Chapter XXXI: Part IV: Dramatic Practice (2)

[269] Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures, 1883, pp. 68 f.) compares the procedure of the Smṛtis.

[270] KSS. lviii. 2–54.

[271] Daçakumāracarita, ii.

[272] xii. 92; xviii. 121.

[273] Cf. Çlokasaṁgraha, x. 60–163.

[274] His errors in the field of mythology are appalling, e.g. Kuntī for Sītā, i. 21.

[275] Stenzler’s ed. pp. 325 ff.; Wilson, i. 177.

[276] i. 48.

[277] v. 42.

[278] i. 13; cf. Cārudatta, i. 5.

[279] i. 22; cf. Cārudatta i. 11, on which it improves.

[280] v. 49.

[281] v. 15.

[282] v. 16.

[283] v. 25.

[284] v. 26.

[285] v. 32.

[286] Ryder, The Little Clay Cart, p. xvi.

[287] Jayadeva, Prasannarāghava, i. 22.

[288] Mahāvīracarita, i. 4.

[289] Cf. Pischel, Prākrit-Grammatik, pp. 25 ff.

[290] JRAS. 1913, p. 882; 1918, p. 513. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 51.

[291] Used in verse even, e.g. by the Vidūṣaka.

[292] — — — —, — — — —. In no other classical drama is it found.

[293] The apparent occurrence of Māhārāṣṭrī stanzas is in all probability not in accordance with the original text, which knew only the Prākrits given in § 4; see Hillebrandt, GN. 1905, pp. 436 ff.

[294] Hillebrandt, Kālidāsa (1921), pp. 7 ff.

[295] JRAS. 1901, pp. 578 ff.

[296] e.g. Konow, SBAW. 1916, pp. 812 ff.

[297] JRAS. xii. (1880), 268 f.

[298] India (1883), pp. 281 ff.

[299] JRAS. 1909, pp. 89 ff.

[300] JBRAS. xix. 39 ff.

[301] iv. 68.

[302] Meghadūta (ed. 2), pp. vii ff. In v. 67 he reads Van̄kṣū = Oxus, for Sindhu; see Haranchandra Chakladar, Vātsyāyana, p. 23.

[303] JRAS. 1903, pp. 183 f.; 1904, pp. 158 f.

[304] Huth, Die Zeit des Kâlidâsa, pp. 29 ff.

[305] Thomas’s suggestion (Hillebrandt, p. 12) of a reference to the Sārasvata school in the same passage only adds to the improbability of the reference.

[306] Keith, Indian Logic, p. 28.

[307] Pathak, IA. xl. 170 f.; Hoernle, 264; Haraprasād, JPASB. i. (1905), 253; JBORS. ii. 35 f.; 391 f.

[308] Jacobi, ZDMG. xxx. 303 ff.; Monatsber. d. kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. W., 1873, pp. 554 ff.; Huth, op. cit., pp. 32 ff., 49 ff.

[309] Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 433 ff.; Bloch, ZDMG. lxii. 671 ff.; Liebich, IF. xxxi. 198 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 59 f.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 43 f.

[310] Ed. F. Bollensen, Leipzig, 1879; trs. A. Weber, Berlin, 1856; V. Henry, Paris, 1889; C. H. Tawney, London, 1891. The existence of a variant recension is shown by the divergence of a citation from it in comm. on DR. iii. 18 from the manuscript tradition.

[311] That the Meghadūta is younger is suggested, not proved, by the lesser lyric power shown (Huth, p. 68). The Ṛtusaṁhāra, however, is doubtless earlier; its authenticity is demonstrated by me in JRAS. 1912, pp. 1066 ff.; 1913, pp. 410 ff. The relation of the Kumārasambhava and Raghuvaṅça to the two later dramas is uncertain.

[312] For the history, see CHI. i. 519 f.

[313] Ed. F. Bollensen, Leipzig, 1846; S. P. Paṇḍit, Bombay, 1901; M. R. Kale, Bombay, 1898; trs. E. B. Cowell, Hertford, 1851; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1880; E. Lobedanz, Leipzig, 1861. The Bengālī recension is ed. Pischel, Monatsber. d. kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. W., 1875, pp. 609 ff.

[314] Cf. Huth, op. cit., pp. 63 ff.

[315] The prototype here is clearly Rāma’s search for Sītā; Rāmāyaṇa, iii. 60. The Sudhanāvadāna, cited by Gawroński (Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 19, 29) draws probably from the same source.

[316] Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, p. 58; Bloch, Vararuci und Hemacandra, pp. 15 f.

[317] Bengālī recension, R. Pischel, Kiel, 1877; M. Williams, Hertford, 1876, and M. R. Kale, Bombay, 1908, represent the Devanāgarī version, and so mainly S. Ray, Calcutta, 1908; C. Cappeller, Leipzig, 1909. There are South Indian edd., Madras, 1857, 1882. See also Burkhard, Die Kaçmîrer Çakuntalā-Handschrift, Vienna, 1884.

[318] Konow, ID., pp. 67 f.; Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 243 ff.; B. K. Thakore, The Text of the Śakuntalā (1922); Windisch, Sansk. Phil. pp. 344 f.

[319] De Kâlidâsae Çâkuntali recensionibus (1870); Die Recensionen der Çakuntalā (1875).

[320] TI. ii. 37. The erotic passages in Act III in the Bengālī recension must be judged by Indian taste; cf. Thakore, p. 13 for a condemnation.

[321] IS. xiv. 35 ff., 161 ff. Cf. Bühler, Kashmir Report, pp. lxxxv ff.

[322] Cf. above, p. 121, n. 1 as to the variation in correctness in different classes of MSS.

[323] For a warm eulogy, see V. Henry, Les littératures de l’Inde, pp. 305 ff.

[324] xxiv; Viṣṇu, iv. 6; Bhāgavata, ix. 14; Pischel and Geldner, Ved. Stud. i. 243 ff.; L. v. Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 242 ff. A. Gawroński (Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 19 ff.) suggests a popular legend, comparing the Sudhanāvadāna, No. 30 of the Divyāvadāna.

[325] i. 74. Winternitz’s denial (GIL., i. 319 f.) of priority is impossible; cf. Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 40, 91.

[326] The absurd silence as to Mālavikā’s origin in the Mālavikāgnimitra is rendered acceptable by belief in prophecy.

[327] See S. D. and A. B. Gajendragadkar, Abhijñānaçakuntalā, pp. xxxvi ff.; below, chap. xii.

[328] See Hari Chand, Kālidāsa et l’art poétique de l’Inde (1917), pp. 68 ff. On his suggestiveness, cf. Ekāvalī, p. 52.

[329] Çakuntalā, i. 15.

[330] Ibid., i. 20.

[331] Ibid., vi. 9.

[332] Ibid., vii. 19.

[333] Ibid., vi. 22.

[334] Ibid., vii. 32.

[335] Vikramorvaçī, iv. 55.

[336] Ibid., iv. 68.

[337] Ibid., iii. 11; for the text see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, p. 231.

[338] Vikramorvaçī, iii. 19.

[339] Ibid., i. 9. The parallelism is, of course, complete in Sanskrit, but inexpressible directly in English.

[340] Mālavikāgnimitra, iii. 2.

[341] Ibid., iv. 14.

[342] Ibid., v. 19.

[343] Ibid., v. 12.

[344] Ibid., v. 11.

[345] Traces of Çaurasenī in verses appear in the Çakuntalā. Cf. Hillebrandt, Mudrārākṣasa, p. iii; GN. 1905, p. 440.

[346] Cf. Pravarasena’s Setubandha. On Hāla and Kālidāsa, cf. Weber’s ed., p. xxiv.

[347] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — | ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — bis.

[348] 16 + 18 bis: normal type ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — — | ⏑ ⏑ — — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — —.

[349] ⏑ — ⏑ —, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ —.

[350] — ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ —.

[351] ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ —, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — — ⏑ —.

[352] Huth, op. cit., Table.

[353] Hillebrandt (Kālidāsa, p. 157) points out the complexity of the position.

[354] H. A. Shah (Kauṭilya and Kālidāsa (1920), p. 5), argues that Raghuvaṅça, ix. 53, shows a more advanced view of hunting as a useful sport when regulated (Arthaçāstra, p. 329) than the Çakuntalā. But the dramatic propriety of the passage of the Çakuntalā renders the contention uncertain. Whether Kālidāsa knew precisely our Arthaçāstra is also uncertain.

[355] Lévi, BEFEO. iii. 38 f.; Liebich, Das Datum des Candragomin und Kalidasas; Konow, ID. pp. 72 f.; GIL. iii. 185, 399 f.

[356] v. 2275.

[357] v. 1629.

[358] p. 163; Subhāṣitāvali, 1916; Çārn̄gadhara, cxvii. 14; text uncertain.

[359] Subhāṣitāvali, 66.

[360] Subhāṣitāvali, 69.

[361] M. Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, Louvain, 1905; S. P. Paṇḍit, Gaüdavaho, pp. cvii ff.; K. M. Panikkar, Sri Harsha of Kanauj, Bombay, 1922. It is impossible to connect the dramas with any definite incident of his reign such as the Prayāga festival celebrated by Hiuan-Tsang.

[362] i. 2. Cf. Soḍhala (A.D. 993) in Kāvyamīmāṅsā (GOS. i), p. xii.

[363] Trs. Takakusu, pp. 163 f.

[364] vv. 856 ff.

[365] Ed. C. Cappeller, Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Chrestomathie, 3rd ed., pp. 326 ff.; trs. Wilson, ii. 255 ff.; L. Fritze, Schloss Chemnitz, 1878. It was performed at a spring festival of Kāma.

[366] Ed. R. V. Krishnamachariar, Srirangam, 1906; trs. G. Strehly, Paris, 1888.

[367] Ed. Calcutta, 1886; TSS. 1917; trs. P. Boyd, London, 1872; A. Bergaigne, Paris, 1879; E. Teza, Milan, 1904.

[368] KSS. xxii. 16–257; xc. 3–201; BKM. iv. 50–108; ix. 2. 776–930.

[369] xv.

[370] Many traces of the Svapnavāsavadattā can be seen in the Ratnāvalī, especially in the characterization of the Vidūṣaka.

[371] Āraṇyikā suggests that assertion would be undignified, seeing her actual condition. In the Mālavikāgnimitra a prophecy is made to do service as a motif.

[372] Cf. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.

[373] Ratnāvalī, iv. 6.

[374] Ratnāvalī, iv. 1.

[375] Ibid., iv. 16.

[376] Ibid., iv. 6/7. Cf. Priyadarçikā, i. on Vindhyaketu’s death.

[377] iii. 15.

[378] iii. 17.

[379] v. 25.

[380] i. 1.

[381] Or bodhau, ‘on his enlightenment.’

[382] iii. 4.

[383] iii. 2.

[384] iv. 7.

[385] iii. 15.

[386] Māgadhī is found in the Nāgānanda spoken by the servant. On the variation of forms in the northern and southern editions see Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589.

[387] The Mattavilāsa, ed. TSS. lv. 1917.

[388] EI. iv. 152; South Ind. Inscr. i. 29 f.; G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, The Pallavas, pp. 37 ff.

[389] A Sarvacarita is attributed to a Bāṇa in Rājarāma Çastrin’s Sūcīpatra, but it may really be Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s as is the Pārvatīpariṇaya (against Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, pp. 122 f.). The Mukuṭatāḍitaka of Bāṇa is cited in Caṇḍapāla’s comm. on the Nalacampū, p. 227.

[390] This verse is attributed to Bhāsa by Somadeva in his Yaçastilaka; Peterson, Reports, ii. 46.

[391] pp. 7, 8, 9.

[392] So the Unmattaka in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa of Bhāsa.

[393] Antiquity is claimed by the editors of Caturbhāṇī (1922) for the Bhāṇas, Ubhayābhisārikā of Vararuci, Padmaprābhṛtaka of Çūdraka, Dhūrtaviṭasaṁvāda of Īçvaradatta, Pādatāḍitaka of Ārya Çyāmilaka, but no reliance can be placed on the first two ascriptions, and none of the plays need be older than 1000 A.D. Their technique is similar to that of the Mattavilāsa.

[394] Pādavākyapramāṇajña; see Belvalkar, HOS. XXI. xxxvi. ff. where the attempt to identify Padmapura with Padmāvatī as Pavāyā near Narvār and the shrine of Kālapriya with Kālp on the Jumna is disproved. On his Vedic studies, see Keith, JRAS. 1914, pp. 729 f. He knew the Kāmasūtra; JBRAS. xviii. 109 f.

[395] iv. 144. On the dates, see Stein’s Intr., § 85, and notes on iv. 126 and 134.

[396] v. 799.

[397] i. 2. 12 (anonymous). That Bhavabhūti knew Bhāsa may be assumed; his use of the rare Daṇḍaka metre may be borrowed, and similarities between Uttararāmacarita, Act II and Svapnavāsavadattā, Act I, &c., exist.

[398] Ed. R. G. Bhandarkar, Bombay, 1876 (2nd ed., 1905); trs. Wilson, ii. 1 ff.; G. Strehly, Paris, 1885; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1884. Cf. Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 43 ff.; Cimmino, Osservazioni sul rasa nel Mālatīmādhava, Naples, 1915.

[399] Ed. F. H. Trithen, London, 1848; NS. 1901; trs. J. Pickford, London, 1892.

[400] Ed. and trs. S. K. Belvalkar, HOS. xxi–xxiii; trs. C. H. Tawney, Calcutta, 1874; P. d’Alheim, Bois-le-Roi, 1906.

[401] The deplorable effort in Act IV of the Uttararāmacarita at deliberate humour shows his weakness in this regard. A certain measure of irony of situation is all that he ever attains, e.g. in connexion with Rāma’s ignorance of the identity of his sons, cf. Uttararāmacarita, iv. 22/3; vi. 19/20.

[402] xiii.

[403] KSS. xviii.; xxv. (Açokadatta and the Rākṣasas): cxxi. (Kāpālika and Madanamañjarī); DKC. vii. (Mantragupta and Kanakalekhā).

[404] Kumārasvāmin, Pratāparudrīya, i. 38.

[405] Uttararāmacarita, vi. 12.

[406] Ibid., i. 12.

[407] Mahāvīracarita, v. 59. Cf. Uttararāmacarita, iv. 13, 14.

[408] Ibid., i. 39.

[409] Uttararāmacarita, iii. 18.

[410] Cf. ibid., i. 5.

[411] Ryder, The Little Clay Cart, p. xvi.

[412] G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 121 ff.

[413] i. 27.

[414] i. 38.

[415] v. 16.

[416] iii. 27.

[417] i. 29.

[418] i. 34.

[419] v. 10.

[420] Vāmana, i. 2. 12; SD. 627; Kāvyādarça, i. 40 ff.

[421] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ —.

[422] VOJ. ii. 212 ff.; contra Dhruva, VOJ. v. 25; Charpentier, JRAS. 1923, pp. 585 f.

[423] ID. pp. 70 f. Cf. Antani, IA. li. 49 f.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 210.

[424] Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 145 f.; Hertel, ZDMG. lxx. 133 ff. It is later than the Mṛcchakaṭikā, the Raghuvaṅça (vii. 43 as compared with v. 23), and the Çiçupālavadha (i. 47 as compared with the last verse).

[425] Ed. A. Hillebrandt, Breslau, 1912; trs. Wilson, ii. 125 ff.; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1886; V. Henry, Paris, 1888.

[426] Or Parvataka. For an effort to extract history, see CHI. i. 470 ff. It must be regarded as very dubious.

[427] TI. i. 226 f.

[428] His ability in this regard can be seen in the jingle of Malayaketu’s lament in v. 16.

[429] v. 1728.

[430] Mudrārākṣasa, v. 5.

[431] iii. i.

[432] v. 7.

[433] ii. 14.

[434] ii. 19.

[435] vi. 21.

[436] p. 154.

[437] p. 189.

[438] p. 153.

[439] Ed. KM. pp. 80, 150.

[440] Konow, ID. p. 77.

[441] Ed. J. Grill, Leipzig, 1871; Bombay, 1905; trs. S. M. Tagore, Calcutta, 1880. Traces of different recensions exist.

[442] ii. 41.

[443] ii. 47.

[444] v. 120.

[445] v. 122.

[446] i. 15.

[447] i. 25.

[448] vi. 197.

[449] v. 157.

[450] E.g. vi, p. 87 (Sanskrit); v, p. 59 (Prākrit).

[451] i. 27.

[452] v. 146.

[453] v. 144.

[454] vi. 178.

[455] SD. 408. Lévi, however, is in error (TI. i. 35, 224) in suggesting that SD. 406 censures as inappropriate Duryodhana and Karṇa’s dialogue in Act III.

[456] pp. 139, 140.

[457] See Aufrecht, ZDMG. xxxvi. 521.

[458] v. 36; Lévi, TI. ii. 87. The citations are mainly from his Kapphiṇābhyudaya; Thomas, Kavīndravacanasamuccaya, p. 111.

[459] Pischel, ZDMG. xxxix. 315; Hultzsch, GN. 1886, pp. 224 ff.

[460] Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 139 f.; Bhandarkar, Report (1897), pp. xi, xviii; Peterson, Report, ii. 59. The name is variously given as Māyūrāja.

[461] Subhāṣitāvali, 1766.

[462] Ibid., 1366.

[463] Ibid., 1364.

[464] Ibid., 1634.

[465] i. 42; SD. 390; N. xix. 94; Lévi, TI. ii. 9.

[466] DR. ii. 54 comm.

[467] DR. iv. 26 comm.

[468] DR. i. 41 comm.

[469] DR. iii. 13 comm.

[470] DR. iii. 17 comm.

[471] DR. iii. 12 comm.

[472] DR. iii. 38 comm.; SD. 512.

[473] DR. iii. 56 f. comm.; SD. 516.

[474] vi. 30/31 is cited in i. 6/7.

[475] xxxviii. 68. For his date cf. Bühler, Kashmir Report, p. 42. See Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 141; Lévi, TI. i. 277.

[476] ID. p. 83. Dhanika (DR. ii. 1) cites, anonymously as usual, iii. 21.

[477] xxv. 74.

[478] ZDMG. lxxv. 63.

[479] ii. 34, as compared with vii. 83.

[480] Ed. KM. 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 125 ff.

[481] v. 6.

[482] vii. 87.

[483] vii. 82.

[484] vii. 107.

[485] vii. 90.

[486] Ed. p. 1, note.

[487] Konow, Karpūramañjarī, pp. 177 ff.; Hultzsch, IA. xxxiv. 177 ff.; V. S. Apte, Rājaçekhara, Poona, 1886. Of special virtue is his Kāvyamīmāṅsā on rhetoric, which is better than his dramas.

[488] Winternitz, GIL. iii. 47; Lévi, TI. i. 183 f.

[489] Ed. Calcutta, 1884.

[490] Ed. C. Cappeller, Strassburg, 1885; Weber, IS. xviii. 481 ff.

[491] Ed. S. Konow, trs. C. R. Lanman, HOS. iv. 1901; J. Charpentier, Monde oriental, ii. 226 ff.

[492] Ed. Poona, 1886; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxvii. 1 ff.

[493] ii. 30. The translation of this and the next verse is taken from Lanman’s version.

[494] ii. 47.

[495] ii. 49.

[496] Konow, ID. p. 87; Peterson, Reports, ii. 63; Bhandarkar, Report (1897), p. xi.

[497] Peterson, Reports, iii. 340 f.

[498] Ed. Calcutta, 1884; trs. L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1883. On the same theme is Rāmacandra’s Satyahariçcandra (twelfth cent.); see Keith, JRAS. 1914, pp. 1104 f.

[499] Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.

[500] Cf. Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith, Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and the Mahānāṭaka are clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c. A.D. 1330), iii. 171 f., and the Çārn̄gadharapaddhati.

[501] Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.

[502] Ed. KM. 1896.

[503] Ed. TSS. 1910.

[504] Ed. KM. 1903.

[505] Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.

[506] Ed. KM. 1888.

[507] Ed. KM. 1894.

[508] Wilson, ii. 404.

[509] Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.

[510] Ed. GOS. 1917.

[511] Kielhorn, Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.

[512] Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.

[513] Lévi, Le Népal, ii. 242.

[514] Haraprasād, Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.

[515] Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.

[516] Ed. Kielhorn, op. cit.

[517] Ed. Bombay, 1891.

[518] Ed. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’s Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana and Someçvara’s Kīrtikaumudī.

[519] Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar, Report (1907), pp. 15 ff., who equates Mīlacchrīkāra with Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).

[520] We hear of a Rājarājanāṭaka performed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’s Dramas, &c., p. 204.

[521] India Office Catal., no. 4194.

[522] Ed. Madras, 1912.

[523] Kumbhakonam, 1892.

[524] Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain, Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.

[525] Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.

[526] Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date, c. A.D. 1550.

[527] Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is the Amṛtodaya of Gokulanātha, Haraprasād, Report (1901), p. 17.

[528] Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of the Vidyāpariṇayana (Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.

[529] Ed. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.

[530] This is probably the nuance intended, as in saumyatā.

[531] Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.

[532] Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.

[533] Ed. KM. 1895. The late Mṛgān̄kalekhā of Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.

[534] Hultzsch, Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and the Ḍamaruka in ten Alaṁkāras; Madras Catal. xxi. 8403 ff.

[535] KM., Part 8, p. 51.

[536] Ed. Calcutta, 1878.

[537] Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.

[538] Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.

[539] ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.

[540] Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.

[541] Famous from the Nala onwards.

[542] Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.

[543] Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites an Ānandakoça.

[544] Ed. in Lassen’s Anth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād, Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.

[545] Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.

[546] Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.

[547] Wilson, ii. 407.

[548] Cappeller, Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.

[549] Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknown Çṛn̄gāramañjarī as a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.

[550] Ed. KM. 1894.

[551] Ed. Madras, 1874.

[552] Wilson, ii. 384.

[553] Ed. KM. 1902.

[554] Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.

[555] Ibid., 1889.

[556] Ed. in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.

[557] Ed., with the other five plays, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.

[558] Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.

[559] Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.

[560] Bendall, Brit. Mus. Catal., no. 273.

[561] Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.

[562] Konow, ID. p. 114.

[563] Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.

[564] Ed. KM. 1889.

[565] Konow, ID. p. 118.

[566] Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.

[567] Ed. KM. 1888.

[568] See above, ch. ii. § 4.

[569] Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from the Bālarāmāyaṇa (ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and the Mahānāṭaka.

[570] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.

[571] Loc. cit.

[572] For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.

[573] Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only, saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.

[574] Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze, Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.

[575] Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.

[576] Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.

[577] The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple, Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.

[578] In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle, Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.

[579] Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-century Citrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.

[580] Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.

[581] See Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch, Sansk. Phil. p. 407.

[582] Contrast Aristotle’s doctrine of plot as the soul of tragedy (Poetics, 1450 a 38).

[583] See above, pp. 38, 96, 106.

[584] Contrast Aristotle’s doctrine of ἁμαρτία (Poetics, 1453 a 10 ff.), as in Euripides’s Hippolytos; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 209 f., 213 f.

[585] Greek tragedy progressively reduced the lyric element in the drama, in harmony with the rhetorical trend of the Greek intellect, and approximated in language to ordinary speech; Aristotle, Poetics, 1450 b 9; Rhetoric, iii. 1 and 2; Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. vi, § 3.

[586] Contrast Greek tragedy; Butcher, Greek Genius, pp. 105 ff.; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 97 f., 114 f., 128 f., 177, 318, 324; W. Nestle, Euripides (1901).

[587] For its extension and popularity outside Athens, see Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, chap. vi, § 4.

[588] Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 1 ff.

[589] See also Schmidt’s Beiträge zur indischen Erotik.

[590] pp. 57 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit. pp. 29 ff.

[591] Man̄kha, Çrīkaṇṭhacarita, xxv; Bhojaprabandha; Vikramān̄kadevacarita; Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 49 ff.

[592] The translation by Ryder.

[593] Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 49 ff.

[594] Ibid., p. 33.

[595] Ibid., p. 78.

[596] Ibid., p. 53.

[597] AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31.

[598] Ed. KM. 1894, i–xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii–xx, xxxiv in F. Hall’s Daçarūpa; xv–xvii (xiv–xvi), in Regnaud, Annales du Musée Guimet, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset’s Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite.

[599] Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that the Çāstra is largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras. For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, p. 89. It is probable that the Çāstra is related to an original Sūtra in the same way as the Kāmandakīya Nītiçāstra to the Arthaçāstra. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff.

[600] Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him; Arthadyotanikā, 2.

[601] That in the Çāstra itself there is contradiction in this regard between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34.

[602] Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third century; the Prākrit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development; Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8.

[603] Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912. Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but the difference of the name is fatal.

[604] Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1909.

[605] Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1903; cf. R. G. Bhandarkar, Report (1897) pp. lxviii f.

[606] Ed. BI. with trs., 1851–75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910.

[607] Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses the Daçarūpa. Cf. Seshagiri, Report for 1896–97, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited.

[608] For the authorship of the Kāvyaprakāça see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 103 ff.

[609] cc. 337–41. On Dhvani see Keith, Sansk. Lit. ch. x.

[610] Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. on Anargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR. i. 7; SD. 274.

[611] Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f.

[612] N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27.

[613] DR. i. 15; iii. 20–22.

[614] N. xix. 2–6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323.

[615] N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320–3; R. iii. 13 f.

[616] N. xix. 7–13; DR. i. 18–20; SD. 324–9; R. iii. 22–5.

[617] N. xix. 19–21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317–19. The parallelism is faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33, admits this in effect; there is no episode in Ratnāvalī, III. Cf. R. iii. 22.

[618] N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11 n.) suggests nibarhaṇa as correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii. 26–74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in the Bālarāmāyaṇa is given in R. iii. 23–5.

[619] Abhinavagupta (Dhvanyāloka, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted in Pratāparudrīya, iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306–8; R. iii. 26 f.

[620] SD. 321.

[621] N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33.

[622] N. xix. 103; SD. 406.

[623] N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407.

[624] SD. 342, 407.

[625] N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278.

[626] The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows the performance of essential religious rites.

[627] Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff.

[628] SD. 278, no doubt by misreading.

[629] N. xviii. 14 f., 22–4; DR. iii. 27, 32–4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205; JAOS. xx. 341 ff.

[630] N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109–16; DR. i. 52–6; SD. 305–13; R. iii. 178 ff.

[631] Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow, ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’s Tripuradāha, II.

[632] R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e.g. Bālarāmāyaṇa, VII.

[633] Mātṛgupta in Arthadyotanikā, 20.

[634] xix. 53–7, 105–9; R. iii. 95; 79–92.

[635] SD. 279.

[636] N. xix. 30–4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299–303; R. iii. 15–17, where N. is cited with variant readings.

[637] This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to Vāsavadattā’s anger to come.

[638] DR. i. 57–61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff.

[639] DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff.

[640] N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4–6; DR. ii. 3–5; SD. 67–9; R. i. 72–8.

[641] DR. ii. 4.

[642] ii. 10, 16; iv. 22.

[643] DR. ii. 6; SD. 71–5; R. i. 80–2. R. i. 79, 83–8 has a division into husbands, adulterers (upapati), and the connoisseur of hetaerae (vaiçika). For the courteous lover, see p. 205.

[644] DR. ii. 9–13; SD. 89–95; R. i. 215–19; 64, 69.

[645] DR. ii. 8; SD. 159.

[646] DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf. Kāmasūtra, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90.

[647] DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96–100; R. i. 94–120, who takes the unusual view that Irāvatī in the Mālavikāgnimitra is a hetaera.

[648] N. xxii. 197–206; DR. ii. 22–5; SD. 113–21; R. i. 121–51.

[649] N. xxii. 4–29; DR. ii. 28–39; SD. 126–55; R. i. 190–214, with Bhoja’s views.

[650] N. xii. 121 f.; xxi. 126; xxiv. 106; DR. ii. 8; SD. 79; R. i. 92.

[651] N. xii. 97; xxiv. 104; DR. ii. 8; SD. 78; Kāmasūtra, p. 58; Schmidt, Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, pp. 200 ff.

[652] N. xii. 130; xxiv. 105; DR. ii. 42; SD. 81.

[653] SD. 86 f., 158.

[654] N. xxiv. 107; DR. ii. 41; SD. 82.

[655] N. xxiv. 60 ff.

[656] N. xxiv. 15 ff. The Kāmasūtra, of course, covers much the same ground.

[657] N. xxiv. 50 ff.

[658] SD. 426. R. iii. 323–38 gives very elaborate details.

[659] N. xvii. 73 ff.; DR. ii. 62–6; SD. 431 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 129, corrected JA. sér. 9, xix. 97 f.; R. iii. 306–22.

[660] A child may thus be addressed by persons of low rank, SD. 431; cf. Mṛcchakaṭikā, x. p. 160.

[661] For another style, cf. Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi, p. 124; Upādhyāya, R. iii. 309.

[662] P. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, pp. 266 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 394 f.; M. Lindenau, Beiträge zur altindischen Rasalehre, Leipzig, 1913. See N. vi. and vii.; DR. iv.; SD. iii.; R. i. 298–ii. 265.

[663] Mātṛgupta (Hall, DR., p. 33) subdivides sentiment as vācika, produced by words; nepathya, generated by appropriate garlands, ornaments, clothes, &c.; svābhāvika, produced by such natural excellencies as beauty, youth, grace, firmness, courage, &c.

[664] Ekāvalī, iii, pp. 86 ff.; Kāvyaprakāça (ed. 1889), pp. 86 ff. Cf. R., pp. 173–5.

[665] See also Abhinavagupta, Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 67 f.; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 9.

[666] The term is vyutpatti; it is explained by Abhinavagupta, op. cit., p. 70; GGA. 1913, p. 305, n. 1.

[667] The reference to Brahman shows that we have here the same fusion of doctrine as in Sadānanda’s Vedāntasāra.

[668] In the same sense we have rasika and bhāvaka (e.g. R., p. 170).

[669] vi. 7 ff.; Huizinga, De Vidūṣaka in het indisch tooneel, pp. 67 ff.

[670] vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ
ānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ. (iv. 1.) Cf. R.
ii. 169.

[671] iv. 36 ff.

[672] iv. 41; R., p. 175, l. 1.

[673] vi. 39–41.

[674] Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 68, 70.

[675] See § 6 below.

[676] iv. 33. Cf. R., p. 171.

[677] SD. 41. This possibility is denied by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.

[678] xxvi. 18 f. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, xvii. 1455 a 30.

[679] SD. 50 ff. So such a great actress as Sarah Bernhardt might feel emotion in acquiring her part, but not in the daily performance.

[680] Ekāvalī, p. 88; DR. iv. 40.

[681] Vyaktiviveka (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. v).

[682] iv. 47 ff. Cf. R. ii. 170 ff.

[683] Cf. Haas, DR., pp. 133, 150; R. ii. 178–201, where a list of twelve, with desire and eagerness prefixed, is rejected.

[684] Cf. R., pp. 189 f.

[685] Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, v. 1449 a 36.

[686] Save for a late reading in vi. 15.

[687] See Dhanika, DR. iv. 33; SD. 240; Ekāvalī, pp. 96 ff. Other sentiments are sometimes recognized, such as friendship, faith, and devotion; cf. Rasagan̄gādhara, p. 45. Bhoja admits love only. An example of calm is the Prabodhacandrodaya. Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 395; R., p. 171.

[688] N. xx. 25–62; DR. ii. 44–57; iii. 5; SD. 285, 410–21; R. i. 244–94, which expressly denies a fifth manner composed of the four.

[689] Ratnāvalī, ii. R. i. 275 gives pā pā pāhi hi hīti as an instance of comic fear exhibited in speech.

[690] Or narmasphañja.

[691] An alternative is love enjoyment interrupted, as in the Ratnāvalī, ii. 17; R. i. 278.

[692] A variant ascribed to Bharata is given in R. i. 279, where a hero dies and another fills his place, e.g. Rāvaṇa replaced by Vibhīṣaṇa.

[693] N. xviii. 106–16; DR. iii. 11–18; SD. 289, 293, 521–32; R. i. 164–74.

[694] The first kind is illustrated by Uttararāmacarita, i; the second by a citation from the Chalitarāma.

[695] As in the Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa, R. i. 168.

[696] As in the Abhirāmarāghava.

[697] SD. 471–503.

[698] N. xvii. 6–39; SD. 435–70; 36 bhūṣaṇāni, R. iii. 97–127.

[699] The Saṁgītadāmodara merges them in one (Lévi, TI. i. 104). Cf. DR. iv. 78.

[700] xvii. 40 ff. The Alaṁkāra doctrine later develops enormously; cf. Jacobi, GN. 1908, pp. 1 ff.

[701] xvii. 99 ff.

[702] See Weber, IS. viii. 377 ff.

[703] i. 41 ff.

[704] iii. i and 2; cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, ch. v.

[705] Kāvyaprakāça, pp. 542 ff.; Ekāvalī, pp. 147–9; Alaṁkārasarvasva, pp. 20 f. R. i. 229–43 has the ten Guṇas and komalā, kaṭhinā, and miçrā as the three names.

[706] Mammaṭa, Kāvyaprakāça, viii. 1 ff.; Ekāvalī, v.; Sāhityadarpaṇa, viii; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 7.

[707] iii. 1. 1–3.

[708] pp. 57, 60. Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 68.

[709] vi. 147. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 48 ff.

[710] Jacobi, GN. 1911, pp. 962 f.; 1912, p. 841 f.

[711] Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 74, 76. Cf. Haranchandra Chakladar, Vātsyāyana (1921).

[712] N. xvii. 31 ff.; DR. ii. 58–61; SD. 432; R. iii. 299–305.

[713] Including, of course, persons assuming such rôles, e.g. in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa and Mudrārākṣasa. For the use of Sanskrit by women, usually in verse, as by Vasantasenā in the Mṛcchakaṭikā, and by inferior characters, see Pischel, Prākrit Grammatik, pp. 31 f.

[714] R. iii. 300 assigns it as Prākṛta to low persons and Jains. He assigns Apabhraṅça to Caṇḍālas, Yavanas, &c., but admits that others give Māgadhī, &c.

[715] Grierson, JRAS. 1918, pp. 489 ff. Cf. R. i. 297 which has seven; Çabara, Dramiḷa, Andhraja, Çakāra, Abhīra, Caṇḍāla, foresters.

[716] Contrast the Aristotelian doctrine as to the use of the lyric choruses; Poetics, 1456 a 25 ff.; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 75–80; Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. v, § 6.

[717] xviii. 117–29; DR. iii. 47 f.; SD. 504–9. On gesture see the Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. R. iii. 236–48 gives other details of the Lāsya from the Çṛn̄gāramañjarī; dialect is allowed in the Saindhava. He follows N. in having Trimūḍhaka as expressing male emotions in smooth words, and has Dvimūḍhaka.

[718] Lévi, TI. ii. 18 f. For N. xxviii see J. Grosset, Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888. The hints as to musical accompaniment in Vikramorvaçī iv. and the Gītagovinda are unfortunately largely unintelligible. Cf. also Çivarāma on Nāgānanda, i. 15.

[719] v. 1 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 23 ff.

[720] These nine acts gratify the Apsarases, Gandharvas, Daityas, Dānavas, Rakṣases, Guhyakas, and Yakṣas. They are performed behind the curtain according to Konow, but cf. Lévi, TI. i. 376.

[721] N. v. 149 ff.; DR. iii. 2 ff.; SD. 283 ff. Cf. R. iii. 150 ff.

[722] An effort to discriminate Prastāvanā and Sthāpanā is made, R. iii. 158.

[723] These are more common than formerly thought; the Sthāpaka is found in various connexions in the Pārthaparākrama of Prahlādana, and Vatsarāja’s Kirātārjunīya, Rukmiṇīharaṇa, Samudramathana. But the Rasārṇavasudhākara ignores him. Çivarāma’s comm. on Nāgānanda, i. 1 shows that great doubt then existed both as to the preliminaries (p. 2), and the Sūtradhāra, Sūcaka, or Sthāpaka (pp. 6, 7). Cf. p. 273.

[724] GGA. 1883, p. 1234; 1891, p. 361. Bhāsa’s use of Sthāpanā for the prologue suggests accord with the Daçarūpa.

[725] E.g. Tapatīsaṁvaraṇa and Subhadrādhanaṁjaya, where Sthāpanā is used.

[726] A classification of poets on the basis of their confidence in themselves as expressed in this place is given in R. i. 246 f.; Kālidāsa is elevated (udātta) in the Mālavikāgnimitra; Bhavabhūti haughty (uddhata) in the Mālatīmādhava; self assertion (prauḍha) is seen in the Karuṇākandala; modesty (vinīta) in the Rāmānanda.

[727] Konow, ID. p. 25.

[728] Lévi, TI. i. 135, 379; ii. 26 f., 64, 66. Cf. Harivaṅça, ii. 93; Kuṭṭanīmata, 856 ff.

[729] Lévi, TI. i. 132 f.; ii. 24 f.; Hall, DR., pp. 25 f. The Veṇīsaṁhāra has six stanzas. R. iii. 137 f. takes Pada as word, giving the Mahāvīracarita, Abhirāmarāghava, and Anargharāghava as examples of 8, 10, and 12 Padas.

[730] For a general reference see Pañcarātra, i. 1. In a Jain drama like the Moharājaparājaya, the benediction is addressed to the three Tīrthakaras; in the Nāgānanda to the Buddha.

[731] N. xviii. 10 ff.; DR. iii. 1–34; SD. 278, 433, 510; R. iii. 130 ff.

[732] Ghanaçyāma’s Navagrahacarita has three acts; Madhusūdana’s Jānakīpariṇaya (A.D. 1705) has four.

[733] N. xviii. 41 ff.; DR. iii. 35–8; SD. 511 f.; R. iii. 214–18, who gives Kāmadatta as the name of a hetaera drama.

[734] N. xviii. 57–70; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 56–61; SD. 515 f.; R. iii. 249–64.

[735] N. xviii. 72–6; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 66–8; SD. 518; R. iii. 284–8 (type Māyākuran̄gikā).

[736] N. xviii. 78–82; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 51–3; SD. 517; R. iii. 280–4 (type Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa).

[737] N. xviii. 83–5; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 54 f.; SD. 514; R. iii. 229–32 (type Dhanaṁjayajaya).

[738] N. xviii. 86–9; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 64 f.; SD. 519; R. iii. 224–8 (type Karuṇākandala) who differs.

[739] N. xviii. 93–8; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 49 f.; SD. 534–8; R. iii. 268–79 (type Ānandakoça).

[740] N. xviii. 99–101; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 44–6; SD. 513; R. iii. 232–5.

[741] N. xviii. 102 f.; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 62 f.; SD. 520. Konow (ID. p. 32) is in error as to N. R. iii. 265–70 has Mādhavī-Vīthikā.

[742] SD. 276.

[743] Hall, DR., p. 6.

[744] cccxxxvii. 2–4. R. iii. 218–23 denies the separate character of the Nāṭikā or Prakaraṇikā.

[745] DR. i. 8.

[746] xviii. 54–6; DR. iii. 39–43; SD. 539.

[747] SD. 554.

[748] SD. 542. Cf. the Bharhut bas-relief of a dance, Sāḍika; Hultzsch, ZDMG. xl. 66, no. 50.

[749] SD. 540.

[750] SD. 541. Cf. Hall, DR., p. 6.

[751] SD. 555.

[752] SD. 543.

[753] SD. 544.

[754] SD. 556; for the others see 546 ff. Names of plays are given, but they are lost, and were probably late.

[755] vii. 90 f.; xi. 36.

[756] ii. 18.

[757] iv. 3.

[758] Mālatīmādhava, p. 79.

[759] vi. 48, and see pp. 108 f.; Lévi, TI. ii. 38.

[760] Cf. the later view in Rome, which forbids death on the stage, Horace, Ars Poetica, 183 ff., with Aristotle, Poetics, 1452 b 10 ff., which approves the presentation of death and other acts on the stage.

[761] M. Lindenau, Festschrift Windisch, pp. 38 ff.

[762] Poetics, 1449 b sq. with Butcher’s trs. and Bywater’s notes.

[763] Poetics, 1449 b 13. For time analysis in Kālidāsa, see Jackson, JAOS. xx. 341–59; in Harṣa, xxi. 88–108.

[764] Bloch, Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.

[765] ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.; Çilparatna (ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.

[766] For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld, Das griechische Theater; Haigh, Attic Theatre (3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.

[767] The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.

[768] Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.

[769] The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.

[770] W. Crooke, The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.

[771] Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf. naṭagrāma, Epigr. Ind. i. 381.

[772] xxiv. 85 f.

[773] Cf. Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.

[774] xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.

[775] Weber, IS. xiii. 493.

[776] viii. 362; cf. Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8; Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.

[777] vi. 1. 13.

[778] xvi. 8.

[779] ii. 1. 2. 13.

[780] Kauṭilīya, p. 7.

[781] Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.

[782] Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.

[783] iii. 57.

[784] N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.

[785] N. xxi.

[786] N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. the Mahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.

[787] Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.

[788] N. xxi.

[789] Cf. the Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.

[790] 856 ff. Cf. the accounts in the Harivaṅça, ii. 88–93.

[791] Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.

[792] Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of the Mṛcchakaṭikā (Lévi, TI. i. 210).

[793] xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.

[794] Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.

[795] Tagore, Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.

[796] Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.

[797] A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. the Citrayajña of Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā about A.D. 1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’s Āçcaryamañjarī and Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style of Mantrān̄kanāṭaka, and the Nāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637; Pratimānāṭaka (ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that the Cārudatta is an adaptation of the Mṛcchakaṭikā (contrast p. 131), the Pratimānāṭaka is later than Kālidāsa, and the Avimāraka than Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in the Pratimā (iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding the Nyāyaçāstra of Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be the Manubhāṣya (tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of the Cārudatta to the Mṛcchakaṭikā which he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.