Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c21.s2: 2. The Daçakumāracarita

A History of Sanskrit Literature c21.s2

Language
English

2. The Daçakumāracarita

c21.s2.1

It is very probable that it was from Guṇāḍhya that Daṇḍin derived the conception of the plot of the romance.² The device by which Naravāhanadatta and his companions, reunited after strange adventures, repeat the account of what has befallen each of them is strongly suggestive of the device by which the ten princes of Daṇḍin's tale expound their fortunes when reunited after their original separation. The idea is ingenious, for it provides a certain measure of unity in what else would be merely a series of unconnected stories. If Hertel is right, however, Daṇḍin's plan would have extended far beyond what he has accomplished; he finds allusions to a scheme which would have told of the history of king Kāmapāla and his five wives in three different births on earth, so that what we have is a mere fragment. It may be true that Daṇḍin contemplated some such work, but there is really no proof of it, and still less that he ever actually wrote it. Indeed, Hertel himself holds that he left even the *Daçakumāracarita* itself as we have it, with an abrupt beginning and incomplete, his purpose of carrying out his undertaking having been frustrated for some cause or other. This is of course conjectural, nor can any conclusion be drawn from the fact that so many efforts³ were later made to supply a beginning and to end the text to prove that, if these parts of Daṇḍin's work had ever existed, they would not have been lost. The fates of books are far too uncertain to admit of such reasoning being decisive.

c21.s2.2

² Ed. G. Bühler and P. Peterson, BSS. 1887-91 (2nd ed. by Agashe); A. B. Gajendragadkar, Dharwar. Trans. J. J. Meyer, Leipzig, 1902; J. Hertel, Leipzig, 1922; Weber, *Ind. Streifen*, i. 308 ff.

c21.s2.3

³ For one by Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa see Appendix in Agashe's ed.; there is one in verse by Vināyaka; a continuation by Cakrapāṇi and a revision by Gopīnātha (IOC. i. 1551 f.) exist.

c21.s2.4

What is certain is that we have in our manuscript quite frequently beside the text of the work proper an introduction, Pūrvapīṭhikā, and in one manuscript and its derivatives a conclusion, Uttarapīṭhikā. That these are no part of Daṇḍin's work seems suggested at once by the names, and this conclusion is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. The Pūrvapīṭhikā ought to lead up merely to the first tale in the text of the romance, but in point of fact it gives tales of two princes in order to make up the number of ten, Daṇḍin's own work extending only to eight, the last imperfect. Moreover, the contents of the introduction by no means correspond precisely with the facts made clear in the romance itself. Thus, while in the ancestry of the princes Rājavāhana, Puṣpodbhava, Apahāravarman, and Upahāravarman there is no discrepancy of moment, the accounts of Arthapāla, Pramati, and Viçruta cannot be reconciled. In Daṇḍin Arthapāla and Pramati are Kāmapāla's sons by Kāntimatī and Tārāvalī, in the introduction Arthapāla is Tārāvalī's son and Pramati is not his half-brother but merely a son of the minister Sumati, a misunderstanding of a passage in Daṇḍin. Viçruta, again, to Daṇḍin is descended from the merchant Vaiçravaṇa and grandson of Sindhudatta, in the introduction it is the minister Padmodbhava who is his grandfather. It is probable that the ancestries of the princes Somadatta, Mitragupta, and Mantragupta given in the introduction are mere figments, that of Mantragupta being given as Sumantra from a mere misreading in Daṇḍin, while in reality the princes in Daṇḍin's own view were sons of the three remaining wives of Kāmapāla himself, and therefore half-brothers of the hero Rājavāhana. Moreover, when in Daṇḍin Caṇḍavarman finds Rājavāhana with the princess, he denounces him as an impostor who has under the cloak of religion corrupted the people and made them believe in false gods, but the introduction has nothing of this, and in lieu of making the prince a clever trickster has to provide him with an accomplice in the shape of a magician in order to accomplish his ends. So, again, in Daṇḍin we hear of a younger brother as guilty of aiding the prince to obtain access to the princess's harem, while the introduction has provided him with the magician for this very end. Upahāravarman's own tale is that he was brought up by a monk, the introduction gives the duty to the king. It is clear, too, that the scene at the end of the introduction does not accord with the beginning of the text. Daṇḍin conceives Rājavāhana and his princess as already having enjoyed the sweets of love, and depicts the prince seeking to win a revival of her passion by tales of the ancient loves of gods and saints,¹ to which she responds. The introduction with incredible bad taste treats the occasion as the first scene between the two, and represents the prince as seeking to make his love repeat what he has been telling her, for the pleasure of listening to her doing so. Moreover, the matter imparted to the loving maiden was not in his view erotic, but an account of the fourteen worlds as a lesson on Brahmanical cosmography. We may safely say that the author of this stupidity was not Daṇḍin, whose own purpose doubtless was, as in chapter vi, to insert just before our present text some anecdotes of ancient love stories. The case against the Uttarapīṭhikā is even more convincing, for it is obvious from the end of the text that Daṇḍin was about to paint the model of a wise ruler, a task which the present conclusion does not even attempt. The fact that other efforts to supply an introduction are known is additional proof that the existing Pūrvapīṭhikā was not accorded general acceptance as Daṇḍin's work. It is possible that two hands are to be distinguished even in the Pūrvapīṭhikā itself.

c21.s2.5

¹ Cf. the *Kāmasūtra's* insistence on the love of women for tellers of tales (p. 260).

Linked texts (2)