To quote this page: AAE Van der Geer 1998. The Bhasa Problem. A statistical research into its solution. PhD Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, the Netherlands

Back << >> Further

Back to my PhD

Conclusion

"Now for the Poet, he nothing affirmeth, and therefore never lieth'' (Sir Philip Sidney, in: Defence of Poetry)

From the three tests it becomes clear that, stylistically speaking, the Trivandrum plays form no group at all, but consist of the following groups,

1. An early group (1-2): Cârudatta, Pratijnâ and Svapnavâsavadatta Acts 1-5, with a quite homogeneous Coincidence Percentage around eighty percent, and a rather homogeneous Coincidence Pattern (around 4:4:0:0:0:1:2) as well. Their preference for the vipulâ is low, and the particles iva and na are used in a comparable way. They have a mudrâlamkâra, except for the Cârudatta. Tieken's suggestion that the Pratijnâ is a patchwork (1993:18) and Zin-Oczkowska's (1990:180) suggestion that the third act might be a later addition cannot be confirmed by the present study. If the Cârudatta appears to be the oldest of this group, Lüders observation regarding the old-fashioned pattern of calling the heroes by character, not by name, indeed indicates an archaism (1922:62). The last act of Svapnavâsavadatta might be a later addition, if we look at the statistical data and the contents of the act itself. Jahargirdar's group A1 (1931:43) corresponds with this early group, except for the Pancarâtra, the inclusion of which in his group A1 is not remarkable as this play exhibits several archaic features. The Cârudatta was not investigated by this scholar. As to this latter play, Morgenstierne (1920), Sukthankar (1922:59-74), Van Buitenen (1964:30), Pusalker (1968:178), Schokker (1968:586), Kale (1982:40-41), and Banerjee (1985:289) appear to be right as to the old age of the Cârudatta, whereas Pisharoti (1923-25:108), Sankar (1926-28:41-64) and Raja (1928:217-245) appear to be wrong.
2. A middle group (4-5): Avimâraka and Pratimâ. Regarding the Coincidence Pattern this group is heterogeneous (mean pattern 3:2:1:1:0:2:2), while the Coincidence Percentage is very homogeneous (circa 54 %). They both have a low vipulâ preference, but with the same pattern. The Nyâyashâstra in Pratimâ act 5 cannot be the Manubhâshya of Medhâtithi (10th century), as Barnett suggests (1923-25:520). The Avimâraka not only has a remarkable particle distribution but also desideratives and even an intensive, which is forbidden according to the dramaturgical rules. If we assume that these rules were followed more precisely in the earliest centuries, then it follows that this play cannot have been written in the very first centuries, as was already indicated by A.K. and K.R. Pisharoti (1923-25:295). This is confirmed by the more modern nândî. Now that it cannot have been written by Bhâsa, Trautmann's suggestion of a South Indian origin may very well be true (1981:338-340).
3. A classic group (5-6): Karnabhâra, Ûrubhanga, Abhisheka and perhaps Dûtaghatotkaca, with a homogeneous Coincidence Percentage, and a remarkably constant Coincidence Pattern (1:4:+:1:0:1:3). Grammatical irregularities are not found in the first two plays. Abhisheka, Dûtaghatotkaca and Ûrubhanga have a high preference for the vipulâ, whereas Karnabhâra is too short to conclude anything. The words maulimani in Karnabhâra, manasija in Abhisheka 2.21d, and avagâdha in Ûrubhanga confirm respectively the post-Kâlidâsan of the first two plays and the classical era of the latter play. Finally, the content of Abhisheka deviates from the epic, and points to an increased Vishnu worship. In this respect, A.K. and K.R. Pisharoti may be right in their idea of a later Râma genealogy (1923-25:107). Karnabhâra may stand apart from the other three if the word prastâvanâ instead of sthâpanâ is conclusive (Jahargirdar 1931:43). The statistical data, however, do not confirm this observation.
4. A late group (7-8): Pancarâtra, Bâlacarita, and Dûtavâkya. This group has a quite heterogeneous Coincidence Percentage between fifty and seventy percent, and has reduced and rather simple Coincidence Patterns (average pattern 2:4:0:0:0:0:3). The latter two plays are archaic regarding the Coincidence Percentage, but have more reduced and simple Coincidence Patterns, indicating a post-classical period. Pancarâtra and Dûtavâkya have a very similar vipulâ pattern, whereas the Bâlacarita stands apart. On the ground of the particles, the latter play stands apart, too. This play has a remarkably high number of dying persons on the stage: four times (see Introduction, page ??). Regarding the particles, Dûtavâkya deviates from Pancarâtra, which has more nas. Only the Pancarâtra has a mudrâlamkâra opening, whereas the other two have a prarocanâ. On the whole, this play is archaic, but also has post-classical characteristics, such as a four-times-EP stanza. Couture's conclusion (1992:144) that the Bâlacarita is a southern drama of the second half of the first millenium appears to be confirmed, at least regarding its date.
5. A very late group (10+): Madhyama. I regard this play as a late play of the tenth century or later, on account of its very simple Coincidence Pattern (0:10:0:0:0:0:0), and remarkable Coincidence Percentage of one hundred percent. The nândî included into the play confirms this idea. In addition, its vipulâ percentage and pattern (low, 0:4:1) is exactly the same as that of the Pancarâtra. This would mean that the age of the Madhyama might not be too far removed from the 7th-8th century.