3. The Ambush

The Tale of the Tricked Trickster

© 2024 Roberto Morales-Harley, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0417.03

For the purposes of this book, an ambush broadly refers to “…spying missions, raids on enemy camps, cattle rustling, and other types of epic warfare that happen at night” (Dué & Ebbott, 2010, p. 32). In the Homeric Epics, ambushes seem to be valuable in terms of the overall goal of perfecting heroism. For instance, at Il. 13.277-278, one reads, “for an ambush, where the excellence of men better manifests itself, and where the cowardly man is brought to light, as well as the brave one [ἐς λόχον, ἔνθα μάλιστ’ ἀρετὴ διαείδεται ἀνδρῶν, / ἔνθ’ ὅ τε δειλὸς ἀνὴρ ὅς τ’ ἄλκιμος ἐξεφαάνθη]”. Even the sack of Troy could be seen as a night ambush.

The ambush motif makes for a good transition between those of the embassy and the ogre, given the fact that both of those episodes include instances of ambush. If the entire Cyclops episode (Od. 9.105-566) follows the poetics of ambush, at least a section of the Phoenix episode does so (Il. 9.474-477). However, Iliad 10 is the best example of the ambush motif in extant Greek epic. For this reason, as well as for the fact that the ambush from Il. 10 is the one adapted in Ps.-Euripides’ Rhesus, this is the book that I will examine. Its distinctive feature is the doubling of the ambush: with two spying missions followed by two ambushes, all of which takes place during the night, this is a wonderfully detailed use of the motif, and a great starting point for the analysis.

Regarding Ps.-Euripides’ Rhesus, its numerous sources include the Homeric Epics, the Epic Cycle, and even Aristophanes. Focusing on the tragedians, the play evinces the influence of Aeschylus and Sophocles, as well as a clear Euripides-imitatio. This notwithstanding, the main source for the adaptation is the ambush motif coming from Il. 10. The play is divided into four episodes, respectively dealing with the mission by the spy Dolon, the arrival of the hero Rhesus, his boastfulness, and his killing. Since the parodos,101 the Chorus of Trojans makes it clear that the action starts by the tent of Hector, during the fourth watch of the night.

In the first episode, king Hector fears a night escape of the Greek army, which would leave him bloodthirsty. When he is about to wake everyone up, the warrior Aeneas offers him some advice: a spying mission might be better. Dolon volunteers and demands, as a reward, the horses of Achilles. Having dressed himself with a wolf hide, the boastful Dolon believes that he will kill the warriors Odysseus and Diomedes. After a first stasimon,¹⁰² in which the Trojans fail to keep the champagne on ice and prematurely celebrate the mission of Dolon, the second episode turns the focus towards Rhesus. A messenger informs Hector about the arrival of Rhesus, which the shepherds mistake for a cattle raid. Uninterested at first, Hector progressively caves in. He goes from wanting nothing to do with Rhesus to accepting him, first as a guest and then as an ally.

Following a third stasimon that stresses both the tardiness of Dolon and the proximity of dawn, the fourth and last episode opens with Odysseus and Diomedes. Having already killed Dolon and learned the watchword from him, they are trying, without any success, to find Hector and kill him. They are not sure about their next step, and at this point the goddess Athena enters the stage to intervene in their favor. She points them towards Rhesus and orders them to kill him instead. Moreover, Athena diverts prince Paris, by posing as the goddess Aphrodite. Having already killed Rhesus, Odysseus and Diomedes are now struggling to get back to the ships. What follows is an epiparodos,103 during which the Trojans fail to capture the Greeks, mostly because of the cunning of Odysseus.

Lastly, the exodos¹⁰⁴ includes some moving scenes: the dream of the charioteer, with two wolves mounted on horses; the accusation of Hector, who has left a lot to be desired as a general; and the dea ex machina of the Muse. The Muse curses Diomedes, Odysseus and even the infamous Helen. She laments the death of her son Rhesus, and she blames Athena for her meddling. All this helps Hector to confirm his suspicions of Greek wrongdoing. But there is more. The Muse also prophesizes the hero cult of Rhesus and the death of Achilles, and Hector never ceases to believe that he can turn his luck around. The play ends when daylight is just starting to break.

In the dramatic version, the author profits, among others, from these nine procedures: [GA1]105 he merges two camps into one, [GA2] he merges two dialogues into one, [GA3] he adds a tricky bargaining, [GA4] he emphasizes the braggart, [GA5] he emphasizes the adaptation’s sources, [GA6] he adds the anagnorisis, [GA7] he changes the perspective of the attack, [GA8] he maintains the nighttime, and [GA9] he ignores the on-stage death.

[GA1] In terms of spatial location, the narrative source begins at the Greek camp (Il. 10.1), transitions into the Trojan camp halfway through the book (Il. 10.299), and then returns to its starting point near the end (Il. 10.532). This twofold scenery is merged into one in the dramatic adaptation, where the two camps, together with their comings and goings, become one.106 Agamemnon’s and Hector’s huts become just those pertaining to the Trojan. In this way, instead of contrasting Greeks and Trojans, the playwright contrasts two Trojan factions, headed by Hector and Rhesus. The topic of sleeping serves to weave together the two locations.

ἄλλοι μὲν παρὰ νηυσὶν ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν

εὗδον παννύχιοι, μαλακῷ δεδμημένοι ὕπνῳ·

Next to their ships, the other chiefs of the Achaeans were sleeping through the night, overcome by soft sleep.

(Il. 10.1-2)

Οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδὲ Τρῶας ἀγήνορας εἴασεν Ἕκτωρ

εὕδειν, ἀλλ’ ἄμυδις κικλήσκετο πάντας ἀρίστους,

And Hector also did not allow the heroic Trojans to sleep; instead, he called together all their chiefs.

(Il. 10.299-300)

Βῆθι πρὸς εὐνὰς τὰς Ἑκτορέους·

τίς ὑπασπιστῶν ἄγρυπνος βασιλέως

ἢ τευχοφόρων;

Go to Hector’s beds! Who is wakeful among the king’s squires or armor bearers?

(Rhes. 1-3)

[GA2] Ps.-Euripides changes Agamemnon’s and Menelaus’ dialogue into Hector’s and Aeneas’ dialogue.107 Building on the awakening scene, which served as an introductory announcement to the adaptation, the conclusions reached in these dialogues mirror each other, as an instance of repetition with variation: where Agamemnon orders that Menelaus raise his voice and wake up the Greeks, Hector instructs Aeneas to lower his and to allow the Trojans to continue sleeping. At the level of the characters, Agamemnon’s farsightedness seems to be replaced by a sheer lack of it on Hector’s part. However, when focusing on the author’s intentions, the Trojans need to be asleep for the ambush to happen. With a clear precedent in the source text, and with a deliberate reversal in the new version, this dialogue serves as a clear-cut example of what an adaptation is, both as a product and as a process of creation.

φθέγγεο δ’ ᾗ κεν ἴῃσθα, καὶ ἐγρήγορθαι ἄνωχθι,

Speak up wherever you may go, and command them to be awake…

(Il. 10.67)

στείχων δὲ κοίμα συμμάχους· τάχ’ ἂν στρατὸς

κινοῖτ’ ἀκούσας νυκτέρους ἐκκλησίας.

Going there, calm our allies: perhaps the army might be stirred up, having heard about our nightly assemblies.

(Rhes. 138-139)

[GA3] Dolon’s bargaining is an addition. And the bargaining chips reveal the influence of Agamemnon’s and Achilles’ negotiations, as per the enumeration at Il. 9.122-156, on Hector’s and Dolon’s negotiations.¹⁰⁸ In the epic, Hector voluntarily offers a pair of horses together with a chariot; then, Dolon has him swear that the horses will be those of Achilles. In the drama, Hector proposes the spying mission without mentioning any reward for such effort, and Dolon calls him on it.

ἀλλ’ ἄγε μοι τὸ σκῆπτρον ἀνάσχεο, καί μοι ὄμοσσον

ἦ μὲν τοὺς ἵππους τε καὶ ἅρματα ποικίλα χαλκῷ

δωσέμεν, οἳ φορέουσιν ἀμύμονα Πηλεΐωνα,

But come on, raise your scepter before me and swear to me that you will give me the horses and the chariot ornamented with bronze, which carry the noble son of Peleus.

(Il. 10.321-323)

οὐκοῦν πονεῖν μὲν χρή, πονοῦντα δ’ ἄξιον

μισθὸν φέρεσθαι. παντὶ γὰρ προσκείμενον

κέρδος πρὸς ἔργῳ τὴν χάριν τίκτει διπλῆν.

Well, it is necessary to work for it, and therefore, to give the worker a fair wage. Remuneration being attached to a job brings forth twice the pleasure.

[GA4] Rhesus goes from silent character in the Homeric epic to title character in the play attributed to Euripides.109 Rhesus’ characterization is correlated to Hector’s. In the play, when warned about Rhesus’ unexpected arrival, Hector is the one who determines his standing: for Hector, Rhesus is, first, an opportunist who comes “for the feast [ἐς δαῖτ’]” (Rhes. 325) without having contributed for securing “the prey [λείαν]” (Rhes. 326); Rhesus is, then, “a guest at the table [χένος δὲ πρὸς τράπεζαν]” (Rhes. 337) but not “an ally [σύμμαχος]” (Rhes. 336); and Rhesus is, eventually, considered “an ally [σύμμαχος]” (Rhes. 341). In turn, given that Priam does not figure among the characters of the play, Rhesus addresses Hector as a king: “O king of this land [τύραννε τῆσδε γῆς]” (Rhes. 388).

The emphasis on Rhesus’ character continues with him being given an origin story: “But when I was about to undertake my long journey to Ilium, my neighboring land, the people of Scythia, went to war with me [ἀλλ’ ἀγχιτέρμων ψαῖα μοι, Σκύθης λεώς, / μέλλοντι νόστον τὸν πρὸς Ἴλιον περᾶν / ξυνῆψε πόλεμον]” (Rhes. 426-428). Nevertheless, probably the greatest novelty is the assertion that he could get rid of the Greeks within a single day. Coming from him, this only contributes to turning the emphasis into a sort of caricature, much along the lines of what the Roman theater (Plautus, Mil.) calls a miles gloriosus (braggart warrior).110 Hector, Dolon, and Rhesus all have moments of boastfulness. As seen in the next three passages, respectively, Hector asserts that he could have destroyed the Greek army, Dolon proclaims that he will behead Odysseus, and Rhesus claims that he will end the war in a single day. Ironically enough, Rhesus does not make it past the night, Dolon himself is beheaded by Odysseus’ coconspirator, and Hector makes it to the end of the play still believing that he can win.

ὦ δαῖμον, ὅστις μ’ εὐτυχοῦντ’ ἐνόσφισας

θοίνης λέοντα, πρὶν τὸν Ἀργείων στρατὸν

σύρδην ἅπαντα τῷδ’ ἀναλῶσαι δορί.

O Fortune, in whichever form turned me, the lucky lion, away from my feast, before I could kill the entire army of the Argives, as if dragged along, with this spear!

(Rhes. 56-58)

σωθήσομαί τοι καὶ κτανὼν Ὀδυσσέως

οἴσω κάρα σοι…

I will return safely, and having killed Odysseus, I will bring you his head…

(Rhes. 219-220)

σὺ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη δέκατον αἰχμάζεις ἔτος

κοὐδὲν περαίνεις, ἡμέραν δ’ ἐξ ἡμέρας

ῥίπτεις κυβεύων τὸν πρὸς Ἀργείους Ἄρη·

ἐμοὶ δὲ φῶς ἓν ἡλίου καταρκέσει

πέρσαντι πύργους ναυστάθμοις ἐπεσπεσεῖν

κτεῖναί τ’ Ἀχαιούς…

Indeed, you are now throwing your spear for the tenth year, and you are accomplishing nothing, and day after day, while playing at dice, you are casting Ares against the Argives. But for me, a single daylight of the sun will suffice, when ravaging the towers, to burst into the roadstead and kill the Achaeans.

(Rhes. 444-449)

Rhesus behaves like a braggart warrior even more than Hector and Dolon. Two more examples serve to support this claim. In the first one, he wishes to take his own army to Greece, in an overt reversal of the known story. Then, so he asserts, he would singlehandedly destroy all Greece. In the second example, he once again focuses on Odysseus, whom he intends to impale with an aggressiveness like that he exhibited while threatening his beheading.

ξὺν σοὶ στρατεύειν γῆν ἐπ’ Ἀργείων θέλω

καὶ πᾶσαν ἐλθὼν Ἑλλάδ’ ἐκπέρσαι δορί,

ὡς ἂν μάθωσιν ἐν μέρει πάσχειν κακῶς.

…together with you, I wish to advance with my army towards the land of the Achaeans, and having arrived, to ravage all Greece with my spear, so that they would learn, in turn, to suffer badly.

(Rhes. 471-473)

…ζῶντα συλλαβὼν ἐγὼ

πυλῶν ἐπ’ ἐξόδοισιν ἀμπείρας ῥάχιν

στήσω πετεινοῖς γυψὶ θοινατήριον.

…having taken him alive and having impaled him through his spine by the side of the doors, I will set him up as food for the winged vultures.

(Rhes. 513-515)

[GA5] If the epic source mentions in passing a clamor and an uproar among the Trojans, the dramatic adaptation further elaborates such commotion.¹¹¹ The epic Trojans are too sluggish to capture Diomedes and Odysseus; the dramatic Trojans, grouped together as the Chorus, are too naive to hold on to them. Furthermore, the fact that this re-created commotion is certainly an adaptation is signaled by a pun. When an unaware Trojan asks, “What is your troop? [τίς ὁ λόχος;]”, any discerning audience member hears, “What sort of ambush is this? [τίς ὁ λόχος;]”. The word used here for “troop [λόχος]” is the same one that is employed through the drama for the main motif: the “ambush [λόχος]”.

Τρώων δὲ κλαγγή τε καὶ ἄσπετος ὦρτο κυδοιμὸς

θυνόντων ἄμυδις· θηεῦντο δὲ μέρμερα ἔργα,

ὅσσ’ ἄνδρες ῥέξαντες ἔβαν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας.

A clamor and an unspeakable uproar rose among the Trojans, who were rushing all together: they gazed upon the mournful deeds that the warriors had done before they left for the hollow ships.

(Il. 10.523-525)

[GA6] Another procedure followed by the author of the Rhesus is the addition of the anagnorisis. According to Aristotle,112 “Anagnorisis, as its name signals, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, either towards friendship or towards enmity, of what defines prosperity and adversity [ἀναγνώρισις δέ, ὥσπερ καὶ τοὔνομα σημαίνει, ἐξ ἀγνοίας εἰς γνῶσιν μεταβολή, ἢ εἰς φιλίαν ἢ εἰς ἔχθραν, τῶν πρὸς εὐτυχίαν ἢ δυστυχίαν ὡρισμένων]” (Poet. 1452a28-31). Also, anagnorises can result from various procedures: “the one by signs [ἡ διὰ τῶν σημείων]”, “the ones effected by the poet [αἱ πεποιημέναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ]”, “the one by memory [ἡ διὰ μνήμης]”, “the one from reasoning [ἡ ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ]”, and “the one from events themselves [ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων]”.

In Il. 10, Hector does not even acknowledge Rhesus’ death, but in Rhes., following the Muse’s appearance, Hector confirms what he has suspected all along: Odysseus is responsible. Before the dea ex machina, the Charioteer blames Hector for Rhesus’ death, and Hector, in turn, accuses Odysseus of the killing of both Rhesus and Dolon. After the anagnorisis, the true enmity is revealed, not between Trojan factions, but between the Trojans and the Greeks. The next two passages indicate, respectively, Hector’s first words in the narrative after Rhesus’ killing, and Hector’s first words in the play after the anagnorisis.

[GA7] The broader authorial decision is that of changing the perspective from the Greeks to the Trojans.113 The beginning of the Rhesus makes this quite clear by contrasting several scenes. For instance, Nestor’s question, “who is this, coming alone by the ships, through the army, during the dark night, when the other mortals sleep? [τίς δ’ οὗτος κατὰ νῆας ἀνὰ στρατὸν ἔρχεαι οἶος / νύκτα δι’ ὀρφναίην, ὅτε θ’ εὕδουσι βροτοὶ ἄλλοι;]” (Il. 10.82-83), is transformed into that of Hector: “who are those, approaching our bedsteads during the night? [τίνες ἐκ νυκτῶν τὰς ἡμετέρας / κοίτας πλάθουσ’;]” (Rhes. 13-14). The patronymic in “calling each man by their father’s name and their descent [πατρόθεν ἐκ γενεῆς ὀνομάζων ἄνδρα ἕκαστον]” (Il. 10.68-69) is reworked into a patronymic and a pretend matronymic: “who will go to Panthus’ son or to that of Europa, leader of the Lycian men? [τίς εἶσ’ ἐπὶ Πανθοΐδαν, / ἢ τὸν Εὐρώπας, Λυκίων ἀγὸν ἀνδρῶν;]” (Rhes. 28-29). In addition, the Trojan “many fires [πυρὰ πολλά]” (Il. 10.12) become Greek “fires [πύρ’]” (Rhes. 41); and the Trojan “sound of flutes and pipes, and clamor of men [αὐλῶν συρίγγων τ’ ἐνοπῆν ὅμαδόν τ’ ἀνθρώπων]” (Il. 10.13) turns into a Greek “tumult [θορύβῳ]” (Rhes. 45).

The idea of retelling a known story from the point of view of the losing party is a common one in Greek theater (Aeschylus’ Persians; Euripides’ Andromache, Hecuba, Helen, and Trojan Women). Moreover, the procedure of introducing such retelling by a specific scene, like the awakening, works in tandem with the announced nature of most adaptations.

[GA8] As for the occurrence in time, night remains the trademark of the ambush motif.114 However, the precise moment in time is phrased differently: in Homer, two out of the three watches of the night have passed; in Ps.-Euripides, four out of five. The contingents in charge of the watches in Rhesus are, successively, the Paeonians, the Cilicians, the Mysians, the Trojans, and the Lycians. For the adaptation, the number five signals the deadline.

[GA9] Dolon’s death is gruesomely described in the epic, but it is only alluded to in the drama.115 According to Aristotle,116 “Suffering is a destructive and painful action, such as deaths in public, excessive pains, wounds, and others such as these [πάθος δέ ἐστι πρᾶξις φθαρτικὴ ἢ ὀδυνηρά, οἷον οἵ τε ἐν τῷ φανερῷ θάνατοι καὶ αἱ περιωδυνίαι καὶ τρώσεις καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα]” (Poet. 1452b11-13). Public deaths are not necessarily the same as deaths on stage. In Greek tragedy, the latter are rarae aves. Nonetheless, avoiding deaths on stage is not a rule but a convention, and it entails “the act that causes death” (Sommerstein, 2010, p. 33), rather than the actual death. In fact, death on stage occurs twice in the extant corpus of Greek tragedy (Euripides’ Alcestis and Hippolytus). In this sense, ps.-Euripides’ treatment agrees with the convention within Greek theater: he does not stage the beheading, i.e., the action that caused Dolon’s death.

Likewise, the number of Thracian deaths is not specified by the playwright. Even though book 10 specifies twice that the thirteen dead men are a combination of twelve plus one (Il. 10.487-496 and Il. 10.560-561), the Rhes. ignores the number of casualties.117 The total of thirteen is obtained, first, by adding up the twelve Thracian warriors and Rhesus himself; and then, by considering the twelve Thracian warriors alongside Dolon. In the play, besides that of Dolon, only the death of Rhesus is mentioned. Once again, the convention within Greek theater is followed: the dramatist does not stage the action that caused Rhesus’ death.

ὣς μὲν Θρήικας ἄνδρας ἐπῴχετο Τυδέος υἱὸς,

ὄφρα δυώδεκ’ ἔπεφνεν…

…so, the son of Tydeus attacked the Thracian warriors, until he killed twelve.

(Il. 10.487-488)

ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ βασιλῆα κιχήσατο Τυδέος υἱός,

τὸν τρισκαιδέκατον μελιηδέα θυμὸν ἀπηύρα

ἀσθμαίνοντα…

But when the son of Tydeus approached the king, he took the honey-sweet life of the thirteenth one [sc. Rhesus], who was left gasping for breath…

(Il. 10.494-496)

…πὰρ δ’ ἑτάρους δυοκαίδεκα πάντας ἀρίστους.

τὸν τρισκαιδέκατον σκοπὸν εἵλομεν ἐγγύθι νηῶν,

…in addition to all twelve of his best companions. We killed, as a thirteenth one, the spy [sc. Dolon] by the ships.

(Il. 10.560-561)

κεῖται γὰρ ἡμῖν Θρῄκιος στρατηλάτης,

The Thracian general [sc. Rhesus] lies dead before us…

(Rhes. 670)

Give Me Five! – Villages or Nights?

The ambushes upon Virāṭa and Uttara (MBh. 4.24-62) narrate Suśarman’s and Duryodhana’s gograhaṇa (cattle raid). The epic version is as follows: at Hāstinapura, Duryodhana hears from his spies the bad news that the Pāṇḍavas are nowhere to be found, and the good news that Kīcaka and his kinsmen have been slain by gandharvas (celestial musicians). Aware of the little time left before the concealment will be over, Duryodhana only focuses on the downside. He receives counsel, not only from Karṇa, Duḥśāsana, and Kṛpa, but also from Droṇa and Bhīṣma, who encourage Duryodhana to keep on looking for his cousins. It is up to king Suśarman to turn Duryodhana’s attention towards the slain general, and to suggest the opportunity of an ambush against the country of king Virāṭa. Duryodhana adds a twist: undercover, Suśarman and the Trigartas should march there first, and on the next day, he and the Kauravas should join them to finish the job.

While Virāṭa goes to the country to resist Suśarman’s ambush, Duryodhana comes to the city commanding a second ambush. As with Virāṭa, a herdsman warns Uttara that the Kauravas are raiding his father’s cattle. However, unlike Virāṭa, Uttara is not ready to fight since he is missing a charioteer. Unhappy about Uttara having compared himself to Arjuna, Draupadī suggests precisely the one Pāṇḍava who remains at the city. Uttara’s sister, Uttarā, fetches him. Arjuna pretends to be unfit, but eventually he departs, promising the young girls to bring back, as spoils, clothes for their dolls. Uttara goes from boastful to panicked in the blink of an eye. The scene is yet another role reversal of Virāṭa’s manhandling: Arjuna, having dismounted the chariot, must lift Uttara while he flees. Moreover, the image of Arjuna comforting Uttara foreshadows that of Arjuna himself being reassured by Kṛṣṇa later, during the Gītā.118

The main result of the ambushes is the recognition of the Pāṇḍavas. Having gone for their weapons that were hidden in a tree, Arjuna reveals his and his brothers’ identities to Uttara, and, as proof, he proceeds to explain his ten names. Droṇa recognizes Arjuna by the sound of his conch, and Duryodhana celebrates the finding, taking it to mean a new exile for the Pāṇḍavas. Karṇa is ready to fight, and so is Kṛpa, although the latter wonders if the ambush might have been a mistake. Even Aśvatthāman, the protagonist of the text’s better known sauptika (ambush), questions whether there should be any pride in raiding. In response to Duryodhana’s question, Bhīṣma carries out the official counting, and he concludes that the due time has passed. Arjuna leads Uttara through the battlefield by pointing out to him the chief warriors on the Kaurava side. To the delight of the gods and the great seers, Arjuna vanquishes Kṛpa, Droṇa, Aśvatthāman, Karṇa, Bhīṣma, and Duryodhana. Once again, this prefigures the battle of Kurukṣetra. With his conch, Arjuna stuns everyone but Bhīṣma. Then, he instructs Uttara to gather the fallen warriors’ clothes, and the herdsmen to collect the cattle and rest the horses.

After the ambushes comes the Pāṇḍavas’ and Draupadī’s reinstatement (MBh. 4.63-67), signaled by Abhimanyu’s and Uttarā’s wedding (vaivāhika). By the time Virāṭa returns to the city, Uttara is now gone. Upon finding out about the successful repelling of the second ambush, Virāṭa becomes proud: he commands a pompous reception for his son, and he orders Yudhiṣṭhira to play a celebratory dicing-match with him, which recalls the one at Hāstinapura. During the game, Virāṭa boasts that Uttara alone is responsible for the victory, while Yudhiṣṭhira insists that it would not have been possible without Arjuna. Virāṭa becomes angry and throws a die at Yudhiṣṭhira’s face. To prevent Arjuna from killing Virāṭa, Yudhiṣṭhira catches the spilling blood with his hand before it reaches the floor, and he instructs the steward to let Uttara enter the assembly hall alone.

The revelation of the identities continues gradually. On the day of the second ambush, Uttara credits the triumph to the son of a god, so that Arjuna is still in disguise when he presents Uttarā with the plundered clothes. On the third day thereafter, the Pāṇḍavas enter Virāṭa’s assembly hall and sit on his thrones. When Virāṭa asks about this behavior, Arjuna first reveals Yudhiṣṭhira’s identity, and then those of Draupadī and the remaining Pāṇḍavas, including his own. Only then does Uttara admit that it was Arjuna who vanquished the Kauravas. Having become aware that it was Bhīma who rescued him, and that it was Yudhiṣṭhira whom he offended, Virāṭa offers Uttarā in marriage to Arjuna, who, in turn, accepts her for Abhimanyu. Arjuna sees her more like a daughter, and this is what ensures her chastity. For the ceremony, the Pāṇḍavas move to Upaplavya, where they will conduct the embassies; Arjuna brings Abhimanyu, who had been staying with Kṛṣṇa at Ānarta; and noblemen attend from all over the world.

In (Ps.-)Bhāsa’s The Five Nights, the plot is divided into three acts, which move the action from Hāstinapura, where king Duryodhana is performing a sacrifice, to the Matsya kingdom, towards where he is leading a cattle raid, and again back to Hāstinapura, where Abhimanyu brings the news about the wedding. Before the first act come two sections: one is a prologue, which, by means of paronomasia, serves both to invoke the god Viṣṇu and to introduce the main characters of the plot; the other is a prelude, in which a conversation between three Brahmans sets the stage at the time of the sacrifice.

At this point, the messenger that Śakuni had sent to inquire about Virāṭa comes back and tells the Kauravas about the death of general Kīcaka and his kinsmen. When listening to the details of their deaths, Bhīṣma recognizes the work of the hero Bhīma, and he reveals this relevant information to Droṇa. With this unexpected turn of events, Droṇa no longer has a problem agreeing with the condition set by Śakuni. Joining in with the trickery, Bhīṣma pretends to have a feud with Virāṭa, which, on one hand, would account for Virāṭa being absent during the sacrifice, and on the other, would merit Duryodhana leading a cattle raid to remind him who is in charge. Once again, Bhīṣma reveals his true intentions to Droṇa. As soon as the Pāṇḍavas become aware of the ambush, they will take part in the defense, thus rendering themselves easily recognizable.

In the dramatic version, the author profits, among others, from these nine procedures: [SA1]119 he merges two ambushes into one, [SA2] he merges two addressees into one, [SA3] he adds a tricky request, [SA4] he emphasizes the braggart, [SA5] he emphasizes the adaptation’s sources, [SA6] he adds the anagnorisis, [SA7] he changes the timing of the sacrifice, [SA8] he changes the five villages into the five nights, and [SA9] he ignores the on-stage anger.

[SA1] Just like his treatment of the speeches towards father and son in The Embassy, his re-creation of Suśarman’s and Duryodhana’s ambushes as Duryodhana’s ambush in The Five Nights evinces merging as one of (Ps.-)Bhāsa’s trademark adaptation techniques.120 Vyāsa presents two different herdsmen, carrying two separate messages: one to Virāṭa, about Suśarman’s ambush; the other to Uttara, about Duryodhana’s ambush. But at the same time, he intends for them to be taken in tandem. The assertion about the hundreds of thousands of cattle being raided by the Trigartas is clearly mirrored by the one about the sixty thousand cattle being raided by the Kauravas. Perceptive as always, the playwright reinterprets the parallelism as a merging: as in the epic’s first ambush, the message’s addressee is Virāṭa; as in the epic’s second ambush, the message’s subject is the Kauravas.

asmān yudhi vinirjitya paribhūya sabāndhavān |

gavāṃ śatasahasrāṇi trigartāḥ kālayanti te |

tān parīpsa manuṣyendra mā neśuḥ paśavas tava ||

Having defeated us in a fight and subdued our relatives, the Trigartas are taking hundreds of thousands of cattle from you. O best of men, try and protect them – may your cattle not be lost!

(MBh. 4.30.7)

ṣaṣṭiṃ gavāṃ sahasrāṇi kuravaḥ kālayanti te |

tad vijetuṃ samuttiṣṭha godhanaṃ rāṣṭravardhanam ||

rājaputra hitaprepsuḥ kṣipraṃ niryāhi vai svayam |

tvāṃ hi matsyo mahīpālaḥ śūnyapālam ihākarot ||

The Kurus are taking sixty-thousand cattle from you. Stand up to recover the cattle herd, the prosperity of the kingdom. O prince, desirous of your own benefit, go out quickly, for the Matsya king made you keeper of his empty kingdom.

bho bho nivedyatāṃ nivedyatāṃ mahārājāya virāṭeśvarāya etā hi dasyukarmapracchannavikramair dhārtarāṣṭrair hriyante gāva iti

Moreover, the dramatic Duryodhana sometimes speaks as if he were the epic Dhṛtarāṣṭra. A case in point is the offering of half of the kingdom. Vyāsa has Dhṛtarāṣṭra as the first one to suggest, as a sort of preamble to their thirteen-year exile, that the Pāṇḍavas take the Khāṇḍava tract, which constitutes half of the kingdom. On the contrary, (Ps.-)Bhāsa has Duryodhana suggest half of the kingdom, and then, propose it to be a bad, unendurable, and unfriendly country, that is, something like the Khāṇḍava tract. At MBh. 5, where Duryodhana is presented by Kṛṣṇa with a similar offer (MBh. 5.122.57-61), he responds with the categorical rejection of even what could be pierced with a needle (MBh. 5.125.26a-b). Here, Duryodhana is the one bringing it up, and Śakuni is the one turning it down, also in similar terms: “I will say ‘nothing!’ [śūnyam ity abhidhāsyāmi]” (PR 1.44a). Having Śakuni as his dramatic understudy, allows Duryodhana to fill in for the epic Dhṛtarāṣṭra.

mātula pāṇḍavānāṃ rājyārdhaṃ prati ko niścayaḥ

mātula balavat praty amitro ’nupajīvyaś ca kaścit kudeśaś cintyatām

In the play, in lieu of Droṇa asking, it is Duryodhana who offers him a “graduation fee [dakṣiṇā]” (PR 1.27.14), without saying what it will be. Then, Droṇa pretends to cry, and Duryodhana fetches him some “water [āpas]” (PR 1.29.8), which serves to seal the deal before even agreeing to the terms. The dramatic Droṇa’s request is for the Pāṇḍavas to recover their share of the kingdom. In support of the claim that it is the epic Droṇa’s petition to Ekalavya which is adapted here, it is worth remembering that, in the outer “circle of promises” around Ekalavya’s thumb, there is Drupada’s promise of sharing his kingdom with Droṇa himself, which is fulfilled by Droṇa receiving half of Drupada’s land.121

tato droṇo ’bravīd rājann ekalavyam idaṃ vacaḥ |

yadi śiṣyo ’si me tūrṇaṃ vetanaṃ saṃpradīyatām ||

ekalavyas tu tac chrutvā prīyamāṇo ’bravīd idam |

kiṃ prayacchāmi bhagavann ājñāpayatu māṃ guruḥ ||

na hi kiṃ cid adeyaṃ me gurave brahmavittama |

tam abravīt tvayāṅguṣṭho dakṣiṇo dīyatāṃ mama ||

O king, then Droṇa gave this order to Ekalavya, “If you are my student, quickly give me my fee!” Having heard that, Ekalavya said this, propitiating him, “O fortunate one, what can I give you? Let my teacher command me. O expert on the absolute, there is nothing that I shall not give to my teacher.” He told him, “Give me your right thumb!”

(MBh. 1.123.33-35)

yeṣāṃ gatiḥ kvāpi nirāśrayāṇāṃ

saṃvatsarair dvādaśabhir na dṛṣṭā |

tvaṃ pāṇḍavānāṃ kuru saṃvibhāgam

eṣā ca bhikṣā mama dakṣiṇā ca ||

[SA4] (Ps.-)Bhāsa turns Uttara’s braggartry into Virāṭa’s braggartry. MBh. 4’s Uttara is a miles gloriosus (braggart warrior).122 PR’s Virāṭa, in turn, is a bragging father. Vyāsa paints the braggartry from the point of view of both Arjuna and Uttara himself. Like a true katthano bhaṭaḥ “braggart warrior”, Uttara boasts about the greatness of his flag, the number of enemies that he could face, his ability to conquer the entire Kaurava troop, his capacity for terrifying their best warriors, and his resemblance to Indra and to Arjuna himself. Near the end of this nonsensical crescendo, he even trumpets his own prowess. However, his behavior at the battlefront is quite different. Arjuna, who has witnessed Uttara’s boastful assertion of his supposed manliness, eventually questions it when Uttara trembles at the mere thought of fighting. The oxymoronic contrast between the epic Uttara’s words and his deeds, evinces this character’s comicality: he is the one who ends up belittled and terrified, looking less like a god or a hero, and more like an abducted bride. So much for his prowess.

The dramatic braggartry, on the contrary, is considered from the point of view of both Uttara himself and his father Virāṭa. According to the bragging father, one man is enough for defeating an entire army and one day suffices for Uttara to wrap up the whole ambush. But unlike Arjuna, Virāṭa is biased in favor of his son Uttara, and more importantly, unlike Arjuna, Virāṭa did not witness Uttara’s deeds, but only learned about them from the Soldier’s speech. If the epic source was consistent in presenting Uttara’s boastfulness in terms of both his own deeds and other people’s opinions about them, the dramatic adaptation separates a boastful Uttara, as borrowed from the canonic text, and as characterized by Virāṭa, on one side, and a moderate Uttara, recast by the new text, and described by himself, on the other. The dramatic Uttara, when reflecting about his situation, is aware that the report about him is specious, and he even feels ashamed about it. Uttara is just paying lip service to Arjuna, as is (Ps.-)Bhāsa to Vyāsa.

sa labheyaṃ yadi tv anyaṃ hayayānavidaṃ naram |

tvarāvān adya yātvāhaṃ samucchritamahādhvajam ||

vigāhya tatparānīkaṃ gajavājirathākulam |

śastrapratāpanirvīryān kurūñ jitvānaye paśūn ||

duryodhanaṃ śāṃtanavaṃ karṇaṃ vaikartanaṃ kṛpam |

droṇaṃ ca saha putreṇa maheṣvāsān samāgatān ||

vitrāsayitvā saṃgrāme dānavān iva vajrabhṛt |

anenaiva muhūrtena punaḥ pratyānaye paśūn ||

śūnyam āsādya kuravaḥ prayānty ādāya godhanam |

kiṃ nu śakyaṃ mayā kartuṃ yad ahaṃ tatra nābhavam ||

paśyeyur adya me vīryaṃ kuravas te samāgatāḥ |

kiṃ nu pārtho ’rjunaḥ sākṣād ayam asmān prabādhate ||

If I found another man who knows how to drive my horses, after marching swiftly with my great flag raised, plunging into the enemy army which would be crowded with elephants, horses, and chariots, and conquering the Kurus who would become unmanly against the power of my sword, I would bring back the cattle. After terrifying Duryodhana, Śāṃtanava [sc. Bhīṣma], Karṇa Vaikartana, Kṛpa, Droṇa with his son, and the great warriors that have assembled in battle, just as he who wields the thunderbolt did against the Dānavas, I would bring back the cattle in an instant. Having found an empty place, the Kurus march after taking our cattle herd, but what can I do if I am not there? Today the assembled Kurus shall see my prowess and think that it is the Pārtha Arjuna in the flesh who torments them.

(MBh. 4.34.4-9)

tathā strīṣu pratiśrutya pauruṣaṃ puruṣeṣu ca |

katthamāno ’bhiniryāya kimarthaṃ na yuyutsase ||

Having thus asserted your manliness among men and women, and having marched out while boasting, why do you not want to fight?

(MBh. 4.36.20)

nṛpā bhīṣmādayo bhagnāḥ saubhadro grahaṇaṃ gataḥ |

uttareṇādya saṃkṣepād arthataḥ pṛthivī jitā ||

mithyāpraśaṃsā khalu nāma kaṣṭā yeṣāṃ tu mithyāvacaneṣu bhaktiḥ |

ahaṃ hi yuddhāśrayam ucyamāno vācānuvartī hṛdayena lajje ||

A close reading reveals four occurrences of the compound gograha(ṇa)-, meaning “cattle raid”, near the end of the first act (PR 1.52.3, PR 1.53d, PR 1.54b, and PR 1.55.3). This can be interpreted as the play announcing itself as an adaptation of the Gograhaṇaparvan from MBh. 4.

asakṛn matsyarājñā me rāṣṭraṃ bādhitam ojasā |

pautra duryodhanāsti mama virāṭenāprakāśaṃ vairam atha bhavato yajñam anubhavitum anāgata iti

tasmāt kriyatāṃ tasya gograhaṇam

O grandson Duryodhana, I have a secret feud with Virāṭa, which is why he did not come to assist at your sacrifice. So, let there be a cattle raid against him!

[SA6] Regarding the emphasis on the anagnorisis, (Ps.-)Bhāsa splits the explanation for the scar.123 In MBh. 4, Arjuna’s scar is due to the bowstring slapping the interior of his forearm. In PR, there are two contrasting explanations. First, and in agreement with what the epic Arjuna says, the dramatic Uttara interprets the scar as coming from string slap, and he tries to present it as proof for convincing Virāṭa that Bṛhannalā is, in truth, Arjuna. Then, and as if arguing with his epic counterpart, the dramatic Arjuna clarifies that it has an altogether different origin. Just as archers get slapped by their bowstring, so too can eunuchs bear the marks of their trade: since they must wear bracelets, their forearms can become pale through lack of exposure to sunlight. To the untrained eye, a scarred forearm and one that is just pale would look very much alike, even though they are not so. Of course, the character is just being crafty, as is the playwright.

prakoṣṭhāntarasaṅgūḍhaṃ gāṇḍīvajyāhataṃ kiṇam |

yat tad dvādaśavarṣānte naiva yāti savarṇatām ||

etan me pārihāryāṇāṃ vyāvartanakṛtaṃ kiṇam |

sannirodhavivarṇatvād godhāsthānam ihāgatam ||

The name on the arrow is another addition related to the anagnorisis.124 It constitutes a re-creation of a scene, not from the Virāṭaparvan, but from the Bhīṣmaparvan (MBh. 6). In MBh. 6, Bhīṣma recognizes Arjuna’s arrows just by feeling them, whereas in PR he discerns Arjuna’s arrow by looking at his signature, which needs no further deciphering. Bhīṣma has heard the message loud and clear.

kṛntanti mama gātrāṇi māghamāse gavām iva |

arjunasya ime bāṇā neme bāṇāḥ śikhaṇḍinaḥ ||

They cut my limbs just like someone cuts his cows from the herd during the month of Māgha: they must be the arrows of Arjuna, and not the arrows of Śikhaṇḍī.

(MBh. 6.114.60)

bāṇapuṅkhākṣarair vākyair jyājihvāparivartibhiḥ |

vikṛṣṭaṃ khalu pārthena na ca śrotraṃ prayacchati ||

By means of words having their syllables in the feathers of his arrows and being transmitted by the tongue of his bowstring, the Pārtha [sc. Arjuna] communicated with us, and this does not result in us hearing him?

(PR 3.17)

However, the main emphasis of PR in terms of anagnorisis concerns Abhimanyu.125 The epic showcases a gradual recognition of the Pāṇḍavas: prince Uttara learns about their true identities right before the second raid, but king Virāṭa is only let in on their secret three days thereafter. And the play turns it into an expeditious anagnorisis of the Pāṇḍavas: by featuring Abhimanyu in the ambush, on one hand, Uttara is not needed at the assembly hall until much later; and on the other, Arjuna gets to make himself known to someone closer to his heart. Father/son relations are, indeed, among (Ps.-)Bhāsa’s favorite topics.126 The change of Abhimanyu to the Kaurava side, the emphasis of his role, and the addition of his anagnorisis; they all come down to this.

That such father/son interactions bring out a man’s true nature is an idea that Vyāsa had already developed, and he did so by focusing on none other than Arjuna. During the Āśvamedhikaparvan (MBh. 14), Arjuna, while securing the way for Yudhiṣṭhira’s horse, comes across Babhruvāhana, his son born to Citrāṅgadā. Just as the epic Babhruvāhana is taunted by Arjuna, being paired up with women rather than with men, so too does the dramatic Abhimanyu interact with his father and uncles: he taunts them and gets taunted by them. The taunting is, in fact, what catalyzes the anagnorisis, here expressed in terms of making the son see who his father and uncles really are. Two sons, one encounter. Once again, the playwright is performing a merging.

Furthermore, anagnorisis is a very common procedure within Roman theater (Plautus, Capt. 872-874, Cas. 1012-1014, Cist. 664-665, Curc. 653-657, Epid. 635-636, Men. 1133, Poen. 1065-1075 and 1258, and Rud. 1160-1165; and Terence An. 904-956).127 So, it could have been borrowed by Sanskrit theater ((Ps.-)Bhāsa PR 2 and SV 6; and Kālidāsa Vikr. 5 and Śak. 6).128

na tvayā puruṣārthaś ca kaś cid astīha jīvatā |

yas tvaṃ strīvad yudhā prāptaṃ sāmnā māṃ pratyagṛhṇathāḥ ||

You live here but you have absolutely no ambition as a man! You are certainly like a woman in that you have received me only with conciliation when I came looking for a fight.

(MBh. 14.78.6)

na ruṣyanti mayā kṣiptā hasantaś ca kṣipanti mām |

diṣṭyā gograhaṇaṃ svantaṃ pitaro yena darśitāḥ ||

They, taunted by me, are not vexed; instead, they taunt me while laughing at me. Luckily, the cattle raid ends well, by showing me my father and uncles.

Furthermore, Duryodhana’s sacrifice in MBh. 3 closes a minor book about a cattle raid against gandharvas (celestial musicians), which, in turn, has a lot in common with the cattle raids from MBh. 4: Dhṛtarāṣṭra/Duryodhana receives news about the Pāṇḍavas (MBh. 3.224 ~ MBh. 4.24), Karṇa urges Duryodhana (MBh. 3.226 ~ MBh. 4.25), the cattle raid is proposed by a complicit party (MBh. 3.227 ~ MBh. 4.29), Duryodhana reaches Dvaitavana/Matsya (MBh. 3.229 ~ MBh. 4.33), Citrasena/Arjuna fights back (MBh. 3.230 ~ MBh. 4.41), and Duryodhana is defeated (MBh. 3.231 ~ MBh. 4.60). The thematic proximity of the cattle raids would account for the use of the sacrifice, and therefore, for the change in timing.

sarvair antaḥpuraiḥ sārdhaṃ prītyā prāpteṣu rājasu |

yajño duryodhanasyaiṣa kururājasya vartate ||

[SA8] Regarding the play’s title, I suggest that the author changes the five villages from the MBh. into the five nights of the PR. In other words, although present in the form of a Vaiṣṇava sacrifice, the religious component would not have been the sole determinant for the title The Five Nights.129 There might have been a literary component to it too. In MBh. 5, during Saṃjaya’s embassy (MBh. 5.22-32), Yudhiṣṭhira sends Duryodhana the message that five villages, one for each of the five Pāṇḍava brothers, would end the quarrel once and for all.¹³⁰ The number five could be an adapted element coming from this recurring request.

bhrātṝṇāṃ dehi pañcānāṃ grāmān pañca suyodhana |

O Suyodhana, give five villages to the five brothers!

(MBh. 5.31.20a-b)

yadi pañcarātreṇa pāṇḍavānāṃ pravṛttir upanetavyā rājyasyārdhaṃ pradāsyati kila

[SA9] The author ignores Virāṭa’s anger. According to Bharata,131 violence and death on stage are to be avoided, specially in the acts: “Anger, favor, and grief, the pronouncing of a curse, withdrawal and marriage, the vision of a wonderful birth, all of them should not be made visible in an act [krodhaprasādaśokāḥ śāpotsargo ’tha vidravodvāhau | adbhutasambhavadarśanam aṅke ’pratyakṣajāni syuḥ]” (Nāṭyaś. 18.20), and “A battle, a kingdom’s loss, a death, and a city’s siege, should not be visible in an act, but contrived through interludes [yuddhaṃ rājyabhraṃśo maraṇaṃ nagaroparodhanaṃ caiva | pratyakṣāṇi tu nāṅke praveśakaiḥ saṃvidheyāni]” (Nāṭyaś. 18.38).

Given that avoiding violence on stage is a convention within Greek tragedy (Aeschylus Supp. 825 ff. and Ag. 1650 ff.; Sophocles OT 1146 ff.; and (Ps.-)Euripides Andr. 577 ff., Hel. 1628 ff., IA 309 ff., and Rhes. 684 ff.),132 it could have been borrowed by Sanskrit theater ((Ps.-)Bhāsa PR 2).

tataḥ prakupito rājā tam akṣeṇāhanad bhṛśam

mukhe yudhiṣṭhiraṃ kopān naivam ity eva bhartsayan |

balavat pratividdhasya nastaḥ śoṇitam āgamat

tad aprāptaṃ mahīṃ pārthaḥ pāṇibhyāṃ pratyagṛhṇata ||

Then, the enraged king hit Yudhiṣṭhira in the face with a die, threatening out of anger that it was not so. Having been hit hard, blood came out of his nose; but the Pārtha [sc. Yudhiṣṭhira] held it back with his hands, so that it did not reach the ground.

(MBh. 4.63.44-45)

bhagavan akāle svasthavākyaṃ manyum utpādayati

na te kṣepeṇa ruṣyāmi ruṣyatā bhavatā rame |

Together with the ignoring of the on-stage anger, another innovation of The Five Nights is ignoring the outcome.133 In MBh. 4, although there might be contrasting opinions about the exact number of days that it encompasses, everyone agrees on a deadline consisting of thirteen years. But in PR, a new, five-night deadline is fashioned, so that the conflict can have a speedy resolution. Therefore, when the epic Duryodhana learns about Arjuna’s identity, he demands that the Pāṇḍavas go into exile for another twelve years, but when the dramatic Duryodhana is informed about it, he graciously admits his defeat, and is more than willing to give the kingdom back. A happy ending is strongly suggested, but sometimes the right thing is easier said than done.

anivṛtte tu nirvāse yadi bībhatsur āgataḥ |

punar dvādaśa varṣāṇi vane vatsyanti pāṇḍavāḥ ||

If Bībhatsu [sc. Arjuna] comes when the exile had not yet finished, the Pāṇḍavas will live in the forest for another twelve years!

(MBh. 4.42.5)

bāḍhaṃ dattaṃ mayā rājyaṃ pāṇḍavebhyo yathāpuram |

mṛte ’pi hi narāḥ sarve satye tiṣṭhanti tiṣṭhati ||

Tokens of Recognition and Other Telling Details

Based on the analysis of the ambush motif as per Il. 10 and Rhesus, as well as according to MBh. 4 and The Five Nights, I have identified four instances of possible Greek influence in the adaptation techniques: [AM1]134 twofold epic themes are merged in the plays, causing the occasional subtraction of other themes, [AM2] dramatic features are added with the purpose of emphasizing certain aspects of the characterization that are merely suggested in the source texts, [AM3] spaces, times, characters, and themes are changed in the plays, which otherwise would be dramatizations and not adaptations, and [AM4] death and violence on stage are ignored as per dramatic convention.

Regarded as an instance of Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the distinguishing trait here would be merging: a Greek text (Rhesus) about one raid (by Odysseus/Diomedes) adapted from a source (Il. 10) containing two separate ambushes (by Dolon and by Odysseus/Diomedes), would have become an Indian text (The Five Nights) about one raid (by Duryodhana) adapted from a source (MBh. 4) containing two separate ambushes (by Suśarman and by Duryodhana). In this sense, the adapted elements would be Indian, but the adaptation techniques would come from the Greco-Roman world. In support of this claim, I adduce the same use by (Ps.-)Bhāsa of the two speeches in The Embassy.

[AM2] Dramatic features are added with the purpose of emphasizing certain aspects of the characterization that are merely suggested in the source texts. Additions and emphases are numerous and correlated in both plays. In Rhesus, Dolon’s tricky bargaining (GA3) and Rhesus’ braggartry (GA4) mirror each other in terms of characterization. Furthermore, the overall commotion (GA5) is presented by means of a pun through which the adaptation proclaims itself as such, and Hector’s tardy anagnorisis of Odysseus as a foe rather than a friend (GA6) tells us more about the Trojan’s lack of cunningness than about the Greek’s mastery of it.

In The Five Nights, Droṇa’s tricky request for a graduation fee (SA3) is correlated to Uttara’s braggartry (SA4) too. There is also a proclamation of the adaptation as such, which now comes in the form of Bhīṣma’s feud with Virāṭa (SA5). Lastly, there is room for several anagnorises (SA6): Uttara’s recognition of Arjuna by means of a scar, Bhīṣma’s recognition of Arjuna thanks to an arrow, and Abhimanyu’s recognition of Arjuna because of the father/son encounter. The same event being presented from three different perspectives is a helpful resource when it comes to characterization. Out of all these parallel subjects, trickery and anagnorisis stand out.

On the subject of trickery, Dolon reveals himself as a great source for potential borrowings into (Ps.-)Bhāsa’s tricky characters, such as Droṇa.135 Ps.-Euripides’ Dolon is well aware of the tricky way in which Homer’s Dolon gets Hector to swear by his general offer about the best Greek horses, while also turning it into the specific offer of Achilles’ horses. Being acquainted with the source text, Ps.-Euripides’ Dolon proceeds to request his remuneration, just like any other fourth-century Greek mercenary would have normally done. (Ps.-)Bhāsa’s Droṇa is also familiar with the way in which Vyāsa’s Droṇa waited for Ekalavya to ask him what he wanted as his remuneration. However, he still opts for requesting his remuneration, against all social convention, before being asked to do so. In this, (Ps.-)Bhāsa’s Droṇa seems so odd that even Duryodhana wonders about his behavior.

Well, it is necessary to work for it, and therefore, to give the worker a fair wage. Remuneration being attached to a job brings forth twice the pleasure.

DROṆAḤ

dakṣiṇeti

bhavatu bhavatu

vyapaśramayiṣye tāvad bhavantam

katham ācāryo ’pi vyapaśramayiṣyate

Regarded as another instance of Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the distinguishing trait here would be oddity: a Greek text (Rhesus) in which a tricky character (Dolon) normally requests a remuneration (the horses) when following a source (Il. 10), would have become an Indian text (The Five Nights) in which a tricky character (Droṇa) oddly requests a remuneration (the deal) when following a source (MBh. 1.123.10-39). Oddity in one culture, paired with a lack of it in the other, strongly suggests a borrowing.136

As for the anagnorisis, even though its achievement by means of a scar is certainly Homeric (e.g., Od. 19.466-475), its relation to a reinstatement could point to a borrowing from Roman theater. Plautus (254-184 BCE)137 and Terence (185-159 BCE)138 offer several examples: in Capt. 872-874, an account by a third party allows a freeman to recognize his “son [filium]”, who had been living as a slave; in Cas. 1012-1014, the epilogue predicts the discovery of a female slave’s noble birth, as the “daughter [filia]” of a freeman; in Cist. 664-665, a “baby rattle [crepundia]”¹³⁹ causes a mother to recognize her daughter, who had been living as a courtesan; in Curc. 653-657, a “ring [anulum]”¹⁴⁰ results in a soldier recognizing a supposed courtesan, with whom he was in love, as none other than his sister; in Epid. 635-636, a slave realizes that a young woman, who had been subject to slavery, is his master’s “daughter [filiam]”; in Men. 1133, an abducted young man realizes that he is in the presence of his long-lost “brother [frater]”, once he hears the other repeat the name of their mother; and in An. 904-956, an old man reminiscing brings about the recognition of a young woman as the “daughter [filiam]” of a freeman. Nonetheless, the most relevant examples come from Plautus’ The Little Carthaginian and The Rope.

In The Little Carthaginian, a youth named Agorastocles is kidnapped and sold as a slave, only to be latter recognized as the nephew of a Carthaginian man who secures his wedding. Several of these details coincide with the plot of The Five Nights. Agorastocles and Abhimanyu are abducted youths: “is taken away [surripitur]” (Poen. 68) and “has walked right into his capture [grahaṇaṃ gataḥ]” (PR 2.34). They both endure a subordination: “sells him to a master [vendit eum domino]” (Poen. 75) and “made him descend [avatāritaḥ]” (PR 2.37). Their uncles take part in both recognitions: “my uncle [mi patrue]” (Poen. 1076) and “dear uncle [bhos tāta]” (PR 2.67.2). And they both end up married: “you must give her to me in marriage [despondeas]” (Poen. 1156) and “I take her as a wife [pratigṛhyate]” (PR 2.71).

However, the most telling commonality is that of a scar aiding the anagnorisis: bitten by a monkey, Agorastocles is left with a scar on his left hand, which is examined by Hanno, his older, long-lost relative, for his recognition; and, having his forearm slapped by the bowstring/confined by the bracelets, Arjuna is left with a scar on his (presumably right)141 forearm, which is interpreted by Uttara, his younger, soon-to-be relative, for his recognition.

prakoṣṭhāntarasaṅgūḍhaṃ gāṇḍīvajyāhataṃ kiṇam |

yat tad dvādaśavarṣānte naiva yāti savarṇatām ||

The scar, which was inflicted by the string of Gāṇḍīva and remains hidden in the interior of his forearm, does not vanish, having the same appearance even at the end of the twelve years [sc. of exile].

(PR 2.63)

etan me pārihāryāṇāṃ vyāvartanakṛtaṃ kiṇam |

sannirodhavivarṇatvād godhāsthānam ihāgatam ||

This scar of mine was produced by me removing my bracelets: it comes close to taking the place of the arm guard because of the paleness caused by the confinement.

(PR 2.64)

Regarded as yet another instance of Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the distinguishing trait here would be reversal: a Roman text (The Little Carthaginian), in which a younger character (Agorastocles) is recognized by an old relative (Hanno) because of a scar on his left side, would have become an Indian text (The Five Nights) in which an older character (Arjuna) is recognized by a younger soon-to-be relative (Uttara) because of a scar on his right side.

In The Rope, a woman named Palestra, after being kidnapped and sold as a courtesan, is later recognized as the daughter of a fisherman who, eventually, secures her wedding. In this case, the most compelling point of encounter are the names carved on weapons, which function as determinants for the anagnorisis: the woman Palestra is recognized by her father Daemones because she identifies, without seeing them, a little sword with the name of her father Daemones carved on it, as well as a little axe with the name of her mother Daedalis carved on it; and the man Arjuna is recognized by his grandfather Bhīṣma because he identifies himself, without being seen, through an arrow with the name Arjuna carved on it.

Regarded as one more instance of Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the distinguishing feature here would be merging: a Roman text (The Rope) in which a female character (Palestra) is recognized by an old relative (Daemones) because two names (Daemones and Daedalis) are spelled on two weapons (a little sword and a little axe), would have become an Indian text (The Five Nights) in which a male character (Arjuna) is recognized by an old relative (Bhīṣma) because a name (Arjuna) is spelled on a weapon (an arrow).

Before moving on to the next instance of possible Greek influence, I would like to adduce an additional argument to support the view of Abhimanyu’s anagnorisis from a Greek/Aristotelian perspective. According to Poet. 1452a28-31, an anagnorisis encompasses three changes: from ignorance to knowledge, from enmity to friendship (or vice versa), and from prosperity to adversity (or vice versa). When those criteria are applied to the dramatic Abhimanyu, one sees that he goes from not knowing the identity of his father and uncles to being fully aware of it. Following such realization, he retrospectively understands why they were not taunted by him, and immediately he re-signifies their behavior as a friendly form of taunting. Moreover, any adverse effects that could have resulted from his capture are suddenly overshadowed by the prosperous family reunion. This is not the case in the Virāṭaparvan, where the Pāṇḍavas, even after being recognized, remain friends to their friends (the Matsyas) and foes to their foes (the Kauravas), and they just move on from one adverse situation (the exile) to the next (the war).

[AM3] Spaces, times, characters, and themes are changed in the plays, which otherwise would be dramatizations and not adaptations. As would be expected from any other text that critically engages with its canonical source, both adaptations incorporate various changes. In Rhesus, the general perspective is recast from the Greeks to the Trojans (GA7), whereas in The Five Nights, the remote sacrifice is remade as a proximate one (SA7). Additionally, while Ps.-Euripides maintains the nighttime from the Homeric ambush (GA8), (Ps.-)Bhāsa turns Vyāsa’s five villages into the eponymous five nights (SA8).

If (Ps.-)Bhāsa was acquainted with (Ps.-)Euripides, the title itself could have been a Greco-Roman borrowing for The Five Nights. Assuming that the number five is an adapted element coming from the five-village request in the MBh., the Rhesus would have provided a supplementary literary component. To put it another way, the pañca- part of the title would be Indian, but the rātra- part of it could be Greco-Roman. Thus, the spatial limit of five would have been re-created as a temporal limit of five, and the five “watches of the night” from the Greek play would have become the five “nights” in the Sanskrit play.

As an instance of Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the hallmark here would be change: a Greek text (Rhesus) with a temporal deadline (five watches of the night) which has been adapted from the temporal deadline (three watches of the night) of the source (Il. 10) would have become an Indian text (The Five Nights) with a temporal deadline (five nights) which has been changed from the spatial deadline (five villages) of the source (MBh. 5).

[AM4] Death and violence on stage are ignored as per dramatic convention. In agreement with the Greek dramatic convention, Rhesus ignores the death of Dolon (GA9), as well as the total of deaths. Deaths on the Greek stage are highly unusual, and so are they on the Indian stage, as prescribed by Nāṭyaś. 18.38.142 Similarly, The Five Nights opts to ignore the violence by Virāṭa (SA9) as well as the upcoming violence of the war. Here, the Greek convention could have been borrowed as an Indian rule.

Violence on the Greek stage is avoided at all costs by Aeschylus (524-455 BCE),143 Sophocles (496-405 BCE),144 and (Ps.-)Euripides: in Ag. 1650 ff., there are threats of a fight by “sword [ξίφος]”; in OT 1146 ff., of “torturing [αἰκίσῃ]” an old man; in Andr. 577 ff., of “staining with blood [καθαιμάξας]” the head of a king with a scepter; in Hel. 1628 ff., of “looking to die [κατθανεῖν ἐρᾶν]”; in IA 309 ff., also of “staining with blood [καθαιμάξω]” the head of an old man with a scepter; and in Rhes. 684 ff., of a “spear [λόγχην]” going through an enemy. This time, Aeschylus’ The Suppliants seems to be the model.

The Suppliants present a lengthy confrontation between the Chorus and a Herald. There, one finds violent references to “the cutting off a head [ἀποκοπὰ κρατός]” (Supp. 841), the throwing of “punches [παλάμαις]” (Supp. 865), and “the dragging by the hair [ὁλκὴ… πλόκαμον (Supp. 884) and ἀποσπάσας κόμης (Supp. 909)]”. But the precise borrowing would have come from a King who calls out the Herald for his arrogance, which in turn would have become the overconfidence and the haughtiness that Virāṭa criticizes, respectively, in Yudhiṣṭhira and Abhimanyu.

As an instance of Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the hallmark here would also be change: a Greek text (The Suppliants) where a monarch (the King) censures some explicit instances of violence (beheading, punching, and hair pulling) by one newcomer (the Herald), would have become an Indian text (The Five Nights) where a monarch (Virāṭa) censures some implicit instances of violence (being overly confident and being haughty) by two newcomers (Yudhiṣṭhira and Abhimanyu).

In a nutshell, from the ambush motif, I propose a Greek influence from Il. 10 and Rhesus into MBh. 4 and The Five Nights. I have pinpointed four adaptation techniques: theme subtraction-cum-merging (AM1), character addition-cum-emphasis (AM2), changing of spaces, times, characters, and themes (AM3), and ignoring-by-convention (AM4). In terms of the proposed Greco-Indian anukaraṇa, the influence would be marked by merging. Additionally, I put forward five Greco-Roman borrowings for the ambush motif: the remuneration, taken from Rhesus itself and characterized by oddity; the scarred limb, acquired from Plautus’ The Little Carthaginian and defined by reversal; the signed weapon, gotten from Plautus’ The Rope and distinguished by merging; the five night watches/five nights, also coming from Rhesus itself and differentiated by change; and a violent arrogance, to be found in Aeschylus’ The Suppliants and marked by change as well. If the MBh. already relies on the Greek epic’s version of the ambush, as seems to be the case,145 then it would not come as much of a surprise that PR also profits from Greek sources, especially the Rhesus.