[53] ii. 91. 26 ff.; 93. 1 ff. Cf. Hertel, VOJ. xxiv. 117 ff.; Ravivarman, Pradyumnābhyudaya, Act III, p. 23. [↑]
[54] Cf. von Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 292 ff. That this was originally a ritual drama is most improbable. [↑]
[57] Hardy, Album Kern, pp. 61 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1914, pp. 392 f. [↑]
[59] AID. p. 25. Lindenau (BS. p. 45) sees in Vṛṣākapi of Ṛgveda, x. 86, the prototype of the Vidūṣaka, as a maker of mischief and as the god’s companion, but this is far-fetched. Hertel (Literarisches Zentralbl. 1917, pp. 1198 ff.) lays stress on the fact that at the royal courts the king had normally a jester to amuse him. This may easily have served to affect the figure of this character, if of religious origin. For older views, cf. J. Huizinga, De Vidûṣaka en het indisch tooneel (Groningen, 1897); F. Cimmino, Atti della reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti (Naples, 1893), xv. 97 ff.; M. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.; P. E. Pavolini, Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica, ii. 88 f. [↑]
[60] TD. pp. 43 f. Cf. Niṣikânta Chattopâdhyâya, The Yâtrâs (1882). [↑]
[61] Die Heimat des Puppenspiels (1902). Obvious objections are given by Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 164 ff. [↑]