________________ There is one more observation in ND. (p.57) regarding the roles of Fate and human endeavour in our life. Its purport is that the types of dramas like PD. and the Mrcchakatika wherein the final result depends upon chance, do contribute to the psychological refinement of the spectators and hence should be certainly welcomed, because after all Fate presupposes human actions. Explaining Bharata's rule that in the Prakarana the heroine should be Mandakula, Abhinavagupta says that actually a Kulangana is to be shown as if she has some blemish and hence from a low family. Keeping this in view Nandayanti in PD. is shown as suspected by Samudradatta of lapse of character on hearing the remarks of Asokadatta and others, but it does not constitute a defect because, it acoounts for Nandyanti's banishment and staying with a stranger and is crucial for the Nirvahana Sandhi. Its figuring in the Mukhasandhi is basic as it implies possibility of liaison. But Abhinavagupta denounces those critics who criticized Brahmayasas for depicting blamable characters (like Nandayanti, Samudradatta and Sagaradatta) in PD. He observes that by such criticism it is not the dramatist, but the critics themselves who have sullied their reputation (Abh. II, pp. 431-432). Stressing the importance of PD. modern schlars also like Krishanamachariar (pp. 582-583), Raghavan (pp. (23-36), Warder (III, pp. 115-120) and others have critically discussed various available referecnces to PD. in Sanskrit critical literature and attempted to reconstruct a connected picture on which I have heavily relied here. Raghavan's following observations regarding the unique position PD. occupied in Sanskrit dramatic literature are quite apt : [18]