________________
22
the Avantisandarī, are proof enough of the fact that it is not likely that both are the productions of one and the same author. We also notice slight discrepancies between the Pūrvapithikā and the Uttarabbāga of the Dasakamāracarita, thereby indicating the possibility of their aathors being different from each other. In a manuscript of Dagakamāracarita (No. 412 of the University collections in this Library) we get the colophon irafaggat F atrafià afiag': All these show that the Uttarabhāga of the Dasakamāracarita forms a part of the Avantisandari and the Pūrvapithikā is a later addition.
The work is written in a majestic style and it is interesting throughout. But in the story certain miracolods and improbable incidenis have been freely introdoced. The narration cf the details of the life of Damodara by a Gandharva, the commanication to Potapa of the message of Kubera by a Yaksa disguised as a Brahmin, the antecedents of Potapa and Candragopta etc., are 'instances. So also is the fact that Padmodbhava, the son of Potapa who is a contemporary of Candragupta, becomes the minister of Ripuñjaya, who comes after about one hundred and fifty kings since the reign of Candragapta. It is also incredible that after 2000 years of penance Ripuñjaya got back his lost kingdom. It may algo be noted that while according to the Avantisardarī Ripuñjaya re-established the kirgdom after nearly 2000 years, according to Visnaparāņa, Ripoñjaya was killed by his minister Manika and his own son Pradyota was placed on the throne.
