Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c19.s2: 2. The Bṛhatkathāçlokasaṁgraha of Budhasvāmin

A History of Sanskrit Literature c19.s2

Language
English

2. The Bṛhatkathāçlokasaṁgraha of Budhasvāmin

c19.s2.1

Budhasvāmin, the author of the *Çlokasaṁgraha*, abbreviation in Çlokas of the *Bṛhatkathā*, is no more than a name to us.² The manuscripts of his work are from Nepal, but there is no mark otherwise of his Nepalese origin, which must remain merely a conjecture. The form of name is not modern; but, as it is attested from early days down to the twelfth century, the probable date of one of the manuscripts, we reach no satisfactory result from that. If he is assigned to the eighth or ninth century, it is without any special ground save that the manuscript tradition suggests that a long time has elapsed before the extant manuscripts came into being.

c19.s2.2

² Ed. and trans. F. Lacôte, 1908 ff.

c19.s2.3

The work preserved is merely a fragment, though there is no adequate reason to hold that it is defective at the beginning or that it ever contained anything as to the origin of the collection of tales comparable to the legend in the Kashmirian versions and the *Nepālamāhātmya*. It is divided into cantos (*sargas*), of which twenty-eight survive, probably a mere fraction of the original, though it extends to 4,539 verses. We are carried at once *in medias res*; Pradyota dies, and is due to be succeeded by Gopāla, but the latter, learning that he is credited with having disposed of his father, insists on his brother Pālaka reigning in lieu (i). Pālaka is a bad ruler, and is induced by what he deems divine suggestion to abandon his throne to Avantivardhana, Gopāla's son (ii). The latter falls in love with the daughter of a Mātaṅga, Surasamañjarī, who, like her father, is really of the race of the Vidyādharas; he marries her, only to be snatched away with his bride by Ipphaka (Ityaka) a jealous Vidyādhara; they are rescued by another of these genii, and the emperor Naravāhana pronounces judgement in favour of the marriage (iii). The seers so admire the emperor's judgement that they demand from him the account of his achievement of empire; he consents to tell of the twenty-six marriages but only when Gaurī undertakes that his revelations will be kept religiously secret. He then tells the desire of his father Udayana for a son, which ultimately is granted (v, vi). When young Naravāhana grows up, he shows the signs of a Cakravartin, and a Vidyādhara, Amitagati, recognizes them and attaches himself to him; finally he wins the hand of Madanamañjukā, daughter of Kaliṅgasenā who, however, is a hetaira, thus rendering a true union impossible (vii–xi). One day Madanamañjukā disappears, but is found under an Açoka; she relates that Kubera has demanded that she should be really married to Naravāhanadatta; this desire is conceded, but shortly after the king makes the unpleasant discovery that in lieu of his beloved he is really consorting with Vegavatī. She reveals herself to him as sister of Mānasavega, a Vidyādhara, who has taken Madanamañjukā, but who cannot do her harm, just as Rāvaṇa could not put force on Sītā in her captivity. Naravāhanadatta celebrates a new marriage with her, but immediately after he is carried off by Mānasavega; falling to earth, he finds himself in a well but is rescued (xii–xv). He is now lost, and posing as a student commences a new adventure, ending in marriage with Gandharvadattā, daughter of Sānudāsa whose history is narrated at length (xvi–xviii). Two further marriages are in wait for him, that with Ajināvatī (xix, xx), and that with Priyadarçanā, whose bosom he recognized when it was revealed for a moment when she was posing as a merchant (xxi–xxvii). The next canto gives us only the beginning of a new marriage adventure, and, as so many more were still before him, the extent of the work can be guessed.

c19.s2.4

There is much to prove that Budhasvāmin followed far more faithfully his original than the Kashmirian authors. Assuming that the *Çlokasaṁgraha* was written on the same scale throughout, it may have contained 25,000 verses, certainly an adequate number but not necessarily excessive. On the other hand, comparison of relevant portions of the work with the *Kathāsaritsāgara* shows that the latter is very greatly abridged in the vital parts of the narrative, those intimately connected with Naravāhanadatta. It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, that the Kashmirian versions contain much added matter, especially the episodes which are merely in nominal connexion with the main story. This impression is certainly strengthened by the fact that the character of Madanamañcukā and her relations with Naravāhanadatta are much more coherently set out in the *Çlokasaṃgraha*; in the Kashmirian versions both her mother and herself are provided with royal connexions, Kaliṅgadatta and Madanavega, in order to spare us the discomfort of seeing a king marry a lady of the demi-monde. The bourgeois character of Gandharvadattā and her merchant father are similarly minimized in the Kashmirian version; they spare Ajināvatī, because she was a princess, but omit Priyadarçanā as being of middle-class origin. The *Çlokasaṃgraha* again in many details serves to explain obscurities in the Kashmirian version and to motive adequately incoherent episodes. On the other hand, it is fair to note that Budhasvāmin assumes that we know the tale of Udayana, and that we need not doubt that in the original *Bṛhatkathā* it was recognized, though Budhasvāmin preferred to confine his work to the adventures of Naravāhanadatta. From the paucity of his episodes we may fairly conclude that these were not over-numerous in the original, though it is impossible to stress this point.

c19.s2.5

Budhasvāmin is unquestionably worthy of praise for his art. Admitting his debt to Guṇāḍhya does not diminish the pleasure afforded by his lively outlook on life, the complex picture of adventure and marvels which he paints, or the romance of his well-conceived characters and the kaleidoscope of the swiftly altering scenes in which they are placed by fate or their own action. He restrains his desire for mannered description of which he doubtless felt competent by the necessity of getting on with the tale, and displays his virtuosity, partly by his large vocabulary with its not rare Sanskritizations of Prākrit terms which are doubtless sometimes derived from him by the lexicographers, and partly by the revival of obsolescent forms such as aorists. As a rule, he is simple, clear, fluent without verbosity, and if he seems on the whole rather devoid of ornament the magnitude of his undertaking may be deemed excuse enough for a very venial fault.

Linked texts (4)