________________
304
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[Oct. 4, 1872.
The former of these two poets is at least as old phon of which runs as follows: "iti vyâsaas Bâņabhatta, the protege and court-poet of dâsaparåkhyakshemendravirachitâ vșihatkathâ King Harshavardhana who lived in the first half sampârnâ, granthasan [khya] 7080, Samvat of the 7th century, and the latter is certainly 1742 varshe bhadrapadamase suklapakshe 11 older, since Bâna praises his work in the Har- guruvara samapta srišivam astusrîrâma, i.e. shacharita. It appears to me incontestable, Thus the Vrihatkathâ composed by Kshementhat both Dandi and Subandhu speak of the dra called Vyâsadâsapara is completed. NumVsihatkathâ, which, according to Somadeva's ber of granthas (16 syllables) 7080, Samvat statement, was the basis of his Kathâsaritsagara. 1742 (A.D. 1685) etc. According to the Anu For Dandi says that the Vțihatkathi was kramaņikál or Index, which apparently was composed in the dialect of the goblins, made by the poet himself, it should contain the and the Vțihatkathế which Subandhu knew following Lambhakas or sections : was divided into Lambas, just as Somadeva's 1. Kathôpitha. 10. Vishamalila. work is made up of Lambakas, On this evid-] 2. Kathâvaktra. 11. Madiravati. ence it may, therefore, be safely asserted, 3. Lâvânaka.
12. Padmavati. that Somadeva's statement, that he translat- 4. Naravâhanajanma 13 Panchalambhaka. ed and abbreviated Vsihatkatha written in 5. Chaturdârika. 14. Ratnaprabha. the low popular dialect, to which the writers 6. Süryaprabhâ. 15. Alankâravati. on Alankara and grammar give the name Pai- 7. Mandanamanchuka. 16. Saktiyasas. bichi, deserves full credit, and it is highly pro- 8. Vela.
17. Mahârâjyabhisheka. bable that Somadeva's original was in existence 9. Sasankavati. 18. Suratamanjarî. at least 1,300 years ago. But it remains an Actually however I find only lambhas I-IX. open question whether Gupâdhya was really the and XIV-XVIII. and among these lambha author of the old Vrihatkatha and whether he was IX, is incomplete. a contemporary of Satavahana or Šalivahanat of The names of the Lambhas of Kshemendra's Paithân. It also remains undecided, in what
story, though the order is changed, correspond manner Somadeva treated his original, whether exactly to those of the Lambakas of the Kathhe merely contented himself with abridging it, saritsagara and the contents of the sections of the or whether he embellished it by additions of his | Vșihatkathâ, as far as I have compared them, are own-a point which is of the highest import- almost identical with those of the corresponding ance in determining the value of his book for chapters of the Kathâsaritsagara. Kshemendra the history of the Sanskrit fable books,
writes in the Anushtubh metre like Somadeva. It gives me great satisfaction, that by the reco- But he does not know the division of the Lambas very of the Vrihatkatha of Kshemindra, I into Tarangas. His style is not so flowing as Soam able fully to corroborate the above conclu- madeva's and in his excessive eagerness for brevisions, which are based on Dr. F. E. Hall's re- ty, he sometimes becomes obscure. In order to searches, and to determine more accurately the give an idea of Kshemendra's manner of narrating, value of Somadeva's book. I lately acquired I subjoin the part of the Kathấpítha, which for the Government of Bombay a M8., the colo- corresponds to Kathasaritsagara, I. 4, 1-92.• • Hall, 1. c. p. 14.
maharajyabhishekas' cha pas'chátsuratamanjari-fol. 349a I may mention that Pandit Premchandra Tarkavagis's, (92a) line 2 sqq. the editor of the K vykdars, holds the same opinion, vide Kathap. fol. 1-22; Kathiy. 22-44; LAVA 44-65; Naravah his glons on K. I. 88.
65-78 : Chaturd. 78-85; Suryap. 85-98; Madanam. 98-180; Regarding the identity of S'ktav hans and Selivihane, Vald 180-184: S'as'lakav. 13-256, where a break occurs : see Wilson, Coll. Works, III. 181, note. Weber, Halasapta- Ratnag. 1-26; Alamk. 26-45; S'abti, 45-78; Maharajyabh. s'all, p. 2. seq.
78-81; Suratamanjari, 81-92. The last page 94 is again If I speak of the recovery of this work, I mean simply numbered 350. that, as far as I know, no other copy of the book is accessible to European Sanskritista. The work seems to have been
• Vribatkathe, fol. 9a, 16:in the hands of Prof. Wilson's pandits. Soe Aufrecht,
iti srutvå garor vidyak prâpya farvih sukhoshitaki Oxford Catalogue, p. 84a.
avapamupakos'kkhyamupavarshaguroh sutâm | 1 | Anukramanike
upakBo'lmavâpy&ham ntlanfrajalochanim kathâpitham kathavaktram lambho lávknakastaths
smarasimrajyam abhavam bhajanam sukhasampadam 2 naravilhanajanmåkbyah syachchaturdênike tata!
vyadindradattasabite sarvajte mayi vis'rate Saryaprabhastato jeyastato madansmanebuke velÁlambastata prokti syêchchhas'&nkavati tatal
påņinirakma varshasya s'ishyal purvam jadas'aya|| 8 | lambho vishamas's Akhyastathi tu madirkatt
tapasi s'ankaråtprêpya nava- vykkaranam vas't Padmavati nama lambhastatal syft panchalambhakal
din nyaahtau vivade me pratividt samobbavat 41 ratnaprabhê cha tadanu tatolamkravatyapi
may jite tatas tasmin humkarena vimobayan tatal s'aktiyas'& lambhakotha babakautaka
jahira no haral kopádaindravyákaranasmritim 151
