365bet娱乐

124 2
.
Bh膩sa on account of a common verse found in their works.
Prof. Dhruva on the basis of metrical grounds places
K膩lid膩sa in 57 B.C., thus endorsing the traditional view,
and finds A艣vaghosa posterior in time because the latter
uses long metres and also those that came into use later
on.' His Sanskrit thus is found to be later than that of
K膩lid膩sa. Dr. Keith has assigned priority to A艣vaghosa,
but he says about Asvaghosa that he "was more complex
than Bhasa and certainly so in his epics", which in our
opinion, should indicate the priority of Bh膩sa. MM. Prof.
S. Kuppuswami Sastri, a prominent Sanskrit scholar and
an anti-Bh膩saite, assigns first century B.C. to K膩lid膩sa and
pronounces A艣vaghosa to be subsequent to him." In
view of all these things, it seems rather strange that the
scholars mentioned above should take the anteriority of
A艣vaghosa to K膩lid膩sa as an axiomatic truth. While no
one places A艣vaghosa earlier than the first century A.D.,
fresh evidence is coming forward of the existence of a
Vikramaditya in the first century B.C., which would render
probable the existence of his court poet, K膩lid膩sa. With
regard to the antiquity of the Prakrits used by A艣vaghosa
as found in the fragments of his plays in the Turfan MSS
and the comparatively late Prakrit as found in K膩lid膩sa,
we have to bear in mind that Prakrit is much more liable
to be changed at the hands of the scribes and scholars
than the Sanskrit portions in the MSS of Sanskrit
dramas, "with the result that the same Prakrit texts will
be found in bewilderingly different forms in different
MSS" The arguments about date based on the character
of Prakrit are therefore reliable and of value only if
contemporary MSS are taken into account.
Dr. Raja and Messrs. Pisharotis on the other hand,
deny any antiquity to the Prakrit as is represented by the
Trivandrum plays, and declare it to be a "mixture of old
and later Prakrit". The literary history and tradition in
Kerala is recalled where Prakrit had only a literary
existence. It was not a spoken language and hence was
1 Parakramani Pras膩d墨, 1923, Intr., pp. 5-20; 46-49; Thakkar Lectures, pp.
204-212. 2 SD, p. 115. 3 Padyacu岣嵞乵ani, Madras, 1921, preface, p. 5. 4 Cf.
Mukhopadhyaya, MR, 51, pp. 650-654; 52, pp. 28-33; also, Shembavnekar, JBU, 1, pp.
232-246; as well as the references given in the foot-note in Chapter III on the date of
Kalidasa. 5 Chattopadhyaya, AUS, 2, p. 11. 6 Raja, ZII. 2, pp. 247-264 at p. 259;
;
A.K. Pisharoti, Criticism, pp. 24-25; K. R. Pisharoti IHQ, 1, pp. 330-340 ; 5, P. Yo
Shama'a, 5, pp. 179-186; BSOS, 3, pp. 108-109; 5, pp. 307-310; Barnett, JRAS,
Rp. 587-589; Devdhar, Plays etc., pp. 48-54.