Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:16:02.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on the Sanskrit Monologue-Play (Bhana), with special reference to the Caturbhani

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

S. K. De
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Popular and (as attested by theory) undoubtedly old as the bhāṇa must have been, the specimens of this form of composition which have been hitherto known to exist belong to comparatively recent times. Considerable importance, therefore, attaches to the discovery and publication (1922) of four bhāṇas. under the title Caturbhāṇī, by M. Ramakrishna Kavi and S. K. Ramanatha Sastri from Śivapurī, for which great antiquity is claimed by the editors and which, whatever might be their date, are certainly older than any of the late existing specimens. The Caturbhāṇī consists of Ubhayâbhisārikā (Ubh), Padma-prābhṛtaka (Pp), Dhūrtaviṭa-saṃvāda (Dvs) and Pāda-tāḍitaka (Pt), ascribed respectively, on the authority chiefly of a traditional verse, to Vararuci. Śūdraka, Īśvaradatta and Śyāmilaka. Professor Keith, in his recently published Sanskrit Drama (p. 185, fn. 3), throws doubt on the first two ascriptions, and declares rather dogmatically that “ none of these plays need be older than a.d. 1000”.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1926 , pp. 63 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 63 note 1 JRAS., 1924, pp. 262–5. The present essay was written before the Cent. Suppl. reached the writer; revision, however, became necessary in the light of Dr. Thomas's very suggestive articles.

page 64 note 1 As I have attempted to show in the case of the kathā and the ākhyāyikā in an article in BSOS., vol. iii, pp. 507 f.

page 65 note 1 This passage in the printed text (Kāvyamālā ed.) is frankly corrupt; but emendations can be gathered from the readings of Abhinavagupta in his commentary, as well as from Hemacandra and the younger Vāgbhaṭa, who quote these verses. Hemacandra in his commentary on these verses appropriates a great deal from Abhinava's commentary on Bharata.

page 65 note 2 oviśeṣeṣu in the text; ovarṇanā-prayuktaś ca in Hemacandra and Vāgbhaṭa.

page 65 note 3 vividhâśrayo o (H. and V.).

page 65 note 4 ograthite in the text.

page 65 note 5 abhinayaiś câpi in the text.

page 65 note 6 kâṅgo in the text.

page 65 note 7 Abhinava's comment on this verse, as given in my MS. is as follows : atha hāsya-rasôcita-viṭa-dhūrtâdyanupraveśena samāna-yoga-kṣemaṃ (referring to prahasana commented on immediately before) bhāṇaṃ lakṣayitum āha—ātmânubhūta-śaṃsîti. ekena pātreṇa haraṇīyaḥ sāmājika-hṛdayaṃ prāpayilavyo’rtho yatra sa bhāṇaḥ. eka-mukhenaiva bhaṇyante uktimantaḥ kriyante apraviṣṭā api pātra-viśeṣa yatrêti bhāṇaḥ. tatra sa praviṣṭaḥ pātra-viśeṣa ātmânubhūtaṃ śaṃsati para-gataṃ vā, varṇayati. tatra ca prayoga-prayuktim āha—para-vacanam iti. para-saṃbandhi vacanaṃ svayam aṅga-vikārair abhinayet. nanu tat para-vacanam uktaṃ katham abhinayet ityâha—ākāśe śūnye yāni puruṣa-kathitāni dṛṣṭāni, yatra śūnye tena varṇyante vā kaścit paśyaty âkarṇayati ca, tad vacanaṃ sa evânuvadan sāmājikān bodhayati. yathā—boḍabale (?) kiṃ bravīsîtyâdau. na kevalaṃ para-vacanam abhinayet, kiṃ tu svôktaiḥ saha. ata evôttarôttara-grathitair yojanābhir upalakṣitaiḥ. nanu yo'sâv ekaḥ praviśati sa ka ityâha—dhūrtaviṭêti. nānā-prakārâvasthā-viśeṣāl lokôpayogi-vyavahārâtmā vācyaṃ yasya. ata eva bahu-reṣḷaḥ satataṃ kārya iti. sakala-sāmānya-prthag-janôpayogyatra loka-vyavahāro veśyā-viṭâdi-vṛttāntâtmā, nirūpyata iti bāhulyena pṛthagjaṇa-vyntpatty-upayogi rūpakam idam.

page 66 note 1 I.e. he pretends to see and hear others speak or act, and asks “ what do you say ? ”, himself then repeating the imagined answer.

page 67 note 1 bhāratī-vṛtti-pradhānatvād bhānaḥ (Dhanika). The derivation from √bhaṇ is probably meant to suit the character of the composition in which only one person speaks, the place of interlocutors being supplied by copious u.e of ākāśa-bhāṣita. The etymology of the term, which is probably one of the Prakrit relics of the primitive drama, is uncertain, and it is not noticed in the earlier lexicons of Amara and Śāśvata.

page 68 note 1 Viśvanātha (ed. Durgāprasāda, 1915), vi, 227–30; Śiṅgabhūpāla, iii, 232 f. : Vidyānātha, ed. Trivedī, p. 125.

page 68 note 2 Kohala, who came after Bharata, favoured kaiśikī in the case of the erotic, the comic, and the pathetic sentiments; but Abhinavagupta vigorously disputes this opinion : yat tu śṛṅgāra-hāsya-karuṇair iha kaiśikī syād iti kohalenôktam, tan muni-mata-virodhād upekṣyam eva … evaṃ, prahasana-bhāṇayor api vāg-vyāpāra-prādhānyād eva bhāratī vṛttiḥ.

page 68 note 3 This question is discussed in my Sanskrit Poetics, vol. ii.

page 69 note 1 It is not certainly a pure specimen of the class. But even regarding this mixed type, the Sūtradhāra laments : adhunā viralaḥ khalu miśra-bhāṇa-pracāraḥ.

page 70 note 1 Four other bhāṇas have been published, but I have not seen them: (1) Mahiṣa-maṅgala by Pūruvanam Mahisamaṅgala Kavi, ed. Palghat, 1880; (2) Pañcabāṇa-vijaya, by Raṅgācārya, Madras, 1886. (3) Rasika-rañjana, by Śrīnivāsâcārya, Mysore, 1885. (4) Śṛṅgāra-sudhârṇava, by Rāmavarman Yuvarāja. For a bibliography of unpublished bhāṇas, see Sten Konow, Ind. Drama, § 121. Wilson, in his Select Specimens, gives an analysis of a bhāṇa called Śāradā-tilaka (referred to here as Śdt) by Śaṅkara. No trace has yet been found of the Śṛṅgāra-mañjarī and the Līlā-madhuhara mentioned respectively by Śingabhūpāla and Viśvanātha. [Since writing this, I have been able to obtain a copy of Pañcabāṇa-vijaya published from Madras (1915) by V. Ramasvamy Sastrulu in Telngu character.]

page 71 note 1 Such as kanduka-krīḍā, ḍolā-vihāra, cakṣur-apidhāna, ambara-karaṇḍaka maṇi-guptaka, yugmâyugma-darśana, caturaṅga-vihāra, gajapati-kusuma-kanduka, etc. These are, however, not mentioned by Vātsyāvana.

page 71 note 2 See, for instance, Śbh, p. 15, Śs, p. 18. Besides money, the man stipulates to provide for his mistress a pair of clothes every month, as well as flower. wreaths, musk, camphored betels every day.

page 72 note 1 As in Śdt.

page 74 note 1 So in Kc and Mk; but in the latter bhāṇa the hero enters into an elaborate mawkish account of his wretched state of mind at the unforeseen separation from his beloved.

page 75 note 1 The brilliant description of Pāṭalīputra in Ubh, Dr. Thomas thinks, is a clue to the date of this bhāṇa, as that city was in a state of decay since the seventh century a.d. But this, of course, is not conclusive, as such descriptions could have been conventional. The description here, however, appears too vivid to be merely conventional.

page 76 note 1 The Pīṭhamarda as a character, though prescribed by theorists, is not much favoured by classical dramatists, and the term is unknown to them, although Bhavabhūti's Makaranda may be taken as the type. But the Pīṭhamarda here is an Upanāgaraka and assistant in love-affairs, such as described by Vātsyāyana in i, 4, 44 ; 5, 37.

page 76 note 2 The editors think that the phrase kāmadattā-prākṛta-kāvya-pratiṣṭhānabhūta, here used, alludes to a Prakaraṇa, named Kāmadattā, in ten acts. But the allusion, if any, is rather to a Prakrit Kāvya. One Kāmadattā is cited by Viśvanātha as an instance of the bhāṇika variety of Uparūpakas. This bhāṇikā is also cited in Nāṭaka-ratna-koṣa (Lévi in JA., cciii, Octobre-Décembre, 1923, p. 213), where a Śaśi-Kāmadattā-prakaraṇa (the same, probably, as the editors think of) is also mentioned (p. 215).

page 77 note 1 Is this a proper name or a title ?

page 77 note 2 The interview with the Śākya-bhikṣu is quoted by Dr. Thomas (Cent. Suppl., pp. 129–30).

page 78 note 1 The conversation with this young rake has been given by Dr. Thomas as a specimen of the style (Cent. Suppl., pp. 126–7).

page 79 note 1 Viz. vocal (vācika), gestural (āṅgikā), extraneous (āhārya), and internal (sāttvika), conveyed respectively by words, gestures, external dress or decoration, and manifestation of internal feelings.

page 79 note 2 Mahāpratīhāra Bhadrāyudha is described as the lord of the Northern Bāhlīkas as well as of the Kārūśa-Maladas ; a fact which would seem to indicate a somewhat curious location of these two peoples as adjacent to each other.

page 81 note 1 Text recently published in JBORS., vol. x, pts. i and ii, 1924, pp. 70 fGoogle Scholar. In Laṭakamelaka (first half of the twelfth century) there is a Digambara, but he is probably a Jaina.

page 81 note 2 The viṭa in Dvs swears that, if what he says is not correct, he would turn a Śrotriya ; and later on declares that he would rather live with Śrotriyas than with impossible apsarasas of the Śāstrakāra's heaven. He also alludes with repugnance to the smelly, rough and corneous feet of the Śrotriyas, touched and worshipped by men.

page 81 note 3 The Matta-vilāsa figures Pāśupatas and Kapālins.

page 81 note 4 As in Vatsarāja's Hāsya-cūḍāmaṇi.

page 82 note 1 It is curious that Hemacandra (Comm., p. 239) mentions these works together.

page 85 note 1 My colleague, Mr. R. G. Basak, draws my attention to the story of Mūladeva and Devadattā, given in Jacobi's Ausgewählte Erzählungen in Māhārāṣṭrī, No. viii, pp. 56 f., where Mūladeva appears as a prince who is an expert in the art of detecting thieves. The reference by Bāṇa will be found in Kādaṃbarī (ed. Peterson, 1900, p. 19, 11. 16–17), where punning allusion is also made to Śaśa and Vipulā of the story.

page 87 note 1 Kṣemendra, who quotes this verse as an instance of anaucitya in the depiction of rasa, remarks: atra hāsya-rasasya bībhatsa-rasâdhivāsitasya laśuna-liptasyêva kusuma-śekharasyâti-jugupsitatvād anīpsitasya paramānaucityena camatkāras tirohitaḥ. vrddhā-paricumbane jihvā-mūla-prāptasya cyuta-daśanasya kaṇṭha-loṭinaḥ ṣṭhīvanena bībhatsasyaiva prādhānyam, na tu hāsya-rasaya (Aucitya-vicāra, ed. Kāvyamālā, p. 126).

page 87 note 2 Dvs, p. 24 ; Pt, p. 28. Mention is made of triphala, gokṣura and lohacūrṇa as aphrodisiac in Pp, p. 13.

page 88 note 1 Our Śyāmilaka is the same as Kṣemendra's Śyāmala, as the two verses quoted by Kṣemendra (Aucit. vic. ad śl 16, Suvṛtta. til. ad ii, 31) are to be found in our bhāna as śi 33 and 125. The verse ascribed to Śyāmalaka in Subhāṣitâvali 2292 undoubtedly refers to our bhāna, the second line of the verse occurring in a slightly modified form in it. The editors are probably right in distinguishing him from Śyāmala, who was Mahimabhaṭṭa's Guru. Dr. Thomas makes a slip when he speaks of Mahimabhaṭṭa's teacher as the son of Dhairya (p. 130); for Mahimabhaṭṭa himself and not his teacher was the son of Dhairya. See my Sanskrit Poetics, vol. i, p. 154 f. n. These citations by Kashmirian authors make it probable that Śyāmilaka, Śyāmalaka, or Śyāmala, was a “ Northerner ” (udīcya), as the colophon says.

page 88 note 2 The fact that one verse from it is quoted by Taruṇavācaspati does not help us much; for this commentator on Daṇḍin quotes the Daśarūpaka and Bhoja, and must therefore be a fairly late writer. I cannot, however, agree with Dr. Thomas in his opinion that this bhāna does not depart from later types. My reasons are already given above.

page 89 note 1 The Vārttika on Pāṇini, vi, 3, 22, says : devānāṃ priya ityatra ca ṣaṣṭhyā alug vaktavyaḥ. Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita adds iti ca mūrkhe, i.e. when the sense is that of a fool. There is no authority for this, either in the Mahābhāṣya or in the Kāśikā. On the contrary, Patañjali on v, 3, 14 uses the phrase apparently in a good sense (bhavān dīrghâyur devānāṃ priya āyusmān iti). Bāṇa, in his Harṣacarita (ed. N. S. P., 1918, p. 25, 1. 13), uses it in the honorific sense, on which Śaṅkara remarks: devānāṃ priyasyêti pūjāvacanam, and quotes the Vārttika, ṣaṣthyā aluk. Mammaṭa (ed. Jhalakīkara, , 3rd ed., 1917, p. 226)Google Scholar appears to have been the earliest author to use the phrase in a deprecatory sense, where it is explained by the author of the oPradīpa as paśu or mūrkha, the implication being that the sacrificial animals (paśavaḥ) are the favourites of gods.

page 90 note 1 The viṭa in Pp ridicules the affected speech of the Pāṇinian and asks him to use conversational language, but this appears to hurt the dignity of the learned grammarian. The passage is worth quoting: prasīdatu bhavān, nārhasy asmān evam-vidhaiḥ kāṣṭha-prahāra-niṣṭhurair vāg-aśanibhir abhihantum. Sādhu vyāvahārikayā vācā vada. abhājanaṃ hi vayam idṛśānāṃ karabhôdgāra-durbhagānāṃ śrotra-viṣa-niṣeka-bhūtānāṃ vaiyākaraṇa-vāg-vyasanānām. To which the grammarian replies : katham aham idānīm aneka-vāvadūka-vādi vṛṣabha-vighaṭṭanôpārjitām aneka-dhātu-śataghnīṃ vācant utsṛjya strī-śarīram iva mādhurya-komalāṃ kariṣyāmi ?