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 185 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
185 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
165
rather peculiar that Bh膩sa did not make use of the
revolution incident in his play, especially as it would
have made a wonderfully inseparable unit with the
love story. Among a number of S眉drakas we identify
the author of the Mrcch with Andhra Simuka."
AUTHORSHIP OF MRCCHAKATIKA.
The prologue to the Mrcch, no doubt, contains
later additions and elements; but that does not justify
us in discarding it altogether as untrue. It is more
reasonable to take the traditional statements as true till
the contrary is proved than to treat them the other way.
The prologue in the M峁沜ch must, therefore, be supposed to
contain some elements of truth in it. The description
of the regal author is generally seen to apply to Simuka,
the Andhra king. It may be contended that Simuka
had no time to compose dramas as he was engaged in
wars; but most probably the Mrcch is the work of some
court poet of S奴draka, perhaps R膩mila or Saumila or
both. As the times were not peaceful, the poets took
a ready-made drama to work upon. They found some
political revolution, contemporary or earlier, and made
additions to the original that would appeal to the gallery.
This supposition explains to some extent the southern
influence shown by the M峁沜ch, as also the silence of
K膩lid膩sa about S奴draka though the latter preceded him.
The Andhras were southerners, and also K膩lid膩sa
may be taken to have known that the Mrcch was neither
an independent work nor was it the composition of
艢奴draka. The influence of the Malavik膩gnimitra seen
in the Mrcch need not speak of a later date for the
latter as both have copied from the common source,
viz., Bh膩sa.
The cumulative effect of all that has been stated
regarding the relationship of the two plays would, it is
hoped, convey to every unbiassed critic the priority of
the Car over the Mrcch and this in itself would
different versions.
of the same play. Importance of the point, however,
requires a detailed treatment.
contradict the opinion that the two are itself would
1 We have dealt with the "Authorship and date of the Mrcchakatika"
at some length in a paper submitted to the Ninth All India Oriental Conference,
Trivandrum; it has been accepted for publication in the JHARS.
