suggest that the Kathāsära utilised the extant Daśakumaracarita of Dandin for its summary of the stories of Rajavahana- Avantisundari, Apahäravarman and Upahäravarman. And if this be so, there should have been complete agreement as regards the details of narrative between the Kathāsāra (VII. 79- VIII. 125) and its supposed original, Daśakumaracarita (pp. 54- 108), as we notice it between Avantisundarikatha (extant portion) and the Kathāsära (I. I-V. 140). But an examination of the two texts reveals that there are at places disagreements between the two. Some of the striking differences are given below: 1. The Kathāsāra does not mention the wooden cage into which Rajavahana is said to have been put by Candavarman in the Daśakumāracarita, 2. The Kathāsāra has Sumañjarī for Suratamañjarī of Dašakumāracarita. The summary, it may be noted, is nowhere seen changing the proper names of the original, for metrical reasons. 3. According to the Daśakumāracarita, the nymph's necklace fell on the sage Märkandeya when he was taking his bath in Mandodaka lake, while the Kathāsāra records that it fell on the sage when he had just finished the aghamarsana, his daily prayer.³ 4. According to Kathāsāra, it is Apahāravarman who effects the release of Simhavarman, the king of Campã, while the Daśakumāracarita attributes the task to his friend, Dhana- mitra who is again credited with bringing the princes to Rājavāhana. 5. In the Kathāsāra, Dhanamitra is introduced to Rāja- vāhana after the release of the Campă ruler and the prince's re-union with his friends, while in Dašakumāracarita, he is introduced to the prince before the release and the re-union which he himself brings about for Apahāravarman.5 1. DKC p. 57; ASKS VII. 80 ff. 2. ASKS VII. 87; DKC p. 59 3. Cp. DKC p. 60; ASKS VII. 88 4. Cp. ASKS VII. 94; DKC pp. 63, 63-4 5. ASKS VIII. 2; DKC p. 63
