98. KĀVYĀDARŚA 95

KĀVYĀDARŚA 95

(under kārikās 20 and 21). Besides, the aTo may have been composed while qust was comparatively young and inexperi- enced; while the काव्यादश is a product of mature years. More- over, what दएडी means when he styles the verse कन्ये &c. as AT has not been clearly grasped. He condemns the down- right, rough and outspoken mode of conveying one's meaning and prefers the suggestive method. This is illustrated by uet himself in the next verse which conveys the same sense but in a different manner 'कामं कन्दर्पचाएडालो मयि वामाति निर्दयः। त्वयि निमत्सरो दिष्ट्येत्यग्राम्योर्थो रसावहः ॥' (I. 64). The second point emphasized by Mr. Agashe is that there is great difference between the chaste and smooth diction of the काव्यादर्श and the somewhat slipshod style and the long-drawn compounds of the o. Here again there is a misapprehension. The काव्यादर्श being in verse did not allow much scope for long compounds; yet it approves of a compound extending over a half verse (I. 84 पयोधरतटोत्सशलम सन्ध्यातपांशुका। कस्य कामातुरं चेतो वारुगी न करिष्यति ॥), while the aTo being in prose exhibits long compounds and therein accords with the teaching of the काव्यादश which conde- mns long compouuds only in पद्य (ओज: समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्गद्यस्य जीवितम्। पदेऽप्यदाक्िखात्यानामिदमेकं परायणम्॥ I. 80). Subandhu's introductory verses to वासवदत्ता offer a great contrast to his prose. And so do the few verses in the a{To. Sufficient reasons have not been advanced for rejecting Dandin's authorship of the दश०. The first verse of the दश० (ब्रह्माएडच्छत्रदएड: etc.) is quoted in जहण's सक्तिमुक्तावलि p. 31 No. 86 and by the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण (परिच्छेद II under लाटानुप्रास p. 262) which profusely quotes from the काव्यादर्श also. The complexion of the whole problem is changed by the publication of the अव् न्तिसुन्दरीकथा. The first verse contains obeisance to हिरएयगभ (ब्रह्मा), ईशान (शिव) and हरि, who, though regarded as different (by many devotees), are really not so (हिर एयगर्भमीशानमादं च पुरुषं हरिम्। त्रीनप्यसत्यनानात्वान्वन्दे विश्वशरीरियः॥). Then the author praises (in verses 2 to 21 that have many gaps) the following works and authors (as far as they can be made out): रामायण, महाभारत, सुबन्धु (who did not fall within the fetters of बिन्दुसार and whose heart was captivated by वत्स- राज), बृहत्कथा, मूलदेव (?), शु द्रक, भास (and his dramas), सवसेन (and his हरिविजय), सेतु, कालिदास (who wrote in the वैदर्भमाग), नारायण (who wrote काव्यत्रय), then some blind poet (कुमारदास ?), वाख and मयूर, some poetess (probably विज्जका) who though dark was the