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