The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practiceKeith, Arthur Berriedale
History
The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practice
Keith, Arthur Berriedale
Sanskrit drama -- History and criticism
Short as is the play, it shows a variety of Prākrits, for of the
dramatis personae only the Kapālin and the Pāçupata speak Sanskrit,
while the madman, the Buddhist, and Devasomā talk in Prākrit. That of
the Buddhist and of Devasomā is practically Çaurasenī, but the madman
uses Māgadhī. [392] The Prākrits show some of the signs of antiquity
which have been seen in Bhāsa’s dramas; thus forms of the plural in āṇi
and ññ in lieu of ṇṇ are found, doubtless as a result of the influence
of Bhāsa. The frequency of such forms as aho nu khalu and kiṁ nu khalu
is precisely in the manner of Bhāsa, and mention may be made of the
employment of mā with the infinitive in Prākrit in a prohibition.
The variety of metres is large in view of the brief extent of the play.
There are nine different stanzas employed; five each of the Çloka and
Çārdūlavikrīḍita, three each of Indravajrā type and Āryā, two each of
Vaṅçasthā type and Vasantatilaka, the solitary Prākrit verse being of
the former kind, and one each of Rucirā, Mālinī, and Sragdharā. [393]
VIII
BHAVABHŪTI
1. THE DATE OF BHAVABHŪTI
Bhavabhūti tells us in his prologues that he belonged to a family of
Brahmins styled Udumbaras, of Padmapura, apparently in Vidarbha, who
were of the Kāçyapa Gotra and followed the Taittirīya school of the
Black Yajurveda. His full name was Çrīkaṇṭha Nīlakaṇṭha, son of
Nīlakaṇṭha and Jātūkarṇī, grandson of Bhaṭṭa Gopāla, fifth in descent
from Mahākavi, a Vājapeya sacrificer, famed for his scholarship. He was
skilled in grammar, rhetoric, and logic, or perhaps in grammar, logic,
and Mīmāṅsā, [394] if we may believe the legend that he was a pupil of
Kumārila preserved in one manuscript of the Mālatīmādhava, which
complicates the matter by styling the author also Umvekācārya, a
commentator on Kumārila’s works. As he expressly mentions his knowledge
of the Vedas, the Upaniṣads, Sāṁkhya and Yoga, and gives Jñānanidhi as
his teacher, we may probably discard this suggestion. The whole three
of his plays were performed for the feast of the Lord Kālapriya, who is
normally identified with Mahākāla of Ujjayinī, though the scene of the
Mālatīmādhava is laid in Padmāvatī. We may conjecture, therefore, that
he left his home and proceeded to Ujjayinī or Padmāvatī in search of
fortune. From the silence in his dramas on any good luck, it is strange
to find that Kalhaṇa in the Rājataran̄giṇī [395] expressly asserted that
he was a member of the entourage of Yaçovarman of Kanyakubja, who was
defeated by Muktāpīḍa Lalitāditya of Kashmir, not earlier, probably,
than A.D. 736. A further indication of date is afforded by the
reference in Vākpati’s Gaüḍavaha [396] to Bhavabhūti’s ocean of poetry;
the poem is a prelude to a description in Prākrit of Yaçovarman’s
defeat of a Gauḍa king, and, as it seems never to have been finished,
it presumably was interrupted by the king’s own defeat. We must,
therefore, place Bhavabhūti somewhere about A.D. 700. The silence of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account