________________
NM Kansara
N
(8) Fortunately the wretched murderer slipped off 119 (9) What did salankāyana say to the king 24 (10) Indeed the king was taken away to Ujjayini u
Incidentally It may be reinarked that in ylew of the objections of Bhamaba to various points of the original story, the above points raised and poetically and rationally rendered the plausible in his dramatised version speaks volumes for the dramatic imagination and a poet's aye to reallty in Bbasa
It is thus clear that the contention of Min T Ganapati Sastri, Dr S K De Drs AC Woolner and Laxman Sarupa, Dr Krishnamachariar, Dr Keitb, and Shri Bholashankar Vyas' that Bbqmaba's criticism 19 aimed at Bhasa's Prailinayaugandharðyang stands disproved, while the conclusion of Man Dr P V Kane to the effect that the story criticized by Bhamaha is not exactly the same as fouad 10 Bbasa's PRM seems to be based on solid foundations Pandit Batuknath Sharma and Baladev Upadhyay bavo therefore sided with Dr Kane s opinion 69
Now, let us examine the view of Dr AD Pusalkar 1 Ho thinks that Bhimaba's criticism 19 aimed at the Vinavasayadatta drama ideotified by some with the lost Unmadarasavadatta of Saktibhadra, and placed by Shri V Varadecharya in the early centuries of the Christian era & The fact that Dr Niti Adaval does not agree with the supposition of the formor in the
42. Opet p 14
चौगन्धरायण -पतित पाप एष । 43. Op at, p 15
यौगन्धरायण-भय कि प्रतिपन्न तेन साधुना । 44 Ibid
यौगन्धरायण-नीत स्वामी । एष सोऽनये । 45, Thirteen frivedrum Plays, Vol 1, p It ft nl. 2 46. Hut al Skt Lut , p 562, st nt 2 47 Skt Drama p 135 (Guj Tr by N B Purohit) 48 Sanskrit Kavi Darshan (Hmds) p 250 ft nt. 49 Hist Skt Poetica, p 115 50 Kvlk of Dhiman ed by Pts Batuknath Sharma and Beldev Upadhayay, Intro.
PP 30-31
Bhiu, A Study, p 79 52 Hut Skt. Lit, P 301, it nt 3, according to Dr De, this identification to ea
uosupported conjectura, 53 Hat Sam Lit, P 220.
