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 176 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
176 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
156
"It must be painfully noted that barring the well
considered and methodological writings of some of the
distinguished orientalists, many have fallen into the pit
of evaluating the merits of the two works only on
subjective grounds." Drs. Morgenstierne, Sukthankar
and Prof. Paranjape have subjected the texts to a critical
test and have proved in their own way that the Car is
the original of the Mrcch. Dr. Belvalkar comes to
the same conclusion after considering the problem
from the point of dramaturgy. In spite of Dr. Raja's
statement that the theory of the priority of the Car is
"once for all exploded", we still regard it as an open
issue and after considering all the available evidence
state our own view of the matter. In a genuine
scholarly spirit, Dr. Barnett admits that
"Dr. Morgenstierne's study has certainly established a
fair possiblility for the contention that Má¹›cch is an
adaptation of Car". Dr. Morgenstierne has published
the text of the Car with parallel passages from the Mrcch
to
substantiate his contentions and his investigations
have been generally accepted by all as proving the
priority of the Car. Dr. Sukthankar's critical study of
the text of the two works under four different heads viz.,
technique, Prakrit, versification, and dramatic incident,
leads him to the same conclusion, and independently,
Prof. Paranjape also comes to the same conclusion
after a critical analysis of the plays.
Reserving the refutation of such of the contrary
opinions that remain to be answered for a separate section
towards the close of the chapter, we shall consider the
relationship between the two plays in brief under
vocabulary, technique, Prakrit, and versification, in
the light of the previous investigations of the scholars
in this field. We have also studied the problem in our
own way, showing that the Car and the Má¹›cch cannot be
assigned to the same period owing to the essential
differences between them which rendered the theory of
both works being different recensions of the same text
quite untenable. Our study also shows that all these
differences tell of a later date for the Mrcch. We have
dealt with the question whether the Car and Má¹›cch are
1 P. V. Kulkarni, Mrech, Nerurkar's Edn., 1924, App., p. 4, 2 JOR, I,
3 BSOS, 3, pp. 519-520.
D. 244.
