The Plan of the Translation.
The translation of Bāṇa presents much difficulty from the elaboration of his style, and it has been a specially hard task, and sometimes an impossible one, to give any rendering of the constant play on words in which he delights. I have sometimes endeavoured to give what might be an English equivalent, and in such cases I have added in a note the literal meaning of both alternatives; perhaps too much freedom may have been used, and sometimes also the best alternative may not have been chosen to place in the text; but those who have most experience will know how hard it is to do otherwise than fail. Some long descriptions have been omitted, such, e.g., as a passage of several pages describing how the dust rose under the feet of Candrāpīḍa’s army, and others where there seemed no special interest or variety to redeem their tediousness. A list of these omissions[33] is given at the end, together with an appendix, in which a few passages, chiefly interesting as mentioning religious sects, are added. I have acted on Professor Cowell’s advice as to the principle on which omissions are made, as also in giving only a full abstract, and not a translation, of the continuation of ‘Kādambarī’ by Bhūshaṇa. It is so entirely an imitation of his father’s work in style, with all his faults, and without the originality that redeems them, that it would not reward translation. In my abstract I have kept the direct narration as more simple, but even when passages are given rather fully, it does not profess in any case to be more than a very free rendering; sometimes only the sense of a whole passage is summed up. I regret that the system of transliteration approved by the Royal Asiatic Society came too late for adoption here.
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 commentary makes indispensable, but I have also throughout made use of Professor Peterson’s edition (Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. xxiv.). For the last half of the Second Part[34] I have referred to an anonymous literal translation, published by the New Britannia Press Depository, 78, Amherst Street, Calcutta.
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.
But especially my thanks are due to Professor Cowell[35] for a generosity and unwearied helpfulness which all his pupils know, and which perhaps few but they could imagine. I read through with him the whole of the First Part before translating it myself, so that mistakes in the translation, many as they may be, can arise only from misunderstanding on my part, from too great freedom of rendering, or from failing to have recourse to the knowledge he so freely gives.
‘Vṛihatsahāyaḥ kāryāntaṃ kshodīyānapi gacchati;
Sambhūyāmbodhim abhyeti mahānadyā nagāpagā.’
[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 probably be treated of in the translation of the ‘Harsha-Carita’ by Professor Cowell and Mr. Thomas in this series; and Professor Peterson’s Introduction to his edition of ‘Kādambarī’ (Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1889) deals fully with Bāṇa’s place in literature. The facts here given are, for the most part, taken from the latter work.
[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 let me use the MS. of her ‘Chronology of India.’
[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 translation.
[4] Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ pp. 96–98; and ‘The Subhāshitāvali,’ edited by Peterson (Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1886), pp. 62–66.
[5] Translated by Mr. C. Tawney (Calcutta, 1884), vol. ii., pp. 17–26. Somadeva’s date is about A.D. 1063.
[6] V. Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ pp. 82–96.
[7] Translated by Ballantyne and Pramadā-Dāsa-Mitra (Calcutta, 1875), § 567. The italics represent words supplied by the translators.
[8] Kādambarī,’ p. 69.
[9] Professor Peterson does not, however, make this deduction in favour of Bāṇa’s own version.
[10] I.e., rasa, poetic charm.
[11] ‘Kādambarī,’ Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, Bombay, pp. 205–221. ‘Evaṃ samatikrāmatsu—ājagāma.’
[12] Bombay edition, p. 6.
[13] Professor Cowells review of ‘A Bengali Historical Novel.’ Macmillan, April, 1872.
[14] V. Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ p. 42.
[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 describes the workshops where the brethren labour, and the orchard used for rest and quiet thought, and goes on to say how the Aube is raised by the toils of the brethren to the level of the Abbey; it throws half its water into the Abbey, ‘as if to salute the brethren, and seems to excuse itself for not coming in its whole force.’ Then ‘it returns with rapid current to the stream, and renders to it, in the name of Clairvaux, thanks for all the services which it has performed.’ The writer then goes on to tell of the fountain which, protected by a grassy pavilion, rises from the mountain, and is quickly engulfed in the valley, ‘offering itself to charm the sight and supply the wants of the brethren, as if it were not willing to have communition with any others than saints.’ This last is surely a touch worthy of Bāṇa. V. Dr. Eale’s translation of ‘St. Bernard’s Works.’ London, 1889, vol. ii., pp. 462–467.
[16] Translated by Mr. C. Tawney. Oriental Translation Fund Series, p. 113.
[17] V. ‘Kādambarī,’ Nirṇaya Sāgara, p. 19, l. 2.
[18] ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ translated by St. Julien, ‘Mémoires sur les Contrées Occidentals,’ I., pp. 247–265. Cf. also ‘Harsha-Carita,’ ch. viii. (p. 236 of the translation), where he pays great honour to a Buddhist sage.
[19] E. I. i. 67.
[20] V. ‘Kathā-Sarit-Sāgara,’ i. 505.
[21] V. ‘Kādambarī,’ pp. 97–104.
[22] V. ‘History of Indian Literature,’ translation, London, 1878, p. 232.
[23] V. ‘Sāhitya-Darpaṇa,’ § 626–628.
[24] Ibid., § 630.
‘Not on thy sole, but on thy soul, harsh Jew,
Thou makest thy knife keen.’
‘Merchant of Venice,’ IV. 1, 123 (Globe edition).
‘Now is it Rome indeed, and room enough,
When there is in it but one only man.’
‘Julius Cæsar,’ I. 2, 156.
[26] V. ‘Sāhitya-Darpaṇa,’ § 664.
[27] Ibid., § 718–722.
[28] Ibid., § 738.
[29] V. Peterson, ‘Kādambarī,’ p. 36.
[30] Cf. Spenser’s stanzas on Mutability.
[31] V. infra, p. 208.
[32] V. infra, p. 2.
[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 or two of oft-repeated similes.
[34] Beginning at p. 566 of the ‘Nirṇaya-Sāgara’ edition.
[35] I here take the opportunity to acknowledge what by an oversight was omitted in its proper place, my indebtedness to Professor Cowell for the rendering into English verse of two couplets given on pp. 11 and 113.