365bet娱乐

30
shown by referring to the dream-scene, but it does not
refer to Vasavadatta-parinaya; therefore, according to Dr.
Sarup, Dh膩tri's speech in the sixth act referring to the
romantic marriage of Vasavadatta illustrates k膩ma-s峁沶g膩ra
(love marriage). Sarvananda's quotation being thus quite
reasonably explicable, it cannot help to proclaim our text
as spurious or stage version.
The most important evidence throwing a flood of
light over the authorship of Svapna is the one from the
Natyadarpana of
RAMACANDRA AND GUNACANDRA,
first given by Dr. L茅vi in JA, 1923, p. 197 (foot-note).
It runs:
啶�啶ム�� 啶�啶距じ啶曕�冟い啷� 啶膏�嵿さ啶�啷嵿え啶掂ぞ啶膏さ啶︵い啷嵿い啷� 啶多�囙か啶距げ啶苦�曕ぞ 啶多た啶侧ぞ啶むげ啶�啶掂げ啷嬥�曕�嵿�� 啶掂い啷嵿じ啶班ぞ啶溹��--
啶�啶距う啶距�曕�嵿ぐ啶距え啷嵿い啶距え啶� 啶�啷佮し啷嵿お啶距ぃ啶� 啶膏�嬥お啷嵿�� 啶氞�囙う啶� 啶多た啶侧ぞ啶むげ啶�啷� 啷�
啶ㄠ�傕え啶� 啶曕ぞ啶氞た啶︵た啶灌ぞ啶膏��啶ㄠぞ 啶�啶距�� 啶︵�冟し啷嵿�熰�嵿さ啶� 啶膏す啶膏ぞ 啶ㄠい啶� 啷� ( [yath膩 产丑腻蝉补办峁泃别 svapnav膩savadatte 艣eph膩lik膩 艣il膩talamavalokya vatsar膩ja岣�--
p膩d膩kr膩nt膩ni pu峁�p膩峁噄 sopma ceda峁� 艣il膩talam |
n奴na峁� k膩cidih膩s墨n膩 m膩峁� d峁涐梗峁璿膩 sahas膩 nat膩 || (] V. L. 啶椸い啶� ) [gat膩 ) ] "
The words 啶�啶距じ啶曕�冟い啷� [产丑腻蝉补办峁泃别 ] preceding 啶膏�嵿さ啶�啷嵿え啶掂ぞ啶膏さ啶︵い啷� [蝉惫补辫苍补惫腻蝉补惫补诲补迟别 ] in the above
quotation are used, according to Dr. L茅vi, to distinguish it
from another Svapna by a different author. There are no
instances of two dramatic works being docketted by the
same title as was pointed out above. The term
was prefixed to the word Svapnav膩savadatta as the public
were unfamiliar "with the play or its authorship"." That
it does not presuppose another Svapna is proved by the
fact that the same treatise describes the Mrcch as 啶多�傕う啷嵿ぐ啶曕さ啶苦ぐ啶氞た啶むぎ啷�,
[艣奴诲谤补办补惫颈谤补肠颈迟补尘,
] which could not have been appended to distinguish it from
the Daridra Carudatta which is already distinct.
Now, the printed Svapna does not contain the above
verse (and also the context, according to Dr. L茅vi) and
hence it is not the 'authentic' Svapna according to Dr. L茅vi,
nor is it by Bh膩sa. We shall see whether it can find any
place in the printed drama. It will be seen that it can
occur, if at all, in the fourth act of the play, where Dr. L茅vi
finds 'dislocated' elements of the original Bh膩sa scene.
Dr. Sukthankar has explained the situation in detail and
1 Cf. Raja, JOR, 1, p. 238, says that Vasavadatta-parinaya might have
formed the concluding portion of the real Svapna; but, as we shall show later on,
there is only one Svapna, represented by the printed text. 2 Sarup, Vision, Intr,
p. 27. The context is on p. 133 of the Svapna; Vision of Vasavadatta, Text, p. 57.
Mr. Sankar, however, leaves Kama-s峁沶g膩ra without an example, as no example
was needed, it being a common theme of most Sanskrit plays. AMV, 2, p. 47.
Natyadarpa峁嘺, GOS. No. 48, p. 84. 4 Thomas, JRAS, 1925, pp. 106-107; Winternitz,
CR, December 1924, p. 341. 5 Thomas, JRAS, 1925, p. 101; cf. L茅vi, JA, 1923,
p. 199.