1 Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16. 

2 Gaüḍavaha, 800. 

3 Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff. 

4 ID., p. 51, who also misses the point of Bhāsanāṭakacakra by taking it to refer to one play only. 

5 Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1. 

6 Barnett, 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. 

7 KF. pp. 109 ff. 

8 ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126. 

9 All 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 the Mahābhārata is used. 

10 One in the Mahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class. 

11 KF. pp. 301 f. 

12 Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff. 

13 Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff. 

14 Cf. KSS. cxii. and Kāmasūtravyākhyā in ed. of Pratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii. 

15 The story is referred to in the Mālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte, La Bṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3. 

16 The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript. 

17 iv. 40 ff. 

18 v. 2. 28. 

19 p. 366. 

20 Trs. 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. 

21 iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7. 

22 Dhvanyālokalocana, 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). 

23 i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3. 

24 i. 19. 

25 i. 15. 

26 i. 34. 

27 ii. 233. 

28 G. Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā (1921). Cf. Mehendale, Bhandarkar Comm. Vol. pp. 369 ff. 

29 Arthadyotanikā, 2. 

30 In the Pratimānāṭaka the 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 the Pañcarātra the gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new. 

31 Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35. 

32 v. 43. 

33 p. 69 and v. 21. 

34 iii. p. 53. 

35 Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43. 

36 v. p. 83. 

37 Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57. 

38 pp. 59 ff. 

39 Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22. 

40 Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13. 

41 vi. p. 102. 

42 Subhāṣitāvali, 1994. 

43 i. 25. 

44 pp. 43 ff. 

45 pp. 99 ff. 

46 Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in the Dūtavākya

47 Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight; Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice. 

48 In the Madhyamavyāyoga there are three sons of the Brahmin; Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama. 

49 Prastāvanā is given in the Karṇabhāra

50 v. p. 56; cf. Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture. 

51 p. 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. 

52 The idea that prathamakalpa is 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. 

53 The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1. 

54 Karṇabhāra, 22. 

55 Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21. 

56 Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6. 

57 Bālacarita, i. 13. 

58 Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20. 

59 i. 20. 

60 v. 1619. 

61 Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17. 

62 Ibid., i. 18. 

63 Ibid., iii. 24. 

64 Pañcarātra, ii. 28. 

65 Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17. 

66 i. 18. 

67 Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi. 

68 iv. 9. 

69 i. 12. 

70 Avimāraka, i. 5. 

71 ii. 7. 

72 i. 18. 

73 iii. p. 25. 

74 Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56. 

75 Ibid., i. p. 10. 

76 Ūrubhan̄ga, 29. 

77 See Pratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff. 

78 W. 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. 

79 āni in Pāli, āṇi in the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff. 

80 Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓. 

81 Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff. 

82 - - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in the Mṛcchakaṭikā of classical dramas. 

83 ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -. 

84 ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -. 

85 ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in the Caitanyacandrodaya

86 T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin, Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff. 

87 i. 17. 

88 p. 7. 

89 v. 3. 

90 i. 16. 

91 v. 11. 

92 iv. 8, 11, 13. 

93 p. 107. 

94 v. 

95 vi. 1, 2. 

96 vi. 11, 13. 

97 Kālidāsa, p. 103.