स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् (महाकवि भास - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी अनुवाद)

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 ॥”

xlii INTRODUCTION. Many other analogous passages can be easily pointed out. Again, the plot in both the plays centres round Chârudatta. It thus follows that the one should be the basis of the other. It may, however, be ap- propriate to observe that Chârudattanâtaka alone can be the source wherefrom Mrichchhakatika is derived; for it is only in latter-day plays that the work and its author are specifically mentioned. While the Prastâvana in Mrichchhakatika contains a description of the poet and his work, the same is wanting in Chârudatta, which only goes to show that the former is of a subsequent date. However, Mrichchha- katika contains many excellent passages which are not met with in Chârudatta. Hence, the proper inference seems to be that the short play of Chârudatta has been amply enlarged by the addition of fine passages, which renders the plot even more interesting, and has, under the name of Mrichchhakatika, become famous as the work of Sûdraka. Thus, Mrichchhakatika being almost another version of Chârudatta, it is but proper that learned men should regard it as a very ancient work and its author as belonging to a very remote period, under the false impression that he is the original author, though his work simply con- sisted in rebuilding with old materials. There is no authority to say that Sûdraka must have lived prior to Kâlidâsa, but it is certain that he is a predecessor of Vâmana, the author on Rhetoric for he expressly says in his Kâvyâlankârasûtrarritti :— “शूद्रकादिरचितेषु प्रबन्धेष्वस्य (श्लेषाख्यगुणस्य) भूयान् प्रपञ्चो दृश्यते।” Thus, it is clear that the poetical eminence of Bhâsa has been the mainstay of poets like Kâlidâsa and Sûdraka. Here and there in these Nâtakas, are to be met with, certain forms [Certain peculiar] which are repugnant to the strict rules of Grammar [uses.] and Rhetoric. They are like the following:— १. “अपरिचयात्तु न <u>श्लिष्यते</u> मे मनसि।” (Svapna. Anka 1.) २. “आपृच्छामि भवन्तौ।” (Svapna. Anka 1). ३. “साधुजनहस्तं गतैषा <u>नोत्कण्ठिष्यति</u>।” (Svapna. Anka 1.)

INTRODUCTION. xliii ४. "हस्त्यश्वरथपदातीनि विजयाङ्गानि ।" (Pratijñâ. Anka 4.) ५. "दैवप्रामाण्याद् भ्रश्यते वर्धते वा ।" (Pratijñâ. Anka 1.) ६. "यावदहमुच्छ्वसामि ।" (Pratijñâ. Anka 1.) ७. "कथमगणितपूर्वं द्रक्ष्यते.......श्रोष्यते ।" (Pratijñâ. Anka 1.) ८. "प्रथममभिकाङ्क्षे हि मनसा" (Pratijñâ Anka 2.) ९. "जित इति पुनरेनं रुष्यते वासुभद्रः ।" (Pancharâtra. Anka 2.) १०. "स्त्रीगतां पृच्छसे कथाम्" (Pancharâtra. Anka 2.) ११. "वीजन्तो मलयानिला अपि" (Abhisheka. Anka 3.) १२. "सीतां समाश्वासितुम्" (Abhisheka. Anka 7.) १३. "ऋज्वायतां च मुखतोरणलोलमालाम्" (Svapna. Anka 5.) The words underlined above have this characteristic, viz., that Âtmanepada is used for Parasmaipada and vice versa. Again, the plural is used for the singular in हस्त्यश्वरथपदातीनि, there is no dropping of शप् in उच्छ्वसामि, while णिच् is dropped in वीजन्तः and समाश्वासितुम्. The च in ऋज्वायतां च is used only for the sake of completing the line. These may, however, be explained away by Pâninîyas. Thus, in the second example, आ may not be taken as a preposition, in the third, Âtmane- pada need not necessarily be used; in the fourth, the expression may be taken as a Bahuvrîhi compound (हस्त्यश्वरथसहिताः पदातयः येषु तानीति ). In the sixth, गणकार्य is not always operative, in the eleventh वीज् may be taken to belong to the class of पच् to which अ is affixed and क्विप् is added on in the sense of आचार; in the twelfth णिच् is affixed to समाश्वासवत् and is generally dropped; in the thirteenth, च may be used in the sense of तु, and the rest may in some way be explained by resort- ing to कर्मवद्भाव. In truth, it is no fault of our venerable poet who is a perfect master of the language and who lived long before the time of

Chânakya, the contemporary of Nanda, not to have followed the rules of Pânini who was only a pupil of Varshopâdhyâya, another contem- porary of Nanda; on the other hand, it only adds grace to its extreme antiquity. It is also possible that some errors might have crept in, as these works which were out of circulation would have passed through the hands of several unlettered scribes.

In the same way, even the defects pointed out by Bhâmaha in Pratijnânâtikâ, to which we have already referred, may be explained.

Bhâmaha considers it extremely improbable that such an illustrious king as Vatsarâja would have been unaware of his enemies' stratagem in resorting to the fictitious elephant, either through the absence of spies or the negligence of his ministers; or that he would not have been mur- dered by his infuriated enemies, while he was alone and had fallen into their hands or that he could not have distinguished a fictitious elephant by day. The first statement does not require any serious refutation, for it is quite possible that even a far-sighted king, with all his spies and his devoted and efficient ministers, in his great eagerness for ele- phant-hunt, might disregard his ministers' advice and proceed alone in haste.

Again, a prudent and generous-minded minister like Sâlankâyana could well have prevented the attempted murder of Vatsarâja on the grounds that it would be more pleasing to his lord if such a valiant and honourable foe could be taken captive, and that it would be a very mean act to kill a captive who was already stupefied by blows. It must be, for these reasons, that Bhâmahâchârya refers to the fictitious elephant as the last ground of his objections; but on a minute examination, even this is of no account, for in Pratijnânâtikâ, Hamsaka, in reference to the deception practised upon Vatsarâja, speaks:—

“ तदो दिउणं विअ अद्धाणं गच्छिअ साळळुक्खच्छाआए सवण्णणट्ठ- णीळदाए परुब्भासिदेहि असरीरविणिक्खित्तेहि विअ दन्तजुअळेहि सूइदो धणुस्स- दमत्तेण विअ दिट्ठो सो दिव्ववारणपडिच्छन्दो ।”

. INTRODUCTION. XLV It is clear from the above passage that the place where the fictitious black elephant was posted, was covered with such a dense forest of sâla trees that it was hardly possible to distinguish an elephant. While even the exis- tence of the elephant was left to be inferred only through the tusks, it were hardly likely to conceive, even by day, that it might possibly be a fictitious one. It is, however, clear from Pratijñânâtika that Vatsa- râja's elephant-hunt must have taken place about mid-day. From this, Bhâmaha concludes that, however dense the trees might be, even there, darkness cannot co-exist with mid-day light, that it is thus im- possible that an elephant could not be distinguished owing to the density of sâla trees; and that such a statement is a mere exaggeration. On the other hand, it seems to us that actual experience shows that there could be total darkness on account of the density of sâla trees, in spite of broad day-light. If, on the other hand, as narrated in Kathâsarit- sâgara which is a close copy of Brihatkathâ, evening twilight had begun to set in, Vatsarâja's erroneous impression becomes more probable; but this ingenious statement does nowhere appear in Pratijñânâtika, and it is quite possible that the author of Brihatkathâ might have con- ceived this statement for the sake of repelling Bhâmaha's criticisms and Somadevabhatta having come across it in Brihatkathâ would have in- serted it in his own work, Kathâsaritsâgara†. Everything has thus been rendered clear. That there was a very wide circulation of Bhâsa's plays in Kâli- [Margin: Want of circulation.] dâsa's time is evident from his own statement “प्रथित- यशसां भाससौमिल्लकविपुत्रादीनाम्” . On the other hand, its circulation had become extremely rare during the time of Sûdraka. Thus is to be accounted for the readiness displayed by Sûdraka in Mrichchhakatika to collect together the various sentences to be found in Chârudatta; hence also the wide circulation of Mrich- chhakatika which is merely an adaptation of another's words. These * II. Lambaka, IV. Taranga, XVIII. Sloka. “गान्धर्वदत्तचित्तत्वात् सन्ध्याध्वान्तवशाच्च सः । न तं वनगतं राजा मायागजमलक्षयत् ॥”

xlvi INTRODUCTION. plays have thenceforward gradually disappeared from circulation and have now become extinct. How is this to be explained? Not, indeed, by the absence of merits, for it has already been shown that the works are so exuberant with rich ideas and are couched in such felicitous language, as to attract the emulation of poets like Kâlidâsa. Nor can the existence of the aforesaid irregularities of language which are not capable of an easy explanation possibly be the reason; for, even at a time when Pâṇini's Grammar which has become so famous with the aid of such works like the Vârtika and Mahâbhâshya has attained a very wide currency, when again, there have come into exist- ence authoritative works on Rhetoric composed by Medhavin, Bhâmaha and others, and when scholars have imbibed the habit of closely follow- ing them, similar irregularities are met with here and there, as in Kâli- dâsa's works which have in no way become less popular on that account. Nor again, can it be due to the omission to mention the poet's name, for Raghuvamsa, Sisupâlavadha and other works wherein the author's name is not mentioned, have a wide currency. Hence, some mysterious reason must be assigned for their non- circulation, on the strength of which must be explained the total disappearance till now, except in name, of works like the Saṅgraha of Âchârya Vyâḍi and the Brihatkathâ of Guṇâḍhya. The simultaneous acquisition of a number of Bhâsa's very ancient works which have long since been given up for lost, will not fail to be the source of astonishment and delight to all the world, and they will be re- garded as an invaluable treasure by Sanskrit and Archæological scholars. It further generates in me some hope that many other works of Bhâsa may be unearthed, for it is nowhere calculated that Bhâsa's works are so many in number. Our profound gratitude is due to the proprietors of Manalikkara Matham and especially to its eldest member, the venerable Sankaranârâ- yaṇar for the invaluble help they have rendered in preserving these some- what worn-out but precious manuscripts which contain a rare collection of Bhâsa's works. My hearty thanks are also due to the astrologer Govinda

INTRODUCTION. XLVII Pisharodi and to Messrs. Subrahmanya Mûttatu (of Puthial) and Krishna Tantri (of Tazhaman) for their kindness in allowing the use of their manuscripts. So far, the nature, authorship and the exact period of these Nâta- Conclusion. kas have been dealt with. These are the important aspects that have here been considered, and what materials there might be for purposes of ancient history can be as- certained only after a critical study of these works, and is hence left to be discussed after their publication. We first publish Svapnavâsavadatta, since it comes first in this collection of dramas and affords the basis for the determination of the authorship etc. of the other plays. Pratijnâ- yaugandharâyana and other works will also be published in due course. Trivandrum, } T. GANAPATI SÂSTRÎ. 11-4-1912. }

इस पृष्ठ पर कोई पाठ (text) उपलब्ध नहीं है। यह पृष्ठ रिक्त (blank) है।

PREFACE. Following the Subhâshita of Râjasekara, this Nâtaka has been styled ‘Svapnavâsavadatta.’ It can also be termed Svapnavâsavadattâ (f) or Svapnanâtakam (n). The manuscript of Svapnavâsavadatta obtained from the Manalikkara Matham is designated क, that sent by Pandit Anantâchârya ख, while that of Krishna Tantri ग. The differences in reading between the first two are noted at the foot of the page, while those of the third are separately mentioned at the end of the book. The letters that we have inserted in the place of those that have been lost are enclosed within brackets. Wherever any letter seems inappropriate, it is followed by an interrogation mark, and the appropriate letter is inserted, the whole being enclosed in brackets, and in the absence of an appropriate letter, the inappropriate one followed by a quotation-mark is enclosed in brackets. No manuscript contains the छाया for Prakri- tam and we have supplied it with due care. Foot-notes are added, wherever necessary. The differences in reading in ग Grantha and the words which are lost in क Grantha but are obtained from ख Grantha are noted in the Appendix (at the end of the book). T. GANAPATI SASTRÎ.

The provided image appears to be a blank page (containing only scan artifacts/noise and no legible text).

॥ श्रीः ॥

स्वप्नवासवदत्तादिनाटकचक्रस्योपोद्घातः ।

—————————

एतद्राज्यान्तर्गतस्य पद्मनाभपुरस्योपकण्ठस्थिताद् मणलिकरमठात् प्रपूर्वतरेके हायने संस्कृतग्रन्थान् संगृह्णन् कतिपयनाटकशालिनं कमपि तालपत्र- अपूर्वनाटक- सम्पुटमहमुपलब्धवान् । तत्र पत्राणि १०५, प्रतिपृष्ठं १० चक्रलाभः । पङ्क्तयः, २० ग्रन्थाश्च । लिपिस्तु प्राचीनकैरली । तत्र त्रिश- ताधिकवर्षवृद्धत्वप्रतिभासेऽपि पत्रेषु न जीर्णिकृतोऽक्षरविलोपः, ऋते द्वादशभ्य आदितः पत्रैकदेशेभ्यः । अर्थोदारगम्भीरता गद्यपद्यवाक्यरचनारीतिर्वा तत्रार्षम- हाग्रन्थसाधारणी प्रसिद्धमहाकविग्रन्थापेक्षया रोचनीयतरा च मे प्रतिभाता । ततः परीक्षिते तस्मिन् ग्रन्थसम्पुटे दश रूपकाण्यधोदत्तनामान्यदृश्यन्त —

१ स्वप्ननाटकम् । ६ अविमारकम् । २ प्रतिज्ञानाटिका । ७ बालचरितम् । ३ पञ्चरात्रम् । ८ मध्यमव्यायोगः । ४ चारुदत्तम् । ९ कर्णभारम् । ५ दूतघटोत्कचम् । १० ऊरुभङ्गम् ।

एकादशमपि किञ्चिद् रूपकमुपक्रान्तं तत्रास्ति, यदीयप्रथमपत्रोत्तरपृष्ठस्यार्धपङ्क्ताव- स्थाने लिपिः परिसमापिता । अथापरस्यां यात्रायां कट्टित्तुरुत्तिसमीपवासिनः कैलासपुराभिजनस्य गोविन्दपिषारोटिनाम्नो ज्यौतिषिकस्य सकाशादभिषेक- नाटकं प्रतिमानाटकमिति द्वे नाटके पूर्वोक्तनाटकसजातीये अधिगते । एतदधि- गमानन्तरमेवैनयोरेकैकस्य प्रतिरूपस्य राजकीयग्रन्थशालायामपि सत्तावधारिता । एतेऽपि ग्रन्थसम्पुटास्तालपत्रात्मकाः केरलीयलिपयस्त्रिचतुरशतवर्षवृद्धसम्भाव्याश्च । एवं तावददृष्टचराण्यश्रुतचराणि च द्वादश (अथवा त्रयोदश) रूपकाण्युपल- ब्धानि ।