Other poets (Kālidāsa, Amara, Sundara, and Śaṅkha) in an anonymous stanza recorded by Cowell.[1]
Character and value. Although professedly an aid to the understanding of the text, the commentary leaves much to be desired and is not nearly so helpful as the average work of its kind. At times it explains what is so clear as to require no comment (this is, however, frequently the case in Hindu glosses); often, on the other hand, obscure words and phrases receive no elucidation whatever, and whole sections are occasionally dismissed with but the single word spaṣṭam, ‘[it is] clear.’ Even where Dhanaṃjaya’s definitions of technical terms are illustrated by means of examples from Sanskrit literature, the absence of further explanation sometimes leaves the exact meaning in doubt. The real merit of Dhanika’s Avaloka lies in the occasional lengthy discussions of disputed and obscure points and in his collection of illustrative quotations, many of which are of value in obtaining a clear conception of the principles of Hindu dramaturgy.
Dhanika’s explanatory and illustrative quotations. In his explanations of Dhanaṃjaya’s rules, Dhanika not only refers to scenes and situations of the principal Hindu dramas,[2] but also quotes such passages as will serve to illustrate the matters under discussion. His quotations are, however, by no means confined to dramatic works, but are drawn to a considerable extent from other fields of literature as well, particularly from the sententious poetry and the so-called kāvya productions. Occasionally also he corroborates his statements by an excerpt from the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra or some other technical work.
The range of these citations and references, so far as they have been identified, can best be seen from the following tabulation, in which works merely mentioned (but not quoted) are enclosed in parentheses. In the case of works cited only a few times, all the occurrences are recorded after the names or in the footnotes.
