1887.] M. Nyayaratna — On the Authorship of the Mrichchhahatihd, 197 



sfT[3jr^: | ^ | ^ | 



faW^*T*f* 1^18 1 

 effT3U^?f: | ^ I ^^ I 



WfW II ^JT^^Vt I 



The verse on which the argument is founded is, I hold, adverse to 

 the theory. An explanation of the first passage where the verse f%*tHffa 

 &c. is given (II, 226, p. 218, Cal. edition, 1863) would itself show 

 that the verse has been quoted from some other author. Having given 

 there the definition of the rhetorical figure Utjprekshd and illustrated it 

 by examples, the author writes : 



f^wffa rmTsiTTfa *rtffaripf *w I 



%WT fW^#RcgfW3fEJT?WTf%ff II 

 Do. Do. Do. 



3TT37I^!: I ^ I ^ I 

 Here the author evidently controverts the opinion of some rhetori- 

 cians who regarded the verse in question f%*q#fa &c. as an example of 

 Upama. He shows by a long argument, and it may be remarked, by the 

 way, that this is the only instance where the author is distinctly contro- 

 versial — that these rhetoricians are mistaken. Now these rhetoriciaus 

 may very well be assumed to be older than Dandin himself, in which 

 case the verse could not possibly be Dandiu's. But even supposing that 



