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 186 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
186 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
166
CARUDATTA AND MRCCHAKATIKA; DIFFERENT
RECENSIONS OF THE SAME PLAY?
That the plays are known by different titles is a
factor strongly against the above assumption. It is no
answer to say that 'Vatsarajacarita' is an alternative
title of the Pratij帽膩. 'Vatsarajacarita' is known to be
a work of S奴draka and it cannot be identified with the
anonymous Pratij帽膩. Abhinavagupta gives it as an
alternative title for the Ratnavali in his Dhvanyalokalocana
(p. 162, Kavyam膩la). Hence the Car and the M峁沜ch
also are distinct works. Rhetoricians down from V膩mana
distinguish between the Car and the Mrcch testifying
to their being different works.
Vamana has in all three quotations, viz. (V. 1. 3)
啶ぞ啶膏ぞ啶� 啶げ啶苦 [y膩s膩峁� bali岣� ] etc., (IV. 3.23) 啶︵啶啶む 啶灌た 啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶啶班啶粪じ啷嵿く啶距じ啶苦啶灌ぞ啶膏え啶� 啶班ぞ啶溹啶ぎ啷� | [dy奴ta峁� hi n膩ma puru峁sy膩si峁僪膩sana峁� r膩jyam | ] and
(IV. 3.23) 啶掂啶じ啶ㄠ 啶灌た 啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶膏啶氞啶涏啶班ぞ啶膏 啶ぐ啶｀ぎ啷� 啷�.
[vyasana峁� hi n膩ma socchr膩sa峁� mara峁嘺m |.
] Of these the first,
as stated already, agrees more with the Car (I. 2) than
with the Mrcch (I. 9); the second one in the Mrcch
only (Act II, p. 38); and the last seems to be a
misquotation for 啶︵ぞ啶班た啶︵啶班啶 啶栢げ啷� 啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶え啶膏啶掂た啶ㄠ 啶啶班啶粪じ啷嵿く 啶膏啶氞啶涏啶班ぞ啶膏 啶ぐ啶｀ぎ啷� 啷�
[d膩ridrya峁� khalu n膩ma manasvina岣� puru峁sya socchr膩sa峁� mara峁嘺m |
] occurring only in the Car (p. 11). V膩mana, therefore,
seems to have been aware of both the versions, and is
possibly quoting from memory. S奴draka's works are
further credited with having much 艣le峁 in them, "艣le峁
obviously referring to the intricate and subtle evolution
of the story and the plot". Thus V膩mana can be
shown to have knowledge of the M峁沜ch being an amplified
evolution of the Car by the infusion of the political plot.
Or the expression may refer to the 艣le峁-guna that has
been incorporated into the other material by Sudraka
which also imputes knowledge to Vamana of both plays.
It is wrong to dismiss with scant courtesy the testimony
of V膩mana.鲁
Next, we come to Abhinavagupta who in his
Bharatanatyavedaviv峁泃i refers to a Daridrac膩rudatta;
and R膩macandra and Gunacandra, in their Natyadarpa峁嘺
mention Daridrac膩rudatta and M峁沜chakatika side by
side.*
1 That the Pratij帽膩 is quite distinct from the Vatsarajacarita is evident from
Mr. Kavi's statement that the Vatsarajacarita by Sudraka will be published in the
Daksina Bh膩rat墨 Series (JAHRS, 2, p. 143). 2 Ganapati Sastri, Critical Study
4 Cf. Sukthankar, JBRAS, 1925
p. 92.
p. 272.
3 Cf. Devdhar, Plays etc., p. 21..
