पृष्ठम्:कादम्बरी-उत्तरभागः(पि.वि. काणे)१९१३.djvu/२९

KADAMBAR. X The Prastavanas to all the tree dramas are identical almost word for word. In the Prastavana of each of the three dramas Harsha, is said to be the author. No one ascribes the Priya darsika and the Nagananda to Bana. Hence the Ratnavali also is not the work of Bana. The Rabnavali is quoted by Damodaragupta in his Kuttanimata (8th century A. D.) The Ratnavali and the Nagnanda are quoted by name in the Dhvanyalaka (p. 150, p. 176 respectively). The Ratna vali is quoted at least a score of times in the Dasarpa. The Naganda and Priyadarsika, are also quoted in theDasarpa but not so frequently. But in none of these writings is there the slightest hint that the author of the Ratnavali was Bana, and not Harsla , The inthroductory verses attached to the Kadambar are supposed by some scholars to be the composition not of Bara, but of his son or someone else. We demur to this conclusion on the following grounds(a) If the verses had been written by Bana's son, he would have referred to his authorship of then, as he does in the case of the introduc tory verses prefixed to the Uttarabhaga. Moreover he would not have mentioned his father in the colourless way in which the last verse (of the Parvabhaga) speaks of Baga as Dvijena tena &c, (b) Kshemendra quotes in his works at least four verses of the Introduction and once distinctly says that they are Bana's (in Auchityavichara charcha* ). (c) It is next to impossible that Bana, an orthodox writer, should have commenced his work without any kind of salutation at the beginning. Iv Katha and Akhyayika. We shall now briefly indicate the characteristics of these two classes of writings as defined by Sanskrit rhetori. CanS. The earliest known writer, who puts down the points of difference between Katha and Akhyayikनै as defined by some rhetoricians (although he linself disapproves of them न तु यथा भट्टबाणस्य 'जययुपेन्द्रः स चकार दूरतः' &c.