhar-trharinirveda*² of Harihara, which is interesting, as it shows the popularity of Bhartṛhari; he is represented as desolated by his wife's death, through despair on a false rumour of his own death, but, consoled by a Yogin, he attains indifference, so that, when his wife is recalled to life, neither she nor their child has any attraction for him.

c17.s2.23

¹ Haraprasād, *Nepal Catal.*, p. xxxvii.

c17.s2.24

² Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.

c17.s2.25

Of historical drama we have little, and that of small value. The *Lalitavigraharāja-nāṭaka*,³ preserved in part in an inscription, is a work of the latter part of the twelfth century by Somadeva in honour of Viśaladeva Vigraharāja, the Cāhamāna. The *Pratāparudrakalyāṇa*⁴ by Vidyānatha, inserted in his treatise on rhetoric as an illustration of the drama, celebrates his patron, a king of Warangal about A.D. 1300.

c17.s2.26

³ Ed. Kielhorn, *op. cit.*

c17.s2.27

⁴ Ed. Bombay, 1891.

c17.s2.28

More interesting is the *Hammīramadamardana*,⁵ written between A.D. 1219 and 1229 by Jayasiṅha Sūri, the priest of the temple of Munisuvrata at Broach. It appears that Tejaḥpāla, brother of Vastupāla, minister of Vīradhavala of Gujarāt, visited the temple, and, with the assent of his brother, complied with the request of Jayasiṅha for the erection of twenty-five golden flagstaffs for Devakulikās. As a reward Jayasiṅha not merely celebrated the brothers in a panegyric, of which a copy has been preserved along with his drama, but wrote, to please Jayantasiṅha, son of Vastupāla, the play for performance at the festival of the procession of the god Bhīmeçvara at Cambay. He claims that it includes all nine sentiments, in contrast to Prakaraṇas, exploiting the sentiment of fear, with which the audience has been surfeited.

c17.s2.29

⁵ Ed. *Gaekwad's Oriental Series*, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha's *Sukṛtasaṃkīrtana* and Someçvara's *Kīrtikaumudī*.

c17.s2.30.1

In Act I, after the introductory dialogue between the Sūtradhāra and an actor, Vīradhavala is brought in, conversing with Tejaḥpāla, the theme being the extraordinary merits of Vastupāla as a statesman. But times are still troublous; the realm is menaced by the Turuṣka Hammīra, by the Yādava Siṃhaṇa,¹ who may hope for aid from Saṃgrāmasiṃha, nephew of Siṃha, lord of Lāṭa. Vastupāla enters, and extols the skill of Tejaḥpāla’s son Lāvaṇyasiṃha, whose spies bring in valuable information. He then with Tejaḥpāla compliments the king, who tells them of his proposed attack on Hammīra. Vastupāla warns him against excessive valour in pursuit, and counsels him to secure the aid of the Mārwār princes. In Act II we find that the advice has been followed with success, as related by Lāvaṇyasiṃha, who has an opportunity of repaying the compliments showered on him by his uncle. The spy Nipuṇaka then enters with a tale of success; he has entered Siṃhaṇa’s camp, passed himself off as a spy on Vīradhavala’s movements, reported that that king was making ready an attack on Hammīra, and persuaded Siṃhaṇa to wait in the forest of the Tapti a favourable opportunity to attack Vīradhavala, after his forces have been weakened by battle with Hammīra. In the meantime Nipuṇaka’s brother Suvega, who has been serving Devapāla of Mālava, steals the best steed of his master and presents it to Saṃgrāmasiṃha, who is leading Siṃhaṇa’s army.

c17.s2.30.2

He then presents himself in the guise of a Tāpasa to Siṃhaṇa, but runs away when the king goes to pay him due honour. Suspicion is thus aroused, and Suvega is seized; from his matted locks is extracted a letter addressed to Saṃgrāmasiṃha. It refers to the horse which it treats as a present from Devapāla to Saṃgrāmasiṃha, and advises him to attack Siṃhaṇa when he has entered Gujarāt, the Mālava king engaging to assail him at that moment. Siṃhaṇa asks Nipuṇaka to ascertain the truth about the horse, and he has no difficulty through Suvega in terrifying Saṃgrāmasiṃha into flight. We then find Vastupāla on the stage; his spy Kuçalaka reports that Saṃgrāmasiṃha menaces Cambay; Vastupāla takes precautions for its defence, and summons Bhuvanapāla, Saṃgrāmasiṃha’s minister, with whom he arrives at an understanding, assuring Vīradhavala of that prince’s aid. In Act III Vīradhavala and Tejaḥpāla hear from a spy Kamalaka the fate of Mewār’s king Jayatala; attacked by the Mlecchas, the people in despair flung themselves into wells, burned themselves in their houses or hanged themselves, until he had heartened them and discouraged the foe by announcing the approach of Vīradhavala, at whose name the Turuṣkas fled in terror. Vīradhavala extols the cleverness of Vastupāla, who has enabled him to dispose of all his enemies save the Mlecchas, and Tejaḥpāla assures him of succes even against these foes.

c17.s2.30.3

What Vastupāla is doing is shown by a conversation between two spies, Kuvalayaka and Ҫighraka, which forms the entr'acte to Act IV; he has induced the Kaliph of Baghdad by a false report to instruct Kharpara Khāna to send Milacchrīkāra to him in chains, and he has won over various Gūrjara princes by promising them the lands of the Turuṣkas when they are defeated. We then find Milacchrīkāra discussing his situation with his minister Gorī Īsapa; Kharpara Khāna, on the one hand, and Vīradhavala press him hard; the king declines, however, even to think of retreat, but both king and minister flee hastily before the sound of the approach of Vīradhavala's army and the voice of the king, who is disappointed not to capture his foes, but obeys loyally Vastupāla's counsel against rash pursuit. Act V shows us the triumphant return of the king, his reunion with his wife Jayataladevī, and exchange of felicitations with Vastupāla and Tejaḥpāla. We learn that Vastupāla has accomplished a further feat; he has intercepted at sea Radī and Kadī, Milacchrīkāra's preceptors, returning from Baghdad, and the king has been forced, in order to secure their safety, to enter into friendly relations. Finally the king enters Ҫiva's temple, where the god presents himself before him, and grants him a boon; the king, however, has little that is not formal to ask, so fortunate is he in his ministers.

c17.s2.31

¹ Usually Siṃghaṇa or Siṃhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar, *Report* (1907), pp. 15 ff., who equates Milacchikāra with Shamsu-d-din (1210-35).

c17.s2.32

Neither as history nor as poetry does the work claim any high merit. Its chief aim is to provide unlimited eulogy for Vastupāla and Tejaḥpāla, and secondarily for the king who is lucky enough to have in his retinue these remarkable models of intelligence and skill. It must be admitted, however, that the author does not exactly convey the impression of the real success of his objects of admiration; the impression is rather one of minor successes and a good deal of rather obvious diplomacy. Style, Prākrit, and metres are decidedly stereotyped.

c17.s2.33

A certain number of dramas of similar type has been preserved.¹ Gaṅgādhara’s *Gaṅgadāsapratāpavilāsa*² celebrates the struggle of a Campānīr prince against Muhammed II, Shāh of Gujarāt (A. D. 1443–52). The stream, though scanty, flows continuously to the *Ḍillīsāmrājya*³ of Lakṣmaṇa Sūri of 1912.

c17.s2.34

¹ We hear of a *Rājarāja-nāṭaka* performed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’s *Dramas*, &c., p. 204.

c17.s2.35

² *India Office Catal.*, no. 4194.

c17.s2.36

³ Ed. Madras, 1912.

c17.s2.37

The adaptation of English drama is seen in R. Kṛṣṇamachari’s adaptation in 1892 of the *Midsummer Night’s Dream* in his *Vāsantikasvapna*.⁴

c17.s2.38

⁴ Kumbhakonam, 1892.

3. The Allegorical Nāṭaka

c17.s3.1

We cannot say whether Kṛṣṇamiçra’s *Prabodhacandrodaya*⁵ was a revival of a form of drama, which had been practised regularly if on a small scale since Açvaghoṣa or whether it was a new creation, as may easily have been the case. At any rate, his work can be dated with precision; it was produced for one Gopāla in the presence of the Candella king Kīrtivarman of Jejākabhukti, of whom we have an inscription of A.D. 1098. Gopāla had restored, we learn, Kīrtivarman after his defeat by Karṇa of Cedi, who was living in A.D. 1042, but we can only guess that he was a general. The play in its six Acts is devoted to the defence of the Advaita form of the Viṣṇu doctrine, a combination of Vedānta with Viṣṇuism.

c17.s3.2

⁵ Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain, *Prabodhacandrodaya*, Leiden, 1905.

c17.s3.3

The supreme reality which is truly one, but is united with illusion, has a son, Spirit, who again has two children, Discrimination (*viveka*) and Confusion (*moha*); the posterity of the latter has largely gained in strength, and the position of the former and his offspring is menaced. This is told us at the outset of the drama by Love in converse with Desire; the former is sure he has done much to attain the result. The one danger is the old prophecy that there will arise Knowledge (*prabodha*) and Judgement or Science (*vidyā*) from the union of Discrimination and Theology, Upaniṣad, but these two are long since parted, and their reunion seems unlikely. The two, however, flee before the approach of the king Discrimination who is talking with Reason (mati), one of his wives; to his joy he finds that she is all in favour of his reunion with Theology which she is fain to bring about. In Act II we find Confusion in fear of overthrow; he hastens by the use of Falsity (dambha) to secure Benares as the key of the world; Egoism, grandfather of Falsity, visits the city and discovers to his joy his relative. Confusion enters in triumphant pomp his new capital; the Materialist Cārvāka supports him. But there is bad news; Duty is rising in revolt; Theology meditates reunion with Discrimination; Confusion bids his minions cast Piety, daughter of Faith (śraddhā) in prison and orders Heresy (mithyādṛṣṭi) to separate Theology and Faith. In Act III Piety appears supported by her friend Pity; she has lost her mother Faith and is in sad plight, even dreaming of suicide, from which Pity dissuades her. In Digambara Jainism, Buddhism, and Somism she searches in vain for Faith; each appears with a wife claiming to be Faith, but she cannot recognize her mother in these distorted forms. Buddhism and Jainism quarrel; Somism enters, makes them drunk with alcohol and pleasure, and takes them off in search of Piety, the daughter of Faith. In Act IV Faith in great distress tells of a danger; she and Duty have escaped from a demoness who would have devoured them but for Trust in Viṣṇu, who has saved them. She brings a message to Discrimination to start the battle. He musters his leaders, Contemplation, Patience, Contentment, and himself goes to Benares, which he describes. In Act V the battle is over; Confusion and his offspring are dead. But Spirit is disconsolate, mourning the loss of Confusion and Activity. The doctrine of Vyāsa, the Vedānta, appears, disabuses his mind of error, and he resolves to settle down as a hermit with the one wife worthy of him, Inactivity. Act VI shows us the ancestor of all Being; he is still under the influence of Confusion, who, before dying, dispatched to him spirits to confuse him, and his companion, Illusion, favours their efforts. But his friend Reasoning shows him his error, and he drives them away. Peace of heart reunites Theology and Discrimination; she tells of her mishaps with Cult and Exegesis, Nyāya and Sāṃkhya, and reveals to Being that he is the Supreme Lord. This, however, is too much for his intellect, but the difficulty is cleared away by Judgement, which is the immediate supernatural child of the reunion of the spouses. The appearance of Trust (*bhakti*) in Viṣṇu to applaud the result terminates the drama.

c17.s3.4

No one can doubt the cleverness with which the strife of races of one stock in the *Mahābhārata* and the plot and love interest of the usual Nāṭikā are combined, nor the ingenuity of fitting in the Vedānta doctrine of the Absolute and the devotion of the Vaiṣṇava creed. There is certainly some comedy in the exchange of views of Egoism and Falsity, who are perfect examples of hypocrisy, and the scenes between Buddhism, Jainism, and Somism are distinctly funny. None the less it would be idle to pretend that the play has any dramatic force. Its chief merits are its effective and stately stanzas of moral and philosophical content. Kṛṣṇamiśra is an able master of the Cārdūlavikrīḍita, his favourite metre; he has also effective Vasantatilakas, and rhymed Prākṛit stanzas.

c17.s3.5

Kṛṣṇamiśra’s example has caused the production of numerous dramas of the same type, but of much less value. The *Saṃkalpasūryodaya*¹ of Veṅkaṭanātha of the fourteenth century is excessively dreary, but it is better than the famous *Caitanyacandrodaya*² of Kavikarṇapūra, which is an account of Caitanya’s success, but which wholly fails to convey any suggestion of his spiritual power. He turns out as a long-winded discourser of a muddled theology, surrounded by obedient and unintelligent pupils. Two Çaiva dramas are the *Vidyāpariṇayana*³ and *Jīvānandana*⁴ written at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century. They have no merits.

c17.s3.6

¹ Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.

c17.s3.7

² Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date, *c.* A.D. 1550.

c17.s3.8

³ Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is the *Amṛtodaya* of Gokulanātha, Haraprasād, Report (1901), p. 17.

c17.s3.9

⁴ Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of the *Vidyāpariṇayana* (Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.

c17.s3.10

An example of a Jain allegory of comparatively early date is afforded by the *Moharājaparājaya*,⁵ the conquest of King Confusion, describing the conversion of the Caulukya king of Gujarāt, Kumārapāla, to Jainism, his prohibition of the killing of animals, and his cessation from the practice of confiscating the property of persons dying without heirs in the realm, as a result of the efforts of the famous sage, Hemacandra. The author, Yaçaḥpāla, was the son of a minister Dhanadeva and Rukmiṇī, of the Moḍha Bania caste, and he served the Cakravartin Abhayadeva or Abhayapāla, who reigned after Kumārapāla from A. D. 1229-32. The play is in five Acts, and all the personages save the king, Hemacandra, and the Vidūṣaka, are personifications of qualities, good and evil. The play was performed on the occasion of the festival of the idol of Mahāvīra at the Kumāravihāra, or temple erected by Kumārapāla, at Thārāpadra, where the author seems to have been governor or resident.

c17.s3.11

⁵ Ed. *Gaekwad’s Oriental Series*, no. ix. 1918.

c17.s3.12

The play begins with an invocation in three stanzas of the Tirthakaras, Ṛṣabha, Pārçva, and Mahāvīra, followed by the usual dialogue of the Sūtradhāra and the actress, his wife. Then are introduced Kumārapāla with the Vidūṣaka, to whom enter Jñānadarpaṇa, the Mirror of Knowledge, the spy who has been sent to report on the affairs of King Confusion. He reports the successful siege by Confusion of the city of Man's Mind, whose king, Vivekacandra, the Moon of Discrimination, has been forced to flee accompanied by his bride Calm, and his daughter Kṛpāsundarī, in whom Compassion is incorporated, and of whose escape Kumārapāla learns with joy. The spy further reports a meeting with Kīrtimañjarī, the Garland of Fame, daughter of Good Conduct by his wife Polity, and herself wife of Kumārapāla. She complains that the king has turned from her and her brother, Pratāpa, Valour, owing to the efforts of a Jain monk. She has, therefore, sought the aid of Confusion and he is preparing to attack Kumārapāla. The spy, however, disappoints her by answering her inquiry as to the victory in the struggle by insisting that it will be Confusion that must fall. The king expresses his determination to overthrow Confusion, and the announcement of the hour of worship by bards terminates the Act.

c17.s3.13

An entr'acte then tells us through Puṇyaketu, the Banner of Merit, minister of the king, that Discrimination has arrived at the penance grove of Hemacandra, and has met the king, who has looked favourably at his daughter. The Act itself shows us in the accustomed mode the king with the jester spying on Kṛpāsundarī and Somatā, Gentleness,¹ her companion, and ultimately speaking to them; as usual the queen, Rājyaśrī, the Royal Fortune, with her companion, Raudratā, Harshness, intervenes, and the king vainly craves pardon. In Act III Puṇyaketu overcomes the obstacle to the match by a clever device; he stations one of his servants behind the image of the goddess to which the queen goes to seek the boon of the disfigurement of her rival, and thus, through apparent divine intervention, the queen is taught that by marriage with Kṛpāsundarī alone can the king overcome Confusion, and is induced to beg Discrimination for the hand of his daughter. Discrimination consents, but insists that to please his daughter the seven vices must be banished, and the practice of confiscating the property of those dying without heirs shall be abolished, terms to which the queen consents. The king also agrees, and the Act ends in his action in forgoing the property of a millionaire believed dead, who, however, opportunely turns up with a new bride in an aerial car.

c17.s3.14

¹ This is probably the nuance intended, as in *saumyatā*.

c17.s3.15

In Act IV we have the fulfilment of the pledge to banish the seven vices. It first tells of the meeting of the Fortune of the City with that of the Country; the former persuades the latter to accept the tenets of Jainism. Then appears Kṛpāsundarī who is annoyed by the noises of hunting and fishing, but consoled by the appearance of the police officer, who proceeds to the business of banishing vices. Gambling, Flesh-eating, Drinking, Slaughter, Theft, and Adultery must depart, despite the plea that the king's predecessors permitted them, and that they bring revenues to the State; Concubinage may remain if she will. In Act V the king, armed by Hemacandra with his Yogaśāstra, which is his armour, and the Vītarāgastuti, which serves to make him invisible, inspects the strong places of Confusion, and finally rendering himself visible does battle with the adversary and wins a great victory. He restores Discrimination to his capital, and pronounces a benediction in which praise of the Jina and of Hemacandra blend with the desire of close union with Kṛpā and Discrimination, and the hope that ‘my fame, allied with the moon, may prevail to dispel the darkness of Confusion’.

c17.s3.16

The play is certainly not without merits; in the main it is written in simple Sanskrit, free from the artifices which disfigure more pretentious plays, and it has also the merit of bringing vividly before us the activities of Jainism in its regulation of Kumārapāla’s kingdom, casting an interesting light on what is known from inscriptions and other sources of the history of Gujarāt. The marriage of the king with Kṛpāsundarī is recorded by Jinamaṇḍana in his *Kumārapālaprabandha* as taking place in A. D. 1159. Interesting details are given of the forms of gambling, including chess, and of the sects which approve slaughter. The Prākṛits are, of course, deeply influenced by Hemacandra’s grammar, and include Māgadhī and Jain Māhārāṣṭrī.

4. The Nāṭikā and the Saṭṭaka

c17.s4.1

The Nāṭikā differs in no real essential from a Nāṭaka save in the number of Acts, but its type continues to be rigidly restricted to that set by Harṣa. The *Karṇasundarī*¹ of Bilhaṇa belongs to the period about A. D. 1080–90. It seems to have been written out of compliment to Karṇadeva Trailokyamalla of Aṇhilvāḍ (1064–94), and to celebrate his wedding in advanced age with Miyāṇalladevī, daughter of the Karṇāta king, Jayakeçin. The story runs that the Cālukya king is to marry Karṇasundarī, daughter of the Vidyādhara king. The minister introduces her into the harem, and the king first sees her in a dream, then in a picture. He falls in love, and the queen is jealous; she breaks in on their meeting, and once assumes Karṇasundarī’s guise to present herself to the king. Next she tries to marry the king to a boy in Karṇasundarī’s clothes, but the minister adroitly substitutes the real for the feigned damsel, and the usual tidings of triumph abroad ends the play, which is a patent jumble of reminiscences of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Rājaçekhara.

c17.s4.2

¹ Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith, *Sansk. Lit.*, pp. 64 ff.

c17.s4.3

Madana Bālasarasvatī, preceptor of the Paramāra Arjunavarman of Dhārā, wrote the *Vijayaçrī* or *Pārijātamañjarī*,² a Nāṭikā in four Acts, of which two are preserved on stone at Dhārā. A garland falls on the breast of Arjunavarman after his victory over the Cālukya king, Bhīmadeva II, and becomes a maiden, who is handed over to the charge of the Chamberlain. She is the daughter of the Cālukya, and the usual sequence of events leads to her wedlock with the king. There is doubtless a historical reference; the date of the play is early in the thirteenth century.

c17.s4.4

² Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.

c17.s4.5

Rather less commonplace is Mathurādāsa’s effort in the *Vṛṣabhānujā*¹ to make a Nāṭikā of the love of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. He was a Kāyastha of Suvarṇaçekhara on the Ganges and Yamunā, and he uses the motive of the jealousy of Rādhā for a portrait of a lady which Kṛṣṇa has, but which turns out to be one of herself. A philosophic play is Narasiṁha’s *Çivanārāyaṇa-bhañjamahodaya*, in honour of a prince of Keonjhor.

c17.s4.6

¹ Ed. KM. 1895. The late *Mṛgāṅkalekhā* of Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.

c17.s4.7

The Saṭṭaka with its demand for Prākṛt was too exacting for the average poet; we have only the *Ānandasundarī*² of the tedious Ghanaçyāma, minister of the Marāṭha Tukkojī and the *Çṛṅgāramañjarī*³ of the Almora poet Viçveçvara of the eighteenth century.

c17.s4.8

² Hultzsch, *Reports*, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and the *Ḍamaruka* in ten Alaṁkāras; *Madras Catal.* xxi. 8403 ff.

c17.s4.9

³ KM., Part 8, p. 51.

5. The Prakaraṇa

c17.s5.1

The example of the *Mṛcchakaṭikā* induced few imitations, doubtless because would-be imitators had the sense to realize the appalling difficulties of producing anything worthy of setting beside that masterpiece. There is, however, a servile redaction of the same idea as that of the *Mālatīmādhava* of Bhavabhūti in the *Mallikāmāruta*⁴ of Uddaṇḍin or Uddaṇḍanātha, who has had the quite undeserved honour of being taken for Daṇḍin, but who was really no more than the court poet of the Zemindar of Kukkuṭakroḍa or Calicut in the middle of the seventeenth century. The plot follows that of Bhavabhūti’s play almost slavishly. The magician Mandākinī is eager to arrange a marriage between Mallikā, daughter of the minister of the Vidyādhara king and Māruta, son of the minister of the king of Kuntala. She arranges an interview between the two, who fall in love, but the match is disturbed by the desire of the king of Ceylon for Mallikā’s hand. Māruta’s friend Kalakaṇṭha is also in love with Ramayantikā. In Act III there is the usual temple scene, and a couple of elephants are let loose to frighten the two maidens and cause two rescues. Then Māruta is told by an emissary of the king of Ceylon that Kalakaṇṭha is dead, and is only saved from suicide by his friend’s appearance. In Act V Māruta tries conjuring up spirits; he finds Mallikā stolen by a Rākṣasa, rescues her, but is himself stolen, and finally overcomes the demon. But the marriage is to proceed, so that we have the elopement of Māruta and Mallikā, and the usual deception of the bridegroom, while the other couple follow the example set and elope also. The inevitable second abduction of Mallikā takes place, with the necessary search for her, which at last is rewarded; all are united under Mandākinī's protection, and the king and the parents accord their sanction.

c17.s5.2

⁴ Ed. Calcutta, 1878.

c17.s5.3

The work is metrically interesting, because the author shows a remarkable preference for the Vasantatilaka (118), and, while he is fond of the Ṣārdūlavikrīḍita and employs a great variety of metres, he, unlike most later authors, uses freely the Āryā in its different forms (74).

c17.s5.4

We know also of Prakaraṇas written by Jain writers.¹ Rāmacandra, pupil of the great Hemacandra, who perished under the reign of Ajayapāla, nephew and successor of Hemacandra's patron, Kumārapāla, between A. D. 1173 and 1176, wrote, besides other plays, the *Kaumudimitrāṇanda*² in ten Acts. The work is wholly undramatic and is really the working up in the form of a play of a number of Kathā incidents, presenting a result not unlike the plot of a modern pantomime. We first learn of a merchant's son, Mitrāṇanda, who on the island of Varuṇa attains as wife the daughter, Kaumudī, of the head of a monastery, after he and his friend have freed from durance the Siddha king, cruelly nailed to a tree by Varuṇa. She reveals to him the fact that the ascetics are frauds, and that the fate of her husbands is normally to be flung into a pit under the nuptial chamber; in this case, however, attracted to her husband by the love charm he had received from Varuṇa, she agrees to flee with him and the treasure collected from former spouses to Ceylon. There the pair would have been in evil plight, since Mitrāṇanda is taken for a thief by the police, had he not cured from death by snake-bite the crown prince Lakṣmīpati with the aid of the magic spell given to him to revive the dead by the goddess Jāṅgulī on the occasion of his marriage. The king in gratitude entrusts the pair to the minister, who, however, is enamoured of Kaumudī and anxious to get rid of her husband. The opportunity is given by a human sacrifice which a vassal of the king wishes to offer; Mitrāṇanda is sent by the minister with a letter intended to secure his being the victim, but luckily is recognized by Maitreya, his companion, who had won the vassal's favour by curing him by a magic herb. Kaumudī in the meantime is expelled from the minister's house by his jealous wife, and wanders until she meets Sumitrā, daughter of a merchant, and her family; all are captured by a prince of the aborigines Vajravarman, to whom also is brought one Makaranda, who turns out to be a friend of Mitrāṇanda. A letter from Lakṣmīpati arrives to ask for the welfare of Mitrāṇanda and Kaumudī, and the latter takes advantage of it to induce Vajravarman to celebrate the marriage of Makaranda and Sumitrā. The three then have an adventure at Ekacakrā with a Kāpālika, who induces the women to go into a subterranean cave, while he asks Mitrāṇanda's aid against a Vidyādhara, described as eager after women. He breathes life into a corpse which takes a sword in its hand, but Mitrāṇanda by a magic formula induces it to strike the Kāpālika, who disappears. In Act IX Makaranda has to establish before Lakṣmīpati his claim to his own caravan, which a certain Naradatta claims; the dispute is settled by the appearance of Vajravarman and Mitrāṇanda, while Act X disposes of the piece by uniting husband and wife in the abode of the Siddha king. The work is, of course, wholly without interest other than that presented by so many marvels appealing to the sentiment of wonder in the audience. The author refers to Murāri in such a way as to suggest to Dr. Hultzsch¹ his contemporaneity with him, but this in no wise rendered necessary by the wording of the passage cited, and, secondly, would very badly agree with the fact that Maṅkha knew and cites Murāri about A.D. 1135, for it takes some time for an author to reach the stage of being treated as an authority.

c17.s5.5

¹ Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.

c17.s5.6

² Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.

c17.s5.7

¹ ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.

c17.s5.8

Another Jaina composition is the *Prabuddharauhiṇeya*² of one Rāmabhadra Muni, pupil of Jayaprabha Sūri, of the school of Deva Sūri, the famous writer on Nyāya, who died in A.D. 1169. It was written for performance in a temple of Yugādideva, that is the Tīrthakara Ṛṣabha, on the occasion of a procession festival. It is in six Acts. In Act I Rauhiṇeya, who is a bold bandit, steals away Madanavatī, a married woman, while his helper, a Ṣabara, who speaks Māgadhī, keeps her lover at bay. In the next Act he dresses up as the mother of a youth Manoratha, and abducts him for the sake of his ornaments, terrifying the bystanders with a snake made out of rags. The next three Acts tell of the complaints of these robberies made to Ṣreṇika of Magadha, and the efforts of his minister Abhayakumāra to find the guilty man, ending ultimately in the arrest of the robber, who, however, stoutly maintains his innocence, though he fails in succeeding in winning his discharge. In Act VI women and musicians under the control of Bharata, a teacher of dancing, endeavour to deceive him into the belief that he is in heaven, and thus to win a confession of his misdeeds from him. But he sees through the play, for he remembers a verse which he had heard spoken by Vardhamāna Svāmin before his captivity, in which the characteristics¹ of the gods, freedom from perspiration, unfaded garlands, and feet that do not touch the ground, were set out. The miscreant thus is pronounced innocent, but, liberated, manifests his penitence by taking the king and the minister to the mount Vaibhāra, in which are the treasures he has stolen and the missing boy and woman. The topic is one handled by Hemacandra in the matter illustrating his Yogaṣāstra.

c17.s5.9

² Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.

c17.s5.10

¹ Famous from the *Nala* onwards.

c17.s5.11

Quite different is the character of the *Mudritakumudacandra*² of Yaṣaṣcandra, son of Padmacandra, grandson of Dhanadeva of the Dharkaṭa family, who was, it seems, the minister of a prince of Ṣākambharī in Sapādalakṣa. The play describes the controversy which took place in A.D. 1124 between the Ṣvetāmbara Jaina teacher Deva Sūri, mentioned above, and the Digambara Kumudacandra, in which the latter was silenced, whence the title of the piece.

c17.s5.12

² Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṃvat, 2432.

6. The Prahasana and the Bhāṇa

c17.s6.1

Popular as the Prahasana or farce must have been, we have in this period no example preserved certainly older than the *Laṭakamelaka*,³ written in the earlier part of the twelfth century under Govindacandra of Kanyakubja by Ṣaṅkhadhara Kavirāja. The nature of the play is characteristic; the action passes at the house of the go-between Danturā, to which come all sorts of people anxious to buy the affection of the fascinating Madana-mañjarī. Comic relief is further provided by the arrival of doctor Jantuketu to extract a fish-bone from the damsel’s throat. He is perfectly incompetent and his methods absurd, but they affect their purpose indirectly, since, through laughing at his antics, the bone is happily dislodged. The bargaining of the lovers is satirized, and the marriage which is actually arranged is one between the go-between herself and a Digambara, a type doubtless sure to raise a laugh.

c17.s6.2

a Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites an *Ānandakoṣa*.

c17.s6.3

Of much later date is the well-known *Dhūrtasamāgama*¹ of Jyotirīçvara Kaviçekhara, son of Dhaneçvara, grandson of Rāmeçvara, of the family of Dhireçvara who wrote under the Vijayanagara king Narasiṅha (A.D. 1487-1507), though a Nepalese manuscript makes his father Dhirasiṅha and his patron Harasiṅha, who has been identified, implausibly, with Harisiṅha of Simraon (A.D. 1324). The first part of the play relates the contest of the religious mendicant Viçvanagara and his pupil Durācāra, whose names are significant, over the beautiful Anaṅgasenā; the pupil has every reason to complain, since it was he who saw the fair one and confided his love to his master, who meanly seeks to secure the damsel’s favour in lieu. She insists on the matter being referred to arbitration, and in the second part the Brahmin Asajjāti, Impure Race, an expert at dealing with delicate matters of casuistry, undertakes the duty, and wisely decides to impound the damsel for himself, though, while he is deliberating, his Vidūṣaka seeks to secure the prize for himself. The case over, the barber Mūlanācaka, Root Destroyer, turns up to demand payment of a debt from Anaṅgasenā. She refers him to Asajjāti, who pays him with his pupil’s purse; he then demands the barber’s care; the latter ties him up and leaves him to be rescued by the Vidūṣaka.

c17.s6.4

¹ Ed. in Lassen’s *Anth. Sanscr.*, Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād, *Nepa Catal.*, p. xxxvii.

c17.s6.5

Very popular is Jagadīçvara’s *Hāsyārṇava*.² The king, Anayasindhu, Ocean of Misrule, is devastated because all goes ill in his realm: Caṇḍālas make shoes, not Brahmins, wives are chaste, husbands constant, and the good respected. He asks his minister where best he can study the character of his people, and is advised to go to the house of the go-between, Bandhurā, who presents to him her daughter, Mṛgāṅkalekhā. The court chaplin enters with his pupil, and are attracted to the damsel. A comic doctor is called in for Bandhurā, who feels ill; his remedies are worse than the disease, and he has to run away. A series of other figures are introduced. Then a barber, who has cut a patient; the latter demands damages, but is nonsuited; then comes the chief of police, Sādhuhiṃsika, Terror to the Good, the comic general Raṇajambuka, the astrologer Mahāyātrika, who indicates as the time for a journey the conjunction of stars presaging death. The king disappears at the end of the first Act; the second deals with the efforts of the chaplain and his pupil to obtain the damsel; but rivals come in the form of another man of religion and his pupil; finally the two older reprobates secure the damsel, while the boys content themselves with Bandhurā, who is delighted with the turn of events. But the celebration of these double marriages is left to another holy man, Mahānindaka, who also desires to share the hetaera. The date of the piece is unknown, as is that of the *Kautukasarvasva*¹ of Gopīnātha Cakravartin, written for the autumn festival of the Durgāpūjā in Bengal. It is more amusing and less vulgar than most of these pieces; the king, Kalivatsala, who is licentious, addicted to every kind of vice, and a lover of hemp juice, ill-treats the virtuous Brahmin Satyācāra, who finds that everything is wrong in the state, even the people being valiant in oppression, skilled in falsehood, and persevering only in contempt for the pious. The general is valiant: he can cleave a roll of butter with his blade, and trembles at the approach of a mosquito. Play is made with the immoralities recounted in the Purāṇas; the objections of the Ṛṣis to vice are put down to the fact that they censured in others what they themselves were too old to enjoy. The king proclaims free love, but becomes himself involved in a dispute over a hetaera. He is summoned back to the queen, which so annoys the hetaera that every one hastens to console her, and the king, obligingly to please her, banishes all Brahmins from the realm.

c17.s6.6

² Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.

c17.s6.7

¹ Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.

c17.s6.8

The *Dhūrtanartaka*² of Sāmarāja Dīkṣita is of the seventeenth century. It deals with one Mureçvara, who, though a Çaiva ascetic, is a devotee of a dancing girl whom he entrusts to his pupils on having to go away. They seek to secure the favours of the damsel and, failing in this, denounce him to the king, but Pāpācāra, Bad Conduct, is merely amused and allows the saint to keep the damsel. Rather earlier is the *Kautukaratnākara*¹ by the chaplain of Lakṣmaṇa Māṇikyadeva of Bhūluyā, which centres in the carrying off of the queen, though the chief of police sleeps beside her to guard her, and the adventures of the hetaera who is to take her place at the spring festival.

c17.s6.9

² Wilson, ii. 407.

c17.s6.10

¹ Cappeller, *Gurupūjākaumudī*, pp. 62 f.

c17.s6.11

The Bhāṇa, despite its antiquity, attested by the theory, is not represented early in the history of the drama. To Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa, about A.D. 1500, we owe the *Śṛṅgārabhūṣaṇa*,² which is typical of the class. The chief Viṭa, Vilāsaçekhara, comes out to pay a visit to the hetaera Anaṅgamañjarī on the evening of the spring festival. He goes into the street of the hetaerae, and takes part in a series of imaginary conversations, giving the answers himself to his own questions, or pretending to listen to some one out of sight and then repeating the answers. He describes the hetaerae, ram-fights, cock-fights, boxing, a quarrel between two rivals, the different stages of the day, and the pleasures of the festival. Much on the same lines is the *Śṛṅgāratilaka*³ or *Ayyābhāṇa* of Rāmabhadra Dīkṣita, which was written to rival the *Vasantatilaka*⁴ or *Ammābhāṇa* of Varadācārya or Ammāl Ācārya, the Vaiṣṇava. The play was written for performance at the festival of the marriage of Mīnākṣī, the deity of Madurā. Bhujaṅgaçekhara, the hero, is vexed at the departure of his beloved Hemāṅgī, but is assured of meeting her again, despite her return to her husband. He makes the usual promenade in the hetaerae's street, has the usual imaginary conversations and describes the ordinary sights, including snake charmers and magic shows of gods and their mountains and so forth. Finally he succeeds in rejoining Hemāṅgī. We have similar lengthy descriptions in the *Cāradatilaka*⁵ of Çaṅkara, who places the scene in the feigned city of uproar, Kolāhalapura, and whose satire extends to the Jaṅgamas or Çaivas and the Vaiṣṇavas. Nallā Kavi (*c.* A.D. 1700) is responsible for the *Śṛṅgārasarvasva*,⁶ which deals with Anaṅgaçekhara, who has to part from his beloved Kanakalatā, but he is helped to meet her by the advent of an elephant which terrifies all the others in the street, but is worshipped by the lover as Gaṇeça and Çiva's answer to his prayer for help. A slight variant is presented by the *Rasasadana*¹ by a Yuvarāja from Koṭiliṅga in Kerala; the hero here is a chief Viṭa who has promised his friend Mandāraka to look after his loved one for him. He goes about with her to a temple, and then to his house; wanders out into the street, talks and describes at large, and finally, after accepting the invitation of a lady from a neighbouring town to pay her a visit, goes back home to find the lovers united again.

First 95 of 165 passages. Read on

Linked texts (70)