1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑4Ed. KM. 1896.↑5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑6Ed. KM. 1903.↑7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑8Ed. KM. 1888.↑9Ed. KM. 1894.↑10Wilson, ii. 404.↑11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑49Wilson, ii. 407.↑50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑52Ed. KM. 1894.↑53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑54Wilson, ii. 384.↑55Ed. KM. 1902.↑56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑57Ibid., 1889.↑58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑66Ed. KM. 1889.↑67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑69Ed. KM. 1888.↑70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑73Loc. cit.↑74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑
1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑4Ed. KM. 1896.↑5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑6Ed. KM. 1903.↑7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑8Ed. KM. 1888.↑9Ed. KM. 1894.↑10Wilson, ii. 404.↑11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑49Wilson, ii. 407.↑50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑52Ed. KM. 1894.↑53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑54Wilson, ii. 384.↑55Ed. KM. 1902.↑56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑57Ibid., 1889.↑58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑66Ed. KM. 1889.↑67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑69Ed. KM. 1888.↑70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑73Loc. cit.↑74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑
1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑4Ed. KM. 1896.↑5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑6Ed. KM. 1903.↑7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑8Ed. KM. 1888.↑9Ed. KM. 1894.↑10Wilson, ii. 404.↑11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑49Wilson, ii. 407.↑50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑52Ed. KM. 1894.↑53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑54Wilson, ii. 384.↑55Ed. KM. 1902.↑56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑57Ibid., 1889.↑58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑66Ed. KM. 1889.↑67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑69Ed. KM. 1888.↑70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑73Loc. cit.↑74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑
1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑4Ed. KM. 1896.↑5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑6Ed. KM. 1903.↑7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑8Ed. KM. 1888.↑9Ed. KM. 1894.↑10Wilson, ii. 404.↑11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑49Wilson, ii. 407.↑50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑52Ed. KM. 1894.↑53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑54Wilson, ii. 384.↑55Ed. KM. 1902.↑56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑57Ibid., 1889.↑58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑66Ed. KM. 1889.↑67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑69Ed. KM. 1888.↑70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑73Loc. cit.↑74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑
1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑4Ed. KM. 1896.↑5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑6Ed. KM. 1903.↑7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑8Ed. KM. 1888.↑9Ed. KM. 1894.↑10Wilson, ii. 404.↑11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑49Wilson, ii. 407.↑50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑52Ed. KM. 1894.↑53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑54Wilson, ii. 384.↑55Ed. KM. 1902.↑56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑57Ibid., 1889.↑58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑66Ed. KM. 1889.↑67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑69Ed. KM. 1888.↑70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑73Loc. cit.↑74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑
1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑
1Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner,Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.↑
2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑
2Cf. Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith,Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and theMahānāṭakaare clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c.A.D.1330),iii. 171 f., and theÇārn̄gadharapaddhati.↑
3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑
3Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.↑
4Ed. KM. 1896.↑
4Ed. KM. 1896.↑
5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑
5Ed. TSS. 1910.↑
6Ed. KM. 1903.↑
6Ed. KM. 1903.↑
7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑
7Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.↑
8Ed. KM. 1888.↑
8Ed. KM. 1888.↑
9Ed. KM. 1894.↑
9Ed. KM. 1894.↑
10Wilson, ii. 404.↑
10Wilson, ii. 404.↑
11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑
11Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.↑
12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑
12Ed. GOS. 1917.↑
13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑
13Kielhorn,Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.↑
14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑
14Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.↑
15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑
15Lévi,Le Népal, ii. 242.↑
16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑
16Haraprasād,Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.↑
17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑
17Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.↑
18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑
18Ed. Kielhorn,op. cit.↑
19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑
19Ed. Bombay, 1891.↑
20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑
20Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’sSukṛtasaṁkīrtanaand Someçvara’sKīrtikaumudī.↑
21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑
21Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar,Report(1907), pp. 15 ff., who equatesMīlacchrīkārawith Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).↑
22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑
22We hear of aRājarājanāṭakaperformed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’sDramas, &c., p. 204.↑
23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑
23India Office Catal., no. 4194.↑
24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑
24Ed. Madras, 1912.↑
25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑
25Kumbhakonam, 1892.↑
26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑
26Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain,Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.↑
27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑
27Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.↑
28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑
28Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date,c.A.D.1550.↑
29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑
29Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is theAmṛtodayaof Gokulanātha, Haraprasād,Report(1901), p. 17.↑
30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑
30Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of theVidyāpariṇayana(Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.↑
31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑
31Ed.Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.↑
32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑
32This is probably the nuance intended, as insaumyatā.↑
33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑
33Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.↑
34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑
34Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.↑
35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑
35Ed. KM. 1895. The lateMṛgān̄kalekhāof Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.↑
36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑
36Hultzsch,Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and theḌamarukain ten Alaṁkāras;Madras Catal.xxi. 8403 ff.↑
37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑
37KM., Part 8, p. 51.↑
38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑
38Ed. Calcutta, 1878.↑
39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑
39Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.↑
40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑
40Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑
41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑
41ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.↑
42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑
42Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.↑
43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑
43Famous from theNalaonwards.↑
44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑
44Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.↑
45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑
45Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites anĀnandakoça.↑
46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑
46Ed. in Lassen’sAnth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād,NepalCatal., p. xxxvii.↑
47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑
47Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.↑
48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑
48Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.↑
49Wilson, ii. 407.↑
49Wilson, ii. 407.↑
50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑
50Cappeller,Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.↑
51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑
51Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknownÇṛn̄gāramañjarīas a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.↑
52Ed. KM. 1894.↑
52Ed. KM. 1894.↑
53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑
53Ed. Madras, 1874.↑
54Wilson, ii. 384.↑
54Wilson, ii. 384.↑
55Ed. KM. 1902.↑
55Ed. KM. 1902.↑
56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑
56Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.↑
57Ibid., 1889.↑
57Ibid., 1889.↑
58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑
58Ed. inGaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.↑
59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑
59Ed., with the other five plays,Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.↑
60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑
60Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.↑
61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑
61Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.↑
62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑
62Bendall,Brit. Mus. Catal.,no.273.↑
63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑
63Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.↑
64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑
64Konow, ID. p. 114.↑
65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑
65Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.↑
66Ed. KM. 1889.↑
66Ed. KM. 1889.↑
67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑
67Konow, ID. p. 118.↑
68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑
68Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.↑
69Ed. KM. 1888.↑
69Ed. KM. 1888.↑
70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑
70See above, ch. ii. § 4.↑
71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑
71Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from theBālarāmāyaṇa(ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and theMahānāṭaka.↑
72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑
72SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.↑
73Loc. cit.↑
73Loc. cit.↑
74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑
74For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.↑
75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑
75Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only,saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.↑
76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑
76Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze,Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.↑
77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑
77Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.↑
78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑
78Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.↑
79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑
79The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple,Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.↑
80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑
80In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.↑
81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑
81Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-centuryCitrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.↑
82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑
82Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.↑
83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑
83See Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch,Sansk. Phil.p. 407.↑