It is probably to these same considerations of meter that we must ascribe the adjectival use, in more than twenty cases, of numeral derivatives in -dhā, in place of the regular adjective derivatives in -vidha (of which only four examples occur: dvividha, 1. 15; caturvidha, 4. 52 b; ṣaḍvidha, 3. 58; daśavidha, 3. 54 d). Clearly adjectival in construction and signification, though not in form, are the following words, most of which are used as predicates:
| dvidhā: 1. 17, 125; 3. 10 b, 45 a; 4. 2 b. |
| dvedhā: 2. 31, 79 d. |
| tridhā: 1. 23 a, 122; 2. 24, 79 c; 4. 58, 67 d, 71. |
| tredhā: 2. 79 d; 3. 45 d, 55; 4. 79 d. |
| caturdhā: 2. 2, 77 a, 88 a, 93. |
| daśadhā: 1. 10. |
As doubtful cases, possibly truly adverbial, may be added the following: dvidhā, 3. 15 b; 4. 65 a; dvedhā, 1. 113; 3. 14 b; tridhā, 2. 79 b; ṣoḍha, 1. 111. The regular adverbial use is exemplified in tredhā, 1. 23 a; pañcadhā, 3. 30 a.
2. Concerning Dhanika’s Commentary on the Daśarūpa
Authorship and date. In most of the manuscripts the Daśarūpa is accompanied by a Sanskrit commentary, in prose, entitled Daśarūpāvaloka,[1] or ‘Examination of the Dasarupa.’ Its author, Dhanika, son of Viṣṇu,[2] is described, in one of the manuscripts, as an officer (mahāsādhyapāla) of King Utpalarāja,[3]
- ↑ Hall (p. 4, notes) records that one of his manuscripts has, in one place, the variant form Daśarūpāloka.
- ↑ There are known also commentaries on this work by Nṛsiṃha Bhaṭṭa (Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 247 b, 248 a), by Pāṇi, or Devapāṇi (Aufrecht, 2. 53), by Kṣoṇīdhara Miśra (Hall, p. 4, notes), and by Kuravirāma (Aufrecht, 2. 53). So far as I am aware, none of these have been made accessible in printed form.
- ↑ Wilson, Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, 3d ed., London, 1871, 1. xx, xxi. Wilson’s statement is reprinted by Hall, p. 3, notes.
