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

TO PROFESSOR A. V. WILLIAMS JACKSON
My Dear Guru—That you consented, on one of the many
occasions that I have been privileged to be your guest, to accept
the dedication of this translation of India’s oldest formal romance,
has ever been to me a source of keenest joy. It is to you that
I owe my knowledge of India and her sister land, Iran; and to
you I am indebted, as to a guru indeed—that word which no
tongue can truly translate—for so much that makes for true
manhood, without which, as without charity, mere knowledge is
but ‘as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.’ I have tried
to make my work, here as always, worthy both of you and
of Columbia, to which we are each so loyal. Generously you
have helped me, even when your leisure was most limited, and
gratefully I acknowledge your aid; for of you I can say with
all my heart, as the Irish host of legend cried to their hero,
Cáilte, Adrae buaid ocus bennachtain; is mor in fis ocus in
faillsiugud fírinde doberi duind ar cach ní fíarfaigther dít,
‘Success and benison attend thee; great is the lore and the
disclosure of truth which thou givest us upon all that is asked
of thee!’
L. H. G.

इस पृष्ठ पर कोई स्पष्ट पठनीय पाठ (foreground text) मुद्रित नहीं है (पृष्ठ रिक्त है तथा केवल पीछे के पृष्ठ की अस्पष्ट छाया/bleed-through दिखाई दे रही है)।

PREFACE
THE precept of Horace, nonum prematur in annum, has been
more than obeyed in this volume, for it was on November 3,
1901, that I began the translation of the Vāsavadattā. From
that day Subandhu's romance has never been long absent from
my thoughts, although many practical exigencies, some of them
not wholly agreeable to a scholar, have forced me again and
again to lay the task aside, often for six months at a stretch.
Yet these clouds, too, have had their silver lining, for not only
has my work thus had time to ripen, but much has appeared
bearing on the novel during these intervals, or has been called
to my attention by friends. The first draft of the translation was,
for example, almost completed when, in March, 1903, Dr. George
C. O. Haas noted for me an entry in a catalogue of Stechert, of
New York, which enabled me to purchase a copy of the edition of
the Vāsavadattā printed in Telugu script at Madras in 1862. This
necessitated a renewed study of the text in comparison with the
edition of Hall, and ultimately led me to include a transliteration
of the ‘southern’ recension in my work, together with the variants
of all the other editions. Some of these would have been
inaccessible to me, had it not been for the courtesy of the India
Office, which, at the instance of Mr. F. W. Thomas, its librarian,
most generously loaned me the texts I needed, so that I might
use them at leisure in my own study.
Excepting the blank-verse renderings of the few Sanskrit stanzas
of the Vāsavadattā, I have sought to make the translation as literal
as the English language would permit, and throughout I have
spared no pains to facilitate reference to the original text, as
well as to explain each allusion that I could elucidate. In the
latter regard I have considered others than professed Sanskritists,
for I have ventured to hope that some copies of the work may
vii

viii PREFACE
fall into the hands of students of literature, who may here find
points of similarity to, or divergence from, the writings to which
their special attention may be directed. I dare not flatter
myself that I have invariably hit the true meaning of the original,
for there are passages which repeated study, through these eleven
years, has failed to solve to my own complete satisfaction. But
even for this I scarcely grieve, for, like Propertius, I feel,
Quod si deficiant uires, audacia certe
Laus erit: in magnis et uoluisse sat est.
And if the cruces that have baffled me shall be solved by other
minds, none will feel greater joy in their success than I.
It is with a feeling almost akin to regret that I lay down my
pen. Perhaps to me the Vāsavadattā has deeper associations
than to almost any one else who has laboured on it. In hours
of bitterness and sorrow it has helped me to forget; and it has
heightened the pleasure of happy days. With all its faults,
I love it; possibly I have even been so blind as to reckon its
failings virtues; possibly, too, the innate Anglo-Saxon sympathy
for the 'under dog' has made me only the more determined in
its praise. Is it worth while, or not? As the Arabs say, Allāhu
a'lamu, 'God best knows (and man can't tell).'
I am happy to have had, in my work, the assistance of many
friends—Mr. Thomas and Dr. Haas, to whom I have already
alluded; others to whose courtesies reference will be made in the
course of the book—Dr. George A. Grierson, Professor Theodor
Zachariae, Mr. Richard Hall; Professor Washburn Hopkins,
whose notes aided in introducing me to the mysteries of
Grantha script; Professor Charles R. Lanman, who enabled me
to use the Harvard copy of Hall's edition until I could procure
my own—a courtesy which had already been accorded me for
a year previous by the library of the Deutsche Morgenländische
Gesellschaft; Mr. T. K. Balasubrahmanya, who replied in full
to my queries concerning the 'southern' text; and Mr. G.
Payn Quackenbos, who called my attention to the reference to
Subandhu in the Subhāṣitaratnabhāṇḍāgāra, while to Dr. Charles
J. Ogden I am indebted for a number of helpful suggestions and

PREFACE ix
corrections, particularly in the Introduction. In a very special
way my thanks are due also to Mr. Alexander Smith Cochran,
whose interest in the Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series
has rendered possible the printing of this particular volume.
My gratitude to my friend and teacher, Professor A. V. Wil-
liams Jackson—here editor as well—is more fittingly expressed
elsewhere within these covers. Suffice it to say that he read
with me word by word the second of the three drafts of this
translation, and that wellnigh every page bears some token of
his careful scholarship. And to one other—my wife—my deepest
obligations are due for whatsoever may be best in my work.
She has subjected every line to a most minute and unsparing
revision, besides taking upon herself the arduous task of pre-
paring my manuscript for the press. Her interest in the work
has never faltered, and to her criticism, at once most kindly and
most severe, I owe more than I can tell.
Louis H. Gray.
November 25, 1912.

इस पृष्ठ पर मुद्रित पाठ्य अत्यधिक धुंधला एवं अपाठ्य (bleached/out-of-focus) होने के कारण पाठ का स्पष्ट और सटीक प्रतिलेखन (transcription) संभव नहीं है।

CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . vii
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . xii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . I
TRANSLATION . . . . . . . . 43
TRANSCRIPTION . . . . . . . . 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . 197
LEXICOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX . . . . . . 200
xi

ABBREVIATIONS
ad loc. = (ad locum), on the passage.
apud = in.
bis = twice.
cf. = compare.
EI. = Epigraphia Indica.
H. = Hall's edition of the Vāsavadattā.
IA. = Indian Antiquary.
Introd. = Introduction.
JAOS. = Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JASBe. = Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.
JRAS. = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
JRASBo. = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay Branch.
KZ. = Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem
Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, ed. A. Kuhn
and others.
l.c. = (loco citato), at the place previously cited.
M. = edition of the Vāsavadattā in Telugu script printed at
Madras in 1862.
No. = number.
n. p. = no place of publication given.
op. cit. = (opus citatum), the work previously cited.
pp. = pages.
S. = edition of the Vāsavadattā printed at Srirangam in 1906–
1908.
sqq. = (sequentes), following.
s.v. = (sub verbo) under the word.
SWAW. = Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tel. ed. = edition of the Vāsavadattā in Telugu script printed at
Madras in 1862.
Tel. ed. 61 = edition of the Vāsavadattā in Telugu script printed at
Madras in 1861.
v. = verse.
WZKM. = Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.
ZDMG. = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
xii

ABBREVIATIONS xiii

• = when prefixed to a word or meaning in the lexicographical
  appendix, such word or meaning is cited by the
  St. Petersburg lexicons only on the authority of native
  Sanskrit lexicographers.
  ° = when prefixed to a word or meaning in the lexicographical
  appendix, such word or meaning is entirely omitted by
  the St. Petersburg lexicons ; elsewhere it denotes the
  omission of words or parts of words to be supplied
  from the context.
  ‹ › = single paronomasia.
  « » = double paronomasia.
  ⋘ ⋙ = triple paronomasia.
  ( ) = when placed around or in words of the transcribed text,
  the enclosed portions differ from the text of Hall ;
  when placed around numerals in the translation and
  transcription, these refer to the pages of the Madras
  edition of 1862.
  [ ] = when placed around or in words of the transcribed text,
  the enclosed portions, though contained in Hall’s
  edition, are entirely omitted by the Madras edition of
  1862 ; when placed around numerals in the translation
  and transcription, these refer to the pages of Hall’s
  edition.

This image contains a blank page with no readable text.

INTRODUCTION

Title. The title of the Vāsavadattā of Subandhu, the oldest
romantic novel in India, seems to be derived from that of a long
lost drama by Bhāsa,¹ the Svapnavāsavadattā, or ‘Dream-Vāsa-
vadattā’ (for compounds of this type cf. Wackernagel, Altindische
Grammatik, 2. 1. 244–245, 250–253, Göttingen, 1905). The
dream as a novelistic device in India first occurs in Subandhu
(see below, p. 28); though in the drama it is found in the first
act of the Viddhaśālabhañjikā and the third of the Karpūrama-
ñjarī (both written by Rājaśēkhara, who was acquainted with
Bhāsa’s work), as well as in the first of Viśvanāthabhaṭṭa’s
Śr̥ṅgāravāṭikā (Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the
Library of the India Office, 7, 1618, London, 1904). In the fifth
act of Bhāsa’s Svapnavāsavadattā the hero, King Vatsarāja,
sleeping, dreams of his love Vāsavadattā, who enters, disguised
as an attendant of the queen, but who, he thinks, has been
burned to death at Lāvānaka (cf. svapnavāsavadattasya dāhakō,
‘the conflagration of the “Dream-Vāsavadattā”’ [Rājaśēkhara,
cited in the Sūktimuktāvalī (see Peterson and Durgāprasāda,
Subhāṣitāvali of Vallabhadēva, Introd., p. 81, Bombay, 1886)],
and Bhāsa’s epithet jalaṇamitta, ‘friend of fire,’ in Gaüḍavaha,
v. 800), this being employed both in the famous fire-scene in the
fourth act of the Ratnāvalī (first half of the seventh century)
and in the Tāpasavatsarāja (before the second half of the ninth
century; see the analysis by Hultzsch, in Nachrichten von der
königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1886,
pp. 224–241). Not only was the fire-scene thus borrowed from
Bhāsa by later dramatists, but from him, it may be conjectured,
came, at least in literary form, the entire story of Vāsavadattā
and Udayana, or Vatsarāja, as given in the Ratnāvalī, Priya-

¹ On Bhāsa, see, in general, Hall, ‘Fragments of Three Early Hindu Dramatists,’
in JASBe. 28. 28–29; Lévi, Théâtre indien, 1. 157–160, 2. 31–32, Paris, 1890.
B

2 VĀSAVADATTĀ
darśikā, and Tāpasavatsarāja,¹ the ultimate source probably
being the lost Bṛhatkathā. With the Vāsavadattā of these latter
works Subandhu's heroine has only her name in common, nor
is any other story concerning her known to exist in Sanskrit
literature (cf. Krishnamachariar, Introd., pp. 48–50; Lacôte,
Essai sur Guṇāḍhya et la Bṛhatkathā, pp. 15–16, Paris, 1908).
Though sleeping on the stage is forbidden by Sanskrit drama-
turgy, the hero of the Svapnavāsavadattā dreams of the heroine,
an episode imitated, I would suggest, by Rājaśēkhara in his
Viddhaśālabhañjikā and Karpūramañjarī. In similar fashion
Subandhu seems to have derived from this play ² both the dream-
episode and the name of his heroine, who was indeed a 'dream-
Vāsavadattā' ; and it would then appear that he invented the
remainder of the romance. This is also the opinion of Krishna-
machariar (Introd., pp. 48, 50), who suggests, however, that
Subandhu may have adapted some old wives' tale.
Author. The author of the Vāsavadattā was the only Suban-
dhu to win for himself a name in Sanskrit literature, unless
exception be made in favour of Subandhu, son of Gōpāyana or
Lōpāyana, who, according to the Sarvānukramaṇī (ed. Macdonell,
p. 19, Oxford, 1886), was one of the four authors of Ṛg-Veda
5. 24 (cf. the legend concerning him in Bṛhaddēvatā, 7. 84–102,
ed. and tr. Macdonell, Cambridge, Mass., 1904). The name,
however, occurs with tolerable frequency in Sanskrit (cf. Böhtlingk
and Roth, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch, 7. 1086, St. Petersburg, 1875),
and it would even seem to be found, under the form Šu-ba-an-di, or
Šu-ba-an-du, in one of the Tell-el-Amarna Tablets, dating approxi-
mately from the fourteenth or fifteenth century B.C. (Winckler,
Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna, Nos. 224–229, Berlin, 1896).
¹ To this list Krishnamachariar (Introd., p. 37) adds the lost drama Udayanacarita
(cf. Lévi, Théatre indien, 1. 92; 2. 39, Paris, 1890; Schuyler, Bibliography of the
Sanskrit Drama, p. 90, New York, 1906).
² In May, 1910, the Svapnavāsavadattā and nine other dramas of Bhāsa were dis-
covered near Padmanābhapura by Gaṇapati Śāstrī, who later found another manu-
script containing, among other plays, a second copy of the Svapnavāsavadattā. These
dramas were edited, after this introduction was already in type, in the Trivandrum
Sanskrit Series.

INTRODUCTION 3
Sanskrit References to Subandhu. References in Sanskrit
literature and inscriptions to our Subandhu (whose date is dis-
cussed below, pp. 8–11) are but scanty. By far the most important
allusion is contained in the eleventh stanza of Bāṇa’s introduction
to his Harṣacarita (seventh century):
kavīnām agalad darpō nūnaṁ vāsavadattayā
śaktyē "va pāṇḍuputrāṇāṁ gatayā karṇagōcaram,
‘verily, the pride of <poets> melted away through the ≪Vāsava-
dattā coming to their ears≫ even as the pride of the <sages>
melted away through the Pāṇḍavas’ ≪Indra-given spear coming
nigh Karṇa≫.’¹ Bāṇa is also supposed to allude to the Vāsava-
dattā when, in the twentieth stanza of his introduction to his
Kādambarī, he declares his new work to be iyam atidvayī kathā,
‘this story surpassing the two,’ these being, according to the
commentator, the Vāsavadattā and the Bṛhatkathā. About a
century later Vākpati, the author of the Prakrit historical poem
Gaüḍavaha, wrote (v. 800), in describing himself:
bhāsammi jalaṇamittē kantīdēvē a jassa rahuārē
sōbandhavē a bandhammi hāriyandē a āṇandō,
‘in Bhāsa—the friend of fire—in the author of the Raghu
(vaṁśa)—that lord of beauty—in Subandhu’s work, and in that
of Haricandra is his delight.’ In Kavirāja’s Rāghavapāṇḍavīya,
which dates from about 1200 A. D., occurs the stanza (I. 41):
subandhur bāṇabhaṭṭaś ca kavirāja iti trayaḥ
vakrōktimārganipuṇāś caturthō vidyatē na vā,
‘Subandhu, Bāṇabhaṭṭa, and Kavirāja—these three be skilful in
the path of ambiguity²; a fourth there is not found.’ The
¹ This verse is interpolated at the end of the Vāsavadattā by the Telugu and Grantha
editions, and Krishnamachariar (Introd., pp. 38–39) implies that it may have been
written by Subandhu and later have found its way into the Harṣacarita. His theory
is to me untenable. On the use of the signs < >, etc., see p. 17.
² On vakrōkti see Sāhityadarpaṇa, No. 641; Appayyadīkṣita, Kuvalayānandakārikā,

1. 158–159; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 181–182, Benares, 1898; Bernheimer and
   Jacobi, in ZDMG. 63. 797–821; 64. 130–139, 586–590, 751–759; 65. 308–312.
   Subandhu is also mentioned immediately before Bāṇa in the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa
   according to Müller, India, What can it Teach us?, p. 331, note 5, London, 1883,
   but I have not been able to find the reference.
   B 2

4　　　　　　　　　VĀSAVADATTĀ
twelfth-century Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkha contains the stanza
(2. 53) :
mēṇṭhē svardviradādhirōhiṇi vaśaṁ yātē subandhāu vidhēḥ
śāntē hanta ca bhāravāu vighaṭitē bāṇē viṣādaspr̥śaḥ
vāgdēvyā viramantu mantuvidhurā drāg dr̥ṣṭayaś cēṣṭatē
śiṣṭaḥ kaścana sa prasādayati tāṁ yadvāṇisadvāṇinī,
‘Mēṇṭha having mounted the elephant of the sky [i.e., having
died], Subandhu having yielded to the will of destiny, Bhāravi,
alas, being at rest, and Bāṇa being broken, let the reason-reft
glances of the sorrow-stricken goddess of speech [Sarasvatī]
quickly find repose; for any one left that bestirreth himself doth
win her, to whose voice she is a goodly dancer.’ Two centuries
later, Śārṅgadhara, quoting Rājaśēkhara (cf. above, p. 1), who
flourished about 900 A. D., in his Paddhati (cf. Aufrecht, ‘Ueber
die Paddhati von Çārṅgadhara,’ in ZDMG. 27.77; Śārṅgadha-
rapaddhati, ed. Peterson, 1. No. 188, Bombay, 1888), made the
citation :
bhāsō rāmilasāumilāu vararuciḥ śrīsāhasāṅkaḥ kavir
mēṇṭhō bhāravikālidāsataralāḥ skandhaḥ subandhuś ca yaḥ
daṇḍī bāṇadivākarāu gaṇapatiḥ kāntaś ca ratnākaraḥ
siddhā yasya sarasvatī bhagavatī kē tasya sarvē ’pi tē,
‘Bhāsa, Rāmila, Sāumila, Vararuci, the poet Sāhasāṅka, Mēṇṭha,
Bhāravi, Kālidāsa, Tarala, Skandha, and Subandhu, Daṇḍin,
Bāṇa, Divākara, Gaṇapati, and the charming Ratnākara,—what
are all they to him by whom the exalted Sarasvatī is possessed’?
Rājaśēkhara also refers to Subandhu in the following stanza
quoted by Aufrecht (ZDMG. 36. 366) from the Saduktikarṇā-
mr̥ta (cf. also Peterson and Durgāprasāda, Subhāṣitāvali of
Vallabhadeva, Introd., p. 57, Bombay, 1886; Krishnamachariar,
Introd., p. 41) :
subandhāu bhaktir naḥ ka iha raghukārē na ramatē
dhr̥tir dākṣīputrē harati haricandrō ’pi hr̥dayam
viśuddhōktiḥ śūraḥ prakr̥timadhurā bhāravigiras
tathā ’py antarmōdaṁ kam api bhavabhūtir vitanutē,

INTRODUCTION 5
' in Subandhu is our delight; who rejoiceth not in the author
of the _Raghu(vaṃśa)_¹? satisfaction delighteth in the son of
Dākṣī²; even Haricandra joyeth the heart; of faultless diction
is Śūra³; the words of Bhāravi are delightsome in theme;
Bhavabhūti doth infuse an inward pleasure.' Krishnamachariar
also cites an allusion to the author of the Vāsavadattā in Abhi-
navabhaṭṭabāṇa's Vīranārāyaṇacarita (l.c.) :
pratikavibhēdanabāṇaḥ kavitātarugahanaviharaṇamayūraḥ
sahṛdayalōkasubandhur jayati śrībhaṭṭabāṇakavirājaḥ,
' victorious is the noble Bhaṭṭabāṇa, king of poets, an arrow [or,
“ a Bāṇa ”] for piercing hostile poets; a peacock [or, “ a Mayūra ”]
for wandering through the forest of the trees of poetry; a goodly
kinsman [or, “ a Subandhu ”] for all connoisseurs.' An anony-
mous citation in the modern anthology Subhāṣitaratnabhāṇḍāgāra
(ed. Parab, 3 ed., p. 56, Bombay, 1891) runs:
māghaś cōrō mayūrō muraripur aparō bhāraviḥ sāravidyaḥ
śrīharṣaḥ kālidāsaḥ kavir atha bhavabhūtyāhvayō bhōjarājaḥ
śrīdaṇḍī ḍiṇḍimākhyaḥ śrutimukuṭagurur bhallaṭō bhaṭṭabāṇaḥ
khyātāś cā 'nyē subandhvādaya iha kṛtibhir viśvam āhlādayanti,
' Māgha, Cōra, Mayūra, Mura's second foe (Murāri), Bhāravi in
climax learned, Harṣa, Kālidāsa, and also the poet named
Bhavabhūti, Bhōjarāja, Daṇḍin (hight “ the Drum ”), Bhallaṭa
weighty with the diadem of fame, Bhaṭṭabāṇa, and other renowned
ones, such as Subandhu, here on earth rejoice the universe with
their compositions.'
In the latter part of the sixteenth century, Ballāla, in his
Bhōjaprabandha, which he set forth as a history of Bhōja, who
ruled at Dhārā (the modern Dhār) in the eleventh century,
mentioned Subandhu, according to some manuscripts, as one
of the thirteen principal members of the host of five hundred
literati who graced the royal court (cf. Wilson, Works, 5. 174,
London, 1865; Hall, Introd., p. 7, note 1); but the list varies so
extremely in the different manuscripts of the Bhōjaprabandha
¹ Kālidāsa. ² Pāṇini.
³ See Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 660, Leipzig, 1891.

6 VĀSAVADATTĀ
that little stress can be laid upon it, especially in view of the
legendary character of the work as a whole. Finally, mention
should also be made, for the sake of completeness, of an apparent
allusion to the Vāsavadattā in Daṇḍin's Daśakumāracarita (ed.
Godabole and Parab, p. 110, lines 11–12, Bombay, 1898):
anurūpabhartṛgāminīnāṁ ca vāsavadattādīnāṁ varṇanēna grā-
hayā 'nuśayam, ‘and make her repent by a description of
Vāsavadattā and others who gained suitable husbands.’ This
clearly refers, however, to the well-known story of Vāsavadattā
and Udayana (see above, p. 2); and it is equally impossible
that the vāsavadattām adhikṛtya kṛtō granthaḥ mentioned in
the Vārttika (probably third century B.C.) on Pāṇini, 4. 3. 87,
should be connected in any way with Subandhu’s romance.
It should also be noted that Narasiṁha Vaidya, one of the
glossators of the Vāsavadattā, says: kavir ayam vikramāditya-
sabhyaḥ. tasmin rājñi lōkāntaram prāptē ētan nibandham kṛtavān,
‘this poet [Subandhu] was a retainer of Vikramāditya. When
this king attained the other world, he [Subandhu] composed this
work’ (Hall, Introd., p. 6, note). Hall’s manuscript D, more-
over, which belongs to what I may tentatively call the ‘South
Indian recension’ of the Vāsavadattā (see below, p. 38), terms
Subandhu ‘the son of Vararuci’s sister’ (śrīvararucibhāginēya),
Vararuci himself being, as is well known, one of the ‘nine gems’
of Vikramāditya’s court, flourishing at least later than the fifth
century (Bloch, Vararuci und Hemacandra, p. 13, Gütersloh,
1893; cf. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 324,
London, 1900). Hall denies that Subandhu was Vararuci’s
nephew (Introd., pp. 6–7), but it is possible that the tradition
contains a larger element of truth than is often supposed (cf.
Wilson, Works, 5. 177, London, 1865). It is, at all events,
echoed by the Bhōjaprabandha,—whatever be the value assigned
to such testimony—which associates Subandhu and Vararuci in
the passage already referred to.
Inscriptions of India mention Subandhu only once to my
knowledge. This single instance is a Canarese record of 1168
A.D., found at Balagāmi (Rice, Mysore Inscriptions, p. 111,

Bangalore, 1879), which contains the words: ‘In śabda a Pāṇini
paṇḍita, in nīti Bhūṣaṇācārya, in nāṭya and other bharata śāstras
Bharatamuni, in kāvya Subandhu, in siddhānta Lakulīśvara, at
the feet of Śiva a Skanda adorning the world, thus is Vāma
Śaktiyati truly described.’ The only additional information thus
gained is that by the twelfth century his fame had spread to
southern India.
Subandhu's Allusions to Sanskrit Literature. If Subandhu
is thus recognised but sparingly and indefinitely in the literature
and epigraphy of his native land, he is himself most generous in
alluding to the productions of other authors. The majority of
his references, however, cast little light upon his date, for no real
conclusions can be drawn from his mention of the Bṛhatkathā
(ed. Hall, pp. 110, 147), the Kāmasūtra (ed. Hall, p. 89), the
Chandōviciti section of the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra (ed. Hall,
pp. 94, note, 119, 235), the Mahābhārata and Harivaṁśa (ed.
Hall, pp. 21, 27, 93, 234, 254; on Subandhu's indebtedness to
the Mahābhārata see Cartellieri, ‘Das Mahābhārata bei Subandhu
und Bāṇa,’ in WZKM. 13. 57–74), the Rāmāyaṇa (ed. Hall,
p. 234), the Upaniṣads (ed. Hall, p. 235), and the Mīmāṁsā and
Nyāya philosophies (ed. Hall, pp. 93, 235, 297), any more than
we can derive any definite conclusions from his general and
hostile mention of the Buddhists (ed. Hall, pp. 144, 179, 235,
255, 297 bis) and Jains (ed. Hall, pp. 93, 187, 297; cf. on these
allusions to the Buddhists and the Jains Telang, ‘Subandhu and
Kumārila,’ in FRASBo. 18. 150–159).¹
It has been held, on the basis of Śivarāma's commentary, that
the words bāuddhasaṅgatim ivā 'laṁkārabhūṣitām, ‘decked with
⟨adornments⟩ as an assembly of Buddhists is decked with the
⟨Alaṁkāra⟩’ (ed. Hall, p. 235), refer to the Bāuddhasaṅgatyalaṁ-
kāra of Dharmakīrti (cf., in general, on Dharmakīrti, Pathak,
‘Dharmakīrti and Śaṁkarāchārya,’ in FRASBo. 18. 88–96, and

¹ Reference should also be made, in this connexion, to the allusions collected in
Krishnamachariar's Introduction, received after these lines were written, to other
Sanskrit literature, especially the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa, as well as to religion
and philosophy (pp. 22-24, 27-28).

8 VĀSAVADATTĀ
the criticism of Telang, ib. 18. 148–150). Since, however,
Dharmakīrti is described by I-Tsing, who travelled in India
in 671–695 A. D., as among those ‘of late years’ (Record of the
Buddhist Religion, tr. Takakusu, p. 181, cf. p. lviii, Oxford, 1896);
and since Tāranātha (Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien, tr.
Schiefner, pp. 184–185, St. Petersburg, 1869) makes him a con-
temporary of the Tibetan king, Srong-btsan-sgam-po, who died
about 650 A. D. (Duff, Chronology of India, p. 53, Westminster,
1899), Lévi (‘La Date de Candragomin,’ in Bulletin de l'École
d'Extrême-Orient, 1903, p. 18; cf. Kern, Manual of Indian
Buddhism, p. 130, note 11, Strassburg, 1896) is doubtless right
in denying that Subandhu makes any allusion to Dharmakīrti’s
activity (for an opposing view see Krishnamachariar, Introd., p. 32).
This leaves but a single literary allusion in the Vāsavadattā
which can in any way be construed as casting light on the date
of the romance. The reference in question is nyāyasthitim ivō
'ddyōtakarasvarūpām, ‘⟨revealing her beauty⟩ as the permanence
of the Nyāya system has its ⟨form from Uddyōtakara⟩’ (ed. Hall,
p. 235). Since we know that Uddyōtakara wrote his Nyāya-
vārttika to refute the heterodox (i.e., Buddhist) views of Dignāga,
who flourished between 520 and 600 A. D. (Kern, op. cit. p. 129;
Müller, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, p. 477, London, 1899),
it is obvious that Uddyōtakara, to whom Subandhu so unmis-
takably refers, can not have lived before the latter part of the
sixth century. It is, therefore, certain that the Vāsavadattā can
not be prior to the late sixth century of our era.
The Date of Subandhu. There is but one allusion in Subandhu's
romance itself which can be interpreted as referring to a historical
event. This is the tenth introductory stanza:
sā rasavattā vihatā navakā vilasanti carati nō kaṃ kaḥ¹
sarasī ’va kīrtiśēṣaṃ gatavati bhuvi vikramādityē,
‘⟨moisture⟩ is destroyed, ≪cranes sport not≫, ⋘the heron fares
not forth⋙; yea, ⟨eloquence⟩ is destroyed, ≪new-comers make
¹ The theory of Mazumdar (JRAS. 1907, pp. 406–408), that the kaṃ kaḥ of this
stanza involves an allusion to a Kaṅka dynasty, must be regarded as not proven.

INTRODUCTION 9

disport», ««who devours not whom»»?—for Vikramāditya, like
a lake, hath passed away on earth.’ This has been taken,
particularly by Hall (Introd., p. 6), to imply that Subandhu
‘lived long posterior to the great Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī.’
Although some deny that this monarch, about whom cluster so
many legends, ever existed (see, for example, Macdonell, History
of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 323–324, London, 1900), such a view
can scarcely be supported, and there is good reason to believe
him to be identical with Candragupta II, who reigned from about
374 to 413 (Smith, Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the
Muhammadan Conquest, 2 ed., pp. 275–283, Oxford, 1908). It
would be most tempting, so far as the special problems of the Vāsa-
vadattā are concerned, could one accept the view, argued with
great learning by Hoernle (‘Some Problems of Ancient Indian
History,’ in JRAS. 1903, pp. 545–570, and ‘The Identity of
Yaśodharman and Vikramāditya, and some Corollaries,’ ib. 1909,
pp. 89–144 ; against this Fleet, ‘Dr. Hoernle’s Article on Some
Problems of Ancient Indian History,’ ib. 1904, pp. 164–166, and
Smith, ‘The Indian Kings named Śīlāditya, and the Kingdom
of Mo-la-p’o,’ in ZDMG. 58. 787–796), that Yaśōdharman (on
whom see also Smith, op. cit. pp. 301–302), whom he identifies
with the great Vikramāditya, ‘founded his Mālava empire about
533 A.D., and reigned up to about 583 A.D.’ Hoernle accord-
ingly dates Subandhu in the second half of the sixth century,
and holds that the Vāsavadattā was written before 606–612,
the latter year being that of Harṣa’s coronation. Attractive as is
this hypothesis, I am compelled to admit that it can scarcely be
used to determine the date of Subandhu, the whole evidence of
Indian history being against it.
The period following the death of Vikramāditya is described
in the stanza quoted above as one of degeneration, and there may
be a covert allusion to the same (or a similar) evil state of affairs
in the phrase navanṛpaticittavṛttibhir iva kulyāpamānakāriṇībhir,
‘as the disposition of new monarchs causes dishonour to the
honourable’ (ed. Hall, p. 220). Hoernle, holding that Vikra-
māditya’s successor was his son Śīlāditya, who was dethroned

10 VĀSAVADATTĀ

by his enemies (probably about 593 A. D.), being 'replaced in
the kingdom of his father' (probably before 604 A. D.) only by
the aid of the Hun, Pravarasēna II of Kashmir (Rājataraṅgiṇī 3.
330), has evolved a most ingenious theory which I was long
inclined to adopt. Śīlāditya is, on this hypothesis, described as
not only unfortunate, but cruel, as evidenced by his execution of
the Māukharī Grahavarman, king of Kanauj, and the brutal
fettering and imprisonment of the dead monarch’s young wife,
Rājyaśrī (Harṣacarita, tr. Cowell and Thomas, p. 173, London,
1897); and as unpatriotic, this being shown by his acceptance
of assistance from non-Aryan Huns. Despite his restoration
by Pravarasēna, the reign of Śīlāditya, who, Hoernle maintains,
succeeded his father, Vikramāditya, about 583 A. D., came to
a disastrous end in 606 (or 605), when he was utterly defeated
by Rājyavardhana II, the brother of the famous Harṣavardhana
who is the hero of the Harṣacarita. Harṣavardhana himself
succeeded to the throne of Thāṇēsar in 606, when Rājyavardhana
was treacherously slain by the Gāuḍa king, Śaśāṅka, and reigned
until 648 (on Harṣavardhana, in general, cf. Ettinghausen, Harṣa
Vardhana, empereur et poète de l'Inde septentrionale, Paris,
1906).
While holding this theory, I gave to it the pleasing embellish-
ment of an hypothesis, without real basis, that the dynasties to
which Vikramāditya and Harṣavardhana belonged were rivals,
and that Bāṇa was the faithful eulogist of Harṣavardhana exactly
as Subandhu was loyal to Vikramāditya. Since, moreover,
Bāṇa's monarch had been victorious over the degenerate son of
Subandhu's royal patron, I deemed that Bāṇa had deliberately
set out to surpass Subandhu, so that Harṣavardhana's court might
excel Vikramāditya's in literature as well as in arms. Thus,
there would have been a deeper motive for Bāṇa to write the
Harṣacarita than the mere incentive of literary emulation which
is generally ascribed to him.
History does not sustain this elaborate figment, which I have
recorded mainly to keep others from possible pursuit of a false
clue. Not only was Vikramāditya not identical with Yaśōdharman,