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
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,
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.