In addition to differences of wording, which constitute the largest part of these variations, we find also instances of transposition of the lines of stanzas[1] and of assignment of speeches to characters other than those indicated in the printed texts.[2] In some cases Dhanika does not repeat dramatic quotations in full, but gives merely the first and last words of the passage to which he refers; see, for example, the commentary on DR. 1. 48.
Some of the quotations occur more than once, being used as illustrations of two, or sometimes three, different statements. One of the stanzas drawn from Amaru, for example, appears both at 2. 31 and at 2. 82; a stanza from the Mahāvīracarita is quoted at 2. 1 and recurs at 2. 20 and 4. 22. Usually the passage is repeated in full at each occurrence; occasionally, however, only the opening words are given (cf. the Ratnāvalī quotation at 4. 86, which appears in full at 2. 92). The first illustrative excerpt at 4. 86, although introduced with the statement prāg udāhṛtaḥ, ‘previously quoted,’ does not occur elsewhere in the commentary. Possibly the words just mentioned have been misplaced and should be connected with the following quotation, which has really occurred before.
Besides referring to actual dramatic works, Dhanika makes mention also of legends and stories on which plays were based. Such are the Udayanacarita, mentioned at DR. 2. 89, and the Samudramanthana, named at DR. 3. 61, although the latter may be actually the name of a drama.
Of particular interest from the point of view of literary chronology is the occurrence in Dhanika’s commentary of five stanzas from the Mahānāṭaka, or Hanuman-nāṭaka.[3] The source is indicated in only one instance (DR. 2. 1), but the lines are all to be found in the text of the recension published by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara. The oldest extant recension of this play, that
