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

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,

INTRODUCTION II
as already noted, but Śīlāditya was the very reverse of a cruel
monarch (Smith, Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the
Muhammadan Conquest, 2 ed., p. 306, Oxford, 1908). If one were
to stress the theory of rivalry both in letters and in war, one
might suppose that Subandhu was a courtier either of Śaśāṅka
of Gauḍa or of Dēvagupta of Eastern Mālava (cf. Ettinghausen, op.
cit. pp. 36–38, 148), both of whom were ignoble in character. But
of this there is not the slightest evidence ; and even if the name
of the father of either of them was Vikramāditya (a most impro-
bable hypothesis), that would give little point to Subandhu's
stanza, which plainly alludes to the famous Vikramāditya, and is,
therefore, only a conventional harking back to happy times long
past. In determining the date of the Vāsavadattā I am forced
to consider the lines under discussion as utterly valueless.
While the sole known basis for assigning a terminus a quo to
the composition of Subandhu's romance is, as we have seen, the
allusion to Uddyōtakara, who probably flourished in the latter
half of the sixth century, the terminus ad quem is almost cer-
tainly the date of Bāṇa's Harṣacarita. This romance, which was
left unfinished by its author, ends abruptly with the rescue of
Rājyaśrī, the sister of Harṣavardhana and widow of Graha-
varman (i. e. 607, or 606), though Harṣa had reigned several
years when Bāṇa wrote (Harṣacarita, tr. Cowell and Thomas,
pp. 75–76, London, 1897). The precise date of composition of
Bāṇa's second romance, the Kādambarī, is unknown; but, as
Bāṇa died before completing it (Kādambarī, tr. Ridding, p. 182,
London, 1896), it must have been written considerably after the
Harṣacarita. It may also be regarded as certain that Subandhu
lived later, probably by at least a century (cf. p. 12), than Daṇḍin,
the author of the picaresque Daśakumāracarita (Weber, Indische
Streifen, 1. 311–315, 353, 372, Berlin, 1868 ; Daśakumāracarita,
tr. Meyer, pp. 120–127, Leipzig, 1902 ; Collins, The Geographical
Data of the Raghuvamśa and Daśakumāracarita, p. 46, Leipzig,
1907, places Daṇḍin's literary activity before 585 A. D.).
The Place of Composition of the Vāsavadattā. The question
next arises as to the place of composition of the Vāsavadattā.

12 VĀSAVADATTĀ
Here the answer must be still more vague.¹ It is obviously
impossible that the romance was written at the court of Bhōja, as
some manuscripts of the Bhōjaprabandha would imply, for that
ruler did not reign at Dhārā until the eleventh century; nor does
there seem to have been any Bhōja reigning in the latter part of
the sixth century at whose court Subandhu might have been,
thus being confusedly located by Ballāla in the train of the
famous Bhōja of Dhārā. One might, indeed, by reckless theorising,
allege that Subandhu, thus being placed at Dhārā in Mālava,
had actually been a courtier either of Dēvagupta of Eastern
Mālava or of Śīlāditya of Mo-la-p'o (Western Mālava); but the
real reason for this wild statement by the author of the Bhōja-
prabandha (or, more probably, by one of his interpolators) was
obviously the identification, occasionally made by Sanskrit
authors (cf. Weber, Akademische Vorlesungen über indische
Literaturgeschichte, 2 ed., pp. 218–219, Berlin, 1876; Rajendralala
Mitra, 'Bhoja Rájá of Dhár and his Homonyms,' in JASBe.
32. 93), of Bhōja and Vikramāditya, an equation too absurd to
require refutation.
To sum up the discussion, we can say with reasonable certainty
only that the Vāsavadattā was written by Subandhu at a place
unknown, probably between 550 and somewhat after 606 A. D.,
the terminus a quo being the circumstance that Uddyōtakara
cannot have flourished until at least the middle of the sixth
century, and the terminus ad quem by the date of composition
of the Harṣacarita, early in the seventh century.²
¹ Absolutely no clue is given by the purely conventional geography of the romance,
on which see Weber, Indische Streifen, 1. 385, Berlin, 1868.
² Krishnamachariar devotes a long section of his Introduction (pp. 30–48) to a discus-
sion of Subandhu's date, which he places after Bāṇa and before Vāmana, the author of
the Kāvyālaṁkāravṛtti, whom tradition makes a minister of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir
(779–813; cf. Duff, Chronology of India, pp. 68, 70–71, Westminster, 1899). He
rightly argues that the various references in Sanskrit authors to Subandhu and Bāṇa
allow of no conclusion as to the priority of the Vāsavadattā; but some of his hypotheses,
as that Subandhu's dislike of Buddhism proves him to be later than Bāṇa (p. 45), as
well as his general implication that the difference between the two writers is due to
degeneration of style (cf. pp. 14–18), are, in my judgment, certainly untenable; nor
does he touch with sufficient depth upon what evidence may be drawn from Indian
history.

INTRODUCTION 13
Data Concerning Subandhu’s Life. Our knowledge of
Subandhu is most meagre. In the thirteenth stanza of his intro-
duction to the Vāsavadattā he terms himself sujanāikabandhu,
which Hall (Introd., p. 24), following the commentator, Śivarāma,
renders ‘an intimate of none but the virtuous,’ although the word
should rather be translated ‘Sujana’s only brother.’¹ The
tradition that Subandhu was the nephew of the Prakrit
grammarian, Vararuci, has already been mentioned (see above,
p. 6), though with disapproval; and there seems also to have
been a legend that he was, by birth, a Kashmirian Brāhman
(Weber, Indische Streifen, 1. 371, Berlin, 1868, quoting Cunning-
ham, in JASBe. 17. 98–99).²
Subandhu is not known to have written anything besides the
Vāsavadattā. Citations are made from him in the Śārṅga-
dharapaddhati, Subhāṣitāvalī, Padyāvalī, and Sūktikarṇāmṛta
(Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 726, Leipzig, 1891); but
the quotations in the first two anthologies, which alone are thus
far edited [by Peterson (Bombay, 1888) and by Peterson and
Durgāprasāda (Bombay, 1886), respectively], are drawn exclu-
sively from the Vāsavadattā. Hall (Introd., p. 48, note), it is
true, found in the still unedited Padyaveṇī of Veṇīdatta, com-
piled about the reign of Shāh Jahān (early 17th century), the fol-
lowing distich then supposed to have been written by Subandhu:
akṣamālāpavṛttijñā kuśāsanaparigrahā
brāhmī "va dāurjanī saṃsad vandanīyā samēkhalā,
‘an assembly of scoundrels, knowing ‹how to live by disparaging
speeches›, accepting «evil teachings», and «wicked to the just»,
should be honoured even as an assembly of Brāhmans knowing
¹ Cartellieri, ‘Das Mahābhārata bei Subandhu und Bāṇa,’ in WZKM. 13. 72, trans-
lates the stanza thus: ‘Durch eine Gnadengabe, die Sarasvatī ihm verliehen, hat
Subandhu — d. h. der edle Freunde hat — dieses Buch gemacht; obzwar Subandhu —
d. h. der hundert Freunde hat — hat er doch nur den Edlen zum einzigen Freund;
eine wahre Schatzkammer ist er in der Kunst, Silbe für Silbe doppelsinnige Dicht-
ungen zu verfertigen.’ On Sujana as a proper name see Aufrecht, op. cit. 3. 149,
Leipzig, 1903.
² It is interesting to note, in this connexion, that Krishnamachariar holds that
Subandhu was a Vāiṣṇavite and an adherent of the Mīmāṃsā philosophy (Introd.,
pp. 23, 28).

14 VĀSAVADATTĀ
‹the end of their rosaries›, accepting «seats of kuśa-grass», and
«girt with their girdles».' The distich was not, however,
written by Subandhu, but by Trivikrama Bhaṭṭa, the author of
the Damayantīkathā, or Nalacampū (1. 7; cf. Böhtlingk, Indische
Sprüche, 2 ed., No. 52, St. Petersburg, 1870–1873), who flourished
about 915 A.D. (Duff, Chronology of India, p. 85, Westminster,
1899).¹
The Vāsavadattā a Kathā. The Vāsavadattā is expressly
stated by many manuscripts (cf. Hall’s ed., p. 300, note 7, and
Śivarāma ad loc.) to be an ākhyāyikā, or ‘tale,’ this being very
possibly influenced by the reference to some work entitled, from
the name of its heroine, vāsavadattākhyāyikā in the Vārttika
on Pāṇini 4. 3. 87 (cf. also the Vārttika on 4. 2. 60, and see
Krishnamachariar, Introd., pp. 36–37). The ākhyāyikā, according
to Sanskrit rhetoricians (cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 76–
77, Paris, 1884), is a division of gadya, or poetical prose; and the
classical example is the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa, who himself seems
to intimate that the Vāsavadattā likewise belongs to this cate-
gory by using the term ākhyāyikākārā, ‘authors of ākhyāyikās,’
immediately before his allusion to Subandhu’s romance, in the
tenth stanza of his introduction to the Harṣacarita. The classic
description of the ākhyāyikā is given in the following passage of
the Sāhityadarpaṇa (ed. Roer, No. 568, Calcutta, 1851):
ākhyāyikā kathāvat syāt kavēr vaṁśādikīrtanam
asyāṁ anyakavīnāṁ ca vṛttaṁ gadyaṁ kvacit kvacit
kathāṁśānāṁ vyavacchēda āśvāsa iti badhyatē
āryāvaktrapavaktrāṇāṁ chandasā yēna kēnacit
anyāpadēśēnā ’’śvāsamukhē bhāvyarthasūcanam,
‘the ākhyāyikā should be as the kathā. (There should be) in it
an account of the lineage of the poet and of other poets; poetry
¹ Krishnamachariar (Introd., pp. 39-40) calls attention to a number of passages in
the Nalacampū (ed. Bombay, 1885; new ed., 1903) in which he holds that Trivikrama
Bhaṭṭa imitated Subandhu. He likewise notes parallels between the Vāsavadattā and
the Jīvandharacampū of Haricandra (p. 52), who wrote after 897 A.D. (p. 44),
Śiśupālavadha (p. 53), Rāmāyaṇa (p. 64), Mēghadūta (p. 54), Vikramōrvaśī (pp. 62,
64), and Mālatīmādhava (pp. 61–62), as well as the Harṣacarita (pp. 53–57), and
Kādambarī (pp. 52, 53, 55, 57, 63).

INTRODUCTION 15
in some places (and) prose in others (should be employed);
divisions, called “sighs,” are used for the divisions of the story;
at the beginning of the “sighs” (there should be) an intimation
of the theme, under the guise of something else, by any metre
whatsoever of the āryā, vaktra, or apavaktra (classes).’
The kathā, or ‘story,’ best represented by Bāṇa's Kādambarī,
is described by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 567) as follows :
kathāyāṁ sarasaṁ vastu padyāir ēva vinirmitam
kvacid atra bhavēd āryā kvacid vaktrāpavaktrakē
ādāu padyāir namaskāraḥ khalādēr vṛttakīrtanam,
‘in the kathā a theme with poetic sentiments is represented even
with poetry ; in it there should be the āryā metre in some places,
(and) the vaktra and apavaktra metres in other places ; at the
beginning (there should be) homage in verse (to a divinity, also)
a description of the character of knaves and the like.’ The older,
and in my judgment the better, definition of this type of Sanskrit
literature, however, is given by Daṇḍin, the author of the pica-
resque Daśakumāracarita, who says (Kāvyādarśa I. 23–25, 28) :
apādaḥ padasantānō gadyam ākhyāyikā kathā
iti tasya prabhēdāu dvāu tayōr ākhyāyikā kila
nāyakēnāi "va vācyā "nyā nāyakēnē 'tarēṇa vā
svaguṇāviṣkriyā dōṣō nā 'tra bhūtārthaśaṁsinaḥ
api tv aniyamō dṛṣṭas tatrā 'py anyāir udīraṇāt
anyō vaktrā svayaṁ vē "ti kīdṛg vā bhēdalakṣaṇam
............................................................................
tat kathākhyāyikē "ty ēkā jātiḥ sañjñādvayāṅkitā
atrāi "vā 'ntarbhaviṣyanti śēṣāś cā "khyānajātayaḥ,
‘ prose is a series of words without strophes ; its two classes are
the ākhyāyikā (and) the kathā. Now, the ākhyāyikā should be
spoken by the hero, the other (the kathā) by the hero or another.
A revelation of one’s own personality, if he narrates facts, is no
fault here. Nevertheless, the lack of fixed distinction is seen
from the story being told by others even there (in the ākhyāyikā).
Whether another (is) the speaker, or one’s self, is a sorry standard

16 VĀSAVADATTĀ
of discrimination........ Therefore the kathā (and) ākhyāyikā are
one category marked with a double name ; and here, too, will be
comprised the other categories of stories.' ¹
In support of this statement of Daṇḍin, it may be noted that
the Vāsavadattā, though termed, as we have seen, an ākhyāyikā
lacks the necessary divisions into 'sighs' ; in its opening stanzas
it (like a kathā) describes 'the character of knaves and the like'
(introductory stanzas 6–9) ; and it contains a long episode spoken
by another than the hero—the conversation of the maina with his
mate concerning the heroine of the story. The manifest resem-
blance of the Vāsavadattā to the Kādambarī, which is considered
to be a kathā, together with its unlikeness to the Harṣacarita,
whose technique it should share, were it really an ākhyāyikā, also
serves to confirm the views of Daṇḍin rather than those of the
Sāhityadarpaṇa. One need have little hesitation, therefore, in
regarding the Vāsavadattā as technically a kathā.²
The 'Style' and Rhetorical Embellishments of the Vāsava-
dattā. The rīti, or 'style,' of the Vāsavadattā is the Gāuḍī,
which the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 627) defines as follows (cf., in
general, Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 253–255, Paris, 1884):
ōjaḥprakāśakāir varṇāir bandha āḍambaraḥ punaḥ
samāsabahulā gāuḍī,
'the Gāuḍī, moreover, is a resonant arrangement (of words) with
sounds expressing strength, (and) abounds in compounds.' Vā-
mana, in his Kāvyālaṁkāravṛtti (1. 2. 12), describes this 'style'
as 'consisting of strength (ōjas) and grace (kānti)', while avoiding
'sweetness' (mādhurya) and 'softness' (sāukumārya). Accord-
ing to the Kāvyādarśa (1. 44a, 46a, 54a, 92a), moreover, the
Gāuḍī especially affects alliteration, etymologising, and hyper-
bole.³ When it is added that, as the Kāvyādarśa (1. 14–29) also
¹ It may be mentioned in passing that Ānandavardhana's Dhvanyālōka, 3. 8
(tr. Jacobi, in ZDMG. 56. 789), states that compound words are longer in the
ākhyāyikā than in the kathā.
² I am glad to note that my conclusion in this respect is confirmed by Krishna-
machariar (Introd., pp. 8–9).
³ Krishnamachariar (Introd., pp. 28–29) notes the prevalence in the Vāsavadattā

INTRODUCTION 17
states, an ākhyāyikā, kathā, or other form of narrative should,
like poetry in general, include descriptions of battles, cities,
oceans, mountains, seasons, sunrise, moonrise, and the like (each
and all of which may be exemplified from the Vāsavadattā), we
see at once how closely Subandhu was restricted in the composi-
tion of his romance, and how faithfully and minutely he discharged
his self-imposed task.
The slender thread of narrative in the Vāsavadattā is em-
bellished with many forms of literary adornment, which, indeed,
constitute by far the major portion of the work. First and fore-
most among these embellishments stands the śleṣa, or 'parono-
masia,' and with good reason Subandhu declares himself to be
'a repository of cunning skill in arranging a series of parono-
masias in every syllable' (pratyakṣaraśleṣamayaprabandhavinyā-
savāidagdhyanidhir, introductory stanza 13). The śleṣa is well
defined by Daṇḍin, in his Kāvyādarśa (2. 363; cf. Regnaud,
Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 227–229, Paris, 1884; Sāhityadarpaṇa,
No. 705; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 188–197, 217–218, Benares,
1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 62), as follows :
śleṣaḥ sarvāsu puṣṇāti prāyō vakrōktiṣu śriyam
bhinnaṁ dvidhā svabhāvōktir vakrōktiś cē 'ti vāṅmayam
'the paronomasia generally enhances the beauty in all equivoca-
tions; the phraseology (is) divided in two parts: the natural
meaning and the equivocal meaning.' Examples of the śleṣa,
usually intimated in the Vāsavadattā by iva, 'as' (and indicated
in this translation by < > or, when double and triple, by « », «« »»),
abound in Subandhu's romance. As a single specimen may be
cited vānarasēnām iva sugrīvāṅgadōpaśōbhitām, 'adorned with a
of utkalikāprāya, or style of long compounds and words containing alliteration
(Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, p. 75, Paris, 1884), and of the vṛtti ārabhaṭī, or
'violent manner' of scenes of awe and conflict (Lévi, Théatre indien, 1. 92–93, Paris,
1890). The 'manner' is also sometimes madhyamakāiśikī (according to Vidyānātha,
the author of the Pratāparudrayaśōbhūṣaṇa [cf. Regnaud, op. cit., pp. 377–378],
quoted by Krishnamachariar, mṛdvarthē 'py anatiprauḍhabandhā madhyamakāiśikī,
'not conjoined with excessive dignity in a gentle theme'), and the style is mostly
nārikēlapāka (according to Vidyānātha, sa nārikērapākaḥ syād antargūdharasōdayaḥ,
'the rising of hidden flavour'), although sometimes āmrapāka (for which no definition
is given).
C

18 VĀSAVADATTĀ
‹beautiful throat (sugrīva) and with armlets (aṅgada)› as the
army of monkeys was adorned by ‹Sugrīva and Aṅgada›' (ed.
Hall, pp. 63–64).¹
The figure next in frequence to the śleṣa in the Vāsavadattā is
the virōdha, or ‘antithesis,’ where the superficial meaning is self-
contradictory, while the paronomasiac reading renders the phrase
consistent, and even intensifies it. This rhetorical embellishment
is defined as follows in the Kāvyādarśa (2. 333; cf. Sāhityadar-
paṇa, No. 718; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 233–235, Benares,
1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 74) :
viruddhānāṁ padārthānāṁ yatra saṁsargadarśanam
viśēṣadarśanāyāi ”va sa virōdhaḥ smṛtō yathā,
‘when there is an apparent union of antithetical objects simply
to show the distinction (between them), it is called virōdha.’ The
conventional sign of the virōdha in the Vāsavadattā is api, as iva
is indicative of the śleṣa. As an example of the countless in-
stances of the virōdha in Subandhu’s romance, mention may be
made of agrahēṇā ’pi kāvyajīvajñēna, ‘which ‹has no planets
(a-graha)› yet knows «Venus (kāvya = Śukra = the planet Venus)
and Jupiter (jīva = Bṛhaspati = the planet Jupiter)», for it is ‹free
from theft (a-graha)› and knows «the essence (jīva) of poetry
(kāvya)»’ (ed. Hall, pp. 113–114).
Besides these two rhetorical devices, Śivarāma, in his com-
mentary on the Vāsavadattā, enumerates a long series of alaṁ-
kāras, or ‘adornments,’ which will now briefly be considered.
The parisaṅkhyā, or ‘special mention,’ usually combined with
the śleṣa in the Vāsavadattā, is an affirmative statement with the
implied negation of the paronomasiac meaning of the phrase, and
is thus defined by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 735; cf. Kāvyapra-
kāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 245–246, Benares, 1898 ; Kuvalayānandakārikā,

1. 112) :
   ¹ On Subandhu’s fondness for paronomasia see, further, Krishnamachariar, Introd.,
   pp. 18–20, who also calls attention to repetitions of paronomasia on the same word
   (p. 27) as well as to the frequent repetition of the same phrase in the romance
   (pp. 25–26).

INTRODUCTION 19
praśnād apraśnatō vā "pi kathitād vastunō bhavēt
tādṛganyavyapōhaś cēc chābda ārthō 'thavā tadā
parisaṅkhyā,
‘if there is either an expressed or implied exclusion, whether with
or without an interrogation, of a thing similar to (but) other than
the object mentioned, then it is a parisaṅkhyā.’ An example
from the Vāsavadattā is nētrōtpāṭanaṁ munīnām, ‘⟨roots (nētra)⟩
were plucked out only in the case of «wormwood-trees(munīnām)»
(for «ascetics (munīnām)» did not pluck out their ⟨eyes (nētra)⟩)’
(ed. Hall, p. 19).
The mālādīpaka, or ‘garland elucidator’ (‘verkettete Klimax,’
according to Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fas-
sung, s. v., St. Petersburg, 1879–1889), is a rhetorical repetition
of words in a sequence so as to heighten the effect, and is thus
defined by the Kāvyādarśa (2. 108; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā,
p. 226, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 105):
pūrvapūrvavyapēkṣiṇī
vākyamālā prayuktē "ti tan mālādīpakaṁ matam,
‘a conjoined series of words, each of which refers to the one pre-
ceding, is considered a mālādīpaka.’ As an example may be
cited bhujadaṇḍēna kōdaṇḍaṁ kōdaṇḍēna śarāḥ śarāir ariśiras, ‘by
his staff-like arm the bow, by the bow the arrows, by the arrows
his foeman's head’ (ed. Hall, p. 41).
The utprēkṣā, or ‘poetic fancy,’ usually indicated, like the ślēṣa,
by iva, ‘as,’ in the Vāsavadattā, and one of Subandhu’s favourite
rhetorical devices, is thus concisely defined by the Sāhityadar-
paṇa (No. 686; cf. Kāvyādarśa, 2. 221; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā,
p. 211, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 30):
bhavēt saṁbhāvanō "tprēkṣā prakṛtasya parātmanā,
‘poetic fancy would be the imagining of an object under the
character of something else.’ Examples of this figure abound in
the Vāsavadattā, as in the following description of the moon:
dadhidhavalē kālakṣapaṇakagrāsapiṇḍa iva niśāyamunāphēna-
puñja iva mēnakānakhamārjanaśilāśakala iva, ‘while he was
white, as it were, with the curds which constitute a morsel of food
C 2

20 VĀSAVADATTĀ
for (Buddhist) ascetics at their mealtime, and was like a mass of
Yamunā's foam by night, and resembled a fragment of stone for
the polishing of Mēnakā's nails' (ed. Hall, p. 44).¹
The yamaka, 'repetition' or 'chiming,' is the repeating of
words or parts of words of similar sound but divergent meaning,
which the Kāvyādarśa (1. 61; cf. 3. 1–37; Sāhityadarpaṇa,
No. 640; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 185–188, Benares, 1898;
Kuvalayānandakārikā, 4. 6) describes as
āvṛttiṁ varṇasaṅghātagōcarāṁ yamakaṁ viduḥ,
'a repetition consisting of a combination of sounds they know as
yamaka.' This is illustrated by the following passage from the
Vāsavadattā: āndōlitakusumakēsarē kēsarēṇumuṣi raṇitamadhu-
ramaṇīnāṁ ramaṇīnāṁ vikacakamudākarē mudākarē, '(when
there blew a wind that) rocked the filaments of the flowers and
removed their pollen from the hair of damsels wearing delight-
somely tinkling jewels, whilst it had an abundance of expanded
white lotuses, and caused pleasure' (ed. Hall, pp. 52–53).
The prauḍhōkti, or 'pomposity,' is thus defined by the Kuva-
layānandakārikā (1. 124):
prauḍhōktir uktā 'rthāhētōs taddhētutvaprakalpanam,
'in the absence of a cause for a thing, the invention of a cause
for it is called prauḍhōkti.' It is exemplified in the Vāsavadattā
by the passage describing the heroine's lip as mukhacandra-
sannihitasandhyārāgēṇa dantamaṇirakṣāsindūramudrānukāriṇā,
'which had the glow of eventide in close proximity to her moon-
like face; which had what seemed to be a minium seal as a guard
for the jewels of her teeth' (ed. Hall, p. 58).
The rūpakātiśayōkti, or 'hyperbolical metaphor,' is merely an
exaggerated form of the preceding alaṁkāra. It is thus defined
in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 34):
rūpakātiśayōktiḥ syān nigīryādhyavasānataḥ,
'identification so that (the object identified) should be swallowed

¹ On the similes in the Vāsavadattā see also the examples collected by Krishna-
machariar, Introd., pp. 20–22.

INTRODUCTION 21
up (and thus completely disappear) would be rūpakātiśayōkti;
and as an example may be cited, from the description of Vāsa-
vadattā just quoted, the passage vilōcanēndīvarabhramarapaṅk-
tibhyāṃ mukhamadanamandiratōraṇābhyāṃ rāgasāgaravēlābh-
yāṃ yāuvananartakalāsikābhyāṃ bhrūlatābhyāṃ virāiamānām,
‘adorned with delicate brows which were clusters of bees about
her blue-lotus eyes; portals of her face that formed the abode of
Love; the shores of Passion’s sea; wantoning in youthful dancing’
(ed. Hall, p. 61).
The akramātiśayōkti, or ‘fused hyperbole,’ is closely akin to
the preceding rhetorical figure, of which it is merely an intensi-
fication. It receives the following definition in the Kuvalayā-
nandakārikā (1. 39):
akramātiśayōktiḥ syāt sahatvē hētukāryayōḥ,
‘akramātiśayōkti would be in the unity of cause and effect.’
Śivarāma cites but one instance of the figure in the Vāsavadattā,
this being samaṃ dviṣāṃ dhanuṣāṃ ca jīvākṛṣṭiṃ yōdhāś cakruḥ,
‘the warriors drew at once the ‹lives (jīva)› of their foes and the
‹strings (jīvā)› of their bows’ (ed. Hall, p. 295).
Two other forms of hyperbole are mentioned by Śivarāma as
occurring in Subandhu’s romance. The first of these is bhēdakā-
tiśayōkti, or ‘hyperbole of differentiation.’ It is defined as follows
in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 36):
bhēdakātiśayōktis tu tasyāi ”vā ’nyatvavarṇanam,
‘bhēdakātiśayōkti is the description of that (which is the subject
under discussion) by means of differentiation,’ and it is exemplified
in the Vāsavadattā by pṛthur api gōtrasamutsāraṇavistāri-
tabhūmaṇḍalaḥ, ‘Pṛthu ‹levelled the earth by banishing the
mountains› (but Cintāmaṇi ‹covered the earth by sending forth
his offspring›)’ (ed. Hall, p. 22).
The remaining form of hyperbole in the Vāsavadattā is sam-
bandhātiśayōkti, or ‘hyperbole of connexion,’ which is thus
defined in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 37):
sambandhātiśayōktiḥ syād ayōgē yōgakalpanam,
‘sambandhātiśayōkti would be the invention of connexion when

22 VĀSAVADATTĀ

connexion is absent,' as when Subandhu describes trees as being
anūrukarakaśābhighātaparavaśaravirathaturagagrāsaviṣamitapa-
llavāis, 'with shoots made uneven by the feeding of the horses
of the chariot of the sun which are obedient when lashed by the
whip in the hands of Anūru' (ed. Hall, p. 120).
The ratnāvalī, or 'jewel necklace,' is defined as follows in the
Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 139) :
kramikāprakṛtārthānāṃ nyāsaṃ ratnāvalīṃ viduḥ,
'an arrangement of objects serially irrelevant they know as ratnā-
valī,' and is exemplified in the Vāsavadattā where the heroine is
described as vikacēna nētrakamalēna śanāiścarēṇa pādēna tamasā
kēśapāśēna grahamayīm iva, 'she seemed to be made of planets:
of <Venus>, for she had <wide-open> lotus eyes; of <Saturn>, for
she had <slow-moving> steps; of <Rāhu>, for she had <dark> heavy
hair' (ed. Hall, p. 64).
The kāvyaliṅga, or 'poetic reason,' is thus defined by the
Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 710; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 238–
239, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 120) :
hētōr vākyapadārthatvē kāvyaliṅgaṃ nigadyatē,
'kāvyaliṅga is applied to the implication of a cause in a sentence or
word,' and finds exemplification in the Vāsavadattā in the passage
khalaḥ punas tad aniṣṭam anucitam ēvā 'vadhārayanty aniṣṭōd-
bhāvanarasōttaraṃ hi khalahṛdayam, 'the wicked, on the other
hand, make it (thy conduct) out to be undesirable and indecorous;
for the heart of the wicked man finds its highest delight centred
in bringing to light what is undesirable' (ed. Hall, p. 70).
The mīlita, or 'vanished,' denotes a complete loss of distinction
between two objects because of their superficial resemblance, as
is expressed by the definition of the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 145;
cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 253–254, Benares, 1898; Ruyyaka's
Alaṃkārasarvasva, ed. Durgāprasāda and Parab, p. 167, Bombay,
1893):
mīlitaṃ yadi sādṛśyād bhēda ēva na lakṣyatē,
'if, because of similarity, a distinction is not observed, it is
mīlita.' As an example from Subandhu I may cite mādhurya-

INTRODUCTION 23

śāityasucitvasantāpaśāntibhiḥ payaḥ paya ivē 'ti, 'fancying that
“water is as milk because of its sweetness, coolness, purity, and
healing of distress”' (ed. Hall, p. 80).
The anuprāsa, or 'alliteration,' a rhetorical figure found with
considerable frequency in Subandhu's romance, is thus defined
by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 633; cf. Kāvyādarśa, 1. 55; Kāvya-
prakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 182–184, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakā-
rikā, 4. 2–5) :
anuprāsaḥ śabdasāmyaṁ vāiṣamyē 'pi svarasya yat,
‘anuprāsa (is) a similarity of sound, despite a dissimilarity of the
vowel.’ As an example from the Vāsavadattā may be cited these
two adjectives descriptive of the River Rēvā: madakalakalahaṁ-
sasārasarasitōdbhrāntabhāḥkūṭavikaṭapucchacchaṭāvyādhūtavikaca-
kamalakhaṇḍavigalitamakarandabindusandōhasurabhitasalilayā..
. . . upakūlasañjātanalanikuñjapuñjitakulāyakukkuṭaghaṭāghūtkā-
rabhāiravatīrayā, 'whose waters were perfumed by the abundance
of the drops of liquid which had fallen from the fragments of full-
blown lotuses shaken by many monstrous tails of bhāḥkūṭa-fish
that had been terrified by the notes, indistinct for passion, of geese
and herons; ..... whose banks were strident with the screams
of multitudes of wild cocks whose nests thronged the bowers of
reeds that had sprung up near its shores' (ed. Hall, pp. 95, 98).
The sama, or 'equal,' is thus defined in the Kāvyādarśa (1. 47;
cf. Sāhityadarpaṇa, No. 618; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 175–
176, Benares, 1898):
samaṁ bandhēṣv aviṣamaṁ tē mṛdusphuṭamadhyamāḥ
bandhā mṛdusphuṭōnmiśravarṇavinyāsayōnayaḥ,
‘sama is not uneven in collocations (of words); these collocations,
smooth, rough, (and) middling, depend on the arrangement of
smooth, rough, and mixed (sounds).’ It is illustrated by the
passage kāmadāruṇa madāruṇanētrāsmaramayaṁ ramayantaṁ
tvām adayaṁ madayantī param akam itāraṁ param akamitāraṁ
vāñchati, 'what gentle-eyed woman who fervently delighteth
thee, that art not inflamed with passion, (but art) the essence of
love, delightsome, (and) a most excellent lover, desireth another

24 VĀSAVADATTĀ
that is no lover [cruel with passion ! red-eyed with lust ! alas, an
unlovely dame desireth thee, the essence of lovelessness, hot,
pitiless, absolutely no lover, (and) bound for utmost woe !]’ (ed.
Hall, pp. 213–214).
The vidhi, or ‘rule,’ is defined as follows by the Kuvalayānan-
dakārikā (I. 167) :
siddhasyāi "va vidhānaṃ yat tad āhur vidhyalaṃkṛtim,
‘what (is) a precept of a thing well established, that they call the
vidhi adornment,’ and is exemplified by kuraṅgikē kalpaya
kuraṅgaśāvakēbhyaḥ śaspāṅkuraṃ kiśōrikē kāraya kiśōrakēbhyaḥ
pratyavēkṣāṃ, ‘Kuraṅgikā, prepare a blade of young grass for
the antelope fauns ! Kiśōrikā, have the young colts looked after’ !
(ed. Hall, pp. 230–231).
The sambhāvana, or ‘supposition,’ is thus defined by the
Kuvalayānandakārikā (I. 125) :
sambhāvanaṃ yadī 'tthaṃ syād ity ūhō 'nyasya siddhayē,
‘sambhāvana is a conjecture for the attainment of something
else with the thought, “if it were so.”’ It is illustrated in the
Vāsavadattā by the passage tvatkṛtē yā "nayā vēdanā "nubhūtā
sā yadi nabhaḥ patrāyatē sāgarō mēlānandāyatē brahmāyatē
lipikarō bhujagarājāyatē kathakas tadā kim api katham apy
anēkāir yugasahasrāir abhilikhyatē kathyatē vā, ‘the pain that
hath been felt by this maiden for thy sake might be written or
told in some wise or in some way in many thousands of ages
if the sky became paper, the sea an ink-well, the scribe Brāhma,
(and) the narrator the Lord of Serpents’ (ed. Hall, pp. 238–239).
The kāraṇamālā, or ‘chain of causes,’ is given the following
definition in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (I. 103 ; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa,
tr. Jhā, p. 246, Benares, 1898) :
gumphaḥ kāraṇamālā syād yathāprakrāntakāraṇāiḥ,
‘a series (made) by causes proceeding one after the other is
a kāraṇamālā,’ and an example is seen by Śivarāma in the
description of Vāsavadattā’s palace as ajñātataṭasphāṭikapaṭ-
ṭasukhaniṣaṇṇanidrāyamāṇaprāsādapārāvatābhiḥ, ‘with palace

INTRODUCTION 25
doves sleeping comfortably (because) perched on slabs of crystal
from shores unknown' (ed. Hall, pp. 217–218).
The udātta, or 'exalted,' is thus defined in the Sāhityadarpaṇa
(No. 752; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 240, Benares, 1898;
Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 162–163):
lōkātiśayasampattivarṇanō "dāttam ucyatē
yad vā "pi prastutasyā 'ṅgaṁ mahatāṁ caritaṁ bhavēt,
'the portrayal of extraordinary prosperity is called udātta, or
it would even be the deeds of the great, (if they form) part of
the subject in hand.' An illustration of this figure is found in
another portion of the description just quoted: karpūrapūra-
viracitapulinataṭaniviṣṭaninadānumīyamānarājahaṁsībhir, 'with
flamingoes whose noise would imply that they had settled near
the sand bank formed by the stream of camphor' (ed. Hall,
p. 218), only one of extreme wealth being able to possess such
a river.¹
The kāitavāpahnuti, or 'false concealment,' is defined by the
Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 28) as follows:
kāitavāpahnutir vyaktāu vyājādyāir nihnutēḥ padāiḥ,
'kāitavāpahnuti (consists) in the manifestation of concealment by
words of pretext and the like,' and finds exemplification in the
Vāsavadattā in the passage ativēganipītajaladhijalaśaṅkhamālām
iva balākācchalād udvamann adṛśyata jaladaḥ, 'the cloud seemed
to vomit forth, like a crane, what appeared to be a series of
ocean shells that had been drunk down too hastily' (ed. Hall,
pp. 283–284).
The lōkōkti, 'popular expression,' is thus defined by the
Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 156):
lōkapravādānukṛtir lōkōktir iti kathyatē,
'the imitation of a popular colloquialism is called lōkōkti,' and
finds an illustration in Subandhu's romance in the exhortation
tad adhunā yadi tvaṁ sahapāṁśukrīḍanasamaduḥkhasukhō 'si
¹ Śivarāma rightly notes that this passage also contains the rhetorical figure anumāna,
or 'inference' (cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 243-244, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānan-
dakārikā, 2. 10).

26 VĀSAVADATTĀ
tadā mām anugaccha, 'now, therefore, if thou didst share the
sorrows and joys of our playing together in the dust, then follow
me' (ed. Hall, p. 82).
The svabhāvōkti, or 'natural description,' receives the following
definition in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 160; cf. Kāvyapra-
kāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 235, Benares, 1898) :
svabhāvōktiḥ svabhāvasya jātyādisthasya varṇanam,
'svabhāvōkti is the description of inherent nature consisting of
characteristics and the like.' As an example from the Vāsava-
dattā may be cited :
paśyō 'dañcadavāñcadañcitavapuḥ paścārddhapūrvārddhabhāk
stabdhōttānitapṛṣṭhaniṣṭhitamanāgbhugnāgralāṅgūlabhṛt
daṃṣṭrākōṭiviśaṅkaṭāsyakuharaḥ kurvan saṭām utkaṭām
utkarṇaḥ kurutē kramaṃ karipatāu krūrākṛtiḥ kēsarī,
'lo, with his bending body bending up and bending down, now
with his hind quarters and now with his fore quarters, with the
tip of his tail slightly bent along his hard, arched back, with his
cavernous mouth monstrous with the tips of his fangs, making
his mane huge, (and) with his ears erect, the horrible lion doth
make attack upon the lord of elephants' (ed. Hall, p. 103).
The kāvyārthāpatti, or 'poetic inference,' is defined as follows
in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 119):
kāimutyēnā 'rthasaṃsiddhiḥ kāvyārthāpattir iṣyatē,
'an a fortiori attainment of a matter is regarded as kāvyārthā-
patti.' It is exemplified by Subandhu in his heroine's letter to
Kandarpakētu :
pratyakṣadṛṣṭabhāvā 'py asthirahṛdayā hi kāminī bhavati
svapnānubhūtabhāvā draḍhayati na pratyayaṃ yuvatiḥ,
'a loving maid is of unsteady heart even when she hath seen the
feelings (of her lover) with her eyes ; a girl who hath learned his
feelings only from a dream hath no assurance' (ed. Hall, p. 164).
Literary and Ethical Merit of the Vāsavadattā. The Vāsa-
vadattā apparently being written to display its author's skill in
rhetoric, rather than his inventive powers in fiction, we are

INTRODUCTION 27
naturally led to consider what literary value we may assign to it.
Here the ‘personal equation’ must inevitably play a part, and
here the fundamental difference between Oriental and Occidental
concepts must be duly recognised. In the West the subject-
matter comes first in nearly every form of literary composition ;
and the more tense and nervous the people, the more simple and
direct is the style. In the East, on the contrary, the form is
often more important than the matter, especially in periods of
hyper-civilisation, such as was that during which Subandhu
wrote. We must, therefore, consider the Vāsavadattā from the
luxuriant atmosphere of the land of its author, not from the
‘practical’ point of view of the West. To me, at least, there is
true melody in the long, rolling compounds, a sesquipedalian
majesty which can never be equalled save in Sanskrit ; and the
alliterations have a lulling music all their own to ears weary of
the blatant discords of vaunted modern ‘progress.’ There is, on
the other hand, a compact brevity in the paronomasias, which
are, in most cases, veritable gems of terseness and twofold
appropriateness, even though some are manifestly forced and are
actually detrimental to the sense of the passages in which they
occur. Yet in judging Subandhu for his faults, it must be re-
membered that he created, at least so far as we now know, a new
literary genre in India ; and if this fact be borne in mind, his
blemishes appear to be marvellously few. In estimating his
literary merits special stress should be laid on his descriptions.
These are, it must be confessed, cloying from their abundance.
They form the preponderating part of the entire romance, and
the slender framework of the story is wellnigh lost beneath
them. Yet despite this tropical luxuriance, the descriptions are
not without beauty and appropriateness, whether they set forth
the charms of mountain, forest, and stream, or portray the
rāja’s valour and the loveliness of the heroine herself. The
entire romance may, in a sense, be likened to India’s own
architecture, where the whole structure is so overlaid with minute
detail that the eye forgets the outlines of the building in amaze-
ment at the delicate traceries which cover it.

28 VĀSAVADATTĀ
Nor does it seem to me that the ethical standard of the
Vāsavadattā can be objectionable to one of healthy mind.
True, the East is not as the West; and there are personal
descriptions more detailed than would be desirable in Occidental
literature, together with evident approval of relations and ideals
which the less sensual Western mind rightly condemns. There
are passages, too, which I would gladly have omitted, had I felt
that a faithful translator could do so. And yet, despite all this,
I find in the romance no evidence of delight in uncleanness, such
as nauseates, for example, in Petronius or in Martial. It is not
pornographic; it is, at worst, unmoral, though its rigid adherence
to all conventions, both in letter and, I think, in spirit, renders
even unmorality almost too harsh an accusation. From an
Indian point of view, unlightened by the radiance of Christianity
and the morality which it inculcates, I should not hesitate to
term the Vāsavadattā a moral work, especially in view of the
conditions of life in mediæval India. Its atmosphere, luxuriant
though it be, has never seemed to me to be debasing.
It is by no means impossible that some will dissent from the
views here expressed regarding the literary and moral quality of
Subandhu's romance. If so, they may turn from the first
Western translator of the Vāsavadattā to the first Western
editor of the romance, Fitzedward Hall, who, in his Introduction,
has unsparingly condemned the entire production both in its
literary and in its ethical aspects—a precedent followed by
Krishnamachariar in his sarcastic critique of the whole plot of
Subandhu's work (Introd., pp. 50–66).
Outline of the Plot of the Romance. The outline of the story
of the Vāsavadattā is as follows : A king named Cintāmaṇi had
a son Kandarpakētu, who was, like his father, the embodiment
of all virtues. Once upon a time toward dawn, when true
dreams come, the young prince saw in his sleep a vision of
a maiden of some eighteen years, whose loveliness could not be
surpassed. Jealous sleep forsook Kandarpakētu, who, with his
friend Makaranda, left the city in his love-longing for the
unknown princess. In their wanderings the pair came to the

INTRODUCTION 29
Vindhya mountains, and there, in the watches of the night,
the sleepless prince overheard the conversation of two birds
perched on a branch of the tree beneath which he lay. To the
story of the husband-bird, trying to explain his late hours to his
suspicious wife, Kandarpakētu listened, and was richly rewarded
by what he heard. In the city of Pāṭaliputra on the Ganges, so
the maina recounted, reigned the mighty monarch Śṛṅgāraśē-
khara, who had an only daughter named Vāsavadattā. In the
spring she, too, had met her fate in a dream—a youth of
matchless beauty, whose name was Kandarpakētu. The con-
fidante of the princess at this juncture was her maid, Tamālikā,
who had volunteered to seek Kandarpakētu and bear to him
a missive from the princess telling of her love. The lovers were
now soon united at Pāṭaliputra, where Kandarpakētu was informed
that Śṛṅgāraśēkhara, dismayed at his daughter’s unwedded state,
had determined to marry her the very next day to the Vidyādhara
prince Puṣpakētu. Kandarpakētu and Vāsavadattā accordingly
returned almost immediately, by means of a magic steed, to the
Vindhyas; but when the prince awoke in the morning, his
beloved was no longer in the bower. Mad with sorrow, he was
restrained from suicide only by a voice from heaven which
promised him reunion with the princess. After many months of
weary searching and waiting, he found Vāsavadattā turned to
stone. His touch gave the statue life again, and she told him
how, while two armies destroyed each other to gain her for their
leaders, she had unwittingly intruded in the garden of a hermit,
who laid upon her the curse of petrification until her lover should
come. Thus, at last, the woes of the lovers were over, and
returning to Kandarpakētu’s capital, delight was theirs ever
afterward (for other summaries see Hall, Introd., pp. 29–43;
Stréhly, Revue politique et littéraire, 44. 305–308; Krishnama-
chariar, Introd., pp. 9–14; and the references given in the
bibliography, below, pp. 197–199).
From this brief outline of the plot of the Vāsavadattā it will
be seen that Subandhu alludes to several incidents widely found
in literature and folk-tales, such as talking birds, magic steeds,