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

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).