________________
3 08
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
Vrihatkatha and the Kathâsaritsâgara, I think we shall be more fortunate in regard to the clearing up of another point, viz., whether either of the two poets used the other's composition, or whether they both worked up independently the lost poem attributed to Gunâdhya. On this point we have first their statements, which affirm distinctly that each had before him a Prakrit original, not a Sanskrit one. 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 outline of the narrative, that it would go beyond the power of anybody to construct out of that the connected and clear story given by Somadeva. One example of this kind is contained in the portion of the Vrihatkathâ, translated above, where all details about Upakośâ's and Vararuchi's first acquaintance and marriage are left out. Other instances from the Kathâpîtha -the only portion of the two poems which I have carefully compared-are,
1. Kathâsaritsâgara I. 2, 8-23, gives a full account of how Kanabhûti learned the reason why, in consequence of a curse, he became a Yaksha, by overhearing a conversation between Śiva and Pârvati; the Vrihatkathâ states briefly, that Kanabhûti heard Siva, who haunts burial places, tell the reason of his being cursed, but omits to mention with whom Śiva conversed, nor does it give the story explaining why Śiva dwells in burial-places.
2. The Kathâsaritsagara, (I. 3, 4-22), gives a full account of the descent of Putraka, the founder of Pâtaliputra, how his father and uncles were born at Kanakhala, migrated to Rajagriha, and thence to Chinchinî, married the three daughters of Bhojika and finally left them, and how one of the forsaken wives was delivered of Putraka. Instead of this story the Vṛihatkatha states drily, During a great drought, three brothers, Brahmans, forsook their three
Vrihatkatha 56. 4.
sa prishtah praha yakshoham papamitranishevanat s'apto dhanadhipatina ghorâm praptak pis'achatam idam nirudakam sthanam sushkantakipâdapam | sapo punatam atyugram påpenadhishṭhitam mayall bhavità s'apamoksho me pusahpadantasamagamat | s'mas'ana vasinah s'ambhoh s'rutam kathayato masy nis'amyeti varastasya s'anaik katyayanak katham [ityadi.
† Vrihatkatha, 76. 2,-anâvrishtihate kåle bhrataro brâhmanastrayak
bbaryastisrah parityajya pura jagmurdigantaram ajljanat autam kale täsämekaiva garbhin! | himalabhah sada tasya mardhni gauripater varat||
[OCT. 4, 1872.
wives and went to another country. In tim one of the wives, who was pregnant, bore a son.†
3. Further on in the same story of Putraka, the legend of Brahmadaṭṭa is left out by Kshemendra.
4. In the same story the Kathâsaritsâgara relates that Putraka puts up in the house of an old woman, during his stay at Ákarshikâ. The Vrihatkathâ calls the town Ayajika and leaves out the particular circumstance alluded to. But it gives a long description of Mahendravarman'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 Kathâsaritsagara.‡
I could easily add a dozen other instances, where particulars given in the Kathâsaritsâgara, are hinted at but not developed in the Vrihatkathâ. It seems to me, however, that those adduced will suffice to show that Somadeva worked on something else than Kshemendra's poem.
On the other hand, it is not likely that Kshemendra used Somadeva's Kathâsaritsagara. For he differs from the latter work frequently in a manner which seems to indicate that his statements are not mere fanciful alterations of Somadeva's narrative. In several passages, where such differences occur, Kshemendra's statements are more sober and simpler than Somadeva's. Thus, whilst in the passage regarding Pânini's and Vararuchi's disputation, Somadeva says that Śiva standing in the clouds gave a great growl and thereby the grammar of Indra (defended by Vararuchi) disappeared from the world,'§ Kshemendra contents himself with saying that the growl of Śiva confused Vararuchi and made him forget the grammar of Indra.' Further on in the same story Somadeva tells us, that' Vararuchi obtained a revelation of Pânini's grammar from Śiva and the permission to complete it by adding the
hemna pratyahalabadhena sahasrena sa balakah I kalena putrakabhikhyah präpya rajyam janapriyah|| ityadi.|| Vrihatkatha, fol. 8.6.
nidramudritalolalochanaruchibhrajishnu karpotpalam. ardhâvritta nishedhahumkritipadam jrimbhabhiramām mubuk |
lambate.
yak prapyendumukhim svayam na sahasa kapthe samasa prayah samayaya dagdhavidhina arishtah s'ilaputrakahityakarnyetyádí.
Kathasaritsagara, L. 4, 24-25.
