The History of Indian Literature c9.86

c9.86

²¹⁸ The leading work on the Indian dramas is still Wilson's *Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus*, 1835², 1871³. The number of dramas that have been published in India is already very considerable, and is constantly being increased. Foremost amongst them still remain:—the *Mṛichhakaṭiká* of S'údraka, the three dramas of Kálidása (*S'akuntalá*, *Urvas'í*, and *Málaviká*), Bhavabhúti's three (*Málatí-mádhava*, *Mahá-víra-charitra*, and *Uttara-ráma-charitra*);—the *Ratnávalí* of King S'rí-Harshadeva, composed, according to Wilson's view, in the twelfth century, and that not by the king himself, but by the poet Dhávaka, who lived at his court, but according to Hall, by the poet Báṇa in the beginning of the seventh century; see Hall, Introduction to the Vásavadattá, p. 15 ff. (cf. note 212 above), *I. Str.*, i. 356), *Lit. Cent. Bl.*, 1872, p. 614;—the *Nágánanda*, a Buddhistic sensational piece ascribed to the same royal author, but considered by Cowell to belong to Dhávaka (see, however, my notice of Boyd's translation in *Lit. C. B.*, 1872, p. 615);—the *Veṇí-saṃhára* of Bhaṭṭa-nárāyaṇa, a piece pervaded by the colouring of the Kṛishṇa sect, written, according to Grill, who edited it in 1871, in the sixth, and in any case earlier than the tenth century (see *Lit. C. B.*, 1872, p. 612);—the *Viddha-śálabhañjiká* of Rája-S'ekhara, probably prior to the tenth century (see *I. Str.*, i. 313);—the *Mudrá-rákshasa* of Viśákhadatta, a piece of political intrigue, of about the twelfth century; and lastly, the *Prabodha-chandrodaya* of Kṛishṇamiśra, which dates, according to Goldstücker, from the end of the same century.—Two of Kálidása's dramas, the *S'akuntalá* and *Urvaśí*, are each extant in several recensions, evidently in consequence of their having enjoyed a very special popularity. Since the appearance of Pischel's pamphlet, *De Kâlidâsae Çakuntali Recensionibus* (Breslau, 1870), in which he contends, with great confidence, for the greater authenticity of the so-called Bengálí recension, the questions connected herewith have entered upon a new stage. See a full discussion of this topic in *I. St.*, xiv. 161 ff. To Pischel we are also indebted for our knowledge of the Dekhan recension of the *Urvaśí*: it appeared in the *Monatsber. der Berl. Acad.*, 1875, pp. 609–670.