प्रियदर्शिका नाटिका (सम्राट हर्षवर्धन - चतुरङ्क शास्त्रीय नाटिका सान्वय सटीक)

XVIII centuries after the dramas had been written, does not satisfy a historical or critical test. There is no positive evidence in favour of the statement that Dhāvaka is the author of Ratnāvalī No literary work under the name of Dhavaka has come down to us Besides nothing is known about Dhavaka So the theory that Dhāvaka is the author of Ratnāvalī is not tenable in the face of the overwhelmingly strong evidence in favour of the authorship of Harsha of Ratnāvalī and his other two plays Another theory, that Bāṇa is the author of Ratnāvalī is based on the variant reading of the passage in Kāvyaprakāśa, “श्रीहर्षाद्बाणादीनामिव धनम्” This theory which was set forth by Dr Hall in his introduction to Vāsavadattā is not tenable either In the first place Bāṇa's style, as it is seen in his great works, Kādambarī and Har- ṣacharita is quite dissimilar to that of Ratnāvalī. Besides Ratnāvalī nowhere betrays that high kind of poetry which is abundantly seen in Kādambarī or Harshacharita It is also difficult to believe that Bāṇa sold Ratnāvalī of all his works when he could have struck a much better bargain by selling his Kādambarī Then again it has been proved that the author of Ratnāvalī is also the author of Nāgānanda and it is impossible that Bāṇa who was a strict Brāhmaṇa wrote Nāgānanda which glorifies the Buddhistic doctrine. There is yet another theory which attributes these plays to Bhāsa, who is praised by Kālidāsa and whose plays have been recently discovered and published This theory was first propounded by Mr Narayan Shāstri of South India and afterwards upheld by Prof S M Parānjpe of Poona Mr Shāstri bases his theory on a passage from the कविविमर्श of राजशेखर But as the passage quoted by him seems to be spurious and its authenticity cannot be proved, his theory based upon it topples down Mr Parānjpe does not rely on this passage but argues independently to prove that Bhāsa is the real au- thor of Nāgānanda and the other two plays His whole po- sition is based upon some parallel ideas, similar grammatical peculiarities and literary devices, which he has picked out from Bhāsa's plays and the two plays Nāgānand and Priyadarśikā But mere similarity of ideas and sentiments, and of grammatical and literary peculiarities has little value unless it is supported by other convincing arguments Parallel ideas, and parallel literary devices or peculiarities even occur in the works of authors belonging to different ages and