स्वप्नवासवदत्तम् (महाकवि भास - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी अनुवाद)

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 ॥”

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. }