Indo-Iran J (2006) 49: 163–189

DOI 10.1007/s10783-007-9015-4
REVIEW

Remarks on a new edition and translation of

Ks.emendra’s Narmamālā
Baldissera, Fabrizia, The Narmamālā of Ks.emendra. Critical
Edition, Study and Translation. [Beiträge zur
Südasienforschung. Südasien-Institut Universität Heidelberg].
Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2005. ISBN 3-89913-427-3

Martin Straube

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

“That many passages in Ks.emendra remain obscure as long as one lacks the help
of native commentators is a fact which I finally realize with sadness!”1 This expe-
rience of Richard Schmidt, written in 1914 after having finished his German trans-
lation of the Kalāvilāsa, is certainly familiar to everybody who tries to understand
and translate any of Ks.emendra’s satirical works. These works, i.e., the Narmamālā,
Deśopadeśa, Samayamātr.kā, and Kalāvilāsa, were often rightly considered to be the
most original and interesting contributions of the Kashmiri poet to the huge body of
classical Sanskrit literature. Here Ks.emendra seems to be quite in his element in ridi-
culingvarious kinds of depraved behaviour of his contemporaries in a most graphical
and even coarse way, focusing especially on bureaucrats, sanctimonious hypocrites,
and prostitutes together with their milieu. Moreover, sometimes he seems to depict
real, living persons with whom he was acquainted, rather than mere types or models
which are usually the subjects of classical Sanskrit literature. Ks.emendra wants his
readers to believe that his aim in composing the satires is to turn the addressees of
his mockery away from their vices,2 but in reading his satires one gets the strong im-
pression that he—far from being a dry moralist—also had a good deal of pleasure in
composing them. While writing in elaborate Sanskrit which spans the various rhetor-
ical devices of classical poetry, Ks.emendra does not refrain from using many local

1 “Daß viele Stellen bei Ksemendra dunkel bleiben, so lange man der Hilfe von einheimischen Kommen-
.
tatoren entbehrt, ist eine Tatsache, die ich zum Schluß mit Betrübnis feststelle!” (Schmidt 1914, p. 407).
2 Cf., e.g., Deśopadeśa 1.4: hāsena lajjito ’tyantam na dosesu pravartate / janas tadupakārāya mamāyam
. . . .
svayam udyamam. ‘When people are excessively embarrassed by mockery, they will not indulge in their
vices; it is for their sake that I have myself made an effort.’
M. Straube ()
Fachgebiet Indologie und Tibetologie, Philipps-Universität, Wilhelm Röpke-Straße 6F,
35032 Marburg, Germany
e-mail: straubem@mailer.uni-marburg.de
164 M. Straube

words or idioms of his Kashmiri homeland nor does he shrink from spicing his lan-
guage with vulgar expressions as well.3 Precisely these characteristics of his minor
works make them so difficult to interpret for us who are remote in time and space
from the Kashmiri society of Ks.emendra’s days. Moreover, especially the satirical
works have suffered from the textual transmission; three of them, the Narmamālā,
Deśopadeśa, and Samayamātr.kā have come down to us each in only a single manu-
script copy, with several lacunae and corrupt passages.
It is therefore a welcome contribution to our understanding and appreciation of
Ks.emendra’s satirical works that recently the Narmamālā has been made the object
of a new critical edition, study, and English translation by Fabrizia Baldissera.4 The
book starts with an introduction dealing with several aspects of the language, struc-
ture, and style of the Narmamālā, and its relation to the Deśopadeśa. It is announced
as “a preliminary study” to be followed by a “subsequent study” (p. xiii) which will
set the Narmamālā in its wider intellectual context. The close relation of the Nar-
mamālā to the Deśopadeśa is illustrated by a most useful, detailed table of words,
phrases, and concepts common to both texts (pp. xli ff.). Considering the Narmamālā
in its own rights Baldissera touches on some interesting aspects of Ks.emendra’s
humour highlighting, for instance, the role of several metaphors concerning fluids,
especially fluids “charged with evil potential” (p. xxi). This point deserves special
mention because—as Baldissera well observes—this kind of metaphor “keeps recur-
ring throughout” (p. xxi) the small work. It thereby functions as a link between the
black ink, one of the weapons of the evil bureaucrats as the principal characters, and
the other episodes in the narrative which are interspersed with various kinds of flu-
ids (secretions of the body, alcohol, food and drink, etc.). The Narmamālā begins
with a quasi-mythological account of the embodiment of the primeval bureaucrat on
earth being furnished with a pen and black ink by the goddess Kali, the personifi-
cation of the kaliyuga, and ends with the miserable death of the principal character,
one of his descendants, who drew his last breath by falling head first into a sewer
(nr.purı̄s.apran.āla).
One pertinent question is certainly to ask about Ks.emendra’s aims in writing his
satire. In this regard Baldissera’s interpretation does not seem very convincing. She
states plainly: “Like Sanskrit drama, Sanskrit satire aims at edification” (p. xxii),
but this can hardly be the whole truth. True, edification may to a certain extent be
always involved in Ks.emendra’s works, and in his satires at least the intention of
unmasking the objects of his ridicule is obvious, but at the same time Ks.emendra
does not seem to make any great effort to lead the reader in a specific direction. In
the narrative of the Narmamālā edifying stanzas are virtually absent, whereas they
form a device which is generously employed in Ks.emendra’s religious compositions,

3 A short but very stimulating introduction to Ksemendra’s satirical writings with up to date references
.
to the most important criticism they have received can be found in Salomon (1983). As a specimen of
Ks.emendra’s satirical style Salomon supplies the text and translates the second chapter of the Deśopadeśa
into English.
4 The Narmamālā of Ksemendra. Critical Edition, Study and Translation (Beiträge zur Südasienforschung.
.
Südasien-Institut, Universität Heidelberg. Band 197.) Heidelberg: Ergon Verlag 2005. The translation to-
gether with the introduction was already published in 1999 under the same title as supplement no. 2 of
the Rivista degli studi Orientali, Vol. LXXII, in Rome. The present book contains a revised version of the
translation and introduction together with a new edition of the Sanskrit text, with several appendices.
Review article 165

the Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā and the Daśāvatāracarita. Even a definite moral at

the end of the Narmamālā is missing. On the contrary, we are told in the beginning
(stanza 1.6) that the work is being composed for ‘the sake of laughter’ (hāsāya),
and the last stanza puts it merely in form of a question whether the Narmamālā,
the Garland of Jests, which is ‘knotted together to achieve laughter, to amuse good
people, could be told as a teaching fruitful for everyone’.5
Satire has never anywhere been a sufficient means to convert truly bad people into
good ones, and I would surmise that Ks.emendra, who certainly was a man familiar
with the ways of the world, indeed knew it.6 Of course, in his other satires we occa-
sionally encounter statements which seem to make us believe that he wrote his satires
only for the sake of education.7 But could not those statements be well taken simply
as a pretext or an excuse to compose a risqué work? One possible answer to this
question is given by Lee Siegel, who, after investigating the comic tradition in San-
skrit literature in depth, suggests “that the ultimate function of satire is aesthetic, that
though satire points out vice and folly, its justification on the grounds that it changes
social conditions or helps people cope with corruption is a mere rationalization of its
primary aim which is—quite simply—to be funny.”8
In a chapter called “Structural Aspects of the Composition” Baldissera tries to
identify some persons mentioned in the Narmamālā, mainly the principal character,
the evil kāyastha, who rises from a wretched social situation to high official positions
(pp. xv ff.). Starting from the reasonable assumption that Ks.emendra depicts real
characters, “whom his contemporaries could easily identify” (p. xv), Baldissera of-
fers several candidates described in Kalhan.a’s Rājataraṅgin.ı̄ who could have served
as models for characters of the Narmamālā. These reflections certainly bear some
weight even if they do not lead to a definite conclusion, for it is well known that
concerning the history of Kashmir—especially in the centuries around Ks.emendra’s
times—we have, thanks to Kalhan.a’s composition, detailed information on a scale
unimaginable for other parts of contemporary India. However, there is one supposi-
tion which can be rejected with some certainty. Baldissera remarks: “The prologue
states that the Narmamālā was written at the instigation of a great literary connois-
seur. His description (I. 5-6) offers some ground to believe that this inspirer was most
likely King Ananta himself” (p. xv). The stanzas in question run as follows:

5 The whole stanza runs: iti diviraniyogivrātaduścestitānām kusrticaritacarcā narmamālā krteyam / api
.. . . .
sujanavinodāyombhitā hāsyasiddhyai kathayati phalabhūtam . sarvalokopadeśam. ‘Thus this Garland of
Jests, discussing the acts of cheating in the evil wheelings and dealings of the hordes of diviras and niyo-
gins was composed. Could it—knotted together to achieve laughter, to amuse good people—be told as
a teaching fruitful for everyone?’ Baldissera translates: “This Narmamālā has been composed as an in-
vestigation of the misbehaviour in the evil actions of hordes of diviras* and niyogins*. For the sake of
laughter, full of amusement for good people, it is told as a teaching for everyone that obtains its own re-
ward” (p. 121). Baldissera turned the question (marked by api) into a plain statement, thereby missing the
√
very point Ks.emendra seems to make here. The participle umbhitā of the rare verb ubh meaning liter-
ally ‘tie up’ should be taken to denote the making of a garland (mālā), whereas Baldissera seems to have
interpreted it as ‘full of’ connected with sujanavinodāya which she seems to treat as an instrumental.
6 Ksemendra considers this a necessary qualification for everybody who aspires to compose literary works;
.
cf. his Kavikan..thābharan.a 2.6–2.22: lokācāraparijñānam
. [. . .] yuktam
. prāptagireh. kaveh.. Practically all
his works display vividly that he indeed had that kind of knowledge at his disposal.
7 Cf. e.g., the stanza Deśopadeśa 1.4 cited above in n. 2.
8 Siegel (1987, p. xviii).
166 M. Straube

tena prajopasarges.u vārites.u vivekinā |

durniyogis.u [sarves.u]9 nı̄tes.u smr.tiśes.atām || 1.4 ||
vidagdhacūd.āman.inā kena cit keliśālinā |
vidvadgos..thı̄garis..thena kaś cit sahr.dayo janah. || 1.5 ||

. kartum ı̄ritah. |
hāsāyātı̄takāyasthacaritam
karoti tatprasaṅgena durācāravid.ambanām || 1.6 ||
Referring to kena cit in stanza 1.5b Baldissera explains her interpretation in a foot-
note to the translation: “This Instr. that follows the Instr. of v.4 seems to point to
the fact that the ‘person’ mentioned could be the king himself. ‘A certain person’
is still the respectful term by which the king is alluded to in India” (p. 42, note 6).
This seems quite unlikely, both with respect to the construction of stanzas 1.5–6 and
to what we know from other works of Ks.emendra about his patrons. The stanzas
1.4–6 cited above state clearly: ‘When this judicious One [i.e., king Ananta] had re-
moved the troubles of his subjects *and had reduced the wicked officials to nothing
but their memory, a certain playful person, the crown jewel of the learned, and a
most respected member of the assembly of the wise, called upon a certain literary
connoisseur to compose for the sake of amusement [an account] of the deeds of the
kāyasthas of the past.’ Even syntactically it is quite clear that tena in 1.4a and kena
cit in 1.5b denote two different persons. And what is more, in none of Ks.emendra’s
stanzas referring to himself or to his works which are spread over his œuvre do we
have any indication that he could have been some kind of court poet writing at the
behest of a king. On the contrary, Ks.emendra tells us that the person who inspired
several of his works was a brahmin called Rāmayaśas and he describes him in terms
of great respect, as svacchacetasā, āryacetasā, and sarvaprabandhaprerako etc.,10
which have some resemblance to the description given above in verses 1.5a-c. It is
therefore more likely that Rāmayaśas is the ‘certain person’ who inspired Ks.emendra
to compose the Narmamālā. But even this must remain an open question.
From the many motifs recurrent in the Narmamālā Baldissera points to three out-
standing trends, “a constant criticism of religious hypocrisy”, “a parody of pretended
medical knowledge”, and “a satire of dishonest sexual customs” (p. xxxiii). This, in
general, is nothing new, but Baldissera points to the remarkable fact that Ks.emendra’s
criticism of religious hypocrisy is mainly directed at the Śaiva faith, more precisely,
the Śaivism in its esoteric, i.e., tantric aspect. Ks.emendra, himself born in a Śaiva
family and a student of Abhinavagupta, carries out his satire of the tantric hypocrites
with the help of tantric terminology which is interwoven into the text in the form of
subtle suggestions in many stanzas of the composition. In addition, as pointed out
by Baldissera (pp. xxxiii f.), the use of this special terminology clearly shows once

9 Baldissera follows Kaul, who fills the lacuna marked with three dots in the MS with sarvesu. However,
.
this conjecture is not convincing. Leaving aside more general reflections about filling out greater lacunae
without the help of some source (cf. below), one misses a particle, e.g., ca, connecting prajopasarges.u and
durniyogis.u.
10 Brhatkathāmañjarı̄ p. 620, stanza 39, Bhāratamañjarı̄ p. 850, stanza 10, and Bodhisattvāvadāna-
.
kalpalatā p. xxv, stanza 5. Cf. also Rāmāyan.amañjarı̄ p. 509, stanza 8: āmodayanti sarasāny atikomalāni
vipren.a rāmayaśasā pran.ayārthitāni / yenāniśam
. pran.ayabhūs.an.atām
. janasya nı̄tāni kāvyakusumāny
asitāni tāni.
Review article 167

more Ks.emendra’s intimate knowledge of religious practises, which spans each of

the three creeds of Buddhism, Śaivism, and Vais.n.avism flourishing in his times in his
homeland Kashmir. It is evident from his great works Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā
and Daśāvatāracarita that in the case of Buddhism and Vais.n.avism his knowledge is
combined with a strong appreciation, which is hard to detect in relation to Śaivism.
Perhaps this could be interpreted as throwing an unfavourable light on several practi-
tioners of tantric Śaivism in 11th century Kashmir, a topic that needs to be researched
in more detail in the future.11
In order to record the rich and interesting vocabulary—which is indispensable for a
text like the Narmamālā—two glossaries and two appendices are provided. The glos-
saries, one dealing with “rare and unusual words” (pp. xxvi ff.), the other with “Terms
Designating Official Posts” (pp. xxix ff.), show to a great extent the progress made
in interpreting the often difficult text, especially if one compares it with the glossary
provided by Vidyāratna and Padhye in their edition of the Minor Works of Ks.emendra.
But there are many additional words throughout the text which have not found their
way into these lists, a fact that is all the more incomprehensible as several, but by no
means all, unrecorded words are treated in the footnotes to the translation. It is proper
that a critical edition should record, in an easily accessible list, all words which are
either not found in PW2 or used with a hitherto unrecorded meaning, including, of
course, those recorded only in native Sanskrit dictionaries. On the other hand, terms
like svāmin or prabhu both glossed with “master, superior” (pp. xxx f.), durniyogin
“bad, corrupt official” besides the already cited niyogin (p. xxx), or bhat..tatva “the
status of bhat..ta” in addition to bhat..ta (p. xxxi) could be safely excluded. In addi-
tion, one misses a full record of references to the Sanskrit text, especially for obscure
words like śat.i/s.at.i (p. xxix), and—most importantly for a glossary recording “rare
words”—the marking of words based on conjecture or emendation.12 I have attached
a list of some additional lexical material based on my reading of the text to the end
of this article. It is in no way exhaustive since I have not checked the dictionaries for
each and every suspicious word.
The grammar and metre of the text are treated quite short. In addition to the ob-
vious but nevertheless quite remarkable feature of several free standing half stanzas
(cf. p. xxv) I would like here to point to the equally noteworthy fact that at least one
anus..tubh stanza lacks a caesura between its third and fourth pāda.13
The major part of the book is devoted to a new edition and annotated translation
of the Narmamālā. As noted above, the text is preserved in only a single MS copy
in Śāradā script containing the Deśopadeśa and Narmamālā which was purchased
by Pan.d.it Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrı̄ in Raināwārı̄, Kashmir, in 1921 and first pub-

11 Ksemendra obviously did not generally disapprove of tantric practices. This becomes clear, for instance,
.
from the opening stanzas of his Kavikan.thābharan.a; cf. especially 1.1 and 1.6–14.
12 In the case of the Narmamālā, and also the Deśopadeśa, a complete list of rare words is all the more a
desideratum since these two texts are the last of Ks.emendra’s satirical works which—apart from the list
in the Minor Works of Ks.emendra—are not yet lexically explored in a systematic way. Most of the more
interesting words found in the Kalāvilāsa, Samayamātr.kā, and Darpadalana were recorded by Meyer
(1903a, 1903b), and afterwards incorporated in Schmidt (1928).
13 A second stanza lacking a caesura seems to be corrupt; cf. below the remarks to 2.109cd.
168 M. Straube

lished by him in the “Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies” in 1923.14 Kaul says
about the MS: “It is, on the whole, free from slips of pen. The copyist seems to be
a very careful writer. Under some words in the MS. he has put down the sign of a
little circle (◦) which indicates their doubtful significance.”15 Despite its unquestion-
able qualities the MS contains several lacunae, the shorter of which Kaul filled with
his conjectures, without however indicating them. Nor did he mark the small circles
put by the scribe under questionable readings. For her new edition Baldissera was
successful in locating and consulting the MS and she aspired to record the readings
of the MS in all places where her text deviates from it. This procedure—actually a
matter of course for editing all kinds of texts—is particularly crucial in presenting
a text which is based on a codex unicus, and the more textual oriented branches of
Indian studies have already long ago developed devices to deal with such kinds of
texts.16 It is therefore a matter of regret that Baldissera’s efforts to procure the MS
and base her new edition on it are diminished to a great extent by the careless rep-
resentation of the MS readings. In many places it is left to the reader to guess at
the original reading. Some examples may suffice to illustrate this: The edited text
of stanza 1.47a reads padāla[gnā]śivam . with a footnote informing us that the MS
has “padala LACUNA (marked by one dot) śivam . ” while footnote 53 to the trans-
lation of the passage states: “Verse 47 in the Ms starts: padalā, then comes a lacuna
marked by one dot, then -śivam . .” Now, which is the MS reading, padāla-, padala,
or padalā? Likewise, the text of 1.140b reads: .tām . kārārāvakārin.ah. with a footnote
“Ms -t.am . kārā LACUNA lakārin ah
. . .” while footnote 142 to the translation declares
“The Ms has a lacuna, marked by one dot, between tām . kārā- and -jakārin.ah.. Kaul
supplemented -rāva- and got rid of -ja-.” Instances of these careless mistakes which
also affect quotations from the printed sources could be easily multiplied.17 If the
book would have been furnished with a facsimile of the all in all only 26 folios of this
precious MS—a desirable but regrettably not a very usual practice—the reader could
have checked the doubtful passages. In any case, it is necessary for an editor of a
codex unicus to report each and every aks.ara which she has changed in the text. This
should of course also comprise the recording of mere orthographic, sandhi and other
minor variants in a separate list, which should only be left out if one adds a read-
able facsimile—besides mentioning some orthographic peculiarities of the MS in a
more general way (pp. xxiii f.), Baldissera did not attempt to do this. Nevertheless,
the new edition succeeds in correcting many readings which deviate from the MS in
Kaul’s edition and indicates the extent to which Kaul has ‘restored’ lost or corrupt
passages, thereby offering for the first time the opportunity to guess at the quality of
the transmitted text.18 This indisputable progress made in some passages of the text is

14 Cf. Kaul (1923, pp. 1 ff). Later, Kaul’s text was incorporated with some minor changes in the Minor
Works of Ks.emendra edited in 1961 by Vidyāratna and Padhye.
15 Kaul (1923, p. 2); cf. also Baldissera’s more detailed description of the MS on pp. xxiii f.
16 Suffice it here to mention the work done by Karl Richard Pischel, Heinrich Lüders, Ernst Waldschmidt,
and their disciples, especially in editing the Buddhist texts from Turfan.
17 Cf. e.g., the stanzas 2.25, 2.57b, and 2.128a. At 2.114d (-*pitharaka-) the edition fails to report the MS
.
reading (-pit.hiraka-) at all; one has to look at a footnote to the translation in order to detect it.
18 The text of the MS on the whole seems remarkably correct. The MS could well have been copied from
an old source since the scribe was already faced with the lacunae and marked them as such which is often
Review article 169

regrettably diminished by quite a few old and newly introduced mistakes. In editing
the text Baldissera refrained from critically reconsidering several conjectures made
by the former editors, mainly by Kaul, and also changed on her own several readings
of the MS that had been hitherto left untouched. Many of the old and new conjectures
are open to serious criticism, while quite a few are indisputably unfounded and need
to be undone. Cf. the striking examples 1.102b, 2.44b, 2.54d, and 3.46c from the list
of my suggestions supplied below.
Furthermore, little regard has been paid to conjectural readings of the editio prin-
ceps which fill some short and long lacunae of the MS. Kaul tried to fill in both the
short (sometimes of only one aks.ara) and long lacunae (sometimes of almost a full
pāda).19 Whereas he succeeded in providing many reasonable readings of the short
lacunae,20 the longer ones obviously were mere guesswork. In comparing Baldis-
sera’s text with Kaul’s earlier one it becomes clear that highly conjectural additions
to the defective MS, additions which say nothing about the author’s intentions, should
have been excluded from a new edition that is supposed to be critical.21 To cite just
one instance: the second hemistich of 2.23 in Kaul’s edition reads paks.āghāto na
. ganāśanah.. Baldissera puts ghāto na roga in square brackets
rogaś cet tat kim ekām
and states that the “Ms is broken and unreadable” (p. 17, n. 65) thereby indicating
that as many as five aks.aras in Kaul’s and also in her own edition are mere fancy.22
Moreover, there is at least one case of Kaul’s attempts to restore lost portions of the
MS which leads Baldissera to quite forced and improbable interpretations instead of
causing her to reconsider Kaul’s conjecture.23 This example may serve to illustrate in
a most vivid way the dangers of such uncritical ‘restorations’, even for the new editor
and translator herself.
The text as transmitted in the MS—apart from the division into three parihāsas—
contains short captions which function as a kind of ‘sub-chapter endings’. Baldissera
decided to exclude them from the text; she remarks: “These are the work of a copyist.
They appear also in the other text contained in the same manuscript, the Deśopadeśa,
which precedes the Narmamālā. The previous editors accepted these ‘captions’ in
their editions, but as they clearly are later interpolations, here they have been ex-
punged. They can however be seen in the textual apparatus” (p. xv, n. 6). While, on
the one hand, it is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that these captions have to
be attributed to a copyist, there is, on the other hand, no way to verify this conjecture
without any additional manuscripts or any other kind of external evidence. It may
very well be the case that the captions go back to the author Ks.emendra himself. The

the case when old and fragile MSS are copied. In addition, as Kaul already noticed, the scribe seems to
have been a careful and learned man.
19 Some of the longer lacunae were left untouched by Kaul; he remarks: “There are a few lacunæ which
could not be filled up as no other MS. was available” (Kaul 1923, p. 2).
20 Cf. e.g., 1.119c, 2.38, and 2.104.
21 It is sometimes forgotten that a critical edition of a text, apart from an autograph, strives to restore the
text ideally in the form in which it left the author’s hand. If this is not possible, such an edition should
represent the archetype of all available MSS. In the case of the Narmamālā the archetype is identical with
a single MS which could, and of course should, be improved by well-founded emendations only.
22 Cf. also 1.4c cited above, 1.140b, and 2.93b.
23 Cf. the remarks to 1.85d–1.86ab below.
170 M. Straube

fact that they are encountered also in the Deśopadeśa proves no more than that some
peculiarities are common to these two texts. In any case, it seems advisable that cau-
tion be exercised in postulating theories of the structure of ancient texts which cannot
be based on concrete evidence, especially if such theories entail substantial changes
of a transmitted text in an edition.24
One last point about the text edition may be shortly mentioned here, namely, the
inconsistent use of editorial signs. It is much more easier for the reader if, for instance,
square brackets are always used only for restorations of lost text passages, and not,
as seen in Baldissera’s text, sometimes for emendations, sometimes for restorations,
and sometimes not used at all.
The text edition is followed by an English translation, the first complete ren-
dering in a western language ever made. It is accompanied by a dense annota-
tion discussing difficult passages, justifying emendations, explaining realia, and—
most importantly—providing the background necessary for the understanding of
Ks.emendra’s complex style of word play and allusion. As already mentioned, one
kind of allusion which is especially liable to be overlooked, is the use of the termi-
nology of tantric ritual, particularly if the expressions in question allow a ‘harmless’
interpretation on the surface. In this respect the translation has gained immensely
from the numerous remarks made by Alexis Sanderson, an outstanding researcher
in this special field who has also provided two appendices, one on “Some Techni-
cal Terms Found in Tantric Texts” (pp. 126 f.) and one containing some “Texts on
Tantric Orgies” (pp. 130 ff.). Apart from this field of special vocabulary, consider-
able progress has been achieved in successfully explaining several rare words in the
text. Baldissera gives a translation which is easy to read and she happily avoids that
manner of clumsy renderings of Indian texts which hurt both the style of the origi-
nal Indian language and the most humble aesthetic sensitivities of the modern reader.
What is noteworthy here is the device applied to convert Ks.emendra’s rich use of
puns, by showing passages which allow different translations in two facing columns.
In the extreme case of complete śles.as this leads to two separate translations of the
same stanza. This simple graphical device turned out to be a good solution for the old
problem of dealing with this feature of Sanskrit poetry, satisfying the demands both of
the aesthetics of text layout and a comprehensive and exact rendering of the Sanskrit.
However, when it is employed explicitly for that purpose (cf. p. 41, n. 1) this device
should not tempt one to offer mere conjectural translations of difficult passages, or
renderings which are lexically possible but certainly out of place in the given context.
For instance, it is not clear in which way the phrase man.d.itam. budhaman.d.alaih. of the
second opening stanza could be meaningfully interpreted as “adorned by the rings of
Mercury” in describing kaśmı̄raman.d.alam apart from its natural meaning “adorned
by circles of learned people”.25
As for the accuracy of the translation, we should remember that philological ex-
perience shows that a first translation can hardly be totally correct. In view of this

24 At present we know too little about the practice of naming ancient Indian compositions, chapters or parts
of them. As is well known, most of the famous Indian works bear titles, colophons, or sub-colophons,
which are mere conventions appearing just in modern times.
25 Cf. also 3.36b and 3.53 below, also 3.58b and the almost tautological double rendering in 3.93.
Review article 171

and the fact that the Narmamālā is not an easy text, it may be said that the trans-
lation allows one to grasp in general the contents and the flavour of the text as a
whole, whereas it is often not reliable in several larger or smaller details. That is to
say, it is subject to serious criticism in many places, while quite a few passages are
even simply wrong. For some striking examples see below the remarks on 1.27–29,
1.72cd–1.73ab, 3.82, and 3.88ab.
The following remarks on individual parts of the edition and translation are not
meant to be exhaustive. The text is cited as given in the edition, to which I have
added—for the sake of clarity—asterisks marking conjectural readings which the ed-
itor has omitted or indicated in various ways. The corresponding parts of Baldissera’s
translation are also provided, while only relevant sections of her footnotes have been
included for the point being made. Baldissera’s translations are in double quotation
marks and my suggestions in single quotes.
1.16: mas.ı̄ sakalamā yasya kālı̄ kavalitākhilā | sadā sakalamāyasya tasya
sarvārthasiddhidā || “a. Black all-devouring ink and pen will always bequeath all
prosperity to him who will cheat those who pay an interest.” / “b. Black Kālı̄, the uni-
versal mother by whom this whole is devoured will always bequeath all prosperity to
him who creates the illusion of multiplicity.”
Baldissera states: “mas.ı̄ here means both ‘black’ and ‘ink’; sakalā means either
‘multiplicity’ or sa-kalā, where kalā means ‘interest’ to be paid. Kālı̄ means both
‘black’ and ‘[goddess] Kālı̄’. This double interpretation follows J. Naudou 1969,
p. 263” (p. 44, n. 16). This is quite a fanciful interpretation which is hard to account
for in more than one respect. The word mas.i/mas.ı̄ “ink” is not attested as an adjective
“black”. Moreover, sakala usually meaning ‘complete, entire, whole’ could also be
analysed as sa + kala, but not as sa + kalā as suggested by Baldissera since the text in
question is sakala-māyasya. Consequently it would lead to the interpretation ‘having
a soft sound’ which is out of place here. And finally, none of the two translations takes
into consideration the relative construction yasya ... tasya. The stanza can be trans-
lated in two ways, either: ‘Kālı̄, by whom the whole [universe] is devoured, grants
always the attainment of all wealth26 to him who is in possession of ink together with
a pen, if he uses all tricks.’ Or: ‘Who is in possession of the black all-devouring ink
together with a pen, to him it (i.e., the ink) grants the attainment of all wealth, if he
uses all tricks.’ For the notion of Kālı̄ devouring the universe see the second opening
stanza of the Samayamātr.kā.
1.25a: bhastrā*kaks.ābhidhāno (MS: kaks.yā) “known as ‘Brief-case under the
armpit’ ”
If one retains the reading of the MS one could translate ‘known as ‘Brief-case
on the belt’ ’ which is—without changing the MS—as meaningful a name for the
kāyastha as the one proposed by Baldissera.

1.27–29:
bhaktyā bhagavato vis.n.os trailokyākraman.e purā |
dharmah. prayāto dravatām. mas.ı̄rūpen.a tis..thati || 27 ||

26 Or: ‘of the wealth of every one’.

172 M. Straube

. nityanaimittikacchidah. |
devanāgamanus.yān.ām
tasya kāyasthanāthasya trailokyākraman.e punah. || 28 ||

. mas.ı̄rūpen.a tis..thati |
kalih. prayāto dravatām
yathā svargapradā gaṅgā tathais.ā narakapradā || 29 ||
“I. 27. Once upon a time, out of devotion to Lord Vis.n.u*, dharma* melted into liquid
so that it could pervade the three worlds, and now it survives as ink.
I. 28–29. Now, in order that the three worlds may again be occupied by the lord
*Kāyastha, who destroys the daily and the occasional rites of gods, nāga* and men,
Kali* melted into liquid and is still present in the guise of ink. Just as the Gaṅgā*
bestows Heaven, this liquid bestows hell.”
These three stanzas allude to an episode which Ks.emendra will resume later in
his career in his probably last work Daśāvatāracarita, in the account of Vis.n.u’s
fifth incarnation as a dwarf (vāmanāvatāra). From this more detailed account it
becomes clear that one has to construe the genitive bhagavato vis.n.os in 1.27a
with trailokyākraman.e ‘striding over the Three Worlds’, not with bhaktyā; cf.
Daśāvatāracarita 5.210b: cakrı̄ trilokyākraman.ābhikāmah., and 5.212a: trailokyā-
krāntilı̄lāpravisr.tavapus.ah. śrı̄pater dan.d.apādah.. Furthermore, Dharma’s somewhat
obscure deed of melting into liquid becomes comprehensible. When Vis.n.u disguised
as a dwarf took his second step, the Daśāvatāracarita continues:

. tridaśābhinandye |
prāpte ’tha vis.n.oś caran.āravinde virañcilokam
pādārghyadānāvasare ’bjajanmā kaman.d.alum . nirjalam āluloke || 5.214 ||
dharme drute tatks.an.am ambubhāvam . yāte ’tha pādye kamalāsanena |
bhaktyā pradatte balikı̄rtiśubhrā taraṅgabhaṅgair udiyāya gaṅgā || 5.215 ||
‘When Vis.n.u’s lotus-like foot which is to be honoured by the gods had reached the
Brahma world, the Lotus-born (Brahma) saw that his water jar was empty when it
was time to carry out the water-offering for his feet. As soon as Dharma melted into
water and the flowing water-offering was devoutly given by the One who sits in a
lotus (Brahma), Gaṅgā who was splendid by the glory of the offering went upwards
with the bends of their waves.’
This passage throws some light on Narmamālā 1.27 ff., but nevertheless the
phrase mas.ı̄rūpen.a tis..thati in 1.27d remains problematic. From the Daśāvatāracarita
we know that Dharma melted into the water of the Gaṅgā and not—as the text in
1.27 says—into ink. This is indirectly confirmed by internal evidence from the Nar-
mamālā itself: our allusion concludes with a remark in 1.29d from which it seems
quite obvious that yathā svargapradā gaṅgā should refer to the event in Vis.n.us’s
vāmanāvatāra alluded to in 1.27, whereas tathais.ā narakapradā refers to the mock-
ing quasi-mythological account of the ‘kāyasthāvatāra’ related at length in Nar-
mamālā 1.9–19 and resumed again in the present stanzas 1.28–29ab. Therefore the
passage mas.ı̄rūpen.a makes no sense at all in 1.27d and must probably be considered
as a corruption caused by the influence of the almost identical expression in 1.29ab.
Instead of this, one expects a reference to Gaṅgā, the precise wording of which can
of course no longer be established with any certainty.27 If one takes into account

27 It is tempting to read simply *gaṅgārūpena, but, as said above, this is mere guesswork.
.
Review article 173

the Daśāvatāracarita as cited above, together with the conjectural interpretation of

1.27d, one could translate the three stanzas as follows: ‘Once, when Lord Vis.n.u strode
over the Three Worlds, Dharma out of devotion melted into water and stayed in the
*form of the Gaṅgā.* But when the patron of the kāyasthas strides over the Three
Worlds thereby interrupting the daily and the occasional rites of gods, nāgas, and
men, Kali melted into liquid and stays in the form of ink. Just as Gaṅgā bestows
heaven, this (i.e., the ink) bestows hell.’
1.30ab: vyathitah. prathitair grāmair nigad.air lagud.ais tathā28 “Persecuted with
chains and sticks by the villagers † . . . †”
Baldissera suspects that the phrase prathitair grāmair is corrupt. But if one takes
into consideration the possibility that Ks.emendra depicts real events not quite remote
from the time of the composition of the Narmamālā, one can translate: ‘Persecuted
by [some] well known villagers with chains and sticks’.
1.32: kramād grāmaniyogena nagare gan.anāpateh. | dambhasambhāvitah. prāpa
. vidher vaśāt || “In time, through a post as village officer (grāmaniyoga)
gr.hakr.tyam
he went to work in Śrı̄nagara*. By a stroke of luck, and esteemed as a result of his
pretended virtue, he obtained the position of household manager to the chief accoun-
tant.”
The phrase “he went to work in Śrı̄nagara*” translates the mere word nagare,
which seems quite unlikely. I would propose: ‘In the course of time, honoured as
a result of his hypocrisy, he obtained—by a stroke of luck—through a post in the
village of the chief accountant the position of a household manager in the city.’
1.49ab: hastāṅgulı̄nyastahaimatrigun.āvartavālikam “With a golden ring spiralling
three times around his finger”
Rather: ‘wearing on his finger a golden ring [consisting] of three twisted wires’.
1.56: sa cāsti bhuvi vikhyātah. kāyastho bhavatā samah. | vinā dhanam
. vināyāsam
.
sarvasvaharan.am . vinā || “Well known in this world, there is a Kāyastha*, similar
to you. (He can be yours) at once, without effort, without spending money, without
confiscating property.”
A construction which requires an addition of a complete verbal phrase “(He can
be yours) at once” is quite unlikely. Translate rather: ‘And he is well-known in this
world, a kāyastha similar to you, apart from wealth, exertion, and robbing property.’
Perhaps something is missing in the text following this stanza.
1.59ab: yadi nāma bhavatpun.yaih. sa sames.yati madgirā “If such a one should
come, due to your merits and my suggestions”
One should connect sames.yati with bhavatpun.yaih.; otherwise the verb will be
without an object. In this way the expression gets a nice turn: ‘If he—due to my
suggestion—should join forces with your merits’.
1.61b: ādarāya “to show his importance”, rather: ‘to show respect’.
1.72b: lat.at “dangled from”: Read *lad.at; cf. 1.75d and 2.128a below.

28 The text as printed in the edition actually has a misprint and also two obeli to mark the supposed cor-
ruption; it reads . . . †prathitairagrāmair ni†gad.air. . . .
174 M. Straube

1.72cd–1.73ab: śatacakralikāsyūtamalaliptāṅgaraks.akah. || śı̄rn.ajı̄rn.apat.ı̄gupta*

kaks.ā(MS: kaks.yā)niyamitāñcalah. “He had a cloak smeared with dirt, made of hun-
dreds of circular patches sewn together, / With its border gathered up under his armpit;
and he was covered by an old, worn out piece of cloth.”
It is hardly possible to connect, on the one hand, the second part of the long com-
pound in 1.73ab, i.e., -*kaks.ā(MS: kaks.yā)niyamitāñcalah., with aṅgaraks.ah. in 1.72d
and, on the other, the first part, i.e., śı̄rn.ajı̄rn.apat.ı̄gupta-, with the actual word of
reference khalah. in 1.73d. Further, it is questionable if there is sufficient reason to
change the MS reading kaks.yā29 ‘belt’ which seems to make good sense here. As
the text stands the whole expression 1.72cd must be connected with khalah. (1.73d)
and has to be translated: ‘the border [of his garment?] were fastened by a belt which
was concealed by an old, worn out cloth.’ However, this expression seems not to
make good sense, therefore one could consider to break up the long compound by
inserting a visarga after -gupta-. Visargas and anusvāras are often liable to disap-
pear at the end of pādas in the course of the transmission; cf. below 1.129cd for a
similar case. In this way we would get the smooth expression śı̄rn.ajı̄rn.apat.ı̄*guptah.
which finds some support by a similar phrase in 1.46–48: niyoginam [. . .] -pat.ı̄vr.tam.
Thus the whole line 1.73ab could be translated: ‘he was concealed under (i.e., cov-
ered by) an old, worn out cloth and the hems [of his garment] were fastened by a
belt’.
1.75d: *lat.an “swinging”: Read with the MS lad.an; cf. above 1.72b.
1.80d: kun.d.abhān.d.akaran.d.ikā “a metal pot, a wide-mouthed vessel, a wicker bas-
ket”
One has to take the compound as a tatpurus.a, since as a dvandva it should end in
-kāh.. Therefore translate: ‘a wicker basket [full] of bowls and pots’.
1.85–1.86ab:
sarvadevagr.hagrāmarāśisam . hāratatparah. |
rajjuśes.ı̄kr.tāśes.anirjarah. paripālakah. (MS: nirjara.ripālakah.) || 1.85 ||

. śarats.an.māsakalpanām |
sa prāpya pradadau dı̄rghām
“I. 85. The superintendent (*paripālaka), by busily stealing the riches of all the tem-
ples and villages, reduced all the gods to nothing but rope. I. 86. After the treasurer
(gañjadivira*) arrived, the superintendent (paripālaka*) submitted to him an exten-
sive account for the six months of śarad [. . .]”
Baldissera follows Kaul in filling the lacuna of the MS with h. pa.30 But this is not
at all convincing because this conjecture produces a very abrupt and unmotivated
change of subject of the narrative combined with a clumsy construction of stan-
zas 1.83–86. It is quite unlikely that after talking about the gañjadivira in 1.83–84
Ks.emendra would shift to a single remark about the paripālaka in 1.85 (on whom he
has dwelt at length in 1.61–70) only to turn back once again in the next stanza (1.86)

29 Baldissera cites the reading of the MS in n. 23 to the text edition as kaksya, and gives this also as the
.
reading of Kaul and Vidyāratna/Padhye. But in n. 75 to the translation she cites it as kaks.yā. Since both
the older editions read kaks.yā, not kaks.ya, I suspect kaks.yā to be the reading of the MS.
30 Baldissera’s n. 87, p. 58, “Kaul supplied -pa-.” should be corrected to “Kaul supplied -h pa-.”
.
Review article 175

to the gañjadivira, without indicating the repeated change of the subject in some
way. By assuming such a disjointed narration Baldissera is forced to presuppose two
different subjects for prāpya and pradadau in 1.86ab, again under the assumption
that there is no indication in the Sanskrit. In addition, quite contrary to its normal
use the pronoun sa in 1.86a would not point to the person mentioned last. What one
expects, on the contrary, is the continuation of the description of the gañjadivira in
1.85. In the case of the first line of the stanza this presents no difficulties. However,
the exact wording and translation of 1.85d remains a problem yet to be solved and,
in the absence of a cogent suggestion, should be marked with obeli as a problematic
passage. For the time being one could assume that the description of the gañjadivira
is maintained. Consequently, the following line 1.86ab should be translated: ‘After
he (i.e., the gañjadivira) arrived, he handed over [a document containing] an ex-
tensive fixing for the six months up to the autumn harvest’.31 For kalpanā ‘fixing,
settling; apportion (of a share)’ cf. PW2 s.v.; note especially the references to the
Mānavadharmaśāstra and the Yājñavalkyasmr.ti. The expression śarats.an.māsa- can-
not possibly mean “the six months of śarad” (Baldissera, p. 58) if śarad is taken
to denote the “autumn harvest” (n. 89), since autumn of course does not last six
months.
1.88: asmin devagr.he te te prasiddhāh. paripālakāh. | vikrı̄tanijasarvasvāh. prayātā
madvirodhinah. || “In this temple I have driven out many famous superintendents
(paripālaka*) who used to oppose me, after selling all their properties.”
This translation hardly seems possible. The verb pra√yā meaning ‘to go to’ cannot
be translated in the causative meaning “to drive out”. If taken in its natural meaning
prayātā fits in well with the locative asmin devagr.he, the case usually denoting the
goal of the going. Therefore one should translate: ‘Many famous superintendents who
have sold [their] own property came as my enemies to this temple.’
1.90b: cākrikāśivaih. “pernicious cākrikas”
This translation is hard to account for; it presupposes *aśivacākrikaih.. Perhaps the
text is corrupt here. Read *cākrikaih. śivaih. ‘by favourable cākrikas’?32 This I think
better fits the attitude which one would expect the gañjadivira to have with regard to
his accomplices, the cākrikas.
1.94+: caturbhujā lun..thih. “plunder with four arms”
It seems strange to connect the attribute caturbhujā in the sense of “with four
arms” with lun..thih. “plunder”. Alternately, one could translate ‘fourfold plunder’
which would refer to the fourfold procedure of plundering described in 1.92–94.
1.97: athānyarāśipravan.ah. pravı̄n.ah. sādhulun..thane | āpatpraśamanam. prāpa
grāmam. tasmān niyogavit || “A man devoted to taking others’ wealth, clever in cheat-
ing respectable people, reached a village that would allay all his worries.”
The phrase tasmān niyogavit has been left out in the translation. Because there
is no indication of a change of subject of the narration I assume that it is still the

31 Or simply ‘for the six months of the year’ if one takes śarad in the more unusual meaning of ‘year’.
32 In the usual orthography of the MS this conjecture would presuppose the reading cākrikaiśśivaih. How-
.
ever, to my knowledge the vowel signs for -ā and -ai are not especially liable to be confused in the Śāradā
script, therefore this suggestion finds no pure palaeographic support.
176 M. Straube

paripālaka (cf. 1.96b) to whom this and the following stanzas are devoted. Therefore
one could translate: ‘Then (atha) from there (tasmān),33 inclined to others’ wealth,
clever in robbing good men and knowing the buisness he reached a village that would
eliminate his worries.’ Note that the word rāśi which usually simply means ‘quantity,
heap’ is obviously used in the sense of ‘wealth’; cf. also 1.54d, 1.85b, and 3.88c.
1.99d: Correct kukut.ı̄ to kukkut.ı̄.
1.101a-c: karpat.ı̄tilamr.ddarbhapavitrārghasamudgakaih. | dārupāttrı̄m . [sic] vahan
. “He carried a wooden case, [. . .] which was full of small caskets with mate-
pūrn.ām
rials for worship, such as a piece of cloth, sesame seeds, clay and a ring of darbha*
grass.”
Since argha/arghya most often refers to the special water-offering, I think
arghasamudgaka denotes ‘a small round bowl for the water-offering’; cf. argh(y)-
apātra “the small vessel in which water is offered to the guest on his arrival” (MW).
Correct pāttrı̄m
. to pātrı̄m
. , for there is no etymological justification to double the -t-.
1.102a: japoccalatkūrcah. “raising a handful of kuśa* grass as he uttered prayers”
Ks.emendra’s intention seems rather to be ‘his beard moves up and down while
he uttered prayers’; cf. Kalāvilāsa 1.50b: pralambakūrco “a long-beard” and soon
after that, 1.52a: japacapalaus..thah. “a man whose lips are animated with muttered
prayers”.34
1.102b: sadācāra*pathe (MS: pade) sthitah. “Following orthodox behavior”
There is no need to change the MS reading. The phrase sadācārapade sthitah. is
quite a natural expression and can be meaningfully translated, literally: ‘keeping to
the position of virtuous conduct’, i.e., ‘following a virtuous conduct’. Cf. the many
references in PW1 for pade + √sthā, also the well-known word padastha ‘keeping an
office’.
1.109c: bhagavatpādā “the sandals of the Lord”
In spite of the translation offered the expression remains obscure. Baldissera
(p. 63, n. 108) rejects the interpretation “having auspicious feet” given in the glossary
of the edition by Vidyāratna/Padhye, but her own rendering presupposes the word to
be in the dual rather than in the plural.
1.115d: *ucchalan (MS: utphalan) “surging up and down”
Since the MS reading utphalan could also be translated as ‘leaping up’,35 there is
no need to change it.
1.117a: athā: Read atha.
1.124d: -*pı̄t.hakam (MS: pı̄t.hikam) “stools”
Baldissera justifies her conjecture so: “The text reads pı̄t.hikam; it should be
emended either in pı̄t.hakam or in pı̄t.hikām” (n. 131, p. 66). But if one takes the
whole compound to be a samāhāradvandva with pı̄t.hikā taking on a neutral ending,
the MS reading could be retained.

33 i.e., ‘from the surālaya’, cf. 1.96d.

34 Text and translation Vasudeva (2005, pp. 108 ff).
35 Cf. PW2: √phal + ud “aufspringen”; also Apte s.v.: “to spring, leap”.
Review article 177

1.126ab: dan.d.atyājanalekhām . ś ca sa prāptān svāmino ’ntikāt “In the presence of

his superior [. . .] the petitions he received for exemption from punishment”
Here antikāt most probably does not mean “in the presence of” but ‘from the
vicinity of’; therefore translate: ‘The documents concerning remission of sentences
which he received from his superior’. Usually Ks.emendra’s makes a precise distinc-
tion between antikāt ‘from the vicinity of’, antike ‘in the vicinity of’ and antikam
‘in/into the vicinity of’; cf., e.g., Av-klp 82.25b jagāma tadantikāt which, owing to
the context, unambiguously means ‘went away from him’. For antike ‘near’ cf., e.g.,
Av-klp 28.32, 37.67, and 62.91.
1.129cd: lilekha kūt.akapat.aprakat.āks.arakovidah. “and he began writing [docu-
ments] as he was an expert in forging and in practising tricks and deceit.”
Baldissera offers another possibility in n. 135, p. 67: “It could also be: ‘as he
was an expert openly in writing, and secretly in practicing deceit”’ Both interpre-
tations are obviously not satisfactory. The problematic text can easily be improved
if one inserts an anusvāra after -pat.a. The smooth phrase lilekha kūt.aka*pat.am .
prakat.āks.arakovidah. could be translated: ‘and as an well known expert in letters
he wrote a fake document’. For a similar case of the possible omission of a visarga at
the end of a pāda cf. above 1.72cd–1.73ab. The use of cloth for writing and the terms
used to denote it are discussed at length in a paper by P. K. Gode.36
1.130bc: diviro rahah. | khala[s ta]sya gr.ham . gatvā “The officer (divira*) [. . .] went
secretly to the house of the rascal”
The translation presupposes khala[syā]sya which is also possible to fill in the la-
cuna.
1.141: vyāpr.to ’py aniśam . tena diviren.āpahārin.ā | vātenevānalah. sārdham
. jajvāla
janakānanam || “Incited day and night by this rapacious officer (divira), as fire by
wind, he (the other divira*), together with him, burnt the people as if they were a
forest.”
A transitive meaning of vyā-√pr. ‘to be occupied or engaged in’ is not attested
and therefore not easy to account for. In addition, Baldissera omits to translate api.
Perhaps one should take vyāpr.to as ‘official’ and connect the instrumental tena
diviren.āpahārin.ā with sārdham . : ‘Even the official together with this rapacious offi-
cer burnt day and night the people, like fire together with the wind [burns] the forest.’
This stanza could be interpreted as concluding the description of the grāmadivira; cf.
the caption after 1.140: iti grāmadivirah..
2.4a: jr.mbhamān.ā parāvr.ttya [sic] “When she yawned she stretched her body back-
wards”
Here jr.mbhamān.ā rather means ‘to stretch out’ (in German: sich rekeln) and
not ‘to yawn’. This meaning of √jr.mbh here suggests itself by the presence of
parāvr.tya ‘turned back’. Cf. the explanation of the commentator Śivarāma for the
third nāndı̄ of the Nāgānanda where he glosses jr.mbhā with gātravināmah., agree-
ing with Dhātupāt.ha 1.416: jr.bhi gātravināme.37 The use of jr.mbhante for a pun

36 The use of cloth for letter-writing at the court of Harsa (A.D. 606-674), reprinted in Gode (1996, p. 13
.
ff).
37 The line in question runs: bhrūbhaṅgotkampajrmbhāsmitalalitadrśā divyanārı̄janena; cited from Steiner
. .
(1997, p. 65). For a detailed discussion of this stanza cf. ibid., pp. 65 ff., particularly p. 66, n. 4. For the
original sequence of the nāndı̄s of the Nāgānanda cf. ibid., pp. 23 ff.
178 M. Straube

in Av-klp 64.105 suggests a similar interpretation.38 Cf. also jambhati/jambhanā ‘to

arouse oneself/arousing’ in Pali. Apparently √jr.mbh can be used in this meaning both
as a transitive and intransitive verb; for an instance of the transitive use cf. Apte’s
reference to R.tusam
. hāra 6.9: jr.mbhan.a “stretching (the limbs)”.
2.21d: *nirgut.āntakah. and
2.22c: *nirgut.āh. (MS in both cases: nirgun.ā-); cf. p. 76, n. 165.
These emendations can be strongly supported by a reference to Samayamātr.kā
8.42 where a certain nirgut.a is speaking about his relation to the aks.apat.ala; the very
same relation is presupposed in Narmamālā 2.21. Cf. the detailed and illuminating
discussion of the two terms nirgut.a and aks.apat.ala by Meyer (1903a, p. 81, n. 2, and
p. 91, n. 4).
2.26cd: tathāpi sarvasarvajñah. (MS: sarvah. sarvajñah.) parados.ānudarśane “still
he knows everything about everyone when it comes to exposing the faults of others.”
There seems no need to change the MS reading which yields a correct ma-vipulā.
The line can be interpreted as a general statement: ‘nevertheless everybody knows
everything when it comes to exposing the faults of others.’
2.34cd: māyūropānadāmandamandarārāvagarvitah. “was proud of the noise as
loud as that of the Mandara*, of his peacock shoes.” (n. 181, p. 79: “The noise is
compared to that of the churning of the milky ocean, where mount Mandara* was the
churning stick.”)
The word āmanda—obviously employed for the sake of assonance—is omit-
ted in Baldissera’s translation. In this context it can only mean ‘a little low’.
Thus the whole compound could literally be translated thus: ‘was proud of the
Mandara-like noise which was a little low, like [that of] his peacock shoes’. Whereas
the general meaning of the compound becomes clear form the similar expression
upānatkutsitārāvagarvitah. in Deśopadeśa 6.12, it does not seem easy to analyse it
precisely.
2.39: kautukād gr.hanārı̄bhir vr.tas tasthau tadunmukhah. | upādhyāyo ’pi dı̄nāraga-
. vidadhad dhiyā || “The women of the household (soon) surrounded him out
n.anām
of curiosity, and he stood there full of desire for them. The tutor, on the other hand,
counted coins in his mind.”
Baldissera’s translation presupposes that the stanza consists of two independent
sentences with the mat.hadaiśika (cf. 2.36b) as the subject of the first line and the
upādhyāya of the second one. This interpretation fits well in the context of the pre-
ceding stanzas 2.33–38 and is also suggested by the expression upādhyāyo ’pi in
2.39b which is typical when connecting two sentences. The translation cannot, how-
ever, be accepted as long as one reads vidadhad in 2.39d which, of course, as a present
participle cannot form an independent sentence. The problem could easily be avoided
if one instead reads *vyadadhad.
2.44ab: ityādi dattvā bālānām . *suphalakes.u (MS: phalahakes.u) sah. “Al-
. nityam
ways writing these and similar things on the writing-boards of the children”
There is no need to change the MS reading, since the word phalahaka is also
attested in Rājataraṅgin.ı̄ 8.1699 where it seems to mean quite the same as phalaka,
i.e., ‘plank, board’.
38 For text and translation cf. Straube (2006, pp. 120, 188).
Review article 179

2.47: sasmitam . sasmitālāpam . muhur gos..thı̄vidhāyinam | niyogikāntā paśyantı̄

daiśikam
. nācalat tatah
. || “The wife of the officer (niyogin*), seeing the smiling guru
speaking in smiles and always holding conversation, did not budge from there.”
Sasmitam . certainly functions as an adverb here: ‘The wife of the officer, smilingly
watching the smiling guru . . .’.
2.48b: tatatatstrı̄bhir: Correct the misprint to tattatstrı̄bhir.

2.49: tābhir . . . mattābhir “by arrogant women”, rather: ‘by aroused women’.
2.54d: nirvikalpavrate *sthirāh. (MS: sthitāh.) “as if firm in the observance of those
who are free of all scruples”
Here, as in 1.102b, there is no need to change the MS reading, since sthitāh. to-
gether with a locative is quite a natural expression. Retain the MS reading and trans-
late: ‘they practise the observance of being free of all scruples’.
2.70ab: vahann aus.adhasaṅketanāmasam . yogacı̄rikām “And carrying a strip of
cloth on which were collected his appointments and prescriptions”
In my opinion the suggestion of Prof. M. Hahn cited by Baldissera on p. 86,
n. 203, is strongly to be preferred: “Carrying a cloth with the marks, names and
compositions of the drugs”. It can be added that the word cı̄rikā here most probably
refers to a special kind of fine cloth used for writing and therefore could be translated
as ‘document’.39 Accordingly, Siegel translates this line: “[. . .] carrying bundles of
papers—appointment slips, memoes, prescriptions”.40
2.71a: cikitsako ’rthaprān.ānām
. “He cares only for those who are rich and alive”
The expression arthaprān.ānām. , obviously a bahuvrı̄hi, cannot be taken as a
dvandva, since artha can neither mean “rich” nor prān.a “alive”. Translate: ‘He cures
only those whose life [depends on nothing but] money [for the doctor]’?41

2.80cd: tasmāt *snigham 42

. dadhi* (MS: snigdhā dadhih.) pūrvam atra yojyam .
saśarkam “Therefore thickened curds should be given at first, together with sugar.”
This conjecture, proposed already by Kaul, creates a pāda yielding a kind of sa-
vipulā which is out of question as an improvement of the MS reading. Although this
rather doubtful variety of the śloka is referred to in some works on Sanskrit metrics,43
it is extremely rarely attested, to my knowledge never in a kāvya text.44 For the time
being the corrupt passage should be put between obeli.
39 Cf. above, note 36; cf. also the similar word cı̄raka used in Haribhatta’s Jātakamālā 25.117 (cited in
..
Straube 2006, p. 23), further, dinnārojjāmacı̄rikā “acknowledgement of a debt in cash” and similar expres-
sions cited by Stein in his note to the translation of Rājataraṅgin.ı̄ 8.147 (Vol. II, p. 14).
40 Siegel (1987, p. 168). Incidentally, it may be noted that Siegel’s translation of the second line of this
stanza, “It’s as if there were a lot of red tape involved in dying” (kr.tāntādhikr.tasyāgrād yah. prāyastha
ivāgatah.), is difficult to follow.
41 The translation was suggested by Prof. Oskar von Hinüber (Freiburg).
42 “Ms snigdhā dadhih. But there is a small circle indicating error under -dhih.” Baldissera p. 22, n. 99.
. .
43 Notably in Halāyudha’s commentary to Piṅgala, in Hemacandra’s metrical treatise, and in the
Kavidarpan.a (on Prakrit metrics), cf. Steiner (1996, p. 230, n. 14). Prof. Oskar von Hinüber (Freiburg)
kindly gave me a further refrence to the Pali grammar Saddanı̄ti 8.1.3.17.
44 Cf., e.g., Tokunaga (1995) who records only 19 sa-vipulās in the whole body of the Mahābhārata. Jacobi
(1885) records no such variety in a quite representative selection of classics (Kālidāsa, Bhāravi, Māgha,
Bilhan.a).
180 M. Straube

2.92: niryatpalālapūlı̄kah. pādato dhūlidhūsarah. “covered in dust, with bunches of

straw stuck under his feet”
It seems better to take the word niryat- in its attested meaning of ‘coming out, is-
suing’ rather than “stuck”. This fits in well the ablative pādato ‘from his feet’ (which
can hardly be translated as “under his feet”). Therefore translate: ‘was covered in
dust, and from his feet fell [small] bunches of straw’.
2.94ab: ed.ikāvyapadeśena gāvah. pādair hr.tā daśa “As compensation for some
ewes, ten cows have been led away by their legs.”
The meaning “compensation” for vyapadeśa is not attested. If one takes it in the
usual sense of ‘pretext’, one could translate: ‘Because of the pretext that [they were]
ewes, ten cows have been led away by their legs.’ Possibly the villagers pretended
that the cows were ewes for the tax-advantage it would bring them. After they are
found guilty of tax evasion their cows were confiscated.
2.96a: ghr.tanād.ı̄- “a pipe for ghee” (n. 219, p. 91: “Probably a hollow bamboo stick
used to feed ghee to cows.”)
Nād.ı̄ seems rather to denote a liquid-measure here.
2.106cd: bibhrān.o vadanam . vr.ddhamahis.ı̄bhagavibhramam “he had a mouth that
looked like the cunt of an old buffalo-cow.”
The expression can be put even more graphically: ‘his mouth was as charming as
the cunt of an old buffalo-cow.’
2.108cd: stanasampūrn.am . vaks.asā *rāks.asākr.tih. (MS: pāks.asā) “Looking like a
rāks.asa*, with a heavy-breasted chest”
Read stana*sampūrn.avaks.asā and translate: ‘with his chest covered with woman-
like breasts he looked like a rāks.asa’?
2.109cd: lopikāpūpaśapharā*mı̄ks.ā*bhr.tamahodarah. (MS: śapharāmiśrā) “and
had a large belly filled with a mixture of boiled and coagulated milk, fish, rice cakes
and sweetmeats.”
Read -śapharāmiks.ā- according to n. 233, p. 93. Note that the caesura between
the third and the fourth pādas separates the ā- from *āmiks.ā, which is merged with
the final of śaphara yielding the division śapharā-miks.ā. With regard to the caesura
between the pādas of the anus..tubh this is quite an unusual metrical praxis, but cf.
2.111ab for the same phenomenon.45
2.110cd: dhūmodgāragad.aṅkārān muñcan “the sound ‘gad.a’ rumbled out of him
in steamy eructations”
Read -*gad.atkārān.46 The usual way to form onomatopoeic expressions is: ‘ono-
matopoeic root’ + at;47 in this case gad. + at; cf. 1.137a: -phad.atkāra- and 3.50c:
-t.anatkāra-.

45 Ksemendra makes use of this practice more frequently with regard to caesuras inside the pādas of more
.
elaborated metres, such as Śārdūlavikrı̄d.itā, Mandākrāntā, Mālinı̄, etc., These caesuras do not, of course,
have the same ‘validity’; cf. Straube (2006, p. 39).
46 Dr Jürgen Hanneder informed me that in case the MS reads gadaṅkārān, it would be a slip of the pen
.
for the reading -tkā- which is palaeographically easy to account for.
47 Cf. Hahn (1977).
Review article 181

2.112b: tathāsyakuharaśmaśrūdarasphigguruh. “heavy in his jowls, his moustache,

his belly and his buttocks”
In Ks.emendra’s works the word kuhara meaning ‘cavity, hollow’ is often attested
in the compound āsyakuhara or similar expressions.48 The meaning of these com-
pounds can safely be established as ‘oral cavity’. Therefore āsyakuhara- should not
be translated as “jowls”. The whole phrase could be translated: ‘also heavy in his
jaws, moustache, belly, and buttocks’.

2.114cd Correct the misprint bhūkampaddr.[sic]t.hat- to bhūkampalut.hat- according

to Kaul.
2.116b: -cı̄rikām “on a piece of cloth”: Cf. above 2.70b.

2.124cd: kūt.asam . ketapat.ı̄pātrān.i cintayan “while thinking about the sheets (?) of
documents of fraudulent contracts.” Cf. n. 244, p. 96: “The text requires an emenda-
tion in place of the corrupt -pat.ı̄pāttrā[sic]n.i.”
Read -*pat.apātrān.i ‘while thinking about suitable recipients (pātrān.i) of fake doc-
uments’? Cf. above 1.129c: lilekha kūt.aka*pat.am ..
2.128ab: bhūrja*pet.a(MS: pı̄d.ā)lad.atklinnamas.ı̄subhr.ta49 bhājanah. | kathayann
iva gandhena bhāvinı̄m. narakasthitim || “He has a pot filled with ink dangling from a
basket for bark, which seems to proclaim by its smell his future sojourn in hell.”
The long compound can be translated more precisely in some parts: -klinnamas.ı̄-
subhr.ta- ‘filled completely (-su-) with liquid (-klinna-) ink’. Probably ‘liquid’ here
characterizes ink which is already a mixture of dry ink and water.50 Furthermore,
it is hardly possible to connect the participle kathayann of the third pāda with
bhūrja*pet.a-. The subject is, of course, still the āsthānadivira. Therefore, the whole
stanza could be translated: ‘His pot filled completely with liquid ink dangled from a
*basket for bark and he seems to proclaim by his smell his future sojourn in hell.’ The
bad smell could go back to the pot of ink. Cf. Bühler who reports a Kashmiri recipe
for the preparation of ink by “converting almonds into charcoal and boiling the coal
with gomûtra (urina bovis)”.51
2.132a: d.r.s.tvā[sic]. Read dr.s..tvā.
2.132d: *śat.ir (MS: s.at.ir)
This word occurs six times in the Narmamālā. It is spelled with an initial s.a four
times (2.132d, 135a, 139c, and 141c) and with śa twice (2.136b and 145d). Because
the meaning and correct orthography of this word—provided that there is one—still
are not altogether clear up to now,52 it seems advisable to be more conservative here,
and retain the readings of the MS for the time being.
48 Cf., e.g., Kalāvilāsa 7.21: vivrtāsyaghorakuharā (Vasudeva 2005, p. 252), Samayamātrkā 1.2: dur-
. .
dharaghoravaktrakuhare, Av-klp 89.10: visāritāsyakuharam . , and 89.12: kr.tāntavaktrakuharāsanne. Not
from Ks.emendra’s pen but quite similar is, e.g., Śrı̄kan..thacarita 22.8: vaktrakuharāyita (Schmidt 1928,
s.v.).
49 Baldissera’s text actually reads -ması̄ subhrta-.
. .
50 Dry ink was very common in classical India, cf. P.K. Gode: Some notes on the history of ink-manufacture
in acient and mediæval India and other countries, reprinted in Gode (1996, p. 31 ff).
51 Bühler (1877, p. 30).
52 Cf. Baldissera, p. xxix, and p. 97, n. 247, also Sanderson’s remarks on p. 129.
182 M. Straube

2.133: tatsaṅgatyāpy adr.śyanta bhūrjabhat..tā bhayaṅkarāh. | tadgr.he kalayanto

’ntas tasya sthāvaraviplavam || “The legal clerks (bhat..tas) appear terrifying just
through contact with him, while calculating his plunder of landholdings inside his
house.”
This translation can be improved in several respects. Firstly, api can hardly be
translated as “just”; secondly, viplava means ‘loss, ruin’ instead of “plunder”. And
finally, ’ntas most probably does not govern the expression tadgr.he, as indicated
by Baldissera’s translation “inside his house”, rather it is an adverb to kalayanto.
This is an expression attested several times in Ks.emendra’s works; cf., e.g., Av-klp
23.39: so ’vadad dayitām antah. kalayan bodhivāsanām. Therefore, the stanza could
be translated: ‘Even by visiting him the legal clerks appeared terrifying inwardly
noticing the ruin of his (real) property in his house.’

2.137b: brahmarāks.asāh.
Here the word does not denote “Brahmins who had become demons” (p. 99,
n. 257), but the members of the brahmin caste in the society of the rāks.asas defeated
by Rāma.53

2.141c: *śat.isandhuks.an.am . (MS: s.at.i-) “† . . . . . . . . . † ”

If s.at.i/śat.i means “writ, legal action” as proposed with good reasons by Baldis-
sera,54 the compound can be meaningfully translated as: ‘the burning of official doc-
uments’. There seems to be no reason to suspect a corruption since even the phonetic
structure śat.isandhuks.an.am . fits well into the stanza together with the other words
ending in -ks.an.am . .

2.142ab: carmakr.n nartakı̄bhrātā saṅgatyā nartako ’bhavat “He was a shoemaker,

the brother of a dancing girl. Through connection with her he became a dancer.”
Perhaps one should better translate saṅgatyā as ‘by chance’ since this expression is
not specified: ‘The leather craftsman, the brother of a dancing girl, by chance became
a dancer.’

2.145: kuto ’nyathā bhavaty es.ām . vacaś carmakr.tām iva | kaks.e sumahatı̄ bhastrā
śat.ı̄*dı̄nāra(MS: -dı̄nnāra-)bhājanam || “If it were otherwise, how could the words of
these people be the same as those of the shoemakers? Under their armpits they have
large leather pouches, and a recipient for the coins obtained by writs.”
The translation seems not to make much sense. Perhaps one could translate: ‘How
could it be otherwise? The speech of these—so to say—bag makers55 turns into a
huge leather bag on his belt, a recipient for writs and money.’ The joke intended
here could lie in the fact that the clerk was once a worker in leather who, amongst
other things, made bags. But now his ‘product’ is his speech which earns him a lot of
money in his leather bag.

53 Cf. Rāmāyana 5.16.2, and the remarks by Goldman and Sutherland Goldman (1996, p. 400).
.
54 Cf. above 2.132d.
55 Literally: ‘workers in leather’.
Review article 183

3.9: bhastrā cetyādisambhāraś cı̄rikālikhitam

. ks.an.āt | sajjı̄kr.tam. śrı̄sacivair bho-
gamitrair niyoginah. || “And a leather pouch. These and other requisites which had
been written on the strip of cloth were immediately made ready by the illustrious
friends and companions in pleasure of the official (niyogin*).”
Baldissera adds in n. 275, p. 102: “The Ms reads cı̄rikālikhitam . , not -likhitas as in
Kaul [Kaul, in fact, reads -likhitah.. M. S.], and sajjı̄kr.tam
. , not . tah..” However,
sajjı̄kr
the MS reading, adopted for the text, is incomprehensible. Accordingly, Baldissera
does not translate the text accepted by her, but Kaul’s text which presents a reasonable
conjecture and therefore demands consideration. For cı̄rikā cf. above 2.70ab.
3.18a: *bhaktāś (MS: bhat..tāś) cānye guror “These and other devotees of the guru”
and
3.19c: mattā guru*bhaktāś (MS: bhat.āś) “the drunken devotees of the guru”
Baldissera comments on her conjectures in n. 293, p. 104: “I emend bhat..tāś in
bhaktāś. The same mistake occurs at III. 19, and with bhat..tair bhat..taih. in II. 136. The
Ms. is unclear.” Since the meaning and use of the word bhat..ta/bhat.a is not altogether
clear,56 one should refrain from such a drastic change of the transmitted text, which
would affect three occurrences of this word.57 Although the proposed gurubhakta
is encountered in a similar passage in the eighth chapter of the Deśopadeśa, it is
found there—as Baldissera rightly remarks—“in the captions that are probably late
interpolations” (p. xliv). Bhat..ta could be used ironically here, meaning something
like ‘reverend’; cf. the word bhat..tapāda in Rājataraṅgin.ı̄ 7.280 and 8.143, which
Stein takes to be an “honorific designation of Tantric teachers”.58 The reference to
2.136 cited by Baldissera seems to be irrelevant here.

3.22ab: akhan.d.aśı̄tām . śuman.d.aladyutitaskarı̄ “who steals the lustre of the orb of

the full moon” / “the passionate woman whose lustrous body shines without hin-
drance through her shimmering clothes”
It is difficult to see how the second translation corresponds to the Sanskrit.
3.28a: hāren.a kim . sumadhyāyāh. “What need is there of a girdle for one with a
beautiful waist” (n. 304, p. 106: “hāra usually is ‘a pearl necklace’. Jani (personal
communication) suggested the meaning ‘girdle’ because these stanzas mention spe-
cific ornaments for the different parts of the body.”)
The mentioning of the pearl necklace as an ornament for the hips could be in-
tended as a sideswipe by Ks.emendra. In his Aucityavicāracarcā he declares: uci-
tasthānavinyāsād alam . kr.tir ‘An ornament is an ornament if it is put at the
. kr.tir alam
proper place’ (sixth kārikā), to which he cites the following example:
kan..the mekhalayā nitambaphalake tāren.a hāren.a vā
pān.au nūpurabandhanena caran.e keyūrapāśena vā |
śauryen.a pran.ate ripau karun.ayā nāyānti ke hāsyatām
59
aucityena vinā rucim . pratanute nālam. krtir no gun.āh. ||

56 Cf. Baldissera’s remarks on, pp. xxx, p. 49, n. 44, p. 57, n. 84, p. 98, n. 255, and p. 100, n. 261.
57 Apart from 3.18a and 19c the gurubhattāh are mentioned once again in the caption after 3.20.
.. .
58 Rājataraṅginı̄, Stein (1900, Vol. II, p. 13, n. to stanza 8.143).
.
59 Minor Works of Ksemendra, p. 12.
.
184 M. Straube

‘Who would not become an object of laughter by [wearing] a belt around the neck,
a glittering necklace around the hips, an anklet around the hands or a bracelet around
the ankles, by [showing] valour towards a submissive one or compassion towards a
foe? Without appropriateness an ornament (or ‘a rhetorical embellishment’) does not
display splendour, nor do virtues (or ‘literary merits’).’
Perhaps one should take hāren.a kim
. sumadhyāyāh. as a joke and translate hāren.a in
the usual meaning as ‘pearl necklace’, despite the fact that the other ornaments men-
tioned in the same stanza of the Narmamālā cannot be called inappropriate (anucita)
in the same way.
3.36b: karn.e kr.tapavitrakah. “and a ring of darbha* grass behind his ear” / “and the
sacred thread behind his ear”
Here pavitraka could mean ‘two stalks of Kuśa grass’; cf. PW2: pavitraka “Kuça-
Halme, insbes. zwei.” Usually, a ring of Kuśa grass is worn on the finger; cf.
Kalāvilāsa 1.70: sthūlatarakuśapavitrakalāñchitakarn.ah. pavitrapān.iś ca and the ref-
erence Yājñavalkyasmr.ti 1.226 cited by Vasudeva 2005, p. 3.51, to this passage.
3.36c: yuvā ran.d.āpriyo viprah. “the young Brahmin dear to the widow” should
rather be translated: ‘the young Brahmin, the lover of the widow’.
3.38ab: tam eva tı̄rthayātrāsu paścān nayati sarvadā “Always she follows only him
on pilgrimages to holy fords”
It is, of course, impossible to read *paścānn ayati* which would yield the transla-
tion proposed by Baldissera. Translate rather: ‘Thereafter she always leads the same
one on pilgrimages to holy places’.
3.46: tatah. praviviśus te te dı̄ks.āsamayino narāh. | baddhanetrapat.ā *śis.yā (MS:
mithyā) mohenevāndhakāritāh. || “Then several men entered, pupils who were candi-
dates for initiation, blindfolded as though blinded by delusion.”
There is no need to change the transmitted reading mithyā to *śis.yā.60 Baldissera
based her conjecture on the “similarity of śa- and ma- and of s.a- and tha- in Śāradā”
(p. 109, n. 314) which is hardly a sufficient justification because the word mithyāmoha
is also attested in Av-klp 16.24.61 The second line can be translated ‘blindfolded as
if blinded by the deceptive delusion’.
3.52: tvatprasādāt samuttı̄rn.ām . śritah. | śaṅkarāyatanebhyo ’pi
. sa kām api daśām
śaivah. sarvam
. jahāra yat || “That he, being a devotee of Śiva, and having obtained
through your favour extraordinary transcendence, stole everything that was in the
temples of Śaṅkara*,”
The stanza is a complete sentence in itself: ‘He was in a certain state—which was
overcome by your grace—that he, a Śaiva, stole everything even from the temples of
Śaṅkara.’
3.53: sarvasvaharan.am . dharmasatkāryam . brāhman.aks.ayam | yat tasya nirvikalpa-
sya tat tavaiva vijr.mbhitam || “That he indiscriminately robs people of all, that he is

60 Incidentally, this conjecture would also require changing the sandhi of baddhanetrapatā into -patāh.
. . .
61 tatas tasyānubhāvena tatra bhūpālayos tayoh / yayau vairarajahśāntyā mithyāmohapariksayam. The
. . .
Tibetan translation confirms mithyāmoha- with log par rmoṅs pa.
Review article 185

the tax revenue officer, (/that he destroys dharma*,) that he annihilates Brahmins —
(all this) is the manifestation of you alone!”
Baldissera remarks in n. 322, p. 111, about satkāryam . : “This is a pun on the two
meanings of satkāryam, ‘the position of tax revenue officer’, and ‘one to whom the
last honors are to be paid’. The latter would mean ‘that he makes dharma* one to
whom the last honors are to be paid’, i.e., ‘that he destroys dharma*’.” I was not able
to find a reference for the meaning of satkārya as “position of tax revenue officer”.
Likewise, it is difficult to see how the compound dharmasatkāryam . can be interpreted
as “that he makes dharma* one to whom the last honors are to be paid”. Perhaps one
should understand the term satkārya as satkāra; one could even think of changing the
text accordingly. From a formal point of view satkār(y)a ‘attention, respect’ fits good
in the sequence of words in the stanza, viz. haran.a ‘robbery’ and ks.aya ‘decay’; cf.
stanza 2.141 which is construed quite similarly. The expression ‘respect for the law’
may at a first glance appear somewhat unexpected, but could be taken as a ironical
sideswipe. The line could be translated: ‘That he indiscriminately robs property, re-
spects the law and kills brahmins—this is the exploit of you alone.’ For vijr.mbhita in
the meaning ‘deed; exploit’ cf., e.g., Mālatı̄mādhava 10.19,1 and 10.21d.
3.53+: Correct the caption gurukr.tyamahattamah. . . . following stanza 3.53 to
*gr.hakr.tya-.
3.59b: tapasvı̄ sarvasam . śrayah. “A wretched person who goes to everyone” / “He
procures suffering and exploits everyone”
The second translation of this pāda seems not to have any relation to the Sanskrit.

3.62ab: prāk pratis..thāpitā yena cāmun.d.ā man.d.akārthinā “He once installed a

Cāmun.d.ā*, when he wished for man.d.aka”
Man.d.aka in the meaning of a “large sweet cake” (p. 112, n. 329) seems a little bit
odd in this context. I suspect the original reading to run *cāmun.d.āmun.d.akārthinā:
‘He already had installed a statue of Cāmun.dā wishing for a head that is not bald’.
This would be in keeping with Ks.emendra’s manner of exploiting an opportunity for
a word-play like this. Cf. Samayamātr.kā 1.10cd for a description of the barber as bald
headed. The word mun.d.aka meaning ‘bald head’ is attested in Av-klp 50.119; PW2
has this meaning only for mun.d.a. However, I’m not certain if it is really justified to
change the Ms reading.
3.62cd: Correct yāsau to *yo ’sau.
3.71c: dravin.āvaskaraks.etram
. “for he is the rubbish tip of substance”
The picture seems to be more crudely explicit: ‘he is a shit house for wealth’.
3.74ab: tasmāt *paus.pakam (MS: paus.pikam) āsādya kriyatām . mantrasam . padā
“After obtaining from him verdigris, let him [the guru] perform the blessing of the
mantra*”
Baldissera remarks in n. 333, p. 114: “I emend paus.pika in paus.paka, ‘oxide of
brass’, ‘green vitriol’. It is a substance used in rasāyana, ‘alchemy’, to rejuvenate old
people. Sharma’s Glossary has paus.pika and translates: ‘(?) flower money i.e., remu-
neration for favour’.” I could not trace a connection between paus.paka and rasāyana,
186 M. Straube

so that paus.paka does not seem to fit in the context of a tantric ritual.62 Baldissera
did not mention that the cited glossary records a second occurrence of the rejected
word paus.pika, meaning “a seller in flowers (a flower man)” (ibid., p. 549) to which
however it adds a wrong reference. Nevertheless, paus.pika/paus.pikı̄ can be traced
to the Samayamātr.kā; cf. 2.16, 2.81, and 7.40 where it unquestionably means ‘(fe-
male) florist’. This in turn is not altogether out of place in our stanza since the mer-
chant who wishes the ritual to be performed is described as ajñātatr.n.akās..thādivikrayı̄
dravyanāmabhih. ‘selling unknown grasses, woods, etc., under the name of medical
substances’ (3.72cd), and so could ironically be called a seller of flowers. Further,
Baldissera seems to take the expression mantrasam . padā as a nominative, but a word
*sam. padā (feminine) is not yet attested and probably not to be expected. If one takes
it as it is, i.e., as an instrumental, and if the wider meaning ‘let him be [ritually]
treated’ can be accepted for kriyatām . , one could translate the whole line: ‘There-
fore, after having approached the seller of flowers let him be [ritually] treated with an
abundance of mantras’.
3.81a: *nolluñchita(MS: nollun..thita)śmaśrur “with your beard pulled out”
The emendation *nolluñcita- (so correctly spellt) can be supported by a reference
to Av-klp 93.15: athāpare ’hni viviśur nagnāh. ks.apan.akā gr.ham / ulluñcitakacaśma-
√
. kleśaniśitavratāh.. The verb luñc is used as a technical term of the Jains which
śrusam
describes the Jain practice of plucking out the hair of the beard; for references cf.
Balbir (1996).
3.82: athaikabhujam ānandād udyamyaikena pān.inā | gurur nanarta dvābhyām . ca
śanair utthāya cāsanāt || “Then out of bliss the guru raised an arm by the hand, and
getting up slowly from his seat danced with both [arms].”
The first ca after dvābhyām. can only be accounted for if one takes it to connect
pān.inā and dvābhyām
. . Accordingly one should translate: ‘Then out of bliss the guru
raised an arm, and getting up slowly from his seat gesticulated with one and [then]
with two hands.’
3.104d: patito ’vaskare “fell into a heap of rubbish”
To express it more explicitly: ‘fell into a sewer’.

3.106ab: dagdhārdhakarpat.ı̄r niryatsakeśavr.s.an.advayah. “his hairy balls pro-

truded from his half-burnt old rag”
Read with Kaul -karpat.ı̄niryat-. Note that the word karpat.ı̄, also encountered in
stanza 1.101, is attested only as karpat.a (neuter) in PW2.
3.111a: daurgatyatapasā “with harsh sufferings”, rather: ‘suffering from poverty/
misery’.

Additions to the various glossaries in Baldissera’s edition

aṅgaraks.ika (1.48b) ‘cloak’; cf. Baldissera p. 51, n. 57.

62 For paus.paka “green vitriol” cf. the references cited in PW2 and Rājanighan..tu 13.92–93 (Garbe 1882,
p. 13).
Review article 187

arghasamudgaka (1.101b) ‘a small round bowl for water-offering’; cf. above.

āmanda (2.34c) ‘a little low’ (of noise); cf. above.
āsyakuhara (2.112b) ‘oral cavity’; cf. above.
ucchis..taphālaka (1.112d) ‘dustpan’ (“a tray for leftovers” Baldissera); cf. PW2:
phāla “eine Art Schaufel” (a kind of shovel).
karikā (1.109c) ‘water-pot’; cf. PW2: karaka “Wassertopf”.
karpat.ı̄ (1.101, 3.106) ‘cloth, rag’; cf. PW2: karpat.a “Lappen”.
kalpanā (1.86b) ‘[a document containing a] fixing of a tax’; cf. above.
kāmatāttvika (3.17d) “one who has achieved mastery of the kāmatattvam . , the essence
of desire” Sanderson, cf. Baldissera p. 104, n. 292.
kūrca (1.102a) ‘beard’; cf. above.
kośaśapatha (3.56a) “an oath sworn over a shared cup” Baldissera p. 111, n. 324; cf.
Deśopadeśa 3.42, Samayamātr.kā 2.47b (kośapāna), and Kölver (1971, p. 175 ff).
ghat.ı̄ (3.54) “water clock” Sanderson, cf. Baldissera p. 111, n. 323.
cı̄rikā (2.70b, 2.116b, 3.9b) ‘written cloth; document’; cf. above to 2.70ab.
√
jr.mbh (2.4a) ‘to stretch out’ (intransitive); cf. above.
t.uppikā (1.47c [MS: .tippika], 1.110c) ‘cap’; also Samayamātr.kā 8.55d; cf. CDIAL
5481.
tālaka (3.44b) ‘door lock’; cf. PW2: “*Thürschloss”, and tāla “Thürschloß, Riegel”.
tūstaka (1.72a) ‘braid of hair’; cf. PW2: tūsta “*Flechte”.
dāpya (1.78c) ‘fee’ (“bribe” Baldissera).
dhūlipat.e (2.88c) a kind of sand table used for writing (?).
naks.atrapattrikā (1.111a) ‘calendar’ (?).
nād.ı̄ (2.96a) a liquid-measure (?); cf. above.
nāraṅgaka (3.14a) ‘a dandy’; cf. PW2: nāraṅga “*Wüstling” (a lecher).
nis.prapañco (1.34a) ‘honesty’; cf. prapañca.
pañcaphan.a (3.51d) ‘the five [fingers stretched out] like the hood of a serpent’.
pat.alikā (1.80c) ‘box’; cf. Schmidt (1928): “Kästchen, Körbchen” (with a single ref-
erence).
pān.d.uvallı̄ (3.60d) a certain creeper used for a ritual.
pūlı̄ka (2.92c) ‘small bunch’; cf. Kalāvilāsa 1.68a: kuśapūlı̄m
. , and Schmidt (1928
s.v.).
prapañca (1.7a) ‘fraud’; cf. PW2: “Nach den Lexicographen = [. . .] viparyāsa (=
vaiparı̄tya, bhrama, māyā)”, and Schmidt (1928): “*Trug, Prellerei, Kut.t.[anı̄mata]
592”.
paus.pika (3.74a) ‘florist, a seller of flowers’; cf. above.
phalahaka (2.44b) ‘a board [for writing]’; cf. above.
bhagavatpādā (1.109c) ? (“the sandals of the Lord” Baldissera); cf. above.
*mun.d.aka (?) (3.62b, MS: man.d.akā-) ‘bald head’; cf. above.
mūt.ikā (3.2b) ‘bundle’ (?); cf. PW2: mūt.aka = mut.a “Korb”.
mr.toddhāradı̄ks.ā (3.43ab) “[a] kind of post mortem initiation” Sanderson, cf. Bald-
issera p. 109, n. 312.
ratikāma (2.90d) an evil spirit; cf. p. 90, n. 215.
rāśi (1.54d, 1.85b, 1.97a, 3.88c) ‘wealth’.
vārāha (1.54a) ‘Vis.n.u’ (rare synonym for varāha).
vārika (1.128c) “some kind of revenue official” Sanderson, cf. Baldissera p. 67,
n. 134.
188 M. Straube

vikhan.d.ana (3.44d) ‘eliminating, destroying’; cf. Schmidt (1928): “Zerfleischen,

H[ars.acarita] XXVII, 51”; cf. also the denominative verb vikhan.d.ay- ‘to break
up into pieces’.
vijñānin (3.17d) “a type of gnostic who claims to reach enlightment without perform-
ing any ritual” Sanderson, cf. Baldissera p. 104, n. 291.
velāvratin (3.16a) “one who keeps a vow for a determined period of time” Sanderson,
cf. Baldissera p. 103, n. 285.
śat.ha (2.11d) ‘deceitful husband’; cf. Baldissera p. 73, n. 152, and MW s.v. (without
any reference).
śastamukha (2.122cd) ‘auspicious omen’ (?) (“auspicious face” Baldissera).
śirah.śāt.aka (1.62d, 1.72a, 1.84c) a particular headdress; cf. Baldissera p. 53, n. 65.
samput.ı̄ (1.110c) ‘trousers’ (?) (“casket” Baldissera); cf. Schmidt (1928): sam . put.ikā
“Art Hose, Kaut.[ilya] II,11”.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Oskar von Hinüber (Freiburg) and Dr
Jürgen Hanneder (Halle) for valuable suggestions and to Dr Jayandra Soni (Marburg) for carefully check-
ing the English of this paper.

References

Primary sources

Av-klp: Ks.emendra, Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā.

Bhavabhūti (1989). Mālatı̄mādhava: A Critical Edition of the Mālatı̄mādhava by M. Coulson. Delhi: Ox-
ford University Press.
Kalhan.a, Rājataraṅgin.ı̄: Stein, M. A. (1892). Kalhan.a’s Rājataraṅgin.ı̄ or Chronicle of the Kings of Kash-
mir. Vol. I: Sanskrit Text with Critical Notes. Bombay. [Reprint Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal 1960.]
Kalhan.a, Rājataraṅgin.ı̄: Stein, M. A. (1900). Kalhan.a’s Rājataraṅgin.ı̄. A Chronicle of the Kings of Kaśmı̄r.
Translated, with an Introduction, Commentary, & Appendices. Vol. I: Introduction. Books I.–VII. Vol.
II: Book VIII. Notes. Geographical Memoir. Index. Maps. Westminster 1900. [Reprint Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass 1961.]
Ks.emendra, Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā: Avadána Kalpalatá [later: Bodhi Sattvāvadāna Kalpalatā].
Now first edited from a xylograph of Lhasa and Sanskrit Manuscripts of Nepal by Sarat Chandra
Dás and Hari Mohan Vidyábhúshan.a [Vol. II: and Satis Chandra Vidyābhūs.an.a]. Calcutta. Vol. I:
1888. Vol. II: 1918. (Bibliotheca Indica.)
Ks.emendra, Bhâratamañjarî of Kshemendra. (1898). Edited by Mahâmahopâdhyâya Pan.d.it Śivadatta and
Kâśînâth Pân.d.urang Parab. Bombay: Nirn.aya Sāgara Press (Kāvyāmālā 64.) [Reprint New Delhi
1984.]
Ks.emendra, Br.hatkathāmañjarı̄ of Ks.emendra. (1931). Edited by MM. Pt. Shivadatta & Kashinath Pan-
durang Parab. Bombay: Nirn.aya Sāgara Press (Kāvyamālā 69.) [Reprint New Delhi 1982.]
Ks.emendra, The Daśāvatāracaritam of Ks.emendra. (1930). Edited by MM. Pt. Durgāprasād and Kaśı̄nāth
Pān.d.urang Parab. Bombay: Nirn.aya Sāgara Press (Kāvyamālā 26.) [Reprint New Delhi 1983.]
Ks.emendra, Minor Works of Ks.emendra. (1961). Edited by E. V. V. Rāghavāchārya and D. G. Padhye.
Hyderabad: The Sanskrit Academy Osmania University.
Ks.emendra, Râmâyan.a-Mañjarî of Kshemendra. (1903). Edited by Pan.d.it Bhavadatta Śâstrî and Kâśînâth
Pân.d.urang Parab. Bombay: Nirn.aya Sāgara Press. (Kāvyamālā 83.) [Reprint New Delhi 1985.]
Ks.emendra, Samayamātr.kā. In Minor Works of Ks.emendra (pp. 349–416).
Ks.emendra, Kalāvilāsa. In Vasudeva (2005), pp. 92–317, and Minor Works of Ks.emendra, pp. 219–271.
Ks.emendra, Kavikan..thābharan.a. In Minor Works of Ks.emendra (pp. 63–84).
Ks.emendra, Narmamālā. In Kaul (1923), and Minor Works of Ks.emendra (pp. 307–346).
Rāmāyan.a: The Vālmı̄ki-Rāmāyan.a. Critically Edited by G[ovindalāla] H[aragovinda] Bhatt [General Ed-
itor]. Baroda 1960–1975.
Review article 189

Secondary sources

Apte: Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

Balbir, N. (1996). Lū- et luñc en moyen-indien. In: Langue, style et structure dans le monde indien. Cen-
tenaire de Louis Renou (pp. 327–352). Paris.
Bühler, G. (1877). Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit MSS made in Kaśmîr, Rajputana, and
Central India. The Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, extra number. Bombay,
London.
CDIAL: Turner, A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages.
Garbe, R. (1882). Die indischen Mineralien, ihre Namen und die ihnen zugeschriebenen Kräfte. Nara-
hari’s Râġanighan..tu Varga XIII, Sanskrit und Deutsch, mit kritischen und erläuternden Anmerkungen.
Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.
Gode, P. K. (1969). Studies in Indian cultural history (Vol. III). Hoshiarpur.
Goldman, R. P. / Sutherland Goldman, Sally J. (1996). The Rāmāyan.a of Vālmı̄ki. An Epic of Ancient
India. Volume V: Sundarakān.d.a. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hahn, M. (1977). iti als Adverbialbilder. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Sup-
plement III, XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag (pp. 854–863).
Jacobi, H. (1885). Zur Lehre vom Çloka. Reprinted in Hermann Jacobi, Kleine Schriften, herausgegeben
von Bernhard Kölver. Teil 1 (pp. 175–184). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Kaul, M. (Pan.d.it Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrı̄) (1923). The Deśopadeśa & Narmamālā of Kshemendra.
Edited with Preface and Introduction. Poona (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, Vol. 40).
Kölver, B. (1971). Textkritische und philologische Untersuchungen zur Rājataraṅgin.ı̄ des Kalhan.a.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Sup-
plementband 12.)
Meyer, J. J. (1903a). Ks.emendra’s Samayamatrika (Das Zauberbuch der Hetären). Leipzig: Lotus-Verlag.
Meyer, J. J. (1903b). Dāmodaragupta’s Kut..tanimatam (Lehren einer Kupplerin). Leipzig: Lotus-Verlag.
MW: Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English dictionary.
PW1: Böhtlingk/Roth, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch.
PW2: Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung.
Salomon, R. (1983). Ks.emendra as a Satirist: A New Look at the Deśopadeśa. Acta Orientalia, 44
[Ediderunt Societates Orientales Danica Fennica Norvegica Svecica. Havniæ.], 11–32.
Schmidt, R. (1914). Ks.emendras Kalāvilāsa V-X. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 28,
406–435.
Schmidt, R. (1928). Nachträge zum Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung von Otto Böhtlingk. Leipzig.
Siegel, L. (1987). Laughing Matters. Comic Tradition in India. Chicago. [Reprint Delhi 1989.]
Steiner, R. (1996). Die Lehre der Anus.t.ubh bei den indischen Metrikern. In Suhr.llekha. Festgabe für
Helmut Eimer (pp. 227–248). Swisttal-Odendorf. (Indica et Tibetica 28.)
Steiner, R. (1997). Untersuchungen zu Hars.adevas Nāgānanda und zum indischen Schauspiel. Swisttal-
Odendorf. (Indica et Tibetica 31.)
Straube, M. (2006). Prinz Sudhana und die Kinnarı̄. Eine buddhistische Liebesgeschichte von Ks.emendra.
Texte, Übersetzung, Studie. Marburg. (Indica et Tibetica 46.)
Tokunaga, M. (1995). Statistic Survey of the Śloka in the Mahābhārata. In Memoirs of the Faculty of
Letters, Kyoto University (No. 34, pp. 1–37) Kyoto.
Vasudeva, S. (2005). Three Satires. Nı̄lakan..tha, Ks.emendra & Bhallat.a. New York. (Clay Sanskrit Li-
brary.)