Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/338

 304

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

The former of these two poets is at least as old as Bānabhatta, the protegé and court-poet of King Harshavardhana who lived in the first half of the 7th century, and the latter is certainly

older, since Bāna praises his work in the Har shacharita.” It appears to me incontestable, that both Dandi and Subandhu speak of the

Vrihātkathá, which, according to Somadeva's statement, was the basis of his Kathasaritsägara. For Dandi says that the Vrihatkatha was composed in the dialect of the goblins, and the Vrihatkathâ which Subandhu knew

[Oct. 4, 1872.

phon of which runs as follows: “iti vyāsa dāsaparākhyakshemendravirachitā vrihatkathâ sampürná, granthasań [khyā] 7080, Samvat 1742 warshe bhādrapadamāse Śuklapakshe 11 guruvâra samāpta || $risivam astu || Srirâma, i.e.— Thus the Vrihatkathá composed by Kshemen dra called Vyāsadasapara is completed. Num ber of granthas (16 syllables) 7080, Samvat 1742 (A.D. 1685) etc. According to the Anu kramanikáſ or Index, which apparently was made by the poet himself, it should contain the

following Lambhakas or sections : 1. Kathâpitha. 10. Vishamaśīlā.

was divided into Lambas, just as Somadeva's work is made up of Lambakas, On this evid ence it may, therefore, be safely asserted,

2. Kathâvaktra. 3. Lāvānaka.

11. Madirāvati. 12. Padmavati.

that Somadeva's statement, that he translat ed and abbreviated a Vrihatkathá written in

4. Naravāhanajanma 5. Chaturdărikā.

13 Panchalambhaka. 14. Ratnaprabhā.

6. Sūryaprabhā.

15. Alaſkāravati.

the low popular dialect, to which the writers on Alaſkāra and grammar give the name Pai Śāchi, deserves full credit,f and it is highly pro bable that Somadeva's original was in existence at least 1,300 years ago. But it remains an open question whether Gumálhya was really the author of the old Vrihatkathá and whether he was

a contemporary of Sātavāhana or Sălivāhana; of Paithān. It also remains undecided, in what manner Somadeva treated his original, whether he merely contented himself with abridging it, or whether he embellished it by additions of his own—a point which is of the highest import ance in determining the value of his book for the history of the Sanskrit fable books.

It gives me great satisfaction, that by the reco very $ of the Vrihatkathá of Kshem in dra, I am able fully to corroborate the above conclu

7. Mandanamanchuká. 16. Saktiyasas. 17. Mahārājyābhisheka. 9. Sasänkavati. 18. Suratamanjari. Actually however I find only lambhas I–IX. and XIV-XVIII. and among these lambha IX. is incomplete." 8. Welä.

The names of the Lambhas of Kshemendra's

story, though the order is changed, correspond exactly to those of the Lambakas of the Katha

saritsägara and the contents of the sections of the Vrihatkathá, as far as I have compared them, are almost identical with those of the corresponding chapters of the Kathâsaritsägara. Kshemendra writes in the Anushtubh metre like Somadeva. But he does not know the division of the Lambas

into Tarangas. His style is not so flowing as So madeva's and in his excessive eagerness for brevi

sions, which are based on Dr. F. E. Hall’s re

ty, he sometimes becomes obscure.

searches, and to determine more accurately the value of Somadeva's book. I lately acquired for the Government of Bombay a MS., the colo

give an idea of Kshemendra's manner of narrating, I subjoin the part of the Kathâpitha, which corresponds to Kathasaritsägara, I. 4, 1-92.”

+ I may mention that Pandit Premchandra Tarkavågis'a, the editor of the Kāvyādarsa, holds the same opinion, vide his gloss on K. I. 38. ! Regarding the identity of Sãtavāhana and Sālivahana, see Wilson, Coll. Works, III. 181, note. Weber, Halasapta
 * Hall, l.c. p. 14.

mahārāīyābhishekas' cha pas'châtsuratamanjari—fol. 349a (92a) line 2 sqq. 65–73; Chaturd. 73–85; Sūryap. 85-98; Madanam. 98-130 ; Velā 130-134; Sasankav. 13 -256, where a break occurs: Ratnag, 1-26; Alamk. 26-45; Sahti, 45-78; Mahārājyābh. 78-81; Suratamanjari, 81-92. The last page 94 is again
 * Katháp. fol. 1-22; Katháv. 22-44; Lavan 44-65; Naravāh

sati, p. 2. seq.

§ If I speak of the recovery of this work, I mean simply that, as far as I know, no other copy of the book is accessi ble to European Sanskritists. The work seems to have been

in the hands of Prof. Wilson's pandits.

See Aufrecht,

Oxford Catalogue, p. 84a.
 * Anukramanikā–

kathâpitham kathâvaktram lambholāvānakastathâ | naravāhanajanmäkhyah syāchchaturdărika tatah || Sūryaprabhastato jñeyastato madanamanchukā | velālambastathah proktāh syāchchhasankavati tatah || lambho vishamas'ilākhyastatha tu madiravati | Padmävati náma lambhastatah syāt panchalambhakah || ratnaprabhā chatadanu tatolamkaravatyapi |

tatah saktiyas a lambhakotha bahukautukah ||

In order to

numbered 350.

avāpamupakos'akhyāmupavarshaguroh sutām || 1 || upakāsāmavāpyāham nilanirajalochanām smarasāmrājyamabhavam bhājanam sukhasampadām || 2 || vyālindradattasahite sarvajie mayi vis'rute |
 * Vrihatkathá, fol. 9a, 1.6:iti s'rutva garor vidyāh prāpya sarvāh sukhoshitah |

pāhinirmāma varshasya sishyah purvam jadás'ayah || 3 || tapasā sankarátprāpya navan vyākaranam vasſi | dininyashtau vivāde me prativādi samobhavat || 4 || mayajite tatas tasmin humkarena vimohayan | jahara no harah kopädaindravyākaranasmritim || 5 ||