365bet娱乐

192 End. mulase0 | ? I bhasyase0| abhyaso'dhyayasamaptidyotakah | iti sabdah sastrasamaptau | Colophon. iti srikhaghnesvaracaryyaviracite sandilyasatavatriyabhasye trtiyasya dvitiya- mahikam | samaptasvayamadhyayah | samapta ceyam trilaksana bhaktimimamsa | sandilyasutranam vyakhyanam sandilyasutresu tu bhaktipadarthanirupanam | visayah | No. 1225. usaragodaya natika | Substance, country-made yellow paper, 63 x 43 inches. Folia, 19. Lines, 9 on a page. Extent, 726 slokas. Character, Nagara. Date, Sm. 1914. Place of deposit, Dhaka, Pandit Ramesvara Chakravarti. Appearance, new. Prose and verse. Generally correct. Usha-ragodaya-Natika. A play in four Acts, on the loves of Usha and Aniruddha. By Rudra-chandra Deva. The story is to be found in the Vishnu Purana, Book V. Chapters 32, 33. This work is not included in the list of Hindu Plays which Wilson has appended to the Introduction to his Hindu Theatre (Vol. I. p. lxx.). Of Rudra Deva the author of the Yajati-Charitra, Wilson makes the following remarks-" He is not likely to be the same as Rudra Bhatta, the author of the Sringara Tilaka, who is amongst the writers mentioned in the Sarngadhara Paddhati. A prince, named Rudra Deva, is highly praised for his liberality in some of the examples quoted by App aya Dikshita, in his Kuvalayananda. Appaya flourished in the reign of Krishna Deva of Vijayanagar, about A. D. 1526, and the prince alluded to may possibly be Pratapa Rudra Deva, sovereign of Telingana in the beginning of the fourteenth century. We have also a Rudra, the author, real or supposed, of a vocabulary, whose date appears to be about the same, the thirteenth or fourteenth century." (Hindu Theatre, II. 388.). The occurrence of the word Pratapa in the adjective-phrase prefixed to the name of the author in this MS. lends colour to Wilson's conjecture that Rudra Deva is the same as Pratapa Rudra Deva, but a Prataparudra Deva of Orissa was a devoted pupil of Chaitanya and greatly attached to the mystic faith of Bhakti, and it is not at all unlikely that he should be the author of such a work. Kielhorn's C. P. Catalogue VI. 9. N. W. P. Catalogue, Sahitya. 69 is a commentary on this play by an unknown writer. The treatise under notice is the same as the Uparagodaya Natika noticed before. Ante, Vol. I. p. 64.