Regarding the treatment of the epic in the Abhisheka and the Pratimâ, several striking differences can be traced. Firstly, already in the Râmâyana itself two different viewpoints exist. In its older part, that is, Cantos 2-4, Râma is a quite normal human, whereas in the later added parts, that is, Cantos 1 and 7, as well as in some interpolated parts of the older Cantos, Râma is God Vishnu himself (see van Daalen 1980:189-191). Furthermore, the fire test to which Sîtâ is subdued in Canto 6.101-106 is not genuine, but interpolated (see Van Daalen 1980:189-191). These different treatments of Râma can be found also in the Pratimâ and the Abhisheka.
In the Pratimâ Râma is a human hero. His character is described as friendly and human (Woolner 1931:144). This person is the main character of the play, whereas the character of his enemy Râvana is quite flat. The contrast between hero and enemy is black and white. Râma is assisted by an ape army (Woolner 1930:156).
In the Abhisheka on the other hand Râma becomes God Vishnu in his own person, and in the sixth act God Agni appears on the stage. The latter proclaims that Sîtâ is in actual fact an incarnation of the Goddess Lakshmî (Devadhar 1926:44). The fire-ordeal of Sîtâ in 6.101-106 is described only in the Abhisheka, where Râma's divine character is in the foreground. In this play he is a rather rough, ruthless warrior, whose character displays little or no psychological depth. The lower characters on the other hand are described in more detail. The most human figures here are the losers Vâlin and Râvana (Woolner 1931:145). Râma is assisted by a real army, sent by Bharata (Woolner 1930:156).
These observations indicate two different views of the author or authors on the epic characters, although both views are present in the Râmâyana itself. However, regarding the more authentic treatment of the epic (Râma as a prince, assisted by the apes), and the sharp contrast between good and evil in the Pratimâ, I maintain that this latter play has not only been written by a different author, but also in an earlier century than the Abhisheka with its more modern and theological views on the epic characters.
As to the Pratijnâ, it might be that this Udayana play as we now have it is not very old, and belongs to a period after the sixth century, if we accept Tieken's (1993:5-44) hypothesis. He argues that the Pratijnâ borrowed a particular scene, that is, the quarrel among the three undercover agents, which are disguised as an idiot, a buddhist mendicant and a dindika, from the Mattavilâsa, a South Indian play from the beginning of the seventh century. The corresponding scene in the latter play involves a kapâlin, his pupil, a buddhist monk, a pâshupata and an idiot. The main argument is that such a quarrel is problematic in the case of spies (1993:10). If Tieken is right, then the Pratijnâ cannot belong to the Svapnavâsavadatta and the Cârudatta. Taking the vipulâ pattern into consideration, we can observe a certain incompatibility of Pratijnâ with its two companion texts. Unfortunately the vipulâs only occur in the second (2.13c) and the fourth act (4.23a, 4.24a), so Tieken's suggestion that the first scene of the third act might not be original (1993:8) cannot be confirmed. As to the second and fourth act, if the vipulâs prove to be added, then the Pratijnâ may indeed turn out to be a pastiche (Tieken 1993:20), although this is not confirmed by the Coincidence Pattern and Percentage. The only possible misplaced line is 1.8d, where we find a yati-bridging compound, which is typical for (post)classical times.
Finally, two other observations must be mentioned. Firstly, regarding its content, the last act of the Svapnavâsavadatta may be superfluous indeed. It seems to make a better connection with the Pratijnâ possible, as only here is there reference to the substitute marriage with the help of paintings. The end of the fifth act, the military victory, is a marvellous ending, as by then the goal has been reached, and the problems solved, although Udayana-plays as a rule end with a wedding (Pratijnâ, Ratnâvalî, Priyadarshika).
Secondly, the use of the desiderative in the Avimâraka, Pratimâ and Bâlacarita against the absence of the same forms in the Svapnavâsavadatta, Pratijnâ and Cârudatta, indicates their belonging to two separate groups.