स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् (महाकवि भास - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी अनुवाद)

xvi INTRODUCTION. (ततः प्रविशति काञ्चुकीयः) भो भोः प्रतिहाराधिकृताः! महाराजो दुर्योधनः समाज्ञापयति — अद्य सर्वपार्थिवैः सह मन्त्रयितुमिच्छामि । तदाहूयन्तां सर्वे राजान इति । अये अयं महाराजो दुर्योधन इत एवाभिवर्तते । य एषः, श्यामो युवा सितदुकूलकृतोत्तरीयः सच्छत्रचामरवरो रचिताङ्गरागः । श्रीमान् विभूषणमणिद्युतिरञ्जिताङ्गो नक्षत्रमध्य इव पर्वगतः शशाङ्कः ॥ (ततः प्रविशति दुर्योधनः) दुर्योधनः — उद्धूतरोषमिव मे हृदयं सहर्षं प्राप्तं रणोत्सवमिमं सहसा विचिन्त्य । इच्छामि पाण्डवबले वरवारणाना- मुत्कृत्तदन्तमुसलानि मुखानि कर्तुम् ॥ काञ्चुकीयः — जयतु महाराजः । महाराजशासनात् समानीतं सर्वराजम- ण्डलम् । दुर्योधनः — सम्यक् कृतम् । प्रविश त्वमवरोधनम् । काञ्चुकीयः — यथाज्ञापयति महाराजः । (निष्क्रान्तः) दुर्योधनः — आर्यौ! वैकर्णवर्षदेवौ! उच्यताम्—अस्ति ममैकादशाक्षौहि(णी? णि) । बलसमुदयस्यास्य कः सेनापतिर्भवितुमर्हतीति । किमाहुर्भवन्तौ—महान् खल्वयमर्थः । मन्त्रयित्वा वक्तव्यमिति । सदृशमेतद्, आगम्यतां मन्त्रशालामेव प्रविशामः।आचार्य! अभिवादये। प्रविशतु भवान् मन्त्रशालाम्। पितामह! अभिवा- दये । प्रविशतु भवान् मन्त्रशालाम् । मातुल! अभिवादये । प्रविशतु भवान् मन्त्र-

INTRODUCTION. xvii शालाम् । आर्यौ वैकर्णवर्षदेवौ! प्रविशतां भवन्तौ । भो भोः सर्वक्षत्रियाः! स्वैरं प्रविशन्तु भवन्तः । वयस्य कर्ण! प्रविशावस्तावत् । (प्रविश्य) आचार्य! एत- दासनमास्यताम् । पितामह! एतदा(सनमा)स्यताम् । मातुल! एतदासनमास्य- ताम् । आर्यौ वैकर्णवर्षदेवौ! आसातां भवन्तौ । भो भोः सर्वक्षत्रियाः! स्वैरमास- तां भवन्तः । किमिति किमिति महाराजो नास्त इति । अहो सेवाधर्मः । भव- त्वद्य" The beginning of Abhishekanātaka:— “( नान्यन्ते ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः ) सूत्रधारः— यो गाधिपुत्रमखविघ्नकराभिहन्ता युद्धे विराधखरदूषणवीर्यहन्ता । दर्पोद्धतोल्बणकबन्धकपीन्द्रहन्ता पायात् स वो निशिचरेन्द्रकुलाभिहन्ता ॥ एवमार्यमिश्रान् विज्ञापयामि । (परिक्रम्यावलोक्य) अये किन्नुखलु मयि विज्ञापनव्यग्रे शब्द इव श्रूयते । अङ्ग! पश्यामि । ( नेपथ्ये ) सुग्रीव! इत इतः । .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... स्थापना ।”

xviii INTRODUCTION. The ending of Abhishekanātaka:— "( भरतवाक्यम् ) भवन्त्वरजसो गावः परचक्रं प्रशाम्यतु । इमामपि महीं कृत्स्नां राजसिंहः प्रशास्तु नः ॥ ( निष्क्रान्ताः सर्वे ) सप्तमोऽङ्कः । अभिषेकनाटकं समाप्तम् ।" The beginning of Pratimānātaka:— "( नान्द्यन्ते ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः ) सूत्रधारः — सीताभवः पातु सुमन्त्रतुष्टः सुग्रीवरामः सहलक्ष्मणश्च । यो रावणार्यप्रतिमश्च देव्या विभीषणात्मा भरतोऽन्यसर्गः ॥ ( नेपथ्याभिमुखमवलोक्य ) आय! इतस्तावत् । (प्रविश्य) नटी — अय्य! इअम्हि । सूत्रधारः — आर्ये! इममेवेदानीं शरत्कालमधिकृत्य गीयतां तावत् । नटी — अय्य! तह । (गायति) सूत्रधारः — अस्मिन् हि काले, चरति पुलिनेषु हंसी काशांशुकवासिनी सुसंहृष्टा ।

INTRODUCTION. xix ( नेपथ्ये ) अय्य! अय्य! सूत्रधारः — भवतु विज्ञातम् । मुदिता नरेन्द्रभवने त्वरिता प्रतिहाररक्षीव॥ ( निष्क्रान्तौ ) स्थापना ।" The ending of Pratimânâtaka:— "( भरतवाक्यम् ) यथा रामश्च जानक्या बन्धुभिश्च समागतः । तथा लक्ष्म्या समायुक्तो राजा भूमिं प्रशास्तु नः ॥ (निष्क्रान्ताः सर्वे) सप्तमोऽङ्कः । प्रतिज्ञानाटकं समाप्तम् ॥ " Besides exhibiting a structural similarity, these plays also contain, [Mutual resemblance] as the above quotations will show, several passages [among the plays.] in common e. g. the sentence, “एवमार्यमिश्रान् विज्ञाप- यामि । अये किन्नुखलु मयि विज्ञापनव्यग्रे शब्द इव श्रूयते । अङ्ग ! पश्यामि ” is found in all plays except Pratijñâ, Chârudatta, Avimâraka, Pratimâ and Karnabhâra. Again the Sloka:— “इमां सागरपर्यन्तां हिमवद्विन्ध्यकुण्डलाम् । महीमेकातपत्राङ्कां राजसिंहः प्रशास्तु नः ॥”

XX INTRODUCTION. appears as the Bharata Vâkya both in Svapnanâtaka and in Bâlacharita. The passage, “भवन्त्वरजसो गावः परचक्रं प्रशाम्यतु । इमामपि महीं कृत्स्नां राजसिंहः प्रशास्तु नः ॥” is seen in the plays, Pratijñâ, Avimâraka and Abhisheka, and the latter half of the Sloka occurs in Pancharâtra also. The practice of suggesting names of the principal dramatis personæ in the benedictory verse is alike in Pratijñâ, Pancharâtra, Pratimâ, and Svapnanâtaka. The Sloka:- “लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः । असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिनिष्फलतां गता ॥ appears in the first Act of both Chârudatta and Bâlacharita. The pass- age, “किं वक्ष्यतीति हृदयं परिशङ्कितं मे” occurs in the 6th Act of Svapna- nâtaka and also in the 4th Act of Abhishekanâtaka. The part, “धर्मस्नेहान्तरे न्यस्ता” of a Sloka is seen in both the second Act of Pratimâ and in the sixth Act of Abhishekanâtaka. Many more points of similarity of this kind can be observed in the plays. As indicated by these points of close similarity, it is very likely that all these plays are the work of the same author. [Marginal Note: The authorship of the plays.] As neither the name of the author nor that of the work is mentioned in the Sthâpanâ of these plays, it seems to me that they must have been written before such a practice came into vogue. Having regard to the various poetic excellences which will be hereafter noticed, I should think that the author was a great poet of antiquity and of wide renown. What we have till now known as Svapnavâsavadatta, though only in name, from ancient works of such great authors as Âchâryâbhinavaguptapâda and others may in all proba- bility be the same work as this Svapnanâtaka, which is perhaps only a contracted form of the full name; for, in Svapnanâtaka, we have the des- cription of prince Vatsarâja's dream about Vâsavadattâ. These con- siderations make me regard this series of plays with unusual appre- ciation; for it is well-known that Svapnavâsavadatta which was till now thought to have been lost for ever was composed by the great poet

INTRODUCTION. xxi Bhâsa as the following sloka of Râjasekhara in Sûktimuktâvali shows:— “भासनाटकचक्रेऽपिच्छेकैः क्षिप्ते परीक्षितुम् । स्वप्नवासवदत्तस्य दाहकोऽभून्न पावकः ॥” This great poet it is who is enshrined in the passage in the Prastâvana of Mâlavikâgnimitra by Kâlidâsa, “प्रथितयशसां भाससौमिल्लकविपुत्रादीनां प्रब- न्धानतिक्रम्य” and in the following sloka by Bhatta Bana in Harshacharita, “सूत्रधारकृतारम्भैर्नाटकैर्बहुभूमिकैः । सपताकैर्यशो लेभे भासो देवकुलैरिव ॥” These Nâtakas are thus seen to be the work of Bhâsa as the epithet “सूत्रधारकृतारम्भैः” by which Bhatta Bâna in the above sloka qualifies Bhâsa's Nâtakas applies to these plays, for every one of them begins with the stage direction, “नान्द्यन्ते ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः” As the manuscript of Svapnavâsavadatta, the best known of the [Other manuscript copies discovered.] series, was moth-eaten in several places and the manuscripts of Chârudatta and Karnabhâra were in- complete, I tried to obtain complete manuscripts of these plays, with a view to edit and publish them. With this end in view, I addressed several sanskrit Scholars, European as well as Indian Many of them replied to say that even these manuscripts, however incom- plete, of Bhâsa's Nâtakas which had long been regarded as lost, were in themselves a very great acquisition; but fortunately, I was able to ob- tain a complete, though not correct, manuscript of each of the two plays Svapna and Pratijnâyaugandharâyana. This was from my esteemed friend, Pandit A. Anantacharya of Mysore who was kind enough to send me a copy of his copy of the manuscript he had ob- tained from Kerala. At the end of this manuscript copy of Svapna- nâtaka is written, “स्वप्नवासवदत्ता समाप्ता”. This agrees with what we supposed to be the full name of Svapnanâtaka. At the end of the manuscript of Pratijnanâtaka is written the full name, Pratijnâyau- gandharâyana. After this, during another tour, I obtained at Hari- pad, a manuscript of Avimâraka from Mr. Subrahmunia Mûttatu of Puttiyal. With the help of these manuscripts, three plays have

xxii INTRODUCTION. already been examined for the Press, and the others are being gone through. Thus Svapnavâsavadatta with the aid of the new manuscript has assumed a complete form, and I feel fully rewarded for my pains on this account. I am deeply indebted to Pandit Anantacharya for his kindness in sending me his manuscript. When Svapnavâsavadatta was just in the Press, another manuscript of it was secured from Krishnan Tantri of Thazhaman Matham in Chengannur, and separate manu- scripts of Pratijnâyaugandharâyana and of Abhishekanâtaka were also obtained from the same source. Doubtless, it is to this Svapnavâsavadatta of ours that Vandya- Enquiry as to ghatîya Sarvânanda, who lived about 1159 A. D. of Bhasa's age. the Christian era refers, when he, in his Amarakosa- tîkâsarvasva, says in commenting on the Sloka, “शृङ्गारवीरकरुणा” that “स्वदिशमात्मसात्कर्तुम् उदयनस्य पद्मावतीप- रिणयोऽर्थशृङ्गारः स्वप्नवासवदत्ते, तृतीयस्तस्यैव वासवदत्तापरिणयः कामशृ- ङ्गारः”. Âchâryâbhinavaguptapâda who lived in the 9th Century A. D. speaks of Svapnavâsavadatta in his Bharatanâtyavedavivritti “क्वचित् क्रीडा यथा स्वप्नवासवदत्तायाम्”. Therein another Nâtaka also is men- tioned under the name of Daridrachârudatta. I think that it is our Chârudattanâtaka. Vâmana who flourished long before Ânandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyâloka of the 9th century A. D., quotes in the second Adhyâya of the fifth Adhikarana of his Kâvyâlankârasûtravritti, the following sloka which occurs in the fourth Act of Svapnavâsavadatta:— “शरच्छशाङ्कगौरेण वाताविद्धेन भामिनि ! । काशपुष्पप्लवेनेदं साश्रुपातं मुखं मम ॥” In the very same Adhyâya is also quoted the passage, “यो भर्तृपिण्डस्य कृते न युध्येत्”, which is the fourth pâda of a certain sloka in the fourth Act of Pratijnâyaugandharâyana. In the first Adhyâya of the fifth Adhikarana of the same work is quoted the sloka,

INTRODUCTION. xxiii “यासां बलिर्भवति मद्गृहदेहलीनां हंसैश्च सारसगणैश्च विलुप्तपूर्वः । तास्वेव पूर्वबलिरूढयवाङ्कुरासु बीजाञ्जलिः पतति कीटमुखावलीढः ॥” which occurs in the first Act of Chârudattanâtaka. The former half of the sloka:— “लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः । असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिर्निष्फलतां गता ॥” which occurs in the first Act of both Bâlacharita and Chârudatta is quoted by Dandin of the 6th century A. D., in the second Parichchheda of his Kâvyâdarsa:— “लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः । इतीदमपि भूयिष्ठमुत्प्रेक्षा लक्षणान्वितम् ॥” The Âryâ, “सञ्चितपक्ष्मकपाटं नयनद्वारं स्वरूपतडनेन (?) । उद्घाट्य सा प्रविष्टा हृदयगृहं मे नृपतनूजा ॥” is quoted in page 152 in the 3rd Udyota of Dhvanyâlokalochana as being taken from Svapnavâsavadatta. But I should think that this sloka is not from Svapnavâsavadatta, for it is found in none of the three manuscripts of ours. Besides, this sloka apparently signifies the spring- ing up of love for a lady at first sight. It should be either for Vâsava- dattâ or Padmâvati. But it could not be for the former, for the troubled thoughts of a lover for his far off lady appear in this Nâtaka only long after a happy wedded life; nor could it be for the latter, for, she was offered to Vatsarâja even without his request at a time when he was much afflicted with thoughts of Vâsavadatta. This surely could not be the occasion for describing his love for Padmâvati. It is thus seen that this Sloka could not find a place in Svapnavâsavadatta. Hence,

xxiv INTRODUCTION. we could not infer that this was an omission in the readings of some manuscripts owing to the Nâtaka having ceased from circulation. Again, in the explanation of the 85th Kârika of the 6th Parichheda of the Sâhityadarpana, the Sloka :— “उत्साहातिशयं वत्स! तव बाल्यं च पश्यतः । मम हर्षविषादाभ्यामाक्रान्तं युगपन्मनः ॥” is quoted from Bâlacharita as occurring therein. But, this Sloka may very likely be taken from a Bâlacharita relating to Srî Râma, for the com- mentator of the Sâhityadarpana, in explaining the above Sloka adds that it is addressed by Parasurâma to Srî Râma. And so it is that this sloka is not found in our Bâlacharita which relates to Srî Krishna. Bhâmaha, in the fourth chapter of his Kâvyâlankara illustrates Nyâyavirodha as follows:— “विजिगीषुमुपन्यस्य वत्सेशं वृद्धदर्शनम् । तस्यैव कृतिनः पश्चादभ्यधाच्चारशून्यताम् ॥ ४० ॥ अन्तर्योधशताकीर्णं सालङ्कायननेतृकम् । तथाविधं गजच्छद्म नाज्ञासीत् स स्वभूगतम् ॥ ४१ ॥ यदि वोपेक्षितं तस्य सचिवैः स्वार्थसिद्धये । अहो नु मन्दिमा तेषां भक्तिर्वा नास्ति भर्तरि ॥ ४२ ॥ शरा दृढधनुर्मुक्ता मन्युमद्भिररातिभिः । मर्माणि परिहृत्यास्य पतिष्यन्तीति कानुमा ॥ ४३ ॥ हतोऽनेन मम भ्राता मम पुत्रः पिता मम । मातुलो भागिनेयश्च रुषा संरब्धचेतसः ॥ ४४ ॥ अस्यन्तो विविधान्याजावायुधान्यपराधीनम् । एकाकिनमरण्यान्यां न हन्युर्बहवः कथम् ॥ ४५ ॥ नमोऽस्तु तेभ्यो विद्वद्भ्यो येऽभिप्रायं कवेरिमम् । शास्त्रलोकावपास्यैव नयन्ति नयवेदिनः ॥ ४६ ॥

INTRODUCTION. XXV सचेतसो वनेभस्य चर्मणा निर्मितस्य च । विशेषं वेद बालोऽपि कथं किन्तु कथंनु तत् ॥ ४७ ॥” The subject reviewed by Bhâmaha above, is seen in its entirety in Pra- tijnânâtikâ. Moreover the Prakrit passage, “अणेण मम भादा हदो, अणेण मम पिदा, अणेण मम सुदो” in the first Act of Pratijnânâtikâ is quoted in the form of verse, “हतोऽनेन मम भ्राता मम पुत्रः पिता मम” by Bhâmaha, in his enquiry on Nyâyavirodha. The name itself of the Nâtikâ is not mentioned by Bhâmaha, probably on account of the Nâtikâ having been well-known in his days. The subject of Bhâmaha's enquiry is found in the Brihatkathâ also. This should not lead one to infer that Bhâmaha had Brihatkathâ in view, and not Pratijnânâtikâ; for the passage, “हतोऽनेन मम भ्राता” quoted by Bhâmaha occurs in Pratijnâ, while nothing authorises us to infer that the same passage occurs in Brihatkatha. The fact however is, as we will show presently, Brihatkathâ was written only after the age of Bhâmaha. Bhâmahâchârya, it seems to me, must have lived long prior to Kâlidâsa. For while he mentions such names of poets and poems as Medhâvi, Râmasarma, Asmakavamsa, Ratnâharana, Achyutottara all unknown to us, he has never mentioned the name of Kâlidâsa of world-wide fame or any of his works of supreme excellence. But had Bhâmaha ever seen the poems of Kâlidâsa, he would have of course mentioned them or made them also as in the case of Pratijnânâtikâ, subject of his criticism. Bhâmaha in his “युक्तायुक्तविचार” (enquiry into poetic conceits) speaks of the fashion of making messengers of clouds, wind &c:— “अयुक्तिमद् यथा दूता जलभृन्मारुतादयः । तथा भ्रमरहारीतचक्रवाकशुकादयः ॥ ४२ ॥ अवाचोऽव्यक्तवाचश्च दूरदेशविचारिणः । कथं दूत्यं प्रपद्येरन्निति युक्त्या न युज्यते ॥ ४३ ॥ यदि चोत्कण्ठया तत्तदुन्मत्त इव भाषते । तथा भवतु भूम्नेदं सुमेधोभिः प्रयुज्यते ॥ ४४ ॥ (Bhâmaha's Kâvyâlankâra Parichchheda 1.)

xxvi INTRODUCTION. TO From this, we cannot conclude that Bhâmaha was conversant with the poem, Meghadûta, for then we could as well infer that he knew also of Sukasandesa written by a poet of yesterday. Hence, I think that, by these slokas, our Âchârya only teaches us generally that the fashion in some of our Kâvyas of lovers sending messages through such inani- mate objects as the wind, the moon, the clouds and such living inarticulate creatures as the bee, the Chakravâka and the parrot is not desirable on occasions when the sender of the message is in a state of sobriety. Bearing in mind this instruction of our Âchârya, Kâlidâsa, with his keen sense of poetic propriety observes, in defence of his message through the cloud, at the beginning of Meghadûta:- “धूमज्योतिःसलिलमरुतां सन्निपातः क्व मेघः सन्देशार्थाः क्व पटुकरणैः प्राणिभिः प्रापणीयाः । इत्यात्सुक्यादपरिगणयन् गुह्यकस्तं ययाचे कामार्ता हि प्रकृतिकृपणाश्चेतनाचेतनेषु ॥” (पूर्वमेघ. ५) Thus it is seen that Bhâmaha lived much prior to Kâlidâsa. Again in the passage, “प्राप्यावन्तीनुदयनकथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धान्” of Meghadûta, Kâlidâsa speaks of the aged villagers of Avanti, clever in relating the story of Udayana. This may lead one to believe that the old villagers of Avanti at the time of Kâlidâsa might have seen Udayana in their younger days and that Udayana’s age must be only a little earlier than Kâlidâsa’s. If so, how can Bhâmaha’s priority to Kâlidâsa hold good, seeing that Bhâmaha does not even hint at Vatsarâja’s proximity in time, but speaks of him as a character of remote history or romance ? But this is not so, for, in the Prastâvanâ of Mâlavikâgnimitra, Kâli- dâsa speaks of Bhâsa “of wide spread fame”; “प्रथितयशसां भाससौमि- ल्लकविपुत्रादीनां प्रबन्धानतिक्रम्य वर्तमानकवेः कालिदासस्य क्रियायां कथं बहुमानः” and he regards the works of Bhâsa as belonging to a very ancient date. “पुराणमित्येव न साधु सर्वं न चापि काव्यं नवमित्यवद्यम्”. This means that, in the course of a long period, Bhâsa’s fame had been gradually growing until in Kâlidâsa’s time it reached its summit; and several centuries should have intervened between Bhâsa and Kâlidâsa,

INTRODUCTION. xxvii to justify such language. It is certain, therefore, that Bhâsa is far anterior to Kâlidâsa and Udayana is still farther removed from him. Hence, Udayana, the hero of Bhâsa's Nâtaka, has not the slightest chance of being placed a little before Kâlidâsa. The passage, "उदयन- कथाकोविदग्रामवृद्धान्" means really this: that the old villagers having heard of the ancient romantic stroy of Udayana of their own village are fond of telling the wonderful tale, as all old men are; and not that they have seen Udayana. Thus Bhâmaha's long priority to Kâlidâsa is confirmed. Again, Bhâmaha in discussing in his Kâvyâlankâra the form of a Kathâ and an Âkhyâyikâ does not mention Brihatkatha which, from the peculiarity of the Kathâ, deserves mention in that connection and to which Dandin under the same topic in his Kâvyâdarsa refers, "भूतभाषामयीं प्राहुरद्भूतार्थां बृहत्कथाम्". I should therefore conclude that, at the time of Bhâmaha, Brihatkatha had not come into existence. Only after Bhâmaha's time, those wonderful and interesting stories were culled from Itihâsas, from Sva- pnavâsavadatta and other Kâvyas and from folk-lore and woven by Gunâdhya with additions of his own into that treasure house of stories called Brihatkathâ. Gunâdhya was a contemporary of Sâlivâhana, the founder of the era of that name. Bhâmaha's date being thus earlier than Gunâdhya's goes back to the first century preceding the Christian era. The author of our Nâtakas deserving of course a date much earlier than that of Bhâmaha, must necessarily be placed not later than the third or second century B. C. Again, Vishnugupta (alias Chânakya or Kautilya) the great pro- pounder of politics, a contemporary of Chandragupta is known to have lived in the fourth century B. C. In his Kautilîya Arthasâstra, where he tells us how, on the eve of war, ministers and priests should breathe spirit and enthusiasm into soldiers, he observes, " 'तुल्यवेतनॊऽस्मि, भवद्भिः सहभोग्यमिदं राज्यं, मयाभिहितः परोऽभिह- न्तव्यः' इति, वेदेष्वप्यनुश्रूयते समाप्तदक्षिणानां यज्ञानामवभृथेषु 'सा ते गतिर्या शूराणामि'ति, अपीह श्लोकौ भवतः — 'यान् यज्ञसङ्घैस्तपसा च विप्राः स्वर्गैषिणः पात्रचयैश्च यान्ति । क्षणेन तानप्यतियान्ति शूराः प्राणान् सुयुद्धेषु परित्यजन्तः ॥'

xxviii INTRODUCTION. ' नवं शरावं सलिलस्य पूर्णं सुसंस्कृतं दर्भकृतोत्तरीयम् । तत् तस्य मा भून्नरकं च गच्छेद् यो भर्तृपिण्डस्य कृते न युध्येत् ॥' इति मन्त्रिपुरोहिताभ्यामुत्साहयेद् योधान् ” (Kautilya's Arthasâstra, Adhikarana 10. Adhyâya 3.) The substance of the passage is : that to the brave is reserved a happy end; those who lose their life in battle attain that which is won by long penance and sacrifices. The victorious are ever honoured on earth but he who shrinks from fighting for the royal master by whom he is fed is a sinner destined for hell. The sloka “नवं शरावं” which is quoted above is found in the fourth Act of Pratijnâyaugandharâyana addressed to soldiers to stimulate them to fight. Now we have to see whether this sloka is borrowed from the nâtaka by the author of Arthasâstra or the other way. When a minister out of policy addresses soldiers on the nobility of death in battle and the sinfulness of shrinking from fighting in the cause of one's master, his works are not likely to be credited, unless backed by authority. Hence, the first quotation, “सा ते गतिर्या शूराणां” from the sacred sruti. This is followed by two slokas which read as cited from a source which, in importance is of equal force with the smritis. Hence the sloka “नवं शरावं”— could not be the words of the author of the Arthasâstra. Further, the fact that it immediately follows another quotation also proves it to be a quotation. For, the previous sloka “यान् यज्ञसङ्घैः” is obviously a quotation as the word to which both यान् and तान् refer is not in the sloka, but has to be gathered as shown by the construction, from the passage preceding it in the work from which it is quoted. Again, Kautilya introduces the two slokas with “अपीह श्लोकौ भवतः” (meaning “here are the two slokas on the sub- ject”) which he never does in cases of his own slokas. Such a state- ment has significance only as referring to a quotation. Further, in Kâvyas, the authors having an easy and graceful command over words express their ideas, scientific or popular, naturally in their own words. But if ever they quote from others' works, they do so with an un- mistakable indication. As there is no such indication in Pratijnâ-

INTRODUCTION. xxix yaugandharâyana, in the case of the sloka “नवं शरावं,” I should think it is Bhâsa's own sloka quoted by Chânakya, the author of the Arthasâstra. Thus we see our Bhâsa's priority to Chânakya. In the fifth Act of Pratimânâtaka, in the passage addressed to Râma by Râvana, one Medhâtithi is mentioned, “भोः काश्यपगोत्रोऽस्मि साङ्गोपाङ्गं वेदमधीये, मानवीयं धर्मशास्त्रं, माहेश्वरं योगशास्त्रं, बार्हस्पत्यमर्थशास्त्रं, मेधातिथेर्न्यायशास्त्रं, प्राचेतसं श्राद्धकल्पं च”. This Medhâtithi ought to be an eminent Maharshi and not the commentator of Manu, for he is men- tioned along with such high names, as Manu, Mahesvara, Brihaspati and Prachetas. Thus, there is no reason for suspecting the age of Bhâsa to be posterior to that of Medhâtithi, the commentator of Manu. The characteristic merits of these Nâtakas are also in consonance with their extreme antiquity. The manner of ex- [The merits of the works.] pression in them is quite unique; for their language is so clear, lofty and majestic, as well as sweet and charming; and it is very seldom, if at all, that we meet with such excel- lences in works which are less than ten centuries old.

1. The sentences are everywhere replete with a wealth of ideas, beautifully expressed, which cultured minds will highly appreciate.
2. The varied and subtle manifestations of objects in different con- ditions and environments are graphically described, so as to be realized vividly by learned men.
3. Again, our celebrated poet who is always mindful of the Rasas, nowhere appears to be wanting in brevity or appropriateness of ex- pression, nor does he fail to use adequate words or to convey proper meaning, so as to suit the sentiments expressed.
4. It cannot be said that we do not meet with, in the works of one or two very famous poets, sweetness of expression or ease of language; but those qualities seem to have attained perfection in these dramatic works. That these dramas issued forth from the mouth of the poet as freely as breath itself, will be apparent to all learned men, on examina- tion. In every way, it appears to me that the elegance of diction as well as exposition in these dramas is only a different but a more pleasing form of Rishisûktis.

xxx INTRODUCTION. On a close study of every one of these Rûpakas, the various merits herein detailed and even more can be easily discerned by learned men. To illustrate every one of these points would require a detailed explana- tion and elaboration of ideas which would far exceed the short compass of an introduction. Hence, I do not desire to do so, but shall only quote a few slokas from every one of these Nâtakas, just to illustrate the flow of language. The following verse taken from Svapnavâsavadatta is addressed by Yaugandharâyana to Vâsavadattâ who was sorely afflicted at being asked to get out of the way, in the forest, by Padmâvatî's attendants:— “पूर्वं त्वयाप्यभिमतं गतमेवमासी- च्छ्लाघ्यं गमिष्यसि पुनर्विजयेन भर्तुः । कालक्रमेण जगतः परिवर्तमाना चक्रारपङ्क्तिरिव गच्छति भाग्यपङ्क्तिः ॥” (Anka 1. sloka 1.) The saying of Vatsarâja illustrates that a kind reception should meet with equal hospitality:— “गुणानां वा विशालानां सत्काराणां च नित्यशः । कर्तारः सुलभा लोके विज्ञातारस्तु दुर्लभाः ॥” (Anka 4. sloka 9.) The necessary results of labour are thus exemplified in Pratijnâ- nâtika:— “काष्ठादग्निर्जायते मथ्यमानाद् भूमिस्तोयं खन्यमाना ददाति । सोत्साहानां नास्त्यसाध्यं नराणां मार्गारब्धाः सर्वयत्नाः फलन्ति ॥” (Anka 1. sloka 18.) The following are the essentials of a bridegroom according to Mahâsena:—

INTRODUCTION. xxxi “ कुलं तावच्छ्लाघ्यं प्रथममभिकाङ्क्षे हि मनसा ततः सानुक्रोशं मृदुरपि गुणो ह्येष बलवान् । ततो रूपे कान्तिं न खलु गुणतः स्त्रीजनभयात् ततो वीर्योदग्रं न हि न परिपाल्या युवतयः ॥” (Anka 2. sloka 4.) The feelings of a bride’s mother are thus portrayed:— “ अदत्तेत्यागता लज्जा दत्तेति व्यथितं मनः । धर्मस्नेहान्तरे न्यस्ता दुःखिताः खलु मातरः ॥” (Anka 2. sloka 7.) The anxieties of a preceptor in reference to a pupil, are described by Droṇâchârya in Pancharâtra:— “ अतीत्य बन्धूनवलङ्घ्य मित्रा- ण्याचार्यमागच्छति शिष्यदोषः । बालं ह्यपत्यं गुरवे प्रदातु- र्नैवापराधोऽस्ति पितुर्न मातुः ॥” (Anka 1. sloka 18.) The next sloka brings out the fear of Yudhishthira, lest the vices of Dhartarâshtras should be imputed to them:— “ एकोदकत्वं खलु नाम लोके मनस्विनां कम्पयते मनांसि । वैरप्रियैस्तैर्हि कृतेऽपराधे यत्सत्यमस्माभिरिवापराद्धम् ॥” (Anka 2. sloka 9.) Virâta's praise of a warrior's deeds is contained in the following sloka:—

xxxii INTRODUCTION. “ ताडितस्य हि योधस्य श्लाघनीयेन कर्मणा । अकालान्तरिता पूजा नाशयत्येव खेदनाम् ॥” (Anka 2. sloka 28.) Here is a description of darkness as given in Chârudatta:— “ सुलभशरणमाश्रयो भयानां वनगहनं तिमिरं च तुल्यमेव । उभयमपि हि रक्ष्यतेऽन्धकारे जनयति यश्च भयानि यश्च भीतः ॥” (Anka 1. sloka 20.) The thoughts of a thief are here described:— “ लुब्धोऽर्थवान् साधुजनाभिमानी वणिक् स्ववृत्तावतिकर्कशश्च । यस्तस्य गेहं यदि नाम लप्स्ये भवामि दुःखोपहतो न चित्ते ॥” (Anka 3. sloka 7.) The following are Dhritarâshtra's words of sorrow at Abhimanyu's death, taken from Dûtaghatotkacha:— “ बहूनां समवेतानामेकस्मिन् निर्घृणात्मनाम् । बाले पुत्रे प्रहरतां कथं न पतिता भुजाः ॥” (Sloka 17.) Ghatotkacha's retort to Duryodhana is given below:— “ न तु जतुगृहे सुप्तान् भ्रातृन् दहन्ति निशाचराः शिरसि न तथा भ्रातुः पत्नीं स्पृशन्ति निशाचराः । न च सुतवधं संख्ये वृत्तं स्मरन्ति निशाचरा विकृतवपुषोऽप्युग्राचारा घृणा न तु वर्जिता ॥” (Sloka 45.)

INTRODUCTION. xxxiii The heavy responsibilities of a king and a minister as described by them respectively are found in the following:— “धर्मः प्रागेव चिन्त्यः सचिवमतिगतिः प्रेक्षितव्या स्वबुद्ध्या प्रच्छाद्यौ रागदोषौ मृदुपसुरुषगुणौ कालयोगेन कार्यौ । ज्ञेयं लोकानुवृत्तं परचरनयनैर्मण्डलं प्रेक्षितव्यं रक्ष्यो यत्नादिहात्मा रणशिरसि पुनः सोऽपि नावेक्षितव्यः ॥” (Anka 1, sloka 12.) “प्रसिद्धौ कार्याणां प्रवदति जनः पार्थिवबलं विपत्तौ विस्पष्टं सचिवमतिदोषं जनयति । अमात्या इत्युक्ताः श्रुतिसुखमुदारं नृपतिभिः सुसूक्ष्मं दण्डचन्ते मतिबलविदग्धाः कुपुरुषाः ॥” (Anka 1, sloka 5.) The commencement of the night is described below:— “व्यामृष्टसूर्यतिलको विततोडुमालो नष्टातपो मृदुमनोहरशीतवातः । संलीनकामुकजनः प्रविर्कीर्णचोरो वेषान्तरं रचयतीव मनुष्यलोकः ॥” (Anka 2, sloka 13.) The supreme efficacy of Fate is shown in the following verse:— “यत्ने कृते यदि न सिध्यति कोऽत्र दोषः को वा न सिध्यति ममेति करोति कार्यम् । यत्नैः शुभैः पुरुषता भवतीह नॄणां दैवं विधानमनुगच्छति कार्यसिद्धिः ॥” (Anka 3, sloka 12.) Effects of darkness (from Bālacharita) are here depicted:— “अप्रकाशा इव दिशो घनीभूता इव द्रुमाः ।

xxxiv INTRODUCTION. सुनिदिष्टस्य लोकस्य कृतो रूपविपर्ययः ॥ ” (Anka 1, sloka 16.) “ दुद्दिणविणट्ठजोण्हा ळत्ती वट्टइ णिमीलिआकाळा । संपाउदप्पसुत्ता णीळणिवषणा जहा गोवी ॥ ” (Anka 3, sloka 19.) The benedictory verse in Madhyamavyáyogu runs as follows:— “ पायात् स वोऽसुरवधूहृदयावसादः पादो हरेः कुवलयामलखङ्गनीलः । यः प्रोद्यतस्त्रिभुवनैकमणे रराज वैदूर्यसंक्रम इवाम्बरसागरस्य ॥ ” (Sloka 1.) Here we have the description of a Rákshasa:— “ सिंहास्यः सिंहदंष्ट्रो मधुनिभनयनः स्निग्धगम्भीरकण्ठो बभ्रुभ्रूः श्येननासो द्विरदपतिहनुर्दीर्घविशिष्टकेशः । व्यूढोरा वज्रमध्यो गजवृषभगतिर्लम्बपीनांसबाहुः सुव्यक्तं राक्षसीजो विपुलबलयुतो लोकवीरस्य पुत्रः ॥” (Sloka 26.) Here is Karna's reply to Salya who objects to the giving away of his armour and ear-ring (from Karnabhâra):— “ शिक्षा क्षयं गच्छति कालपर्ययात् सुबद्धमूला निपतन्ति पादपाः । जलं जलस्थानगतं च शुष्यति हुतं च दत्तं च तथैव तिष्ठति ॥” (Sloka 19.)

INTRODUCTION. XXXV The description of Duryodhana who had fallen down with his thigh broken (from Ûrubhanga) is contained in this verse:- “श्रीमान् संयुगचन्दनेन रुधिरेणार्द्रानुलिप्तच्छवि- भूसंसर्पणरेणुपाटलभुजो बालव्रतं ग्राहितः । निर्वृत्तेऽमृतमन्थने क्षितिधरान्मुक्तः सुरैः सासुरै- राकर्षन्निव भोगमर्णवजले श्रान्तोञ्झितो वासुकिः ॥” (Sloka 28.) The sorrowful words of Lakshmana as Sita faces the ordeal by fire (अग्निप्रवेश) (from Abhishekanâtaka) are quoted below:— “विज्ञाय देव्याः शौचं च श्रुत्वाचार्यस्य शासनम् । धर्मस्नेहान्तरे न्यस्ता बुद्धिर्दोलायते मम ॥” (Aṅka 6, sloka 21.) Râvana's words expressing that he need not anticipate any danger- ous consequences from Râma are contained in:- “कथं लम्बसटः सिंहो मृगेण विनिपात्यते । गजो वा सुमहान् मत्तः सृगालेन निहन्यते ॥” (Aṅka 3, sloka 19.) Râma's utterance in Pratimânâtaka may be noted:- “आरब्धे पटहे स्थिते गुरुजने भद्रासने लङ्घिते स्कन्धाच्चारणनम्यमानवदनप्रच्योतितोये घटे । राज्ञाहूय विसर्जिते मयि जनो धैर्येण मे विस्मितः स्वः पुत्रः कुरुते पितुर्यदि वचः कस्तत्र भो विस्मयः ॥” (Aṅka 1, sloka 4.) The prostration of Râma at his father's feet immediately after he came to know of the royal mandate for his coronation as narrated to Sîta, is described in these words:- “समं बाष्पेण पतता तस्योपरि ममाप्यधः ।