Vol. IX, No. 7.] The Plays of Bhasa. 265 
S.] 
of the organs of BOnaCs so our lord (lit. master) is the 
majestic Upendra 
This Upendra seems to ree alluded to quite in the opening line 
in the Nataka which is not named in the manuscript of Mr. 
Ganapati Sastri.2 A more pointed slesha may be found in the 
first verse of the Avimaraka where Upendra is replaced by 
Narayana: 
** May the majestic hoes rule for you this earth under 
‘lofty one umbrella 
Upendra and Narayana are ees terms; which of a 
two is the proper name of the ‘master’ of Bhasa’? What 
again, the connection between Upendra or Narayana and Raja. 
Simha’* And who were they? Either they mean one person, 
there is one name to hinge to or coincide with either 
Upendra or Narayana—the Kanvayana Narayana. 1 am in- 
clined to identify the Kanva Narayana with Bhisa’s Upendra 
and Narayana (about 53-41 8.c.). Upendra= Narayana is not 
called ‘ the sovereign’ but ‘ master’. It is possible ee our 
i n 
[‘ the master ’], the sovereign-minister Narayana, the Kanva.° 
e date thus found is quite in agreement with other lines 
of evidence noticed shee. It is also noteworthy that histri- 
onics seems to have enjoyed a special popularity in the Sunga 
period, as is evidenced by the references in the Maha.Bhashya, 
the theatre at the Jogimara cave, and the recorded notorious 
devotion to the stage of Sumitra, son of Agnimitra. 
tha-ahutinam prabhav 
dro, ya 
ath&é nadinaém peg va he pi tatha prabhur aad 
hutaSah iy athendriyanaém pra 
ape Be esc e ah || S. Vasava., 
ad-Upend 2 S. Vas a., P. XV. 
, S. a te be : ix. Cf. the first word in wir Diata-Ghatotkacha 
= Nerayanastribhuvanaike ” etc. S. Vasava., p. Vil 
d by the present 
The passage of the Vayu has hee *Giseusse i conclusion 
a in his paper on ‘the Brahmin Empire’ , fears 
at the number of the Sune come to is that there were tw 
ungas who sat on the thron 
f Bhasa with Nar 
iss oa ide i of the Naray etn bs Mr. P. Ghana's 5 
ar ‘ writin 
tho ahove in the Dita-vakya Sc h has the ot published sted for enjoying 
ratha.’’ 
ao 
is Sect There is no Prijhadratha in the ee a 
whose country was taken away by Kriih It is a clear Se A 
unfortunate Briihadratha Maurya, with probably a remo ised a ater 
ae Janor-Sandha who was a Briihadratha. The pieces pu oe 
leave no room to doubt that the name of Bhasa’s master was 
