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

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.’

A SANSKRIT ROMANCE 51
[27] Even had Arjuna been ever with them, the ranks of his
foes would not have been equal to the ⟨combats in the Mahābhā-
rata⟩, for they were not equal to ⟨bearing great burdens⟩. Though
⟨Bhīṣma⟩, he was ≪unkind to Śāntanu≫, for he was ⟨terrible⟩ and
had a ≪ceaseless desire for glory≫; though ⟨wandering on the
mountains⟩, ≪he dwelt not on the hills≫, for he was ⟨accompanied
by his attendants⟩ and ≪needed not the admiration of his
family≫.
[28] And, furthermore, he ⟨wavered ¹ not from the path of
a warrior⟩, as Triśaṅku ² ⟨wavered ¹ in the path of the constella-
tions⟩; though he was ⟨Śiva⟩, ≪he drank no poison≫, for he was
a ⟨giver of weal⟩ and ≪not depressed≫; though he was a ⟨fire⟩,
he was not a ≪flame≫, for he was a ⟨purifier⟩ and free from ≪evil
habits≫; though he was a ⟨burner⟩, he was not a ≪consumer≫,
for he had a ⟨longing for hermitages⟩ and was no ≪destroyer≫;
[29] he was no Yama ⟨snatching life away suddenly⟩, for he did
not ⟨deprive of life without reason⟩; he was no Rāhu increasing
his ⟨radiance by swallowing the sun's disc⟩,³ for he did not increase
his ⟨greed by seizing the kingdom of a friend⟩; he was no Nala
crushed ⁴ by ⟨Kali⟩, for he was not crushed ⁴ by ⟨strife⟩; he was
no Cakri exhilarated by the death of ⟨Śṛgāla⟩,⁵ for he was not
exhilarated by the death of a ⟨craven⟩; he was attended by
⟨glory and generosity⟩ as the cowherd Nanda was attended by
⟨Yaśōdā⟩; he ⟨planned peace and war⟩ as Jarāsanda's ⟨body was
disrupted union⟩⁶; he possessed ⟨generosity and luxury⟩ as
Bhārgava ⟨ever wandered in the clouds⟩; [30] he was attended
by ⟨good friends⟩ and commanded ≪good counsel≫ as Daśaratha
was attended by ⟨Sumitrā⟩ and commanded ≪Sumantra≫; he
was ⟨devoted to worthy objects of generosity⟩ and protected
the ≪earth≫ as Dilīpa was ⟨beloved by Sudakṣiṇā⟩ and protected
¹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘fell.’
² Srirangam text, ‘though Triśaṅku . . . . for he had triple powers.’
³ Cf. Mahābhārata, 1. 19.
⁴ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘having his body conquered’; cf. Mahābhārata,
3. 58–61.
⁵ Cf. Harivaṁśa, 100.
⁶ Cf. Mahābhārata, 2. 17.
E 2

52 VĀSAVADATTĀ

the «cow»¹; his glory was exalted by his ⟨virtuous life⟩ as
Rāma’s glory was exalted by the ⟨birth of Kuśa and Lava⟩.
He had a son named Kandarpakētu. He was the ⟨joy of the
hermits⟩ as the coral-tree ⟨stands in Indra’s garden⟩²; [31] he
⟨produced weal⟩ as Himālaya was the ⟨birthplace of Śiva⟩;
he was ⟨marked by his luxurious pleasures⟩ as Mandara is
⟨scarred by the body of the serpent⟩; his ⟨crores were enjoyed
by great kings⟩ as Kāilāsa’s ⟨summit is enjoyed by the Great
Lord⟩³; he gave pleasure to many ⟨women⟩ as the spring gives
pleasure in many ⟨gardens⟩; [32] he made the ⟨earth⟩ resound
as Mandara, lifted on high in the churning of the ocean of milk,
made the ⟨water⟩ resound; he ⟨took delight in love⟩ as the God
of Passion’s Bond⁴ ⟨rejoices Rati⟩; he was shaken by ⟨meditation⟩
as the collected ashes of Śiva are shaken at ⟨twilight⟩⁵; [33] he
had a ⟨pure heart⟩ and «clung to Viṣṇu’s feet» as an autumn
cloud has a ⟨lurid centre⟩ and «depends from the sky»⁶; he was
accustomed to ⟨all passion and merriment⟩ as Arjuna was accus-
tomed to be ⟨courageous in battle⟩; [34] he was adorned with
a ⟨garland of the circle of the earth⟩ as Kaṁsa was adorned
with a ⟨blue lotus garland⟩; he gave joy to the ⟨humble⟩⁷ and
«delighted the wise» as Tārkṣya gave joy to ⟨Vinatā⟩⁷ and had
«Sumukha for a son»; he ⟨clasped⟩ a beautiful form to his
«breast» as Viṣṇu ⟨changed⟩ his beautiful form into a «boar»;
he had ⟨time and justice⟩ put into his own power as Śāntanava
had ⟨Death⟩ put into his own power; [35] he governed ⟨full
happily⟩ as the host of Kāuravas was led by ⟨Suśarman⟩.
Though ⟨Subāhu⟩,⁸ he was a joy to «Rāma», for he had
⟨beautiful arms⟩ and gave joy to «women»; though he had ⟨two

¹ Cf. Raghuvamśa, 1-2.
² The heaven of Indra, the home of warriors fallen in battle, and the future hope of
popular classic Hinduism, is particularly renowned for its wonderful coral-tree, which,
according to Viṣṇupurāṇa, 5. 30, was produced at the churning of the ocean of milk,
and which has golden bark, copper-coloured leaves, and flowers of surpassing
fragrance. ³ Śiva.
⁴ Kāma. ⁵ An allusion to Śiva's revel dances at nightfall.
⁶ Srirangam text, ‘he had a ⟨pure heart⟩ as an autumn cloud has a ⟨lurid centre⟩;
he ⟨clung to Viṣṇu's feet⟩ as the moon ⟨depends from the sky⟩.’
⁷ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text omit.
⁸ Cf. Rāmāyaṇa, 1. 30.

A SANSKRIT ROMANCE 53
eyes>, he was «Śiva», for he was a «great monarch» who <gazed on all alike> ; though <made of pearls>, his «waist had no central
jewel», for he was <free from disease> and «virile» ; as a cloud
[36] <terrifies flamingoes with showers of exceeding purity>, he
<slew kings terrified by the edge of his flashing sword> ; though
a light upon a <pole>, his «wick was not consumed», for he was
the light of his <race> and his «estate was unimpaired».
The noble, resembling oceans with beauteous <mountains>,
with <waters> increased exceedingly, and with <contented crea- tures>, attained their highest growth through him who was, as it
were, the moon when its «house has all its digits, removes the
distress of night, opens the white lotuses», [37] is a friend to
«white lotus groves»,¹ and «adorns a quarter of the sky» ; for
the noble, with <radiant limbs>, with <life> increased exceedingly,
and with <amiable qualities>, [38] attained their highest growth
through him who was the «home of the aggregation of all virtues,
delighted in Śiva's way, destroyed his enemies», was a friend of
«pleasure groves on earth»,¹ and had his «hopes fulfilled».
And the hearts of women rejoiced at the sight of him who
was like the God of the Dolphin Banner, causing <Aniruddha>
delight, <dear to Rati>, and <armed with an arrow of flowers> ; for
he caused <unimpeded> delight, was a <friend of wantonness>, and
<surpassed the Flower-God>. For him who was as the spring
with the <attendant southern breeze>, with <sweet koel-notes>²
pleasing the ear,³ expanding the <buds>, making the <forests bend>, [39] <delightsome with fragrant flowers>, with <lotuses>
easy for all to gather, possessing an abundance of <white thorn- apple trees> spread abroad, but passing over the <wormwood>,
damsels felt attachment, being like creepers of the forest with
a thousand «buds», crowded with «bees», charming with
«sprigs», and with «sportive birds» ; since he had a <continual
¹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text omit.
² The notes of the koel, or Indian cuckoo (Eudynamis orientalis, Linn.), though in
themselves scarcely pleasant, are hailed with delight as a harbinger of spring, and the
bird is, therefore, regarded as a friend of love.
³ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘the eye and ear.’

54 VĀSAVADATTĀ
income for the attendant nobles>,¹ possessed a <sweet koel-voice>
pleasing the ear,² expanded <love>, gave a <charming colour to women>, <delighted in learned sages>, possessed <good fortune>
easy for all to gather, spread abroad an abundance of <gold>, and
surpassed his <foes>, while the damsels [40] were filled with
a thousand «anxieties», were sought by «lovers»,³ were charming
because of their «coral necklaces»,⁴ and were at the «wanton age».
And by his staff-like arm on the field of battle [41] the bow
was gained, by the bow the arrows, by the arrows his foeman's
head, by this⁵ the world,⁶ by this⁷ a leader such as had never
been before, by the leader fame, by fame the seven seas, by the
seas the renown of the kings of the Kṛta and other ages, and by
that⁸ constancy, and by this⁹ something marvellous every instant.
And the periphery of the bosoms of the lovely wives of his foes,
who had been consumed by the fire of his majesty, was deserted
by their pearl necklaces, as if terrified by the blows of their hands.
[42] And his sword, as if coloured with lac from the feet of
the Goddess of Victory which had been moistened with the
blood of slain infantry, elephants, and horses, shone over a sea of
conflict whose shores were covered with quantities of pearls¹⁰
fallen from must elephants'¹¹ frontal lobes which were shattered
by sharp arrows, with flying <birds>, with hundreds of <rivers and white and blue lotuses> whose manifold charms were spread
through the <beautiful> waters,¹² with¹³ <dancing waters>, and
terrible because of the fierce pride of the <cārubhaṭa>-fish which
¹ Or, 'was a competency for his retainers, sages, and honourable men.'
² Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'the eye and ear.'
³ Or, 'had curls on their foreheads.' ⁴ Or, 'because of their long hair.'
⁵ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'by the foeman's head.'
⁶ Tel. ed., 'by the world unprecedented renown as a leader, and by renown fame.'
⁷ Srirangam text, 'by the world.' ⁸ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'by renown.'
⁹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'by constancy.' ¹⁰ Srirangam text, 'round pearls.'
¹¹ The frontal lobe of an elephant is believed to contain a pearl, called kuñjaramaṇi
or gajamaṇi, which is possessed of magic properties (Crooke, Popular Religion and
Folk-Lore of Northern India, 2 ed., 2. 240, Westminster, 1896).
¹² Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, not alluding to pun, 'with tortoises (clinging) on the
feet of elephants coming up from the beautiful water, with lovely white and blue
lotuses, with hundreds of rivers.'
¹³ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'undulating with.'

were eager to consort with the [43] ⟨surasundarīs⟩; since it
shone on a sea of conflict ¹ whose shores were covered with
quantities of pearls fallen from must elephants’ frontal lobes
which were shattered by sharp arrows, with flying ⟨darts⟩, with
hundreds of ⟨fleshless, white-umbrellaed armies⟩ whose manifold
charms were spread through the ⟨red⟩ waters, with ² ⟨convulsing
corpses⟩, and terrible because of the fierce pride of ⟨warriors⟩
eager to consort with the ⟨Apsarasas⟩.
[44] Then, once upon a time, when the night was finished ;
when the Lotus-Lord of shell-like beauty was sinking with his
spouse, the Night, into the western ³ sea ; while he was white, as
it were, with the curds which constitute a morsel of food for
(Buddhist) ascetics at their mealtime, and was like a mass of
Yamunā’s foam by night, and resembled a fragment of stone ⁴
for the polishing of Mēnakā’s nails, and had the shade of the
soma-plant in the centre of his body, and resembled the silvern
earring ⁵ of a head laid softly down on the pillow of the western
mount, and seemed to be the goblet of Lady Night containing
a remnant of wine ; [45] when the bees had their feet caught in
the pollen of the white lotuses which had been converted into
cold ⁶ paste by the dew ; when by their soft chatter the mainas
revealed women at their rendezvous ; when the huts of the
ascetics awoke intent on study ; when the streets resounded with
poetic tales chanted by mendicants in the vibhāsa mode ⁷ ; [46]
when the lamps seemed unable, because of their exceeding thin-
ness,⁸ to bear the blackness of night ⁹ which they had entirely

¹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘in the forefront of battle, as on a sea terrible with
the roaring noise of soldiers marching in eagerness to consort with the Apsarasas’—
apparently with no attempt to pun.
² Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘undulating with.’
³ The distinctly conventional character of Subandhu's romance is well illustrated by
his making the moon set in the west because the sun does.
⁴ Tel. ed., ‘crystalline stone’; Srirangam text, ‘fragment of white stone for the
polishing.’
⁵ Tel. ed., ‘the circle of the silvern earring of night, with her head softly resting,’
etc.; similarly the Srirangam text.
⁶ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘cold, icy water.’
⁷ Tel. ed., ‘hāsa mode.’ ⁸ Or, ‘emptiness.’
⁹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, ‘mass of nocturnal blackness.’

56 VĀSAVADATTĀ
swallowed up, and which they vomited, as it were,¹ under the
guise of lampblack, and were exhausted by having stretched
their necks a hundred times as if to see the tremulous delights
of amorous union,² [47] and had been witnesses of manifold ways
of wanton sport,³ seeming to protect the darkness ⁴ lurking
beneath them as if it were a refugee ; when they had become
<dull> because their «oil» had been consumed as knaves ⁵
become <slack> because their «affections» have been consumed ;
when they had reached the end of their <wicks> as the exceed-
ingly aged reach the end of their <lives> ; when they had only
their <bowls> left as noble lords reduced in their estate have
only their <bodies> left ; [48] when they were <put in the middle of the house> as demons <wander abroad at the end and middle of night> ; when they had <moths> flying about them as the <sun>
descends on the summit of the western mount ; when the gifts of
flowers in the boudoirs, that had been noisy with the humming ⁶
of swarms of bees delighting ⁷ in the abundance of unceasing
drops ⁸ of honey had withered ; [49] when the downy Nepal
jasmines had fallen from the tresses ; when fair women seemed
to be pouring forth teardrops for grief at separation from their
lovers ⁹ and, with bud-like feet ¹⁰ tinkling with anklets, delayed,
as it were, the departure of their best beloved ; when the mist of
perspiration ¹¹ had been dried by the wind of the wings of a swarm
of bees enamoured of the perfume of the wreaths of half-opened
Malabar jasmine ¹² in thick tresses dishevelled by weariness of
¹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text omit 'as it were.'
² Tel. ed., 'the quivering of amorous women.'
³ Tel. ed., 'varied love-joys with delights manifold'; Srirangam text, 'wanton
sport with perturbations manifold.'
⁴ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'mass of darkness.'
⁵ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'the voices of knaves.'
⁶ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'sound of the humming.'
⁷ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'stupefied with the intoxication of tasting.'
⁸ Tel. ed., 'drops fallen unceasingly'; Srirangam text, 'drops falling unceasingly.'
⁹ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'best beloved.'
¹⁰ Tel. ed. and Srirangam text add 'when they (the fair women) shone with bud-like
feet.'
¹¹ Tel. ed., 'particles of the mist of perspiration'; Srirangam text, 'particles of
perspiration.'
¹² Tel. ed. and Srirangam text, 'mādhavī.'