2025-12-29 09:59:43 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
stanza
iv
etc. which is found in the B. and the Căr. of
our poet. So Abhinavagupta refers to the Sv. in his Natya-
vedavivṛti although in his Dhvanyālokālocana he gives us a
stanza from the Sv. which, however, is not to be met with
in the newly discovered play. The most important reference,
however, is the one made by Rajasekhara who not only
mentions a play by name but also definitely associates it
with the name of Bhāsa.
In support of this thesis, there is further the evidence
of the metres, especially the preponderance of the Epic
Śloka, while the deviations from Panini's grammar and the
peculiarities of the Prākṛta unmistakably prove that the
plays are pre-classical. Dr. Max Lindenau emphasises the
deviations of these plays from the Natyaśāstra of Bharata
as a further indication of their high antiquity. Against
the teaching of the text-books on dramaturgy which the
classical dramas follow, the author of these plays does not
hesitate to describe death, and even frightful death on the
stage; this is only one of the several infringements of the
rules of Bharata.
On the other hand, the opponents of the theory have
brought forward their arguments which seek to negative
these contentions, and they have succeeded in showing
that the plays in question are of doubtful authenticity and
of uncertain date. They explain the omission of the title of
the work and the name of the author on the ground that
the play-wrights who were mere plagiarists or adapters had
certainly very obvious reasons to remain anonymous. As
to the verse from the Harṣacarita which states that the
dramas of Bhāsa were begun by the Sūtradhāra, it is urged
that it would be the perversion of all probabilities to find in
this innocuous statement any distinguishing feature of the
dramas of Bhāsa; in fact the poet is merely trying to avail
iv
etc. which is found in the B. and the Căr. of
our poet. So Abhinavagupta refers to the Sv. in his Natya-
vedavivṛti although in his Dhvanyālokālocana he gives us a
stanza from the Sv. which, however, is not to be met with
in the newly discovered play. The most important reference,
however, is the one made by Rajasekhara who not only
mentions a play by name but also definitely associates it
with the name of Bhāsa.
In support of this thesis, there is further the evidence
of the metres, especially the preponderance of the Epic
Śloka, while the deviations from Panini's grammar and the
peculiarities of the Prākṛta unmistakably prove that the
plays are pre-classical. Dr. Max Lindenau emphasises the
deviations of these plays from the Natyaśāstra of Bharata
as a further indication of their high antiquity. Against
the teaching of the text-books on dramaturgy which the
classical dramas follow, the author of these plays does not
hesitate to describe death, and even frightful death on the
stage; this is only one of the several infringements of the
rules of Bharata.
On the other hand, the opponents of the theory have
brought forward their arguments which seek to negative
these contentions, and they have succeeded in showing
that the plays in question are of doubtful authenticity and
of uncertain date. They explain the omission of the title of
the work and the name of the author on the ground that
the play-wrights who were mere plagiarists or adapters had
certainly very obvious reasons to remain anonymous. As
to the verse from the Harṣacarita which states that the
dramas of Bhāsa were begun by the Sūtradhāra, it is urged
that it would be the perversion of all probabilities to find in
this innocuous statement any distinguishing feature of the
dramas of Bhāsa; in fact the poet is merely trying to avail