xii PREFACE
Meghavijaya's Pahcakhyanoddhdra, the textus simplicior of the Qukasaptati, the Madanarekhakatha t the Kiisamasarakatha, the Aghaiakumarakatha} and that version of the Vetalapaitcavih- fatika which goes back to Ksemendra's verse rendering. This, however, does not decide the question of the original form of the Vetalapancavihcatika; the common source of Ksemendra and Somadeva may have been in prose or prose and verse ; we have not sufficient evidence to show which. Hertel proves by com- parison of texts that Civadasa was deeply influenced in vocabu- lary and syntax by Old GujaratI, and concludes that he was a man of small education, belonging to the class who did not use Sanskrit as their ' Hochsprache ', but understood it tant Men que ma/, and endeavoured to express themselves in it.
The question of the authenticity of the dramas ascribed to Bhasa by the late T. Ganapati Castrl has been frequently dis- cussed since my Sanskrit Drama appeared, but without results of value, largely because the true issues have been misunderstood and effort has been devoted to proof of the obvious. It is true that it is not a matter of much importance whether the dramas be ascribed to Bhasa or to an unknown poet, but it is important to consider whether (i) they are all by one hand, and (a) by a writer earlier than Kalidasa and the Mrcchakatiha, Both these propositions seem to me clearly established, for, though some Indian and, less excusably, some European a scholars still seem not to have weighed the evidence adduced by Dr. Morgenstierne, the English protagonist against T. Ganapati Castrl's theory recognizes that the Carudatta must be placed before the Mrccha- katika. Priority to Kalidasa seems established by evidence of use by that poet, and of greater antiquity in technique, style, diction, metre, and forms of Prakrit ; it is significant that Kali- dasa has Maharas^rl, unknown to Bhasa. Moreover, it is perfectly clear that Bhasa's Prakrits, as revealed by the manuscripts of his plays, occupy a position intermediate between the Prakrits of Acvaghosa and of Kalidasa as shown by European critical 3 editions. It is no reply to this fact to point out that manuscripts
1 Trans. Ch Krause, Ind. Erz., iv.
- Nobel, ZII. v. 141 f. He sets £udraka and the ATrcchaialika before Kalidasa.
3 Indian editions, e.g. that of the AfcaryacSdamani, have not even the value of a MS. in this connexion.
