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

32 VĀSAVADATTĀ
follow, however, that such resemblances necessarily imply
borrowing from the romances of Subandhu and Bāṇa, for the
same research would, in all probability, show an equal, or even
greater, affinity with kāvya literature in general. The kāvya of
the inscriptions must, therefore, be regarded as an integral part
of the vast mass of artificial Sanskrit literature, its development
being attained by a process of natural growth.
The Commingling of Prose and Verse and Paronomasia Out-
side the Vāsavadattā. Outside of India the commingling of
prose and poetry in the same composition is found in the Chinese
romance P'ing Shan Lêng Yen (tr. Julien, P'ing-Chan-Ling-Yen,
Les Deux Jeunes Filles lettrées, 2 vols., Paris, 1860); in Sa'dī's
Gulistān; in The Thousand Nights and One Night; in the Old
Picard Aucassin et Nicolette; in Norse Sagas and in Middle Irish
tales and histories (cf. Windisch, Irische Texte, 3. 447–449, Leipzig,
1891–1897); and in Boccaccio's L'Ameto; as well as in the Saturæ
Menippeæ of Varro; Petronius; the author of the Historia
Apollonii regis Tyri; and among Basutos and Eskimos (cf.
MacCulloch, Childhood of Fiction, London, 1905, pp. 480–481;
Teuffel-Schwabe, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, 5 ed.,
pp. 43–44, Leipzig, 1890). In like manner, the elaborate parono-
masias which are so essentially a part of the style of the Vāsava-
dattā, and which later led to such productions as Kavirāja's Rāgha-
vapāṇḍavīya, which in identical words celebrates the deeds of the
Raghu princes by one reading and those of the Pāṇḍava heroes
by the other reading, or Rāmacandra's Rasikarañjana (ed. and
tr. Schmidt, Stuttgart, 1896), which may be read as a laudation
either of asceticism or of eroticism, were in vogue, as we have
seen, long before the time of Subandhu.¹ They also occur in the
Chinese romance Ch'in P'ing Mei (cf. Giles, History of Chinese
Literature, p. 309, London, 1901) and in the writings of Lyly.
¹ To this list Krishnamachariar (Introd., p. 18) adds Dhanamjaya's Dvisandhāna-
kāvya (ed. Bombay, 1895 = Kāvyamālā, No. 49) and the Rāghavayādavapāṇḍavīya,
or Kathātrayīvyākhyāna, of Cidambara and his son Anantanārāyaṇa, which gives the
substance of the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, and Bhāgavatapurāṇa. Another literary
curiosity of this general type is the elegy of Leon of Modena on his teacher, Moses
Bassola, which may be read either in Hebrew or in Italian (cf. Jewish Encyclopedia,
2. 576, New York, 1902).

INTRODUCTION 33
Subandhu and Lyly. It is Lyly, indeed, with whom Subandhu
may perhaps best be compared for a general parallel with the
style and spirit of the Vāsavadattā. Neither the Euphues nor
Subandhu's romance is concerned so much with the matter as
with the form, although the English author manifests a didactic
purpose which finds no counterpart in the Sanskrit writer. Like
the Vāsavadattā, the Euphues and its continuation contain epi-
sodes, or stories within stories, as the tale of Callimachus (Lyly,
ed. Arbor, pp. 227–245, Birmingham, 1868), which itself contains
the story of Cassander the hermit (pp. 235–239), thus parallelling
the arrangement not only of the Vāsavadattā and the Kādambarī,
but also of the Pañcatantra, Śukasaptati, Vetālapañcaviṁśati,
The Thousand Nights and One Night, Decameron, and other similar
works.¹ Lyly's romance is curiously like Subandhu's in yet other
respects. Here I may note particularly from his Euphues the use
of paronomasia, alliteration, antithesis (corresponding respectively
to Subandhu's employment of śleṣa, anuprāsa, and virōdha), and
learned allusions. From the mass of possible citations under
each category I quote but two of each. (1) Paronomasia : ‘and
though they be commonly in a great cholar that receiue the mate,
yet would I willingly take euery minute tenne mates to enioy Liuia
for my louing mate’ (Lyly, ed. Arbor, p. 66, Birmingham, 1868) ;
‘did not Iupiters egge bring forth as well Helen a light huswife
in earth, as Castor a light Starre in heauen ?’ (p. 208).² (2) Alli-
teration : ‘these subtill shiftes, these painted practises (if I wer to
be wonne) would soone weane me from the teate of Vesta to the
toyes of Venus’ (p. 76) ; I am Philautus no Italian lady, who
commonly are woed with leasings, and won with lust, entangled
with deceipt, and enioyed with delight, caught with sinne, and
cast off with shame’ (p. 360). (3) Antithesis : ‘how curious were
we to please our Lady, how carelesse to displease our Lorde ?
Howe devout in seruing our Goddesse, how desperate in forget-
¹ For a charming modern imitation see Bain, Digit of the Moon (London, 1899).
² It is well known that paronomasia occurs not infrequently in Shakespeare (e. g.
Julius Caesar, 1. 2. 155 ; Merchant of Venice, 4. 1. 123 ; Taming of the Shrew, 2. 1.
190 ; Richard II, 2. 1. 74) ; and it seems to have been a favourite device of Ben Jonson
(e. g. Mermaid ed., 1. 15–16, 20, 68, 106, 344 ; 2. 91 ; 3. 178, 402, London, n. d.).
D

ting our God'? (p. 106); 'thou weepest for the death of thy
daughter, and I laugh at the folly of the father, for greater vanitie
is there in the minde of the mourner, then bitternesse in the death
of the deceased. But shee was amiable, but yet sinful, but she
was young and might haue liued, but she was mortall and must
haue dyed. I but hir youth made thee often merry, I but thine
age shold once make thee wise. I but hir greene yeares wer unfit
for death, I but thy hoary haires should dispyse life' (pp. 182–
183). (4) Learned allusions: 'the filthy Sow when she is sicke,
eateth the Sea-Crab, and is immediatly recured: the Torteyse
hauing tasted the Viper, sucketh Origanum and is quickly reuiued:
the Beare ready to pine licketh vp the Ants, and is recouered:
the Dog hauing surfetted to procure his vomitte, eateth grasse
and findeth remedy: the Hart beeing perced with the dart, run-
neth out of hand to the hearb Dictanum, and is healed. . . . Ah
well I perceiue that Loue is not unlyke the Figge tree, whose
fruite is sweete, whose roote is more bitter then the clawe of
a Bitter: or lyke the Apple in Persia, whose blossome sauoreth
lyke Honny, whose budde is more sower then Gall' (p. 61);
'Loue knoweth no laws: Did not Iupiter transforme himselfe
into the shape of Amphitrio to embrace Alcmæna? Into the
forme of a Swan to enioy Læda: Into a Bull to beguile Iò: Into
a showre of golde to winne Danae: Did not Neptune chaunge
himselfe into a Heyfer, a Ramme, a Floud, a Dolphin, onely for
the loue of those he lusted after? Did not Apollo conuert him-
selfe into a Shephearde, into a Birde, into a Lyon: for the desire
he had to heale his disease'? (p. 93).
Parallels such as these might be multiplied indefinitely, not
only between the Vāsavadattā and the Euphues, but between
Subandhu's romance and many other productions both of the
East and of the West.¹ Here, however, it must suffice to note
that Dunlop, in his History of Prose Fiction (ed. Wilson, London,
1896), records the following incidents and motifs which may now

¹ For parallels in the Vāsavadattā and Bāṇa's romances with The Thousand Nights
and One Night see Gray, 'Literary Studies on the Sanskrit Novel,' in WZKM.
18. 39–48.

be compared with those in the Vāsavadattā : story within story
(1. 30, 37 ; 2. 389, 405, 409, 416, 436, 438) ; love from a dream
(1. 253, 258–259, 380) ; magic steeds (1. 339, 342, 375) ; love
letters (2. 382–383 ; cf. Schlegel, ‘Feuilles d’arbre comme lettres
d’amour,’ in Mélanges Charles de Harlez, pp. 271–274, Leiden,
1896) ; and birds playing a part in affaires de cœur (2. 482). It
should also be observed that Dunlop repeatedly alludes to Indian
parallels with Occidental literature (1. 12, 64–65, 74, 76, 109–110,
210, 306, 318, 413, 459–461 ; 2. 8, 30, 49, 53–54, 81, 87–88, 90,
118–120, 127–128, 272, 509, 558–559), although the most of these
refer to the novel, or ‘short story,’ and not to the romance.
The Sanskrit Romance Compared with the Greek. The sole
national romance literature of the West which has been regarded
as connected with that of India is the Greek. The view has been
advanced by Peterson (Kādambarī, 2 ed., Introd., pp. 101–104,
Bombay, 1889, where several parallels are adduced between the
Kādambarī and Achilles Tatios), Weber (Sitzungsberichte der
Berliner Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse, 37. 917), and Goblet
d'Alviella (Ce que l’Inde doit à la Grèce, p. 136, Paris, 1897) that
the Indian romance was a direct importation from Greece. This
hypothesis, however, is rejected by Lévi (Quid de Graecis veterum
Indorum monumenta tradiderint, p. 60, Paris, 1890) with what
seems to me to be perfect justice. It is, of course, true that many
parallels of incident and even of literary device exist between the
Sanskrit and the Greek romance. Among parallels of incident
I may note the following, restricting the list to similarities be-
tween the Greek romances and the Vāsavadattā : falling in love
from a dream (story of Zariadres and Odatis as recorded by
Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 13. 35 ; this story is clearly of Eastern
origin ; cf. Rohde, Griechischer Roman, 2 ed., pp. 47–54, Leipzig,
1900, where the parallel with the Vāsavadattā is expressly noted ;
for dreams in general in the Greek romances see Rohde, op. cit.
pp. 508, 524, 531–533, 547, 561, 566) ; svayaṃvara, or ‘self-
choice’ of a husband (also in the story of Zariadres and Odatis ;
cf. Rohde, op. cit. p. 52) ; letters between lovers (Achilles Tatios,
Τὰ κατὰ Λευκίππην καὶ Κλειτοφῶντα, 5. 18, 20 ; Niketas Eugenîanos,
D 2

36 VĀSAVADATTĀ
Τὰ κατὰ Δρόσιλλαν καὶ Χαρικλέα, 2. 169–179, 202–223, 240–277,
284–314; 5. 199–247; Eustathios, Τὸ καθʼ Ὑσμίνην καὶ Ὑσμινίαν
δρᾶμα, 9. 8; 10. 2; cf. Rohde, op. cit. pp. 513, 566); fainting
(Chariton, Τὰ περὶ Χαιρέαν καὶ Καλλιρρόην, 1. 4; 2. 7; 3. 6; 4. 5;
8. 1; cf. Rohde, op. cit. p. 172, where the parallel with the Vāsa-
vadattā is noted); long-winded lamentations (Niketas Eugenianos,

1. 226–257, 289–352; 2. 8–23; 4. 110–150; 5. 131–168, 183–
   193; 6. 34–94, 204–234, 306–327; 8. 84–130, 196–238; 9. 37–
   107; cf. Rohde, op. cit. p. 566); and threatened suicide (Chari-
   ton, 1. 5; 5. 10; 6. 2; 7. 1; 8. 8; cf. Rohde, op. cit. p. 527). The
   following parallels of literary device, similarly restricted, may also
   be noted : stories within stories and episodes (the adventures of
   Derkullis and the sub-episode of Astraios in the lost Τὰ ὑπὲρ
   Θύλην ἄπιστα; the story of Aigialeus in Xenophon Ephesaios, Τὰ
   κατὰ Ἄνθειαν καὶ Ἀβροκόμην Ἐφεσιακά, 5. 1; and the stories of
   Knemon in Heliodoros's Αἰθιοπικά, 1. 9–14; 2. 8–10; and of Kala-
   siris, ib. 2. 24–5. 1; 5. 17–33; with the sub-episode of Charikles,
   ib. 2. 29–33); descriptions of nature (Niketas Eugenianos, 1. 77–
   115; Achilles Tatios, 1. 15; Longos, Ποιμενικὰ τὰ κατὰ Δάφνιν
   καὶ Χλόην, 4. 2–3); detailed personal descriptions (Achilles Tatios,
2. 1; Niketas Eugenianos, 1. 120–158; cf. Rohde, op. cit. pp. 160–
   166); learned allusions and citations of precedents (Longos, 1.
   16; 4. 17; Achilles Tatios, 1. 8; 2. 36–37); and alliteration,
   parisoi, homoioteleuta, and similar figures of rhetoric which cor-
   respond in a sense to the Sanskrit anuprāsa (Achilles Tatios, 1.
   1–2; 2. 7; 3. 2, 7; 4. 4; 5. 1, 21; Longos, preface; 1. 18, 30;
3. 35; 3. 3, 24, 33, 34; 4. 18; Eustathios, 1. 4; 2. 13; 4. 1, 3, 12,
   21; 5. 11; 7. 13; cf. Rohde, op. cit. pp. 552–553, 561), although
   they often form rhymes (Achilles Tatios, 1. 1, 11; Longos, pre-
   face; 2. 26; 3. 13, 23; 4. 17, 28; Eustathios, 1. 9) and strained
   compounds (Niketas Eugenianos, 1. 133; 2. 143; 3. 121; 5. 341;
4. 48; cf. Rohde, op. cit. p. 567).
   Yet all these parallels, and many more which might be cited,
   seem to me to prove nothing. In the first place, a large number
   of them can be considered parallels only by straining the sense
   of the term; and in the second place, they are obviously the out-

working of independent, though partially similar, processes in the
development of Greek and Sanskrit literature respectively, and
should be interpreted accordingly. But even were an essential
resemblance granted, it would still be difficult, I think, to prove
the dependence of the Sanskrit romance on the Greek, the latter
being, of course, the earlier. The romances of the two peoples
are totally different both in plan and in spirit, as even a cursory
reading will show. The least part of the Sanskrit romance is the
thread of the story or the adventures of its characters ; all the
stress is laid on rhetorical embellishment, minute description of
nature, detailed characterisation of exploits and of mental, moral,
and physical qualities. In the Greek romance, on the other
hand, as in Latin (if we may judge from the Satiræ of Petronius),
the story is everything. The reader is hurried from adventure
to adventure, the wilder and more improbable the better ; fine
writing is practically disregarded ; description and appreciation
of nature are, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. The only
Greek romance, it seems to me, that can, by the utmost stretch
of imagination, be compared even superficially with the works of
Subandhu and Bāṇa is the Ποιμενικά of Longos ; but even there
the sole real similarity is a longing for nature rather than for
feverish adventure, a longing which may be traced back to
Theokritos, Bion, and Moschos on the one hand, and to
Bhartṛhari and his congeners on the other. Even the Daśakumā-
racarita, which, as a picaresque romance, one might be tempted
to compare with the works of Achilles Tatios, Heliodoros, and
Chariton, has a totally different plan from any Greek romance,
tracing its ‘box arrangement’ of stories to the peculiarly Indian
scheme which may be seen, for instance, in the Pañcatantra, the
Kathāsaritsāgara, or the Jātakas, and which was later carried to
Persia, where it was incorporated in The Thousand Nights and
One Night, ultimately appearing in the Occident in the Decameron
of Boccaccio.¹ The adventures narrated in Daṇḍin’s romance of
¹ For the ‘box arrangement’ in Egyptian see King Khufui and the Magicians
(about 2000 B.C. ; tr. Maspero, Contes populaires de l’Égypte ancienne, 3 ed., pp. 23–42,
Paris, 1906) ; and in Japanese cf. Bakin’s Shichiya no Kura (1810 A.D. ; Aston,
History of Japanese Literature, pp. 359–360, London, 1901).

38 VĀSAVADATTĀ
roguery, moreover, bear no resemblance, either in plot or in
episode, to the amorphisms of Eustathios and his fellows. To
sum up, the spirit of the Sanskrit and of the Greek romancers is
as divergent as the audiences of scholars on the one hand, and of
weaklings on the other, for whom they wrote ; nor can any real
affinity, much less any direct connexion, be traced between the
romances of India and of Greece.
The Double Recension of the Vāsavadattā. Like the
Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, the Vāsavadattā appears to be
preserved in two distinct recensions, which I would tentatively
call ‘northern’ and ‘southern.’ The first of these is represented
by the text of Hall (Calcutta, 1859) and the second by the
Madras edition of 1862, reprinted as an appendix to the present
volume, as well as by Krishnamachariar’s text (Srirangam, 1906–
1908). The ‘southern’ text, to which Hall’s manuscript D seems
also to belong, differs from the ‘northern’ chiefly in showing a
large number of interpolations, particularly śleṣas, virōdhas, and
other forms of similes appended to the series given by the
‘northern’ text. The spirit, however, of the ‘southern’ recension
is identical with that of the ‘northern.’ There is, indeed, one
omission of a complimentary allusion to the Buddhists (ed. Hall,
p. 235) and of one derogatory reference to the Jains (ed. Hall,
p. 297 ; cf. above, p. 7), but the retention of all other deprecia-
tory mentions of both sects shows that the ‘southern’ redactor
was not led to modify his text by any circumstances surrounding
him ; nor is there any added allusion in the ‘southern’ text which
seems to be specifically South Indian. It may be regarded as
practically certain that the ‘northern’ text represents Subandhu’s
original composition more closely than does the ‘southern’
recension, not only in view of the fact that the author of the
romance was, in all probability, a native of northern India, where
he almost indubitably wrote (cf. above, pp. 12–13), but also in
consideration of the familiar principles of textual criticism that
the shorter text is, other things being equal, to be preferred to
the longer, and that the more difficult reading is to be preferred
to the easier, since the ‘southern’ recension evidently seeks, by

INTRODUCTION 39
substitution or omission, to avoid many difficulties of word,
phrase, or allusion which the 'northern' text boldly retains.
Manuscripts and Editions of the Romance. For the manu-
scripts of the Vāsavadattā and its commentators reference may
be made to the catalogues of Sanskrit manuscripts enumerated
by Aufrecht (Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 566, 726; 2. 133–134,
224; 3. 120, Leipzig, 1891–1903). The principal commentators
on the Vāsavadattā have been discussed by Hall (Introd.,
pp. 44–48), and I myself have written on 'Śivarāma's Com-
mentary on the Vāsavadattā' (in JAOS. 24. 57–63), so that the
problems there treated need not be repeated in this place.
Although the editions of Subandhu's romance will be duly
listed in the bibliography (see below, pp. 197–198), a more detailed
discussion seems appropriate here. These editions are seven in
number. The first and best-known, which represents the
'northern' recension, is that of Fitzedward Hall (Calcutta, 1859),
based on eight manuscripts and accompanied by the gloss of
Śivarāma Tripāṭhin, who flourished early in the eighteenth
century. The introduction to this edition has become a classic
among Sanskritists, and the learning which it evinces on every
page renders it amply deserving of this honour. Hall's text, how-
ever, represents a form really older than any of his manuscripts,
being that of Śivarāma, in whose favour the editor repeatedly
discarded the united authority of all his manuscripts, a method of
textual criticism which may perhaps be considered open to objec-
tion. The text of Hall has been reprinted verbatim by Jīvānanda
Vidyāsāgara (Calcutta, 1874; 3d ed., 1907). The remaining five
editions belong to the 'southern' recension. Of these the earliest
is one in Telugu script (Madras, 1861), which was reprinted, with
a correction of misprints, in Telugu (Madras, 1862) and Grantha
script (Madras, 1870). The second of these, duly collated with
the India Office copies of the other two, which Mr. F. W. Thomas,
librarian of the India Office, London, most kindly placed at my
disposal, is transcribed below (pp. 145–195). The text of this
'southern' recension is evidently later than the 'northern', since
it abounds in interpolations, especially in the lengthened ślēṣas and

40 VĀSAVADATTĀ
virōdhas. The three editions under consideration contain the same
commentary, which has appeared to me to be negligible, and
which, according to Mr. J. K. Balasubrahmanyam, the publisher
of the Srirangam text (Pref. p. 1) to be mentioned below, 'is
traditionally attributed to one Tippa Bhupala, but nothing is
certain about it. For instance, just as we were completing this
book we got a palm-leaf manuscript of this work containing a
commentary said to be by one Ramanatha. On closer exami-
nation it turned out to be neither more nor less than the
commentary given in the Grantha and Telugu editions.' The
same general recension, though with a number of interesting
variations, is represented by the edition published at Srirangam
in 1906–1908, on the basis of several old palm-leaf manuscripts.
It also contains an admirably full, careful, and suggestive modern
Sanskrit commentary and an equally noteworthy Sanskrit intro-
duction by the editor, R. V. Krishnamachariar, of which I have
most helpfully availed myself. I distinctly consider Hall's and
this as the best editions of the Vāsavadattā that have yet
appeared. The Telugu text is also represented, more closely, by
T. V. Srinivasachariar's edition (Trichinopoly, 1906), which, I
regret to say, seems to me to offer scope for some improvement.
All the divergencies of the Madras, Srirangam, and Trichinopoly
editions from the text of Hall will be found duly recorded in the
footnotes to the present translation, while the variations of the
'southern' from the 'northern' recension will be indicated by
parentheses in the appended transliteration, the portions of the
'northern' text omitted by the 'southern' being there supplied
in square brackets. It will be clear that a critical text of the
Vāsavadattā, which shall take into account all accessible manu-
scripts, commentaries, and editions, is still a desideratum.
The Remaining Sanskrit Prose Romances. Except for a
digression on the relation sometimes held to exist between the
Sanskrit and the Greek romance (see above, pp. 35–38), this
Introduction to the Vāsavadattā has thus far purposely been
restricted to Subandhu and his work, especially as Meyer
(Daṇḍin's Daçakumāracaritam, die Abenteuer der zehn Prinzen,

pp. 1–139, Leipzig, 1902) and Collins (The Geographical Data of
the Raghuvaṃśa and the Daśakumāracarita considered more
especially in their Bearing upon the Date of these Works, Leipzig,
1907) have devoted admirable studies to Daṇḍin, while Peterson
(Kādambarī, 2 ed., Introd., Bombay, 1889) has done a similar
service for Bāṇa. Moreover, the Daśakumāracarita, Harṣacarita,
and Kādambarī are all readily accessible, not only in numerous
editions, which need not be enumerated here, but also in excellent
translations (the Daśakumāracarita by Meyer, op. cit., and by
Haberlandt, Munich, 1903; the Harṣacarita by Cowell and
Thomas, London, 1897; and the Kādambarī by Ridding,
London, 1896). It may not be amiss, however, to add a brief
outline of such other Sanskrit romances as have thus far been
analysed, though it must be borne in mind that further investiga-
tions and additional and fuller catalogues of Sanskrit manuscripts
will, in all probability, add to the sum of ākhyāna literature.¹
Omitting campūs on Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Aniruddha, and Nala, as well
as rifacimenti of the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa, and pseudo-
histories of Śālivāhana and Mayūravarman, attention may here
be called to two late Sanskrit romances. The first of these is
the Yaśastilaka of Sōmadēva, who completed his romance in
959 A.D. The work has been analysed in detail by Peterson
(Second Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts
in the Bombay Circle, pp. 33–49, Bombay, 1884) and has been
edited by Śivadatta and Parab (Kāvyamālā, No. 70, 2 parts,
Bombay, 1901–1903). It is a religious romance, treating of the
conversion of Māridatta, king of Rājapura, from Brāhmanism to
Jainism through the agency of his twin nephew and niece, whom
he was about to offer in sacrifice, not knowing who they were, and
through the arguments of the Jain sage Sudatta. The familiar
device of the story within a story, whereby Māridatta’s nephew
¹ Krishnamachariar (Introd., pp. 1–2) notes the paucity of works of this type, but
he enumerates the following which would otherwise have escaped my notice: Dhana-
pāla’s Tilakamañjarī (ed. Bombay, 1903 = Kāvyamālā, No. 85), the Jain romance
Gadyacintāmaṇi (variously ascribed to Vādībhasimha, Pradīpasimha, and Simhasūri),
Abhinavabhaṭṭabāṇa’s Vīranārāyaṇa and Haricandra’s Jīvandharacampū, the frag-
mentary Śrīkṛṣṇacarita of Agastyakavi, the lost Trāilōkyasundarī of Rudra, and
the lost Taraṅgavatī. He also attempts to account for this scantiness (pp. 2–8).

42 VĀSAVADATTĀ
tells his uncle all his history, and a series of reincarnations, as
in the Daśakumāracarita and Kādambarī,¹ are both found in
Sōmadēva’s romance, while learned precedents and, what is still
more remarkable, explicit quotations from other poets, including
Bāṇa, abound. Altogether, it is clear from Peterson’s admirable
analysis that the Yaśastilaka richly deserves translation, both
as belonging to a category of Sanskrit literature of which too
few specimens are extant, and as a valuable source for additional
knowledge of the tenets of the Jains.
The second romance which should be noted in this connexion
is Bāṇēśvara Vidyālaṃkāra Bhaṭṭācārya’s Citracampū, written in
1744 A.D. in honour of Citrasēna, king of Vardhamāna, and
briefly analysed by Eggeling (Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manu-
scripts in the Library of the India Office, 7. 1543–1545, London,
1904). This novel is characterised especially by a long dream,
and by an unmistakable inculcation of Vāiṣṇavite Vēdāntism ;
otherwise it offers but little of interest.
¹ See ‘Reincarnation as a Novelistic Device’, in WZKM. 18. 54–58. For reincar-
nation in a modern Western novel see Margaret Potter’s Flame-Gatherers (London,
1904), and Bain’s Descent of the Sun (London, 1903). The earliest example known
is the Egyptian Tale of the Two Brothers, written in the nineteenth dynasty (1375–
1202 B.C.; tr. Maspero, Contes populaires de l’Égypte ancienne, 3 ed., pp. 3–20,
Paris, 1906).
[Dr. Ogden draws my attention to a reference to Subandhu
in an anthology of a certain Lakṣmaṇa, described by Peterson
(Third Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts
in the Bombay Circle, p. 35, Bombay, 1887) under the title of
Sūktāvali. The stanza, whose date is thus far unknown, is as
follows (Peterson, op. cit., Appendix, p. 55) :
jīyād gadyasudhādhunyāḥ
subandhuḥ prabhavācalaḥ
yad bhaṅgaślēṣam āsādya
bhaṅgaḥ kavibhir āśritaḥ,
‘may Subandhu, in strength immovable, prevail over the nectarous
stream of prose, for since he gained combination after the break-
ing (of words into their component parts), the breaking (of words
into their component parts) has been employed by poets.’]

VĀSAVADATTĀ OF SUBANDHU

The provided image is a blank page and does not contain any readable text to transcribe.

45
[2] Victorious is divine Sarasvatī,
Who aideth bards of keen and nimble wit
To see the world, as 'twere a jujube-fruit,
Lying within the hollow of their hands.
Victorious, too, is Hari, resting now,
The while he smileth on the shepherd lads
Whose upraised arms bend ¹ 'neath the awful weight
Of their vast burden; yet cry unto him:
‘Ah, weary art thou, let the mountain be;
We will sustain it, Kṛṣṇa, lord of all’!
[3] May he ² whose waist is girded keep you safe,
Yea, he whose serried furrows brightly shine;
E'en while the zone he hath too tightly drawn
Doth work distraction by its beauteousness.³
[4] Victorious is the god ⁴ whose crescent gleams
Like to a silvern pearl by Umā set ⁵
Upon his brow, when from his blazing eye
She gathereth the black collyrium.
How blessèd are those souls beneficent
Who work the weal of others, for to them
The moon that openeth the lotus-buds
Doth give a twofold meed of radiance ⁶!
[5] The wise say sooth: ‘More loathsome than a snake
Is he whose soul is filled with wickedness’:
The serpent ⟨hateth the ichneumon tribe⟩,
But leaves his brethren safe; while knavish folk
With venomed tongues ⟨destroy their nearest kin⟩.⁷
¹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘arms bent in vain.’ ² Kṛṣṇa.
³ Tel. ed. interchanges this stanza with the one following.
⁴ Śiva. ⁵ Srirangam text, against the metre, adds ‘upon his head.
⁶ Translated in Böhtlingk, Indische Sprüche, 2 ed., No. 4552, St. Petersburg, 1870–1873.
⁷ Böhtlingk, op. cit. No. 6214. The stanza is still popular in Mithila (see Grierson,

46 VĀSAVADATTĀ
[6] In evil only are the wicked wise;
Like as the owl is blind, save in the dark.¹
There is but one eclipse—foul calumny;
Only the clouds that hide the moon are black.²
[7] And when with sooty and polluting touch
The man of evil fain would smirch the good,
He doth increase the radiance of the just;
E'en as the ashes in the grinder's hand
Do but enhance the lustrous mirror's sheen.³
Yet ‹drought doth rule› o'er all, the «cranes sport not»,
Nor doth the ⋘heron seek the azure vault⋙,
For lo, the lake hath left this mortal world;
All ‹joy is fled›, and «strange kings now bear rule»,
Wasting the earth with ⋘fratricidal⋙ strife,
For Vikramāditya hath passed away.⁴
[8] The words of goodly bards rejoice thine ears,
E'en when thou knowest not their wondrous skill;
For in a jasmine wreath thine eyes delight,
Though to thy senses come no perfumes sweet.⁵
The noble gain true knowledge of themselves
By observation of their fellow men;
As on the mirror's polished surface falls
The vision of the soul's own magnitude.⁶

Curiosities of Indian Literature, pp. 8–9, Bankipore, 1895, who says : ‘ Here naku-
ladvēṣī is a threefold pun. It means either “hating the ichneumon,” or “not hating
his own race,” or “not hating the members of the family of the man he has bitten”).’
My attention was kindly called to this reference by Professor Zachariae (card of May 2,
1907), and Dr. Grierson very courteously loaned me his personal copy of the little
book. It should be noted that the modern proverb reads mṛṣā na instead of na mṛṣā.
¹ Böhtlingk, Indische Sprüche, 2 ed., No. 142, St. Petersburg, 1870–1873.
² Böhtlingk, op. cit. No. 6126; Tel. ed. and Srirangam text interchange this stanza
with the one following.
³ Böhtlingk, op. cit. No. 7376.
⁴ For the valuelessness of this stanza as a source to determine the date of the
Vāsavadattā see Introduction, pp. 8–11.
⁵ Böhtlingk, op. cit. No. 680.
⁶ Böhtlingk, op. cit. No. 2148.

A SANSKRIT ROMANCE 47
[9] Through great Sarasvatī this book was writ
By Sujana's one brother, whom mankind
Doth call Subandhu, skilled full dextrously
To interweave in every word a pun.¹
[10] There was a king named Cintāmaṇi, whose like had
never existed,² whose nail-jewelled feet were unscarred, though
rubbed by the edge of a touchstone which was the series of the
beautiful crest-gems of the circle of all the princes of the earth.
[11] He caused astonishment by ‹gifts of gold, food, raiment,
and estates› as Nṛsiṁha caused astonishment by ‹rending the
body of Hiraṇyakaśipu› ³; he gave joy to the ‹divinities by his
goods› as Kṛṣṇa gave joy to ‹Vasudēva› ; [12] he ‹conquered
with ease› the circle of the earth as Nārāyaṇa ‹upheld› the circle
of the world by his ‹boar's form›; he produced ‹glorious and
blissful› prosperity as Kaṁsa's foe produced prosperity for
‹Yaśōdā and Nanda›; he made ‹poetry honoured› as Ānaka-
dundubhi made ‹Kāvyā afraid› ⁴; [13] he had his lotus ⁵ feet
embellished by the rays ⁶ of the crest-jewels of ‹many serpents›
as Sāgaraśāyi had his lotus ⁵ feet embellished by the rays ⁶ of the
crest-jewel of the ‹cosmic serpent›; he protected ‹unceasingly› as
Varuṇa protected the ‹western regions›; he adorned ‹petitions
with gifts› as Agastya adorned the ‹southern districts›; he was
the lord of a hundred ‹armies› and «habitually levied just taxes»
as the ocean is the lord of a hundred ‹rivers› and is the «habitat
of fish»; [14] he was followed by a ‹great army› and repulsed
«obstacles» as Hara is followed by ‹Mahāsēna› and repulses
«Māra»; he was the home of the ‹wise› and the dwelling-place
of the «acts of all men» as Mēru is the home of the ‹gods› and
the dwelling-place of «Viśvakarman»; he ‹rejoiced in generosity
at festal times› and removed sorrow by his «beauty» as the sun
‹loves not the night› and removes the sorrow of «Chāyā»; he
¹ Omitted by Tel. ed. and Srirangam text. Cf. Introduction, p. 13.
² Tel. ed., 'of no mean nature.' For a somewhat similar description of a king see
Kādambarī, pp. 7–14, Bombay ed., 1890 (tr. Ridding, pp. 3–5, London, 1896).
³ Cf. Viṣṇupurāṇa, 1. 17–20. ⁴ Cf. Harivaṁśa, 59.
⁵ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text omit 'lotus.' ⁶ Tel. ed., 'series.'

48 VĀSAVADATTĀ
gave ‹unimpeded› prosperity and afforded delight in «intercourse»
as the God of the Flowery Banner¹ gave prosperity to ‹Ani-
ruddha› and afforded delight to «Rati».
[15] Though a ‹demigod›, he was a «god», for he was a
«benevolent» ‹receptacle of wisdom› ; though a ‹Dhṛtarāṣṭra›, he
was a «friend of Bhīma», for he was a ‹ruler of a kingdom›
«who loved virtue» ; though ‹come to earth›, he took refuge ² in
the «courts of the gods», for he was ‹filled with patience› and
took refuge ² in «good government» ; [16] though a ‹great reed›
by nature, he was «smooth» within, for his was the nature of
‹Arjuna›, «upright» within ; [17] though born of a ‹buffalo›, he
was «begotten by a bull», for he was born of a ‹queen› and was
a «producer of government» ; though no ‹central gem of a neck-
lace›, he was the «midmost jewel of a throat-band», for he was
a ‹fearless›, «mighty leader».
While he ruled the earth, ‹quibblings ³ and fallacies› were
practised only in arguments ⁴ (for there was no need of ‹habitually
checking deceit› ⁵) ; [18] there was ‹infidelity› only among
materialists (for there was no ‹poverty›) ; there was employment
of a ‹spur› only in executing commands ⁶ (for there was no
employment of ‹petty enemies›) ; there was ‹picking› [19] only
on lutes (for there was no ‹back-biting›) ; there was association
with ‹threshing-floors› only in the case of rice (for there was no
association with ‹evil men›) ; there was capture of ‹snakes› only
among serpent-charmers (for there was no need to capture
‹liars›) ; ‹imposts› were cut only in the receipt of taxes (for there
was no amputation of ‹hands› ⁷) ; ‹roots› were plucked out only
in the case of «wormwood-trees» (for «ascetics» did not pluck
out their ‹eyes›) ; [20] only lotuses opposed the ‹moon› (for there
was no opposition to ‹Brāhmans› ⁸) ; ‹‘ ruler of the world ’› was
applied only to the elephant of the north ⁹ (but not to any man
¹ Kāma. ² Srirangam text, ‘ he was the refuge of.’
³ Srirangam text adds ‘ futile answers.’ ⁴ Tel. ed., ‘ only in Nyāya textbooks.’
⁵ Srirangam text adds ‘ and castes.’
⁶ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘ only in yōga-exercises.’
⁷ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘ there was hand-cutting only in blossoms.’
⁸ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘ the king.’
⁹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘ only to the world-elephants.’

A SANSKRIT ROMANCE 49
save the ‹king›) ; there were ‹fire-tests and balance-tests› only in
the case of different sorts of gold (for there were no ‹ordeals by
fire or balance›¹) ; only jewels were ‹pierced by needles› (for
there was no ‹disturbance by suggestive movements›) ; only in
child-bearing ² was there rending with ‹griping pains› (for there
was no rending by ‹impalement›) ; [21] ‹Duḥśāsana was known›
only in the Bhārata ³ (for there was no ‹glimpse of evil instruc-
tion›) ; the ‹sun's rays opened leaves› ⁴ only in the case of lotuses
(for there was no ‹sawing asunder› ⁵).
Though the Great Boar was intent on upholding the ‹earth›,
yet he (Cintāmaṇi) clove ‹mountains›. Rāghava entered the
forest with ‹Sītā› leaving his native land (but Cintāmaṇi entered
the forest having his ‹native land›). Bharata had affection for
Rāma, yet made ‹Rāma depart› from his kingdom (but Cintā-
maṇi made ‹peace› in his kingdom). [22] When Nala was united
to Damayantī it was a ‹marriage of one already wedded› (but
Cintāmaṇi ‹regained his territory›). Pṛthu ‹levelled the earth by
banishing the mountains› ⁶ (but Cintāmaṇi ‹covered the earth by
sending forth his offspring› ⁷). There was, therefore, no reason to
mention former kings.⁸
He, moreover, was another sort of monarch and had humbled
all the princes on earth. Thus he was a mountain with a visible
exaltation of ‹peak›, which never ceased to delight the «Gan-
¹ In the ordeal by balance the accused was twice weighed. If he was lighter at the
second weighing than at the first, he was acquitted ; but if heavier, he was condemned.
In the fire-ordeal the defendant was required to carry a heated metal pot a certain
distance, and was adjudged innocent if his hands, which might be bound with leaves
as a partial protection, remained unburned (see Jolly, Recht und Sitte, p. 145,
Strassburg, 1896).
² Tel. ed., ‘in new (i.e. ‘first’) child-bearings of young women’; Srirangam text,
‘in child-bearings.’
³ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘in the Mahābhārata.’
⁴ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘the opening of leaves of lotuses by the rays of the
sun was the very utmost decree.’
⁵ Cf. the Iranian legend of the sawing asunder of Yima by Spityura (Yašt, 19. 46).
⁶ Cf. Mahābhārata, 7. 69.
⁷ This rendering seems justified by the context and by the paronomasiac meanings of
the words employed, although the commentary does not allude to the applicability of
the passage to Cintāmaṇi.
⁸ Tel. ed. adds ‘but rather (there was occasion) of blame (of them).’
E

50 VĀSAVADATTĀ
dharvas who roamed along its slopes»; for he never ceased, with
his visible exaltation of ⟨majesty⟩, to delight the «steeds that
bore his army». [23] He was a ⟨Himālaya⟩, though not shaken
by «snow» nor suited to the birth of «Umā», for he was ⟨indeed
a lotus⟩ unshaken by «pride» and unsuited for the birth of
«deceit». He was a «snowy» ⟨bullock⟩-banner set upon a
«hill», for he was «indeed exalted in speech» and set as a banner
of ⟨justice⟩.
He was a ⟨wind⟩, ⟨bending all the forest down⟩, ⟨a friend of
the fire⟩, ⟨eager for the clouds⟩, and ⟨bearing along the flowers⟩;
for he was ⟨ever patient⟩, ⟨straightening every crooked way⟩,¹
⟨foremost of ascetics⟩, ⟨not avid of sensual pleasures⟩,² and the
⟨joy of the wise⟩. [24] He was a mine of gems ⟨with no
serpents⟩,³ exceeding⁴ deep its ⟨boundaries⟩, ⟨no otter a terror to
it⟩, ever a very refuge for ⟨fishes⟩, ⟨filled with water⟩, ⟨bearing
ships⟩,⁵ whereto (belonged) the ⟨mountain⁶ and the crocodile⟩,
⟨the mighty lord of rivers⟩, the ⟨ocean⟩; [25] for he was ⟨no
knave⟩,⁷ exceeding⁴ deep his ⟨decorum⟩, ⟨no light of his dismaying
any⟩, ever a refuge like the ⟨moon⟩,⁸ ⟨delightsome⟩, ⟨rich in
children⟩,⁹ ⟨his serenity unshaken⟩, ⟨great, proud⟩, and ⟨with
a signet ring⟩. [26] As the moon causes joy in the ⟨night
season⟩, is the friend¹⁰ of ⟨white lotuses⟩, has his mansion filled
with all the ⟨digits⟩, and is ⟨unsurpassed by the constellations⟩;
he caused joy in the ⟨festivals⟩, was the friend¹⁰ of ⟨pleasure
groves on earth⟩, had his mansion filled with all the ⟨arts⟩, and
⟨subdued the excessive might of his foes⟩. As Sumēru caused
the ⟨sun to rise⟩, gave a ⟨golden glory⟩, and had ⟨wealth sur-
passing the (other) mountains⟩; he caused the ⟨prosperity of his
friends⟩, possessed ⟨every beauty⟩, and had ⟨good fortune im-
pregnable and abundant⟩.
¹ Or, ‘banishing all famine.’ ² Or, ‘eager for the gods.’
³ Tel. ed., ‘with no timayas’ (glossed as ‘a sort of fish,’ i. e. ‘a whale’); Srirangam
text, ‘with no fear of serpents.’ ⁴ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text omit.
⁵ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘with a good bed.’ ⁶ Māināka.
⁷ Tel. ed., ‘unbending’; Srirangam text, ‘fearing not his subjects.’
⁸ Tel. ed., ‘ever with a moon-like mind.’
⁹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘receptacle of virtue.’
¹⁰ Tel. ed., ‘the one friend.’