1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑11KF. pp. 301 f.↑12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑17iv. 40 ff.↑18v. 2. 28.↑19p. 366.↑20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑24i. 19.↑25i. 15.↑26i. 34.↑27ii. 233.↑28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑32v. 43.↑33p. 69 and v. 21.↑34iii. p. 53.↑35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑36v. p. 83.↑37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑38pp. 59 ff.↑39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑41vi. p. 102.↑42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑43i. 25.↑44pp. 43 ff.↑45pp. 99 ff.↑46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑59i. 20.↑60v. 1619.↑61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑62Ibid., i. 18.↑63Ibid., iii. 24.↑64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑66i. 18.↑67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑68iv. 9.↑69i. 12.↑70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑71ii. 7.↑72i. 18.↑73iii. p. 25.↑74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑87i. 17.↑88p. 7.↑89v. 3.↑90i. 16.↑91v. 11.↑92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑93p. 107.↑94v.↑95vi. 1, 2.↑96vi. 11, 13.↑97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑
1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑11KF. pp. 301 f.↑12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑17iv. 40 ff.↑18v. 2. 28.↑19p. 366.↑20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑24i. 19.↑25i. 15.↑26i. 34.↑27ii. 233.↑28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑32v. 43.↑33p. 69 and v. 21.↑34iii. p. 53.↑35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑36v. p. 83.↑37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑38pp. 59 ff.↑39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑41vi. p. 102.↑42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑43i. 25.↑44pp. 43 ff.↑45pp. 99 ff.↑46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑59i. 20.↑60v. 1619.↑61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑62Ibid., i. 18.↑63Ibid., iii. 24.↑64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑66i. 18.↑67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑68iv. 9.↑69i. 12.↑70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑71ii. 7.↑72i. 18.↑73iii. p. 25.↑74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑87i. 17.↑88p. 7.↑89v. 3.↑90i. 16.↑91v. 11.↑92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑93p. 107.↑94v.↑95vi. 1, 2.↑96vi. 11, 13.↑97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑
1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑11KF. pp. 301 f.↑12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑17iv. 40 ff.↑18v. 2. 28.↑19p. 366.↑20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑24i. 19.↑25i. 15.↑26i. 34.↑27ii. 233.↑28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑32v. 43.↑33p. 69 and v. 21.↑34iii. p. 53.↑35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑36v. p. 83.↑37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑38pp. 59 ff.↑39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑41vi. p. 102.↑42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑43i. 25.↑44pp. 43 ff.↑45pp. 99 ff.↑46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑59i. 20.↑60v. 1619.↑61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑62Ibid., i. 18.↑63Ibid., iii. 24.↑64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑66i. 18.↑67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑68iv. 9.↑69i. 12.↑70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑71ii. 7.↑72i. 18.↑73iii. p. 25.↑74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑87i. 17.↑88p. 7.↑89v. 3.↑90i. 16.↑91v. 11.↑92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑93p. 107.↑94v.↑95vi. 1, 2.↑96vi. 11, 13.↑97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑
1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑11KF. pp. 301 f.↑12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑17iv. 40 ff.↑18v. 2. 28.↑19p. 366.↑20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑24i. 19.↑25i. 15.↑26i. 34.↑27ii. 233.↑28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑32v. 43.↑33p. 69 and v. 21.↑34iii. p. 53.↑35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑36v. p. 83.↑37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑38pp. 59 ff.↑39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑41vi. p. 102.↑42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑43i. 25.↑44pp. 43 ff.↑45pp. 99 ff.↑46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑59i. 20.↑60v. 1619.↑61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑62Ibid., i. 18.↑63Ibid., iii. 24.↑64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑66i. 18.↑67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑68iv. 9.↑69i. 12.↑70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑71ii. 7.↑72i. 18.↑73iii. p. 25.↑74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑87i. 17.↑88p. 7.↑89v. 3.↑90i. 16.↑91v. 11.↑92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑93p. 107.↑94v.↑95vi. 1, 2.↑96vi. 11, 13.↑97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑
1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑11KF. pp. 301 f.↑12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑17iv. 40 ff.↑18v. 2. 28.↑19p. 366.↑20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑24i. 19.↑25i. 15.↑26i. 34.↑27ii. 233.↑28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑32v. 43.↑33p. 69 and v. 21.↑34iii. p. 53.↑35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑36v. p. 83.↑37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑38pp. 59 ff.↑39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑41vi. p. 102.↑42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑43i. 25.↑44pp. 43 ff.↑45pp. 99 ff.↑46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑59i. 20.↑60v. 1619.↑61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑62Ibid., i. 18.↑63Ibid., iii. 24.↑64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑66i. 18.↑67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑68iv. 9.↑69i. 12.↑70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑71ii. 7.↑72i. 18.↑73iii. p. 25.↑74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑87i. 17.↑88p. 7.↑89v. 3.↑90i. 16.↑91v. 11.↑92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑93p. 107.↑94v.↑95vi. 1, 2.↑96vi. 11, 13.↑97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑
1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑
1Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.↑
2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑
2Gaüḍavaha, 800.↑
3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑
3Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.↑
4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑
4ID., p. 51, who also misses the point ofBhāsanāṭakacakraby taking it to refer to one play only.↑
5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑
5Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.↑
6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑
6Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.↑
7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑
7KF. pp. 109 ff.↑
8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑
8ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.↑
9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑
9All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of theMahābhāratais used.↑
10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑
10One in theMahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.↑
11KF. pp. 301 f.↑
11KF. pp. 301 f.↑
12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑
12Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.↑
13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑
13Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.↑
14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑
14Cf. KSS. cxii. andKāmasūtravyākhyāin ed. ofPratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.↑
15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑
15The story is referred to in theMālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte,LaBṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.↑
16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑
16The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.↑
17iv. 40 ff.↑
17iv. 40 ff.↑
18v. 2. 28.↑
18v. 2. 28.↑
19p. 366.↑
19p. 366.↑
20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑
20Trs.A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér.II, xiii. 493 ff.↑
21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑
21iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.↑
22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑
22Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D.1159).↑
23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑
23i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.↑
24i. 19.↑
24i. 19.↑
25i. 15.↑
25i. 15.↑
26i. 34.↑
26i. 34.↑
27ii. 233.↑
27ii. 233.↑
28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑
28G. Morgenstierne,Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā(1921). Cf. Mehendale,Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.pp. 369 ff.↑
29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑
29Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑
30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑
30In thePratimānāṭakathe poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In thePañcarātrathe gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.↑
31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑
31Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.↑
32v. 43.↑
32v. 43.↑
33p. 69 and v. 21.↑
33p. 69 and v. 21.↑
34iii. p. 53.↑
34iii. p. 53.↑
35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑
35Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.↑
36v. p. 83.↑
36v. p. 83.↑
37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑
37Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.↑
38pp. 59 ff.↑
38pp. 59 ff.↑
39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑
39Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.↑
40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑
40Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.↑
41vi. p. 102.↑
41vi. p. 102.↑
42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑
42Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.↑
43i. 25.↑
43i. 25.↑
44pp. 43 ff.↑
44pp. 43 ff.↑
45pp. 99 ff.↑
45pp. 99 ff.↑
46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑
46Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in theDūtavākya.↑
47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑
47Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight;Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.↑
48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑
48In theMadhyamavyāyogathere are three sons of the Brahmin;Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.↑
49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑
49Prastāvanā is given in theKarṇabhāra.↑
50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑
50v. p. 56; cf.Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.↑
51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑
51p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder,Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.↑
52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑
52The idea thatprathamakalpais a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.↑
53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑
53The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.↑
54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑
54Karṇabhāra, 22.↑
55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑
55Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.↑
56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑
56Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.↑
57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑
57Bālacarita, i. 13.↑
58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑
58Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.↑
59i. 20.↑
59i. 20.↑
60v. 1619.↑
60v. 1619.↑
61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑
61Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.↑
62Ibid., i. 18.↑
62Ibid., i. 18.↑
63Ibid., iii. 24.↑
63Ibid., iii. 24.↑
64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑
64Pañcarātra, ii. 28.↑
65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑
65Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.↑
66i. 18.↑
66i. 18.↑
67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑
67Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.↑
68iv. 9.↑
68iv. 9.↑
69i. 12.↑
69i. 12.↑
70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑
70Avimāraka, i. 5.↑
71ii. 7.↑
71ii. 7.↑
72i. 18.↑
72i. 18.↑
73iii. p. 25.↑
73iii. p. 25.↑
74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑
74Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.↑
75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑
75Ibid., i. p. 10.↑
76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑
76Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.↑
77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑
77SeePratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.↑
78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑
78W. Printz,Bhāsa’s Prākrit(1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.↑
79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑
79āniin Pāli,āṇiin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.↑
80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑
80Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.↑
81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑
81Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.↑
82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑
82- - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in theMṛcchakaṭikāof classical dramas.↑
83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑
83⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.↑
84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑
84⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.↑
85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑
85⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in theCaitanyacandrodaya.↑
86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑
86T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin,Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.↑
87i. 17.↑
87i. 17.↑
88p. 7.↑
88p. 7.↑
89v. 3.↑
89v. 3.↑
90i. 16.↑
90i. 16.↑
91v. 11.↑
91v. 11.↑
92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑
92iv. 8, 11, 13.↑
93p. 107.↑
93p. 107.↑
94v.↑
94v.↑
95vi. 1, 2.↑
95vi. 1, 2.↑
96vi. 11, 13.↑
96vi. 11, 13.↑
97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑
97Kālidāsa, p. 103.↑