← Table of contents
The Kādambarī of Bāṇa

INTRODUCTION.1

C. M. (Caroline Mary) Ridding translation

INTRODUCTION.1

The story of Kādambarī is interesting for several reasons. It is a standard example of classical prose; it has enjoyed a long popularity as a romance; and it is one of the comparatively few Sanskrit works which can be assigned to a certain date, and so it can serve as a landmark in the history of Indian literature and Indian thought.

The Author.

Bāṇa himself died, leaving ‘Kādambarī’ unfinished, and his son Bhūshaṇabhaṭṭa took it up in the midst of a speech in which Kādambarī’s sorrows are told, and continued the speech without a break, save for a few introductory verses in honour of his father, and in apology for his having undertaken the task, ‘as its unfinished state was a grief to the good.’ He continued the story on the same plan, and with careful, and, indeed, exaggerated, imitation of his father’s style.

The Plot of Kādambarī.

The story of ‘Kādambarī’ is a very complex one, dealing as it does with the lives of two heroes, each of whom is reborn twice on earth.

(1–47) A learned parrot, named Vaiçampāyana, was brought by a Caṇḍāla maiden to King Çūdraka, and told him how it was carried from its birthplace in the Vindhyā Forest to the hermitage of the sage Jābāli, from whom it learnt the story of its former life.

(47–95) Jābāli’s story was as follows: Tārāpīḍa, King of Ujjayinī, won by penance a son, Candrāpīḍa, who was brought up with Vaiçampāyana, son of his minister, Çukanāsa. In due time Candrāpīḍa was anointed as Crown Prince, and started on an expedition of world-conquest. At the end of it he reached Kailāsa, and, while resting there, was led one day in a vain chase of a pair of kinnaras to the shores of the Acchoda Lake. (95–141) There he beheld a young ascetic maiden, Mahāçvetā, who told him how she, being a Gandharva princess, had seen and loved a young Brahman Puṇḍarīka; how he, returning her feeling, had died from the torments of a love at variance with his vow; how a divine being had carried his body to the sky, and bidden her not to die, for she should be reunited with him; and how she awaited that time in a life of penance. (141–188) But her friend Kādambarī, another Gandharva princess, had vowed not to marry while Mahāçvetā was in sorrow, and Mahāçvetā invited the prince to come to help her in dissuading Kādambarī from the rash vow. Love sprang up between the prince and Kādambarī at first sight; but a sudden summons from his father took him to Ujjayinī without farewell, while Kādambarī, thinking herself deserted, almost died of grief.

(188–195) Meanwhile news came that his friend Vaiçampāyana, whom he had left in command of the army, had been strangely affected by the sight of the Acchoda Lake, and refused to leave it. The prince set out to find him, but in vain; and proceeding to the hermitage of Mahāçvetā, he found her in despair, because, in invoking on a young Brahman, who had rashly approached her, a curse to the effect that he should become a parrot, she learnt that she had slain Vaiçampāyana. At her words the prince fell dead from grief, and at that moment Kādambarī came to the hermitage.

(195–202) Her resolve to follow him in death was broken by the promise of a voice from the sky that she and Mahāçvetā should both be reunited with their lovers, and she stayed to tend the prince’s body, from which a divine radiance proceeded; while King Tārāpīḍa gave up his kingdom, and lived as a hermit near his son.

(202 to end) Such was Jābāli’s tale; and the parrot went on to say how, hearing it, the memory of its former love for Mahāçvetā was reawakened, and, though bidden to stay in the hermitage, it flew away, only to be caught and taken to the Caṇḍāla princess. It was now brought by her to King Çūdraka, but knew no more. The Caṇḍāla maiden thereupon declared to Çūdraka that she was the goddess Lakshmī, mother of Puṇḍarīka or Vaiçampāyana, and announced that the curse for him and Çūdraka was now over. Then Çūdraka suddenly remembered his love for Kādambarī, and wasted away in longing for her, while a sudden touch of Kādambarī restored to life the Moon concealed in the body of Candrāpīḍa, the form that he still kept, because in it he had won her love. Now the Moon, as Candrāpīḍa and Çūdraka, and Puṇḍarīka, in the human and parrot shape of Vaiçampāyana, having both fulfilled the curse of an unsuccessful love in two births on earth, were at last set free, and, receiving respectively the hands of Kādambarī and Mahāçvetā, lived happily ever afterwards.

The plot is involved, and consists of stories within each other after the fashion long familiar to Europeans in the ‘Arabian Nights’; but the author’s skill in construction is shown by the fact that each of the minor stories is essential to the development of the plot, and it is not till quite the end that we see that Çūdraka himself, the hearer of the story, is really the hero, and that his hearing the story is necessary to reawaken his love for Kādambarī, and so at the same time fulfil the terms of the curse that he should love in vain during two lives, and bring the second life to an end by his longing for reunion. It may help to make the plot clear if the threads of it are disentangled. The author in person tells all that happens to Çūdraka (pp. 3–16 and pp. 205 to end). The parrot’s tale (pp. 16–205) includes that of Jābāli (pp. 47–202) concerning Candrāpīḍa, and Vaiçampāyana the Brahman, with the story told by Mahāçvetā (pp. 101–136) of her love for Puṇḍarīka.

The Story as told in the Kathā-Sarit-Sāgara.

The parrot’s tale reminded King Sumanas of his former birth, and on the arrival of the ascetic maiden, sent by Çiva, ‘who is merciful to all his worshippers,’ he again became the young hermit she had loved. Somaprabha, too, at Çiva’s bidding, went to the king’s court, and at the sight of him the Nishāda regained the shape of Makarandikā, and became his wife; while the parrot ‘left the body of a bird, and went to the home earned by his asceticism.’ ‘Thus,’ the story ends, ‘the appointed union of human beings certainly takes place in this world, though vast spaces intervene.’

References to Kādambarī in the Sāhitya-Darpaṇa and elsewhere.

The Interest of ‘Kādambarī.’

The Style of ‘Kādambarī.’

The hero belongs to the division described as the high-spirited, but temperate and firm (‘Sāhitya-Darpaṇa,’ § 64), i.e., he who is ‘not given to boasting, placable, very profound, with great self-command, resolute, whose self-esteem is concealed, and faithful to his engagements,’ and who has the ‘eight manly qualities’ of ‘brilliancy, vivacity, sweetness of temper, depth of character, steadfastness, keen sense of honour, gallantry, and magnanimity’ (Ibid., § 89). Kādambarī is the type of the youthful heroine who feels love for the first time, is shy, and gentle even in indignation (Ibid., § 98). The companions of each are also those declared in the books of rhetoric to be appropriate.

Literary Parallels.

The work which most invites comparison with ‘Kādambarī’ is one far removed from it in place and time—Spenser’s ‘Faerie Queene.’ Both have in great measure the same faults and the same virtues. The lack of proportion,—due partly to too large a plan, partly to an imagination wandering at will—the absence of visualization—which in Spenser produces sometimes a line like

‘A lovely Ladie rode him faire beside

Upon a lowly Asse more white then snow,

Yet she much whiter,’

The Purpose of ‘Kādambarī.’

The Plan of the Translation.

I have now to offer my grateful thanks to the Secretary of State for India, without whose kind help the volume could not have been published. I have also to thank Miss C. M. Duff for allowing me to use the MS. of her ‘Indian Chronology’; Miss E. Dale, of Girton College, for botanical notes, which I regret that want of space prevented my printing in full; Mr. C. Tawney, librarian of the Indian Office, for information as to the sources of Indian fiction; Mr. F. F. Arbuthnot and Professor Rhys-Davids, for valuable advice; Professor C. Bendall, for his description of the Kāmandakīya-Nīti-Çāstra, and his constant kindness about my work; Mr. F. W. Thomas, of Trinity College, for letting me see the proof-sheets of the translation of the ‘Harsha Carita’; and others for suggested renderings of difficult phrases, and for help of various kinds.

‘Vṛihatsahāyaḥ kāryāntaṃ kshodīyānapi gacchati;

Sambhūyāmbodhim abhyeti mahānadyā nagāpagā.’

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · It is needless to give here more than the few facts essential for the understanding of ‘Kādambarī,’ for the life and times of Bāṇa will probNote 2 · E.g., the Madhuban grant of Saṃ 25, E. I. i., 67 ff. For this and other chronological references I am indebted to Miss C. M. Duff, who has lNote 3 · For Bāṇa’s early life, V. ‘Harsha-Carita,’ chs. i., ii. I have to thank Mr. F. W. Thomas for allowing me to see the proof-sheets of his tranNote 4 · Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ pp. 96–98; and ‘The Subhāshitāvali,’ edited by Peterson (Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1886), pp. 62–66.Note 5 · Translated by Mr. C. Tawney (Calcutta, 1884), vol. ii., pp. 17–26. Somadeva’s date is about A.D. 1063.Note 6 · V. Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ pp. 82–96.Note 7 · Translated by Ballantyne and Pramadā-Dāsa-Mitra (Calcutta, 1875), § 567. The italics represent words supplied by the translators.Note 8 · Kādambarī,’ p. 69.Note 9 · Professor Peterson does not, however, make this deduction in favour of Bāṇa’s own version.Note 10 · I.e., rasa, poetic charm.Note 11 · ‘Kādambarī,’ Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, Bombay, pp. 205–221. ‘Evaṃ samatikrāmatsu—ājagāma.’Note 12 · Bombay edition, p. 6.Note 13 · Professor Cowells review of ‘A Bengali Historical Novel.’ Macmillan, April, 1872.Note 14 · V. Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ p. 42.Note 15 · Indeed, this description is so like in spirit to that of Clairvaux, that I cannot forbear quoting a few lines of the latter. The writer descNote 16 · Translated by Mr. C. Tawney. Oriental Translation Fund Series, p. 113.Note 17 · V. ‘Kādambarī,’ Nirṇaya Sāgara, p. 19, l. 2.Note 18 · ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ translated by St. Julien, ‘Mémoires sur les Contrées Occidentals,’ I., pp. 247–265. Cf. also ‘Harsha-Carita,’ ch. viii. (p.Note 19 · E. I. i. 67.Note 20 · V. ‘Kathā-Sarit-Sāgara,’ i. 505.Note 21 · V. ‘Kādambarī,’ pp. 97–104.Note 22 · V. ‘History of Indian Literature,’ translation, London, 1878, p. 232.Note 23 · V. ‘Sāhitya-Darpaṇa,’ § 626–628.Note 24 · Ibid., § 630.Note 25 · Note 26 · V. ‘Sāhitya-Darpaṇa,’ § 664.Note 27 · Ibid., § 718–722.Note 28 · Ibid., § 738.Note 29 · V. Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ p. 36.Note 30 · Cf. Spenser’s stanzas on Mutability.Note 31 · V. infra, p. 208.Note 32 · V. infra, p. 2.Note 33 · The list looks long, but the pages in the ‘Nirṇaya-Sāgara’ edition contain frequently but few lines, and many of the omissions are a line orNote 34 · Beginning at p. 566 of the ‘Nirṇaya-Sāgara’ edition.Note 35 · I here take the opportunity to acknowledge what by an oversight was omitted in its proper place, my indebtedness to Professor Cowell for theNote 36 · Bāṇabhaṭṭa, its author, lived in the reign of Harshavardhana of Thāṇeçar, the great king mentioned in many inscriptions,2 who extended his rNote 37 · The other works attributed to him are the ‘Caṇḍikāçataka,’4 or verses in honour of Caṇḍikā; a drama, ‘The Pārvatīpariṇaya’; and another, calNote 38 · The story as told in the Kathā-Sarit-Sāgara of Somadeva5 differs in some respects from this. There a Nishāda princess brought to King SumanaNote 39 · The main difference between the stories is in the persons affected by the curse; and here the artistic superiority of Bāṇa is shown in his nNote 40 · The author of the Sāhitya-Darpaṇa7 speaks of the Kathā as follows: ‘In the Kathā (tale), which is one of the species of poetical compositionNote 41 · The story of Puṇḍarīka and Mahāçvetā receives mention, firstly, for the introduction of death, contrary to the canon; secondly, for the deteNote 42 · References to Bāṇa in other works are given by Professor Peterson, so that three only need be mentioned here. The first I owe to the kindnesNote 43 · It may be asked What is the value of ‘Kādambarī’ for European readers? and to different persons the answer will doubtless be different. HistNote 44 · The coronation of the crown prince, the penances performed by the queen to win a son, the reverence paid to Mahākāla, also belong to our picNote 45 · Another source of interest in ‘Kādambarī’ lies in its contribution to folklore. It may perhaps contain nothing not found elsewhere, but the Note 46 · The unsettled chronology of Indian literature makes it impossible to work out at present Bāṇa’s relations with other Sanskrit writers. ProfeNote 47 · and in Bāṇa many a description like that of Mahāçvetā’s fairness (pp. 95–97)—the undiscriminating praise bestowed on those whom they would fNote 48 · The likeness of spirit between these two leads to the question, Had Bāṇa, like Spenser, any purpose, ethical or political, underlying his stNote 49 · The translation of Bāṇa presents much difficulty from the elaboration of his style, and it has been a specially hard task, and sometimes an Note 50 · The edition of ‘Kādambarī’ to which the references in the text are given is that of the Nirṇaya-Sāgara Press (Bombay, 1890), which the full Note 51 · But especially my thanks are due to Professor Cowell35 for a generosity and unwearied helpfulness which all his pupils know, and which perhaNote 52 · (1) Hail to the Birthless, the cause of creation, continuance, and destruction, triple1 in form and quality, who shows activity in the birthNote 53 · (2) Glory to the dust of Tryambaka’s feet, caressed by the diadem of the demon Bāṇa2; even that dust that kisses the circle of Rāvaṇa’s ten Note 54 · ‘Not on thy sole, but on thy soul, harsh Jew, Thou makest thy knife keen.’Note 55 · ‘Merchant of Venice,’ IV. 1, 123 (Globe edition).Note 56 · ‘Now is it Rome indeed, and room enough, When there is in it but one only man.’Note 57 · ‘Julius Cæsar,’ I. 2, 156.
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings