On the ground of the similarities (see above), verbal, structural, stylistic and ideological, Sukthankar maintains that the plays are evidently adaptations (1925:139).
A.K. and K.R. Pisharoti, too, considered the thirteen dramas mere compilations and adaptations to the stage of older plays (Pisharoti and Pisharoti 1923-25:114-115), partly basing their assumption on the observation that the individual acts of the Svapnavâsavadatta each have their own titles, and are staged as such independently in the temples in Kerala (Pisharoti 1923-25:641). According to me, this is no proof at all that the Svapnavâsavadatta as we know it now, consequently should be an adaptation to the stage, as the staging of one act only is not typical of the Kûtiyâttam tradition (see Tieken 1993:37). Another proof of adaptation would be the the missing benedictory stanza in the Cârudatta, which would be due to the hurry of the adaptator (Pisharoti and Pisharoti 1923-25:108).
Later, they (1925), and Raja (1928:217-245), too, even doubted the uniqueness of the discovery itself of the plays. They inform us that these plays have been staged for centuries in the temples of Kerala, by the Câkyârs and the Nanyârs, and as a consequence the manuscripts of the thirteen plays are easily found with them besides manuscripts of several other dramas. Therefore, the manuscripts as found by Mr. T. G. Shâstrî would not be unique at all. Several other plays are staged by the Câkyârs of Kerala, in addition to these thirteen plays. Manuscripts of other plays are therefore often found together with those of Bhâsa.
Compilation and adaptation to the stage of existing plays is not unusual amongst the Câkyars, according to Pisharoti (1923-25:116). Their assumption of adaptation is, however, not supported with good arguments. Besides, the idea that this is a common practice with the Câkyars is not very consistent, as the other dramas are considered genuine.
According to Barnett, the Prâkrit of the plays is typical of the stage of South India. He finds the same Prâkrit in the Kalyânasaugandhika of Nîlakantha and in the Mattavilâsa of Mahendravikramavarman (1921:587-89). This implies that the group as a whole is post-Kâlidâsan.
A.K. and K.R. Pisharoti (1923-25:107-117) explain the archaic features of the Prâkrit of the thirteen plays as due to its limited use, namely on the stage only. According to them, the Prâkrit has always had a purely literary function in Kerala, in fact, being more literary than Sanskrit, so it never achieved the position of a spoken language. Therefore, the playwrights of Kerala would have observed the laws of the Prâkrit grammarians of former days, and would still have used the oldest form of Prakrit, as that was the only one accepted and available in Kerala. As a consequence, the peculiarities of the Prâkrit are no criteria at all to prove its old age (1923-25:109).
Furthermore, the technical terms nândyante ..., and sthâpanâ at the beginning of the thirteen plays do not prove a common authorship at all, as all Sanskrit dramas written in Malayâlam script begin with the indication nândyante, and their prologue always ends with sthâpanâ instead of prastâvanâ. This does not only occur in the dramas written in Malayâlam script, but also in the manuscripts of the others. For instance, in Kâlidâsa's Shakuntalâ as found in Kerala (Pisharoti 1923-25:110).
The late origin of the Trivandrum plays can be concluded, according to A.K. and K.R. Pisharoti, from the genealogy of Râma as it occurs in the Abhisheka, and which deviates from that of Vâlmîki's Râmâyana and would have been copied from that of Kâlidâsa (1923-25:107). In this connection, however, Keith (1923-25:295) observes that Kâlidâsa certainly did not invent his genealogy of Râma, but borrowed it from the Purânas, to be more precise, from the Vishnupurâna, amsha 4, adhyâya 4 (see Shâstrî 1923-25:627). If either of the two had invented a genealogy on his own, then Kâlidasa could equally well have followed Bhâsa, instead of the other way around.
Barnett maintains that the common technical aspects are typical of the stage of South India. It is therefore not surprising that the drama Mattavilâsa of king Mahendravikramavarman from the 7th century A.D. has the same technical aspects as these Bhâsa plays (1919:233-234). The lacking of the name of the author and of the title of the play occurs more often in Kerala, amongst others in the Bhagavadajjukîya and the Dâmakaprahasana (Barnett 1923-25:520).
A few other scholars accept an older, authentic kernel, which was adapted, enlarged or abridged in later times according to the needs of a specific dramatic tradition. The authentic and original writer is supposed to be Bhâsa. Amongst these scholars is Woolner (1930:7-8), who observes that certain scenes are inferior to the best scenes. They are flat, and testify to an inferior professional skill. They might have been inserted by a later playwright. On the same plan, but with reservation, are Thieme (1966), Hardy (1983:78-86), and more recently, Brückner (1995:35).
Although perhaps some plays or some parts may prove to be mere adaptations, I will still investigate all thirteen plays in their present form. The main reason is that if an adaptation has taken place, the verses as they are most likely are not adapted, contrary to the prose part, including the Prâkrit. Verses may have been included or omitted, but not altered.