140 अथ 710प्रवृत्तकम्—
प्रवृत्तकालसमानगुणवर्णनया सूचितपात्रप्रवेशः=प्रवृत्तकम् । यथा—
यथा—एष राजेव दुष्यन्तः711 इति ।
गूढार्थं पदं 713 तत्पर्यायश्चेति माला । प्रश्नश्चोत्तरं च तयोर्माला द्वयोरुक्तिप्रत्युक्ती । तद्द्विविधमुद्धात्यकम् । तत्राद्यं 714 विक्रमोर्वश्यां यथा—
भो वयस्य इत्यादि ।
भो वयस्य इत्यादि ।
This is spelt in both ways as pravṛttakam and pravartakam.↩
- शाकु॰ १।५↩
N.S.P. samālāpo. B.M. samālāpau.↩
N.S.P. reads -paryāyaś cetyevaṃ mālā. praśnottaraṃ cetyevaṃ vā mālā. dvayor uktipratyuktau tad-, etc.↩
After Vikramorvaśyāṃ yathā, the words of this illustration are perhaps missing in the MSS. The next portion beginning with vidūṣakaḥ—bho vayassa, etc. seems to be another illustration from the Vīthī known as Mālatikā. Most probably the first illustration too began with the words vidūṣakaḥ—bho vayassa, etc. from the Vikramorvaśīya. In what manner it was explained to be the illustration in the context is not clear, because of the missing of the relevant portion in the Avaloka. On page 62 of the Vikramorvaśīya of the ed. by S. P. Pandit (B.S.S., 1901) we find a situation where ṿidūṣakaḥ—bho vayassa etc. occur. In connection with the bhūrjapatra and its searching, there is some evasive remark on the part of the King in the context. It is not clear whether this portion was in any way connected with the discussion at hand. See Prof. V. Raghavan’s Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, 1963, pp. 887–8. A.T.A. reads here mālavikāgnimitre ! This is perhaps the mistake of the scribe in taking Mālatikā for Mālavikā.
In this context one thing is still puzzling to me. The transcript of Bahurūpamiśra’s commentary on the DR of Dhanaṃjaya from the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, and the transcript of the same from the Trivandrum MSS. Library, contain also the sentence (of the controversial illustration) tatrādyam vikramorvaśīye yathā—vidūṣakaḥ: bho vayassa; Prof. Raghavan is silent about this and does not explain this illustration even according to B.M. The example from the Mālatikā (vīthī) occurs later on, in Bahurūpamiśra’s, no doubt. But the reference to Vikramorvaśīya even by Bahurūpamiśra remains still a problem unsolved. It thus transpires that Dhanika, and Bahurūpamiśra—both refer to Vikramorvaśīya for illustrating the first udghātyaka. How these writers could have erred, is still not clear to me.
Unfortunately Bh. Nṛ. is not helpful here, because of his silence. Till we get some more reliable evidence in the matter, I am unable to take it for granted that so scrupulously careful a writer as Dhanika would have made the mistake of giving the wrong name of a play, and of citing the incorrect illustration, as is contended by Prof. Raghavan. Further, the example for the second from Pāṇḍavānanda is given by Dhanika later than the one from the supposed Mālatikā, whereas in B.M.’s the references to the Vikramorvaśīya and Pāṇḍavānanda occur with the remarks as ādyam and dvitīyam respectively as in the Avaloka, and later on the example from the Mālatikā is found, without making it clear as to whether this was intended as an alternate example (if it was, though there is no vā) for the first or the second. The point thus is not completely free from doubts.↩