वासवदत्ता (महाकवि सुबन्धु - श्लेष-प्रधान शास्त्रीय गद्यकाव्य सान्वय सटीक)

INTRODUCTION [p. 31]

forgetting that the epic of the Rāmāyaṇa contains many approxi-
mations to the kāvya style (Jacobi, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 119–126,
Bonn, 1893).
In the course of time kāvya inscriptions became more elaborate,
particularly in their use of the śleṣa. Mention can here be made
only of the śleṣas and virōdhas in the Valabhī grant of Dhruva-
sēna III, dated in 653–654 A.D. (Hultzsch, EI. 1. 85–92) ; the
Balōda plates of Tīvaradēva, of the middle of the eighth century
(Hultzsch, ib. 7. 102–107); a grant of Indrarāja III, dated in
915 A.D. (Bhandarkar, ib. 9. 24–41); the Cambay plates of
Gōvinda IV, dated in 929–930 A.D. (Bhandarkar, ib. 7. 26–47) ;
and the Dēvulapalli plates of Immaḍi Nṛsiṃha, dated in 1504
(Ramayya, ib. 7. 74–85); though allusion should also be made
to the general style of such an inscription as the Kaḍaba plates
of Gōvinda III, dated in 812–813 A.D. (Lüders, EI. 4. 332–349).
In the inscriptions of the Vāillabhaṭṭasvāmin temple at Gwaliar,
dated in 874–875 A.D. (Hultzsch, EI. 1. 154–162), which abound
in virōdhas, Kielhorn (apud Hultzsch, EI. 1. 157, note 23) has
already called attention to a possible reminiscence of the dhana-
dēnā ’pi pracetasā, ‘which is ⟨Kubēra⟩, yet ≪Varuṇa≫, for it is
⟨generous⟩ and ≪wise≫,’ of the Vāsavadattā (ed. Hall, p. 111) in
the dhanadō ’pi na pramattō, ‘he was ⟨Kubēra⟩, but not ≪Varuṇa≫,
for he was ⟨generous⟩ and not ≪inattentive≫’ (line 6). Kielhorn,
moreover, in his edition and translation of the Rādhanpur plates
of Gōvinda III, dated in 807–808 A.D. (EI. 6. 239–251), expressly
declares (p. 240) that ‘an examination of the language and
general style of most of these verses can leave no doubt that
their author or authors are greatly indebted for their expressions
and poetical devices to such works as Subandhu’s Vāsavadattā
and Bāṇa’s Kādambarī and Harṣacarita.’ There is no need here
to repeat the parallels which Kielhorn has drawn between the
inscription in question and the romances of Subandhu and Bāṇa
(EI. 6. 247–250), nor is it necessary to make more than a passing
allusion to the fact that a close examination of Indian epigraphy
would probably reveal many more parallels to the Vāsavadattā
and other productions of the same genre. It would by no means