वेणीसंहारम् (आङ्गलटिप्पणीसहितम्)/उपोद्घातः
| ← मुखपृष्ठम् | वेणीसंहारम् (आङ्गलटिप्पणीसहितम्) उपोद्घातः भट्टनारायणः |
प्रथमोऽङ्कः → |
INTRODUCTION.
All that the play itself tells us about its author is that he is Mŗigarājalakshman Bhatta Nārāyana; and since the name is mentioned in the prelude just in the fashion we might expect on the analogy of other Sanskrit plays, it is but reasonable not to doubt the authenticity of that name. Who this Bhatta Nārāyaņa was, and about what time in the history of Sanskrit literature he lived and wrote are questions requiring investigation and solution.
Bhatta Nārāyaņa is not one of those authors whose dates have been established with certainty directly, or indirectly by a synthesis of such scraps of information as are derived from inscriptions and coins or other reliable sources such as accounts of contemporary events or events of immediate past, written by foreign or Indian chroniclers known to sober history. The only sources of information in his case are a body of tradition preserved in Bengal in what is called the Vangarāja Ghataka, which is, after all, of recent origin and not very trustworthy, and certain lists of Bengal kings which, whatever their value may be so far as they go, yield very meagre information about the period with which Batta Nārāyaņa's name is associated, bound up with that of a ruler known to tradition by the name of Adisur. Various attempts have been made, on the one hand, to identify the Bhatta Nārāyaņa of the Veņisamhārā and the Bhatta Nārāyaņa of the half-mythical story, and, on the other hand, to determine who this Adisur was, and when and over which part of Bengal he ruled. After going through the whole mass of facts and arguments marshalled by critics in this connection, one cannot help feeling that the whole question is still left much in the domain of mere conjecture and nothing is decided with anything like certainty. But so much may be said in favour of those attempts that, putting all the results together, it is possible to obtain some conclusions which surely have an air of probability about them and need not be rejected in the absence of any trustworthy evidence to the contrary. These conclusions may be summarised thus[१]: I that Bhatta Nārāyana was originally a native of Kanauj, but, under some circumstances or other, emigrated to Bengal and became domiciled there along with other Brāhmans, enjoying the patronage of the reigning sovereign; that he thus came to be the founder of one of the Bengal Gauda Brahman families of the present day, whether the Tagore family or some other cannot be determined with certainty; [२]that the double title prefixed to his name, namely, Bhatta (a Brahmanic title denoting great learning) and Mŗigarāja (meaning a lion and corresponding to Sinha and thus forming a non-Brahmanic title connoting valour), creates a puzzle as to the poet's real caste; that the king whose protege Bhatta Nàràyana was, ruled at some period before the accession of the Pala dynasty but how long before is uncertain; that as the establishment of the Pàla dynasty is known to have taken place early in the eighth century (cir. 730-4 oA.D.).[३] The royal patron of Bhatta Nārāyaņa and for the matter of that, Bhatta Nārāyaņa himself belong to some period not later than the first quarter of the eighth century and probably to the seventh century; that he belonged to some sect of orthodox Bràhmanism-- it may be even the Bhagavata or the Pàncharàtra sect [४] perhaps-- and lent his co-operation to the King in reviving the Brahmanic system in Bengal in opposition to Buddhism.
As remarked above there is no positive evidence to contradict any, of these conclusions and they may be accepted tentatively. I may howeve, take occasion to point out here that Mṛigaràja as a Sanskrit word denotes 'the moon, also besides denoting 'a lion' and would, thus, be equivalent to 'Chandra, though I must confess that I am not able to carry my speculation any further as to the significance of the title thus interpreted in determining the caste of the poet. Again when a poet states his surname or title, he generally states it directly, and not indirectly by paraphrasing it; thus, for instance, Bhavabhuti gives his title 'Shrikantha' (श्रीकण्ठपदलाञ्छनः) directly instead of using any periphrasis. Judging by this analogy, Mrigaraja in its own form might possibly have been the title or surname of Bhatta Narayana : but what modern name corresponds to it, it is not easy to say, nor perhaps necessary to say, any more than in the case of Shrikantha. The truth is that the point is yet undecided.
The next thing that I have to say relates to the theory that it is in accordance with the Panchayatra system of theology that the poet represents the sentiment of piety in his play. I do not at all think it impossible that the verses referred to in this connection (verse 23 of Act I, and verses 43 and 45 of Act VI.) should have been written by any orthodox writer without necessarily belonging to the Pancharatra Sect though, of course, the ideas expressed therein may, indeed, somehow be made to fit in with the known tenets of that system. L.R.Vaidya's interpretation of the compound कृतगुरुमहदादि etc. especially of the part 'गुरुमहत्'[५] appears to me far-fetched, though it must be admitted that even without straining the meaning of any part of the stanza one may well urge that the thought as a whole need not be incompatible with the Pancharatra teaching.
Let us now turn to another line of investigation about the age of our author, a line which by its nature is bound to lead to more reliable results so far as it goes. This mode of inquiry consists in tracing, on the one hand, the earliest writer who quotes from or refers to the author under inquiry and, on the other hand, the latest writer whom the author in question quotes from or refers to, and in thus fixing the two limits between which the author must neccessarily lie. But along this line too we are not able to push our inquiry far enough to ascertain the precise date of our author. Bhatta Narayana leaves only one play the Venisamhara and no other work besides. A dramatic work belongs to a class of literature with which writers on poetics are most nearly concerned. Accordingly we find
that several writers on poetics from the latter half of the eighth century downwards have drawn on the Venisamhara along with other plays for illustrations. The oldest among these writers are Vamana and Anandavardhana. Both these have quotations from the Venisamhra the former in his Kavyalankarasutravritti [६] and the latter in his Dhvanyaloka.[७]
A'nandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyāloka, is known from the Rājatarangiṇi, to have lived under the Kāshmirian king Avantivarman, in the latter half of the ninth century, (355-883 A. D.)[८]. Vamana the author of the Kavyalankarasutravritti is believed to be anterior to A'nandavardhana on the ground that Abhinavagupta (who wrote in the last quarter of the tenth and in the first half of the eleventh century [९] his Lochana, a commentary on the Dhvanynloka) remarks in the course of his exposition on a certain verse, 'अनुरागवती संध्या' etc. that the verse is cited by the author as an instance of आक्षेप according to Vamana's view, and of समासोक्ति according to Bhamaha's view. [१०] Thus according to Abhinavagupta who is only a century or so removed from A'nandavardhana, Vamana wrote before A'nandavardhana, that is, before the latter half of the ninth century. And if the tradition of the Kāshmirian Pandits be believed, as Dr. Buhler [११] and Dr. Bhandarkar [१२]
are inclined to believe, this Vamana is probably to be identified with the Vamana who is mentioned as one of the ministers of Jayapida (779-813 A.D.).[१३] Thus Vamana lived in the latter half of the eighth century. By-the-bye it may be remarked that as Vamana quotes Bhavabhuti who flourished under the Patronage of Yashovarman, King of Kanauj, known to have been defeated, about the year 740 A.D.[१४], by Muktapida Lalitaditya of Kashmir, it follows that this Vamana must have lived later than the first half of the eighth century and cannot be identified with Vamana, the author of the Kashikavritti which cannot have been written later than 650 A.D. [१५] Now Vamana not only quotes from Venisamhara but even defends his grammatical deviation 'वेत्स्यति' in 'पतितं वेत्स्यास क्षितौ' P.44. as already referred to in a foot-note, thus evincing the same respect for him as for Bhavabhuti and other writers who were old enough to be regarded as classical. Our author, therefore, cannot belong to any period later than the first quarter of the eighth century and probably belongs to the end of the seventh century. He may, perhaps, be a contemporary of Bhavabhuti but probably his senior.
In the Dasharupaka of Dhananjaya who flourished under the poet-king, Munja, of Dhara (972-95 A.D.)[१६], and who, therefore, must have written his work in the last quarter of the tenth century, the Venisamhara is so continually laid under, contribution for illustration that it is possible to study, in that work, the complete development of our play, as also, I think of the Ratnavali, through every stage. In Mammata's Kavyaprakasha there are numerous quotations from Venisamhara (in the seventh Ullasa alone there are no fewer than eleven stanzas quoted--Vide. D.T., Chandorkar's edition); and Mammata's date is given as about 1100 AD.[१७]
It may be pointed out with propriety here that, besides the works on poetics, there are other works of no mean anti-
quity which also presuppose the existence of Venisamhara as a classical drama. Thus Kshiraswamin, a learned commentator on the Amarakosa, who seems to have written his work about the first half of the eleventh century has many a quotation from the Venisamhara. Again, Rajashekhara who is spoken of in the somewhat chatty prelude to the Bala Ramayana (st, 17 and 18), as one admired by Shankaravarman, the Kashmir King, (883-902 A.D. Smith's History, P.344). and as the Guru
of Mahendrapala, King of Kanauj, that succeeded his father Mihira Bhoja, about the year 890 A.D.[१८] is generally taken as belonging to about 900 A.D.[१९] He is the author of four plays, Bala Ramayana being one of them. In this play we find that the poet betrays in his style the influence of many a play of an older date, and the Venisamhara seems to be of the class. The fact that our play is on the same footing with Bhavabhuti's plays in the emulation of that poet, is a proof of the high classicality with which distance of time coupled with special merit must have invested the work. An instance or two of this attempt at imitation on the part of Rajashekhara would not be out of place here. In the Bala Ramayana, Ravan in one of his vociferations is made to express himself thus : 'अराममपलक्ष्मणं भुवनमद्य निर्चानरम् etc.' (Act VIII, 57 ): it is not possible to deny the striking resemblance of this expression to the अकेशवमपाण्डवं भुवनमद्य निःसोमकम् (Act III,34) of the Venisamhara. Again Parashurama's words 'यः कर्ता हरचापदण्डदलने यश्चानुमन्ता ननु । द्रष्टा यश्च परीक्षिता च य इह श्रोता च वक्ताच यः etc.' (Act IV. 57)--one can hardly resist the impression that here we have an echo of 'कृतमनुमतं दृष्टं वा यैरिदं गुरुपातकम् (Act III 24 etc.) of the Venisamhara. I am tempted to add one more thing concerning the relation of the Bala Ramayana to Venisamhara. In the Vishkambhaka to Act I, of the former, which is a dialogue between शुनःशेफ, and राक्षस an aside is put in the mouth of राक्षस, which runs thus : ‘भवतु कोपयाम्येनम् । सुप्तमत्तकुपितानां हि भावज्ञानं द्रष्टव्यम्. Now this appears to me something like a reminiscence with such modification as the context requires of ज्ञेया रहः शङ्कितमालपन्तःसुप्ता रुगार्ता मदि-
राविधेयाः of the Venisamhara. Both the contexts are concerned with setting forth the made of procedure in the performance of the duty of a spy. This parallel from the Bala Ramayana would appear to lend support to our reading and interpretation of the corresponding lines in the Venisamhara. I do not deny the possibility of both the authors having derived the idea independently from a common source.
Neither the dramatic quality nor the poetic quality of the Venisamhara is of a high order, but this does not mean that the play does not deserve the great popularity it enjoys. The altercation scene of the Third Act is a Masterpiece of dialogue; but at the same time we have a most undramatic trait in the tedious account of Sundaraka in Act IV. The play exhibits also a pretty good variety of character sketches and the contrast between Bhima's noble and lofty manner of humouring Draupadi in Act I, and Duryodhana's sensual and frivolous dalliance with Bhanumati in Act II, is very striking. The chief women of the play, Draupadi and Bhanumati are represented as ideal wives, phantoms of delight to their husbands and yet creatures
"not too bright or good
For human nature's daily food;
For transient sorrows simple wiles
Praise, blame, love, kisses, tears and smiles."
The nature of the contrast between Karna and Ashvatthaman has been indicated in the notes. Dhritarashtra's cowardly fears for his son and ignoble meekness under defeat coupled with readiness to advise the employment of treacherous means against the enemy serve as a foil to Yudhisthira's half-diffident trust in his brother's valour, and readiness to put an end to his existence rather than live behind his brothers in disgrace. Charvaka is the villain of the play who practises his villainy not on his own account, but in the interest of his employer Duryodhana.
Our poet's style while generally characterised by a certain force and vigour is often vitiated especially in prose passages, by long and sometimes ill-formed compounds, clumsy sentences, and redundant phrases. His poetry has not much of lyric beauty.
वेणीसंहारे पात्राणि
|
|
- ↑ V. A. Smith's Early History of India P.366 and 'The Brahmanas and Kayasthas of Bengal' by Babu Girindranatha Dutt chapters 1 & 2.
- ↑ L.R.Vaidya's Introduction to N.B.Godbole's edition of Venisamhāra pp'12-I9.
- ↑ V.A.Smith's Early History of India pp. 366-367.
- ↑ L. R.Vaidya's Intro. to Godbole's edition of Venisamhàra pp.32,33,34,35.
- ↑ L.R.Vaidya's Intro. P.34. For my opinion vide notes.
- ↑ 'अस्तं भास्वान् प्रयातः सह रिपुभिरयं संह्रियन्तां बलानि.', quoted as illustration for the figure of speech सहोक्ति, page 58 काव्यमाला १५; and 'पतितं वेत्स्यसि क्षितौ' under the Sutra वेत्स्यसीति पदभङ्गात्' । 5, 2, 8I.
- ↑ 'कर्ता द्यूतच्छलानां etc.' as an instance of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यसंकीर्णत्व, page 225 काव्यमाला २५; चञ्चद्भुजभ्रमितचण्डगदाभिघात etc.' as an instance of दीप्तिप्रकाशनपरशब्द, which consists in दीर्घसमासरचनालंकृतवाक्य, page 80 ibid; 'यो यः शस्त्रं बिभर्ति etc.' as an instance of दीप्तिप्रकाशनपरः अर्थः' which does not require long compounds page 8I ibid.
- ↑ V. A. Smith, Early History of India, Page 344 and Rājatarangini vi. 34.
- ↑ Buhler's Kashmir Report P.66.
- ↑ काव्यमाला २५, page 37;
- ↑ Kashmir Report Page 65.
- ↑ P. xviii of Preface to Malatimadhava 2nd ed.
- ↑ राजतरङ्गिणी iv, 497. Kashmir Report pp.64 and 65-
- ↑ V. A. Smith's History P.345.
- ↑ Macdonell's History of Sansckrit Literature pp.43. 432
- ↑ V. A. Smrth's History, p.365.
- ↑ Mcdonnell's History of Sankrit Literature, p.434,
- ↑ V. A. Smith's Hist., pp. 350 an 361.
- ↑ Macdonell's History of Sanskrit literature. P.366.