2023-04-07 05:51:02 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
of the difference in style between them. Dr. A. Berriedale
Keith, for example has, in his preface to 'A History of
Sanskrit Literature' stated that "if a Dandin wrote the
work (the Avantisundari) he was assuredly not the author
of the Dasakumaracarita, and its date may be centuries
later than the great Dandin, for there is no reason to
accept the suggestion that a writer of the Katha lived
sufficiently soon after the famcus Dandin to be familiar with
his genealogy and to work it into his story." Dr. Keith
was greatly influenced in his cpinion by the views of
Dr. S. K. De 'that even the most careless reader of
the Katha and the Dasakumaracarita should have been
struck by the extraordinary difference of style between
the two works, the Katha rivalling unsuccessfully the
worst mannerisms of the Harsacarita and the Kadambari',
(See the Preface to 'A History of Sanskrit Literature by
A. B. Keith, p. xvi). But other scholars who have examined
the question of authorship of these works have adopted
different conclusions. Dr. P. V. Kane in his 'Introduction
to the Sahitya Darpana' has stated that "the Avanti-
sundari Katha is the first portion of the whole story,
the current Dasakumaracarita is the middle portion,
and there is one Ucchväsa for the Uttarapithika (p. 92).
Considering all that has been said by several
scholars, Dr. Kane is inclined to hold on the whole
(though with sorne hesitation) that the Avantisundarī
Katha is the work of Dandin, and constitutes the prelude
to the current Dasakumaracarita". This view seems to
be quite acceptable. Arguments based merely on the
style of composition in these works cannot be considered
Keith, for example has, in his preface to 'A History of
Sanskrit Literature' stated that "if a Dandin wrote the
work (the Avantisundari) he was assuredly not the author
of the Dasakumaracarita, and its date may be centuries
later than the great Dandin, for there is no reason to
accept the suggestion that a writer of the Katha lived
sufficiently soon after the famcus Dandin to be familiar with
his genealogy and to work it into his story." Dr. Keith
was greatly influenced in his cpinion by the views of
Dr. S. K. De 'that even the most careless reader of
the Katha and the Dasakumaracarita should have been
struck by the extraordinary difference of style between
the two works, the Katha rivalling unsuccessfully the
worst mannerisms of the Harsacarita and the Kadambari',
(See the Preface to 'A History of Sanskrit Literature by
A. B. Keith, p. xvi). But other scholars who have examined
the question of authorship of these works have adopted
different conclusions. Dr. P. V. Kane in his 'Introduction
to the Sahitya Darpana' has stated that "the Avanti-
sundari Katha is the first portion of the whole story,
the current Dasakumaracarita is the middle portion,
and there is one Ucchväsa for the Uttarapithika (p. 92).
Considering all that has been said by several
scholars, Dr. Kane is inclined to hold on the whole
(though with sorne hesitation) that the Avantisundarī
Katha is the work of Dandin, and constitutes the prelude
to the current Dasakumaracarita". This view seems to
be quite acceptable. Arguments based merely on the
style of composition in these works cannot be considered