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