Essay name: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
Author: A. D. Pusalker
This book studies Bhasa, the author of thirteen plays ascribed found in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. These works largely adhere to the rules of traditional Indian theatrics known as Natya-Shastra.
Page 89 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
89 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
1 69
territorial limits of the kingdom of a R膩jasimha. The
prayer is varied, being in some and in others
These variations unmistakably show vicissitudes in
the political career of the king and cannot be due to the
influence of a particular school. These dramas have
already been found to be free from the handling of Kerala
dramatists. Hence identification with Pandya and Pallava
kings does not arise. Opinion is almost unanimous over
the point that R膩jasimha is not the proper name of a
king. Sten Konow has identified the king with K峁trapa,
Rudrasimha I, Dhruva with Sunga Pusyamitra, Jayaswal
with Kanva N膩r膩ya峁嘺 and Bhide with Udayi. Now the
first line of the Bharatavakyas indicates that the whole
of Northern India, bounded by Vindhya and Himavat,
was under the sceptre of one king. The upshot of our
investigations on internal evidence shows the fifth or the
fourth century B. C. as the period of the poet. Candragupta
is said to be the first monarch to bring under his sway the
whole of Northern India. But we think that Ugrasena
Nanda may be said in a sense to deserve the appellation.
MM. Haraprasad Sastri also identifies R膩jasimha, with-
out mentioning any name, with "one of the Nandas". It
will be shown later in this chapter that Bh膩sa must be
placed before Kautilya, and hence before Candragupta
also. Therefore, Bharatav膩kyas show the poet to have
lived earlier than the fourth century B. C.
The cumulative effect of all the factors considered
under 'Internal evidence' is therefore to place the period
of these plays between the fifth and the fourth century B. C.
In turning to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE we
are treading on unsettled grounds. Kautilya, K膩lid膩sa
and 艢奴draka among others, come forward to give
testimony in this respect. And there is a sharp controversy
regarding their own dates. We have, therefore, followed
what appeared to us to be a sound view, and have assigned
Kautilya to the fourth century B. C., K膩lid膩sa to the first
century B. C., and regarding the date and identification of
1 Barnett, JRAS, 1919, p. 233; Kavi, JAHRS, 2, p. 143; Kane, VJV,
1920, p. 99; etc. 2 Konow, ID, pp. 51-56; Dhruva, Svapnani Sundari, Intr., pp.
12, 30-59; Jayaswal, JASB, 1913, pp. 264-265; Bhide, Svapna, Intr., pp. 40-41. 3
Ganapati Sastri, Critical Study, p. 54, footnote. Dr. Ghoshal in fact describes
Ugrasena Mah膩padma as "the founder of the first real Indian Empire." (MR, Octr.
1930, p. 438). Cf. also Deb, JASB, 1983, pp. 349-350; Bhandarkar, Carm. Lect,
1919, p. 85.
