97. 94 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

94 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

and not that Dandin wrote only three works. Pischel made the desperate conjecture on account of not correctly under- standing the discussion about the लिम्पतीव verse that the मृच्छ- कटिक was a work of दएडी and along with the काव्यादर्श and the दशकुमारचरित made up the required number. But now we have two more works in which that verse occurs and they too will have Dandin fathered on them if Pischel's reasoning is to be followed. Others like Peterson (Intro. ₹To p. 5) and Dr. Jacobi (in Indische Studien, Vol. XVII) hit upon the छन्दोविचिति. as the third work. But this also has been shown to be wrong. Vide my article in I. A. vol. 40 (1911) pp. 177-78 on छन्दोविचिति. आप. ध. सू. II. 3. 7. 14-15 are षडङ्गो वेदः। छन्दःकल्पो व्याकरणं ज्योतिषं निरुक्तं शिक्षा छन्दोविचितिरिति; सुबन्धु in वासवदत्ता has 'छन्दोविचितिमिव भ्राज- मानतनुमध्याम्' p. 235 (Hall's edition). छन्दःकल्प is one word and means कल्पसूत्रS. तनुमध्या is a metre. Some took the कलापरिच्छेद as the third work. It appears that दएडी wrote a chapter on कलाs as a part of the काव्यादर्श and the कलापरिच्छेद is not his third work. To add to the confusion there are scholars who seriously question the view that the दशकुमारचरित is a work by the same author that wrote the काव्यादर्श. Mr. Trivedi (Intro. to प्रतापरुद्र० XXXI), Mr. Agashe (in I. A. for 1915 p. 67 and more rece- ntly in his introduction to the दशकुमार pp. XXV ff) argue that the author of the काव्यादर्श cannot be the author of the दश- FHIT. also. This is not the place to examine their arguments in detail. But a brief reference must be made to some of them. Mr. Agashe's first argument is that the author of the rnax was a fastidious critic, who warned all poets to eschew even the slightest blemishes (तदल्पमपि नोपेच्यं काव्ये दुष्टं कथंचन। स्याद्वपुः सुन्दर- मपि श्वित्रेणकेन दुर्भगंम् ।। I. 7) and condcmned as ग्राम्य even such apparently harmless words as 'कन्ये कामयमानं मां न त्वं कामयसे कथम्। इति ग्राम्योयमर्थात्मा वैरस्याय प्रकल्पते ॥' I. 63, while in the दश० there are numerous faults in the matter of good taste and grammar and direct references to sexual intercourse. Here two things have to be noted. There is always a great gulf between pre- cept and practice, which has been admitted by all literary critics e. g. the व्यक्तिविवेक says about his method of finding fault with the greatest poets 'स्वकृतिष्वयन्त्रितः कथमनुशिष्यादन्यमयमिति न वाच्यम्। वारयति भिषगपथ्यादितरान् स्वयमाचरन्नपि तत् ।।' (p.37); similarly, नेमेन्द्र in his भौचित्य० finds fault with his own compositions