Later, perhaps after the 13th century A. D., when Ketana translated the original work into Telugu," a considerable portion in the beginning including the prelude and the subsequent two ucchväsas and a half and also the concluding portion along with a small part of the tenth ucchväsa came to be lost. Some admirers of his work who either remembered the account of the lost portion or had some other source, supplied the missing part to the best of their ability, of course, trying to follow the style of the original text. As the current supplements betray a compa- rative modernity, it is possible that their authors reconstructed the lost portion from Telugu version of the original made by the poet Ketana in the middle of 13th century A. D. This fact is testified to by the close agreement between Sanskrit text and the Telugu version and by the presence in the current Purvapithikā of several idioms and usages prevalent only in Telugu language. The express mention by Ketana that he is translating Dandin's book' indicates that he had before him the full text of the work. The authors of the supplements either perhaps deliberately or probably in confusion termed their addi- tions in the beginning and at the end as a prelude and a the current 1. Cp. for Ketana's date, A. R. Sarasvati: QJMS, XIII, p. 681; also see above. 2. Cp. M. R. Kavi: ASK, pref.. p. 14; K. S. Mahadeva Sastri: ASK, intro., p. 9. But G. Harihara Sastri (ASK, intro., p. iv) places the revision of the work before Ketana. This, however, does not seem to be probable, for in this case, the influence of Telugu idiom on PP is not accounted for. De (HSL pp. 210-1 fn.) holds that the prelude must have been prefixed at least before 11th cent. on the ground that the stanza brahmanda etc. of PP has been quoted in Bhoja's SKA (ed. Borooah, 1884, p. 114). But, as he himself says, the citation is anonymous. The verse is also cited along with five other benedictory ones, in Bhoja's Subh Pr. (Dec. Coll. Coll., No. 248-vis) and is quoted under Asis in Särng. It may be noted that it is not cited by Thomas under Dandin in Kavindravacanasamuccaya. All these anonymous references do not help us much. 3. There are a few minor differences also; e. g. the story of Somadatta comes after the meeting of Räjavahana and Avantisundari, but before their marriage (as in ASK; ep. ASKS VII. 1 ff.) and that the later portion is very much condensed in Telugu; cp. M.R. Kavi, op. cit., p. 14 4. Cp. M. R. Kavi, loc. cit.
