365bet娱乐

88
changed in the latter; the KSS and BKM differentiate
between Mah盲sena and Pradyota, making Mah膩sena the
ruler of Avanti and Pradyota the ruler of Magadha, thus
striking out Dar艣aka from the list. The existence of Dar艣aka
has been historically proved.' The genealogy of Udayana
as given in the KSS and the Puranas differs from that
given in the Pratij帽膩. Mr. Ogden opines: "Bh膩sa treats
the incident in a more realistic and serious fashion than
does the light-hearted account of the KSS and herein he
is probably more faithful to the Udayana legend". Now
Udayana, Dar艣aka, Mah膩sena etc. are all known to history
and are proved to belong to the 6th or the 5th century B. C.
We have already assigned the 4th or the 5th century B. C.
to Bh膩sa. It seems, therefore, probable that, coming as he
does shortly after Udayana, Bh膩sa employed the stories
about Udayana current in his time.
2 In an introductory article to his Kannada translation
of the Pratij帽膩 which has recently been published, Mr. L.
Gundappa discusses at length the bearing of the Tamil
Perungatai (B峁沨atkatha) on the plot of the Pratij帽膩, and
tries to show that the story of the play agrees to a greater
extent with the version of the Perungatai than with those
contained in the Sanskrit descendants of the B峁沨atkath膩.
Another Kannada scholar, Prof. Krishna Sastri, also seems
to hold a similar view. The date of Perungatai is not
yet settled, but it cannot be earlier than the second
century A. D., and hence Bh膩sa who flourished centuries
before this date, cannot be said to have been indebted to
this work for the plot of his Pratij帽膩.
(v) No definite source has been found for the
Carudatta. The love of a het忙ra for a merchant is a
common topic in literature, and hence the story may be taken.
to be of the poet's invention. Sundari-Katha from the
J膩takas is suggested as the possible source, and it is not
unreasonable to suppose that the poet made,
use of that
story as he heard it from oral traditions
.
That the
Brhatkatha cannot be the source is indicated above.
4 1 Smith, Oxford History of India, p. 70; EHI, 3rd edition, p. 51; Roy
Chaudhari, PHAI, 2nd edition, p. 130; Saisunaga Statues, JBORS, Vol.5, 1919; Dec,
JASB, 1933, pp. 333-337, 342. 2 JAOS, 43, p. 169. 3 Sanskrit Drama, Bangalore,
p. 67. I am indebted Prof. H. L. Hariyappa for this information. He further
states that Prof. Krisna Sastri places the Tamil work in the second or third century
A, D. while Mr. Gundappa assigns it to the fifth or sixth century A. D. 4 Kir膩ta,
Bhasa's Works, Marathi translation, pp.115-119.