The second work traditionally attributed to Dandin is the Dasakumaracarita. While errors in traditional ascription are not denied, there is no ample ground for doubting the manus- cript tradition as well as the specific mention of Daśakumara- carita as a work of Dandin in Telugu and Kannada versions of the romance. A Sanskrit work named Abhijñānaśākuntalacarcă by an anonymous author of 15th century A.D. quotes a passage from the Dasakumaracarita as Dandin's. As seen above, there was no tradition whatsoever of differentiating Dandin from Acarya Dandin and there is, in fact, strong evidence in favour of their being identical." Thus the position is quite safe for regarding the Daśakumaracarita as a work of Dandin, and the majority of scholars favour this view." Connected with the Daśakumaracarita, there is one serious problem that appertains to its prelude in various versions, called Purvapithikā or Pürvavṛttäntadarśana, and a conclusion, similarly in many forms, called Uttarapithikā or Daśakumāracaritaśeşa or simply a ninth ucchväsa, which have been doubted for good reasons to be the genuine work of Dandin. That these pīṭhikās form no part of Dandin's original text seems suggested at once by their names, and this view is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. The title Daśakumāracarita suggests accounts of ten princes, but the present extent of Daśakumāracarita proper contains, with an abrupt commencement, the account of eight princes, the last incomplete, in eight ucchvāsas. The Purva- pithikā prefixes the tales of two princes in order to make up the 1. Cp. colophon in one paper MS (14035 A in TSS lib.); palm-leaf MS No. 10635 of ib; also cp. Telugu DKC of Ketana (c. 1225-1300), intro. verse and Kannada trans., intro. verse. For Ketana, cp. EHD, pt. IX, p. 699; K. A. Nilakanta Sastri: HSI, 1966 ed., p. 409 2. Cp. ASC p. 81; DKC p. 196 (beneficial results of chase); cp. S. K. Pillai: ASK, pref., p. 3. For the prob. date of the work, cp. K. Raghavan Pillai ASC, intro., pp. v-vi 3. Cp. above, ch. I 4. Cp. Keith: HSL p. 296; Kane: HSP pp. 94-5; De: HSL pp. 207 ff. etc. De, however, doubts the identity of the authors of DKC and KA; cp. above. 5. Cp. Keith: HSL p. 298
