________________
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) ha was assuredly not the author of the Dasakumăracarita, and its date may be centuries later than the great Dandin, for there is nɔ reason to accept the suggestion that a writer of the Katha lived sufficiently soon after the famous Dingin 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 Dasakumāracarita should have been struck by the extraordinary difference of style between the two works, the Kathä rivalling unsaccessfully the worst mannerisms of the Harsacarita and the Kādambari', (See the Preface to A History of Sanskrit Literature by A. B. Keitb, p. svi). But other scholars who have examined the question of authorship of these works have adopted different conclusions. Dr. P. 1'. Kane in his 'Introduction to the Sahitya Darpana' has stated that "ihe Avantisundari Kathā is the first portion of the whole story, the current Dasakumāracarita is the middle portion, and there is one Ucchrāsa f;r the Uttarapithikā (p. 92). Considering all that has been said by several scholars, Dr. Kane is inclined to hold on the whole (though with corne hesitation) that the Avantisun darī Kathā is the work of Dandin, and constitutes the prelude to the current Dasakumăracarita". This view seems to be quite acceptable. Arguments based merely on the style of composition in these works cannot be considered
