92
4
such a purely mechanical work cannot creditably be ascribed^ to him. His other drama, the Sringara-bhushana, shows good? j^j
poetry and originality. Apparently this is an inconsistency •- j|
If Parvati is not described as well as Kadambari, it is not the* ^
fault of Bana but of the nature of the work itself. A drama is» meant to be enacted and as such must wantonly omit long7 !
descriptions in tedious prose, whereas a romance is solely meant ^
for lengthy and vigorous sketches, which must be understood by good scholars alone. This may account for the comparative-mildness of the descriptions in the drama. Again Bana is-known to be a bad writer of poetry. His verses are always-strained and unnatural. The introduction to the Harsha-charita must be an apt illustration. If the Parvatiparinaya. has no good poetry, it is more probable it was composed by the Bana of the fth century. Nor can it be contended that '
Bana's genius never attempted any dramatic writing at all... For Peterson notes the existence of a drama Mukuda-taditaktv by the author of the Kadambari, though no copy of MSS. has been accessible to us. Therefore", in sifting the arguments in* favour of the new theory, the last alone forms a documentary evidence which, if based on earlier tradition, may suffice to-establish a case. Such then are the obstacles in its way. But still these are only obstacles which we wish to maker ' clear to a closer observer. The fact that old tradition never spoke of a drama of this name as Bana's goes to a great extent in its favour. These circumstances must only leave the deci--stem dubious, until some stronger historical evidence comes* forth. Proceeding from the imainatgion of a sound scholarr. the theory has high merits and deserves all congratulation*
The Parvatiparinaya is a drama of five acts, describing the* f
circumstances that led to the marriage of Parvati and Siva,-s in question either to Bairxa or