A History of Sanskrit Literature c21.s2.4

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.