Table of content
Finding Bhasa (or not)
The case for an Anonymous Pseudo-Bhasa
Quotes from Pseudo-Bhasa
The Middle One
Five Nights
The Envoy
Karna’s Burden
The Shattered Thigh
Finding Bhasa (or not)
Reading Indian history, especially Indian literary history, is an exercise in chronological frustration and epistemological humility. Nothing, save for a few events, is ever dated with any precision. Relative dating, that is the dating of events relative to one another, never allows historians to bootstrap an absolute chronology. With Greek history, we can sometimes know things almost to the day. With Indian history, not so much. Trying to establish when Kalidasa, India’s greatest poet and dramatist, lived is a perfect illustration of this. Some argue he lived in the 2nd or 1st century BCE, others that it was in the 4th or 5th century CE. It’s vague, but at least it’s an either-or situation. In the case of Bhasa, things are even worse. As A.N.D. Haksar remarks “In historical terms, the time of Bhasa lies between the end of the Mauryan empire and the advent of the Gupta age.” (p. xiii), that is: Bhasa lived somewhere between the 2nd century BCE and 4th century CE. It’s like saying Shakespeare lived somewhere between William the Conqueror and Oliver Cromwell. Infuriating, to say the least.
We know that Bhasa was recognized among the greatest dramatists by later Indian writers, such as Dandin (6-7th c. CE) and Banabhatta (7th c. CE). Kalidasa mentions him in one of his plays. We also know he is quoted in the Arthasastra (2nd-3rd c. CE). And for a really long time that was the extent of it because his plays had been lost. This is even more frustrating as there are only a handful of recognized Indian literary masters for whom works were lost. As Sheldon Pollock explains:
Major early works that have disappeared are in fact relatively few: Ashvaghosha’s (or Kumaralata’s) Sutralañkara, the texts of Saumilla and Kaviratna, Hariscandra’s Sudrakakatha, the real plays of Bhasa, the Hayagrivavadha of Bhartrmentha, the collected poems of Dharmakirti. (Pollock, 2003, p. 110)
All this changed in the early 20th century when Ganapati Sastri rediscovered 13 plays in Kerala, which he ascribed to Bhasa. His argument rested on three elements. First, in one of the discovered plays, there was a peculiarity in the prologue. Second, that peculiarity is mentioned by the 7th-century author Banabhatta as being linked to Bhasa. Third, a language analysis shows that all the plays are the work of a single author. Sanskritists were happy to finally get their hands on materials that could shed light on the origins of drama in India (a topic on which I will come back to in another post). As A. Skilton remarks in his introduction to The Shattered Thigh (one of Bhasa’s most famous plays):
[Bhasa’s] compositions [were] taking their themes mainly from the epic literature, utilizing a robust, naturalistic descriptive style free from the elaboration that characterized the later literary ideal (Skilton, 2009, p. 229)
It was not just the composition of his plays that felt as if they were coming from an earlier period. The language also felt different. In his book on Sanskrit Drama, A. B. Keith argues that “the distinctive feature of [Bhasa’s] language is its transitional aspect compared with Ashvagosha [one of India’s first dramatists and a Buddhist monk] on the one hand and Kalidasa on the other” (p. 121). The structure differed also from that of traditional Indian plays (Skilton, 2009, p. 229).
The case for an Anonymous Pseudo-Bhasa
Early enthusiasm was quickly tempered when claims that what had been perceived as unique in the discovered plays “were in fact common in plays performed in the theater of Kerala.” (Skilton, 2009, p. 230). Controversy ensued, and throughout most of the 20th century, the authenticity of the plays was a matter of intense debate. Though these debates do continue, especially in India, it seems that in the West, the question has been put to rest convincingly by H. Tieken. In a 1993 paper, he argues that the plays were written in the 7th century CE by an anonymous author based on three lines of evidence.
Tieken shows that an inconsistent subplot element in one of the plays attributed to Bhasa has actually been derived from a 7th-century farce by Mahendravarman. He even goes further and hints that other parts of the play derive from different sources.
All the evidence taken together would mark the Pratijna [Bhasa’s play] as we now have it as a pastiche, i.e. as the product of a particular way of composition rather than as the result of a gradual process of additions, insertions and alterations. (Tieken, 1993, p. 18-19)
He also shows that despite what earlier scholars argued, it cannot be shown conclusively that the plays we have were made for the Keralan tradition of theater called Kutiyattam. This tradition “may well have adopted or inherited these texts, as scripts or as literary texts, from an earlier tradition” (Tieken, 1993, p. 28). In fact, Tieken argues, there is a strong case to be made that “the plays as we now have them seem to be part of a kind of Sanskrit renaissance, either in Kerala or, earlier, in Tamil Nadu.” (p. 29)
The last piece of evidence given by Tieken is fairly technical, so I won’t go into much detail. As I’ve already talked about, one part of Ganapati Sastri’s argument in favor of the plays being Bhasa’s rests on a supposed peculiarity in how they opened which was mentioned by Banabhatta. However, Tieken shows that, on close examination, this doesn’t hold up because what happens at the beginning of the play is fairly different from what Banabhatta describes. Another part of that argument rests on the idea that the plays follow precisely the conventions of the Natyasastra, the Indian treaties on art. In response to that, Tieken notes that under the Pavalla dynasty, there was a large spread of North Indian culture in South India. Architecture manuals were introduced that influenced the construction of Hindu temples. Poetry of the time was also heavily influenced by Dandin’s Kavyadarsha, a treatise on poetics. So closeness to the conventions set up in Bharata Muni’s treaties, can’t be used as evidence for antiquity, but could actually be a sign of a late composition of the plays.
To sum up : Tieken shows that there are no reasons to believe the plays were written by Bhasa, nor is there any reason to believe they are part of a modern tradition of Keralan drama. However, there is good evidence showing they can be linked to the Pavalla court of the 7th century CE. Though I’m not in any way an expert on these topics, I’m quite convinced by Tieken’s argument. Ganapati' Sastri’s initial argument was rather weak to begin with, and the evidence marshaled by Tieken is pretty solid. The 13 plays we have were thus written by an anonymous Pseudo-Bhasa. Before coming back to them in a future post, I will close this one by offering a few quotes from 5 of his plays.
Quotes from Pseudo-Bhasa
All quotes are taken from the Penguin edition translation by A.N. D. Haksar.
The Middle One
Let this harmless priest go with his wife and sons. Priests are not killed even if they have committed crimes. (p.14)
Mother’s command? This poor fellow is indeed devoted to his mother. Well, for a man the mother is indeed the god of gods. We ourselves are in this condition, having honoured our mother’s instruction. (p.14)
Five Nights
Acquisition made Duryodhana prosperous. Belligerence made him notorious. But piety and good deeds have given him glory. (p.28)
My heart is full of faith. My elders are pleased. The world acknowledges my virtues. My reputation is untarnished. It’s not true that people go to heaven only after death. For me heaven is here itself. (p. 28)
The truly great are averse to self-praise. (p.29)
Ties of kinship color the minds even of thinking people. They commit a crime, and we feel guilty. (p. 40)
But the family quarrel is not the fault of the children. (p. 52)
Women are described by looks; men by prowess. (p. 53)
All men die, but if they uphold the truth, their words will live for ever. (p. 56)
The Envoy
Mister Ambassador, you do not understand the ways of kings. One does not beg for a kingdom, nor give it as charity. Kingdoms are won by princes with stout hearts who defeat their enemies. If the Pandavas desire dominion let them act boldly. Otherwise let them enter a hermitage and live there with peace-minded monks. (p. 69)
Sovereignty is attained by the accumulated merit of past good deeds. All is lost by cheating relatives and well-wishers. (p. 69)
The wise man’s bravery accords with the time, the place and the situation. (p. 69)
Karna’s burden
Power flits like the serpent’s tongue. Virtue alone is worth striving for. (p. 103)
The Shattered Thigh
This is war. The Cauldron of hate and brute force, of pride and glory. Where the nymphs of heaven select their bridegroom. Where lives are sacrificed, and princes find heroic deathbeds and stairways to paradise. (p.113)
What are kings but pride. (p. 124)