A History of Sanskrit Literature c21.s5.1

c21.s5.1

Though the name Vāsavadattā is famous in Indian literature, we do not find in it any parallel for the tale of Subandhu, unless we infer from the mere name recorded as the subject of an Ākhyāyikā by Patañjali on Kātyāyana² that he knew of this story, a most implausible theory. Nor is it of much consequence whether we regard the work as falling technically into the category of Ākhyāyikā or Kathā. Bāṇa³ indeed, seems to suggest the former appellation as appropriate, but while Daṇḍin⁴ is no doubt right in dismissing controversy on this point as foolish, it is clear that, if distinctions are made, the *Vāsavadattā* accords with the nature of a Kathā. Thus, if we take the essential feature of an Ākhyāyikā to be that it is told by the hero, is divided into Ucchvāsas, has passages in Vaktra⁵ and Aparavaktra metres, these characteristics do not suit the text; if, on the other hand, we adopt Amarasiṅha's⁶ distinction and make the subject-matter of the Ākhyāyikā traditional as opposed to invented by the poet, the *Vāsavadattā* seems to disagree with the description of the Ākhyāyikā. The similarity of the tale to the manner of the *Kādambarī*, which is clearly a Kathā, is practically decisive in favour of that genre.¹ But, accepting as we may the originality in some degree of the poet, we may admit that he makes use of the whole stock-in-trade of Indian narratives, the seeing in a dream of one's future mate, the overhearing of the chatter of birds, magic steeds, the fatal effect of ascetics' curses, transformations of shape, and recovery of one's true form by a lover's embrace. It is essentially the aim of the poet not to trouble himself with the plot or the characters but to display his virtuosity in language.