Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/342

 3 .8

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

Vrihatkathá and the Kathasaritsägara, I think we shall be more fortunate in regard to the clear

[Oct. 4, 1872.

wives and went to another country.

In tim'.

ing up of another point, viz., whether either of

one of the wives, who was pregnant, bore a son. 3. Further on in the same story of Putraka,

the two poets used the other's composition, or whether they both worked up independently the

mendra.

the legend of Brahmadatta is left out by Kshe

point we have first their statements, which affirm distinctly that each had before him a Prak

4. In the same story the Kathasaritsägara relates that Putraka puts up in the house of an old woman, during his stay at Åkarshikā. The

rit original, not a Sanskrit one.

Vrihatkatha calls

lost poem attributed to Gunadhya.

On this

A number

of other circumstances corroborate the truth of

. . this assertion. In the first place it seems to me impossible that Somadeva could have used

Kshemendra's work.

In very many passages

the latter gives so short and undefined an out

line of the narrative, that it would go beyond the power of anybody to construct out of that the connected and clear story given by Soma deva.

One example of this kind is contained

in the portion of the Vrihatkathá, translated

the

town

Áyajñikā

and

leaves out the particular circumstance alluded to. But it gives a long description of Mahen dravarman's daughter and the embarrassment and doubts experienced by Putraka, when he first saw her asleep. The conversation of the two watchmen, whose stanza decides him to awake the sleeping beauty is given, but differs from that of the Kathâsaritsägara.f I could easily add a dozen other instances, where particulars given in the Kathasaritsägara,

above, where all details about Upakośā’s and Vararuchi's first acquaintance and marriage are left out. Other instances from the Kathâpitha

are hinted at but not developed in the Vrihat kathâ. It seems to me, however, that those

—the only portion of the two poems which I have

worked on something else than Kshemendra's

carefully compared—are,

poem.

1. Kathasaritsägara I. 2, 8-23, gives a full account of how Kāmabhāti learned the reason why, in consequence of a curse, he became a Yaksha,

mendra used Somadeva's Kathasaritsägara. For he differs from the latter work frequently

by overhearing a conversation between Śiva and Pârvati; the Vrihatkathá states briefly, that Kāmabhūti heard Siva, who haunts burial places, tell the reason of his being cursed, but omits to mention with whom Siva conversed,” nor does

it give the story explaining why Siva dwells in burial-places.

adduced will suffice

to show that Somadeva

On the other hand, it is not likely that Kshe

in a manner which seems to indicate that his statements are not mere fanciful alterations of

Somadeva's narrative. where

In

several

such differences occur,

passages,

Kshemendra's

statements are more sober and simpler than Somadeva's. Thus, whilst in the passage re garding Pânini's and Vararuchi's disputation,

2. The Kathâsaritsägara, (I. 3, 4-22), gives a full account of the descent of Putraka, the founder of Pātaliputra, how his father and un cles were born at Kanakhala, migrated to Rājagriha, and thence to Chinchini, married the three daughters of Bhojika and finally left them,

clouds gave a great growl and thereby the grammar of Indra (defended by Vararuchi) disappeared from the world,'S Kshemendra con tents himself with saying ‘that the growl of

and how one of the forsaken wives was delivered

the grammar of Indra."

of Putraka. Instead of this story the Vrihat kathá states drily, ‘During a great drought,

story Somadeva tells us, that ‘Vararuchi obtain

ed a revelation of Pānini's grammar from Siva

three brothers, Brahmans, forsook their three

and the permission to complete it by adding the


 * Vrihatkatha 5b. 4.—

sa prishtah prāha yakshoham pāpamitranishevanāt | s'apto dhanādhipatinâ ghorăm práptah pisachatamſ idam nirudakam sthānam sushkantakipädapam säpo punatam atyugram påpenädhishthitam mayå'ſ bhavitā sºapamoksho me pusahpadantasamāgamāt s'mas'ana väsinah sambhoh sºrutam kathayato maāyſ

nisamyeti varastasya sanaih kātyāyanah katham ſityädi. t Vrihatkathá, 7b, 2,-anávrishtihate kåle bhrātaro bråh manāstrayah

bhāry āstisrah parityajya pură jagmurdigantaram||

Somadeva says that “Siva standing in the

Siva confused Vararuchi and made him forget Further on in the same

hemnâ pratyahalabadhena sahasrena sa balakah |

kälena putrakābhikhyah prāpya rājyamjanapriyah|ityädi. I Wrihatkathá, fol. 8.6.nidrāmudritalolalochanaruchibhrājishnu karnotpalām. ardhavritta nishedhahumkritipadām jrimbhābhirāmām muhuh

yah präpyendumukhim svayam na sahasa kanthe samā lambate.

sa prāyah samayāya dagdhavidhiná spishtah silaputra kah|ityākarnyetyädi. ||

ajijanat sutam kāle tasāmekaiva garbhini |

himalabhah sadā tasya múrdhni gauripater varāt|

§ Kathásaritsägara, I. 4, 24-25.