2025-12-29 10:07:24 by akprasad
This page does not need to be proofread.
<p lang="en">vii</p>
<p lang="sa">are in the first place two citations from Sv. given in works
on rhetoric which are not found in the extant play. Second-
ly, the Bhāvaprakāśa of S'aradātanaya gives us a passage in
which the Sv. is classed as a play of the Praśānta type; in
this passage the author gives us a sort of a synopsis of the
this passage the author gives us a sort of a synopsis of the
play which reveals that the Sv. known to S'aradātanaya had
much in common with the Tss. Svapnavāsavadatta but was
not identical with it, as one important incident mentioned
in the passage is not found in the Tss. play². Further in
his Natakalakṣaṇaratnakosa, Sagaranandin gives us an
extract from the Sy, which in substance but not in actual
words, is found in the Iss. play.
<p lang="sa">Thus it will be clear that the Sv. of this group is merely
a version a stage version of the original play.
a version a stage version of the original play.</p>
<p lang="sa">From all the foregoing discussion, it will be clear that
in the first place the Sv. is not the genuine work of Bhāsa,
and secondly that it is by no means certain that these plays
claim to be the production of one writer; they are a hetero-
Steous group, and, therefore, cannot be regarded as the
work of the poet of the Sr. and therefore of Bhasa.
<verse lang="sa">सतपमकपाटे नयनहारं स्वरूपतडनेन ? ।
उदानविष्टा गृह मे नृपतनूजा ॥
<p lang="sa">Abhinavagupta on Dhanyaloka;
<p lang="sa">vidreraja youním ju že faetazy ।
<p lang="sa">ननं काचिदिहासांना मां दृश्वा सहसा नता ( गना ? )
<p lang="sa">2. Vide va avasavadattom intro, viii.
<p lang="en">Natyadarpana.
</page>