365bet娱乐

Little study has been done in the field of allegorical literature, especially in relation to allegorical plays. Dr. Usha Aggarwal, has made a study of allegorical plays in her book 鈥�Philosophical Approach to Sanskrit Allegorical Dramas鈥�. Tracing the history of allegorical writings in Sanskrit literature, she deals with only five major allegorical plays, namely, 叠丑腻惫补苍腻 笔耻谤耻峁�o迟迟补尘补, by Ratnakhe峁璦 艢谤墨苍颈惫腻蝉补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, 闯帽腻苍补蝉奴谤测辞诲补测补 by V膩dicandra 厂奴谤颈, Viveka Vijaya by 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补 Kavi, 笔谤补肠补峁囜笉补谤腻丑奴诲补测补 by Ghana艣y膩ma and 顿丑补谤尘辞诲诲丑腻谤补峁嘺 by Durge艣vara 笔补峁囜笉颈迟补.

Apart from this, no serious study has been carried out in this field, though some allegorical plays like 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 of 膧nandar膩ya Makhin and 闯墨惫补苍尘耻办迟颈辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 of Nall膩dhvarin have been studied.^[1]

The 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 狈补峁璦办补 which has great merit for its three dimensional content, becomes all the more important for the reason that it has been erroneously condemned as not worthy of attention as a 碍腻惫测补 by Pandits Durga Prasad and Kasinath Pandurang Parab, who edited it for the first time and brought it out as the Nirnayasagar publications of 碍腻惫测补m膩l膩 Series (No.27) in 1891.

In the footnote at the last page of this publication they have recorded鈥�

j墨v膩nandane yadyapi 苍腻蝉迟颈 kavitvacamatk膩ra岣� tath膩pi sa峁僾idh膩nakamanucchi峁ａ弓a峁� 肠颈办颈迟蝉腻-艣膩str膩nuk奴lam iti k峁泃vaiv膩sya k膩vyam膩l膩y膩峁� 辫谤补惫别艣补岣� |

Even the second edition of this text in 1933 by the same N.S. Press carries these remarks without any alteration.

A.B. Keith who brought out his work The Sanskrit Drama^[2] (p.253) simply reiterates this opinion鈥�

鈥淭飞辞 艢补颈惫补 dramas are the 痴颈诲测腻-辫补谤颈峁嘺测补苍补 and 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 written at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century. They have no merits鈥�.

In the year 1933, when the second edition of 碍腻惫测补m膩l膩 27 came, another edition of the text also got published from Khurja. Specifically for the benefit of students of 膧测耻谤惫别诲补, a commentary named 搁补蝉腻测补苍补 was written by 笔补峁囜笉颈迟 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 Vaidya and it was edited by 艢r墨hari艣astr墨 顿腻诲丑墨肠补 of Jaipur. It was duly published by another 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 physician 艢r墨lak峁�m墨r膩masv膩mi who requested 笔补峁囜笉颈迟 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 Vaidya to write the commentary. The editor in his 膧惫别诲补苍补 clearly notices the error of the 笔补峁囜笉颈迟s who brought out the 碍腻惫测补m膩l膩 edition and the view of A.B. Keith. He adds that this drama 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 has both medical and literary value.

A third edition of the text had been brought out by Vaidyaratna Pandit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar. He also found out that the 碍腻惫测补m膩l膩 edition of the text had many errors that marred the value of the text. Fortunately for him, he could procure another publication of the text in Telugu script having better reading, from a scholar-friend. To bring out the intrinsic merit of the 苍腻峁璦办补, M. Duraiswami Aiyangar brought out a new edition of the text by critically editing the available two publications along with his own commentary named 狈补苍诲颈苍墨. This was brought out quite efficiently by the Adyar Library, Madras in 1947.

Assessing the value of the drama, Pt. Duraiswami Aiyangar writes in the Introduction (p.6):

鈥淭o those, who go through with interest this play will be found to befit great appreciation, in view of the fact that the clever combination of religious truths of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 with that of the main fundamentals of 膧yurvedic science, in a very suitable play and the high literary talent exhibited, make the whole work, engrossing and deserving of admiration by every one of high learning.鈥�

Further Duraiswami Aiyangar finds the statements that 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 鈥榙oes not possess poetic charm鈥� and that it has 鈥榥o merits鈥�, as 鈥渕ost incongruous and absurd鈥�. He claims that 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 is one of the 鈥渨orthy classical brilliant plays in Sanskrit literary field鈥�. He considers the work, 'delightful' and hence this text has been taken up for critical study.

All the three editions of the 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 狈腻峁璦办补, available at present, have been consulted in the preparation of the thesis. Still, the Adyar library publication of the text with the commentary of Pt. M. Duraiswami Aiyangar is meticulously followed for the present study. His commentary 狈补苍诲颈苍墨 is much helpful in understanding the nuances of 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 as presented in the drama, 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补.

The following chapters would deal with the contents of the play, and also the 膧yurvedic and Advaitic principles presented in the play. Further, it will analyse the text as a fine specimen of the 狈腻峁璦办补 type fulfilling the requirements of 苍腻峁璦办补lak峁�a峁嘺 as given by dramaturgical treatises.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

T.V. Vasudeva, 鈥淛墨vanmuktikaly膩峁嘺 of Nall膩dhvarin鈥�, The 厂补峁僺谤颈迟补 Ranga-Annual X, 1998, pp.160-80.鈥擪. S. Balasubramanian and T.V. Vasudeva, 鈥淪anskrit Allegorical Plays on Advaitic Theme鈥� The 厂补峁僺谤颈迟补 Ranga-Annual XI, 2003, pp.116-125.

[2]:

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1924.