contained therein. The work quotes from Bhāsa (c. 300 A. D.) the famous verse limpativa etc. The case of the other stanza, mrteti pretya etc., however, said to have been cited from his Svapnavasavadatta, is doubtful." Of the verses of Kalidasa (c. 400 A. D.), there are numerous reminiscences in Kavyadarsa, and scholars are unanimous on the point that it owes a number of its illustrations to the great poet." One of the examples of varṇaniyama in the work, containing the only consonant n bears a close resemblance to a similar stanza of Kirātārjunīya³ of Bhāravi (c. 600 A. D.) whose influence may be traced in other illustrations also of citralaṁkāras." The Kavyadarśa's indebted- ness to Bāņa (c. 610-50) is evidenced by the verse: - संहार्यम् अवार्य सूर्य - रश्मिभिः । दृष्टिरोधकरं यूनां यौवनप्रभवं तमः ॥ - which is a versification of the following passage of Kadambari : केवलं च निसर्गत एवाभानुभेद्यम् अरत्नालोकोच्छेद्यम् प्रदीपप्रभापनेयम् प्रति- Another verse of Kavyadarsa, which resembles a sloka of Magha also, might in fact be a reminiscence of a passage of Kadambari. Again, the statement in the work that irregularity is noticed with regard to the narrator in akhyāyikās where persons other than the hero are observed to have narrated the tale seems to point to the Harşacarita where 1. KA II. 226, 362; cp. Căru. I. 19; Balac. 1. 15; also cp. Mrcch. I. 34 (see ch. II.) 2. KA II. 280; cp. Sylvain Levi: JA (1923), pp. 199 ff.; V. G. Paranjpe: Mrcch., intro., p. ix 3. While the verse is absent in the drama, it has been traced in Madalasa by the comm. Premacandra Tarkavägiśa; cp. Agashe, op. cit., pp. liv-lv 4. Cp. KA I. 45 with Sak. I. 20; II. 129 with Säk. I. 26; II. 286 with Ragh. VIII. 57; see App. VI; cp. Keith: ISHL pp. 182-4; De: HSP, I, p. 61 and fn.; Taruna on KA I. 2 remarks that Dandin consulted the usages of poets like Kalidasa. 5. Cp. KA III. 95 with Kir. XV. 14; for ref. to Bhāravi in ASK, see below. 6. Cp. esp. Kir. XV. 7; 29 (verses without labial letters). 7. Cp. KA II. 197; Käd. para 103; cp. Peterson: DKC, Agashe ed., p. ix fn.; Keith's assertion (ISHL pp. 168-9) that Bana may be the person indebted is not convincing; the opinion of Keith is evidently based on the presumption that Dandin wrote before Bana; cp. ref. to Bana and his Käd. in ASK pp. 3 and 20 respectively. 8. Cp. KA II. 302; Siś. II. 4; Käd. para 85
