365bet娱乐

36
as a 'forgery', "of doubtful authority", and "proving
nothing" its authenticity has been proved by the
independent evidence of the S眉ktimuktavali of Jalhana
( 12th Century A.D.), where it is definitely ascribed to
Rajasekhara.
啶む��
[tu
] Assuming that the whole context, alleged to be from
the Kavivimarsa vis. etc., is a genuine one,
we shall see whether any meaning can be extracted from
it. Dr. Sarup tries to bridge over the absurdity by noting
the tradition that makes Dhavaka a contemporary of Sri
Harsa and the real author of the works that pass off as 艢r墨
Harsa's. Dr. Sarup takes 'Bh膩sa' in the verses preceding
啶�啶距じ啶ㄠぞ啶熰�曕�氞�曕�嵿ぐ啷囙そ啶�啶� [产丑腻蝉补苍腻峁璦办补肠补办谤别'辫颈] e etc. to mean 'illustrious', and translates:
"Neither wealth nor noble descent can account for poetic
power, for the illustrious (Bhasa) Dhavaka became the
foremost of poets. By the illustrious (poet) (Bhasena)
was composed in the beginning a play called Priyadarsika
'Thus interpreted,' says Dr. Sarup, 'the passage
neither clouds the reliability of Rajasekhara's statement
nor gives any indication of the existence of two Bh膩sas'."
The interpretation, however, appears to be unsatisfactory
and far from convincing.
We think that the extract compares Dh膩vaka with
Bh膩sa. In the two genuine Rajasekhara stanzas, viz.
啶膏ぐ啶膏�嵿さ啶む��啶�啶掂た啶む�嵿ぐ啶距ぃ啶距�� [蝉补谤补蝉惫补迟墨辫补惫颈迟谤腻峁嚹佱箖 ] etc. and 啶呧す啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啶距さ啷� 啶掂ぞ啶椸�嵿う啷囙さ啷嵿く啶距�� [aho prabh膩vo v膩gdevy膩岣� ] etc., the poet has
compared a potter ( kul眉la) Drona to Vyasa, a m膩tanga
( untouchable) Div膩kara to B膩峁嘺 and May奴ra, and
similarly a washerman Dh膩vaka to Bh膩sa. Now the
tradition ascribing the authorship of the Priyadar艣ik膩,
N膩g膩nanda etc. has been shown to be genuine and a
long-standing one. The comparison of Dh膩vaka with
Bhasa seems to have been instituted on account of the
modelling of the Priyadarsika and Ratnavali on the Svapna
1 K. Rama Pisharoti, IHQ, 5, pp. 553-554. 2 Vision, Intr., pp.21-25.
啶膏ぐ啶膏�嵿さ啶む��啶�啶掂た啶む�嵿ぐ啶距ぃ啶距�� 啶溹ぞ啶むた啶膏�嵿い啶む�嵿ぐ 啶� 啶︵�囙す啶苦え啶距ぎ啷� 啷�
啶掂�嵿く啶距じ啶膏�嵿お啶班�嵿ぇ啷� 啶曕�佮げ啶距げ啷嬥そ啶�啷傕う啷嵿く啶︵�� 啶︵�嵿ぐ啷嬥ぃ啷� 啶�啶距ぐ啶む�� 啶曕さ啶苦�� 啷�
啶呧す啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啶距さ啷� 啶掂ぞ啶椸�嵿う啷囙さ啷嵿く啶� 啶�啶ㄠ�嵿ぎ啶距い啶權�嵿�椸う啶苦さ啶距�曕ぐ啶� 啷�
啶多�嵿ぐ啷�啶灌ぐ啷嵿し啶膏�嵿く啶距き啶掂い啷嵿じ啶�啷嵿く啶� 啶膏ぎ啷� 啶�啶距ぃ啶�啶�啷傕ぐ啶�啷嬥�� 啷�
[蝉补谤补蝉惫补迟墨辫补惫颈迟谤腻峁嚹佱箖 j膩tistatra na dehin膩m |
vy膩saspardh墨 kul膩lo'bh奴dyad dro峁噊 bh膩rate kavi岣� ||
aho prabh膩vo v膩gdevy膩 yanm膩ta峁単adiv膩kara岣� |
艣r墨har峁�asy膩bhavatsabhya岣� samo b膩峁嘺may奴rayo岣� ||
] 4 IHQ, 1, p. 373; Sarup, Vision, Intr., pp. 22-23; Paranjape, Sahityasamgraha, 1,
pp. 141-186. Prof. Paranjape worked out the parallelisms and analogies between the
Priyadarsika, Ratnavali and Nagananda on the one hand and the Trivandrum Bh盲sa
plays on the other, to prove Bhasa's authorship of all these works. The whole attempt,
however, is already discredited as subversive of the accepted chronology of Indian
writers.