Dasakumaracarita and embellished it in the approved fashion, does not stand, for there is no positive evidence to support the view, nor is it warranted by the circumstances. Apart from the common theme in the two works, which, of course, cannot in itself be taken to suggest their common authorship, there are striking points of affinity between the two works, which we shall discuss below." A close examination of the two romances from the point of. view of diction presents certain peculiar features, peeping through them, in the form of images, expressions and poetic embellishments which evidently appear to be favourite with their writer. Thus the study reveals that the author had a fancy for certain imagery and had developed a peculiar manner of expression in the form of poetic figures, and that his diction consisted of a large number of idioms and phrases and single words peculiar only to him. It is some of these peculiarities of imagery and diction coinciding in the two romances that make us to believe that the tradition which attributes the composition of the two romances to Dandin is correct. The intrinsic unity running through the two works is all the more prominent at the occasions when a common or similar object is described or an identical situation is presented in them. Some instances that strike us most may be cited here. 1. A cloud with, or sometimes without, lightning on its lap is a picture favourite with the writer. It occurs in a number of places in the form of an upamāna to various objects. Some instances would illustrate the poet's fancy for this particular phenomenon. His employment of almost similar diction in such pictures in the two works is also noteworthy. The instances are: (i) इति प्रियोरसि प्रावृड् इव नभस्युपास्तीर्णं गुरुपयोधरमण्डला ( अवन्तिसुन्दरी) 2 (DKC p. 55) (ii) धाननेन्दुसंमुखालकलतं च विश्रब्धसुप्ताम् अतिधवलोत्तरच्छद- निमग्नप्रायैकपार्श्वतया चिरविलसनखेदनिश्चलां शरदम्भोधरोत्संगशायिनीम इव 1. Also cp. App. II 2. Cp. KA III. 57 : उरस्युपास्तीर्णपयोधरद्वयं मया समालिङ्गयत जीवितेश्वरः
