104. KĀVYĀDARŚA 101

KĀVYĀDARŚA 101

faiva (presenting in the same work the stories of both the epics viz. रामायण and the महाभारत). The दिसंधान of दएडी is mentioned also on pp. 168-69 of the same ms. and the sam: volume. Vide I. H. Q. vol. 24 at p. 117 for दगिडद्विसंधान. Seth Kanailal Poddar of Muttra wrote in Hindi an article 'संस्कृतसाहित्यमें अरभिपुरायका स्थान' in the Hindustani Academy's Quarterly for July 1931 (pp. 337-349), a copy of which he kindly sent to me in which he criticizes Dr. De and myself for holding that the Agnipurana is a mere compilation and he tries to prove that Dandin, Bhamaha and the Dhvanyaloka all borrowed from the Agnipurana. Answers to his arguments have been given in my remarks on the Agnipurana and so I do not want to repeat them. But he appears to labour under two mis- apprehensions. The first is (at p. 347) that my History of Alankara is largely based on Dr. De's work (एस.के. देवाबू जिनके ग्रंथ पर श्री कायोका निबंध अधिकांशमें अवलम्बित है). For his information and for those who might not know, I desire to point out that my History of Alankara in two parts was published in 1923 June. Almost in the same month Dr. De's first volume of the H. S. P. appeared and the second volume appeared two years later. Further, in the I. A. for 1917 vol. 46 pp. 173 ff. I had discussed in detail the claims made for the afayru at greater length than in my History of Alankara Literature and shown how the Agnipurana borrows the very words of Dandin in defi- ning Alankāras like Anuprāsa (Agni 343. 1 and Daņdin I. 55), Yamaka (Agni 343. 11-12 and Dandin III. 1) and many arthā- lankaras. So my views on the Agnipurana were published six years before Dr. De's work (vol. I.) and Dr. De (in vol. I. p. 341, additions and corrections) refers to my paper in I. A. vol. 46 (for 1917). The 2nd misapprehension under which Mr. Poddar appears to labour is that I asserted that much of the Kāvyādarśa was included in the Agnipurāna (p. 337 ऐसी परिस्थिति में काव्यादर्श का भभिपुराण में समावेश किया जाना किसी प्रकार भी सिद्ध नहीं हो सकता). What 1 said was that the Agnipurana follows माधुकरी वृत्ति. It takes from several works what it chooses to take and that it is a mere compilation and not an original work. Simply because it differs in several cases from arae or auet, it does not follow that it did not borrow from them. Apart from the section on नाट्यशाल and काव्यालक्वार the अगिपुरास borrows hun- dreds of verses from aruaery and other works and borrows from