KADAMBAR. XVI DrPeterson was inclined to place Subandhu, the author of the extant Vasavadatta, after Bana. His reasons are given on pp. 71–78 of his Introduction. For that after the graceless string of extravagant and indecent puns presented by the present Vasavadatta had been received with approval into the national literature, a reversion should have beei possible to the chastity, alike of sentiment and of diction, of Bana and Bhavabhtti would be a literary miracle almost incredible' We have to strike here a note of caution. We should always beware of foisting our moderm conceptions of literary style and beauty on authors and critics that fourish ed centuries before usHow are ve to know that the skill of Subandhu in stringing together puns might not have kindled the admiration of Bana who seems to have himself thought very highly of such puzzles as Prahelikas ? It is Surious to note that DE Peterson, in his preface to the Subh shitivali of Vallabhadova (p. 183), abandons the position takon up by himas to the relative position of Subandhu and Bana in his Introduction to the Kadambar. We think that the Vasavadatta praised in the Harsha .charita so * eloquently is the present work of that name written by Subandhu. Our reasons are : (1) In Vamana's Kavy£laikarashtravitti, a pass age is quoted from the extant Vasavadatta of Subandhu with very slight variations. Ye have seen above that Vamana probably fourished in the latter half of the 8th century and that he quotes the Kadambar also. So both Bana and Subandhu fourished before 750 A. D. (2) Kaviraja, the author of the Raghavapandavya, mentions Subandhu, Bana and himself as the masters of
- कवीनामगलद्दर्पो नूनं वासवदत्तया । शक्त्येव पाण्डुपुत्राणां गतया कर्णगो-
कुलिशशिखरखरनखरप्रचयप्रचण्डचपेटापाटितमत्तमातङ्गकुम्भस्थलगलन्म- दच्छटाच्छुरितचारुकेसरभारभासुरमुखे केसरिणि’ काव्यालंकारसूत्रवृत्ति I. B. 25. See vasavadatta (p. 331 of the Srirangam edition and p. 266 of Hall's ).
