स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् (महाकवि भास - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी अनुवाद)

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 ।

xxxvi INTRODUCTION. पितुर्मे क्लेदितौ पादौ ममापि क्लेदितं शिरः ॥" (Anka 1, sloka 5.) The words addressed to Râma by Lakshmana who got extremely angry at Kaikeyî's conduct are as follows:— "यदि न सहसे राज्ञो मोहं धनुः स्पृश मा दया स्वजननिभृतः सर्वोऽप्येवं मृदुः परिभूयते । अथ न रुचितं मुञ्च त्वं मामहं कृतनिश्चयो युवतिरहितं कर्तुं लोकं यतश्छलिता वयम् ॥" (Anka 1, sloka 18.) Bharata's feelings of surprise at the prospective sight of his own people may be quoted: -- "पतितमिव शिरः पितुः पादयोः स्निग्धतेवास्मि राज्ञा समुत्थापित- स्त्वरितमुपगता इव भ्रातरः क्लेदयन्तीव मामश्रुभिर्मातरः । सदृश इति महानिति व्यायतश्चेति भृत्यैररिवाहं स्तुतः सेवया परिहसितमिवात्मनस्तत्र पश्यामि वेषं च भाषां च सौमित्रिणा ॥" (Anka 3, sloka 3.) Bharata's reply to Kaikeyî may also be cited:— "वयमयशसा चीरेणार्यौ नृपो गृहस्मृत्युना प्रतरुदितैः कृत्स्नायोध्या मृगैः सह लक्ष्मणः । दयिततनयाः शोकेनाम्बाः स्नुषाध्वपरिश्रमै- र्धिगिति वचसा चोग्रेणात्मा त्वया ननु योजिताः ॥" (Anka 3, sloka16.) Here is another saying of Bharata: -- "तत्र यास्यामि यत्रासौ वर्तते लक्ष्मणप्रियः । नायोध्या तं विनायोध्या सायोध्या यत्र राघवः ॥" (Anka 3, sloka 22.)

INTRODUCTION. xxxvii The benedictory verse in the work (of unknown name) runs as follows:— “पादः पायादुपेन्द्रस्य सर्वलोकोत्सवः स वः । व्याविद्धो नमुचिर्येन तनुताम्रनखेन खे ॥” So far with reference to verses. The superior excellence of sen- tences which are not subject to the restrictions of versification is every- where to be observed in these Rūpakas. It really surpasses in grandeur the style of other works and is in comparable. A perusal of the work will make this clear; hence no illustrations are given. There is no path trodden by great poets like Kālidāsa, but is Bhāsa’s followers. pioneered by Bhāsa. There are many points of similarity to Bhāsa’s works in Abhijñānasākuntala the best known work of Kālidāsa, who has attained unrivalled fame as the prince of poets, since the era of Vikramāditya. For example, a sloka in the fourth Act of Abhishekanātaka runs thus:— “यस्यां न प्रियमण्डनापि महिषी देवस्य मन्दोदरी स्नेहाल्लुम्पति पल्लवान् न च पुनर्व्राजन्ति यस्यां भयात् । वीजन्तो मलयानििला अपि करैरस्पृष्टबालद्रुमा सेयं शक्ररिपोरशोकवनिका भग्नेति विज्ञाप्यताम् ॥” There is a similar verse in the fourth Act of Sākuntala:— “पातुं न प्रथमं व्यवस्यति पयो युष्मास्वपीतेषु या नादत्ते प्रियमण्डनापि भवतां स्नेहेन या पल्लवम् । आद्ये वः कुसुमप्रसूतिसमये यस्या भवत्युत्सवः सेयं याति शकुन्तला पतिगृहं सर्वैरनुज्ञायताम् ॥” Here it may be observed that there is not only similarity of ideas between the two slokas but the very same sweet and melodious expres- sions, such as ‘प्रियमण्डनापि’, ‘स्नेहात्’, ‘पल्लवान्’, ‘सेयं’, are used by Kālidāsa also. Again in the first act of Bālacharita, the following verse has reference to Devakì, who, having entrusted the child to Vāsu-

[Header] xxxviii INTRODUCTION.

deva seems, as it were, to procced towards two different directions; her body going towards her place of confinement, but her mind towards the child:— “हृदयेनेह तत्राङ्गैर्द्विधाभूतेव गच्छति । यथा नभसि तोये च चन्द्रलेखा द्विधा कृता ॥” There is a striking similarity between this verse and the following one in the first Act of Sâkuntala:— “गच्छति पुरः शरीरं धावति पश्चादसंस्तुतं चेतः । चीनांशुकमिव केतोः प्रतिवातं नीयमानस्य ॥” The following line in the first Act of Svapnavâsavadatta, viz., “विस्रब्धं हरिणाश्चरन्त्यचकिता देशागतप्रत्ययाः”, is, by a slight change, rendered thus in the first Act of Sâkuntala:— “विश्वासोपगमादभिन्नगतयः शब्दं सहन्ते मृगाः”. Similarly, there may be observed several other points of resem- blance between the works of Bhâsa and those of Kâlidâsa. Again, such striking similarities can be clearly noticed in Bhava- bhûti’s works also, on a close examination. As instances may be taken from Âtreyî’s discourse in the 2nd Act of Uttararâmacharita which closely follows that of the Brahmachâri in the first Act of Svapnavâsavadatta, as also that of the Vidyâdhara in the sixth Act which follows a similar discourse in the sixth Act of Abhishekanâtaka. Again, the use of Dandaka in the fifth Act of Mâlatîmâdhava bears a strong analogy to the Dandaka form employed in the fifth Act of Avimâraka. The work, known as Mrichchhakatika which is reputed to be older than Kâlidâsa’s plays not only contains many points [Margin: Mrichchhakatika compared.] of similarity to Bhâsa’s works, but the very same sentences are taken wholesale from the one in the other. Thus, several verses and sentences in the Chârudattanâtaka are either literally transcribed, or, are made to undergo but slight altera- tion in Mrichchhakatika.

INTRODUCTION. xxxix A verse in the first Act of Chârudattanâtaka runs thus:— “ यासां बलिर्भवति मद्गृहदेहलीनां हंसैश्च सारसगणैश्च विभक्तपुष्पः । तास्वेव पूर्वबलिरूढयवाङ्कुरासु बीजाञ्जलिः पतति कीटमुखावलीढः ॥” The corresponding verse in Mrichchhakatika is the following:— “ यासां बलिः सपदि मद्गृहदेहलीनां हंसैश्च सारसगणैश्च विलुप्तपूर्वः । तास्वेव संप्रति विरूढतृणाङ्कुरासु बीजाञ्जलिः पतति कीटमुखावलीढः ॥” Again, in the third Act of Chârudattanâtaka, the following sloka occurs:— “ मार्जारः प्लवने वृकोऽपसरणे श्येनो गृहालोकने निद्रा सुप्तमनुष्यवीर्यतुलने संसर्पणे पन्नगः । माया वर्णशरीरभेदकरणे वाग् देशभाषान्तरे दीपो रात्रिषु संकटे च तिमिरं वायुः स्थले नौर्जले ॥” The third Act of Mrichchhakatika also contains a sloka correspond- ng to it:— “ मार्जारः क्रमणे मृगः प्रसरणे श्येनो गृहालुञ्चने सुप्तासुप्तमनुष्यवीर्यतुलने श्वा सर्पणे पन्नगः । माया रूपशरीरवेषरचने वाग् देशभाषान्तरे दीपो रात्रिषु संकटेषु ड्डुमो वाजी स्थले नौर्जले ।” Similarly in the fourth Act of Chârudatta and Mrichchhakatika respectively, there are the following slokas:— “ विषादस्रस्तसर्वाङ्गी संभ्रमोत्फुल्ललोचना ॥ मृगीव शरविद्धाङ्गी कम्पसे चानुकम्पसे ॥”

XL INTRODUCTION. “विषादस्रस्तसर्वाङ्गी संभ्रमभ्रान्तलोचना । नीयमाना भुजिष्यात्वं कम्पसे नानु कम्पसे ॥” These are the words of Sūtradhāra in Chārudatta:— “किण्णु खु अज्ज पच्चूस एव्व गेहादो णिक्खन्तस्स बुभुक्खाए पुक्खर- पत्तपडिदजळबिन्दू विअ चळचळाअन्ति विअ मे अक्खीणि । (परिक्रम्य) जाव गहं गच्छिअ जाणामि किण्णुखु संविधा विहिदा ण वेत्ति । एदं अह्माणं गेहं । जाव पविसामि । ” The same idea is expressed in Mṛichchhakaṭika in the following terms: -- “............चिरसङ्गीदोवासणेण सुक्खपोक्खरण्णाळाइं विअ मे बुभुक्खाए मिळाणाइं अङ्गाइं । ता जाव गेहं गदूअ आणामि अत्थि किं पि कुटुम्बिणीए उववादिअं ण वेत्ति । (परिक्रम्यावलोक्य च) एदं तं अह्माणं गेहं, ता पविसामि ।” At the beginning of the second Act of Chārudatta, there occur the following sentences:— “गणिका—तदो तदो । चेटी—अह्माहे ण किञ्चि मए भणिदं । किं तदो तदो त्ति । गणिका—हञ्जे ! किं मए मन्तिदं ॥” Similar expressions occur in Mṛichchhakaṭika also:— “वसन्तसेना—हञ्जे ! तदो तदो । चेटी—अज्जुए ! ण किंपि मन्तेसि । किं तदो तदो । वसन्तसेना—किं मए भणिदं । चेटी—तदो तदो त्ति ॥” Again, the third Act of Chārudatta contains the following:— “चारुदत्तः—वयस्य ! वीणा नामासमुद्रोत्थितं रत्नम् । कुतः,”

INTRODUCTION xli “विदूषकः—कामं पसंसेदु भवं। मम खु दाव गाअन्तो मणुस्सो इत्थिआ वि पठन्ती उभअं आदरं ण देदि। गाअन्तो दाव मणुस्सो रत्तसुमणावेढिदो विअ पुरोहिदो दिढं ण सोभइ। इत्थिआ वि पठन्ती छिण्णणासा विअ धेणुआ अदिविरूवा होइ।” Similarly in Mrichchhakatika:- “चारुदत्तः—अहो अहो साधु साधु रेभिलेन गीतम्। वीणा हि नामा- समुद्रोत्थितं रत्नम्। कुतः” “विदूषकः-मम दाव दुवेहिं जेव्व हस्सं जाअदि। इत्थिआए सक्कअं पठन्तीए मणुस्सेण अ काअळिं गाअन्तेण। इत्थिआ दाव सक्कअं पठन्ती दिण्ण- णवणस्सा विअ गिट्ठी अहिअं सुसुहाअदि। मणुस्सो वि काअळिं गाअन्तो सुक्ख- सुमणोदामवेढिदो वृद्धपुरोहिदो विअ मन्तं जवन्तो दिढं मे ण रोअदि।” The fourth Act of Chārudatta has the following:- “सज्जलकः-मदनिके! किं न पर्यासं, द्वितीयमप्यनार्यं करिष्यामि। न खल्वत्र शस्त्रेण कश्चित् परिक्षतो व्यापादितो वा।” Similar words in Mrichchhakatika are:— “शार्विलकः—मदनिके ! भीते सुप्ते न शार्विलकः प्रहरति। तन्मया न कश्चिद् व्यापादितो नापि परिक्षतः। Another sentence in the fourth Act of Chārudatta runs as fol- lows:- “सज्जलकः—आर्यचारुदत्तेनास्मि प्रेषितः, यस्तावदलङ्कारो मम हस्ते निक्षिप्तः, स त्वयं भोगमलिनतया गृहस्यासान्निध्यात् कौटुम्बिकानां दुरारक्षः। तद् गृह्यतामिति।” The analogous passage in Mrichchhakatika runs thus:— “शार्विलकः-सार्थवाहस्त्वां विज्ञापयति -- जर्जरत्वाद् गृहस्य दूरक्षमिदं भाण्डम्। तद् गृह्यतामिति ॥”