In England, on the contrary, we have depended for our knowledge of the "Sakuntalá" solely on Sir William Jones' translation, which does not truly represent the original. The other great dramatic work of the same Poet, the "Urvasí" or "Vikramorvasí," is indeed known to the public by the admirable translation of Professor H. H. Wilson; but, with the exception of my own edition of this play, published at Hertford, and intended merely to meet the wants of the lecture-room until I should have leisure to perfect it on the same plan as the present volume, no edition of the text of either play has ever been printed in this country. Nor have other Sanskrit dramas, in spite of the interest excited by Professor Wilson's translations, received more attention at the hands of English editors of Oriental works. Only one other play, the "Víra-charitra," edited by Dr. Trithen, can be reckoned among the many important publications that have issued from the presses of our Oriental printers. Possibly our backwardness in editing the text of these compositions, may be attributed to our accidental preference for other productions in a language, which has surprized the world by the variety of its literary treasures, and by the new direction it has given to philological study; or, perhaps, to our acquiescence in the Calcutta (translated by Black), says :-"Among the Indians, the people from whom perhaps all the cultivation of the human race has been derived, plays were known long before they could have experienced any foreign influence. It has lately been made known to Europe, that they have a rich dramatic literature, which ascends back for more than two thousand years. The only specimen of their plays (nataks) hitherto known to us is the delightful Sakontala, which, notwithstanding the colouring of a foreign climate, bears in its general structure such a striking resemblance to our romantic drama, that we might be inclined to suspect we owe this resemblance to the predilection for Shakspeare entertained by Jones, the English translator, if his fidelity were not confirmed by other learned orientalists. In the golden times of India, the representation of this natak served to delight the splendid imperial court of Delhi.”

Alexander von Humboldt, in treating of Indian poetry (Kosmos, translated by Prichard, vol. ii., p. 38), observes: "The name of Kalidasa has been frequently and early celebrated among the western nations. This great poet flourished at the splendid court of Vikramaditya, and was, therefore, cotemporary with Virgil and Horace. The English and German translations of the Sakuntala have excited the feeling of admiration which has been so amply bestowed upon Kalidasa. Tenderness in the expression of feelings, and richness of creative fancy, have assigned to him his lofty place amongst the poets of all nations." In a note (p. 114), he says: “Kalidasa, the celebrated Author of the Sakuntala, is a masterly describer of the influence which Nature exercises upon the minds of lovers. The scene in the forest, which he introduced in the drama of Vikrama and Urvasi, is one of the most beautiful and poetical productions which have appeared in any time."

editions (now out of print), published under the authority of the Committee of Public Instruction, and printed at the Education press.

So far as I can collect, the actual extent of our knowledge of the Hindú Theatre-whether acquired through English translations, or the printed editions of foreign countries-may be thus stated. Seventy years have elapsed since Sir W. Jones discovered that there existed in India a number of Náṭakas, or Sanskrit dramas, many of them of great antiquity; some abounding in poetry of such undoubted merit, and in pictures of Hindú life and manners so charming and faithful, as to render them prizes of the greatest value to all classes of literary men. Eager to apply the means thus gained of filling what was before an empty niche in the Temple of Sanskrit Literature, Sir W. Jones addressed himself at once to translate into English the "Sakuntala," which he was told was the most popular among the natives. Unfortunately the Pandits omitted to inform him that the multiplication of manuscripts of this play, consequent upon its popularity, had led to a curious and perplexing result,-not, however, unexampled, as has since been proved by the two-fold version of the "Rámáyana,”—namely, that the various manuscripts separated themselves into two groups or classes the one class embracing all those in Devanagarí writing, which, without perfect uniformity, had still a community of character; the other, all those in Bengálí.

German scholars distinguish these two classes of manuscripts by the names "Devanagarí recension" and "Bengálí recension," which terms may conveniently be adopted. The Devanagarí recension is the older and purer: the Bengálí, however, must have existed at least 400 years, since it is followed by the "Sahitya-darpana," one MS. of which bears the date 1504 of our era. The MSS. of the Devanagarí class are chiefly found in the Upper Provinces of India, where the great demand has produced copyists without scholarship, who have faithfully transcribed what they did not understand, and, therefore, would not designedly alter. On the other hand, the copyists in Bengal have been Pandits, whose cacoëthes for emending, amplifying, and interpolating, has led to the most mischievous results. The bold and nervous phraseology of Kálidása has been either emasculated or weakened, his delicate expressions of refined love clothed in a meretricious dress, and his

ideas, grand in their simplicity, diluted by repetition or amplification. Many examples might be here adduced; but I will only refer the student to the third Act of the Bengálí recension, where the love-scene between the King and Sakuntalá has been expanded to five times the length it occupies in the MSS. of the Devanagari recension, and the additions are just what an indelicate imagination might be expected to supply. Even the names of the dramatis-personæ have been tampered with the King Dushyanta is changed into Dushmanta; Anasúyá into Anusúyá; Vátáyana into Párvatáyana; Sánumatí into Miśrakeśí; Taraliká into Pingaliká; Dhanamitra into Dhanavṛiddhi; Márkandeya into Sankochana.

Unfortunately, it was a MS. of this recension, and not a very good specimen of its class, that Sir W. Jones used for his translation. From him, therefore, was gained about sixty-five years since, the first incorrect knowledge of this, the first Sanskrit play known to Europeans. No edition of the text appeared till about forty years afterwards, when one was produced, after immense labour, at Paris, in the year 1830, by M. Chézy. He deserves great credit for the difficulties he surmounted; but his edition was also from a MS. of the Bengálí recension, and has no more value than Sir W. Jones' translation. It abounds also in typographical and other more serious errors. An edition of the "Sakuntalá" was subsequently printed in Calcutta, also from Bengálí MSS., and in the Bengálí character, by Prema-chandra, dated Sáka 1761, or A.D. 1839.

It was reserved for Dr. Otto Bochtlingk to be the first to edit the Devanagarí recension of this play at Bonn in the year 1842. No other edition of the text of this recension has been published until the present time; and in England even the Bengálí text has never yet appeared.

The translations of this play which have been published since that of Sir W. Jones and the German version of his translation by Forster, in 1791, are,-first, the French of M. Chézy; subsequently, the German of Hirzel, Rückert, and Boehtlingk; a Danish translation by Hammerich; and, very recently, another German translation in prose and verse, by Meier: not to speak of Danish and Italian versions of Sir W. Jones' English.

I propose myself very shortly to offer to the public a free

English translation, in prose and verse, of the Devanagarí recension of this drama.

Of the "Vikramorvaśí," the twin play of the "Sakuntalá," two editions have appeared on the Continent; one at Bonn, by Lenz, and a more perfect one at St. Petersburg, by Bollensen: an edition of this play was also brought out in Calcutta, which is now out of print. Translations by Hoefer and Hirzel have been published in Germany. The "Málavikágnimitra," also attributed to Kálidása, has been edited at Bonn, by Tullberg, but the notes and translation which were promised, have not yet appeared. The 66 Mrichchhakati," supposed to be the oldest Sanskrit play extant, has been well edited in Germany by Stenzler, and in Calcutta. From the Education-press of Calcutta have also issued editions of the "Málatí-mádhava," "Uttara-ráma-charitra," "Mudrá-rákshasa," and "Ratnávali," all of which, as well as the "Vikramorvasí," have been translated into English prose and verse by Professor Wilson. The poetical merit of these translations must always secure for them a high degree of favour; and the Essay prefixed to them affords copious and valuable information on the Dramatic System of the Hindús. It should be mentioned that a literal English prosc translation of the "Vikramorvasí" by Mr. Cowell, has recently issued from the press of Mr. Austin, of Hertford. The allegorical philosophical drama "Prabodhachandrodaya" has been edited both in Calcutta and in Germany, and the "Mahá-nátaka," or "Hanuman-náṭaka," (a dramatic history of Ráma-chandra, attributed to the monkey chief Hanumán) in Calcutta. Part of the "Dhúrta-samágama" will be found in Professor Lassen's "Sanskrit Anthology." Professor Wilson, in the appendix to his "Hindú Theatre," has given interesting abstracts of some unedited plays. Beyond this, as far as I can recollect, nothing very important has been effected either in England or abroad in relation to the Indian Drama.

I am bound to acknowledge that I have made free use of Dr. Boehtlingk's edition of the text of the "Sakuntalá" in preparing the following pages for the press. The merit of his work can hardly be overrated; but I may, without presumption, say that I have discovered many better readings, corrected some errors, and introduced much original matter in the shape of annotations. In point

of fact, Dr. Bochtlingk's edition does not adapt itself to the exigences of an English student. The notes are in German; they are printed at the end of the volume-a practical obstacle to their utility; and they frequently contain perplexing corrections of the text. My experience has led me to prefer a system of synopsis, both in respect of the notes and metres, and to interlineate the Sanskrit interpretation of the Prákṛit passages.

In the Hindú drama, as is well known, the women and inferior characters speak in Prákrit, which is a kind of provincial Sanskrit, that is to say, Sanskrit stripped of its artificial construction and softened, as Latin is softened into Italian. The Pandits, with their usual subtilty, subdivide Prákṛit into a great variety of different kinds, assigning particular dialects to particular characters: there is, however, but one Prákṛit, properly so called, although specimens of the varieties occasionally occur, and two of them may be found in the interlude between the fifth and sixth Acts of this Play [see page 216, note 2]. Without discussing the question whether Prákrit was ever the spoken language of India, it is certain that many of the dialects at present spoken have been derived from Sanskrit through the Prákrit, and that the latter is often the key to the changes which Sanskrit words undergo in passing into the Hindú vernacular tongues. This, in my opinion, is of itself a sufficient reason for not displacing the Prákrit by the Sanskrit interpretation, even if it were not part of "the warp" (to borrow a German idea) of the composition. On the other hand, the same reason makes it desirable that the Sanskrit interpretation, instead of being removed to the foot of the page or to the end of the book, should rather be exhibited in such close juxta-position with the Prakrit that both may be comprehended at a glance. I have therefore interlineated the Sanskrit, giving the Prákrit the upper line, and distinguishing it by red ink (though from the novel nature of the experiment the red is not always so distinct as could be wished), and accommodating the Prákrit words to their Sanskrit equivalents by relaxing the rules of Sandhi applicable to the latter.

In the method I have adopted of separating Sanskrit words by the free use of the riráma, I submit that I have taken a most reasonable license, for which all students will be grate