The Bhasa Problem - II, III. (Implications of the theory)
Summary
The Bhasa Problem (II, III) discusses key implications of the "Bhasa-Nataka-Cakra" theory, focusing on linguistic and dramatic evidence. Proponents argue the plays exhibit archaic language, Prakrit peculiarities, and unique dramatic techniques predating Bharata’s *Natya Sastra*. However, these claims face scrutiny. **Language Evidence**: Scholars like Ganapati Sastri highlight archaic flavors and Prakrit quirks in plays like *Svapna-Vasavadatta* and *Pratimanataka*, suggesting pre-Panini origins. Critics counter that non-Paninian forms may stem from grammatical errors or copyist mistakes, not antiquity. The presence of numerous manuscripts allows for critical editions, but the exact number of "archaisms" remains unverified. Prakrit’s "queerness" is attributed to Kerala’s literary isolation, influenced by Pali rather than vernaculars, paralleling later works like *Dhanaijaya* and *Sakuntala*. **Dramatic Technique**: The theory emphasizes peculiarities like opening with *nandyante tatak pravisats sutradharak*, omitting author names, and using *sthipani* for prologues. While these traits are noted, they are deemed insufficient to predate Bharata, as similar features appear in later dramas. Bana’s verse referencing Bhasa’s plays is interpreted as generic praise, not proof of chronology, especially without authentic Bhasa works for comparison. The analysis concludes that stylistic diversity among the thirteen plays suggests they belong to different eras and authors, undermining claims of uniform authorship or antiquity. The arguments, while theoretically compelling, lack rigorous linguistic analysis and overlook alternative explanations like borrowing or copyist
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The implications of the Bhasa theory, as examined, rest on linguistic and stylistic arguments attributed to the age and authorship of the 'Bhasa-Nataka-Cakra.' While archaisms, Prakrit peculiarities, and dramatic techniques are cited as evidence of an ancient origin, the analysis reveals significant inconsistencies. The presence of non-Paninian forms and grammatical solecisms is dismissed as copyist errors or artificial literary conventions rather than genuine archaic markers. The Prakrit employed, though unconventional, reflects a deliberate literary choice influenced by Pali rather than a relic of an earlier vernacular stage. Furthermore, the stylistic diversity among the thirteen dramas undermines the uniformity required to assign them to a single author or period. The absence of rigorous comparative stylistic analysis and the reliance on speculative comparisons with later poets like Kalidasa weaken the Bhasite claims. Ultimately, the theory's reliance on selective evidence and unexamined assumptions renders it more a product of scholarly tradition than a conclusively established historical fact.