________________
26
ARPITA G. PATEL
SAMBODHI
(42) FITI freig. (Ku. Sam. 3/54). Kā.Šā. 3/6 :: अविमृष्ट विधेयांश is read here by H. He feels that the expression should be मौवीं द्वितीयामिव. (43) Ech helfa. (Ku. Sam. 4/9). Kā.Śā. 2/6 :chhurch is seen by H. in this verse. Conclusion :- This rather long study reveals that the critics were genuinely inspired by the Ku. Sam., and from Vāmana to H., we have noted more than
hundred verses quoted by the critics to illustrate various points of subtlety in their criticism. It may be noted that different ālaṁkārikas have used one and the same illustration for different purpose also and have used at times, one and the same verse to illustrate different points. This is done by one and the same critic also. Again, it is interesting to note that not a single critic has gone beyond the 8th canto of the Ku. Sam. Moreover, by and large this work is not highly acclaimed by critics beginning with Ānandavardhana and Mahimabhatta and others have even ventured to suggest better construction or reading in a given verse to avoid this or that blemish. A great indepth study is attempted no doubt by the critics.
From the point of view of Kālidāsa-text-criticism, we have given, in appendix I, a comparative list of various readings available in alamkāra works and also traced in some important editions of the Ku. Sam., such as those of Kale, Rewaprasad and the N.S. At times readings edited by the same learned editor differ while editing an alamkāra work and the text of Ku. Sam. All this leads us further in the direction of fixing up of variants in the Ku. Sam. Evidence from the alamkāra works should be weighed more seriously in our opinion.
