CHAPTER II WORKS OF DANDIN Rajasekhara in a verse attributes the composition of three works (prabandhas) to Dandin, and taking the Kavyadarsa. and Daśakumaracarita to be the two works of his, scholars have made various conjectures about his third book. Pischel suggested the Mrcchakatika as the third requisite book on the ground that it contains the verse limpativa etc. (occurring in the Kavyadarsa) which, according to him, is ascribed to Dandin by Pratīhārendurāja, and that the society depicted in the play closely resembles that described in the Dašakumāracarita. Pischel's curious argument will land us, as S. K. De remarks rightly, in the absurdity of identifying Daṇḍin with Bhāsa as 1. Cp. Särng. 174 and Sūkti. IV. 74. agismycagì àaleat Za गुणाः । त्रयो दण्डिप्रबन्धाश्च त्रिषु लोकेषु विश्रुताः ॥, ascribed to Rāja- Sekhara; also quoted in ŚPr. (Josyer ed. II, p. 328). 2. Some scholars do not include even these works in the trio. Acc. to Agashe, while DKC is not a work of the old Dandin referred to by Rajasekhara, KA is not a prabandha (literary composition). Thus in his view, all the three prabandhas of Dandin have been lost; cp. Agashe, op. cit. pp. li-lvi; lxvii f; cp. below also. 3. Mrech. I. 34: लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः । असत्पुरुषसेवेव affata 11; cp. KA II. 362; also 226 (first line only). Acc. to De (HSP I, p. 60), the reading in full (II. 362), on which apparently Pischel's theory was based, is doubtful; the verse is absent in the Tibetan version of the text (JRAS, 1903) as well as in Rangacharya ed. This seems, however, to be the result of an error of omission, because the context requires the verse. 4. Cp. comm. Laghuvrtti on Udbhata's KASS p. 26. As pointed out by De (HSP I, p. 60), Pischel is not accurate in stating that Pratihärendu- raja attributes the verse to Dandin. While discussing utpreksa, he simply says that Dandin has already discussed at great length that the verse limpativa etc. is an illustration of utpreksa. 5. Die orientalischen Literaturen, p. 206
