As the theories and ideas regarding the thirteen anonymous Trivandrum plays deviate considerably, the plays have to be considered individually, and not as a group. Only after establishing stylistic characteristics of each individual drama, can further conclusions be drawn regarding a common authorship, the origin and the chronology of the dramas. The newly established chronology then should be the basis for further investigations concerning, for example, content and history. As the only aspects that make them a group are their being part of the Kûtiyâttam repertoire (amongst others Pisharoti 1923-25), except for the Cârudatta, some common technical aspects (amongst others Shâstri 1923-25), common expressions and other similarities (amongst others Sukthankar 1923), and their similar Prâkrit (amongst others B. Sastri 1921; Printz 1921), I focus my attention on the Sanskrit verse portion. The reason is that the similarities are for the greater part confined to the prose part. In addition, as already has been observed above, although some verses might have been added or omitted, they were most likely not re-written. So, if one should accept the adaptation theory, then it still does not affect the validity of my approach.
The three tests which are applied in this study are the Coincidence Test (resulting in a percentage and a pattern), the shloka Test (resulting also in a percentage and a pattern), and the Word Frequencies Test (resulting in percentages only). In addition to the thirteen Trivandrum plays, nine reference plays are analysed. The reference authors are Kâlidâsa, Bhavabhûti and Harsha, who each wrote three dramas. In order to analyse the position of the Cârudatta, the two dramas of Shûdraka are analysed also. Furthermore, to countercheck the validity of the Coincidence Test in the case the Trivandrum dramas might be of a Southern origin, I included the Âshcaryacûdâmani of Shaktibhadra, the play which forms the Râmâyana trilogy together with the Pratimâ and the Abhisheka. And finally the single drama of Bhatta Nârâyana is analysed. As to these authors, it must be kept in mind that it might be possible that some plays have been incorrectly attributed to them. Furthermore, some authors may show a larger variation than others do, for example, Kâlidâsa exhibits a less homogeneous percentage, with Mâlavikâgnimitra standing a little apart from the other two plays. However, even here the coincidence pattern is rather similar in all of the three plays. Besides, the variation between Kâlidâsa's plays is not too great to exclude a single authorship. Another example is Bhavabhûti's Mahâvîracarita, which can be split in two, as is already suggested by Mall (1928). This is confirmed also by the shloka pattern.