12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Lost texts are common in the history of ancient Indian literature. Many must have perished altogether—even from memory—victim to neglect and hostile insects; a great number survive only as fragments or brief quotations embedded in other works, and sometimes only as titles. One of these lost works is Bṛhatkathā (“The Great Romance”). Legend tells us that the poet Guṇāḍhya composed it in Paiśācī, an obscure dialect of Prakrit. Now it exists only as a title; but once, to some commentators, it was a famous and important work. Witness Govardhānācāry's high esteem, for example—”We pay homage to the poets of the Śrī Rāmāyaṇa, the Bhārata, and the Bṛhatkathā,” or his remark, “Who would not say Guṇāḍhya is this very same man [Vyāsa] reborn?” Yet, to most scholiasts Guṇāḍhya and his illustrious work are but a memory and a faint one at that. How fortunate it is then that the work has survived, testament to its once great popularity, in several ver¬sions: three in Sanskrit, one in Prakrit, and one in Old Tamil.
1 Govardhanācārya, , The āryā-Saptśatī of Govardjanārya (ed. by Durgaprasad, Pandit & Parab, nath Pandurang, Kāvyamālā 1, Bombay: Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1886)Google Scholar, granthārambhavrajyā, verse 34. (Govardhana lived in the 12th or 13th century.)
2 Ibid., verse 33.
3 For a full discussion of ancient notices, see Lacôte, Félix, Essai sûr Guṇāḍhya et la Bṛhatkathā (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1908) [hereafter Essai]Google Scholar and my Ph.D. dissertation (University of Chicago, 1974). “The Bṛhatkathā: A Reconstruction from Bṛhatkathāślokasaṃgraha, Perunkatai and Vasude-vahiṃḍi,” pp. 16–57.
4 The Kathāsaritsāgara of Somadevabhaṭṭa (ed. by Durgaprasad, Pandit & Parab, Kasinath Pandurang; 3rd ed., rev. by Pansikar, Wasudev Laxman Shastri, Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press, 1915)Google Scholar.
5 The Ocean of Story, Being C. H. Tawney's Translation of Somadeva's Kathā Sarit Sāgara (Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1968)Google Scholar.
6 The Bṛhatkathāmanjarī of Kshemendra (ed. by Sivadatta, Mahamahopadyaya Pandit & Parab, Kashinatha Pandurang, Bombay: Nirnaya Sagara Press, Kāvyamālā 69, 1901)Google Scholar.
7 Bṛhat-Kathā Çlokasaṃgraha (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1908–1929)Google Scholar. The last 8 chapters of the translation are by Louis Renou (after Laĉote's death).
8 See footnote 3.
9 Ko﹒kuvēḷir iyaṟṟiya Perunkatai (ed. by Cāminātaiyar, U. V.; 2nd ed., Ceṉṉai [Madras]:Kēcari Accukkūṭam, 1935)Google Scholar.
10 Aiyangar, S. Krishnasvami, “Bṛhat-Kathā,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1906, pp. 689–92Google Scholar.
11 Essai, pp. 198–99.
12 Vasudevahiṇḍiprathamakhaṇḍam, ātmānanda-Jaina-Granthāmalā, Nos. 80 and 81 (2 vols.; ed. by Caturvijayamuni & Punyavijayamuni, Bhāvnagar: Bhāvnagar Śrījaina-ātmananda-Sabhā, 1930–31).
13 Harivaṃśapurāna. Ein Abschnitt aus der Apabhraṃśa-Welthistorie “Mahāpuraṇa Tisaṭṭhimahā-purisaguṇalaṃkāra” von Puṣpadanta, Als Beitrag zur Kenntniss des Apabhraṃśa und der Univer-salgeschicbte des Jainas (Hamburg: Friederischen, de Gruyter & Co., Alt- und neu-indische Studien, No. 5, Seminar für Kultur und Geschichte Indiens an der Hansischen Universität, 1936); “Eine neue Version der verlorenen Bṛhatkathā des Guṇāḍhya,” in Atti del XIX Congresso Internationale degli Orientalisti (Rome, 1935); “The Vasudevahiṇḍi, a Specimen of Archaic Jaina-Mahārāṣtrī,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, VIII, 2/3 (1935–37), pp. 319–33.
14 Essai, p. 147.
15 King of Kauśambī. Udayana is the father of Naravāhanadatta, whose adventures form the heart of most of the works being discussed here.
16 Jacobi, Hermann Georg (ed.), Sthavīrāvalicarita or Pariśiṣṭaparvan, being an appendix of the Trişaṣṭi-Salākapuruṣacarita (2nd ed.; Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, Bibliotheca Indica, No. 96, 1932) P. viiGoogle Scholar; cited by Alsdorf in “The Vasudeva-hindi” (n. 13 above), p. 320.
17 “The Vasudevahiṇḍi” (n. 13 above), p. 320.
18 “Neue Version” (n. 13 above), p. 345.
19 Of course, age aside, one can derive all existing versions from any one of them, by positing lost intermediate versions to explain the divergences of any pair of texts. But which missing intermediaries should we posit? All possible intermediaries would be equally possible, since there is no logical way of choosing among them. We would end up with several possible textual pedigrees, each of which explains all data in a totally different (but possible) way, with nothing but literary prejudice to choose among them.
20 “Materials” in Ronald S. Crane's sense: “everything in the diction of a work or in the things signified by the diction—that is, story (as distinct from plot), environing circumstances, types or signs of character, objects or indexes of emotion, attitudes, conceptions, images, modes of argument, and the like that can be referred to antecedents other than the writer's formal end and technical skill, whether the antecedents are in real life or in conventions of earlier literature.” “Critical and Historical Principles of Literary History” in The Idea of the Humanities and Other Essays Critical and Historical (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1967), II, p. 86Google Scholar.
21 In Vasudevahiṃḍi he is called Vasudeva (the Vasudeva who is the father of Vasudeva Kṛṣṇa).
22 Vidyādharas are a class of magicians in possession of (dhara) magical techniques (vidyā) that endow their possessors with extraordinary abilities such as the power to fly or to take any shape or to make oneself invisible. Vidyā are acquired by winning the favor of (sādhanā, ārādhana) or by “subduing” (vásīkaraṇa) Vidyās, female godlings who possess and dispense such powers. “Les Vidyādharas ne sont que des hommes, mais ils doivent a leur science magique [vidyā] des pouvoirs surnaturels. On ne naît pas Vidyādhara; un homme peut le devenir en acquérant la science ‘vidyādharesque’ “; Essai, p. 22n.
23 I borrow this useful phrase from Crane (“Persuasion” in The Idea [n. 20 above], II, p. 296); he uses more or less synonymously the phrases “essential story,” “governing conception” (p. 286), “central story” (p. 287), “basic story” (p. 289), “essential internal action” (p. 294).
24 Utayaṇa kumāra kāviyam (kuṟippuraiyuaṉ) (ed. by Cāminātaiyar, U. V., Māyilappur: Ceṉṉai Lācarṉal Accūkkuṭam, Kalaimakaḷ Veḷiyīṭu 5, 1935)Google Scholar; “Utitōtaya carittiram, Tamiḻ moḻipeyarppu,” a manuscript in Tamil, the original of which lies in the U. V. Cāminātaiyar Library, Madras (I give thanks to Pandit Prof. R. Visvanathan, attached to the library, for having the copy made for me).
25 Harinvaṃśpurāṇa (n. 13 above), p. 95.
26 On the evidence of the Kathāsaritsāgara.
27 See note 25 above.
28 In fact, in Daṇḍin (Kāvyādarśa 1.27) the books of a kathā (narrative) are called lambha; cited in Essai, pp. 221–22. Lacôte speculated that the Kathā par excellence behind Daṇḍin's generalizations was Guṇādhya's work (Essai, p. 222). Examples of works organized by lambha are Vādībhasiṃhasūri's Gadyācintāmaṇi and Kṣatracūdamaṇi. This has been carried over into classical Tamil: Cīvakacintāmaṇi of Tiruttakkatēvar, based on Vādībhasiṃhasūri's Kṣatracūdamaṇi, is organized by lampakam. It is in fact called manaṇūl, “The Book of Marriages” (Zvelebil, Kamil, History of Indian Literature: Tamil Literature, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974, p. 137)Google Scholar.
29 “On the Art of Entering Another's Body: A Hindu Fiction Motif,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, LVI (1917), pp. 1–43Google Scholar; “The Dohada or Craving of Pregnant Women: A Motif of Hindu Fiction,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, XL (1920), pp. 1–24Google Scholar; “The Fable of the Crow and the Palm-Tree, a Psychic Motif in Hindu Fiction,” American Journal of Philology, XL (1919), pp. 1–36Google Scholar; and in other papers.
30 Bloomfield, , “On Recurring Psychic Motifs in Hindu Fiction, and the Laugh and Cry Motif,” JAOS, XXXVI (1917), p. 54Google Scholar. “The more significant or salient traits of these stories—motifs as we may call them—are distributed or rearranged anew in every time and clime of India. … Thus any motif may turn up at any time, in any place, and practically in any connection in Hindu fiction and its tributaries” (ibid., p. 57). Bloomfield considered some of his papers (see n. 29 above) as contributions toward that Encyclopaedia.
31 “Principles” (n. 20 above), p. 62. Press, 1953): (a) p. 153, (b) p. 143, (c) pp. I43f.,
32 Crane, , The Language of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1953): (a) p. 153, (b) p. 143, (c) pp. 143f., (d) p. 166, (e) p. 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 “A Letter of the Authors expounding his whole intention in the course of this worke … to the Right noble, and Valorous, Sir Walter Raleigh” in Smith, J. C. & Selincourt, E. de (ed.), Spenser. Poetical Works. Ed. with Critical Notes (orig. 1912; reprint London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1975)Google Scholar. In the Introduction de Selincourt remarks that Faerie Queene is “a discursive romance. To his ‘general intention’ and meaning Spenser has kept with sufficient clearness, but that intention is, after all, something apart from the story, and encourages digression” (p. 50).
34 It is the weak presence of a central action which makes the work so inimical to Western experience and tastes. It also makes Kathāsaritsāgara the least useful version for any attempt at reconstructing the whole frame-story, though, ironically, it (along with its Kashmiri cousin Bṛhatkathā-maṉjarī) is the only version of Bṛhatkathā to contain a full (though mangled) account of Nara-vāhanadatta.
35 Guruparaṃparāgayaṃ vasudevacariyaṃ saṃgahaṃ vannaissaṃ (Vasudevahiṃḍi 1.16).
36 “Principles” (n. 20 above), p. 62.
