the beautiful person', while in the Dašakumaracarita, we come
across numerous faults in the matter of grammar and poetics
and as regards the general tenor of the stories. He cited a
number of instances of faulty grammar, irregular syntax and
unfamiliar use and misuse of words, and made an elaborate
plea for his contention. But, as A. B. Keith pointed out rightly,
most of the alleged errors may easily be defended or at least are
of the type which other poets permit themselves. In fact, such
forms as ählädisata and asvadayitum," such constructions as
enam anuraktās and such syntax as in मरीचि वेशकृच्छाद् उत्थाय पुनः
प्रतितप्ततपः प्रभावप्रत्यापन्न दिव्यचक्षुषम् उपसंगम्य तेनास्म्येवंभूतं त्वद्दर्शनम्
¶¶¶¶¶:* etc. are grammatically faultless, while some other errors
can plausibly be taken as scribal mistakes. The use of plural
for singular in dayitā nah kanakalekha has been made delibera-
tely and rather helplessly by the author in order to avoid the
labial mamas in the seventh ucchväsa which is his tour de force.
A few errors like aham cakame etc., are, of course, serious. But
we should not expect an absolute purity of language from poets
who must be given some licence. Even Dandin, the so-called
severe critic, while describing the grammatical fault (sabdahīna),
gives some concession to the poets 'whose minds are naturally
inattentive to the rules of grammar', and declares that their
1. KA I 7: स्याद् वपुः सुन्दरमपि श्वित्रेणैकेन दुर्भगम् ।
2. Cp. below, pt. III, ch. IV
3. HSL p. 296
4. DKC pp. 138 and 194 respectively; the latter is svad, A of X class.
5. DKC p. 57; cp. Apte, giving both Acc. and Loc. with anurakta;
also cp. Sāk. VI. 21; Mrcch. I; Mud. I. 19 f. (Loc.)
6. DKC pp. 100-1. In this sentence upasaṁgamya could better be
replaced by upasaṁgatah. But the sentence, as it is, is not objec-
tionable.
7. E. g. cumbayitum (DKC p. 55) for cumbitum, upaguhya (p. 154) for
upaguhya, asukhayisata (p. 138) for asukhayişata. The faulty usage
rameyam (p. 112) is absent in the v. 1. In the sentence priyasakhim,
etc. (p. 103), vasumatim might have originally followed priyasakhim
and in punar aham etc. (p. 107) there may have been avadam after
pratikytim.
8. DKC p. 177
9. Cp. ib., p. 126 (where the use of Perfect in First Person is faulty).
