Essay name: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
Author: A. D. Pusalker
This book studies Bhasa, the author of thirteen plays ascribed found in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. These works largely adhere to the rules of traditional Indian theatrics known as Natya-Shastra.
Page 143 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
143 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
123 4
the Prakrit in the Trivandrum plays with that of
A艣vaghosa and K膩lid膩sa, he finds our author to be younger
than the former and older than the latter. Dr. Winternitz
has also expressed a similar opinion.' Dr. Sten Konow also
places Bh膩sa's plays at least one century after A艣vaghosa,
i. e., in the third or fourth century A.D. Dr. Banerji Sastri
has critically examined various forms in Prakrit, and he
controverts the views of the above scholars placing Bh膩sa
a century after Asvaghosa. In his opinion, A艣vaghosa
and Bh膩sa were probably closely proximate in time,
each unknown or of little importance to the other."
Dr. Keith finds the Prakrit of Bh膩sa in an intermediate
stage between A艣vaghosa and K膩lid膩sa and has treated
as of minor importance the retention of similar forms
in South Indian MSS of later dates. Dr. Sukthankar
with his usual scholarly insight, critical faculty, and
unbiassed judgment in weighing evidence, has studied the
problem at length and on the strength of a number of
affinities that the Prakrit in our dramas presents with that
of A艣vaghosa concludes that "there lies in the dramas
before us a solid bedrock of archaic Prakrit which is older
than any we know from the dramas of the so-called classical
period of Sanskrit literature". It may be noted here,
however, that on knowing that in Malayalam MSS of
Kalidasa and Harsa, and in the MSS of southern dramatists
of the sixth and later centuries, similar Prakrit archaisms
are met with, in a genuine scholarly spirit, Dr. Sukthankar
later on admits that "Prakrit archaisms have no probative
value for antiquity or authorship of the plays". Dr.
Thomas seems to hold Bh膩sa earlier than K膩lid膩sa on the
ground of Prakrit peculiarities also.
5 With reference to the views expressed above, placing
our author between A艣vaghosa and K膩lid膩sa we feel, with
Prof. Devdhar, 'certainly amused with these frantic efforts
of scholars to relegate our author to a time' posterior to
A艣vaghosa 'on what is in fact insufficient data. While all
deplore the loss of A艣vaghosa's works they hazard
conclusions from the little crumbs left by time'." It is to
be noted further, that we have placed A艣vaghosa after
1 Festschrift Kuhn, p. 301; Of. CR, Dec. 1924, p. 339. 2 IA, 43, pp. 65-66.
3 JRAS, 1921, pp. 372-377 at p. 377. 4 SD, pp. 120-122. *The evidence...
is interesting, but does not alter the importance of these forms". SD, p. 121 nl,
JAOS, 40, pp. 248-259 at p. 259. 6 JBRAS, 1925, pp. 103-117; 126-143;
at p. 140. 1 Plays etc., p. 49.
