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

INTRODUCTION II as already noted, but Śīlāditya was the very reverse of a cruel monarch (Smith, Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, 2 ed., p. 306, Oxford, 1908). If one were to stress the theory of rivalry both in letters and in war, one might suppose that Subandhu was a courtier either of Śaśāṅka of Gauḍa or of Dēvagupta of Eastern Mālava (cf. Ettinghausen, op. cit. pp. 36–38, 148), both of whom were ignoble in character. But of this there is not the slightest evidence ; and even if the name of the father of either of them was Vikramāditya (a most impro- bable hypothesis), that would give little point to Subandhu's stanza, which plainly alludes to the famous Vikramāditya, and is, therefore, only a conventional harking back to happy times long past. In determining the date of the Vāsavadattā I am forced to consider the lines under discussion as utterly valueless. While the sole known basis for assigning a terminus a quo to the composition of Subandhu's romance is, as we have seen, the allusion to Uddyōtakara, who probably flourished in the latter half of the sixth century, the terminus ad quem is almost cer- tainly the date of Bāṇa's Harṣacarita. This romance, which was left unfinished by its author, ends abruptly with the rescue of Rājyaśrī, the sister of Harṣavardhana and widow of Graha- varman (i. e. 607, or 606), though Harṣa had reigned several years when Bāṇa wrote (Harṣacarita, tr. Cowell and Thomas, pp. 75–76, London, 1897). The precise date of composition of Bāṇa's second romance, the Kādambarī, is unknown; but, as Bāṇa died before completing it (Kādambarī, tr. Ridding, p. 182, London, 1896), it must have been written considerably after the Harṣacarita. It may also be regarded as certain that Subandhu lived later, probably by at least a century (cf. p. 12), than Daṇḍin, the author of the picaresque Daśakumāracarita (Weber, Indische Streifen, 1. 311–315, 353, 372, Berlin, 1868 ; Daśakumāracarita, tr. Meyer, pp. 120–127, Leipzig, 1902 ; Collins, The Geographical Data of the Raghuvamśa and Daśakumāracarita, p. 46, Leipzig, 1907, places Daṇḍin's literary activity before 585 A. D.). The Place of Composition of the Vāsavadattā. The question next arises as to the place of composition of the Vāsavadattā.

12 VĀSAVADATTĀ Here the answer must be still more vague.¹ It is obviously impossible that the romance was written at the court of Bhōja, as some manuscripts of the Bhōjaprabandha would imply, for that ruler did not reign at Dhārā until the eleventh century; nor does there seem to have been any Bhōja reigning in the latter part of the sixth century at whose court Subandhu might have been, thus being confusedly located by Ballāla in the train of the famous Bhōja of Dhārā. One might, indeed, by reckless theorising, allege that Subandhu, thus being placed at Dhārā in Mālava, had actually been a courtier either of Dēvagupta of Eastern Mālava or of Śīlāditya of Mo-la-p'o (Western Mālava); but the real reason for this wild statement by the author of the Bhōja- prabandha (or, more probably, by one of his interpolators) was obviously the identification, occasionally made by Sanskrit authors (cf. Weber, Akademische Vorlesungen über indische Literaturgeschichte, 2 ed., pp. 218–219, Berlin, 1876; Rajendralala Mitra, 'Bhoja Rájá of Dhár and his Homonyms,' in JASBe. 32. 93), of Bhōja and Vikramāditya, an equation too absurd to require refutation. To sum up the discussion, we can say with reasonable certainty only that the Vāsavadattā was written by Subandhu at a place unknown, probably between 550 and somewhat after 606 A. D., the terminus a quo being the circumstance that Uddyōtakara cannot have flourished until at least the middle of the sixth century, and the terminus ad quem by the date of composition of the Harṣacarita, early in the seventh century.² ¹ Absolutely no clue is given by the purely conventional geography of the romance, on which see Weber, Indische Streifen, 1. 385, Berlin, 1868. ² Krishnamachariar devotes a long section of his Introduction (pp. 30–48) to a discus- sion of Subandhu's date, which he places after Bāṇa and before Vāmana, the author of the Kāvyālaṁkāravṛtti, whom tradition makes a minister of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir (779–813; cf. Duff, Chronology of India, pp. 68, 70–71, Westminster, 1899). He rightly argues that the various references in Sanskrit authors to Subandhu and Bāṇa allow of no conclusion as to the priority of the Vāsavadattā; but some of his hypotheses, as that Subandhu's dislike of Buddhism proves him to be later than Bāṇa (p. 45), as well as his general implication that the difference between the two writers is due to degeneration of style (cf. pp. 14–18), are, in my judgment, certainly untenable; nor does he touch with sufficient depth upon what evidence may be drawn from Indian history.

INTRODUCTION 13 Data Concerning Subandhu’s Life. Our knowledge of Subandhu is most meagre. In the thirteenth stanza of his intro- duction to the Vāsavadattā he terms himself sujanāikabandhu, which Hall (Introd., p. 24), following the commentator, Śivarāma, renders ‘an intimate of none but the virtuous,’ although the word should rather be translated ‘Sujana’s only brother.’¹ The tradition that Subandhu was the nephew of the Prakrit grammarian, Vararuci, has already been mentioned (see above, p. 6), though with disapproval; and there seems also to have been a legend that he was, by birth, a Kashmirian Brāhman (Weber, Indische Streifen, 1. 371, Berlin, 1868, quoting Cunning- ham, in JASBe. 17. 98–99).² Subandhu is not known to have written anything besides the Vāsavadattā. Citations are made from him in the Śārṅga- dharapaddhati, Subhāṣitāvalī, Padyāvalī, and Sūktikarṇāmṛta (Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, 1. 726, Leipzig, 1891); but the quotations in the first two anthologies, which alone are thus far edited [by Peterson (Bombay, 1888) and by Peterson and Durgāprasāda (Bombay, 1886), respectively], are drawn exclu- sively from the Vāsavadattā. Hall (Introd., p. 48, note), it is true, found in the still unedited Padyaveṇī of Veṇīdatta, com- piled about the reign of Shāh Jahān (early 17th century), the fol- lowing distich then supposed to have been written by Subandhu: akṣamālāpavṛttijñā kuśāsanaparigrahā brāhmī "va dāurjanī saṃsad vandanīyā samēkhalā, ‘an assembly of scoundrels, knowing ‹how to live by disparaging speeches›, accepting «evil teachings», and «wicked to the just», should be honoured even as an assembly of Brāhmans knowing ¹ Cartellieri, ‘Das Mahābhārata bei Subandhu und Bāṇa,’ in WZKM. 13. 72, trans- lates the stanza thus: ‘Durch eine Gnadengabe, die Sarasvatī ihm verliehen, hat Subandhu — d. h. der edle Freunde hat — dieses Buch gemacht; obzwar Subandhu — d. h. der hundert Freunde hat — hat er doch nur den Edlen zum einzigen Freund; eine wahre Schatzkammer ist er in der Kunst, Silbe für Silbe doppelsinnige Dicht- ungen zu verfertigen.’ On Sujana as a proper name see Aufrecht, op. cit. 3. 149, Leipzig, 1903. ² It is interesting to note, in this connexion, that Krishnamachariar holds that Subandhu was a Vāiṣṇavite and an adherent of the Mīmāṃsā philosophy (Introd., pp. 23, 28).

14 VĀSAVADATTĀ ‹the end of their rosaries›, accepting «seats of kuśa-grass», and «girt with their girdles».' The distich was not, however, written by Subandhu, but by Trivikrama Bhaṭṭa, the author of the Damayantīkathā, or Nalacampū (1. 7; cf. Böhtlingk, Indische Sprüche, 2 ed., No. 52, St. Petersburg, 1870–1873), who flourished about 915 A.D. (Duff, Chronology of India, p. 85, Westminster, 1899).¹ The Vāsavadattā a Kathā. The Vāsavadattā is expressly stated by many manuscripts (cf. Hall’s ed., p. 300, note 7, and Śivarāma ad loc.) to be an ākhyāyikā, or ‘tale,’ this being very possibly influenced by the reference to some work entitled, from the name of its heroine, vāsavadattākhyāyikā in the Vārttika on Pāṇini 4. 3. 87 (cf. also the Vārttika on 4. 2. 60, and see Krishnamachariar, Introd., pp. 36–37). The ākhyāyikā, according to Sanskrit rhetoricians (cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 76– 77, Paris, 1884), is a division of gadya, or poetical prose; and the classical example is the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa, who himself seems to intimate that the Vāsavadattā likewise belongs to this cate- gory by using the term ākhyāyikākārā, ‘authors of ākhyāyikās,’ immediately before his allusion to Subandhu’s romance, in the tenth stanza of his introduction to the Harṣacarita. The classic description of the ākhyāyikā is given in the following passage of the Sāhityadarpaṇa (ed. Roer, No. 568, Calcutta, 1851): ākhyāyikā kathāvat syāt kavēr vaṁśādikīrtanam asyāṁ anyakavīnāṁ ca vṛttaṁ gadyaṁ kvacit kvacit kathāṁśānāṁ vyavacchēda āśvāsa iti badhyatē āryāvaktrapavaktrāṇāṁ chandasā yēna kēnacit anyāpadēśēnā ’’śvāsamukhē bhāvyarthasūcanam, ‘the ākhyāyikā should be as the kathā. (There should be) in it an account of the lineage of the poet and of other poets; poetry ¹ Krishnamachariar (Introd., pp. 39-40) calls attention to a number of passages in the Nalacampū (ed. Bombay, 1885; new ed., 1903) in which he holds that Trivikrama Bhaṭṭa imitated Subandhu. He likewise notes parallels between the Vāsavadattā and the Jīvandharacampū of Haricandra (p. 52), who wrote after 897 A.D. (p. 44), Śiśupālavadha (p. 53), Rāmāyaṇa (p. 64), Mēghadūta (p. 54), Vikramōrvaśī (pp. 62, 64), and Mālatīmādhava (pp. 61–62), as well as the Harṣacarita (pp. 53–57), and Kādambarī (pp. 52, 53, 55, 57, 63).

INTRODUCTION 15 in some places (and) prose in others (should be employed); divisions, called “sighs,” are used for the divisions of the story; at the beginning of the “sighs” (there should be) an intimation of the theme, under the guise of something else, by any metre whatsoever of the āryā, vaktra, or apavaktra (classes).’ The kathā, or ‘story,’ best represented by Bāṇa's Kādambarī, is described by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 567) as follows : kathāyāṁ sarasaṁ vastu padyāir ēva vinirmitam kvacid atra bhavēd āryā kvacid vaktrāpavaktrakē ādāu padyāir namaskāraḥ khalādēr vṛttakīrtanam, ‘in the kathā a theme with poetic sentiments is represented even with poetry ; in it there should be the āryā metre in some places, (and) the vaktra and apavaktra metres in other places ; at the beginning (there should be) homage in verse (to a divinity, also) a description of the character of knaves and the like.’ The older, and in my judgment the better, definition of this type of Sanskrit literature, however, is given by Daṇḍin, the author of the pica- resque Daśakumāracarita, who says (Kāvyādarśa I. 23–25, 28) : apādaḥ padasantānō gadyam ākhyāyikā kathā iti tasya prabhēdāu dvāu tayōr ākhyāyikā kila nāyakēnāi "va vācyā "nyā nāyakēnē 'tarēṇa vā svaguṇāviṣkriyā dōṣō nā 'tra bhūtārthaśaṁsinaḥ api tv aniyamō dṛṣṭas tatrā 'py anyāir udīraṇāt anyō vaktrā svayaṁ vē "ti kīdṛg vā bhēdalakṣaṇam ............................................................................ tat kathākhyāyikē "ty ēkā jātiḥ sañjñādvayāṅkitā atrāi "vā 'ntarbhaviṣyanti śēṣāś cā "khyānajātayaḥ, ‘ prose is a series of words without strophes ; its two classes are the ākhyāyikā (and) the kathā. Now, the ākhyāyikā should be spoken by the hero, the other (the kathā) by the hero or another. A revelation of one’s own personality, if he narrates facts, is no fault here. Nevertheless, the lack of fixed distinction is seen from the story being told by others even there (in the ākhyāyikā). Whether another (is) the speaker, or one’s self, is a sorry standard

16 VĀSAVADATTĀ of discrimination........ Therefore the kathā (and) ākhyāyikā are one category marked with a double name ; and here, too, will be comprised the other categories of stories.' ¹ In support of this statement of Daṇḍin, it may be noted that the Vāsavadattā, though termed, as we have seen, an ākhyāyikā lacks the necessary divisions into 'sighs' ; in its opening stanzas it (like a kathā) describes 'the character of knaves and the like' (introductory stanzas 6–9) ; and it contains a long episode spoken by another than the hero—the conversation of the maina with his mate concerning the heroine of the story. The manifest resem- blance of the Vāsavadattā to the Kādambarī, which is considered to be a kathā, together with its unlikeness to the Harṣacarita, whose technique it should share, were it really an ākhyāyikā, also serves to confirm the views of Daṇḍin rather than those of the Sāhityadarpaṇa. One need have little hesitation, therefore, in regarding the Vāsavadattā as technically a kathā.² The 'Style' and Rhetorical Embellishments of the Vāsava- dattā. The rīti, or 'style,' of the Vāsavadattā is the Gāuḍī, which the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 627) defines as follows (cf., in general, Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 253–255, Paris, 1884): ōjaḥprakāśakāir varṇāir bandha āḍambaraḥ punaḥ samāsabahulā gāuḍī, 'the Gāuḍī, moreover, is a resonant arrangement (of words) with sounds expressing strength, (and) abounds in compounds.' Vā- mana, in his Kāvyālaṁkāravṛtti (1. 2. 12), describes this 'style' as 'consisting of strength (ōjas) and grace (kānti)', while avoiding 'sweetness' (mādhurya) and 'softness' (sāukumārya). Accord- ing to the Kāvyādarśa (1. 44a, 46a, 54a, 92a), moreover, the Gāuḍī especially affects alliteration, etymologising, and hyper- bole.³ When it is added that, as the Kāvyādarśa (1. 14–29) also ¹ It may be mentioned in passing that Ānandavardhana's Dhvanyālōka, 3. 8 (tr. Jacobi, in ZDMG. 56. 789), states that compound words are longer in the ākhyāyikā than in the kathā. ² I am glad to note that my conclusion in this respect is confirmed by Krishna- machariar (Introd., pp. 8–9). ³ Krishnamachariar (Introd., pp. 28–29) notes the prevalence in the Vāsavadattā

INTRODUCTION 17 states, an ākhyāyikā, kathā, or other form of narrative should, like poetry in general, include descriptions of battles, cities, oceans, mountains, seasons, sunrise, moonrise, and the like (each and all of which may be exemplified from the Vāsavadattā), we see at once how closely Subandhu was restricted in the composi- tion of his romance, and how faithfully and minutely he discharged his self-imposed task. The slender thread of narrative in the Vāsavadattā is em- bellished with many forms of literary adornment, which, indeed, constitute by far the major portion of the work. First and fore- most among these embellishments stands the śleṣa, or 'parono- masia,' and with good reason Subandhu declares himself to be 'a repository of cunning skill in arranging a series of parono- masias in every syllable' (pratyakṣaraśleṣamayaprabandhavinyā- savāidagdhyanidhir, introductory stanza 13). The śleṣa is well defined by Daṇḍin, in his Kāvyādarśa (2. 363; cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 227–229, Paris, 1884; Sāhityadarpaṇa, No. 705; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 188–197, 217–218, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 62), as follows : śleṣaḥ sarvāsu puṣṇāti prāyō vakrōktiṣu śriyam bhinnaṁ dvidhā svabhāvōktir vakrōktiś cē 'ti vāṅmayam 'the paronomasia generally enhances the beauty in all equivoca- tions; the phraseology (is) divided in two parts: the natural meaning and the equivocal meaning.' Examples of the śleṣa, usually intimated in the Vāsavadattā by iva, 'as' (and indicated in this translation by < > or, when double and triple, by « », «« »»), abound in Subandhu's romance. As a single specimen may be cited vānarasēnām iva sugrīvāṅgadōpaśōbhitām, 'adorned with a of utkalikāprāya, or style of long compounds and words containing alliteration (Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, p. 75, Paris, 1884), and of the vṛtti ārabhaṭī, or 'violent manner' of scenes of awe and conflict (Lévi, Théatre indien, 1. 92–93, Paris, 1890). The 'manner' is also sometimes madhyamakāiśikī (according to Vidyānātha, the author of the Pratāparudrayaśōbhūṣaṇa [cf. Regnaud, op. cit., pp. 377–378], quoted by Krishnamachariar, mṛdvarthē 'py anatiprauḍhabandhā madhyamakāiśikī, 'not conjoined with excessive dignity in a gentle theme'), and the style is mostly nārikēlapāka (according to Vidyānātha, sa nārikērapākaḥ syād antargūdharasōdayaḥ, 'the rising of hidden flavour'), although sometimes āmrapāka (for which no definition is given). C

18 VĀSAVADATTĀ ‹beautiful throat (sugrīva) and with armlets (aṅgada)› as the army of monkeys was adorned by ‹Sugrīva and Aṅgada›' (ed. Hall, pp. 63–64).¹ The figure next in frequence to the śleṣa in the Vāsavadattā is the virōdha, or ‘antithesis,’ where the superficial meaning is self- contradictory, while the paronomasiac reading renders the phrase consistent, and even intensifies it. This rhetorical embellishment is defined as follows in the Kāvyādarśa (2. 333; cf. Sāhityadar- paṇa, No. 718; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 233–235, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 74) : viruddhānāṁ padārthānāṁ yatra saṁsargadarśanam viśēṣadarśanāyāi ”va sa virōdhaḥ smṛtō yathā, ‘when there is an apparent union of antithetical objects simply to show the distinction (between them), it is called virōdha.’ The conventional sign of the virōdha in the Vāsavadattā is api, as iva is indicative of the śleṣa. As an example of the countless in- stances of the virōdha in Subandhu’s romance, mention may be made of agrahēṇā ’pi kāvyajīvajñēna, ‘which ‹has no planets (a-graha)› yet knows «Venus (kāvya = Śukra = the planet Venus) and Jupiter (jīva = Bṛhaspati = the planet Jupiter)», for it is ‹free from theft (a-graha)› and knows «the essence (jīva) of poetry (kāvya)»’ (ed. Hall, pp. 113–114). Besides these two rhetorical devices, Śivarāma, in his com- mentary on the Vāsavadattā, enumerates a long series of alaṁ- kāras, or ‘adornments,’ which will now briefly be considered. The parisaṅkhyā, or ‘special mention,’ usually combined with the śleṣa in the Vāsavadattā, is an affirmative statement with the implied negation of the paronomasiac meaning of the phrase, and is thus defined by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 735; cf. Kāvyapra- kāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 245–246, Benares, 1898 ; Kuvalayānandakārikā,

1. 112) : ¹ On Subandhu’s fondness for paronomasia see, further, Krishnamachariar, Introd., pp. 18–20, who also calls attention to repetitions of paronomasia on the same word (p. 27) as well as to the frequent repetition of the same phrase in the romance (pp. 25–26).

INTRODUCTION 19 praśnād apraśnatō vā "pi kathitād vastunō bhavēt tādṛganyavyapōhaś cēc chābda ārthō 'thavā tadā parisaṅkhyā, ‘if there is either an expressed or implied exclusion, whether with or without an interrogation, of a thing similar to (but) other than the object mentioned, then it is a parisaṅkhyā.’ An example from the Vāsavadattā is nētrōtpāṭanaṁ munīnām, ‘⟨roots (nētra)⟩ were plucked out only in the case of «wormwood-trees(munīnām)» (for «ascetics (munīnām)» did not pluck out their ⟨eyes (nētra)⟩)’ (ed. Hall, p. 19). The mālādīpaka, or ‘garland elucidator’ (‘verkettete Klimax,’ according to Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fas- sung, s. v., St. Petersburg, 1879–1889), is a rhetorical repetition of words in a sequence so as to heighten the effect, and is thus defined by the Kāvyādarśa (2. 108; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 226, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 105): pūrvapūrvavyapēkṣiṇī vākyamālā prayuktē "ti tan mālādīpakaṁ matam, ‘a conjoined series of words, each of which refers to the one pre- ceding, is considered a mālādīpaka.’ As an example may be cited bhujadaṇḍēna kōdaṇḍaṁ kōdaṇḍēna śarāḥ śarāir ariśiras, ‘by his staff-like arm the bow, by the bow the arrows, by the arrows his foeman's head’ (ed. Hall, p. 41). The utprēkṣā, or ‘poetic fancy,’ usually indicated, like the ślēṣa, by iva, ‘as,’ in the Vāsavadattā, and one of Subandhu’s favourite rhetorical devices, is thus concisely defined by the Sāhityadar- paṇa (No. 686; cf. Kāvyādarśa, 2. 221; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 211, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 30): bhavēt saṁbhāvanō "tprēkṣā prakṛtasya parātmanā, ‘poetic fancy would be the imagining of an object under the character of something else.’ Examples of this figure abound in the Vāsavadattā, as in the following description of the moon: dadhidhavalē kālakṣapaṇakagrāsapiṇḍa iva niśāyamunāphēna- puñja iva mēnakānakhamārjanaśilāśakala iva, ‘while he was white, as it were, with the curds which constitute a morsel of food C 2

20 VĀSAVADATTĀ for (Buddhist) ascetics at their mealtime, and was like a mass of Yamunā's foam by night, and resembled a fragment of stone for the polishing of Mēnakā's nails' (ed. Hall, p. 44).¹ The yamaka, 'repetition' or 'chiming,' is the repeating of words or parts of words of similar sound but divergent meaning, which the Kāvyādarśa (1. 61; cf. 3. 1–37; Sāhityadarpaṇa, No. 640; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 185–188, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 4. 6) describes as āvṛttiṁ varṇasaṅghātagōcarāṁ yamakaṁ viduḥ, 'a repetition consisting of a combination of sounds they know as yamaka.' This is illustrated by the following passage from the Vāsavadattā: āndōlitakusumakēsarē kēsarēṇumuṣi raṇitamadhu- ramaṇīnāṁ ramaṇīnāṁ vikacakamudākarē mudākarē, '(when there blew a wind that) rocked the filaments of the flowers and removed their pollen from the hair of damsels wearing delight- somely tinkling jewels, whilst it had an abundance of expanded white lotuses, and caused pleasure' (ed. Hall, pp. 52–53). The prauḍhōkti, or 'pomposity,' is thus defined by the Kuva- layānandakārikā (1. 124): prauḍhōktir uktā 'rthāhētōs taddhētutvaprakalpanam, 'in the absence of a cause for a thing, the invention of a cause for it is called prauḍhōkti.' It is exemplified in the Vāsavadattā by the passage describing the heroine's lip as mukhacandra- sannihitasandhyārāgēṇa dantamaṇirakṣāsindūramudrānukāriṇā, 'which had the glow of eventide in close proximity to her moon- like face; which had what seemed to be a minium seal as a guard for the jewels of her teeth' (ed. Hall, p. 58). The rūpakātiśayōkti, or 'hyperbolical metaphor,' is merely an exaggerated form of the preceding alaṁkāra. It is thus defined in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 34): rūpakātiśayōktiḥ syān nigīryādhyavasānataḥ, 'identification so that (the object identified) should be swallowed

¹ On the similes in the Vāsavadattā see also the examples collected by Krishna- machariar, Introd., pp. 20–22.

INTRODUCTION 21 up (and thus completely disappear) would be rūpakātiśayōkti; and as an example may be cited, from the description of Vāsa- vadattā just quoted, the passage vilōcanēndīvarabhramarapaṅk- tibhyāṃ mukhamadanamandiratōraṇābhyāṃ rāgasāgaravēlābh- yāṃ yāuvananartakalāsikābhyāṃ bhrūlatābhyāṃ virāiamānām, ‘adorned with delicate brows which were clusters of bees about her blue-lotus eyes; portals of her face that formed the abode of Love; the shores of Passion’s sea; wantoning in youthful dancing’ (ed. Hall, p. 61). The akramātiśayōkti, or ‘fused hyperbole,’ is closely akin to the preceding rhetorical figure, of which it is merely an intensi- fication. It receives the following definition in the Kuvalayā- nandakārikā (1. 39): akramātiśayōktiḥ syāt sahatvē hētukāryayōḥ, ‘akramātiśayōkti would be in the unity of cause and effect.’ Śivarāma cites but one instance of the figure in the Vāsavadattā, this being samaṃ dviṣāṃ dhanuṣāṃ ca jīvākṛṣṭiṃ yōdhāś cakruḥ, ‘the warriors drew at once the ‹lives (jīva)› of their foes and the ‹strings (jīvā)› of their bows’ (ed. Hall, p. 295). Two other forms of hyperbole are mentioned by Śivarāma as occurring in Subandhu’s romance. The first of these is bhēdakā- tiśayōkti, or ‘hyperbole of differentiation.’ It is defined as follows in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 36): bhēdakātiśayōktis tu tasyāi ”vā ’nyatvavarṇanam, ‘bhēdakātiśayōkti is the description of that (which is the subject under discussion) by means of differentiation,’ and it is exemplified in the Vāsavadattā by pṛthur api gōtrasamutsāraṇavistāri- tabhūmaṇḍalaḥ, ‘Pṛthu ‹levelled the earth by banishing the mountains› (but Cintāmaṇi ‹covered the earth by sending forth his offspring›)’ (ed. Hall, p. 22). The remaining form of hyperbole in the Vāsavadattā is sam- bandhātiśayōkti, or ‘hyperbole of connexion,’ which is thus defined in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 37): sambandhātiśayōktiḥ syād ayōgē yōgakalpanam, ‘sambandhātiśayōkti would be the invention of connexion when

22 VĀSAVADATTĀ

connexion is absent,' as when Subandhu describes trees as being anūrukarakaśābhighātaparavaśaravirathaturagagrāsaviṣamitapa- llavāis, 'with shoots made uneven by the feeding of the horses of the chariot of the sun which are obedient when lashed by the whip in the hands of Anūru' (ed. Hall, p. 120). The ratnāvalī, or 'jewel necklace,' is defined as follows in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 139) : kramikāprakṛtārthānāṃ nyāsaṃ ratnāvalīṃ viduḥ, 'an arrangement of objects serially irrelevant they know as ratnā- valī,' and is exemplified in the Vāsavadattā where the heroine is described as vikacēna nētrakamalēna śanāiścarēṇa pādēna tamasā kēśapāśēna grahamayīm iva, 'she seemed to be made of planets: of <Venus>, for she had <wide-open> lotus eyes; of <Saturn>, for she had <slow-moving> steps; of <Rāhu>, for she had <dark> heavy hair' (ed. Hall, p. 64). The kāvyaliṅga, or 'poetic reason,' is thus defined by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 710; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 238– 239, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 120) : hētōr vākyapadārthatvē kāvyaliṅgaṃ nigadyatē, 'kāvyaliṅga is applied to the implication of a cause in a sentence or word,' and finds exemplification in the Vāsavadattā in the passage khalaḥ punas tad aniṣṭam anucitam ēvā 'vadhārayanty aniṣṭōd- bhāvanarasōttaraṃ hi khalahṛdayam, 'the wicked, on the other hand, make it (thy conduct) out to be undesirable and indecorous; for the heart of the wicked man finds its highest delight centred in bringing to light what is undesirable' (ed. Hall, p. 70). The mīlita, or 'vanished,' denotes a complete loss of distinction between two objects because of their superficial resemblance, as is expressed by the definition of the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 145; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 253–254, Benares, 1898; Ruyyaka's Alaṃkārasarvasva, ed. Durgāprasāda and Parab, p. 167, Bombay, 1893): mīlitaṃ yadi sādṛśyād bhēda ēva na lakṣyatē, 'if, because of similarity, a distinction is not observed, it is mīlita.' As an example from Subandhu I may cite mādhurya-

INTRODUCTION 23

śāityasucitvasantāpaśāntibhiḥ payaḥ paya ivē 'ti, 'fancying that “water is as milk because of its sweetness, coolness, purity, and healing of distress”' (ed. Hall, p. 80). The anuprāsa, or 'alliteration,' a rhetorical figure found with considerable frequency in Subandhu's romance, is thus defined by the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 633; cf. Kāvyādarśa, 1. 55; Kāvya- prakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 182–184, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakā- rikā, 4. 2–5) : anuprāsaḥ śabdasāmyaṁ vāiṣamyē 'pi svarasya yat, ‘anuprāsa (is) a similarity of sound, despite a dissimilarity of the vowel.’ As an example from the Vāsavadattā may be cited these two adjectives descriptive of the River Rēvā: madakalakalahaṁ- sasārasarasitōdbhrāntabhāḥkūṭavikaṭapucchacchaṭāvyādhūtavikaca- kamalakhaṇḍavigalitamakarandabindusandōhasurabhitasalilayā.. . . . upakūlasañjātanalanikuñjapuñjitakulāyakukkuṭaghaṭāghūtkā- rabhāiravatīrayā, 'whose waters were perfumed by the abundance of the drops of liquid which had fallen from the fragments of full- blown lotuses shaken by many monstrous tails of bhāḥkūṭa-fish that had been terrified by the notes, indistinct for passion, of geese and herons; ..... whose banks were strident with the screams of multitudes of wild cocks whose nests thronged the bowers of reeds that had sprung up near its shores' (ed. Hall, pp. 95, 98). The sama, or 'equal,' is thus defined in the Kāvyādarśa (1. 47; cf. Sāhityadarpaṇa, No. 618; Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 175– 176, Benares, 1898): samaṁ bandhēṣv aviṣamaṁ tē mṛdusphuṭamadhyamāḥ bandhā mṛdusphuṭōnmiśravarṇavinyāsayōnayaḥ, ‘sama is not uneven in collocations (of words); these collocations, smooth, rough, (and) middling, depend on the arrangement of smooth, rough, and mixed (sounds).’ It is illustrated by the passage kāmadāruṇa madāruṇanētrāsmaramayaṁ ramayantaṁ tvām adayaṁ madayantī param akam itāraṁ param akamitāraṁ vāñchati, 'what gentle-eyed woman who fervently delighteth thee, that art not inflamed with passion, (but art) the essence of love, delightsome, (and) a most excellent lover, desireth another

24 VĀSAVADATTĀ that is no lover [cruel with passion ! red-eyed with lust ! alas, an unlovely dame desireth thee, the essence of lovelessness, hot, pitiless, absolutely no lover, (and) bound for utmost woe !]’ (ed. Hall, pp. 213–214). The vidhi, or ‘rule,’ is defined as follows by the Kuvalayānan- dakārikā (I. 167) : siddhasyāi "va vidhānaṃ yat tad āhur vidhyalaṃkṛtim, ‘what (is) a precept of a thing well established, that they call the vidhi adornment,’ and is exemplified by kuraṅgikē kalpaya kuraṅgaśāvakēbhyaḥ śaspāṅkuraṃ kiśōrikē kāraya kiśōrakēbhyaḥ pratyavēkṣāṃ, ‘Kuraṅgikā, prepare a blade of young grass for the antelope fauns ! Kiśōrikā, have the young colts looked after’ ! (ed. Hall, pp. 230–231). The sambhāvana, or ‘supposition,’ is thus defined by the Kuvalayānandakārikā (I. 125) : sambhāvanaṃ yadī 'tthaṃ syād ity ūhō 'nyasya siddhayē, ‘sambhāvana is a conjecture for the attainment of something else with the thought, “if it were so.”’ It is illustrated in the Vāsavadattā by the passage tvatkṛtē yā "nayā vēdanā "nubhūtā sā yadi nabhaḥ patrāyatē sāgarō mēlānandāyatē brahmāyatē lipikarō bhujagarājāyatē kathakas tadā kim api katham apy anēkāir yugasahasrāir abhilikhyatē kathyatē vā, ‘the pain that hath been felt by this maiden for thy sake might be written or told in some wise or in some way in many thousands of ages if the sky became paper, the sea an ink-well, the scribe Brāhma, (and) the narrator the Lord of Serpents’ (ed. Hall, pp. 238–239). The kāraṇamālā, or ‘chain of causes,’ is given the following definition in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (I. 103 ; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 246, Benares, 1898) : gumphaḥ kāraṇamālā syād yathāprakrāntakāraṇāiḥ, ‘a series (made) by causes proceeding one after the other is a kāraṇamālā,’ and an example is seen by Śivarāma in the description of Vāsavadattā’s palace as ajñātataṭasphāṭikapaṭ- ṭasukhaniṣaṇṇanidrāyamāṇaprāsādapārāvatābhiḥ, ‘with palace

INTRODUCTION 25 doves sleeping comfortably (because) perched on slabs of crystal from shores unknown' (ed. Hall, pp. 217–218). The udātta, or 'exalted,' is thus defined in the Sāhityadarpaṇa (No. 752; cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 240, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānandakārikā, 1. 162–163): lōkātiśayasampattivarṇanō "dāttam ucyatē yad vā "pi prastutasyā 'ṅgaṁ mahatāṁ caritaṁ bhavēt, 'the portrayal of extraordinary prosperity is called udātta, or it would even be the deeds of the great, (if they form) part of the subject in hand.' An illustration of this figure is found in another portion of the description just quoted: karpūrapūra- viracitapulinataṭaniviṣṭaninadānumīyamānarājahaṁsībhir, 'with flamingoes whose noise would imply that they had settled near the sand bank formed by the stream of camphor' (ed. Hall, p. 218), only one of extreme wealth being able to possess such a river.¹ The kāitavāpahnuti, or 'false concealment,' is defined by the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 28) as follows: kāitavāpahnutir vyaktāu vyājādyāir nihnutēḥ padāiḥ, 'kāitavāpahnuti (consists) in the manifestation of concealment by words of pretext and the like,' and finds exemplification in the Vāsavadattā in the passage ativēganipītajaladhijalaśaṅkhamālām iva balākācchalād udvamann adṛśyata jaladaḥ, 'the cloud seemed to vomit forth, like a crane, what appeared to be a series of ocean shells that had been drunk down too hastily' (ed. Hall, pp. 283–284). The lōkōkti, 'popular expression,' is thus defined by the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 156): lōkapravādānukṛtir lōkōktir iti kathyatē, 'the imitation of a popular colloquialism is called lōkōkti,' and finds an illustration in Subandhu's romance in the exhortation tad adhunā yadi tvaṁ sahapāṁśukrīḍanasamaduḥkhasukhō 'si ¹ Śivarāma rightly notes that this passage also contains the rhetorical figure anumāna, or 'inference' (cf. Kāvyaprakāśa, tr. Jhā, pp. 243-244, Benares, 1898; Kuvalayānan- dakārikā, 2. 10).

26 VĀSAVADATTĀ tadā mām anugaccha, 'now, therefore, if thou didst share the sorrows and joys of our playing together in the dust, then follow me' (ed. Hall, p. 82). The svabhāvōkti, or 'natural description,' receives the following definition in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 160; cf. Kāvyapra- kāśa, tr. Jhā, p. 235, Benares, 1898) : svabhāvōktiḥ svabhāvasya jātyādisthasya varṇanam, 'svabhāvōkti is the description of inherent nature consisting of characteristics and the like.' As an example from the Vāsava- dattā may be cited : paśyō 'dañcadavāñcadañcitavapuḥ paścārddhapūrvārddhabhāk stabdhōttānitapṛṣṭhaniṣṭhitamanāgbhugnāgralāṅgūlabhṛt daṃṣṭrākōṭiviśaṅkaṭāsyakuharaḥ kurvan saṭām utkaṭām utkarṇaḥ kurutē kramaṃ karipatāu krūrākṛtiḥ kēsarī, 'lo, with his bending body bending up and bending down, now with his hind quarters and now with his fore quarters, with the tip of his tail slightly bent along his hard, arched back, with his cavernous mouth monstrous with the tips of his fangs, making his mane huge, (and) with his ears erect, the horrible lion doth make attack upon the lord of elephants' (ed. Hall, p. 103). The kāvyārthāpatti, or 'poetic inference,' is defined as follows in the Kuvalayānandakārikā (1. 119): kāimutyēnā 'rthasaṃsiddhiḥ kāvyārthāpattir iṣyatē, 'an a fortiori attainment of a matter is regarded as kāvyārthā- patti.' It is exemplified by Subandhu in his heroine's letter to Kandarpakētu : pratyakṣadṛṣṭabhāvā 'py asthirahṛdayā hi kāminī bhavati svapnānubhūtabhāvā draḍhayati na pratyayaṃ yuvatiḥ, 'a loving maid is of unsteady heart even when she hath seen the feelings (of her lover) with her eyes ; a girl who hath learned his feelings only from a dream hath no assurance' (ed. Hall, p. 164). Literary and Ethical Merit of the Vāsavadattā. The Vāsa- vadattā apparently being written to display its author's skill in rhetoric, rather than his inventive powers in fiction, we are

INTRODUCTION 27 naturally led to consider what literary value we may assign to it. Here the ‘personal equation’ must inevitably play a part, and here the fundamental difference between Oriental and Occidental concepts must be duly recognised. In the West the subject- matter comes first in nearly every form of literary composition ; and the more tense and nervous the people, the more simple and direct is the style. In the East, on the contrary, the form is often more important than the matter, especially in periods of hyper-civilisation, such as was that during which Subandhu wrote. We must, therefore, consider the Vāsavadattā from the luxuriant atmosphere of the land of its author, not from the ‘practical’ point of view of the West. To me, at least, there is true melody in the long, rolling compounds, a sesquipedalian majesty which can never be equalled save in Sanskrit ; and the alliterations have a lulling music all their own to ears weary of the blatant discords of vaunted modern ‘progress.’ There is, on the other hand, a compact brevity in the paronomasias, which are, in most cases, veritable gems of terseness and twofold appropriateness, even though some are manifestly forced and are actually detrimental to the sense of the passages in which they occur. Yet in judging Subandhu for his faults, it must be re- membered that he created, at least so far as we now know, a new literary genre in India ; and if this fact be borne in mind, his blemishes appear to be marvellously few. In estimating his literary merits special stress should be laid on his descriptions. These are, it must be confessed, cloying from their abundance. They form the preponderating part of the entire romance, and the slender framework of the story is wellnigh lost beneath them. Yet despite this tropical luxuriance, the descriptions are not without beauty and appropriateness, whether they set forth the charms of mountain, forest, and stream, or portray the rāja’s valour and the loveliness of the heroine herself. The entire romance may, in a sense, be likened to India’s own architecture, where the whole structure is so overlaid with minute detail that the eye forgets the outlines of the building in amaze- ment at the delicate traceries which cover it.

28 VĀSAVADATTĀ Nor does it seem to me that the ethical standard of the Vāsavadattā can be objectionable to one of healthy mind. True, the East is not as the West; and there are personal descriptions more detailed than would be desirable in Occidental literature, together with evident approval of relations and ideals which the less sensual Western mind rightly condemns. There are passages, too, which I would gladly have omitted, had I felt that a faithful translator could do so. And yet, despite all this, I find in the romance no evidence of delight in uncleanness, such as nauseates, for example, in Petronius or in Martial. It is not pornographic; it is, at worst, unmoral, though its rigid adherence to all conventions, both in letter and, I think, in spirit, renders even unmorality almost too harsh an accusation. From an Indian point of view, unlightened by the radiance of Christianity and the morality which it inculcates, I should not hesitate to term the Vāsavadattā a moral work, especially in view of the conditions of life in mediæval India. Its atmosphere, luxuriant though it be, has never seemed to me to be debasing. It is by no means impossible that some will dissent from the views here expressed regarding the literary and moral quality of Subandhu's romance. If so, they may turn from the first Western translator of the Vāsavadattā to the first Western editor of the romance, Fitzedward Hall, who, in his Introduction, has unsparingly condemned the entire production both in its literary and in its ethical aspects—a precedent followed by Krishnamachariar in his sarcastic critique of the whole plot of Subandhu's work (Introd., pp. 50–66). Outline of the Plot of the Romance. The outline of the story of the Vāsavadattā is as follows : A king named Cintāmaṇi had a son Kandarpakētu, who was, like his father, the embodiment of all virtues. Once upon a time toward dawn, when true dreams come, the young prince saw in his sleep a vision of a maiden of some eighteen years, whose loveliness could not be surpassed. Jealous sleep forsook Kandarpakētu, who, with his friend Makaranda, left the city in his love-longing for the unknown princess. In their wanderings the pair came to the

INTRODUCTION 29 Vindhya mountains, and there, in the watches of the night, the sleepless prince overheard the conversation of two birds perched on a branch of the tree beneath which he lay. To the story of the husband-bird, trying to explain his late hours to his suspicious wife, Kandarpakētu listened, and was richly rewarded by what he heard. In the city of Pāṭaliputra on the Ganges, so the maina recounted, reigned the mighty monarch Śṛṅgāraśē- khara, who had an only daughter named Vāsavadattā. In the spring she, too, had met her fate in a dream—a youth of matchless beauty, whose name was Kandarpakētu. The con- fidante of the princess at this juncture was her maid, Tamālikā, who had volunteered to seek Kandarpakētu and bear to him a missive from the princess telling of her love. The lovers were now soon united at Pāṭaliputra, where Kandarpakētu was informed that Śṛṅgāraśēkhara, dismayed at his daughter’s unwedded state, had determined to marry her the very next day to the Vidyādhara prince Puṣpakētu. Kandarpakētu and Vāsavadattā accordingly returned almost immediately, by means of a magic steed, to the Vindhyas; but when the prince awoke in the morning, his beloved was no longer in the bower. Mad with sorrow, he was restrained from suicide only by a voice from heaven which promised him reunion with the princess. After many months of weary searching and waiting, he found Vāsavadattā turned to stone. His touch gave the statue life again, and she told him how, while two armies destroyed each other to gain her for their leaders, she had unwittingly intruded in the garden of a hermit, who laid upon her the curse of petrification until her lover should come. Thus, at last, the woes of the lovers were over, and returning to Kandarpakētu’s capital, delight was theirs ever afterward (for other summaries see Hall, Introd., pp. 29–43; Stréhly, Revue politique et littéraire, 44. 305–308; Krishnama- chariar, Introd., pp. 9–14; and the references given in the bibliography, below, pp. 197–199). From this brief outline of the plot of the Vāsavadattā it will be seen that Subandhu alludes to several incidents widely found in literature and folk-tales, such as talking birds, magic steeds,

30 VĀSAVADATTĀ and transformation. To all these I have sought to give parallels, especially from modern Indian folk-tales, in footnotes to the passages in which they occur. There seems to be no parallel, however, to the story of the Vāsavadattā as a whole, and, as already stated (p. 2), Subandhu evidently invented the slender plot of his own romance (cf. also Hall, Introd., pp. 1–6). Sanskrit ‘Estilo Culto’ Previous to Subandhu, and in Later Epigraphy. This allusion to comparative literature brings us to possible quasi-parallels to the style of the Vāsavadattā. The commingling of prose and verse which is characteristic of the ākhyāyikā, kathā, and other forms of gadya, or poetical prose (cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite, pp. 74–77, Paris, 1884), was by no means an innovation of Subandhu. It is found, for instance, in the Pañcatantra and the Jātakas, as well as in the gāthās of the Brāhmaṇas and the Northern Buddhists, even though these latter be more archaic than the prose in which they are set. Obscure as is the date of the beginning of the kāvya style in India, a flood of light has been cast on its early history by Bühler in his ‘Die indischen Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie,’ in SWAW. 122, Abhandlung 11. There he has shown that the eulogy of Vatsabhaṭṭi, preserved in an inscription in the Temple of the Sun at Maṇḍasōr, and dated 473–474 A.D., contains descriptions of cities, natural phenomena, and the like, together with compound words of inordinate length, and the rhetorical devices of anuprāsa, upamā, utprēkṣā, rūpaka, and (possibly) virōdha, all of which even fulfil the requirements laid down, for instance, by Daṇḍin in his Kāvyādarśa. The term kāvya itself occurs at least as early as 375–390 A. D. in Hariṣēṇa’s panegyric on Samudragupta, inscribed on a pillar at Allāhābād, which also contains long compounds and the rhetorical figures of varṇānuprāsa, rūpaka, upamā, and ślēṣa. The kāvya style is carried back to the early second half of the second century A.D. by the Girnār inscription of Rudradāman, which has long com- pounds and numerous anuprāsas, together with two upamās and one utprēkṣā. It is thus clear that a fairly developed kāvya was known in India as early as the second century of our era, not