# Dasarupa (Haas 1912)/Introduction

INTRODUCTION
I. Concerning the Daśarūpa of Dhanaṃjaya
The author and his patron. The Daśarūpa, or Treatise on the Ten Forms of Drama, one of the most important works on Hindu dramaturgy, was composed by Dhanaṃjaya, son of Viṣṇu, in Mālava in the last quarter of the tenth century A. D., during the reign of Vākpatirāja II., or Muñja. The monarch’s name is given by Dhanaṃjaya in his concluding stanza (DR. 4. 91), where he states that his ‘intelligence was derived from discourse with the sovereign lord Muñja.’ This ruler, who had a great variety of names or epithets (Muñja, Vākpati, Utpalarāja, Amoghavarṣa, Pṛthivīvallabha, Śrīvallabha), was the seventh ​rāja of the Paramāra dynasty of Mālava. He came to the throne in 974 A. D., succeeding his father Sīyaka, and held sway until about 995, when he was defeated, taken captive, and executed by the neighboring Cālukya king Tailapa II. (or Taila), whom he had, according to the author Merutuṅga, conquered in six previous campaigns.
Muñja was not only an intrepid warrior, but a poet and patron of letters as well. Padmagupta, the author of the Navasāhasāṅkacarita, twice calls the king a ‘friend of poets’ and states that it was because of royal favor that he, too, was able to ‘wander along the path trod by the master-poets.’ The lexicographer Halāyudha also, in commenting on the metrical treatise of Piṅgala, includes stanzas in praise of Muñja’s liberality. Furthermore ​Dhanika, poet and commentator, held an official position at the court; Dhanaṃjaya claims, as we have seen, to have profited by conversations with his august ruler; and the work of other authors, to be mentioned below, bears added witness to the literary activity during his reign. Some indication that Muñja himself was regarded as a poet is to be found in the fact that Merutuṅga depicts the captive king as versifying his plaints. That he actually was a writer of verse, however, is clearly established by quotations of some of his lines by later writers and in anthologies. One of his stanzas, for example, is twice quoted by Dhanika in his commentary on the Daśarūpa, the author being given in the one case as ‘Śrī-Vākpatirājadeva’ and in the other as ‘Śrī-Muñja.’ Another stanza is reproduced by the later Paramāra king Arjunavarman (who ruled early in the thirteenth century) in his Rasikasaṃjīvanī, a commentary on the Amaruśataka, with the statement that it was composed by ‘our ancestor Muñja, whose other name was Vākpatirāja.’ The poet Kṣemendra (fl. 1037–1066 A. D.) quotes three different stanzas by ‘Śrīmad-Utpalarāja,’ in as many of his works. Two of these, found respectively in the Suvṛttatilaka and the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, are not otherwise known; the third, a well-known stanza beginning ahau vā hāre vā, recurs in one of the Centuries attributed to Bhartṛhari, where it is probably to be ​regarded as an interpolation. Vallabhadeva included this same stanza and one other in his anthology, and two further specimens of the royal author’s verses are found in the Śārṅgadharapaddhati (c. 1363 A. D.).
Contemporaries of Dhanaṃjaya. Concerning Dhanaṃjaya himself nothing is known save his authorship of the Daśarūpa and his relations with King Muñja, aside from the fact that a stanza attributed to him is included in Śrīdharadāsa’s anthology, the Saduktikarṇāmṛta. Some idea of the literary atmosphere in which he lived, however, can be obtained from a consideration of the other writers that flourished in Mālava at this time. Foremost to command our attention is Dhanika, son of Viṣṇu, who not only wrote poetry in Sanskrit and in Prākrit, but also prepared the current commentary on the Daśarūpa. He and his commentary will be specially referred to below, in the second part of this Introduction. Next may be mentioned the lexicographer and poet Dhanapāla, son of Sarvadeva, who lived at Dhārā, the Mālava capital, under Vākpati and his predecessor Sīyaka. He was the author of the Pāïyalacchī, a Prākrit ​vocabulary, completed in 972–973 A. D., and, after his conversion to Jainism, of the Ṛṣabhapañcāśikā, fifty verses in Prākrit in honor of Ṛṣabha, the first prophet of the Jains. A work named Tilakamañjarī is also ascribed to him. Dhanapāla’s younger brother, Śobhanamuni, who was an ardent Jain, and is said to have converted his brother to his religious belief after prolonged efforts, was also one of the literary men of this time, having composed the Śobhanastutayas, also called Caturviṃśatikā, a work on which Dhanapāla later prepared a commentary. Another contemporary writer, Bhaṭṭa Halāyudha, who probably spent the latter part of his life in Mālava, is known to have been the author of three technical works. Presumably the oldest of these is a lexicographical compendium, the Abhidhānaratnamālā; the Kavirahasya was written about the year 950 at Mānyakheṭa at the court of King Kṛṣṇarāja III.; and the Mṛtasaṃjīvanī, a commentary on the Piṅgalachandaḥsūtra, was prepared considerably later at Dhārā at the court of King Muñja, whose liberality is appreciatively referred to in some of the stanzas. The poet Padmagupta (also called Parimala), ​son of Mṛgāṅkagupta, found favor, as was mentioned above, with Vākpatirāja and later with his successor Sindhurāja, at whose direction he wrote the Navasāhasāṅkacarita, a mahākāvya in glorification of the sovereign. Dhanika quotes one of his stanzas in his commentary on the Daśarūpa. To this same period belongs also the Jain author Amitagati, who finished his Subhāṣitasaṃdoha, or Subhāṣitaratnasaṃdoha, in 993 A. D., in the reign of Muñja. Another work of his, entitled Dharmaparīkṣā, was written in the year 1014.
Scope and importance of the Daśarūpa. In the Daśarūpa Dhanaṃjaya presents, in the form of a brief manual, the rules ​of dramatic composition originally laid down in the great compendium of Hindu dramatic science, the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra. That monumental work, although regarded as authoritative and even invested by tradition with the character of semidivine revelation, was altogether too cumbersome for ordinary use and had the additional disadvantages of diffuse style and a somewhat unsystematic arrangement. From the point of view of the dramatist, particularly, it was unsatisfactory, since the purely dramaturgic portions were submerged, so to speak, in a mass of histrionic and general prescriptions. The author of the Daśarūpa accordingly aims, as he himself says, to restate the principles of dramaturgy in more concise and systematic form. He not only professes great reverence for the rules of Bharata, but actually adheres for the most part to the terminology and definitions attributed to the venerated sage. Dhanaṃjaya has a somewhat different classification of heroines (DR. 2. 24), and in his treatment of the Erotic Sentiment (DR. 4. 58, etc.) he introduces a new distinction (which, it may be noted in passing, apparently found no favor, for it is ignored by all the later authorities). At 3. 48, after quoting (though without indication of source) part of the definition of the nāṭikā given in Bh., he ventures to modify it in the direction of greater latitude. The other variations between the two works are not of any special significance and are few in number.
The excellence of Dhanaṃjaya’s presentation and its convenient form gave the Daśarūpa a prominence that it has retained to the present day. As a compact exposition of the dicta of the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra, it largely superseded that work, manuscripts of which are consequently extremely rare, and it so completely supplanted such dramaturgic treatises as existed previous ​to its time, that it is, with the sole exception of the Bh., the oldest extant work in its field.
Its importance in the eyes of Indian students of the drama is further attested by the numerous citations of its rules and allusions to them in later rhetorical and dramaturgic treatises and in the native commentaries on Hindu plays. In the Pratāparudrīya, for example, we find ten quotations from the Daśarūpa, the source being indicated in all but one of the cases; three other passages, also ascribed to the Daśarūpa, are not to be found in our text. The Sāhityadarpaṇa, furthermore, not only refers to the Daśarūpa and criticizes some of its statements, but bases its treatment of dramaturgy to a great extent on Dhanaṃjaya’s work and repeats verbatim or with minor variations a large number of its sections. A similar dependence on the Daśarūpa and recognition of its value is found also in other dramaturgic treatises.
Style and method of treatment. In style the Daśarūpa differs very largely from the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra (upon which, as stated above, it is professedly based). The latter is very diffuse, abounds in transitional and introductory formulas, and often uses stock phrases to fill incomplete lines. The Daśarūpa, on the other hand, is extremely condensed and avoids all formulaic ‘padding’ except where it is absolutely required by the meter. In many cases, however, brevity is attained at the expense of clearness, and not a few definitions would be absolutely obscure except for the help to be derived from the commentary and the ​parallel passages that are to be found in other dramaturgic and rhetorical treatises. This is especially the case where only a single word is used to explain the meaning of a technical term, as often happens in Book 1, in the treatment of dramatic structure.
In his definitions of technical terms, Dhanaṃjaya occasionally resorts to etymological explanations, on the supposition that the root of a word or its component parts will give a satisfactory idea of its meaning and application. As a typical example, and one which shows the method at its best, may be cited the treatment of the word ādhikārika in 1. 19. Analytic in character is the definition of the term vyabhicārin (4. 8)—
viśeṣād ābhimukhyena caranto vyabhicāriṇaḥ—
in which the author attempts to indicate the force of each of the components by a separate explanatory word. Other examples of etymologic interpretation are found at 1. 9, 20, 81, 126; 2. 44.
The Hindu fondness for minute and often futile classification and subdivision is in evidence throughout the work, but is best exemplified in the treatment of the Erotic Sentiment (4. 56–78) and also of the types of heroine (2. 24–35), the classification of which is shown by a diagram on page 149. Dhanaṃjaya fortunately refrains from foolish computation (so often found in later treatises) as to the theoretically possible number of types of hero and heroine, but his commentator makes up for the deficiency in the former case.
Meters and metrical considerations. The Daśarūpa is composed for the most part in the ordinary śloka meter regularly found in treatises of this kind. Eighteen stanzas, however, including the last section in each book, are written in other meters. A list of these is here given in the order of their occurrence. ​
| 1. | 3 | āryā |
| | 4 | sragdharā |
| | 6 | indravajrā |
| | 129 | vasantatilaka |
| 2. | 105 | upajāti |
| 3. | 65 | vasantatilaka |
| 4. | 9 | sragdharā |
| | 15 | āryā |
| | 35 | sragdharā |
| | 44 | āryā |
| | 57 | indravajrā (2 stanzas) |
| | 79 | vasantatilaka |
| | 80 | śārdūlavikrīḍita |
| | 81 | śārdūlavikrīḍita |
| | 83 | āryā (2 stanzas) |
| | 90 | vasantatilaka |
| | 91 | indravajrā |
One of these stanzas (4. 9), a veritable metrical tour de force, embodies in its four lines, without extraneous matter of any kind, the names of the thirty-three Transitory States. The second āryā stanza at 4. 83 is defective in all previous editions, lacking one syllabic instant in the second half of the first line. As indicated in the notes on that section, I have remedied this by a very simple emendation of the text.
As might well be expected, Dhanaṃjaya has to resort to a number of expedients to round out his lines or to obtain the needful succession of light and heavy syllables. Perhaps the most natural of these, the use of ‘verse-fillers,’ is much less frequent in the Daśarūpa than in other works of this kind, because of the compact arrangement of the material. Instances, however, occur here and there; cf. 1. 27 (ākhya); 2. 49 b (tathā); etc. Transitional phrases (such as atha lakṣaṇam), which occur in the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra with almost unfailing regularity, are similarly but little employed, the two chief cases being at 1. 38 and 1. 67. Great advantage in versification is gained also by the alternation of such verbs and verbal forms as syāt, bhavet, iṣyate, smṛta, mata, and parikīrtita. Another device, which is especially helpful in the metrical adjustment of enumerations and lists of technical terms, is the arbitrary grouping of words into copulative compounds. The most conspicuous example of this is undoubtedly the sragdharā stanza at 4. 9; others may be found at 1. 38 c, 67, 82, 97; 2. 15, 83 b; 3. 13; 4. 81 d.
To metrical exigencies also must be attributed the use of a large number of dramatic terms in varying forms, as well as the ​occasional substitution of the synonymous word for the term regularly employed. These variations may be conveniently grouped under six heads. The list of examples appended is practically exhaustive (but see also my notes on 4. 84, 86, 87).
1. Addition or rejection of a suffix, such as -ka or -na. :
| udghātya (3. 14)=udghātyaka | anumā (1. 75)=anumāna |
| janānta (1. 125)=janāntika | avapātana (2. 88)=avapāta |
| praveśa (1. 118)=praveśaka | nirodhana (1. 60)=nirodha |
| viṣkambha (1. 116)=viṣkambhaka | paribhāva (1. 47)=paribhāvanā |
| saṃlāpa (2. 83)=saṃlāpaka | paribhāṣā (1. 102)=paribhāṣāṇa |
| saṃkṣiptikā (2. 88)=saṃkṣipti | bhāṣā (1. 97)=bhāṣāṇa |
| 2. Substitution of a different derivative of the same basic stem. ||
| alasatā (4. 9)=ālasya | capalatā (4. 81)=cāpala |
| utsuka (4. 9)=autsukya | parikriyā (1. 40)=parikara |
| udāhṛti (1. 71)=udāharaṇa | paryupāsti (1. 61)=paryupāsana |
| augrya (4. 9, 57)=ugratā | prāgalbhya (2. 57)=pragalbhatā |
| svīyā (2. 25)=svā | vastūtthāna (2. 88)=vastūtthāpana |
| capala (4. 9)=cāpala |
| 3. Addition, change, or omission of a prefix. ||
| dhīrapraśānta (3. 44)=dhīraśānta | sahacārin (4. 84)=vyabhicārin |
| praharṣa (4. 79)=harṣa | smaya (4. 44)=vismaya |
| sammoha (4. 86)=moha | yatna (1. 28)=prayatna |
| vimarśa (3. 60, 61)=avamarśa | vega (4. 81)=āvega |
| saṃcārin (4. 54)=vyabhicārin |
| 4. Change or omission of one of the elements of a compound. ||
| upasaṃhāra (1. 97)=kāvyasaṃhāra | prāptisambhava (1. 66)=prāptyāśā |
| dyuti (1. 51)=narmadyuti | phalāgama (1. 28)=phalayoga |
| sūtrabhṛt (2. 100)=sūtradhāra |
| 5. Use of a different, but related, simple or compound term. ||
| utkā (4. 75)=virahotkaṇṭhitā | śamaprakarṣa (4. 53)=śāntarasa |
| bhayotkarṣa (4. 52)=bhayānaka | sūtrin (2. 102; 3. 10)=sūtradhāra |
| 6. Substitution of an entirely different word. ||
| īrṣyā (4. 9)=asūyā | upasaṃhṛti (1. 36)=nirvahaṇa |
| svāpa (4. 87)=nidrā | ārti (4. 80)=vyādhi |
* dvidhā: 1. 17, 125; 3. 10 b, 45 a; 4. 2 b.
* dvedhā: 2. 31, 79 d.
* tridhā: 1. 23 a, 122; 2. 24, 79 c; 4. 58, 67 d, 71.
* tredhā: 2. 79 d; 3. 45 d, 55; 4. 79 d.
* caturdhā: 2. 2, 77 a, 88 a, 93.
* daśadhā: 1. 10.
As doubtful cases, possibly truly adverbial, may be added the following: dvidhā, 3. 15 b; 4. 65 a; dvedhā, 1. 113; 3. 14 b; tridhā, 2. 79 b; ṣoḍha, 1. 111. The regular adverbial use is exemplified in tredhā, 1. 23 a; pañcadhā, 3. 30 a.
2. Concerning Dhanika’s Commentary on the Daśarūpa
Authorship and date. In most of the manuscripts the Daśarūpa is accompanied by a Sanskrit commentary, in prose, entitled Daśarūpāvaloka, or ‘Examination of the Dasarupa.’ Its author, Dhanika, son of Viṣṇu, is described, in one of the manuscripts, as an officer (mahāsādhyapāla) of King Utpalarāja, ​who is, as we have seen, none other than Muñja, the patron of Dhanaṃjaya. This statement, together with the fact that the work contains (at 2. 65) a quotation from Padmagupta’s Navasāhasāṅkacarita (a poem published after 995 A. D., in the reign of Sindhurāja), enables us to assign Dhanika’s commentary approximately to the end of the tenth century. It is consequently not at all impossible (though I do not regard it as probable) that our commentator is the same person as the Dhanika Paṇḍita to whose son Vasantācārya a tract of land was granted in 974 A. D. by King Vākpati (=Muñja). This conclusion as to the age of the Daśarūpāvaloka would seem to be invalidated by the occurrence, at the end of the first book (1. 129, com.), of a quotation from Kṣemendra’s Bṛhatkathāmañjarī, a work composed about 1037 A. D., but the four lines in question occur in only one of the manuscripts and are generally admitted, for this and other reasons, to be a later interpolation.
It has been suggested, because of the similarity of the names and the identity of the patronymic, that the author of the Daśarūpa and its commentator were one and the same person. This view is supported by the fact that the Daśarūpa is usually referred to in later treatises as the work of Dhanika and that the commentary seems to form an essential part of the treatise. On the other ​hand, there are in the commentary a number of indications of a difference in authorship, and it is difficult to resist the conclusion that Dhanika, its author, was some contemporary of Dhanaṃjaya, very probably his brother, who collaborated in the production of the work.
Of other works by Dhanika only a few fragments have survived to the present day. From seven couplets quoted in his comment on DR. 4. 46 it appears that he composed a treatise on poetics, entitled Kāvyanirṇaya, of which nothing further is known. His Avaloka also reveals him as a writer of poetry, since he cites twenty-four of his own stanzas, twenty in Sanskrit and four in Prākrit, as illustrations of Dhanaṃjaya’s definitions. Two of these stanzas are included, under his name, in the Śārṅgadharapaddhati, and still another is found in that anthology without indication of authorship. Very probably Dhanika was a poet of some repute and belonged to the literary circle at King Muñja’s court, for we find his name mentioned with those of ​Other poets (Kālidāsa, Amara, Sundara, and Śaṅkha) in an anonymous stanza recorded by Cowell.
Character and value. Although professedly an aid to the understanding of the text, the commentary leaves much to be desired and is not nearly so helpful as the average work of its kind. At times it explains what is so clear as to require no comment (this is, however, frequently the case in Hindu glosses); often, on the other hand, obscure words and phrases receive no elucidation whatever, and whole sections are occasionally dismissed with but the single word spaṣṭam, ‘[it is] clear.’ Even where Dhanaṃjaya’s definitions of technical terms are illustrated by means of examples from Sanskrit literature, the absence of further explanation sometimes leaves the exact meaning in doubt. The real merit of Dhanika’s Avaloka lies in the occasional lengthy discussions of disputed and obscure points and in his collection of illustrative quotations, many of which are of value in obtaining a clear conception of the principles of Hindu dramaturgy.
Dhanika’s explanatory and illustrative quotations. In his explanations of Dhanaṃjaya’s rules, Dhanika not only refers to scenes and situations of the principal Hindu dramas, but also quotes such passages as will serve to illustrate the matters under discussion. His quotations are, however, by no means confined to dramatic works, but are drawn to a considerable extent from other fields of literature as well, particularly from the sententious poetry and the so-called kāvya productions. Occasionally also he corroborates his statements by an excerpt from the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra or some other technical work.
The range of these citations and references, so far as they have been identified, can best be seen from the following tabulation, in which works merely mentioned (but not quoted) are enclosed in parentheses. In the case of works cited only a few times, all the occurrences are recorded after the names or in the footnotes. ​
1. Dramas extant and published :
| Mṛcchakaṭika | Nāgānanda | Veṇīsaṃhāra |
| Śakuntalā | Mahāvīracarita | Karpūramañjarī |
| Vikramorvaśī | Uttararāmacarita | Viddhaśālabhañjikā |
| Mālavikāgnimitra | Mālatīmādhava | Anargharāghava |
| Ratnāvalī | Mudrārākṣasa | Mahānāṭaka |
| (Priyadarśikā) |
| 2. Other works of Sanskrit and Prākrit literature |||
| (Mahābhārata) | Śṛṅgāratilaka | Hālasaptaśatī |
| (Rāmāyaṇa) | Kirātārjunīya | Bhartṛhariśatakāni |
| Meghadūta | (Kādambarī) | Amaruśataka |
| Kumārasambhava | Śiśupālavadha | Navasāhasāṅkacarita |
| Raghuvaṃśa | (Bṛhatkathā) ​ |
| 3. Dramas unpublished or no longer extant |||
| Udāttarāghava | Pāṇḍavānanda | (Taraṅgadatta) |
| Chalitarāma | (Rāmābhyudaya) | (Puṣpadūṣitaka) |
4. Minor and unknown authors or works
* Ānandavardhana—five stanzas (found in his Dhvanyāloka commentary), at DR. 2. 56; 4. 10, 43 (two), 45.
* Vikaṭanitambā, poetess—one stanza at DR. 4. 42.
* Vākpatirājadeva (=Muñja)—one stanza at DR. 4. 66, 67.
* Rudra—one stanza at DR. 4. 67.
* Dhanika—twenty-four stanzas (see page xxxiv, note 3).
* (Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s Mahāśvetāvarṇanāvasara, mentioned at DR. 2. 54).
5. Technical works
* Bhāratīyanātyaśāstra—DR. 2. 11; 3. 46, 59; 4. 2, 4, 5, 6, 50, 52, 89.
* Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana—DR. 3. 45; (4. 64).
* A treatise by Bhartṛhari (apparently not the Vākyapadīya)—DR. 4. 2.
* Kāvyālaṃkāra of Rudrata—DR. 4. 44.
* Kāvyanirṇaya, by Dhanika himself—DR. 4. 46.
The quotations frequently deviate from the published texts of the works from which they are drawn. Such variations may be due either to Dhanika’s quoting from memory, to the existence of other recensions than those known to us, or to corruption in transmission. They are in most cases of no special importance. ​In addition to differences of wording, which constitute the largest part of these variations, we find also instances of transposition of the lines of stanzas and of assignment of speeches to characters other than those indicated in the printed texts. In some cases Dhanika does not repeat dramatic quotations in full, but gives merely the first and last words of the passage to which he refers; see, for example, the commentary on DR. 1. 48.
Some of the quotations occur more than once, being used as illustrations of two, or sometimes three, different statements. One of the stanzas drawn from Amaru, for example, appears both at 2. 31 and at 2. 82; a stanza from the Mahāvīracarita is quoted at 2. 1 and recurs at 2. 20 and 4. 22. Usually the passage is repeated in full at each occurrence; occasionally, however, only the opening words are given (cf. the Ratnāvalī quotation at 4. 86, which appears in full at 2. 92). The first illustrative excerpt at 4. 86, although introduced with the statement prāg udāhṛtaḥ, ‘previously quoted,’ does not occur elsewhere in the commentary. Possibly the words just mentioned have been misplaced and should be connected with the following quotation, which has really occurred before.
Besides referring to actual dramatic works, Dhanika makes mention also of legends and stories on which plays were based. Such are the Udayanacarita, mentioned at DR. 2. 89, and the Samudramanthana, named at DR. 3. 61, although the latter may be actually the name of a drama.
Of particular interest from the point of view of literary chronology is the occurrence in Dhanika’s commentary of five stanzas from the Mahānāṭaka, or Hanuman-nāṭaka. The source is indicated in only one instance (DR. 2. 1), but the lines are all to be found in the text of the recension published by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara. The oldest extant recension of this play, that ​ascribed to Dāmodara Miśra, dates from the eleventh century, but has been thought, because of its patchwork character, to be merely a revised form of an older work. This supposition is confirmed by the quotations in Dhanika’s commentary, which must be from an earlier Hanuman-nāṭaka than the known recensions, since it is hardly probable that all of the five stanzas, occurring at as many different places, are later interpolations. As has previously been pointed out, the four lines quoted at DR. 1. 129 from Kṣemendra’s Bṛhatkathāmañjarī (a work about half a century later than DR.) are doubtless to be regarded as an interpolation.
3. Concerning Previous Editions of the Daśarūpa
Hall’s edition. The earliest edition of the Daśarūpa (so far as I am aware), and the only one of any independent value, is that of Fitzedward Hall, published at Calcutta in 1865 in the Bibliotheca Indica. The text, as well as the commentary of Dhanika, which accompanies it, was based on a collation of six manuscripts, five of them complete (see Hall, pp. 35–36), and is in general very satisfactory. Unfortunately the editor thought it unnecessary to include in the printed volume the ‘minute account’ of the manuscripts and of their readings which he had taken the pains to prepare (Hall, p. 37), and we are thus left without much of the information that would have been helpful in estimating the correctness of his text. A number of variant readings are recorded, however, on pages 38 and 39, and an introductory paragraph on page 38 gives the impression that many ​of these were taken from an old copy of the Nāṭyapradīpa, a work which (as Hall mentions) ‘repeats verbatim a large portion of the Daśarūpa.’ This list of variants was prepared after the text was printed, and such readings as seemed preferable to those in the text were designated with asterisks. In using this list it must be borne in mind that Hall has disregarded the principle of euphonic combination, giving all the readings in the pause-form, according to Hindu practise, as if they stood alone, unconnected with other words. In quoting these I have thought it best to give the form actually required by the context.
The introduction to Hall’s edition contains a brief analysis of the work and much illustrative and explanatory material, a large part of which is now naturally antiquated. In addition to the Daśarūpa, the volume contains, as an appendix, the Sanskrit text of four books of the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra, a manuscript of which came into the editor’s hands after the completion of the rest of the work. The books are numbered 18, 19, 20, and 34; the last, however, is really book 24. This appendix is of great value and is constantly referred to in the present volume, but it must be said that it contains numerous errors and presents the appearance of a hasty transcript.
Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara’s edition. The edition published by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara at Calcutta in 1878 is merely a reprint. Hall’s text is reproduced, even to the misprints, without any indication of its source or a single word of acknowledgment. The publisher took no notice of the fact that Hall (on pages 38 and 39) had designated certain variant readings as preferable to those in his text. He likewise failed to correct an error to which Hall calls attention in his introduction; see my notes on DR. 2. 15. The reprint contains no prefatory material or index to give a touch of originality. The four books of the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra are also copied from Hall’s edition, with all the misprints and inaccuracies faithfully preserved.
​Parab’s edition. Another reprint of Hall’s text, prepared under the supervision of Kāshīnāth Pāṇḍurang Parab, was published by the Nirṇaya Sāgara Press at Bombay in 1897. Here again there is no acknowledgment of indebtedness to Hall’s text, which is referred to in the footnotes merely as ‘pāṭha.’ For no apparent reason, this edition does not follow Hall’s numbering of the verses, but adopts a system of its own, which departs from the other sufficiently to cause some difficulty in finding passages referred to by the numbers of the older edition.
This edition is in many respects the most practical of the three. The text embodies all the readings that Hall marked as preferable on pages 38 and 39, and all the variants listed by Hall are given in the footnotes. A group of sections in the first book (1. 53–65; P. 1. 32 b–35; H. 1. 30 b–32), which were printed as a continuous passage by Hall, are arranged separately, each followed by its own interpretation in the commentary, so as to conform to the rest of the text. The volume contains also a detailed table of contents, a list of the works quoted in the commentary, and an index of all verses thus cited from other authors, with an indication, in many cases, of their source.
4. Concerning the Present Edition
Constitution of the text. The Sanskrit text contained in the present edition is not based on any new examination of manuscripts and can not, therefore, lay claim to any independent value. Aside from a few corrections, Hall’s text is reproduced without change, with the substitution, however, in nearly all cases, of those of his variant readings designated by him as preferable on pages 38 and 39 of his edition. The only departures from Hall’s text and variants (that is, from the text as printed by Parab) are the following: ​
| 1. | 119 | I retain antaryavanikā°, disregarding Hall’s expressed reference (p. 38) for °javanikā°. |
| 2. | 27 | Emendation of °yāvanānaṅgā to °yānvanānaṅgā. |
| | 78 | Adoption of °sphūrja° for °sphiñja°. |
| | 80 | Adoption of narmasphūrjaḥ for narmasphiñjaḥ. |
| | 83 | Emendation of °dayājavaiḥ to °dayārjavaiḥ. |
| | 89 | Emendation of °parigrahaḥ to °parigraham, to remedy faulty grammatical construction. |
| 4. | 34 | Emendation of the unintelligible °garbhādejahmya° to °garbhāderjāḍyaṃ. |
| | 41 | Adoption of one of Hall’s variants, °tvarāśvāsa. |
| | 52 | Substitution of Dhanika’s vikāsa for the vikāśa of the printed texts. |
| | 83 | Change of ati° to atī° to satisfy metrical requirements. |
| | 87 | Adoption of one of Hall’s variants, aniṣṭāpteḥ. |
| | 89 | Adoption of lakṣma° from Hall’s variant reading. |
For details see the notes on the respective sections.
The numbering of sections. The system of numbering in the edition of Parab differs from that followed by Hall (and reprinted by Vidyāsāgara) sufficiently to interfere with rapid consultation of passages in an edition other than the particular one referred to. Furthermore, the method employed in these editions does not permit of accurate citation, especially of the briefer definitions, without the cumbersome addition of letters and superior figures. I have accordingly decided, after mature deliberation, while preserving the very practical division into four books, to renumber the work according to logical sections and thus to establish a simple numerical designation for every definition or part of a definition that is separately treated in Dhanika’s commentary. At the head of each section I have placed not only the new number thus assigned, but also the number in the editions of Parab and of Hall, so that passages may be ​consulted with convenience in the present volume, no matter to which edition reference is made.
The translation. In the translation, which I have aimed to make as nearly literal as possible, it has been found necessary to introduce a considerable number of explanatory words [enclosed in brackets], in order to make clear the precise meaning of the condensed Sanskrit original. Important Sanskrit technical terms have usually been repeated (enclosed in parentheses) in the translation, in their uninflected form, especially where they are defined or explained. The translations adopted for these technical words are not, in many cases, literal renderings of the Sanskrit names (as: bindu, ‘drop;’ patākā, ‘banner’), but are selected with a view to indicating, as far as possible, the special significance of the original. To avoid their being taken in their ordinary English sense they are distinguished by capital initial letters. It was not considered necessary to indicate throughout the special force of the constantly recurring optative verbal forms; such verbs as bhavet or syāt, especially where they occur in mere definitions, are frequently rendered by the simple ‘is’ or a similar indicative form.
Extracts from the commentary of Dhanika. Under the heading ‘Com.’ is given the substance (and occasionally a literal translation) of such passages of the commentary as are of particular interest or importance. It was not deemed necessary to present in detail Dhanika’s longer theoretical arguments, and these have either been passed over without mention or merely briefly summarized. I have made a special effort, however, to discover and record the source of the numerous illustrative quotations that Dhanika has introduced into his work. For many references I am indebted to Böhtlingk’s valuable collection of material ‘Zur Kritik und Erklärung verschiedener indischer Werke’ (43. Daçarūpa, in Mélanges asiatiques, 7. 574–577) and to marginal ​annotations by Böhtlingk in his copy of Hall’s edition, which is now in my possession. The references so obtained I have supplemented by tracing to their source many additional quotations; but a number of the passages quoted by Dhanika still remain unidentified, chiefly because the works from which they were drawn are unpublished or no longer extant. When a stanza not otherwise located appears in native anthologies (such as the Śārṅgadharapaddhati or the Subhāṣitāvali), in a later work (such as the Bhojaprabandha), or in Böhtlingk’s Indische Sprüche, I have given its number in such collection in place of the usual phrase ‘unidentified stanza;’ I have also added references to these works in a number of cases where the original source is known, in order to show that the passage is one that is familiar and often quoted. The editions that have been consulted are recorded on pages xiv–xvii, above.
The notes in this volume. Such explanatory material as it seemed advisable to include in the present work will be found appended to the several sections under the heading ‘Notes,’ the necessity of turning to another part of the book for annotations being thus entirely obviated. Among the matters included in the notes may be mentioned particularly the variant readings referred to above (p. xxxix), explanations regarding Dhanaṃjaya’s terminology and definitions, divergencies between the Daśarūpa and other dramaturgic treatises, references to the work of scholars in this field (especially Lévi, Regnaud, and Schmidt), and—a feature to which I have devoted a great amount of time and labor—a collection of references to parallel passages in other Hindu works, chiefly dramaturgic and rhetorical.
These references to native treatises—which will enable the reader to make a comparative study of any special point without a laborious search of his own—are as exhaustive as the material at hand would allow. After a preliminary consultation of the references given in the works of Lévi, Regnaud, and Schmidt ​(see the Bibliography, p. xiii), all accessible Sanskrit texts dealing with rhetoric and the drama have been carefully searched for passages treating the same topics or defining the same terms as those that appear in the Daśarūpa, and parallel passages in other Sanskrit works have been included wherever possible. The references are preceded in every case by the special symbol ‖, the parallel bars being intended to suggest the parallel passages. The order in which the various works are enumerated is in the main chronological, although the date of composition is in many cases merely a matter of conjecture. The Sāhityadarpaṇa, however, though dating from the middle of the fifteenth century, has for reasons of convenience been quoted uniformly in the second place, directly after the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra. Detailed information regarding the editions to which the citations refer will be found on pages xiv–xvii, in the Conspectus of Editions of Texts.
* ↑ The name appears as Daśarūpa or, more frequently, as Daśarūpaka, with the suffix -ka. For the shorter form, which I use throughout in referring to the work, we have, as Hall observed (p. 4, notes), the warrant of Dhanaṃjaya himself in his concluding lines (4. 91), as well as the ‘implied support of Dhanika,’ who gave his commentary the title Daśarūpavaloka. Cf. also the parallel forms Daśarūpa-ṭīkā and Daśarūpaka-ṭīkā noted as names of another commentary by Aufrecht, Cat. Cod. Oxon. p. 135 b.
* ↑ See Bühler (and Zachariae), ‘Ueber das Navasāhasāṅkacharita des Padmagupta oder Parimala,’ in Sb. der phil.-hist. Classe der kais. Akad. der Wiss. zu Wien, 116 (1888), pp. 620–625 (= English translation, Ind. Ant. 36. 168–170). The last (15th) section of the first prakāśa of Merutuṅga’s Prabandhacintāmaṇi (completed April, 1306) is devoted to an account of Muñja; see the translation by Tawney, Calcutta, 1901 (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 30–36. Muñja is mentioned by Śambhu in his Rājendrakarṇapūra, v. 17 (Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, i. 460 b). For inscriptions recording land-grants by Muñja-Vākpati see Archaeol. Survey of Western India, vol. 3 (Burgess), London, 1878, p. 100 (given also at Ind. Ant. 6. 48–53); Ind. Ant. 14. 159–161.
* ↑ Cf. Bühler, op. cit. pp. 620–621; Ep. Ind. 1. 226. See also p. xxiii, below. For an inscription giving the name Utpalarāja see Ep. Ind. 5, p. vi.
* ↑ For inscriptions regarding this dynasty see Ep. Ind. 1. 222–238; 2. 180–195. Cf. Bühler, op. cit. pp. 603–630; Fleet, ‘The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts,’ 2d ed., p. 432, in Bombay Gazetteer, 1 (1896), pt. 2; Bhandarkar, ‘Early History of the Dekkan,’ ibid. p. 214.
* ↑ On the date see Bühler, op. cit. pp. 624–625.
* ↑ Muñja’s execution is attested by Cālukya inscriptions; see Ind. Ant. 12. 270; 16. 18, 23; 21. 167–168; Ep. Ind. 2. 212–221. Cf. Kielhorn, Ep. Ind. 2. 214–215.
* ↑ Bühler (op. cit. p. 623) gives the text as follows: śapathadānapūrvakaṃ niṣidhya tam purā ṣoḍhā nirjitam ity avajñatayā paśyann atirekavaśāt tāṃ saritam uttīrya skandhāvāraṃ niveśayām āsa. Cf. Prabandhacintāmaṇi, tr. Tawney, Calcutta, 1901, p. 33. Bühler inadvertently translated ṣoḍhā as ‘sechzehnmal,’ and this mistake has been perpetuated by him, Ep. Ind. 1. 227, and by Vincent Smith, Early History of India, p. 317, 328 (2d ed. p. 365, 389).—On Muñja’s military exploits see Bühler, Ep. Ind. 1. 227–228. His defeat by Balirāja, a Cāhamāna chief, is mentioned in an inscription of about 1262 A. D.; see Ep. Ind. 9. 71.—For the legendary account of Muñja, as given in the Bhojaprabandha, see Lassen. Indische Alterthumskunde, 3 (Leipzig, 1858), pp. 837–841.
* ↑ Muñja, the author of the Gaüḍavaho, lived early in the eighth century, under King Yaśovarman. Peterson’s identification of him with the Paramāra ruler Muñja-Vākpati (Subhāṣitāvali, p. 113) is erroneous. A similar mistake is found in Kāvyamālā, part 1 (2d ed., Bombay, 1893), p. 131, where one of the editors assigns to Utpalarāja (= Muñja) the authorship of the Pratyabhijñāsūtra, a work composed by a Śaivite guru named Utpaladeva, who lived about 930 A. D.
* ↑ Navasāh. I. 8: kavibāndhava; II. 93: kavimitra.
* ↑ Navasāh. I. 7. The text is given below, p. xxvi, note 1.
* ↑ For the text of one of them see p. xxv, note 7, below.
* ↑ Cf. page xxxii, below.
* ↑ In connection with Muñja’s literary inclinations it is of interest to note that his nephew, Bhojadeva, was the reputed author of the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, a rhetorical work of some importance (often referred to in my notes). Muñja is mentioned in one of its stanzas (i. 83, p. 60).
* ↑ Prabandhacintāmaṇi, tr. Tawney, Calcutta, 1901, pp. 34–35.—Verses are attributed to Muñja also in Ballāla’s Bhojaprabandha. For a list of these and a record of their recurrences in other works see Oster, Die Rezensionen des Bhojaprabandha, Darmstadt, 1911, p. 24 (dissertation).
* ↑ See the com. on DR. 4 66, 67. On Muñja’s various names and epithets see above, p. xxi.
* ↑ His words are: asmatpūrvajasaya Vākpatirājāparanāmno Muñjadevasya. See Amaruśataka, ed. Durgāprasād and Parab, Bombay, 1889, p. 23.
* ↑ Suvṛttatilaka 2. 6 (Kāvyamālā, part 2, ed. Durgāprasād and Parab, Bombay, 1886, p. 37); Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa 2. 1 (Kāvyamālā, pt. 4, 1887, p. 125); Aucityavicāracarcā 16 (Kāvyamālā, pt. 1, 2d ed., 1893, p. 131).
* ↑ Vairāgyaśataka 40 (= Spr. 844). In Śārṅg., where this stanza also occurs (4102), it is attributed to Bhartṛhari.
* ↑ Subhāṣitāvali 3413, 3414. The author is given as ‘Śrī-Harṣadevātmaja-Vākpati.’
* ↑ Śārṅg. 126 (by ‘Vākpatirāja’), 1017 (by ‘Utpalarāja’).—According to Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 64 b, Utpalarāja is mentioned or quoted also in the Saduktikarṇāmṛta of Śrīdharadāsa. (But I find no mention of this at ZDMG. 36. 557, in Aufrecht’s article on Skm.)
* ↑ On a different (and probably later) Dhanaṃjaya, who was the son of Vasudeva and who wrote a kāvya called Dvisaṃdhāna, or Rāghavapāṇḍavīya, as well as a brief lexicographical work entitled Nāmamālā, see Zachariae, ‘Die indischen Wörterbücher (Kośa),’ in Grundriss der indo-arischen Philogie, 1. 3 b, pp. 27–28 (Strassburg, 1897).
* ↑ Skm. 3. 211; cf. Aufrecht, ZDMG. 36 (1882), pp. 533–534.
* ↑ See Pāïyalacchī 277.
* ↑ Merutuṅga mentions both Dhanapāla and his brother Śobhanamuni; see Prabandhacintāmaṇi, tr. Tawney, Calcutta, 1901, pp. 52–62. He erroneously places them both at the court of Bhoja, either by inadvertence or to add greater luster to that monarch’s entourage; cf. Bühler, BB. 4 (1878), pp. 73–75. Dhanapāla is mentioned also by Śāntisūri in his Prabhāvakacarita. On both Dhanapāla and Śobhanamuni see Bühler, Sb. Akad. Wien, 99 (1882), pp. 568–572.
* ↑ The text of the Pāïyalacchī has been published by Bühler, BE. 4 (1878), pp. 70–166. On the date of completion of this work see ibid., p. 71.
* ↑ The text of the Tilakamañjarī, ed. by Bhavadatta Śāstrī and Parab, was published at Bombay in 1903 (Kāvyamālā series, no. 85).
* ↑ The text of Śobhana’s work has been edited by Jacobi, ZDAIG. 32 (1878), pp. 509–534. On the com. see Bühler, Sb. Akad. Wien, 99 (1882), pp. 570–572.
* ↑ On Halāyudha see Heller, Halāyudha’s Kavirahasya, Gottingen, 1894, pp. 20–32 (dissertation).
* ↑ Cf. Zachariae, ‘Die indischen Wörterbücher (Kośa),’ in Grundriss dcr indo-arischen Philologie, 1. 3 B, p. 26 (Strassburg, 1897). The text has been edited by Aufrecht, London, 1861.
* ↑ Published by Heller, Halāyudha’s Kavirahasya, in beiden Recensionen herausgegeben, Greifswald, 1900.
* ↑ This commentary has been printed with Piṅgala’s Sūtras in the editions of Viśvanātha Śāstrī, Calcutta, 1874 (Bibl. Ind.), and of Kedaranātha and Panashikar, Bombay, 1908 (Kāvyamālā series, no. 91). One of the references to Muñja-Vākpati (for a list of which see Weber, Indische Studien, 8. 193–4) is as follows (4. 20):— sa jayati Vākpatirājaḥ sakalārthimanorathaikakalpataruḥ pratyarthibhūtapārthivalakṣmīhaharaṇadurlalitaḥ Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, Bombay, 1886, p. 115, states that this verse is quoted in the Daśarūpāvaloka, but I do not find it in the printed text.
* ↑ See Bühler and Zachariae, ‘Ueber das Navasāhasāṅkacharita des Padmagupta oder Parimala,’ in Sb. der phil.-hist. Classe der kais. Akad. der Wiss. zu Wien, 116 (1888), pp. 583–630 (English translation of this article: Ind. Ant. 36. 149–172). The text has been published by Vāmana Shāstrī Islāmpurkar, Bombay, 1895. Padmagupta’s chief reference to his royal patrons is as follows (Navasāh. 1. 7, 8):— Sarasvatīkalpalataikakandaṃ vandāmahe Vākpatirājadevam yasya prasādād vayam apy ananya- kavīndracīrṇe pathi saṃcarāmaḥ. divaṃ yiyāsur mama vāci mudrām adatta yāṃ Vākpatirājadevaḥ tasyānujanmā kavibāndhavasya bhinatti tāṃ samprati Sindhurājaḥ.
* ↑ See the commentary on DR. 2. 65.
* ↑ Cf. Kielhorn, Ind. Ant. 19. 361; Hertel, WZKM. 17. 105–134. The text of this work has been published by Schmidt and Hertel in ZDMG., vols. 59 and 61, and also by Bhavadatta Śāstrī and Parab, Bombay, 1903 (Kāvyamālā series, no. 82).
* ↑ On this work see Mironow, Die Dharmaparīkṣā des Amitagati. Leipzig. 1903 (dissertation).
* ↑ Cf. DR. 1. 4 d: kiṃ cit praguṇaracanayā lakṣaṇaṃ saṃkṣipāmi.
* ↑ Cf. DR. 1. 4 c: pratipadam aparaṃ lakṣma kaḥ kartum īṣṭe.
* ↑ The chief points to be noted, with the sections of DR. concerned, are: variations in terminology: 1. 31, 79, 80, 96, 107, 120; 2. 80, 86; divergencies in definition: 1. 41, 48, 50, 102; difference in term and definition: 1. 85, 92; omission of a term in DR.: 1. 80. See my notes on these sections.
* ↑ The passages quoted are: DR. 1. 11, 15, 23 a, 27 a, 28 b, 34, 36, 115 b; 3. 4; 4. 1. (DR. 1. 115 b is quoted at Pratāpar. 3. 35, p. 124; for the others see my notes on the various sections.) DR. is mentioned also at Pratāpar. 3, p. 131.
* ↑ Pratāpar. 2, p. 46; 4, p. 221; 4, p. 228. For another pseudo-DR. rule see the com. on Anargharāghava, p. 7 (cf. Levi, pt. 2, p. 4, 24).
* ↑ See my notes on DR. 1. 50, 55. DR. 3. 37 is quoted, as by Dhanika, at SD. 316.
* ↑ Regarding these criticisms see my notes on DR. 2. 70, 71.
* ↑ Cf. Bh. 18. 3 b; 18. 40; et passim.
* ↑ Cf. Bh. 18 112 b; 19. 83, 84; et passim.
* ↑ For examples of the occasional use of transitional phrases see DR. 1. 38 (atha lakṣaṇam); 1. 67 (lakṣaṇam ca praṇīyate).
* ↑ Cf. DR. 1 61, 68, etc.
* ↑ Such explanations are frequently met with in the Upaniṣads; cf., for example, Bṛhad-Araṇyaka Up. 1. 2. 7; 1. 3. 22, 23; 1. 4. 1; Chāndogya Up. 1. 2. 10–12.
* ↑ See my notes on DR. 2. 45.
* ↑ Cf. DR. 2. 11, com.
* ↑ Hall (p. 4, notes) records that one of his manuscripts has, in one place, the variant form Daśarūpāloka.
* ↑ There are known also commentaries on this work by Nṛsiṃha Bhaṭṭa (Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 247 b, 248 a), by Pāṇi, or Devapāṇi (Aufrecht, 2. 53), by Kṣoṇīdhara Miśra (Hall, p. 4, notes), and by Kuravirāma (Aufrecht, 2. 53). So far as I am aware, none of these have been made accessible in printed form.
* ↑ Wilson, Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, 3d ed., London, 1871, 1. xx, xxi. Wilson’s statement is reprinted by Hall, p. 3, notes.
* ↑ See page xxi, above. Dhanika quotes one of the king’s stanzas in two places in his commentary (DR. 4. 66, 67).
* ↑ According to Jacob, JRAS. 1897, p. 304, Dhanika is quoted 16 times in the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (written about 1025 A. D.).
* ↑ Cf. Ind. Ant. 6 (1877), pp. 51–53; Archaeol. Survey of Western India, vol. 3 (Burgess), London, 1878, p. 100. This grant was first described by Hall, Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 30 (1861), pp. 195–210.
* ↑ Cf. Hall, Vāsavadattā, Calcutta, 1859, p. 55; Lévi, Journal asiatique, 8. série, 7 (1886), p. 221; Bühler, Sb. Akad. Wien, 116 (1888), p. 622, n. 2; Lacôte, Essai sur Guṇāḍhya et la Bṛhatkathā, Paris, 1908, p. 14. The two ślokas are quoted also in Dhuṇḍhirāja’s commentary on the Mudrārākṣasa (ed. Telang, p. 53; ed. Kale, p. 12).
* ↑ Wilson, Theatre of the Hindus, 1. xx. Cf. also Lévi, Journal asiatique, 8. série, 7 (1886), pp. 220–221.
* ↑ As, for instance, at SD. 313, 316, etc., and in other works. Cf. Lévi, Le Théatre indien, p. 17.
* ↑ At DR. 2. 34, for example, Dhanika gives two possible interpretations of the text without deciding which is the correct one; at 3. 40 his explanation seems to read a technical meaning into an apparently simple line; at 4. 52 we find the form vikāsa substituted for the vikāśa of the text (this may, of course, be merely a manuscript error). See my notes on these sections. I regard Hall’s views (p. 9, notes) regarding Dhanika's interpretation of tulyasaṃvidhānaviśeṣaṇam (DR. 1. 22) as mistaken; the commentator seems to give the meaning intended by the author in this passage.
* ↑ Cf. Hall, pp. 2–4. That they were brothers is accepted, for example, by Keith, A Catalogue of the Sanskrit and Prākrit MSS. in the Indian Institute Library, Oxford, Oxford, 1903, p. 4.
* ↑ Dhanika’s lines occur in the commentary on the following sections of DR.: 2. 8, 16, 22, 26, 29, 50 (Prākrit), 51 (Prākrit), 52, (Prākrit), 57, 60, (Prākrit), 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 79 (repeated at 4. 69); 4. 3, 34, 35, 67, 69 (three stanzas, one being a repetition of the one at 2. 79), 76, 79.—An introductory stanza, prefixed to the Avaloka in one of the manuscripts, was rejected by Hall as spurious, chiefly on the ground that its style was ‘too pedestrian for so ornate a stylist as Dhanika.’ See Hall, p. 4, notes.
* ↑ Śārṅg. 3973 (DR. 2. 16), 3417 (DR. 4. 3), 278 (DR. 4 79).
* ↑ See pages xxii–xxiii, above.
* ↑ JRAS. 15. 175.
* ↑ As, for example, in the com. on DR. 1. 81; 2. 82; 3. 15; etc.
* ↑ The Ratnāvalī and the Veṇīsaṃhāra are quoted more frequently than any other works, especially in connection with the treatment of dramatic structure in Book 1, since of all the plays they conform most strictly to the rules laid down in the text-books.
* ↑ One stanza is quoted as an illustration of DR. 3. 16.
* ↑ Quoted only once, in the comment on DR. 4. 61.
* ↑ The only quotation from this play is found at DR. 2. 1. Dhanika does not name the source of the stanza. Parab, in his index of verses, attributes it to the Mahānāṭaka.
* ↑ Quoted only at DR. 3. 23, but referred to also at 1. 129 and 2. 86.
* ↑ Regarding this drama see the following page.
* ↑ This play of Harṣadeva is referred to at DR. 2. 82, 92.
* ↑ Referred to only at DR. 3. 28.
* ↑ Of this work, attributed to Kālidāsa, stanza 3 is quoted at DR. 4. 69, but without indication of source. In Hall’s edition these lines are enclosed in brackets, as a possible interpolation.
* ↑ Quoted only in Books 2 and 4. All of the numerous stanzas from Hāla are quoted anonymously.
* ↑ Mentioned by name at DR. 1. 129; 2. 12, 86; 3. 28, 52. A reference to plots based on the Rāmāyaṇa is found at DR. 2. 90.
* ↑ One stanza is quoted, as an illustration of DR. 4. 33.
* ↑ Nītiśataka, DR. 2. 1; Śṛṅgāraśataka, DR. 4. 43; Vairāgyaśataka, DR. 4. 10, 14.
* ↑ Quoted only at DR. 4. 71.
* ↑ Referred to at DR. 4. 73, 74.
* ↑ On this mahākāvya by Padmagupta see p. xix, note 1, and p. xx, above. One stanza from it is given at DR. 2. 65.
* ↑ Quoted at DR. 2. 1 and 4. 35; mentioned at 4. 74.
* ↑ This old collection of stories is mentioned at DR. 1. 129; 4. 43.
* ↑ A play by Māyurāja. It is quoted at DR. 2. 91; 3. 3; 4. 15, 35; referred to at DR. 3. 29.
* ↑ The only quotation from this work occurs at DR. 3. 14.
* ↑ These two plays are mentioned at DR. 3. 45. The name Puṣpadūṣitaka recurs as Puṣpabhūṣita at SD. 512.—At DR. 3. 61 Samudramanthana may possibly be the name of a drama.
* ↑ Quoted at DR. 1. 85; 3. 15, 22.
* ↑ Written by Yaśovarman in the latter part of the 7th century. It is referred to at DR. 1. 90 (also at SD. 427). Cf. ZDMG. 36 (1882), p. 521.
* ↑ See page xxiii, above.
* ↑ The reputed author of the Bh. is designated variously as Bharata (DR. 2. 11), muni (DR. 3. 46), Bharata-muni (DR. 3. 59), or ṣaṭsahasrakṛt (DR. 4. 2).
* ↑ Rudrata’s Kāvyālaṃkāra is not mentioned by name.
* ↑ DR. 3. 18 (Veṇīsaṃhāra 5. 26); DR. 4. 10 (Mahānāṭaka 9. 55); DR. 4. 61 (Viddhaśālabhañjikā 1. 31).
* ↑ DR. 1. 94 (Veṇī. 5, pp. 149–150); DR. 3. 10 (Veṇī. 1. 7, p. 10).
* ↑ At DR. 2. 1 (this stanza recurs in Rājaśekhara’s Bālarāmāyaṇa, 4. 60), 5 (repeated at 2. 19), 18; 4. 10, 24.
* ↑ Cf. Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur, Leipzig, 1887, p. 658; Lévi, pp. 243–244; Cimmino, L’uso delle didascalie [for full title see p. xiii], pp. 142–143.
* ↑ See page xxxiii, above.
* ↑ I am informed, on the authority of Mr. Richard Hall, the scholar’s son, that Hall wrote his given name ‘Fitzedward;’ the title-page of his Daśa-Rūpa, however, has the form ‘Fitz-edward.’ At all events, he should not be referred to as ‘F. E. Hall.’
* ↑ See my notes on DR. 1. 80; 3. 63.
* ↑ On manuscripts of DR. see Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 247 b; 2. 53.
* ↑ Note, for example, the following variations: P. 1. 67=H. 1. 60; P. 2. 62=H. 2. 57; P. 3. 57=H. 3. 51; P. 4. 67=H. 4. 61.
* ↑ The brief definition of the term parisarpa, DR. 1. 54, had to be cited heretofore as H. 1. 30 b$^2$, c$^1$, or as P. 1. 32 b$^1$, 33 a$^2$. Similarly DR. 3. 8=H. 3. 7, 8 a$^1$=P. 3. 7 b, 8 a, b$^1$.
* ↑ Vidyāsāgara’s numbering is identical with that of Hall.
* ↑ Especially where already given by Lévi or Regnaud; cf. the com. on DR. 2. 5, 6; 4. 44.
* ↑ See pages xxxv–xxxix, above.
* ↑ As, for example, at 2. 42; 4. 15, 17, 27, 28.