स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् (महाकवि भास - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी अनुवाद)

x INTRODUCTION.
(प्रविश्य)
नटी—अय्य ! इअह्नि ।
सूत्रधारः—आर्ये ! तव वदनजनितकौतूहलेन स्मितेन निवेदित इवान्तर्गतो
भावः । ननु किञ्चिद् वक्तुकामासि ।
नटी—को एत्थ विह्मओ, अय्यो भावञ्जो त्ति ।
सूत्रधारः—तेन हि स्वैरमभिधीयताम् ।
नटी—इच्छेमि अय्येण सह उय्याणं गन्तुं । अत्थि मे तहिं इत्थिआकर-
णीअं णिअमकय्यं ।
(नेपथ्ये)
भूतिक ! त्वमप्युद्यानं गच्छ कुरङ्गीरक्षणार्थं, म(द)भावस्थो ह्यञ्जन-
गिरिः ।
सूत्रधारः—आर्ये ! ननु भवत्या श्रुतम्—उद्यानं गता राजपुत्रीति। तस्मात्
सम्प्रति सर्वतः परिगुप्तानि भवन्त्युद्यानानि । प्रतिनिवृत्तायां राजसुतायां स्वैरं
गमिष्यावः ।
नटी—जं अय्यो आणवेदि ।
(निष्क्रान्तौ)
स्थापना । "
The ending of Avimāraka:—
" (भरतवाक्यम्)
भवन्त्वरजसो गावः परचक्रं प्रशाम्यतु ।
इमामपि महीं कृत्स्नां राजसिंहः प्रशास्तु नः ॥
(निष्क्रान्ताः सर्वे)
षष्ठोऽङ्कः ।
अविमारकस्य षष्ठोऽङ्कः । एषोऽवसितश्च ॥ "

INTRODUCTION, xi
The beginning of Bâlacharita:—
"(नान्द्यन्ते ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः)
सूत्रधारः—
शङ्खक्षीरवपुः पुरा कृतयुगे नाम्ना तु नारायण-
स्त्रेतायां त्रिपदार्पितत्रिभुवनो विष्णुः सुवर्णप्रभः ।
दूर्वाश्यामनिभः स रावणवधे रामो युगे द्वापरे
नित्यं योऽञ्जनसन्निभः कलियुगे वः पातु दामोदरः ॥
एवमार्यमिश्रान् विज्ञापयामि । अये किन्नुखलु मयि विज्ञापनव्यग्रे शब्द
इव श्रूयते । अङ्ग ! पश्यामि ।
(नेपथ्ये)
अहं गगनसञ्चारी ।
सूत्रधारः—भवतु विज्ञातम् ।
पतत्यसौ पुष्पमयी च वृष्टिर्नदन्ति तूर्याणि च देवतानाम् ।
द्रष्टुं हरिं वृष्णिकुले प्रसूतमभ्यागतो नारद एष तूर्णम् ॥
(निष्क्रान्तः)"
The ending of Bâlacharita:—
"( भरतवाक्यम् )
इमां सागरपर्यन्तां हिमवद्विन्ध्यकुण्डलाम् ।
महीमेकातपत्राङ्कां राजसिंहः प्रशास्तु नः ॥
पञ्चमोऽङ्कः ।
अवसितं बालचरितम् ॥"

xii INTRODUCTION.
The beginning of Madhyamavyāyoga:—
“(ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः)
सूत्रधारः—
पायात् स वोऽसुरवधूहृदयावसादः
पादो हरेः कुवलयामलखङ्गनीलः ।
यः प्रोद्यतस्त्रिभुवनैकमणे रराज
वैदूर्यसंक्रम इवाम्बरसागरस्य ॥
एवमार्यमिश्रान् विज्ञापयामि । अये किन्नुखलु मयि विज्ञापनव्यग्रे शब्द
इव श्रूयते । अङ्ग ! पश्यामि ।
(नेपथ्ये)
भोस्तात ! को नुखल्वेषः ।
सूत्रधारः—भवतु विज्ञातम् ।
भोःशब्दोच्चारणादस्य ब्राह्मणोऽयं न संशयः ।
त्रास्यते निर्विशङ्केन केनचित् पापचेतसा ॥
(नेपथ्ये)
भोस्तात ! कोनुखल्वेषः ।
सूत्रधारः—हन्त दृढं विज्ञातम् । एष खलु पाण्डवमध्यमस्यात्मजो हिडि-
म्बारणिसम्भूतो राक्षसामिरिकृतवैरं ब्राह्मणजनं वित्रासयति । भोः! कष्टं कष्टं
खलु पलीसुतपरिवृतस्य ब्राह्मणस्य वृत्तान्तः । अत्र हि,
श्रान्तैः सुतैः परिवृतस्तरुणैः सदारो
वृद्धो द्विजो निशिचरानुचरः स एषः ।

INTRODUCTION. xiii
व्याघ्रानुसारचरितो वृषभः सधेनुः
सन्त्रस्तवत्स इव (चा)कुलतामुपैति ॥
(निष्क्रान्तः)
स्थापना ।”
———
The ending of Madhyamavyāyoga:—
“ भीमसेनः—हिडिम्बे ! इतस्तावत् । वत्स! घटोत्कच ! इतस्तावत् ।
तत्रभवन्तं केशवदासमाश्रमपदद्वारमात्रमपि सम्भावयिष्यामः ।
यथा नदीनां प्रभवः समुद्रो
यथाहूतीनां प्रभवो हुताशः ।
यथेन्द्रियाणां प्रभवं मनोऽपि
तथा प्रभुर्नो भगवानुपेन्द्रः ॥
(निष्क्रान्ताः सर्वे)
मध्यमव्यायोगोऽवसितः ॥ ”
———
The ending of *Karnabhāra:—
“ कर्णः—अये शब्द इव श्रूयते । किन्नुखल्विदम् ।
शङ्खध्वनिः प्रलयसागरतुल्यघोषः
कृष्णस्य वा ननु भवेत् स तु फल्गुनस्य ।
नूनं युधिष्ठिरपराजयकोपितात्मा
पार्थः करिष्यति यथाबलमद्य युद्धम् ॥
शल्यराज! यत्रासावर्जुनस्तत्रैव चोद्यतां मम रथः ।

• "Sthāpanā" is missing in this Play.

xiv INTRODUCTION.
शल्यः — बाढम् ।
( निष्क्रान्तौ )
कर्णभारमवसितम् ॥ "
—
The beginning of Ūrubhaṅga:—
"(नान्द्यन्ते ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः)
सूत्रधारः —
भीष्मद्रोणतटां जयद्रथजलां गान्धारराजह्रदां
कर्णद्रौणिकृपोर्मिनक्रमकरां दुर्योधनस्रोतसम् ।
तीर्णः शत्रुनदीं शराससिकतां येन प्लवेनार्जुनः
शत्रूणां तरणेषु वः स भगवानस्तु प्लवः केशवः ॥
एवमार्यमिश्रान् विज्ञापयामि । अये किन्नुखलु मयि विज्ञापनव्यग्रे शब्द
इव श्रूयते । अङ्ग! पश्यामि ।
( नेपथ्ये )
एते स्मो भो! एते स्मः ।
सूत्रधारः — भवतु विज्ञातम् ।
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
स्थापना ॥"
—
The ending of Ūrubhaṅga:—
"बलदेवः —
याम्येष सज्जनधनानि तपोवनानि

INTRODUCTION. xv
धृतराष्ट्रः—
पुत्रप्रणाशाविफलं हि धिगस्तु राज्यम् ।
अश्वत्थामा—
यातोऽद्य सौप्तिकवधोद्यतबाणपाणि-
र्गां पातु नो नरपतिः शमितारिपक्षः ॥
(निष्क्रान्ताः सर्वे)
ऊरुभङ्गमवसितम् ॥”
The beginning of the Nātaka (of unknown name):—
“(नान्द्यन्ते ततः प्रविशति सूत्रधारः)
सूत्रधारः—
पादः पायादुपेन्द्रस्य सर्वलोकोत्सवः स वः ।
व्याविद्धो नमुचिर्येन तनुताग्रनखेन खे ॥
एवमार्यमिश्रान् विज्ञापयामि । किन्नुखलु मयि विज्ञापनव्यग्रे शब्द इव
श्रूयते । अङ्ग! पश्यामि ।
(नेपथ्ये)
भो भोः प्रतिहाराधिकृताः ! महाराजो दुर्योधनः समाज्ञापयति ।
सूत्रधारः—भवतु विज्ञातम् ।
उत्पन्ने धार्तराष्ट्राणां विरोधे पाण्डवैः सह ।
पर्येति मन्त्रशालायां भृत्यो दुर्योधनाज्ञया ॥
(निष्क्रान्तः)
स्थापना ॥”

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.