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

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-