________________
196
Amrita
Virabhadra, of unknown date. From the introductory remarks of this writer, we come to understand that the original work was a fine piece of poetic composition, and equally difficult on account of the vast amount of Deśī words used by the writer. And we may readily believe that the loss of the work is to be attributed to the same cause.
Early in the 6th c. must have been written the great prose work Vasudevahindi&. It is a composite product of two authors, Samghadāsa and Dharmasenaganin. That the work is old is proved by the fact that so ancient an author as Jinabhadrakṣamāśramaņa refers to it in his Visesaņavati, and that later writers like Haribhadra and Malayagiri refer to it and use it in writing their commentaries on the Āvaśyaka-Niryukti. According to Pattāvalis, Jinabhadra is assigned to the 7th c. A. D. and so our author must be a little earlier.
...
The work is called a Hindi, a peculiar form of composition meaning the transmigratory 'wanderings of the hero. The present work is divided into 100 Lambakas, and gives a good deal of general information about the origin of the story and other extraneous matter. The chief aim of the work is to give the life of Vasudeva and Krsna, who are made contemporary of Aristanemi. But the first part of the work contains another practically independent work the Dhammillahindi which is said to represent the good effects of meritorious deeds in this very life, and thus stands in contrast with the other in which they take effect in the next life. As usual, this story is also an adaptation of the Brahmanic epic dealing with the fortunes of the Kuru race; and it also appears to make use of Harivamśa. The striking feature of this remoulding is the insignificant place to which the Pāndavas and Kauravas are relegated, and the prominence in which the Harivamsa emerges, a feature found in its formation in the Brahmanic epic itself.
How far our writers have made use of the older work of Bhadrabāhu, we cannot know. But the model of our work appears to be the famous Brhatkathā of Gunādhya, which is now found in late Sanskrit renderings of dubious accuracy. This is indicated by the use of Lambakas, to denote the divisions and the use of such terms as Mukha, Pratimukha, śarīra etc. to designate the various parts of the story, which terms later vanish from Indian literature. The style of the work is simple, but much uneven; in that sometimes the author tries to show his poetic skill in describing towns and countries, with dubious success. Whenever he comes to the narration of the story he becomes fairly simple and effective, and his narrative moves with