Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies about the Kathasaritsagara"

See other formats

t*A%i(> 4tl* 

Studies about the Kathasapits^ara 



Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Welenschappen te Amsterdam. 


Deel VIII. N. 5. 



Jaiiuari 1908. 

Studies about the Kathasaritsagara 



Vcrliamlelingen der Koninklijke Akademie \-.\\\ \Yrlensf happi-ii u- Armlrrdira. 


Deel VIII. N. 5. 


J O H A N N K S M U L L E R. 

1 5 1974 


Introductory ('impin- I 8 

lu\ | in |'||;>T 

Brhatkatkd. ami Kathdsaritofy 

Chapter I. The Brhatkathamanjan '.' 

Chapter IT. The Brhatkntha. IN rontmts 27 

Chapter III. The Brhatkatha. It- datr ;nid its author 44 

77/6? Text of the KathasarifoSgara 

Chapter I. The two editions 01 

1. General comparison of the editions of Brockhaofl 

and of Duri^aprasad C^\ 

2. Errors and mistakes in Brockhau>' edition .... 
3. Corrections of Kathas. words and r \pivssions to 

be made in the Petropolitan Dictionary '> ^ 

4. Grammatical monstra removed 87 

5. D's edition not a critical edition 91 

Chapter II. List of passages, the text of which has been 

improved in DurgapraaSd's edition '.' 1 

Chapter III. Conjectural criticism 154 

Chapter IV. Metrornm conspectus 174 


In days of yore, when (,'iva, tin- Lord of the Univ. 
alone with his beloved wife, the daughter of Hima\jint , and 
caressed her, she asked him to tell her some charming new talc. 
For Indian gods and goddesses are as fond of tales as Indian men 
and women. The Supreme God, howe\ 7 er reluctantly and after an 
unsuccessful expedient to acquit himself with little, entered upon 
a story of immense length and of an extraordinary charm. Panati 
wishing to keep the whole of the pleasure to be procured by that 
wonderful catena of tales to herself, shut the door and ordered 
Nandin, Qiva's bull, to withhold any person whatsoever from 
coming in. In the meanwhile one of Qiva's most beloved Ganas, 
Puspadanta his name, went on to see his ma>tcr. Being forbidden 
the entrance, he succeeded by dint of magic power to penetrate 
unseen within the presence of Qiva and Parvati and to overhear 
that ne\v and delightful story about the seven sovereigns of the 
Air-spirits (Vidy ad liar as). Full as he was of the great tale he 
had heard, he afterwards narrated it to his own wife Java: ,,for 
who can hide wealth or a secret from women?" Shi' again told it 
over to her mistress, the wife of Qiva, for ,,how can women be 
expected to restrain their speech?" So it happened that ParvatI 
knew the disclosure of the Great Narration notwithstanding the 
precautions taken to keep it secret, and in her wrath she cursed 
the indiscreet Gana to be born as a man. Malyavant, another 
Gana, who interceded for his guilty friend, was in a similar 
manner damned to a human existence. She tixod, however, a limit 
to the punishment. ,,When you, Puspadanta, will meet in the 
forest with a Picaca whose name is Kanabhuti and who is properly 
a Yaksa brought to the state of Picaca by a curse of Kubera, 
you will remember the whole tale; then you must narrate it to 

Verhand. Ron. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. 5. 1 


him, after which you shall be released. As to Malyavant, he shall 
get free from the curse, after hearing the tale from Kanabhuti." 
Accordingly both fell down from on high and were born in the 
world of men. And having spent their lives with various things, 
they fulfilled at last and after many vicissitudes the conditions 
prescribed to them and so regained the upper regions and their 
former state. But Malyavant, or rather Gunadhya for that was 
his name on earth and in his human existence - - having heard 
the tale as it was narrated to him by Kanabhuti, could not recover 
his original state, before he had written it down and proclaimed 
it. Now, since the language in which it had been communicated 
to him was the vulgar and despised Paicaci tongue, Kanabhuti 
being a Picaca, and since himself was prohibited to translate it 
into some nobler dialect, restrained as he was by a vow from the 
use of Sanskrit, Prakrit and either Apabhramca or the conversa- 
tional language of the country (defi) *), six sevenths of the won- 
drous narration were lost from want of human audience to catch 
the tale and keep it. He had no other listeners than the forest- 
animals and the trees, on which beings he spent his recital, bur- 
ning each leaf of the text after proclaiming. Finally king Satava- 
hana, whose minister Gunadhya had formerly been, being requested 
to lay hold on the tale, went up to him and preserved the rest 
for mankind, even this a poem of considerable size, as it extended 
over 100.000 clokas. 

This is the miraculous origin of that rich and splendid store- 
house of manifold stories, preserved to us in a Sanskrit redaction, 
the Kathasaritsagara, as is narrated in its first book, ,,The 
Socle of the Tale." Somadeva, the Kashmirian court-poet to whom 
we are indebted for that ,,largest and most interesting collection" 2 ) 
of tales, is with due right considered one of the most illustrious 
Indian poets. And for my part, I dare say that he is one of the 
few Indian litterary geniuses who by their relative simplicity of 
language , their moderation in the employment of rhetorical requi- 
sites, their aiming at clearness and appropriateness of style, their 
knowledge of human nature and their art of arranging the plot of 
a tale, may stand out the judgment of European criticism accor- 
ding to the standard of Occidental taste. Though he lived as late 
as the second part of the eleventh century, I do not hesitate to 

') Ksemendra, Brlmtkalhamanjari (ed. Nirnayas.) p. 29, gl. 51: tyaktabhamtrayo 
'py aham / paipaclm anapabhramcasamskrtaprakrtam pritah, but Kathas. 7,148 saniskrtani 
prakrtam tadvad depabtiasa ca sarvadd / bhasatrayam idam tyaktam. 

a ) WILSON, Hindu Fiction in his Essays, ed. by HOST, I, 157. 


make him rank with tin krit authors and to j. 

hi- Encyclopedia of tales for BO h ' } an <>f tl> 

is characterized tin- U .1 to tin- 1\ ric |>< ema 

and dramatir writing- of Kalida-a. Mi- 1, 

purity and tin- proper choice of Ittmb, hi- style l>\ it- plain- 
and elegance, hi- metrical -kdl i and i- j'ullx di.-played by 

the number and \arie!\ of the different metre.-, \\liicli lie handle- 
with ease and without the -liu r hte-l endiarra nieiit. 

Apart i'roiu the beautiful form of the p.,em . it- eonienN are of 
great illtere-t. Tin- -I < >i f-hoil-e of tale- lna\ ha\e been built at a com- 
paratively recent time, the \ei\ eve of the Mohammedan conquest, 
the stories and legends leathered up in it are old ones. The Hrlmt- 
kathil, its source, preceded it ly many cent in -Ider 

collection must also hiive been made up out of traditional materials 
It is a matter of fact, that some smaller collections sis tin- 
tantra, and the Vetalapaiicavinicati are incoi-porated into it ; now and 
then the reader meets with some mythological narration from the 
Vedic age l ) or with celebrated epic and pauranik stories, as that 
of Qibi and the dove (tar. 7, 88 97), of Kuru and the water- 
snake (tar. 14, 76 87), of Sunda and I pa-umla (tar. 10. 
135140), of the birth of Skanda (tar. 51, 00 foil.), of the 
death of Pandu (tar. 21, 2027), the love-story of Usa and 
Aniruddha (tar. 31, 11 33), and the e\ten-i\e relation of the 
tale of Nala and Damayaiiti (."Hi, 238 417). In other portions of 
the book legends of the Buddhists are often reproduced, especially 
in lanibaka VI. The main -ton , however, and a large number of 
the .episodes are (^aiva tales, a- \\a- to be expected from the sup- 
posed first narrator being no other than the Supreme God ( 
himself. From this we may infer that the original collection, the 
Hrhatkatha, must have been arranged in that period of Indian 
history, when Buddhism exercised its -wax over the Hindoo mind 
side by side with (/aivism and so many other manifold varieties 
of sectarian and local creed-, rites and theosophies. 

Moreover Somadeva availed himself of the opportunities afforded 
by the richness and the manysidedness of his subject-matter to 
represent as in a mirror the different shades and a-pects of multiform 
Indian society, its large towns, the seats of commerce and learning, as 
well as the wild tracks of its forest regions, inhabited by ferocious 
and incivilized tribes, as described in the vivid picture in tar. 102, 

*) As Indra's love-making with Ahalya (17, 13714:7), his beguiling of Namuci 
(216 240); the latter tale however is dressed in a Buddhistic garb. 



56 foil. In this respect the Kathasaritsagara - besides its being 
an arsenal of more or less ancient tales of great value for the 
comparative study of fancy and folklore and for the transmigration 
of fables and novels depicts also to the student of the Indian 
world the image of medieval Indian society, its saints and its 
worldlings, its every-day life and its feasts, its ruling classes and 
its scum. 

Nevertheless, only few of the tales are of the pure novelistic kind. 
Such stories as that of the impostors Qiva and Madhava, who played 
a foul trick to a wealthy purohita (24, 82 200), and of the 
jala and Ada tricks (57, 54 175), which are wholly free from the 
supernatural beings and things so habitual to works of Indian fancy, 
are seldom met with. In the great bulk of the tales there is large 
room for deities and spirits of the most various kinds and for secret 
and invisible powers of holy men or sorcerers influencing the course 
of the facts. In short, the Kathasaritsagara is an assemblage of fairy 
tales. Devas, Asuras, Nagas, Yaksas, Raksamsi etc., but most of 
all , the Vidyadharas abound in them ; the magic arts , the intuitive 
omniscience obtained by men possessing miraculous powers, their 
flying through the air and commanding of spirits, their transfor- 
mation of men into animals and inversely , the hideous occult rites 
of magicians and witches as well as divine intercession and divine 
protection are dealt with , as if they were the most natural things 
in the world. Somadeva who was a well educated man and pos- 
sessed a keen intellect and an original wit , as sufficiently appears 
from many an incidental utterance and general remark with which 
he likes to intersperse his narrative, x ) succeeded very well in keeping 
indisturbedly from the beginning to the end of his long poem that 
style of epic ingenuousness which affords a so great charm to that 
kind of writings. Now and the'n he reminds of Ovid by some 
humorous turn , but he was not so superficial as the author of the 
MetamorpJioseon libri. He composed his great work for the amuse- 
ment of the old queen his patroness, the wife of king Harsa of 
Kashmere. 2 ) It is hardly necessary to add that his belief in the 
reality of those amusing tales , however beset with gods and spirits 
of high regard in the creed of the Indian people, cannot have been 
much greater than ours! 

As has been stated above, Gunadhy a is the reputed author of the 

*) WILSON, 1.1. p. 167: w We may here observe, once for all, that the stories of the 
Katha Sarit Sagara are constantly interspersed with pithy maxims of sound morality." 

*) tasyak cittavinodahctoh, vs. 11 of the prapasti subjoined to the end of Katha?., 

p. 597 ed. Durgapr. 

sn I'M.- M,I-' , 5 

Great Tale. But his authorship cann B6, be extruded to 

the first of the eighteen cantos or ///////Wv/.v, of which it i> made up. 
The !ir>t lambaka treats of ih D of the (ireat Talc and how 

it was made known on earth. It i> !. ; <Tedited 

for this. After h:i\ing got. tin- Tale" BBJfl Somacfol 5 ;i\ahana 

unit to compose the Kathapitha. the name of lambaka I] in 

the same tongue jvi/. the I'aicaci dialeel " tar. 

The ])hin of tin: \\oik i> conformable to Indian h;; 
telling. It consists of a frame-tale, in \\liieli a large number of 
various other tales are stored up by the \\.-i, 
the episodic narration mav le JNelf a new fraine-tah^ \\ith 
to other stories. Some hooU . ;) v id,- \ , ; , \\| r ,ted 

into the main stor\. r riii> de^i^n suted \\ith Lrreater or lesser 

skill. Upon the whole the art of eiiclia>in^ i^ not >o well 
in the latter books, where some old famon- collections of t. 
as the Pancatantra , the adventures of Mrgankadatta and liis ten 
companions, the Vetalapancavimeati ai'e emhodied in full; the 
last lamhaka , the story of Yisamaeila, the vanquisher of the 
barbarians, looks as if it were a latter addition to a ready made 

The frame-tale is concerned with the f<ul iiana- 

datta, who was the son of l/davana, kinix of Yat>a , and at the 
same time the new embodiment of Kama, \\ ho had become Anaftga 
(bodiless) by the fire of the wrath of (/iva. Horn as the son 
of a human king, he reached by de ( irree> the hi^h and heavenly 
state of a Cakravartin of the Airy Spirits, the \ id\adhaia>. Lam- 
baka II and III arc preparatory books. They treat of his forefat: 
and more especially of his father, the mem I dayana, king of 
Vatsa , the musical prince, who is mentioned in Pancatantra by the 
name of Vlnavatsa, a well-known figure both in Indian belle* Ic 
and in the Buddhistic records, where he ranks among the kings 
contemporary with CJakyamunt (Rhys David*. />//</>> -dta, 

p. 3 foil.). It is related by what contrivance he got the love and 
the hand of Va'savadalta . who was to become Naravahanadatta's 
mother, daughter to the Ujjuin king Candamah md in what 

wav he succeeded to obtain for his second wife Padmavati. daughter 
of the mighty Magndha king, tinally how his great chief minister 
Yaugandharayana made him acquire the sovereignty over the earth. 

') Here I differ from Tawney's translation, where /"" i-aktum cakre 

is rendered ,,composed the book named Kathapitha, in order to sbow how the tale came 
to be first made known in the Pigaca tongue." The instrum. is to be construed with 
vaktum, not with avcttara. 


In lambaka IV Naravahana's birth is told and the predictions of 
his future greatness. 

Lambaka VI, which contains many and various pleasing stories 
taken for a great deal from Buddhistic sources, is devoted to the 
history of Kalingasena whose daughter is destined to become 
Naravahanadatta's first queen. She loved Udayana, but could not 
be married to him. Some Vidyadhara made her his wife by sur- 
prise, assuming the figure of that king. As the son of Udayana is 
an avatar a of Kama, so it is Rati herself who is embodied into 
the daughter of Kalingasena x ). Therefore, it is a matter of course 
that the two royal children become in due time husband and wife. 

At this point of the tale, the main story begins to lose its 
interest. Udayana, the joyous monarch of the dkira lalita type 
(see LEVI'S Theatre indien, p. 64) is evidently a popular hero of 
old local legend 2 ). He is a man of action and his performances are 
manifold. He and his ministers and comrades: Yaugandharayana, 
the wise plotter and strenuous executer of political schemes, 
Rumanvant the victorious commander of his armies, and Vasantaka 
the companion of his pleasures and the solace in his adversity are 
typical characters with individual features, belonging to popular 
tradition. But Naravahanadatta , his ministers and the endless series 
of his wives, the obtaining of whom is the chief subject of the 
other lambakas and the main object of his exploits do not possess 
that stamp of people-bred origin. They are rather the result of the 
mechanically elaborated reproduction of the fixed type of the 
Cakravartin and his court, projected in Fairy Land. Always the 
like meetings of the son of Udayana with heavenly women who 
are destined to become his wives, always the same or nearly the 
same course of events, leading to the happy union with those 
princesses, in whose superhuman powers he gets gradually initiated, 
being in this way accustomed to take his residence among the 
Vidyadharas and becoming capable to conquer at last the Sove- 
reignty in that Nephelokokkygia among the snowclad heights of 
holy Kailasa. This series of similar feats and adventures, in per- 
forming which our hero, like another Virgilian Aeneas, plays a 

l ) Or rather, she was thought so by every one. The real child of Kalingasena was 
a son, whom Prsjapati, however, according to the order of Civa exchanged for a girl 
of supernatural birth (ayonija) who was no other than Rati. See Kathas. t. 34, 4346; 
t. 110, 71. The real child, Ityaka, was conveyed to his father, the Vidyadhara, who 
brought him up. 

*) WILSON, Essays 1, 191 n. 2. aptly quotes stanza 31 of the Meghaduta: pr&pyAvantln. 
Ud ayanakathakovida gramavrddhan. 


somewhat passive psrt, aa h<- i> throughout din-etrd b\ tin- pro- 
tecting liiind of deities ;ind even b\ </i\a him- 
monotonous, if it stood alone. Hut ju-t hen- tin- fjpai 
recedes behind the numerous and d, >, so 

that the monotony of tin- > called main tale dwind \ in 

the background. Hook \ I V XVI contain the triumph of the hero, 
the narrative of his wars and heroic perform ,\ \\hich lie 

won that snverei^ntx of the Yidyadhara> IOIIL: pronn-rd to him. 
lie was, however, not the first anioii^ nmrtaU to reach that j 
mount power in the region < bordering on Qiva'fi pieci 'hers 

before him had come to it. Two entire book-, the \" and the 
VIII th are filled with the narrative of the exploit- of t\\o pi 
cessors; the former lambaka is a -mall fairv tale in itself OJ 
little charm, the latter makes up a remarkable epic pnem , cele- 
brating the glory of the A-uras when \ictorinu- over the Devas. 

H. H. WILSON was the first European scholar, wo drew the 
attention of Occidental learning to this $forchou>e of I'ablo. In 
an introductory article in the Oricnlal (^unrfrr !/ March 

1824, p. 63 77) and continuing hi> communications in the fol- 
lowing numbers of that periodical, he gave a >ummary of the con- 
tents of lambaka I V. l ) It was profeor BKMCKIIAI > who under- 
took the first edition of the Katlmsarit>agara. Is tir-t partappeare^ 
as early as 1839; it contains the >ame live Jambakas, which had 
been told over by Wilson. More than twent\-ti\e years elapsed 
before he succeeded to get out the rest of the work. Lambaka 
VI VIII appeared in 1802; the remainder, being by far the 
greater portion of the whole - 1.0,~)M) elokas again>t B79fl con- 
tained in the first and second parts - wa* edited in ISlJO. both 
publications making part of the Abkandlungen drr 1)<>>' !////- 

genlandischen Gesellschaft and printed with Roman types, win 
the first volume, lamb. I V, had been edited in nagari n 
The text of Brockhaus remained for a long time the work of refe- 
rence for the Kathisafttsagara, but its authority is now superseded 
by the edition of DURCAPI; .\s\i>. printed at the \irua\asigara press 
(1 st impression 1889, second ini|>r. 1 ( .M);{ . which has been executed 
in a laudable manner, as will be shown in Chapter I 1 of 
Section II of this treatise. 

An* excellent translation of the work appeared in 1880 1884 

*) These papers are reprinted in WILSON'S Essays, collected and edited bij REINHOLD 
ROST in 1864. They are found in the First Volume (= Vol. Ill of WILSON'S Works), 
p. 156268. 


in the BibliotJieca Indica. Mr. C. H. TAWNEY , to whom we are 
indebted for it, acquitted himself of the self-imposed duty of ren- 
dering into English a work of that extent and of so high intrinsical 
merits in a very satisfactory manner. He has well provided those 
who, without acquaintance with Sanskrit, for their studies in folklore 
and comparative history of literature , want to draw the Indian 
parallels or prototypes from their genuine source. 

I for my part do not enter here upon the comparison of the 
numberless tales told in our Ocean of Streams of Tales. The present 
investigations do not go beyond the limits of Indology. They wholly 
belong to the field of critical and philological research. I have 
divided them into two sections. The former of them is devoted to 
the questions pertaining to the Brhatkatha; in the second section 
the differences of the text in the two editions of the Kathasaritsa- 
gara , and some points of criticism are dealt with. 



rii.\rn:i; i. 

Tin: Hun \TK \TIIA\I AVI AIM. 

As Somadcva explicitly nlfirnis, lii> j^n-jit ^ore-house of t;: 
and stories of all kind is not a composition of his own inu-iition . 
nor is it a compilation from various sources, but a sanskritization 
of an older and more extensive poem written in a Millar dialect. 
He says in the introductory verses of his work that it is the repro- 
duction in a condensed shape of the Brhatkatha, the fabulous origin 
of which is narrated in its particulars in his tir>t A/////Wv/ . tin- 
KathapTtha. He has nothing added to its contents nor has he 
omitted anything: i/allia tnuhim tathaivaitan na mandg apy atikramah 
(i. 1, 10); he has only abridged it and made a Sanskrit poem of 
it: granthavititarasamtyepamatram b/tr/xt/ m bh'utyate *), taking care 
besides to embellish his epitome with the indispensable adornments 
required in a kilvya , yet in this going only as far as was com- 
patible with his main purpose to keep intact the relish of the 
narrated in the old poem 2 ). So he had the right to >t\le his ^ork a 
Srhatkatkasarasamgraha (Summary of the quintessence of Brhatkatba), 
as he does in the beginning of his poem : t. 1 , 3 Brkatkalhayah 
ar/rasya samgrakom rficm/nnii/ aliam , and in one of the concluding 
verses, which are wanting in the ed. of Brockhaus, but are found 
in that of Durgaprasad, p. 597, cl. 12: 

ndnakatltamrtamayasya B r // a t k a f // /?// d // 

s n r a A-// a sajjanamanombudhipuniacandrah 
SOMENA vipravarabkurigunabkirama- 

\ \ A MA tmajena r /// 1 tab kkalu s a m g r a h o 'yam . 

*) I quote this line, as it is edited in Durgaprasad's edition. The altered text apud 
Brockhaus, bJiaxa ca vi.lyate may furthor bo left aside. Nor is it longer necessary to 
take here fr/m.sYe = 'Sanskrit 1 in the Paninean signification of the word, as Hall did 
(Pref. to his edition of Subandhu's Vasavaduttn. p. -J4 n.) in his refutation of the wrong 
and erroneous translation of this line by Brockhaus. 

a ) More about this c,loka see below, p. 31 foil. 


Now, as long as no other testimony was known, that is, until 
1859, very distinguished scholars disbelieved the real existence of 
such a voluminous work in a Prakrit dialect, as the Brhatkatha 
was claimed for. Could the Kashmirian composer of the Kathasarit- 
sagara not have fancied that origin of his work which by itself is 
an encyclopedia of' products of fancy ? Must his statement be taken 
a la lettre? A statement, moreover, susceptible to find little credit 
also on this ground that the tale narrated about the reputed author 
of that famous Brhatkatha himself, Gunadhya, is full of unhisto- 
rical matter and miraculous incidents, in short, a mere fairy tale. 
The first editor of the Kathasaritsagara went even so far in the 
way of mistrust , that in the Preface of the first volume of his 
edition, which was published in 1839, he explained the distinct 
avowal of Somadeva about the substrate of his poem in a sense 
diametrically opposed to the words he pretended to comment upon: 
,,Sein Verdienst beruht wohl hauptsachlich in der gleichmassig 
stylistischen Redaction des fruher unter mancherlei Formen in Prosa 
und Versen Zerstreuten." In the subsequent volumes, which appeared 
in 1866 and 1868, he did not repeal that view. 

Yet he might have learned as early as 1859 that Somadeva's 
statement about the Brhatkatha had been corroborated by other 
evidence. In that year FITZ EDWARD HALL, in the Preface to his 
edition of Subandhu's romance in prose Vasavadatta, drew the 
attention to the fact, unobserved before, that such high authorities 
as Dandin in his Kavyadarca, Bana in his Harsacarita, and already 
Subandhu himself, prior to Bana, knew and praised the great 
Prakrit poem of Gunadhya, and that, according to the manner in 
which they refer to it, we may feel convinced that it enjoyed a 
great popularity in their time. A passage in Subandhu's romance 
contains even an allusion to a story told in the Brhatkatha which 
is actually found in our Kathasaritsagara. P. 110 asti Brhatkatha- 

lambair iva calabhanjikopetair vecmabhir upaqobhitam Kusu- 

mapuram. Subandhu , comparing the houses of Pataliputra adorned 
with columns bearing the shape of human figures (qalabhanjikas] 
to the cantos of the Brhatkatha, in which calabhanjika is likewise 
met with, alludes to the story of the gambler Thinthakarala and 
his beloved KalavatI, the Apsaras who was changed by Indra's 
curse into a pillar statuette (Calabhanjika) but recovered her proper 
form by the cunning of her lover (Kathas. 121, 72186). x ) 

*) Hall, 1.1. p. 20, writing his Preface at a time when only five of the eighteen 
lamhakas of Kathasaritsagara had been published, errs in the interpretation of palabhanjika. 


In 1871, A. ( i.i.i.. in a letter to '/'///' . -it W/' /////, written 

at Tanjoi-e .Inly '2 1 and printed in the number of 1 ~> S pt . of that 
periodical, brought to notice that he hail discovered a M- -her 

Sanskrit redaction of the I'.rhatkatha , dillerent from that of Soma- 
de\a. ,/riiis turn- out" he wi to be almost id.-nt leal in in; 

with the ftathasaritsSgara, The tales are aln n in 

the names; the arraim-ement (as far as I bave been able to examine 

the MSS) is much the same, l)iit the >t \ h- i> not 80 g<X 
tali's are told in a very bald \va\ , and >hortrr than in the I. 
though here and t'liere one finds Imi.i: and tediou ptions." 

r fhis first hint was followed in the next \ear by the masterh article 
of G. BriLMM in the r'iist \'olnme of the Imlinn ////////,////;// (p. 
302 foil.); in this he gave an account of another MS of the same 
work, the Brhatkathamafijar! of l\>ememlra whicli In- had 
acquired for the Government of Bombay, lie e-tabli-hed the-e two 
important facts: l ly that both Somadeva and l\ - :,:. ndra worked on 
the same text; 2 ly that thc\ composed their poems independently 
from one another. From some discrepancies in the names for the rest 
common to both, he drew arguments to prove the correctness of 
the statement of both abbreviator- as to the original Brhatkatha 
being composed in Paicaci. His judgment about the character of 
the poem of Kseniendra agreed with that of Hnrnell. ,,lli>bre\ity 
makes him unintelligible and his style is tar from bein_ and 

flowing" (1. 1. p. 306). After comparing with each other the story 
of Putraka as told by Somadeva in tar. 3 of the Kathas. and by 
Ksemendra in the 2 d guccha of his lambaka I, he concludes thus : 
,,I could easily add a dozen other instances, where particulars given 
in the Kathasaritsagara are hinted at but not <l< in the 

Vrhatkatha," (1. 1. p. 308). Cp. also his Detailed tte^rt of a Tour 
in Search of Sanskrit MSS (1877), p. 47, 

In order to demonstrate his views, Bfihler had published in the 
paper quoted a few passages from the first lambaka of the Brhat- 
katha mail jarl, especially the story of Upakoea. It was not till 1885 
that other portions were put under the pro-. Svi. \.\i\ LI.M edited 
the first lambaka (or lambhaka) l ) in full in the Jo li(itirjtte 

of Nov. Dec. of that year, and in a subsequent article, in the 
number of Febr. Apr. is SO also the- tir>t and second Yetala 

1 ) Both spellings are found, it seems, in the manuscripts: Biihler. 1.1. p. 307 
n. 1 quotes from fol. 349 a 6 of his MS lambHakatamgrahah ^ cp. Levi J. As. (1885 II) 
p. 450, but ed. Bombay p. 33 /v//jrt/<* lainhaktth, di'itiyo htmbakah, and cp. supra, 
p. 10 the passage of Subandhu, dealing with Brhatkathalambaih, apparently the name 
of the sections of the original Pai^acI Brhatkatha. . 


tales. He used for that purpose both MSS then available in Europe: 
that acquired by Biihler (B) and a copy of that which Burnell 
had detected (A); for the Vetala tales he availed himself also of a 
third MS, likewise acquired by Biihler and belonging to the Poona 
library (C) ! ), which does not contain the first lambaka. By the 
bye, it may be noted that none of those MSS has the complete 
text. L. VON MANKOWSKI who published the Pancatantra-portion of 
Brhkm. in 1892 2 ) had but one MS, Levi's B, to make use of, 
this portion being wanting both in A and C 3 ). 

By this additional number of clokas - - 308 - - published for 
the first time by Mankowski , the proportion of the printed portion 
of the Brhatkathamanjarl to that not yet printed was brought up 
to almost 1 : 10V 2 . 

In the meanwhile several more MSS have been discovered. 
AUFRECHT in his Catalogm Catalogorum registers 4 in the first, 
3 in the second, and 2 in the third volume sub voce Brhat- 
kathamanjarl, besides 2 others that consist of smaller fragments 
(as one mentioned in Part III which contains only the Vetalapan- 
cavimcati); among them are also the copies which Burnell had 
caused to be taken of A. Besides he mentions, in Part I, 2 MSS 
sub titulo Brhatkatha, one of which is his Katm. 7, the other 
is one of the pustakani that belonged to the pandit Radhakrsna of 
Lahore. Probably these notices refer to the work of Ksemendra 4 ). 

Finally, in 1901 the whole work has been printed at the 
Nirnayasagara Press. The title-page names Mahamahopadhyaya 
Pandit Qivadatta and Kaclnath Pandurang Parab as editors. There 
is no preface at all nor is there given any account of the MSS 
that are the basis for the constitution of the text. From the short 
and scanty critical foot-notes we are allowed to infer that the 
editors had two manuscripts at their disposition, one denoted cfj" 
and the other Icf; each of them full of gaps and corruptions, 
but together they make up almost the complete poem. Neither of 
them may be identified with C or some copy of C, since the 
first lambaka is wanting in neither. The MS 1^" is either = B 

*) This MS seems to be identical with nr. 824 on p. CLXX of Biihler's Detailed 

2 ) L. von Mankowski, Dcr Auszuy aus den Pancatantra in Kshemendras Brlhatka- 
thdmanjari. Leipzig, Harrassowitz. 1892. 

3 ) For the first 47 glokas he availed himself also of another MS, as far as it was 
printed in the preface of Peterson's ed. of the Hitopadega, see his 'Einleitung' p. XII. 

*) Levi, Journ. As. 1886, p. 182 I, affirms that the MSS B and C mentioned above, 
,,ne connaissent que le nom de Brhatkatha." 


or \erv akin to it : ~J7 seems In he ditferent from both A and B. 

The Nirnayasagarapress mu-t ha\e p- one of them in 1888: 

lor on th'- HIM page of its edition of the K:itha-arit-;igara, foot- 
note :l contain^ an inl'ornia! am ////// //v////'/, 

am, of which i| :.l that it i> nrol'llmm ,f t ln' 

Iriilihini fixli. The xrcoud mn>t have 
188S nnd IIK)|. 

The edition itself Kavyamala '. exhibits a di-advantageou- 
contrast to the \alnable edition of i\ ^ara pri the 

same Nirn:iy;isigar;ipre>>. The a\o\\edl\ had condition of the MSS 
available does not all'nrd a -iiHicicnl for the had workman- 

ship of those who carried out the editio princeps of a so highly 
important text. They diselwrged them>el\es of their ta>k a 
and hastil\ and did not a\ail tin of the read\ at hand 

instruments for correcting oh\ions mi-reading- in their manu-cripts. 
In JS71 Biihler could not know that tin* father of K-rn.eiidra 
was named IVakaeendra ; wlien he edited ///</. Ant. I, 307 i 
Praftagcandab hid/to 'bhacnl, IK- reproduced the reading of his US, 
the rightiiess of which he was not ahle to control at that time. 
But the two Pandits editing in 1001 a work . neiidra, 

should not have kept that corrupted reading in their i 
p. 619, cl. 31 and cp. e.g. p. ]()! , el. "1 of the i iracarita 

edited in 1891 at the same Nirnaya-agarapress by the s 
KacTnath and Ms father Dorgaprasad). A close compari>on with 
the parallel passages in Kathas. being a valnahle help, yea ah 
indispensable for any one who had undertaken the ta-k of a cri- 
tical edition, worthy of the Kavvamala >eri. show but \er\ 
rarely that they did so; as a rule they either neglected that u>efnl 
and easy cross-examination or did so in a superficial manner. To 
leave aside their neglect or ignorance of the readings published by 
Buhler, Levi, Mankowski in the portions edited pivviou>ly 1 >. tlie\ 
failed sometimes to reali/e the incoherent and perturbated condition 
of the text of their manuscript^ Lamb. XIV, p. 11)1. el. 309 
they were not aware that the former line is a dittography of 
cl. 305 a. - - In lambaka 1\. |). :J7 1 27, the >tor\ of (,'ndai 
is rendered wholly unintelligible, owing to the fact that two diffe- 
rent portions of it are intermixed! Remove cl. M ") b 701 from 
their place and insert them between <0 S and 7:29: all will be put 

A ) Thinking it may bo profitable to the perusers of the edition of Brhkm. to have 
at hand the better readings of those European scholars for correcting the bad ones of 
their printed text, I have put them together in an appendix, annexed to this chapter. 


right and the concord with the parallel passage in Kathas. (73, 
305 359) will be restored. Another instance of the same lack 
of attention. P. 402 and 403 of their edition, in the same lambaka 
IX, the 3 d guccha (cl. 1 10) opens with the continuation of the 
adventures of Mrgankadatta at the point when Vyaghrasena finishes 
his relation of the events which had happened to -himself and his 
comrades, whereupon Mrgankadatta sets out for Ujjain; these 
matters are told in Kathas. tar. 101 and 102. But at cl. 11 we 
are on a sudden transported into the story of Kesata and Kandarpa, 
a quite different tale which is found in Kathas. tar. 123. From 
cl. 11 to 64 the narration of Ksemendra corresponds to Kathas. 
123, 203 430. But at cl. 64, lo we are back again, as sud- 
denly as we left them before, to the gallant Mrgankadatta and his 
faithful followers. What has happened? That portion of the story 
of Kesata which disturbs in that singular manner the regular course 
of the Mrgankadattakatha, was by some accident or other gone 
astray and had been put into the wrong place. By transporting it 
to p. 430 in lambaka X and filling up with it the large gap 
which the editors signalize on that .page after cl. 241, the due 
order will be restored. In lamb. XIV the clokas 401, 402 

and 407 have been put into a wrong place; they ought to be 
transposed after 9!. 394. 

Upon the whole , I conclude , the so called edition of the Brhat- 
kathamaiijari scatters with errors of print and of other kinds. 

But even so we receive that editio princeps thankfully. Now, at 
least, that important poem is brought within the reach of everybody, 
and not to be silent also about something praiseworthy in the work 
of the two Pandits, the alphabetical list of proper names subjoined 
offers a precious help to whosoever desires to compare with each 
other the different Sanskrit representatives of a given story told in 
the original Prakrit Brhatkatha. Now also every one may easily 
control the exactness of the judgment of Biihler and Levi on the 
nature and the poetical worth of the abstract of that poem com- 
posed by Ksemendra. Its length is a little greater than was to be 
expected from the statement of Biihler Ind. Ant., 1. 1. p. 304 about 
the colophon of the MS acquired by him ; the whole work is 
estimated there at 7080 granthas, yet the printed text of the 
Brhatkatha maiijari amounts to a little more than 7561 clokas. 1 ). 

*) I have left without computation the parigista, wanting in the MSS used by the 
editors, of the 24th s t or y of the Vetala , and added at the end of the book from a 
Tanjore MS by the care of T. S. Kuppusvaml. I have a strong presumption that this 
portion of 75 glokas does not belong to the work of Ksemendra. 



Since the KathSsaritsSgara , it' I ha\c <-\;u-t]\ computed, con>i- 
\M:>S8, the size "f l\M-m<-ndra'- aliract is a liti BI than 

the third part of that composed l>\ Somad. 

The following svnop>is ma\ >ho\\ the concordance of the lamhakas 
in both. 

Katha"- | lambaka [ in 8 gUCQhaS Ol lambaka I in 8 taraiigas = 81 V ;I 

pit ha | _j_ 223 + 97= '<;!. 


iiin ^ 



= 871 


of 147 

+ 2; 1 =421 

Lavanaka HI 

= 414,, 



1 1 !)8 




= 142 




Cat u rd a- | 


= 263 

; i n 

= 818,, 

i T_ 


= 245 



- 1 -^44 




= 612,, 


> 8 ,, 

= 1421,, 

Vela VIII 

= 75,, 


,, I 

= lir, .. 


IX in 3 

gucchas of 882 


+ 1435 

+ 118=2435,, 



= 4929 

Visamaylla X 

= 288>),, 



= 1120,, 

Madiravati XI 

= 83 


,, 1 

= 220,, 

Padma\ 7 ati XII 

= 115,, 


, " ,, 

= 9US.. 

Pauca XIII 

= 236 


.. 1 

= 624,, 



., XIV 

= 508 


,, ** , 

= 1628,, 



= 375 



= 1739.. 


Qaktiya^as ,, XVI 

= 16 



= 2128,, 


. ' 1 (Mi (I 



= 55,, 

" xv 

,, 2 ,, 

= 301 



= 215,, 


,, ** , 

1,00 .. 

a ) This number is a little too low, and the former as much too high, owing to the 
intermixture of part of the story of Kesata and Kandarpa in the adventures of Mrgan- 
kadatta, as is explained above. 


Two things in this juxtaposition strike the eyes : the different 
arrangement after the fifth lambaka and the inequality in the treat- 
ment of the subject-matters in both collections. Putting off the 
difference in the order of the lambakas and the question as to the 
original arrangement in the Prakrit Brhatkatha to the following 
chapter, the difference as regards the briefness or the detailed 
description in narrating the same tales is sometimes very conside- 
rable. In some lambakas: Kathapltha, Kathamukha, Qacaiikavati , 
Suratamarijari, Ksemendra makes up a little less than half the 
number of clokas of Somadeva, but in others he is much shorter. 
In Visamaclla , Ratnaprabha, Caturdarika and Qaktiyacas the pro- 
portion is between 1 / 4 ail( ^ Vs* * n Alamkara vati between 1 / 4 and 1 / 5 - 
Suryaprabha has in the collection of Somadeva even more than six 
times the size it has in the Brhkmanjari, owing, methinks, to the 
dislike of Ksemendra to dwell on the particulars of that battle-epic 
of the old stamp, which describes a victory of Asuras over Devas 
and which under the able hands of Somadeva has grown into a 
charming heroic poem adorned with the manifold art but riot too 
much crowded with the luxuriant excrescences of his native alamkara. 

A close comparison of the several parallel narrations in both 
cannot but confirm that impression of inequality. It will soon appear 
that it is the fault of Ksemendra, not of Somadeva who, in striking 
contrast with his rival , has succeeded in keeping throughout 
the whole length of his composition the same style and the same 
proportions of his narrative. By this equability and harmony he 
surpasses Ksemendra in a very high degree. Likewise by his limpidity 
and his moderation in the employment of the various artifices, 
tricks and habits taught by Indian poetics and practised by Indian 
writers. He possesses qualities relatively seldom found with Sanskrit 
court-poets and sought for in vain in the Brhatkathamaiijarl. We 
have quoted above (p. 11) the verdict pronounced in a few words 
by Burnell about the obscurity and the tedious waste of rhetoric 
embellishments which spoil the pleasure while reading there the 
same stories that captivate the reader of the Kathasaritsagara. In 
fact, aiming at the glory of producing a compendious Brhatkatha, 
Ksemendra does too often care little about the clearness and per- 
spicuity of style, which are indispensable requisites in a story-teller; 
on the other hand, his aspiration at the fame of a master in vaidagdJiya 
makes him rather propense to subordinate the contents of the tales 
to the opportunity of rhetorical show. For skilled as he was in 
handling the manifold tools of alamkara and being eager for 
displaying that skill, he too often delights in such descriptions 

STUDIES ABOUT TIN-. K VI il.\v\ i;i'i>A<, A KA 17 

as he thought suitable for di-pla\ ing his mastership in poetics. 
PurpureUf, luff (jin ^iilcndi'ttt , it ii HX ff niter fi*xni(ttr /ja/inus. 

Since it doe> not lie within the scope <>t' tlii- di>quisition to 
enter into ;m e>timation of the poet Ksemeiidra , I refer the 
reader to the brilliant essay on \\\\< subject of SYI.VAIN IJ'.M in 
the Journ. As. of 1885. Yet it ma\ he -mi urge some 

prominent characteristics which appear in the Brhatkathamanjarl. 
Ksemeiidra has a relish for exspat iatinu r in de-eril)ing erotic matters. 
So at the outset of land). I\, eorre-pmidini: to Katha-. tar. 68, 
1 foil., he interweaves in the visit of 1/ditaloeana to \ara\ahana- 
datta a description of her beauty, not found in the Kathas. In the 
first vetala-tale he complacently enlarges the account of the volup- 
tuous ewc-jrix of Padmavatl and lier prince: ti - Brhk. p. x' 
120126 correspond to the one eloka Katha^. 75, 1:11. In the 7 th 
vetala Ks. (= 6 th Som.) three additional clokas (p. 319, 397- 
;}{) ( ,)) are bestowed on the beauty of the bathing laundress. The 
story of Jimutavahana, as narrated in the 16 th vetala, offers him 
the opportunity of drawing a detailed picture of the extraordinary 
grace and beauty of Malaya vat I, which he executes in due order, 
beginning with a praise of her feet and concluding with the top 
of her head; no less than twelve clokas are required for it, whereas 
the Kathasaritsagara can suffice with five (Brhk. p. 351, 792 803 
cp. to Kathas. 90, 41 45). Among the digressions of a diffe- 
rent nature I mention Brhk. p. 389, 1275 1283: praise of 
Sundarasena, his beauty and prowess (cp. Kathas. 101, 46); p. 461, 
138 145: praise of lake Pampa (cp. Kathas. . 107, 9); p. 239, 
295 305: dance of Hamsavali (cp. Kathas. 71, 7(5. 77); p. 350, 
cl. 783 789: description of the penance-grove of Jimutavahana; 
of the sea and of the tempest, that broke the ship of Sainudradatta 
(p. 121, cl. 78 foil.); 1 of heavenly and atmospherical phenomema 
(p. 57, cl. 142 foil.). Likewise p. 292, 62 foil, the ciiucapatree 
with the dead body hanging on it; not to speak of that famous 
bombastic patch descriptive of the awful cemetery in the first vetala, 
treated by Levi Journ. As. 1886 I, p. 191. 

The fault of too great conciseness and of obscurity in telling 
the tales is exhibited very differently. Some portions of the Brhkmaii- 
jari suffer more from it than others. Maiikowski who edited the 
Pancatantra section happened to fall into a part of the poem , where 
its author seems to have striven at the utmost brevity ; perhaps 
owing to his averseness from apologues or to some other reason he 
hurried over that track of the Great Tale. Nor did he feel much 
liking for the murkhakatkas which, in Somadeva's poem, are inter- 

Verhand. Kon. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Lcttcrk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. 5. 2 


spersed between the different parts of Paficatantra. Most of them 
he put aside entirely; the few to which he gave a place -- twelve 
upon the whole (one of them not found in Kathas.) against 47 in 
Kathas. tar. 61 63 - - are so condensed that they can hardly be 
understood and have lost all their flavour. So e. g. this cloka 
abudko bhandadaridryad ekasmin nidadhe gliate 
vahnim jalam ca karyartliam yenasau hasyatam yayau || 

(p. 588, cl. 572) 
is the parallel of Kathas. 61, 1013: 

mandabuddhir abhut ka^cit\ puman niqi sa caikada 
prabhate devatapUjam karisyann ity acintayat || 
upayuktau mama snanadhupadyartham jalanalau , 
stUapayami tad ekasthau, tau clghram prapnuyam yatha || 
ity alocyambukumbhantah ksiptvagnim samviveqa sah. 
prataq ca vlksate yavad, gato 'gnir na$tam ambu ca || 
angaramaline toye drte tasyabliavan mukham 
tadrg eva, sahasasya lokasyasit punah smitam || 
The following one 

kaqcid vyadhac ca jayaya labdhvalamkaranam baltu 
rasanam abwdhah kanthe haram ca jaglianastliale || 

(p. 588, ?1. 575) 

is the sapless remnant of the foreTov, related by Somadeva (61, 
24 27) in this manner: 

grainy ah kaqcit khanan bhumim prapalankaranam maJiat || 
ratrau rajakulac caurair nitva tatra niveqitam. 
yad grliltva sa tatraiva bharyam tena vyabliusayat || 
babandha mekhalam murd/mi haram ca jaghanasthale 
nuparau Imrayos tasyah karnayor api kankanau || 
J/asadbJiih khyapitam lokair buddhva raja jaluira tat 
tasmat svabharanam, tarn tu paquprayam mumoca sah || 

Such cases, however, of extreme aridity are comparatively rare. 
On the other hand, now and then the mind of the reader is glad- 
dened, when he falls in with some piece written in an easy and 
pleasing style and without misuse of rhetoric implements, and 
which, though inferior to the greater genius of Somadeva, may 
stand to some extent the comparison with their parallels in the 
Kathasaritsagara. The narrative, in a few cases, may be even broader. 
The episode of Kalingasena carried through the air by the asurl 
Somaprabha her friend, firstly to old Cyenajit [= Prasenajit in 
Kathas. J afterwards to young Udayana is told in eighteen ^lokas 
(p. 186, 339 356), whereas twelve suffice in the correspondent 


plaee of Kathas. ('i I . 10 51). Tin- lal>lc of tin- inoii-r. tin- < 

the o\vl Miid llic ichneumon U, if not fuller, \ct more detailed in 

the Brhk.manjan (p. l ( .;. VII I:H; i|,;,,, it i> in Kali, 

100 12!). Thi> eonlinn- once more \\li;it II i about the 

inequality of the work of Ksemendra. \\ ho at other time* i 

such care to epitonii/e stories told a: in hi- original, 

dial he e.g. reduced the chief incident- of the - 

to a Few lines (cp. Hrhk.maiijai i p. 1'JO with Katlias. '2~>, I OO loll.), 

and summarized the whole tale of MuktSphaladhvaja, which r.ll- up 

two tararigas of 410 eloka- to-vlher in Katha>., in Jijlwit <;! 
(Krhk.manjarl p. 448, 101 115) 1 ). 

To notice also another feature, which >trnck me while peru-niLr 
the poem of K?emendra, he <;//////* more to tltiiiyx reH(/ion* than 
Sonijuleva. I do not say that his religions feelin-_ per. In 

common natures profoundness of that sentiment is ordinarily not 
found; and I am inclined to give more credit in that point to the 
tine and delicate mind of the knower of men . to whom 
the Kathas., than to the polygraphist made of coarser stuff, alv 
ready to write a poem on a given subject. Ksemendia wa- well 
versed in mythological and theological matters. One of his spiritual 
teachers was a fervent Bhagavata, another, his upadhvava in rhetoric, 
the famous Qaiva philosopher Abhinavagupta , and he mu.-t have 
grown up in an atmosphere of devout practice--. We learn from 
the pra^asti at the end of his Brhk.mafijari , as well as from those 
appended to other poems of his that his father was a very pious 
man, and wealthy, too, who placed statues of gods in the temple 
of Svayambhu and bestowed a quarter of a kotl viz. 2 J / 2 million^ 
on pious works. Among his other writings two hear an exclusively 
religious character; one of them, the Dagavataracarita , praises the 
ten avataras of Visim, in the other, the Avadanakalpalata. his 
last composition, he extols with a magnificent apparel the 1 
deeds of self-sacrifice of the Bodhisattva. He was thoroughly acquain- 
ted, it seems, with both religions, 2 ) and would willingly preach 
in his verses on topics of morals and religion. That is why even 

J ) There are even a few instances of talcs summarized in one c,loka, as how Canda- 
mahasena got his wife, the daughter of the Daitya Anu r araka (\\. -i^ 27), and the 
story of Cakra (p. 536, 314) who bore the flaming wheel. I mention this also to correct 
my statement about the absence of that story from the Brhk.maiijari in my article 
on The Man with the Wheel (Bijdwyen ran het Inslituutvoor Ta&l-, Land- en Volken- 
knnde van Ned. Indie, 1906, p. 199). The name Cakra does not occur in the Index of 
the edited text. 

*) His familiarity with Buddhist termini and Buddhist ideas appears, if we compare 
parallel places of him and Somadeva in those cases where Buddhist matters play a 



such a worldly poem, as his abstract of the Brhatkatha really is, 
contains comparatively large portions devoted to such matters. 
Devatastutis are not wanting in the Kathas. neither; both Somadeva 
and Ksemendra must have found them in the Paicaci original, but 
on such occasions the latter in length and exuberance of them outdoes 
the former. In the story of the Ka^mlr king Bhunanda or Bhunan- 
dana - - cp. Brhk. p. 266 foil, with Kathas. 73, 79 foil. - - who 
took his way to Patala through a Kacmlr entrance to the subter- 
ranean world, the local legend about this aditus ad infer os is 
incidentally related; how Pradyumna, watching for his son Anirud- 
dha led away to Patala by his sweetheart lisa , obtained from 
Gaurl the favour that she would keep guard on the mountain 
commanding that entrance. In Kathas. 73, 110 it is simply said 
that ,,he won over Carika with hundreds of praises" ; Ksemendra 
makes him utter a stotra in full ten clokas (642 651). The con- 
cluding lambaka (XVIII) of the latter relates among other things 
the death of the old king Udayana. On hearing the news of it, 
Naravahanadatta, his son, bursts out in lamentations. To Somadeva 
a few lines suffice to describe this complaint, his affliction and 
mourning and the words of consolation of his attendance (cp. the 
parallel passage t. Ill, 86 foil.); Ksemendra would not allow 
himself to lose this opportunity of dwelling upon common-place 
sentences about the inanity and vanity of all human things and 
the necessity of death; he spends on that sermon no less than 
thirty clokas. In another case he combines his claim of paramount 
poetical skill with his devotion, when he describes the glory and 
great feats of Visnu in artful prose embellished by long compounds 
and the like , which passage by a singular whim he put into his 
metrical composition , no other prose occurring in it. It is found 
p. 526 of the printed text and corresponds with the stuti Kathas. 
t. 54, 29 38. On another occasion, in vetala nr. 12, we meet 
with three arya stanzas to expound the power of Karma and its 
fruit , corresponding with one similar stanza of Somadeva (Brhkm. 335, 
597599 cp. with Kath. 86, 45). Sjmetimes his predilection for 
moral sentences and the like makes him do wrong to the aucitya 
he had to observe in the representation of the hero of his tale. 
In the 16 th vetala, a subject-matter quite of his liking for it 

part in the narration. So P. 158, gl. 9 SukhavatI, the Elysium of Mahayanists, 
is mentioned, but the word puzzled the editors who put a sign of interrogation after it ; 
likewise p. 592, cl. 616, where the corrupt form from one ms. suravanlm has been 
put into the text, the other has sukhavamm. P. 166 in the sermon on vairagya the 
name of king Krki occurs, but it lies hidden under the corruptions hukeh and kaveh. 

STUDIES ABOUT Till, k \TII Vv\ l;!T>.\< -A I; A . 21 

deals with .Immtav.'ilmim's M'll->acrilice, ;m<l in fact , no less than 
170 clokas of his succinct poem are occupied with it, but :)u 
less than the number of SomadevaV narrathe of the same stor] - 
i( is told how the B:>dhi>atlva int< r\ ened ;n ih<- \er\ moment when 
the mother of tin; Na'^a was taking !ea\e of her ><HI de>tine. 
become the prey of the ( iaruda. In this point he make- .limuta\ahana 
address the mother as follows (p. 

ma I all xf/ii/o '.yy/// //.' putraparitrnnakrtak^anah 
paropaktlrah AW///AY//V /////.v///v /y/w/,//^//v kntah || 8"/ 

tll/fWl CVfl *Hl(/n/Hil/C L'uifC .SV//Y/W/// ^YY/ ////// 

t/af praiitiH parayQsatranasatpunyapdtratam || 877. 
\\(] dis])lays here a want of taste which is oti'cn-i\e. Such bo;i- 
of his self-sacrifice does not become the hero. Somadeva makes 
him say nothing more than these few words: mrituli put ram /Y//.V 
ft /HUH, tava (t. 90, 131); his Bodhi>attva does not preach in that 
critical moment, but acts only. 

Both poets were Kashmirians and almost coeval. They belong 
to the eleventh century, at what time Kashmir was a centre of 
Sanskrit learning and literary productions. Hrni.Kii demonstrated in 
1885 that Sornadeva composed the KathasaritsSgara between 1063 
and 1082. l ) As to Ksemendra he said: ,,Dieses Resultat zeigt, 
dass Somadeva entweder genau zu derselben Zeit schrieb, a!s 
Ksemendra- Vyasadasa seine Brhatkathamanjarl verfasste oder nur 

wenig spater Es ist jedenfalls ein merkwiirdiges /u>ammen- 

trefien , dass zwei kasmlrische Dichter urn dieselbe Zeit das alte 
Buch Gunadhyas aus dem PaisacT-Dialecte ins Sanskrit ubersetzten. 
Es sieht beinahe so aus alsob sie Rivalen gewesen wiiren". SYJ.VAIN 
LEVI urged both points. As to Ksemendras priority in time his 
argument, developed in the Journal Asiallque 1886, I, 2 16 foil., 
is to this effect. Considering that he composed three extracts of 
celebrated epics: the Bharatamailjarl , the RamayanamanjarT and 
the Brhatkathamanjarl, and that this triad makes up the ' 
accomplished portion of his complete works, he holds it for pro- 
bable that all three belong to his beginnings. Now Bharatamari- 
jarl, le premier des ouvrages dates de Kshemendra est anterieure 
de vingt-sept ans a 1'annee 1064 et de 1-1-5 ans a 1'amiee 1082. 
II serait, croyons-nou? , etrange de supposer qu'un poete rompu par 
une si longue pratique, connu deja par tine quantite d'oeuvres de 
toute sorte, se fut reduit a traduire en Sanscrit une oeuvre 

J ) Sitzungsb. dcr Wiener Akiulcniie pltilos. K. hist, philol. Classe, CX, 545 foil. The 
passage quoted is on p. 558. 


et merne, cette hypothese admise, qu'il se fut, avec un acquit de 
quelque trente on quarante ans, aussi mal tire de la besogne." This 
argument, a ,,raison presque de sentiment", as it is styled by LEVI 
himself, has not so great stress as the other derived from the 
introductory verses of the Kathasaritsagara , t. 1, 11 and 12: 

aucityanvayaraksa ca yathacakti vidhiyate 
Jcatharasavighatena kavyamcasya ca yojana || 
' vaidagdhyakfiyatilobhaya mama naivayam udyamah 
1dm til nanakathajalasmrtisaukrtyasiddliaye || 

These clokas, according to him, are an implicit disapproval of 
the work of his predecessor, which as a matter of fact is imbued 
with the selfsame defects as are disclaimed by Somadeva in order 
to justify his own composition. In this point I fully agree with 
Levi. Qloka 1 2 so unmistakably hints at some rival poet or some 
rivalizing literary work , that long before I knew anything about 
the Brhatkatharnaiijari, I understood Somadeva's declaration as 
having a polemic character. And forsooth, he who knows both sans- 
kritizations of the Brhatkatha cannot but acknowledge in Somadeva's 
protestation against the vaidagd/iyakhyatilobha his making front 
against the rhetorical style of Ksemendra and that showy self- 
ostentation as perspires among others in his praqasti at the end of 
his poem, where he boasts of himself: Ksemendranama tanayas 
tasya vidvalsu vicrutah / prayatah kavigosthisu namagrahanayoyyatam 
(p. 620, cl. 36). ,,11 semble done naturel de croire qu'en ecrivant 
ces vers Somadeva pensait a son precurseur." 

My interpretation of cl. 11 is different from that of Levi. This 
is partly in consequence of a various reading, partly because he 
misunderstood the meaning of the words aucitya and anvaya. As 
to the difference of reading, vidhiyate (Durgapr.'s ed.) seems prefe- 
rable to abhid/tiyate (Brockhaus) ; but in 1886 the ed. of DuTgapr. 
had not yet appeared. *) Aucitt/a does not mean ,,les convenances 
litteraires" 2 ); it is the technical term to signify 'appropriateness' 

x ) I am inclined to think that the fault in Brockhaus' ed. does not originate in his 
mss., but in some mistake either in copying or rather of the typographer. Cl. 10 1. 2 
his ed. has vidyate instead of bhldyate but 5!. 11, 1. 1 bhidhvjnte for vidhiyate. 
There can be no question about the correctness of the readings of Durgaprasad's edition. 
The false ones have led astray every scholar who before tried to explain these lines. 
As long as the interpretation rested on a corrupt text, they were reputed to be 
,,difficult"; the genuine text is plain. 

*) ,,Fai respecte, autant que j'ai pu, les convenances litteraires et 1'ordre naturel; 
j'ai etabli chacune des sections du poeme de maniere a ne pas interrompre les contes 


taken in the wide-t sense nf tin- won! and well on the 

(liH'rivnt objects, char individualities to l>e represented in a 

ic;d composition a> on the adorning implements and the choice 
of words, expressions and images 1 ;. ./ the 

same as andtySnmtalvam t literally ..the he^ng piowded with appro- 
priatenos". Levi also misunderstood / Mankowski 

rightly objects that the sing. k&VyQmqasya cannot at an nean 

,.cliacnne de- -eel ions dn poeme" (see the pa^<age (pioted ]} 
note 2), but his own interpretation, that /v/v//,//,//y/ -hnidd ben 
red to some special part of the poem, is righi Mich 

the meaning of kavyaniqa , it must be compared \\ith d( 
(iiiwricdtarfiita and tlie like. Somadeva declares that h< ot claim 

the pretension of making a ka\\a out of the Hrhatkatha . he has 
only admixed a small portion of kavya qualities to the simple 
lection of popular tales. In other terms, nnjt-n lias IM-I ,niti- 

cation not unlike g undid at the end of compounds taught b\ Panini 
V, 4, 136, 'a tinge of, 'a little of.' My translation of d. 1 1 ia 
accordingly : ,,I have taken care to preserve the appropriateness 
(of description, diction etc. of the original work) and I have added 
to it some qualities proper to a kavya, without, however, spoil- 
ing by this the flavour of the tales", v. a. I have added < 
of style and many a poetical ornament, yet so that I have not 
deprived the tales of their power to express the rasas or sentiments 
aimed at. 

This prefatory declaration of Somadeva is as true as it is modest. 
He displays in a high degree Vart de fa ire mi Here. Flis narrative 
captivates both by its simple and clear, though very elegant, *tyle 
and diction and by his skill in drawing with a few strokes pictures 
of types and characters taken from the real even-day life. Uence it 
is that even in the miraculous and fantastical facts and events that 
make up the bulk of the main story and of a great deal of the 
incidental tales the interest of the reader is uninterruptedly kept. 
His lively and pleasant art of story-telling - - though now and 
then encumbered with inflatedness or vitiated by far-fetched false 

et les passions (>v/,s,s) M (1.1. p. 219). This translation must be given up, as will be 
shown in the following chapter, as far as regards the meaning of anvaya. 

*) I can do nothing better than quote Ksemendra's definition of the term in his 
Aucityavicarvcarca t 5!. 7 (ed. Kavyam. p. 116): 

itcitatii in'iilnu' itcaryith sadt'fam kila yasya yat; 
ncitasya ca yo bftavas tad aitcilynm pracaksale. 

In the following c,lokas 8 10 he enumerates the many particular things to which 
aucitya is applicable. 


wit x ), that drawback of so many Sanskrit literary high-style 
productions is enhanced also by his native humour and the 
elegant and pointed sentences strewn about here and there with a 
good taste. One instance may exemplify the distance which sepa- 
rates in this respect the two a bbre viators of the Brhatkatha, Vara- 
ruci relates to Qakatala, how he got befriended with the Raksasa. 
With Ksemendra as well as Somadeva this account takes up three 
plokas. In the following columns Ks. is placed on the left, Som. 
on the right. 

Brhkm. p. 22, 18618* 

dandadhipatyam asadya 
rajnaliam svayam artldtah 

raksasa kalarupena 

tenaiva nici samgataU || 

sa mam uvaca cakitam 
vancanayogravigraliah \ 

rupencibliyadldka nan 

ka, satyam Jcathyatam iti 

ya yasyabldmata loke 
sa tasyadldkarupim \ 

sa niqamyeti madvakyam 
samtusto mitratam agat || 

Kathas. 5, 50 52 

tac clirutva Yoganando mam 

akaron nagaradldpam \ 
bhramamc capacyam, atraham 
* bliramantam raksasam nici 

sa ca mam avadad: bruhi 
vidyate nag are 'tra ka | 

surupa stnti. tac chrutva 
viliasyaliam lam abravam || 

ya yasyabldmata murkJta 
surupa tasya sa bhavet \ 

tac chrutvaiva tvayaikena . 
jito 'smity avadat sa mam 

l ) In the lyrical parts of his narration European readers (not natives, of course) 
may be wearied now and then by his exuberance and accumulation of rhetorical show 
as in the beginning of tar. 14 and 18 (in Tawney ; s translation I, 94. 95; 125 f.); 
some of his puns may not be free from affectation yet, upon the whole, such cases 
are rather exceptional, I think. 


List of ncccssin collection- from Lr\ i and M;inko\\ >ki to 

made in the Hondm cd. of Brhatkathimadjaii. 

p. 2, gl. 15 Levi: sudhOsindhugarbha ; 3, gl. 24 I. 

L.: akulita dram; 8, gl. 22 I,. (MS A): ri.lya- Varjfld dvijad vo 
prUpi/i'ti; - 10, gl. 39 L. hemalabhah soda yasya; -- 11, gl. 49 dhavator 
adhiko vege; gl. 52 L. pra-tn ' b L. 

ardhavrnanisedhahuukrtipadani ; -- p. 13, gl. 79 and where further on the 
word occurs dandapapikah 1 ) for </<///</ < - 14, gl. 85 L. (MS A) 

prastutapahnavah papo; 16, gl. 112 L. hi-mnhni i ,,t ///,<///< s<,/yam, 
Cp. 113 d; 19 gl. 145 L. yo V"/< //,/// rismiikin-filj <;nk hm-nl . Vi/i; 

- 20, gl. 157 L. pratimapatam ailblnttmn , cp. Katbas. 5, 29; gl. 161 L. 
antahpurapray a n ; gl. 169 L. (MS A) pupucur duhklm*- 

170 L. Qakatalam: sakhe rakxito him run : ,1. ITiM. / -im; 

- gl. 177 Qivavarmapy a^ahkitah, cp. Kathas. 5, 69 foil.; 23, gl. 207 
vadhva instead of baddhva; 24, gl. 214 niatva for matt/a; p. 26, gl. 9 
L. lias this necessary line added from MS. A between 9a and 9b y Axam 
yuvayor darpanena vidhdsyatl; gl. 41 tatjo vaidyaift; 31, gl. 70 
mur/dliamanasam ; 32, gl. 88 bud It as tyiij<u/> '/a. 

p. 290, gl. 39 Levi: ksmapah instead of laksyah ; p. 291, gl. 50 bhrantakampana ; 

- p. 293, gl. 67 matakah; gl. 72 sphatil. <ih; p. 294, gl. 78 
vyakofapliullavalllvanam vanarn ; p. 295, gl. 90 kimapy atnwpa- 

p. 299, gl. 149 sapralapah pratlpauyhaih kurvdmun kran'litair dipah / asadya 

rajaputras tarn; --p. 301, gl. 166 te yatajlvitam cakorah ft*. 

dvijah; gl. 177 vadanapratirnacandram; p. 302, gl. 182 putrakdryam. 

p. 561, gl. 256Maiikowskisrrt/mro^ar)iawi. The ed. has 3/j'/j//tin/'/a 9 likewise p. 57 

392 Mi ; gl. 263 vimarpastJiaijituknnnah ; p. 562, gl. 269 puram 

yayuh; gl. 271 sphatitastambhamastakat/karsan ; p. 563, gl. _- 
(by conjecture) for praln-fna ; gl. 281 duftkhe (by conj.) for dithkhaih; - 
gl. 283 yad balasadhyam ; p. 564, gl. 291 vyalam for vyajam; gl. 293 
simhas tarn etya ; gl. 296 kalad u in*ii -ninite; p. 565, gl. 303 sadotsek 
minah; p. 566, gl. 313 darim t so '//// *j ^mmbhyetya: p. 568, gl. 336 

vipatpraptau; p*. 569, gl. 356 r/.-.s- .s- : gl. 359 n durlaksyab 

(a good conjecture); p. 570, gl. o' . - p. 571, gl. 373 tad vrksasya 

taduktair vyajayat pa ram; gl. 374 nudamlty abhasata ; gl. 

. 378 kuliraktit: -- gl. 379 sarpaip iji; *) p. 573, gl. 404 

yate kale; p. 574, gl. 413 yanlr<n ifilmiii : p. ">75, gl. 420 yenaham abha- 

ratn dhrstas tat (a good conj.); gl. 425 lubdhakatrasta ayayau 

sarahgah; gl. 428 dcpakulttj nulu km te : p. 576, gl. 431 mnntharo 'pi; 

gl. 434 cacintayan ksanani ; gl. 437 Meghavarnakhyah; gl. 439 sa 

1 ) Or dandapapakah. Both forms occur apud Levi. 

2 ) P. 573, gl. 395 I read acodayat for anodayat of both editions. 


sainyaksayapohartah niyuktanyuktikovidan; gl. 440 fiimam any ah 

parakram am; p. 577, gl. 444 tyaktah sudurlabhah; gl. 447 cjliattay an ; 
gl. 451 prasiddhya papino nama (a good conject., cp. Pane. Ill, 82, ed. Biihler- 
Kielhoru); - - p. 578, gl. 454 samhrsto 'vatatarapu; gl. 455 Vijayam for 
Vilayam, cp. Kathas. 62, 32; gl. 461 uepmadanaviv a dinau (a good conject.) 1 ); 
p. 579, gl. 466 pariksaya; gl. 468 skandhe tavodhah; p. 580, gl.486 

tulyakalam; p. 581, gl. 489 Arimdrde kakanukropapalini (a good 

conject.); gl. 490 dhrta/ laksmih, cp. gl. 367; gl. 491 vamcyante; gl. 
500 tyaktodvaha [or perhaps better tyalitvcdvaham] , the ed. Bomb, has here mere 
nonsense; p. 582, gl. 506 abhyadhikam ; gl. 510 samapvasya chidram 
durge; p. 583, gl. 519 sadblirtyo vrddhasarasah*}; gl. 521 b a ddfiesu instead 
of vrddhesu and tistlieta for tisthantu; p. 584, gl. 529 palandumosam (a good 
conject.); p. 586, gl. 552 apam vidhaya bhavem yo hi bhavisu hrsyati / sa 
I ajjate saktughatam bhanktv eva svayam agraj a h ; gl. 554 k r I tva for krlva; 
p. 587, gl. 557 kurvlla; gl. 558 cjrhaposilam ; gl. 562 drstva for drastum. 

This list is of course limited to those cases, where evident 
corrections or the better readings from MSS have been overlooked 
by neglect of previous publications which no editor of the Brhat- 
kathamanjarl ought to ignore. What inference is to be drawn from 
this as to the authority of the Bombay edition in the by far much 
greater part of the poem, where it is in fact the editio princeps 
in its fullest sense ! 

Inversely there are found sometimes a few better readings in 
the Bombay edition, adopted from the two mss. on which that 
edition is based. Levi and Mankowski did not find them in the 
mss. at their disposal. But the number of this kind of various 
readings is rather small and it is now no longer of utility to enu- 
merate them. I only mention one instance: P. 1, cl. 3 gUukah 
is of course the right reading, not dhukah, as was edited by Levi; 
fjhtika 'owl' is not rarely met with in the Biiiatkatham., e.g. p. 576, 
cl. 441 and p. 581, cl. 499. 

a ) Purvam is to be corrected into purva, so that the whole becomes purvavepmadana- 

2 ) Ql. 518 I correct thus: vrddhavakyam hi tarn raj an chrotavyam lat tvaya 


Tin. li;nA IKA'UIA. Ii> COUTH 

In the first chapter it has been shown that the conclusions drawn 
from a partial comparison in 1 s / 1 \>\ Biihlei ili- mutual 

relation of tlie poems of Ksemendra and Somad >mes of 

the Brhatkatha arc fully confirmed by a cr nination of the 

two complete works. There can be not the least doubt about the 
existence in Kashmere in the eleventh century of that 
encyclopedia of tales in the Paicaci dialect which is acknowledged 
as the common source of both Brhatkathamanjai i and irit- 

sagara. Now the question arises, whether it is possible to resusci- 
tate that old Paicaci Brhatkatha with the help of its Sanskrit 

Of course, only materially. Considering that Somadeva avowedly 
abridged his original and Ksemendra tacitly, for he is >ilent about it, 
abridged it likewise and even much more, since his abstract i> 
three times shorter than the Katlias. , the impossibility of bringing 
back even for a small part its verbal form need no further demon- 
stration. I have met with five lines common to both : Brhk. p. 173, 
183 = Kath. t. 28, 182; the second part of Brhkm. 434. D and 
Kath. 104, 17; the cloka Brhkm. 490, 842 = = Kath. 1-0, -216. 
22. Here the presumption of their being taken from the Pa; 
original with no other alterations than those required by the change 
of dialect is very great, if we take into consideration that as a rule 
the concord of both collections of tales as to the contents, even in 
particulars, is as great as their discrepancy in wording and expres- 
sion. The cases of their using the same special term or the same 
turn of phrase are comparatively rare, even when employing the 
same simile 1 ) In such cases, then, there is some probability that 
such a term and such a phrase are the Sanskrit equivalents of 

*) E. g. in the king's answer to the Vetala, at the conclusion of the 17 th re/u/a- 
bad princes who allow themselves to be led astray by their passions are compared to 
elephants in rut. Somadeva expresses this comparison by this cjloka (91, 54): rajanms in. 
))iti<t<llti)uit(i <lj<( it'ti nirahkiicdh chiminnti dlMrtnamary&dCLffnkhalAm vix<i>jnntnnkhah, 
Ksemeudra quite differently (p. 305,^1.07'J): 
frnvanti na papyanti rajanah kunjura iva. 



corresponding Paicaci expressions in the original. Of the kind are 
the epithet vadidviradakesarl of the great dialectician, the Baud dha 
monk Ratnacandramati in Brhkm. 253, 470 and Kath. 72, 93; 
the designation of the superintendent of the zenana, who is falsely 
named to the king as the lover of Gunavara, by antalipuropati 
both in Brhkm. 491, 280 and in its parallel Kath. 39, 27; the 
old king of QravastT is styled pravayah both in Brhkm. 182,291 
and its parallel Kath. 30, 30. Likewise triphala (Brhkm. 232, 
204 cp. Kath. 70, 43), homabhanda (Brhkm. 233, 221 cp. Kath. 
70, 70), muktattahasa (Brhkm. 308, 260 cp. Kath. 78, 2), 
svastkavega (Brhkm. 232, 209 cp. Kath. 70, 56), hatanekajana 
(Brhkm. 133, 223 cp. Kath. 26 , 173), rupadravinakahksaya Brhkm. 
497, 348 cp. Kath. 40, 27), acrukava (Brhkm. 223, 95 tatra 
netrat Trinetrasya patito 'crukanah ksltau^] cp. Kath. 69, 38 
so [viz. Qiva] 'smasu pranateso aksno dakmnad a^ run ah k an ami 
bhumciv apatai/af). The uniformity of utterance is hardly fortuitous 
here. In some other instances the common turn of phrase may point 
to the common source, the Paicaci work, as is shown by the fol- 
lowing juxtaposition : 


173, 191 cruyate manusaih sakh- 
yam bhajanti kila devatah 

prthvipateh PrthohpUrvam putn/a 
sakhyam Arundhati / bheje 

378, 1134 ay am labdlio 'si su- 
bUaga kva gamisyasi me pur ah 

386, 1239 vay uvacacanrim 

393, 1320 nabhasvatci / abhajyata 

498, 361 sa kadacin nijam drqtoa 

jaradhavalam ananam 
satusaram ivambhojam abhuc cin- 


544 , 44 dhanyaham iti vadinya 
553, 155 cMttvasakarnanasikamj 

tacchastreimiva sahasa pray a- 

yau tasya etc. 


28, 191/5 divy a yan li ca m an uslbh ir 
asamasnehahrtah samyatim / 
bheje kirn nrpateh Prthos tana- 
yaya sakhyam na s Arundhati? 

95 , 74 kva yasi labdho 'si ma- 
yety alapantl etc. 

100, 36 tavad vag atra yaganad 

101 , 141 ballyasajvatena tasya 
vahanam hanijamanam abhajyata 

40 , 45 himahatam ivambhojam 
palitamlanam ananam 

darcayami katham devyai ? 
ha dhih me mar an am varam. 

57, 77 dhanyasmiti vadantl ca 

58, 99 tacchastrenaiva baddhasya 
karnanasam cakarta sa. 

a ) I quote according to the reading of MS W, registered in the foot-note; the reading 
adopted by the editors is obviously a false one. 


YH. upon the whole, these eoinridcnri. < ;nv not frequent, and 
(sen il' they were more nuiiicrous than they are, the profit to be 
obtained from a systematic and exhaustive exploration of them would 
be small. It is not difficult to put a hi \v\> on those words 

and turns of phrase which it would be made probable that are 
borrowed by the Sanskrit redactors from the original hm-nn pomi. 
By applying the scanty rules laid down by the grammarian> how 
to make, PaieacT from (,'aurasenl or from Sanskrit (see PI><IIII.. 
Grammatik der Prakrit* Sprachen p. 27 20; p. 13S) it ma\ betaken 
for granted that in the PaiclicT Brhatkatha the words v&tiddiratha- 
Jicsarl y anteurapatl. pavayo, tip/in Id. hotiiaphandam , //////A///V/A 
hatanekacano > satthaveso etc. occurred, but this result is meagre. 
PISCHEL, as early as 1874, in his ,,dis8ertatio . inauguralis" de 
grammaticis Pracriticis, putting together the Paieaei quotations \>\ 
Hemacandra in the last chapter of the 8 th book of his grammar, 
expressed as his opinion that they are borrowed from the IV; 
Brhatkatha (see p. 33 of that dissertation). This is very probable, 
indeed; yet, the smallness of the few fragments and the circum- 
stance that they consist of some general phrases not applicable to 
a certain fact or story related in the Brhatkatha forbids to iden- 
tify them with corresponding passages in the Sanskrit redactions. 

A trace of the origin of the work is found in a few proper 
names. Kseraendra and Somadeva, though as a rule, of course, 
there is conformity in this respect, are not rarely at variance; the 
one calls somebody e.g. Samudradatta, who is called Samudramatsya 
by the other ; in this way there are a many slight discrepancies , 
as Yajnaketu (Ks.) Yacahketu (S.), Dhanadatta (Ks.) Dhanapala (S.), 
Madanamaiijaii (Ks.) Madanastmdari (S.), etc. etc. Sometimes 
Ksemendra prefers a shorter form of the name ; the hero of the 
main story is called throughout Naravahana J ), not Naravahaimdatta, 
as he is invariably named by Somadeva, and Mukta(or -Mukta)- 
ketu and Muktadhvaja (Ks. p. 443 and 449) correspond to the 
Muktaphalaketu and Muktaphaladhvaja of the seventeenth lambaka 
of Somadeva. Now, in a few instances it is plain that Ksemendra's 
names have retained their PaicacI shape, whereas Somadeva sans- 
kritized them. Of the kind are Kampilya (Kathas. 25, 23) and 
Kampilla (Brhk. 120, 9!. 73), Potraka (K. 07, 6) and Pota (B. 209, 
cl. 6); Tejasvati, a name occurring thrice in the Kathas. for three 
different ladies (18, 77. 30, 72. 45, 177) is TejovatI in Brhkathm. 

*) Even Naravaha (p. 474, gl. 68; p. 502 1. 415 and 418). P. 221, 70 Naravahana, 
as is edited, is to be corrected into Naravaha for a metrical reason. 


(p. 84, cl. 187. p. 183, 302) *), Radha (K. 74, 29) and Ratha (B. 279, 
9!. 783), Vakrolaka (K. 93, 3) and Vamkolaka (B. 369, 9!. 1014), 
Thinthakarala (K. 122, 71) and Thenthakarala (B. 122, 71). BUHLER, 
in his article in the Ind. Ant. (I, p. 309) noticed this point al- 
ready, yet his statement is to be corrected in this, that both S. 
and Ks. agree in the name of Dipakarm; Dtirgaprasad's ed. has 
this form, not DvTpak., as is edited by Brockhaus. Another trace 
of the original language may be left in the false form of the name 
Paravataksa (the Naga who dispersed Mrgankadatta and his 'com- 
rades) which is read Brhkm. p. 232, 9!. 210: Nago ParavatakJiyo 
'sti bhavane hamsasucite \ since the right name appears cl. 224, 'it 
is probable that Ksemendra who worked in a hurry misunderstood 
the fiijst time the meaning of Paic. paravatakkho , but sanskritized 
it better afterwards 2 ). 

It is of greater importance to examine how much a close com- 
parison of the two Sanskrit redactions may afford in the way of 
reconstituting the scheme and the arrangement of the old Brhatkatha. 

It has been shown in the First Chapter (supra, p. 15 and 16) that 
the Kathasaritsagara and the Brhatkathamarijarl agree in the number 
and the titles of the different lambakas but, after lambaka V, disagree 
in the order of them, even to a considerable degree. Which of the 
two represents the original Brhatkatha? Or perhaps neither? 

As far as I know , the question has not been examined before. 
Of the Sanskrit scholars who occupied themselves with the Katha- 
saritsagara, Mankowski alone, I believe, expressed an opinion on 
this point. P. IX of the ,,Einleitung" of his work on the Panca- 
tantra portions in Kath. and Brhkm., mentioned above (p. 12 n. 2), he 
says : Wie aus der Zusammenstellung bei Levi zu ersehen ist , ist 
die Reihenfolge der ersten funf Blicher bei Somadeva genau die- 
selbe wie bei Kshemendra ; nur die iibrigen dreizehn Biicher sind 
bei beiden anders geordnet. Ich glaube daher, dass Somadeva in 
Y. 1 1 [of his tar. 1, vide supra, p. 22] unzweideutig erklart, class 
er in diesern Theile seines Gedichts die Anordnung des Stoffes im 

1 ) But Kathas. 17, 34 Somadeva retained Tejovati just as he found it in the Paigaci 
Brhatkatha; the corresponding verse apud Ksemendra is p. 79 1. 126. 

2 ) The name Karmaseoa in the Kathas. (t. 69 and 112) of the father of Cagankavati, 
the sweetheart of Mrgankadatta, is Kandarpasena in the Brhkm. (see p. 222, 1. 85. 
p. 402, gl. 8). The original had either Kammasena, which being written with anusvara 
+ m, may have induced Ksemendra in his negligent way to accept it as Kamasena, 
or it was Somadeva who misread the name Kamasena, if the long a was denoted in his 
MS. of Brhatkatha by a small curve above the aksara, which he read as > before 


Original geiiridert hat. Hatte er sich genau an seine Vorlage ge- 

halten , wie konnte er da von Kiirksirht ;mt' den /usatnmenhang 
mid von einem Ordnen ivden'r l-'u'r meme Krklarnng spricht auch 
der Umstand da-- cin paar ( iodiiditcn >ich bei Sumadi.-\a wieder- 
holen . ... Ob diese WiederholuDgen -icli mrhi audi bei Ksheinendra 
finden, kann ich leider nicht ermitteln : icli glaube jedoch , < 
dieselben in Gmiadhvas Brihatkatha nicht vorhanden waren mid 
Soniadeva /uzuschreiben sincl , dem eine solche Unacht-amkeit bei 
einer Umarbeitung seiner Vorlage nur /,u leiclit zustossen konnte. 
Dass die funf Bficher des Pancatantra bei l\-hemendra /.usinunen- 
liiingen, bei Soinadeva dagegen durch .-indcre Geschichten von ein- 
ander getrennt sirid , werden \vir spiitcr >clicii. Auch hicrin hat, 
wie ich glaube, Kshemendra das Urspriinglichc hcuahrt". 

I have transcribed in full his argument that I might the better 
refute it. I begin to observe that Mafikowski judired upon unsufH- 
cient documents; he knew Somadeva, but was little informed of 
the contents of the BrhatkathamafijarT , which was an ineditum at 
the time he wrote. Further, he discredits the carefulness of Soina- 
deva without sufficient reason; the so called want of diligence 
appearing in the fact of his relating the same story repeatedly is 
a mere fancy, and supposed he had somehow founded this charge 
by argument, it would fail to account for a so great number of 
repetitions of the same tales, as really occur in the Kathas. And 
in the Brhkm. , too, though not so often; for e. g. the story of 
.himitavahana is twice told and at great length in Kathas. t. 22 
and t. 90, likewise in the Brhkm. p. 107 f. and 353 f. , the first 
part of the narration of Anaugarati in Kathas. t. 5*2 reappears 
with the same names in t. 83, but also in Brhkm. p. :$:2G and 
p. 518 1 ). Therefore, from all that which is alleged by Mariko\v>ki. 
there remains but one point of importance, whether he is right 
stating that Somadeva himself intimates that he had arbitrarily 
arranged the materials he took from the Brhatkatha. Here I think 
he has misunderstood his text. 

The statement of Soinadeva alluded to, is found in the preamble 
of his book, t. 1 , 11 aucityanvayarakqd, ca etc. We have dealt with 
this cloka sujjrtt , p. :22 and 23, where we translated aucitydnvayaby 
,,the being provided with appropriateness". Somadeva declares that 
he endeavoured to keep intact in his work the good quality of his 
original of representing things and persons with appropriated words 

') P. 518, q\. 102 tfisyA-nahywdi m'mia , as is edited, must be corrected into tasy- 
Ananyaratir nama\ in gl. 114 the right form of the name has remained intact. 


and in the proper and suitable way, accordingly as they ought to be 
represented, in short he praises implicitly the picturesque faithfulness 
of the stories as they are narrated in the Paicaci Brhatkatha and 
shows his care to preserve that virtue in his Sanskrit redaction. 
He does however state nothing about their arrangement. Levi , and 
after him Mankowski, were wrong in accepting anvaya with that 
meaning and in taking amity anvaya for a dvandva compound. 
Anvaya has several acceptations, but it never means ,, order, due 
order, arrangement"; since it may express also the interrelation of 
words in a sentence , viz. their being construed together , and since 
it is used for this reason in commentaries as a technical term to 
denote such construction," - which employment is duly registered 
in the Petropolitan Dictionary s. v. 6) and in the Worterbuch in 
kilrzerer Fassung s. v. 4 - - I suppose, this was the starting point 
of Levi's wrong inference that anvaya may also signify ,,due order, 
arrangement" in a more general sense. No Hindoo, I think, will 
employ it with this meaning. APTE in his English- Sanskrit Dictionary 
translates arrangement" by racana, vinyasa, samvidha, vyuliana, kra- 
mena sthapana, paripatl, krama but not by anvaya ; nor is anvaya 
found among the Sanskrit equivalents of ,, order," the only case he 
mentions is to translate Engl. ,,the natural order of words" 1 ). 

The assumed avowal of Somadeva as to his arrangement of the 
tales being different from that of the Paicaci Brhatkatha must, 
therefore, be put aside. It does not exist at all. Those who believed 
in its existence were mistaken by an erroneous translation. I think 
we are nearer to the truth , if from the introductory declaration of 
Somadeva to his readers, taking it as a whole, we draw the conclusion, 
that he , on the contrary , faithfully kept the arrangement of the 
work on which he put a Sanskrit garb : yatha mulam tathaivaitan 
na manag apy atikramah. And perhaps the very decidedness of this 
profession, united with the explicit statement made in the subsequent 
verses, may be accounted for by his propensity to make front 
against his predecessor in sanskritizing the Brhatkatha, who had 
fallen short of his duty of making a faithful reproduction of it. 
As a matter of fact, Ksemendra does not name the source of his 
Brhatkathamanjarl. After the usual invocations his preamble is made 
up of this single cloka : 

evam kila puranesu sarvagamavidhayisu 
viqvaqasanaqalinyam qrutau ca qruyate katha, 

*) It results from this also that in the Petropolitan Dictionary s.v. anvaya the meaning 
5) supposed for this single passage Kathas. 1, 11 must be cancelled. 


a mere phrase which di< nothing, as the author only affirms 
that the great tale he is about to narrate is not of his own in- 
vention. It is found in the 1'uranas ;md the Vedas , so he says! 
A strange statement and a deceptive one moreover, which per- 
mits us also to suppose that lie took no scruple to act with his poem 
nil her freely and according to his fancy. The n : -ume of the hooks 
VI XVIU (p. 017 619) which is put into the mouth of Nara- 
vahanM himself and which has no counterpart in the Kathasarit- 
sagara, is doubtless of his own invention. 

IU reasoning a priori, therefore, one would be rather inclined 
to distrust the faithfulness of the arrangement of the lambakas of 
the Brhatkathamaiijarl. But why should we reason upon generalities, 
while evidence of a better kind may be obtained by a close com- 
parison of the two sets of books that make up: one the redaction 
of Somadeva, and the other that of Ksemendra? Which of them 
will prove to afford the better and the more congruous and con- 
sistent course of facts, as far as they belong to the frame-story, 
will have the better claim to be acknowledged as representative 
of the original order. 

The first five lambakas following each other in the same order 
in both poems, we must begin with lamb. VI. This lambaka and 
the next ones are thus far arranged differently, that lamb. VI of 
Somadeva is the VII th of Ksemendra, whereas lamb. VIII of S. 
corresponds to VI of Ks. Lamb. VIII S. = VI Ks. is wholly taken 
up with an episode , the story of Suryaprabha. The only difference 
is this: Ksemendra subjoins it to the similar story of Qaktivega, 
which makes up lamb. V , he represents both narrations as being 
told by two Vidyadharas at different times to Udayana , when Nnra- 
vahanadatta was an infant ; Somadeva makes Vajraprabha narrate 
the story of the old Cakravartm Suryaprabha at a much later time, 
when Naravahana was already married and heir apparent. This 
discrepancy is of no consequence at all and does not yield any 
presumption in favour of either author. 

But the case is different with respect to the lambaka ,,Ratna- 
prabha" which bears the number VII in the Kathasaritsagara = XIV 
of the Brhatkathamaiijaii. That lambaka encompasses a portion of 
the main story, as far as it relates how Naravahanadatta got his 
wives featnaprabha and Karpurika. Somadeva places these events in 
the earlier part of the hero's adventures, Ksemendra in a much 
later period . when he had gained already victories in the celestial 
regions, had recovered his chief queen Madanamaucuka and was 
very near to be crowned emperor of all the Vidyadharas. It is not 

Verhand. Kon. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. 5. 3 


difficult to show that Ks.'s division is not consistent with the regular 
course of the facts. The lambaka Ratnaprabha presupposes the heir 
apparent living with his father at Kaucambi and his being depen- 
dent on him; he has not yet obtained the powers of the Vidya- 
dharas; his falling in love with the Vidyadhaii Ratnaprabha affords 
the first opportunity to him to be raised into the higher spheres ; 
his love with Karpurika concerns a human lady, and it is only by 
means of a mechanical implement wrought by a human magician 
that he passes through the air to her distant country and comes 
back with her home. These facts are properly put between lamb. 
,,Madanamaiicuka" (Somadeva's VI) *), treating of how he got his 
first wife , and lamb. ,,Alankaravati," in which he gains his second 
Vidyadharl (Somadeva's IX) and becomes more and more familia- 
rized with the spheres on high. But being inserted , as Ksemendra 
does, after the lambaka ,,Paiica" (Somadeva's XIV = Ks/s XIII) 
these facts are utterly discordant. Nor is this arrangement suitable 
with respect to the lambaka next in Ksemendra, which is Alan- 
karavati; it destroys the natural connexion and coherence of lamb. 
,,Panca" and lamb. Mahabhiseka" (Som.'s XIV and XV), the 
victory of the hero and his being anointed as the Cakravartiri of 
the Vidyadharas. 

Ks.'s lamb. VIII is ,,Vela," which is lamb. XI of Somadeva. 
In this book , a very short one , Narav. obtains as his wife Jinen- 
drasena (Ks.) or Jayendrasena (Som.) , the sister of the two brothers 
who chose him to pass the judgment of their contest. By fixing 
the time of that marriage next to his marriage with his first queen 
Madanamancuka Ksemendra raises the lady to a higher rank than 
is consistent with the intention of the author of the Brhatkatha , 
who evidently considered Ratnaprabha, arid no other woman, as 
the second queen ; the relation of the father to Vasavadatta and 
Padmavati has its parallel in that of the son to Madanamancuka 
and Ratnaprabha. Here too, it is plain, Ksemendra's arrangement 
of the order of events is rather anomalous. 

The lamb. ,,Panca" is almost entirely concerned with the frame- 
story. In the Kathasaritsagara , of which it is the XIV th lamb., it 
begins with the rape of Madanamancuka and the desolation of her 
husband at her loss; the various adventures connected with his 
inquiries after her and the endeavours taken to release her from 
the hands of Manasavega are narrated in this book. Ksemendra's 

*) Som. 's lamb. VIII n Suryaprabha" is a mere episode, and does not belong to the 
frame-story; cp. supra, p. 7. 


XIII th book ,,Paiica" has exactly the same content-, with one 
exception: the rape of Madanamaftctiki is not told tin-re, nor could 
it be told at tliis point of the kale , since this occurrence was related 

in an earlier portion of the tale, at the conclusion of the lamb. 
,,Vela." In other words: Ks. makes Manasavega kidn;ij) the chief 
queen of Naravahanadatta soon after Ins marmiiLT 1 i id wife, 

whereas Som. postpones the capture to a much later period of hi> 
exploits. Both the rape and the fails et yesies performed by the 
future Emperor of the Vidyad haras to recover liis belo\ed one are 
related without interruption in the Katha>arii-ai:ara . within the 
limits of one larnbaka. In the BrhatkathSmanJari .Madanamancuka 
is stolen away in lamb. VIII, and not regained before the pot m 
has almost completed lamb. XIII. The importance of thi* discre- 
pancy becomes striking, if we consider that the intermediate lam- 
bakas, one of which ,,Qacaiikavati" (Ks.'s nr. IX) numbers 2435 
clokas, are crammed with a great mass of stories of the most 
various kind , which intercept the main story. It is obvious even 
to a superficial observer that the arrangement of Soraadeva is more 
suitable for a proper exposition of this part of the tale. 

Moreover, Kseinendra fixing the capture of Madananiancuka at 
a prior time involves himself into incongruities and impairs the repu- 
tation of his hero. When the Vidyadhara Manasavega carried her 
off through the air, he had ravished her from her apartments in 
the palace of Kaucambl. In this point both Sanskrit redactions are 
in accordance. Her disappearance could in no way be hidden from 
the father of Naravahanadatta, the lord of Kaucambl. But in the 
Brhatkathamanjarl the rape is narrated in lamb. VIII (p. 214 f.), 
yet it is as late as the commencement of lamb. XIII (p. 450) that 
Udayana is informed of his son's distress and of his absence in 
search of her! *) Ks. had forgotten that Madanamancuka was seized 
at Kaucambl, from the immediate vicinity of her father-in-law. 

The lamb. ,,Qacankavati'', which in Brhkm. - - where it is nr. 
IX - - is subsequent to the disappearance of Madana ma ncuka. opens 
with the nocturnal visit of Lalitalocana who carries the hero while 
asleep away to a far off hill, desirous of his embraces. In the mean 
while Naravahanadatta awoke, and seeing the beautiful heavenly 
maiden at his side, ,,the cunning prince pretended to be asleep, 

1 ) alruntdr? ki'Upi yo'/nn punah praptutn uthutmajam PaSca , 

drstva lebhe ratim v'tro Vattanljah priyasakhah \\ <jl. 2. 

tarn vallabhaviyogartdin jndtva Vatsanarepvarah 
babhuva saha devlbhyam fokapavakctHuirchitah \\ 

la gl. 2 I have corrected the nonsensical reading of the edited text: lobharatim. 



and in order to test her, he said, as if talking in his sleep: 
Where are you, dear Madanamaiicuka? Come and embrace me'' J ). 
Whereupon she took the form of that queen and complied to his 
wish. Now, both authors agree about the attitude of the prince at 
that moment; he knows the woman who has taken him into her 
arms to be another than his most beloved queen , but' he feigns it 
is she , in order to prompt her to give him her caresses. This agree- 
ment evidently shows, that the fact was related in this manner in 
their common source, the Paicaci Brhatkatha. But how different 
are the circumstances in both Sanskrit redactions ! Somadeva simply 
relates the witty trick of a wanton youth, enjoying the bonne 
fortune of a new love-adventure ; Ksemendra strikes the reader 
with the disgusting heartlessness of his hero, who just now was 
bereaved of his most beloved wife and in the acme of his grief- 
employs her cherished name as an instrument for indulging into 
lasciviousness ! 

The foresaid considerations induce me to conclude that it was 
Somadeva, and not Ksemendra, who drew up the faithful repro- 
duction of the old Paicaci poem. That he tells sometimes the same 
story twice over, now and then even with slight variations, may 
be put rather on the account of his fidelity in rendering the work 
he wished to preserve than on that of the ,,Unachtsamkeit" fancied 
by Maiikowski. Who knows both, camiot but feel convinced that 
negligence is not a fault of Somadeva but rather of his predecessor. 
And for what reason should we mistrust the explicit declaration 
made in the opening verses of the Kathasaritsagara ? On the other 
hand it is a priori to be expected that Ksemendra, not having 
obliged himself to reproduce in a Sanskrit imitation the Paicaci 
Brhatkatha exactly and in the same order, reserved and retained 
his freedom for change and modification according to his own taste. 
It is in consequence of his predilection for regular schemes that 
the adventures and exploits of the two human persons who obtained 
power in the world of the Vidyadharas : Caktivega and Suryaprabha, 
are narrated in the Brhatkathamanjarl in immediate order in two 
subsequent lambakas; the same tendency induced him to put together 
into one body the tales of the Pancatantra (p. 561 587 of the 
printed text), though in the poem he worked upon he found the 
several books separated from each other by interposed small stories 
of a quite different kind. Here and elsewhere it is not he, but 
Somadeva who retained the old divisions of the Brhatkatha. 

] ) I quote Tawney's translation (II, p. 133) of Kathas. 68, 10. 


The Tightness of this view is confirmed by the following fact. 
In several cases it is almost certain or at least probable that 
Kscmcndra modified <letail> which lie found in the Brhat katha . it' 
in some other source within his reach the >ame story wa> related 
in a somewhat dillercnt manner more conformable to hi> own t 
So it is well-nigh proved by .1. MIKIKI,, /'(/>/ <ln* 7 '//////v/ ////// //^/. 
die kdxniirixrlic AV,:v//.v/V;// tfa# /V/"//v//r/////v/ ' > , that \\\^ epitome of 
the Pancatantra, (lamb. XVI, el. 2 5 ()--.")()(;) contains many indi- 
cations of his having made use of that redaction of the renov 
book by side with its reproduction in (iimadhya's Brhatkatha. 
It is from the former work that lie took the name of the town 
Mihilaropya (el. 256 and 31)2) which is not found in Somadeva, 
but occurs in the Tantrakhyavika , being likewise written J/ /////// 
(cp. Hertel, p. 118). It is by misunderstanding the description of 
the spectacle afforded to the eyes of the people, when the tortoise 
was being carried away through the air seizing with his teeth a 
piece of wood the ends of which were caught by two swans, that 
Ksemendra writes cakahlkriim (cl. 334) - his source has: ///// 
i dam gakatacakrapramanam viyata myata Hi (1. 735 of Hertel's 
ed.), cp. Hertel, p. 109. Nor is it likely that the fable of the sly 
jackal Caturaka (cl. 348 foil.) was contained in the Brhatkatha ; it 
is not met with in Kathasaritsagara , but occurs in Tantr. 1. 759 
foil. The same may apply to the stories of the crow and the ser- 
pent, of the blue jackal, and of the camel who was compelled to 
sacrify his body to the lion. Cp. also Hertel's note on p. 132. 

The Vetala-stories are no less popular in India than the fables 
of the Paiicatantra. They, too, have come to us in many redactions. 
Ksemendra composing the Vetala poition of the Brhatkatha, must 
have taken his materials not from Gunadhya's poem alone, but 
have availed himself also of other redactions. Certainly he took 
delight in the old Vetalapancavimcatikatbas. He is more extensive 
in this part of his poem than he is wont to be and did not abridge 
them to that kind of skeleton as to which he reduced the old 
Pancatantra. His epitome of the Vetala tales numbers 1203 clokas 
(from IX, 18, p. 2*!.) - - to IX, 1221, p. :*s.j of the edited text), 
whereas no more than 308 make up the sum of his Pancatantra 
portion. The arrangement of the tales is slightly different in Kathas. and 
in Brhatkm.; both agree as to nr. 1 4, but Ksem. nr. 5 = Som. nr. 8; 
Ksem. nr. 0, 7, 8 = Som. nr. 5, 6, 7; from nr. 9 they are again 

J ) This important dissertation (Leipzig, Teubner 1904), which contains also the oldest 
redaction of Paiicatantra known to us, is XXII, nr. 5 of the Abhandlungen der phll. 
hist. Klasse der Koniijl. S&chritehen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. 



in accordance. Now , nr. 5 of Ksem. is also nr. 5 in Jivananda's 
edition of the Vetalapancavimcati *) , the story of the three fastidious 
brothers. After all which has been exposed above, I hold it for 
certain that it was Ksemendra, and not Somadeva , who changed 
the order of the tales as they were extant in the Brhatkatha , and 
who modified some details. With him, Vlravara's devotion to Hari 
and Hara is double as expensive as in the Kathas. (cp. Brhkm. 
p. 310, 282 f. with Kathas. 78, 1618); it is he who added 
the getting with child of Qa^iprabha in tale nr. 15 (p. 347, cl. 747 
and p. 349 cl. 760); in tale nr. 17 the person of Viraja, to whom 
the king avows his being in love, is not found in Kathas.; in nr. 
18, when Candrasvamin after submerging into the river, experiences 
another life-existence, the events of that submarine life are full of 
particularities, which are not met with in the correspondent part 
of Kathas. (cp. Kathas. 92, 65 67 with Brhkm. p. 367, cl. 
992 999) but which occur also in nr. 15 of Jivananda's edition 
(p. 52 f.); the third vetala, in Ksemendra's poem, contains 
likewise sundry details not found in Kathas. Vet. nr. 3 , and extends 
over 76 glokas (p. 302, 184 308, 259). This diversity in some 
respects is utterly contrasting with the great conformity as to the 
transitions of one number of the Vetala-tales to another, e.g. the 
transition of tale nr. 3 to nr. 4. 

Brhkm. p. 308, cl. 260: 
muktattahasaM adciya tatas tarn 
gatasambhramaJi I yayau javena 
nrpatik . skandkasthah so ' py 
abliasata || 

261 : mohak prthmpate ko yam 
tavapi hrdi jrmbhate j dustagra- 
manasamparkad yat prapto 'si 
ma him imam || 

262 : anayasam Id patlieyam 
yathe&tam kathanam pathi j 

Kathas. 78, 2: 

labdhvd muktattakasam tarn Ve- 
talam nrcanragam / nisfaimpak 
skandham aropya tusmm uda- 
calat tat ah || 

calantam ca tarn amsastho 
Vetalali so 'bravltpimahlrajan 
kubldksor etasya krte ko 'yam 
tava qramah || 

: ayase nisphale 'musmin viveko 
bata nasti te tad imam grnu 
matt as tvam katham pat hi 
vinodimm \\ 

Therefore, where this conformity is broken by Ks. producing 
more and somewhat different details, we may as a rule suppose 

J ) A very bad edition of an epitome of the work, made by a certain Jambhaladatta. 
Cp. UHLE in his Preface (p. XV) on his edition of Civadasa's VetalapaScavimgatika 
(Abh. f. die Kunde des Morgenlandes herausg. c. d. D. Morgenl. Ges. VIII, nr. 1). 


that he made use there of other sources boides the Hrhatkatha. 
I'he old epic legend of Nala and l)am;i\anti is told in the 56 th 
tar. of the Kathasaritsjigara, 9!. 238 417, the corresponding pas- 
sage in Hrlikm. (p. 537, cl. 881 , r )H). <!. 87]) amount to 2 / 9 
of its length. Yet it mentions the booi. in b\ the de\a> at 

Nala's marriage (9!. 342), which dVtuil i> p.itd over In Sonia- 
deva. The very words, which Ks. uses here: 

chay a dvitlyam avrnot parijilQya .W//V//// d/tit/n. 
jnatva devak xoani nkaram vidhaya pradm/ttr /v//v//// 

show that he availed himself of the original Mahabhanita tradition, 
too, not only of the Brhatkatha ! ). For thi>rea>on. too, he avoided 
to state that she saw six Nalas, as he found in the Paicaci poem. 
contrarily to the Mhbh.; the Nalopakhyana , adhy. 5.1) has ,. five" 
Nalas 2 ) ; Ks. does not name any number at all. Nor did he find 
in the Brhatkatha, that Pukara was a relative to Nala, not a 
brother (sagotrenatha qatruna / kenupi Puxkarfik hyena) , which is also 
different from the Mhbh.; I do not understand, for what reason 
he may have modified this, and am rather inclined to suspect some 
neglect of his part. 

Another instance of Ksemendra's freedom in handling his ground- 
work. The story of Pururavas and UrvacI is told in both Sanskrit 
versions. In the Kathas. (17, 4) Pururavas is called ^<7/v////^/V//.y//^//v/. 
and from the whole style and spirit of the story of his adventures 
it is plain that the version of the Brhatkatha is founded on a 
Visnuitic recension of the old myth. Ksemendra stripped off 
entirely that Vaisnava garb, and in his short extract (lamb. Ill, 
114 123) he purposely does not even mention the name of Visnu, 
though this god plays an essential part in the story as told by 

Elsewhere Ksemendra, who loved to show his learning, gratifies 
himself in additional ornaments of a rather ostentatious character. 
If such accessories are not found at all in the parallel passages of 
Kathas. and at the same time display that the poet was well read 
in the great epics and the purana literature, it is likely that he 
has added them of his own. Of the kind is this. Bhmiabhata is 

1 ) The force of this argument will be felt by every one who, perusing the Nala episode 
in the Kathas., observes how much its composer strove to keep a wording different from 
that of the famous epic tale. 

*) In Kathas. 56, 260 280 the narration of the wooing of Damayanti by the Devas 
is a paraphrase of the simpler account in Mhbh. It differs in this, that five lokapalas, 
not four, come up to the svayamvara, Vayu being added to Indra, Agni, Varuna and 
Yama, see cL 261. 


changed into an elephant owing to a curse of a hermit whom he 
had treated with contempt. In Kathas. (74, 305) that hermit's name 
Uttaiika is simply mentioned, nothing more. Ksemendra does not 
omit to identify him with the Uttanka of the Adiparva of the 
Mhbh. (see p. 286, cl. 872). 

To infer from all this that wheresoever, with respect to the 
contents of the corresponding tales, Ksemendra is at variance with 
Somadeva , he has modified them either from other sources or by 
his own invention, would be, however, a very hazarded conclusion 
and rather an untruth. Since both abridged a voluminous ground- 
text independently, it cannot have failed to happen that some details 
passed over by one were drawn up by the other, even while taking 
into account that the result of Ksemendra's condensing effort was 
the production of a poem much smaller than that of Somadeva x ). 
BUHLER, in his first article mentioned above p. 11, demon- 
strated already that variance in particularities may, and in some 
cases, must be explained so. I may point to the fact that Ksemendra 
avoids more than the author of Kathas. introducing anonymous 
persons; he has a childish liking for the proper names of the 
dramatis personae of his numerous tales, nor is it anything rare 
with him that, within shorter limits, he mentions names of secon- 
dary persons not found in the corresponding parties of Somadeva 2 ). 

Recapitulating , we may state as the main result of the comparison 
of the two Sanskrit redactions this, that Somadeva's poem may be 
considered to give a faithful representation of the old Paicaci 
Brhatkatha, but that on the other hand the differences between 
him and Ksemendra are not always to be imputed to the latter 
having contaminated the tradition of the Brhatkatha with traits and 

1 ) So it is impossible that the details of the story told Brhkm. p. 406, gl. 57. 58, 
hut passed over Kathas. 123, 340, did not belong to the Brhatkatha. In Kathas. 105, 
68 it is simply said that it was in her old father's hermitage that Vegavatl succeeded 
in getting the vidyas, denegated to her by her brother; Brhkm. p. 453, 1. 44 49 
contains a detailed account how this came to happen. Whence else could Ks. draw this 
than from the Brhatkatha? And the agreement mentioned by Ksem. (p. 168, 5!. 122) 
kasiti pracchanlyaham na rajann iti samvida, as it is doubtless an essential feature 
of the story of Susena and Rambha, goes back to the Paigacl original, though Som. 
did not retain it in his version (t. 28, 60 foil.) 

2 ) To give a few instances out of a large list. Ks. names Som. not so the 
mother of Crutadhi; the yoginl who taught the pseudo-Kamsavall an incantation against 
the fever-demon; the wife of Jimutaketu; the king of Ujjayinl in the preamble of the 
story of Nigcayadatta; the maiden, whom Igvaragarman married at last. Cp. Brhkm. 
p. 231, 196. 246, 380. 349, ^68. 481, 153. 547, 79. with Kathas. 70, 31. 71,207.90, 
6 9. 37, 3. 57, 175. A remarkable name is that of the captain of the ship: Barbara; 
it does not occur in Somadeva's relation of the singing nixe (t. 86, 77 foil.). 


particulars taken from other redactions of the same stories or to his 

having given free play to his own fanc\. Sometimes lie ma\ have 

done so, \et he kept sometimes peculiarities originally belonging to 

the Brhatkatha which Somadrva left a-ide. Sound inquiry inii>t decide 
thereabout in each separate case; not rarel\ , I icar, iN conchi-ion will 
l>e a nun Inflict. Hut, l>e this a- it m;i\ , then- i> not the 1-011 

to distrust the categorical declaration of the author of the K; 
saritsagara, that his shortened Brhatkatha in Sanskrit i> the faithful 

reproduction of the Paieaci poem, without detracting or adding 
to its contents. It was he who kept the original order of the 
lamhakas and not Ksemendra. The ditl'erent arrair_ -if the 1 

is to be ascribed to some caprice. And so the final conclusion of 
our general inquiry tends to confirm, if not to enlarge the value 
of the Kathasaritsagara as the trustworthy testimony of that iinnn 
mass of fairy tales which was collected many rcnturie- U -tore tin- 
eleventh A. I), and as a faithful picture of Indian society at the 
time, when that collection was made. 

In 1893 the existence of a third Sanskrit samgralta of the 
Brhatkatha was made known. The pandit Hara Prasad Shastri in 
an article of the Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal (LXI1 , 1 > 
foil.) gave an account of the contents of a MS, he had received 
through the good offices of some friend from Nepal among a col- 
lection of old and fragmentary Sanskrit literary documents. That 
MS, nr. 12 of his list, was labelled as unknown, hut on exami- 
nation he discovered it to be a portion of a Sanskrit redaction of 
the Brhatkatha, much different from both Somadeva's and Ksemen- 
dra's, and in his opinion a more extensive work than even the 
former 'of both. To give an idea of the length of the whole, he 
noticed that the first adhyaya alone, distributed over '2(\ sai_ 
has more than 4200 glokas, which portion he estimated ,,about a 
tenth of the whole work". It is not divided, so he said, into 
laitfbakas and tararigas, but into adhyayas and sargas. lie added 
in full the colophons of the different sargas extant in the fragment 
he had discovered. This valuable statement must be corrected in 
one point , as has been observed by dr. Hertel , in the Preface of 
his edition of the meridional redaction of Pancatantra J ), p. XII 
XVIII; Hara Prasad had misunderstood the meaning of adln/uya, 
occurring but once and without the addition of prat Ji ant a in the 
colophons. Our fragment knows no other division but into sargas; 

J ) Abh. der Sticks. Ges. der Wiss., Phil. Hist. Cl. XXiV, nr. 5. 


the word adhyaya is not the name of some portion of the poem. 
The title of the whole, as found in the colophons, is BrhatK&tMyam 
qlokasamyrahe = ,,the abstract in clokas (called) Brhatkatha". 

Five years after, Sylvain Levi returning from Nepal took to 
Paris another manuscript of the same work, more exactly speaking, 
a second MS which contains a portion of the text, brought into 
light by Hara Prasad, sarga 1 10 out of the 26. Though this 
acquisition did not extend the compass of the remnants of the 
third Sanskrit Brhatkatha, it drew the attention to that work. One 
of Levi's pupils, M. FELIX LACOTE, to whom he intrusted the 
study of it and in whose behalf he obtained the loan of the 
Calcutta MS described by Hara Prasad, is now preparing an 
edition. He has already published in original and translation the 
first sarga in the Journal Asiatique of 1906 (Janv. Fevr. p. 22 
foil.) and in the general account he gives of the work, he fully 
subscribes to the judgment of the first discoverer. ,,Nous avons 
affaire a un poeme completement different", if compared with the 
common source of the two Kashmirian abbreviators. As far as 
may be inferred from the fragment available, not only ,,la dis- 
position des matieres", but also ,,en grande partie, les matieres 
memes sont tout autres". The first sarga certainly has a content 
not found at all in the Kathasaritsagara nor in the Brhatkatha- 
manjari, and even not consistent with what is related in a few 
clokas of Kathas. (Ill, 81. 90 93) about Gopalaka's abdication 
and depart to the forest. And the examination of the colophons 
communicated by Hara Prasad sometimes brings us in contact with 
names and facts known from Kathas. and Brhkm., as the story of 
Pingalika (Kathas. t. 21), the hero's marriage with Vegavati and 
Gandharvadatta (Kathas. 1. 105 and 106), sometimes on the con- 
trary we meet with persons not occurring there, as Priyadarcana, 
the lady whose name is found in the colophons of sarga 20 and 

Further, M. Lacote observes that the whole plan of composition 
of the Brhatkatha clokasamgraha" is quite different: ,,11 ne se 
compose pas d'une collection de contes varies. ... Le souci de 
Tordre et de la composition y est evident; le sujet y est exacte- 
ment limite; sans doute les heros y ecoutent des histoires, mais ce 
sont contes, sinon brefs, du moins etroitement lies a Faction et 
mieux fondus dans le recit." (11. p. 31). 

M. Lacote proposes to take up the question of the interrelation 
of the two different Brhatkathas together with his edition of the 
9lokasarngraha. We for our part , as we are dealing with the Brhat- 


katha as the source of tin- Kathasu -it>agara . ;IIM! since there can 
be no doubt as to whieh redaction of tin- Hrhatkatha underlies the 
poems of Somadeva and Ksemeiidra, lea\- tin- point awaiting for 
the rest with great inteiv>t the iv-ult- of Laeotr's investigations. 
In the following Chapter, howe\er. the nature of tin- facts and 
(piestions examined there, will ohli-v n- to make known our 
preliminary opinion about that interrelation. a> far a> it has i 
fixed by the data as yet available. 


When was the Brhatkatha composed? 

The question is answered differently by competent scholars. 
WEBER, in the 2 d ed. of his Indisclie Liter atur g eschichte , in 1876, 
said hesitatingly (p. 229, n. 224) ,,aus etwa dem sechsten (?) 
Jahrh."; BUHLER in his Detailed Report of a Tour in Kashmir, 
which appeared one year after, peremptorily pronounced : ,,Guna- 
dhya's Vrihatkatha goes back to the first or second century of our 
era"; SYLVAIN LEVI in his Theatre indien, 1891 (p. 317 at the 
bottom) preferred a date between both limits, but nearer to that 
fixed by Biihler : ,,L'auteur de la Brhatkatha paicaci, qui vivait 
avant la fin du VI e siecle (Subandhu le cite a cette epoque) et 
probablement an HI 6 " ! ). And a few years ago, VINCENT A. SMITH, 
in an article on Andhra History and Coinage in the Zeitschr. d. 
D. Moryenl. Ges. , concluded ,,that the original Brhatkatha in the 
Paisachi Dialect, the Saptasataka in Maharastri, and the Katantra 
grammar are all to be referred to the approximate date, 60 or 
70 A. D." (ZDMG. LV1 ', 660). So the work the reputed author 
of which is Gunadhya is assigned to dates, ranging over a period 
of five centuries. 

The terminus ante quern is not uncertain. It is a matter of fact 
that Bana, who quotes the Brhatkatha in the preamble of his 
Harsacarita, lived in the first part of the seventh century. Also 
that Subandhu who wrote the Vasavadatta precedes Bana in time. 
He, too, alludes more than once at the Brhatkatha. Placing his 
lifetime, as is usually done, in the sixth century, the necessary 
inference is this, that our Paicaci poem was renowned at a date 
nearly contemporaneous with Justinian. 

As to the terminus ex quo, this cannot at any rate be placed 
before the beginning of our era. The original Brhatkatha must be 
posterior to Panini and Katyayana-Vararuci by several centuries. 
The persons of both grammarians occur in the main stories of the 

l ) In 1905 the same scholar prefers the 2<1 century, see his Le Nepal, II, 63. 


lirsl lambaka, the Kathilp'itha, where Vararuci is no other than the 
irana Pugpadanta ill \\\* iiiiniiin r\i-tciicc. to which lie had been 

coiidciiincd by a curse (vid. .Y/////Y/ , p. I;. The fabulous things told 

about him arc so wondcrl'iil that at the lir>t acquaintance with the 
Katliaxinl-airara it was mim-rsiliv accepted that there nm>t be a 
considerable space of time between the aire of the real Vararuci 
and the putting to writing of the legendary stones recorded in 
the Kailiapltha. Nobody, therefore, has ventured to as-ign to the 
I'aicaci poem any earlier date than the iir>t. century A. I), Biihler, 
whose high authority makes his statement (1 st or 2 d century) be 
accepted by most scholars J ), came to this conclusion upon general 
considerations, it seems. Vincent A. Smith, circuniM-iibini: the time 
of its composition within the limits of the third quarter of the first 
century A. D., follows this line of argument. IIi> -tai ting-point is 
the Udayagiri rock inscription of king Kharavela of Kalinga, dated 
of the 165 th year of the Maurya era. We learn from it that in 
168 B. C. that monarch was assisted by his ally Qatakarni [or 
Satakarni] whose realm was in the West - - nhli'ilni/ita /SV//V//Y//// 
pachimadisain 2 ). By combining other epigraphical and literary 
data (ZDMG., 1. 1. p. 653 foil.) it may be inferred that the 
Qatakariii dynasty who reigned over the Andhra state \\ist of 
Kaliiiga, was established 220 B. C. and lasted until the middle 
of the second century A. D. Since the oldest Puranas, especially 
the Vayu and the Matsya, contain lists of the Andhra kings with 
the number of years of their reigns, it is easy to find by compu- 
tation that Hala, the 18 th of the Matsyapur. list, must have acceded 
,,in or about 68 A. D. according to the Matsya and in or about 
54 A. D., according to the Vayu Pur." (ibid. p. 659) 3 ). This 
Hala, also known by his other name Satavahana 4 ), is that monarch 
who is ,,credited by tradition with the patronage of three impor- 
tant literary works": the anthology of Mahiirastii stanzas, known 

') See e.g. PISCIIF.L, Grain nut tik der Prdkritsprachen ^ 29, MACDONNKLL, San 
Literature, p. 376. 

2 ) Cp. BHAGVANLAL INDRAJI'S paper in the Acles dn GC Congn : s International des 
Ui'icnittlistes (Congress of Leiden), espec. p. 146. 

3 ) Vincent A. Smith quotes, not from the text of the Matsyapur. , but from Radcliffs 
testimony. The list is found in ch. 273. In the edition, I have at hand, brought into 
light by care of Pancanana Tarkaratna (Calcutta, 1890), neither the number of the 
kings, nor their names and the length of their reigns do fully agree with the list as 
published in ZDMG, 1.1. As long as we do not possess critical editions of the most pro- 
minent Puranas, it should not be losed of sight, that the exactness of their data needs 
requires philological test before using them. 

*) I follow the spelling of PW and of Durgaprasad in his ed. of the Kathas. Smith 
spells Satavahana. 


as Hala's Sattasai, the Brhatkatha of Gunadhya, who was minister 
of Satavahana, and the Katantra whose author Qarvavarman is 
recorded to have been another minister of the same king. Taking 
his conclusion, Smith infers that the three works are contempora- 
neous and must be placed about 60 70 A. D. 

The argument is specious indeed, but I think it is rather weak 
by its onesidedness. If its inventor had considered also the literary 
side of the problem, more than one objection would have presented 
itself to his mind. WEBER, in the preface on his edition of the 
Sattasai, which appeared in the Abhandl. of the Deutsche Morgenl. 
Ges. (VII; nr. 4: Ueber das Saptacatakam des Hala) demonstrated 
from words as hora = pu, aingaraavara = Tuesday, and some 
words of Persian origin occurring in that work, that it is impos- 
sible to place the collection which bears the name of Satavahana 
before the 3 d century of our era, and expressed as his own opinion 
that it is rather to be ascribed to a later time, of course before 
Bana (7 th cent.) who praised the anthology in the preamble -of his 
Harsacarita. He who holds a different opinion is bound to infirm 
the strong arguments put forward in that dissertation. Vincent A. 
Smith did not so, and I greatly doubt how he should be able to 
prove an as early date as he does of a collection of verses, in 
which hora and angaravara are used as they are. 

Then , if the PaicacI tongue belongs to the North-western border 
of India, as is the opinion of Grierson, it looks strange that the 
birth-place of a standardwork of enormous size in that dialect is 
sought for in a country at so great a distance from those regions. 
As easy as it is to understand that a ruler of Maratha land passes 
for the reputed author of the famous anthology of Maharastrl 
poetry x ), as little advisable is it to believe in an historical basis 
of the legendary account of Satavahana acting as the propagator 
of Gunadhya's poem. Though no work in Paicaci has come to us, 
that language must have had a considerable literature. WASSILJEW 

x ) GARREZ, in his compte-rendu of a former article of Weber on the Saptagataka in 
Journ. Asiat. Six i6m e Serie, t. XX, 199, says of the tradition that it is trustworthy as 
far as ,,elle attribue une collection de poesies maharashtri a un roi des Maharastra". 

As to the historical foundation of that tradition I quote with my full assent the 
following words of the same scholar (p. 199): ,,Hala, d'apres le temoignage unanime du 
lexicographe Hemacandra, des commentateurs , de Colebrooke et de Bhau Daji, est un 
nom de Calivahana ou Catavahana; ce qui n'oblige certainement pas a admettre sans 
controle que ce personnage aussi legendaire qu'historique ait effectivement recueilli ou 
fait recueillir les vers en question", and ibid. p. 207: Sans accepter cette identification 
[of Hala and Satav.] comme un fait historique, nous avons le droit d'y voir 1' expression 
de 1'opinion des Indiens, opinion qui a ni plus ui moins de valeur quecellequi rattache 
a Vikramaditya les oeuvres les plus celebres de la litterature sanskrite." 


records in liis work on Buddhism (p. 295 of the German translation, 

cp. ibid. p. m 2'2(\, n. :J) from Tibetan BOUrces tluit one of tin- chief 
schools of the Yaibhasikas, the Slha\ira- rliiplo\ed the Paieaci. If 
we con>ider that liuddhism llouri>hed in tin- regions, \\herc. Pa, 
Seems to be at home, this testimony >e<-m> to IK- trustworthy. If 
the legend about (iunadhya being compelled by hi> vow to use 
that tongue teaches us anything real, it i> tin- that the Pa: 
was not considered a current language within India proper. In 
no other wise may it be explained that (junjidhxa, taking the 
vow of manna, if rarvavarman suecreded to make a learned man 
out of the ignorant king in a minimum of time, engaged him- 
self to never more use anv of the three language--. San>krit. 
Prakrit, Apabhramca, excluding the fourth, the PaicaVi. Appa- 
rently, in the mind of the composer of the tale that language is 
considered a foreign tongue. This remark makes it more than 
doubtful that a Maharastra king should have anything to do with 
the composition of the PaicacI Brhatkatha. It is not an old historical 
tradition but the popularity of his name, that fathered on him its 
first lambaka. 

Further, assuming for a moment that Vincent A. Smith is right 
taking the Kathapltha for a document of some historical value, be it 
even so little, and also right in his fixation of the reign of the Andhra 
king Hala = Satavahana in the time of the emperor Nero, I won- 
der how he did not realize the enormous anachronisms effected by 
combining this double evidence. The Satavahana of the Brhatkatha, 
king of the country Pratisthana , the capital of which is Supra- 
tisthita J ), being coeval with the last Nandas and Candragupta, 
belongs accordingly to the end of the IV th century B.C. That he 
must be a contemporary of them is a necessary inference from what 
is narrated in the Kathapltha. Puspadanta-Yararuci and Malyavant- 
Gunadhya were cursed together, they commenced their human 
existence at the same time. Now, Vararuci was the minister of the 
last Nanda, Gunadhya of Satavahana. Ergo: the legendary last 
Nanda and his destroyer Candragupta are placed in the same time 
as the legendary king Satavahana, born out of a lioness and made 
by adoption son to king Dipakarni. But the historical persons of 
that name are separated in Vincent A. Smith's own chronology by 
at least three centuries and a half. Considering, then , the so called 
data of the Kathasaritsagara somewhat more closely , we sink again 
,,in the quicksands of Sanskrit literary history," to use the image 

l ] See Kathas. 6, 8 Pratisth&ne 'sti nagaram Supratisthita-samjnakam. 


of Vincent A. Smith himself (ZMDG. 1. 1. p. 660) and have no 
resting-place. I pass over the difficulty that the names of the prede- 
cessor of the legendary and the historical Satavahana disagree 
(Dlpakarni and Riktavarna l ) [Matsyapur. adhy. 273, 9!. 9]), as 
this point is of minor importance. 

Therefore, we are constrained to place the book which records 
the miraculous things related about Satavahana and pretends to be 
composed by Satavahana himself (Kathas. 8, 37) in a very long 
time after the historical Satavahana. Placing this king as Vincent 
A. Smith does, in the third quarter of the 1 st century A. D., it 
will be impossible to claim for the Kathapitha, and consequently, 
for the Brhatkatha a date earlier than the third century of our era, 
the date fixed by Sylvain Levi. 

This much we have got from the Kathapitha. But other useful 
intelligence is to be found in other parts of the great poem hitherto 
unobserved or forgotten, I believe, with the help of which the 
approximate date may be settled somewhat more exactly. Buhler's 
estimation must certainly be given up. 

First of all I remind of the important fact that in the lambaka 
Ratnaprabha (VII of Som. , XIV of Ksem.) there is a miraculous 
story about the great Nagarjuna (Kathas. 41, 9 58, Brhkm. p. 
500, cl. 392407). That it is the famous Buddhist theologian of 
that name and no other who is the hero of the tale is palpable 
as well by his being styled Bodhisattvamgasambhava (Kathas. 41, 10) 
as by the nature of his exploits. The historical Nagarjuna belongs 
doubtless to a later period than the Satavahana of Vincent A. Smith. 
KERN, Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 118, places him + 150 
A. D.; Taranatha treats of his deeds and his immense knowledge 
after completing his relation of Kaniska and the Third Council, 
at which time Buddhist tradition places the birth of Nagarjuna. 
Arguing as before and leaving ever so much room for the prompt- 
ness of devotees to endow the divine master and Bodhisattva, as 
they will have considered him already during his lifetime, with 
miraculous and superhuman powers, yet the extremely wonderful 
story told about him presupposes a distance of time of at least one 
century. Accordingly , our terminus ex quo for the date of the 
Brhatkatha advances to the latter half of the third century A.D. 
at the utmost , and it begins to be likely that its composition 
cannot be dated before 300 A.D. 

l ) I find the name in the printed text, mentioned supra. Radcliff, who is the source 
of Smith, names this king: Goraksagvagrl or Gaurakrsna, Naurikrsna, Vikrsna. We 
have here a fair sample of how much MSS may disagree in Pauranik texts! 

SITDIK- \liOl T TIIK K \T1I A-.\l!lT>.\ri MIA. -l-'J 

The l>iu' lambal, nkavati \\hieh contains little short of 5000 

elokas ill Katha-. ;nid almost luilf of that number ill Rrllklll. is 

for its greater part made up of tin- romantic adventures of Mr^an- 
kadatta. the prototype, a- i- coiiimonlx beliexed. of the plot of 
Dandin's Dacakumaracarita. Mr^aiikadatta is the son of the A\odh\a 
kin Amaradatta. Him his father banished from lijs realm at the 
instigation of his first minister who fal>el\ accused the prince of 
sorcery, alle^in^ him to he b\ his incantations the CJMIM- of an 
attack of cholera which had befallen the kinir. \\hat mo\ed that 
lirst minister to act so? lie bore a ^rnd^e to M r^aiikadatta. Some 
time before, the prince ,, while walking about on the top of his 
palaee, spit down some beteljnice. And as ill luck would ha\e it. 
it fell on the head of his father's minister, who happened to be 
walking below, unseen In the prince" 'j. This eeniial feature of 
the story is told in precisely the same \\a\ in both Sanskrit redac- 
tions, it belongs doubtless to the original Brhatkatha. 

Now, prof. KKKN more than twent\ \eais ago made the obser- 
vation that the habit of betel-chewing mn>t have been introduced in 
the land of the Hindoos in a time, which roiighh taken ma\ be deter- 
mined between Caraka and Sucrnta. ,,lt appears from .lataka (ed. 
Fansb.) II, 320, that at the time of the redaction of the prose com- 
mentary the habit of chewing betel existed already. No -neh n>e 
of betel ever occurs in the older parts of the Buddhistic canonical 
books, as the JMaha- and Cullavagga; nor is it found neither in 
the Mahabharata, Raniayuna, Caraka, where it could not ha\e been 
passed over tacitly, if existing. The use; of tambnla is mentioned 
only with authors of the sixth century of our era, unle Suenita 
is to be placed some time before 2 )". Mere I firstly remind that 
Caraka is reputed to have been the physician of king Kaniska. Further 
that tainlmld as a Pali word is quoted by Childeis from the Maha- 
vaiiiso. Moreover, a similar difference as to the use of betel as stated 

J ) I quote from TA\VM-:V'> translation of the Katliiis. TT, 147. The original, t. 70, 
5. 6 is as follows: 

i-atra so 'kastH&t t-.(nnr<D-<tn Itarmyapiiithatah 
Mfg&nkadaUas t&mbfllanislhlvanarasam jahau \\ 
sn en tiixiidjiiilnit )i!nr<lltni tlnirnt tatpilrnianlrittaff. 
Ksemendra relates the same fact. p. . M .'. -.I. ITi', thus: 
latah kadncit Hnnltnlnjfti.!ns,nii 

According to his habit, he is eager to communicate t< his readers the name of that 
minister, Vinayavant (c,l. 17,']); Somadeva omits it. Cp. *>t r ,'(i. p. 40 not. 2. 

*) I have translated this quotation from the original Dutch, see KERN, Bijdrage 
tot iic ve.rkln.rini/ run t't>ni<ii' x'oo/' ten in P&li-geschriften voorkomende, p. 6. Cp. also 
WEBER, Indisclu* Slreifen II, 50. 

Verhand. Kon. Akad. v. Wptensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N 5. 4 


above, is recognizable, too, in the Avadanacataka if compared with 
the Avadanamalas, which contain paraphrases of edifying tales 
belonging to the Avadanacataka l ) The use of the betel after dinner 
is regular in those younger texts, but it is never mentioned in 
the older work which has been paraphrased by them. The strength 
of the argumentum ex silcntio is unimpeachable here, for the same 
relations of dinners offered to Buddha the Lord are without 
betel in the Avadanacataka and with betel in the Avadanamalas. 

Applying, then, the criterion of the tMmbulaiQ our inquiry after 
the date of composition of the Brhatkatha, the story of Mrganka- 
datta can scarcely have been invented, or at least have been put 
on the form in which it is related in the Great Tale, before the 
fourth century A.I), at the lowest rate. And taking into account 
that this whole episode of Mrgankadatta is not an invention of 
the composer of the Brhatkatha, but that he included it within 
his compilation; that, therefore, it must have existed already as 
an independent composition in his days we will not be far 

from truth, I believe, concluding from this that the Brhatkatka 
itself can be placed by no manner before the fifth century. 

The strength of this reasoning is supported by another conside- 
ration. Bana in the preface of his Harsacarita, praisingly names 
the great authors in whose steps he ventures to tread. He extols as 
models of excellent poetry in eight clokas as many renowned works: 
among them the Vasavadatta (of Subandhu), Satavahana's ( Hala's) 
anthology, the Setubandha, the works of Kalidasa, the natakas 
of Bhasa, and also our Brhatkatha. The works he admires are both 
Sanskrit and Prakrit compositions, and the tone and spirit of this 
whole passage reminds of the prastavana of the Malavikagnimitra, 
in which young Kalidasa appeals to the sound judgment of his 
audience for his literary debut. For this purpose it is not to be 
expected that he will have taken the standard authors and classical 
works he praises from far remote antiquity. There can scarcely be 
allowed a larger track of time between the oldest of them and 
his own days than two centuries. He does not name Valmlki, and 
Vyasa he addresses in quite another connection, in the solemn 
invocation of deities and rsis, which according to custom opens his 
book. His naming, then, of the Great Tale, the hero of which is 
Naravahanadatta, the God of Love born again, not only proves the 

*) See my paper ,,Eenige bundels van avadanas, stichtelijke verhalen der Noordelijke 
Buddhisten" (Versl. en Meded. der Ron. Akad. v. Wet. AfJ. Lett., IV ^ Reeks, dl. Ill) 
p. 399. 

-li DIES \i;oi T Till-; K ITHASAJUTSlGARA. ."> 1 

exigence of the Brhatkatha about <)()(! A.D.. -omet hing beyond 
discussion. I, lit al>o make* if probable th;it the date of iN compo- 
sition cannot be too much remote from that limit. 

The datr M-tlled, houexer roughly. in this manner will prove 
USeflll ill its e<Mise<plen<v>. \\ e obtain by it alsu -ome e\ideliee for 

the time of composition of the Mudrarakgasa, 

In KathiTs. t. 00. the contents of which are identical with those 
of Paricatantra Hook 1, the following eloka occurs (IM)ed.Br. = 
118 ed. Dnrg.): 

SH <-<t ffij/or if c<- //riffle/in- calu } ) 
lift ('(tkiioli cirdnt Hllidhini (llirurtiin chftm r//,n/,t<'fi/i 

= ,,The fickle (cala) goddess [sti refers to (,'n named in the pi. - 
ceding cloka], if slie places her feet at the sime time upon two 
exalted persons, cannot keep her footing long, she will certainly 
abandon one of the two" (Tawney's transl. II, 34). This >entence 
is a free imitation of a tristubh of Vicakhadatta, the author of 
the Mudraraksasa. It is found in the Fourth Act of that drama 
(p. 146 of Majumdar's Series ed. ==p. 179 ed. Trimbak Telang): 

atyucchrite manlr'uii /)(ir///ir<> ca 
rixlabJiya pdildr upati$tJiate 

sd xlnxruhliurnd asaliTi bliarasya 
tat/or (Irai/or cktttarcim jahriti 

= ,,If CrI [ Fortuna Regia] has to attend a king with a very 
exalted minister, she must take hold on them with her stretched 
feet placed from another, but owing to her womanhood being too 
weak to keep them, she will (soon) abandon one of the two." 

Now this selfsame tristubh is met with in the Tantra- 
khyayika (I, 56), that is the oldest redaction of the Pancatantra 
come down to us , and it occurs there at the same point of the 
tale, yea, at the same point of the conversation of Hamanaka and 
Pingalaka, where Somadeva puts his free imitation of the stanxn. 
Dr. Hertel, in his edition of the Tantrakhya\ ika -), has shown 
that there exists a, close connection between that text and the 

') Brockhaus reads, it is not clear for what reason, Cain. 

*) Band XXII, nr. V of the AhJunnllnniirn /tv phiL-hisl. Klassc rlrr K<migL Sficlts. 
Geselhchaft der Wissrnschaflen. Leipzig, Teubner 1904. 

The Brhkm. has here nothing corresponding to Kathas. 60, 119 (118). This is suf- 
ficiently accounted for by the extreme briefness of Ksemendra in this portion of his 
work, cp. supra, p. 17 below. 


Pancatantra portion of the Brhatkatha ! ). It follows from this that 
the double fact of the identity of the Mudraraksasa tristubh with 
Tantrakhy. I, 56 and of the occurrence of the anustubh imitative 
of it in Somadeva's poem at the very place where its prototype 
is met with in Tantrakhy. cannot be the effect of chance. This 
alternative may be stated a priori : either Vic;akhadatta borrowed 
the stanza from Pane, respectively from the same authority as 
Pane, did, or that oldest recension of Pane, is younger than the 
Mudraraksasa. As to the former member of the alternative, it is 
expressly stated in Tantrakhy. that the stanza is a quotation (scidJiu 
caitad my ate). So it becomes very improbable that Vic;akhadatta 
took it from Pane. Nor is it likely that he took it from any other 
text. Every one who reads over the scene of Mudr. , in which the 
stanza is found, will feel convinced that both the contents and the 
wording of it are in perfect agreement with the peculiar situation 
of the context and must have their original Jtowe there. Hence it 
follows that Vicakhadatta and his admirable drama are to be placed 
many centuries earlier than is generally done ; for a stanza from it 
was quoted in even that redaction of Pane. , which was taken up 
in the Brhatkatha. Since the Brhatkatha must have been composed 
+. 400 A.I)., the date of the Mudraraksasa is needs to be put 
at least one generation before that time. 

WILSON, as is known, was induced by the bharatavakya comme- 
morating Mlecchas as a cause of fear to India , to postpone its 
composition to the times of the great Mohammedan invasions; still 
WEBER (Ind. Literaturg? 224 n. 218) believed it to be ,,aus etwa 
dem zvvolften Jahrhundert". Subsequent scholars, were well aware 
that neither the spirit of the drama nor the relations and conditions 
of society and religion as represented in it were suitable to a so 
late time, but the complete absence of any datum fit for serving 
as a point of starting to research, and the prejudice of Wilson's 
estimation which dominated in their minds prevented them from 
modifying his statement otherwise than by abating it a little and 
a little. JACOBI , in the second volume of the Wiener ZeitscJirift 
very cleverly calculated even the date of the first representation of 
the Mudraraksasa Dec. 2 of 860 A.D. - but his premises were 
false; MACDONNELL put the terminus ante quern on about 800 
(Hist, of fianskr. Lit. p. 365); Kashinath Trimbak Telang in his 

*) In that recension of the Pane, which is known as the Southern one and which 
takes its origin from the Tantrakhy., the stanza is likewise found with some modifica- 
tions. See /M.s Si'tillii-tic l^incalantra , hera-usy. >-on J. HERTEF, quoted supra, p. 41, 
note 1 p. 13. 

STU1>IF< M'.ol 1 THE K \TII.\v\KlTS.\i , W 

edition of the pla\ pleaded j'or tin- conchi-ion thai belong to 
somewhere about the earl\ pail of the eighth cnitun A.I )." p. \ \ \ I 

But I think I ha\e pro\ed that it is by four or five centime* older, 

and must rank \\ith the Mrcchakal i a> the tun mo-i ancient pla\s 
of the Hindu theatre come to n>. Hoth drama- an- a-eribed to 
authors about whom alnm.M nothing is known l>ut their name, 
(/ndraka hears even a somewhat m\thieal character. \ icakhadatta . 
whose lather and paternal grandfat her are named in the prol' 
of his play, may have been a historical prison, hut no tradition 
whatever concerning him doe> exist, Tin- i- \\holh coiiH<tent with 
his belonging to a very ancient time. 

I am inclined to suppose that the ( andragiipta named in the 
bharatavakya of Aludrar. may be an allusion to some princ< of that 
name, who belonged to the d\na>t\ of the (iiiptas. lie \\ho is 
enlogi/ed in that final stan/a as a successful protector jigjiiiist the 
threatening .Mlecclias ma\ be Candragnpta I, the founder of the 
new and national d\ nasty, who lived in the beginning., or his 
glorious descendant Caiidragupta II at the end of the- fourth cen- 
tury. It would be no matter of wondering at, if the brilliant 
exploits, especially of the first Candragnpta who >nb\erted a secular 
domination of barbarians" in the N. and X. W. parts ( ,f India, 
had prompted the unknown poet Vieakhadatta to gloril\ a similar 
establishment of a mighty national monarchy by the namesake of 
his king and by his famous minister. This hypothesis, which is in 
congruity with the line of argument 1 have followed when procee- 
ding from the tristubh stanza common to Mudrar. and Tantra- 
khyayika , is not contradicted by the style and language of the play. 
The style is characteri/ed by its relative simplicity, the diction is 
exquisite and some lexicological facts may indicate an ancient date 
of its composition. E. g. the use of ncrm/a 'body' in t lie forged 
letter (Act V): 8vd$rayavina$ena, is only met with in Buddhist 
Sanskrit texts of the first centuries A.D. and is, therefore, not 
registered in the Petrop. Dictionary j of j>nrc<tiin (Act 111, >t. 10) 
= 'religious festival'; perhaps of r//W/7/><7//<7 not mentioned in 
the Petr. Diet. Act III, st. 14, see Kashinatlfs ed. p. 101 

with commentary. ] ) 

By the bye I remark that it is highly improbable that Yica- 

*) I am somewhat uncertain about kuluh'a (Act I, st. 15). If the edited text is right, 
this word, which is always a synonym of da>-/j, jayti, bhtirya and may also signify the 
n zenana", has here the meaning of 'family' in the largest sense; in this case it is very 
probable that this word may be reckoned an archaism. But I greatly doubt the genui- 


khadatta, as Sylvain Levi affirms (Le theatre indien, p. 226), bor- 
rowed the subject-matter of his nataka from the Brhatkatha ,,cette 
source inepuisable." In the poems of So made va and Ksemendra 
the sole fact of Candragupta's overturn of the Nandas is narrated 
and in a very concise way, but the events that happened after 
Canakya's vengeance and his triumph and conquest of the royalty 
are not mentioned, nor does the name of Raksasa anywhere occur. 
If anything is certain, it is this that Vicakhadatta did not borrow 
the plot of his drama from the Brhatkatha. 

After this digression going back to the main subject of this 
disquisition, we will bring forth now some indications of various 
kind leading in the same direction to fix the date of the Brhat- 
katha about 4^ 400 A.D. They may also afford some basis for 
further investigation. For this reason they are put forward. Their 
demonstrating power, if considered separately, is perhaps not so 
great but combined , they may help to strengthen the reasoning 
exposed in the foregoing. 

1. The historical tradition of the foundation of Pataliputra must 
have been fully overgrown with legendary accounts and even wholly 
forgotten at the time when the Brhatkatha was composed. Passing 
over the well-known miraculous story of the origin of the famous 
capital of the Mauryas, as it is narrated in Kathas. t. 3 and Brhkm. 
p. 10 12, I remark that the author of our collection of tales 
makes Vasantaka and Tapantaka tell stories of events happened in 
former days (prtifc) at Pataliputra (see Kathas. 17, 64 cp. Brhkm. 
p. 79, cl. 136 and Kathas. 57, 25 cp. Brhkm. p. 541, cl. 12). 
In the mind of him who wrote down this, the new capital of 
Magadha, of a relatively recent date, is spoken of as existing 
already long before Udayana, who is reputed coeval with the Buddha; 
just as Kalidasa (Raghuv. 6, 24) supposes Pataliputra as existing 
in the days of Raghu and Aja! 

2. The name of the country Nepal is found in the Brhatkatha. 
It occurs in the fifteenth tale of the Vetala: Kathas. 89, 3 and 
Brhkm. 345, cl 718. As far as I know, the name of Nepal is 
mentioned the first time in the documents available in the beginning 
of the 4 th century A.D. It is not met with in Mahabharata and 
Ramayana. Cp. S. Levi, Le Nepal II, 6163. 

neness of the transmitted wording, because sampatsu capalsu ca can hardly be accounted 
for; the locatives are supervacuous and would better be wanting. 

I would rather think the 4 th pada of the stanza must be read thus: le bfirtya nrpateh 
kalatram itarat sampatsu capatsu ca ,,these servants are (like) another wife in both 
prosperity and adversity". 

STUDIKS \i;oi i TIIL ix \iii \v\i;ri>.v..\i{A 15 

3. The Brhatkatha kno\\- -till dinara- B8 piece- of mone\ . In 
the tale of Yira\ara the dail\ sdar\ of that lo\al warrior I- I'm- 
hundred dinaras. In tlic Katha-. tin- i- related both time-, for 
the story is told twice over in t. .")3 and t. ;^ cp. :>:>,, ( J:2 with 
78 [= Vetala 1 ] , II). l\-eiii<-ndra . in hi- -ft of Vetalartoiies , 
instead of dtnUra^atapaiicakam e \pre.-ses the ainonnt of hi- \\ 

in rupee-: x/idfi i><in<-<i pradiyantam rupakdnSm ralaiti we p. 310. 

<;l. 271),); his parallel of the \ira\ara tale a- narrated in |\atha>. 
t. 53 being exceedin^lx -hoi't (\ ide |). ."):J.") y . the >alar\ I- not even 
mentioned there. It is plain that Sonmdeva'- dnmras, not K^eineii- 
dra's rupakas, represent the eoiiuiLic ;i- i:i\rn in the original Hrhat- 
katlia. In the eleventh centni-\ there \\ a- nothing that niiirht induce 
an author to replace r/f/jf/h/ 1)\ ilutum, the name of an ol>-olete 
coin, hut there must have been a strong l>i;i- to put /V//,///Y/, the 
name of a coin in ordinan u-e, instead of the antiquated <li,i<ira l ). 
The coin named dhuifn is mentioned in inscription^ of tin- -V centun 
and even later, see Jtmr/i. of !/' Rut/. As. &o<-. 1DOG, p. S'.ij. 

4. In Kathas. 37, 30 foil, the name of the Tajik- occur-. It i> 
not absolutely certain that Somadeva found that name in his ori- 
ginal, for Ksemendra in the parallel place (Hrhkm. p. -1 S :J i- 
silent about them. With him, it is Turuskas and Cina- \\ho over- 
powered and captured Niccayadatta and his comrade-, not Tajiks, 
as with Somadeva. The latter does not name at all the Cinas, he 
names one Turuska, \i/. the king Miiravarn, to who-e presence the 
captives are brought. I hold it for probable that Somadeva is here as 
usual nearer to the original. Now, it >honld be kept in mind that 
the Turks, who are doubtless meant with the name of Turuskas, 
appear for the first time in history in the sixth centurv. Nuu>r-Kr. 
in his Geschklite der Pewr and Araln>r ztir /cif dc, '/?//, 
au-s der arabixclen Clironik dex Tahan p. 53 note, remarks that 
was not before the time of the Sasanide Chnsrau I that the Turks 
became dangerous neighbours of the Persians". It is, however, 
possible, not to sa\ likely, that they occupied already in the fourth 
and fifth centuries regions conterminous with the eastern and northern 
frontier of the Persian monarchy. In that case there would be 
nothing strange in the fact that an Indian work of the .V 1 ' centurv 
should relate of an Indian .merchant, taking his way from Puska- 
ravatl to the North, who having reached a country inhabited by 

J ) A similar case of dlnara found in the older recension but ousted and replaced by 
another word in the younger one is met with in the story of Sornilaka in Paiicatantra. 
Instead of the dlnaruh Ii3 earns in the Tantrakhyayika (ed. Hertel, p. 61), he makes 
suvarnapatatrayam in the younger redaction edited by Biihler (II, 29, 14). 


Tajiks, was made a slave by them and sold to some Turuska or 
some king of Turuskas. Again mention is made of the Tufuskas 
in the relation of the digvijaya of Udayana by Somadeva (t. 19); 
he defeats the cavalry of the Turuskas (el. 109), kills the king of 
the Paraslkas (cl. 110) and puts to flight the Harms (cl. Ill) - 
the corresponding passage of Kseinendra (p. 93 f.) is so much 
shortened that it does not contain anything to be compared. And 
if we take into account also that in the first book of the Rajata- 
rangini the kings Kaniska, Huviska and Vasuska (Vasndeva) are named 
Turuskas, and that this testimony, be it ever so weak, must rest 
upon some old tradition, there seems to be nothing inconsistent in 
the fact that in a literary work composed on the eve of the 5 th century 
A.D. the Turks are mentioned as a people established north from 

To summarize the inference to be drawn from the foresaid data 
and indirect indications, there can be no more question of the 
first or second century as the time of composition of the Paicaci 
Brhatkatha, as was proposed by Bilhler and Vincent A. Smith, and 
even Levi's option in 1891 for the 3 d century would make the 
work somewhat older than it really is. I think Albrecht Weber's 
opinion uttered rather hesitatingly was nearer to the truth. Yet 
the work will be older than the th century A.D. Its composition 
may be put about one century before, but I dare not go back 
beyond the year 400. 

A strong objection against this conclusion would arise, if dr. 
Hertel were right asserting that the Brhatkatha, which was sans- 
kritized by the two Kashmirian poets was not the old and famous 
work of that name, but a younger compilation, enlarged with 
interpolations of a great extent ! ). In his opinion, such groups of 
coherent tales, which by themselves represent separate books, as 
the Paiicatantra tales and the Vetalapaficavimcati, did not belong 
to the original work. If this might prove to be true, then the pro- 
totype of the poems of Somadeva and Ksemendra would cease to 
be a creditable source of information and a starting-point for 
research with respect to the ,, genuine" PaicacI Brhatkatha known to 
Subandhu and Bana. In each given case the exception of the pas- 
sage in question belonging to the interpolated portions could be 
made; by what test should we discern the different elements of 
the younger compilation? 

But the danger is as yet not so imminent. Hertel means we 

*) In the passage of his preface quoted supra p. 41 helow. 


have to look for tin- old Gunadhya's own composition in the third 

(Sanskrit) rc(l;iciioii di>co\ered b\ Mara I' of which we have 

spoken A7//;/7/, p. II. When IK- expressed tin- view, IK- had not 

rend even ;i >ingle letter of the text lie el:ir 'and neaiot to 

the original Hrhatkatha: for at the time he published it, he wa- not 
aware, noi- could he, of M. L;ie,te'- article ill the Journal . /.V/V///V////'. 
lie had no ot her materials at his di-posil than t he colophon- communi- 
cated bv llara IVasad. M. I .acute, who IKIX the manuscripts at 

hand and /-v preparing an edition, is more cautious and circom 

ill his judgment, lie presumes, indeed, that ,,antant (pi'on |)ent 
fonder tin jugement d'eiiscmble snr nn court fragment", it has the 
appearance of native colour and genninene^ which might induce 
tlie reader to think it nearer to the original (innadlna than the 
poem of Somadeva. ^ et M. Lacote is disci-it 1 L-t-il nn portrait 
plus lidele de la \\v\\\\\ kat ha de (iunadh\a (pn- le Kat hasi i it-agam 

et la Brhatkathamafijari ? Je mY\pli<|uerai alterieuremenl >ur 
(piestiou. Mais il est des maintenant certain (ju'il devicMit line \ 
essentielle dans le proce- 

While waiting for the dissertation on this question bj M. Laeote 
on the ground of tin 1 new document at hi> di^po>al, 1 tliink Iain 
justitied to uphold the results of m\ examination of it l>\ the light 
of the old documents. I draw the attention to the following point-. 

1. Since the genuine Hrhatkatha was composed in Paieaei, the 
new redaction, the Br hat kat hay am (or thayah?) ^lokasatngraltah 
cannot be hut a modified representation of it. 1> it a faithful 
translation or an imitation? The title itself speaks against it> being 
a faithful translation. A qlokasavigraha does certainlv not mean the 
original work, but mav denote its complete contents in a com- 
pendious form. What it exaetlv means, will perhaps appear when 
the whole work as far as extant will be published. 

2. As we have notified above (pupm , p. 4:2], the first sarga of the 
Qlokasamgraha presupposes an account of the precedent events dif- 
ferent from the other Hrhatkatha. When I'daxana abdicated to 
become an ascetic (Kathas. Ill, 51) foil.), in both Kathas. and 
Brhkm. it is not Gopalaka but his brother IVilaka who is installed 
king at KaueambT; though the kingdom had been ottered to him 
by Delay ana, he declined it and left the so\ereign power for the 
ascetic life in the forest. So Palaka has two kingdoms under his 
sceptre; for after the death of his father Candamahasena he had 
succeeded to him at I "jjayinl (Kathas. Ill, 64; 112, 13). But in 
the Qlokasamgraha Gopalaka reigns at rjjayim, and when being king 
he grows disgusted with the possession of royal power, so that he 


abdicates and gives over his kingdom to his brother Palaka. It is 
difficult to ascribe these contrarious courses of events to one and 
the same Brhatkatha, If they belong to different redactions", which 
of the two was the genuine one? It is impossible to decide this a 
priori, I think. 

3. I doubt whether the fragment begins with the first sarga 
of the whole work. It is more probable, I suppose, that it is the 
beginning of a new section. It is not in the habit of the authors 
of Indian literary compositions, and certainly not of large poems, 
to take up their audience or readers directly in medias rex, without 
any preamble, as is the fact with the first sarga, published by M. 
Lacote. The whole purport of its narrative makes the strong impres- 
sion that it belongs to a new section of the work , but is not the 
commencement of the whole. The kathuHiuklam in the colophon 
of the third sarga may denote the outset of the narration of the 
life and adventures of Naravahanadatta told by himself, perhaps to 
Gopalaka , at a time when he was already consecrated cakracdrtin 
of the Vidyadharas. 

4. M. Lacote reckons the relation of the life of Gunadhya and 
the lambakas II and 111 of our Brhatkatha in 18 lambakas among 
the ,,hors-d'oeuvre" (Journ. As. 1.1. p. 32). Would he think so, 
if he were not prejudiced by the thought that the MSS of Qloka- 
samgraha at his disposal contain a fragment of a work which did not 
comprise the story of Gunadhya and the Udayanacarita? The Udava- 
nacarita, from the point of view of Indian composition, must be 
considered as essential a part of a Naravahanadattacarita, as for 
instance the story of Panda in a narration of the Pandavas, or 
the burning of Kama in the Kumarasambhava. What prevents its 
belonging to the much greater portion of the Qlokasamgraha which 
is not extant? The same applies to the Kathapltha. The original 
Brhatkatha, inethinks, must have related in its opening the mira- 
culous process, which accounts for the promulgation among mankind 
of the divine tale, the author of which is God Civa himself. This 
account is indispensable and conformable to Indian methods of 
introducing such large collections as the Brhatkatha. 

5. Even if we take it for granted that the Clokasaingiaha 
represents a recension more united and less stuffed with inserted 
tales derived from heterogeneous sources than the Brhatkatha in 
eighteen lambakas, this fact in itself does not necessarily imply its 
being the older recension. It is something very common in Indian 
literature to find side by side longer and shorter expositions of the 
like contents. Many legends and stones in the Mahabharata occur 


inoi'i' than once, some! lines told Mimuxi'iui . ^oinetiines nxtfiri'/ta ( )1 
the l^'djiit/jttirduiifti , the most holy hook of the Mah;i\ ;ini>t> there 
e\N longer ;IIK| slimier redact ion> . nil of them canonical: one in 
KM). WW, one in 25.000, one in 18.000, one in K>. <)()(), one in 
">000 lines. l> the greatest one al>o the \ounge>t in time, or arc 
the smaller one- abridgments and extract- of the larjy fatasahaS' 

raprajnBpSramit&y HIKNOI i , /////v,7//r//o//, p. ID I prononnc. 
nun lif/ucf. The kaniasntra of Val-\ ;i\ana pretend- to lie an extract 
of Habhia\\a's composition, which is an epit->me of a larger work 
composed 1>\ ( 'vetaket n , which itself again \\;i- the abridgment of 
tlu- original Kama.-ntra in 1000 adh\a\;i- rc\ea!ed l>\ ('i\a'> hull 
Nandin ! For this reason, even if the existence of two IVieaci 
Brhatkathas wei'e to he pro\e<l sit i>faetoril\ . one larger and one 
smaller, this fact would not prejndicate the answer to l,e ^i\t.Mi at 
the question ahont the time-relation hetween them. 

(>. The story of the Brhatkatba, to which Snhandhn ip. IK) of 
llall's ed.) alludes, is a tale inserted into the ston of Yisamaeila 
which makes up lamhaka X.V11I of Katha>. This kinr and his 
adventures have nothing at all to do with \ara\ahanadatta, sd'e that 
N. listens to the narration by Kanva. This story, if any, would he 
one of the ,, hors-d'oeuvre" interpolated' into the genuine Brhat- 
katha, if interpolation had happened! It was nevertheless known to 
Suhandhu, in the sixth century A.I)., and known as occurring in 
Gunadhva's Brhatkatha. 

7. The same passage of Subandhu teaches us also something more. 
r rhe Brhatkatha, to which he refers, was divided into lainblnikris 
or himhhrw. r rhe same division must needs have been that of the 
PaicacI prototype worked upon by the two Kashmirian poets. In 
the MSS of Brhkin. the hooks tire called lamlaka or Idmhlutka (see 
the article of Biihler in the tnd. .Infujti. of 1871 and the colophon 
of book I, p. 33 of the edit.). In Kathas. both editor- even -where 
agree in naming them lnib<ika. ('p. xtt/jra, p. 11, n. 1. But the 
new fragment is not divided into lamba(ka)s, hut into sar_ 

As to the person of Gunadhya, the reputed author of the Brhat- 
katha, the opinions vary. According to some he is a historical person, 
according to others, his name is likely to be as fictitious as that 
of the Vedavyasa. It is impossible to settle the question. The 
Brhatkatha has this in common with so many old works ascribed 
to individual authors that the name of the reputed author occurs 
in the work itself. How can Satavahana be the real author of 
Kathapitha, where his own wondrous history is narrated and he 


is spoken of in the third person ? Let us rather avow that we do 
not known anything about the reputed authors of the Great Store- 
house of Tales and that is something like to nothing to combine 
their authorship with the names mere names, indeed - - of 

Gunadhya and Satavahana, the intrinsic value of which is = x. 
The only conclusion permitted to us, and this at least is more than 
nothing, is this, that a celebrated work, the author or authors of 
which are half mythical persons, must be ancient. For the rest, 
in questions like these account must be kept with analogous imputation 
of the authorship of celebrated and authoritative works on mythical 
personages. I refer to the statement of JOLLY in the Journal of the 
Roy. Asiat. Society 1907, p. 174, about medical tradition, where 
he says : Since it was a generally prevailing practice with writers 
of medical textbooks to give out their compositions as an abridgment 
of some early work written by a divinely inspired sage/ 7 

si;<; TION ii. 




As has been stated above (sujtrfi* p. 7), the Kathasariteiigara 
has been edited twice, by Brockhans and b\ Durirapra^ld and his 
son Kashinath Pandurang Parab). The former's edition i> based on six 
MSS for his first volume and on an equal number for his second 
and third volumes. Yet these are not quite the same. l ; our of tlm>e 
which served him for his publication of lamb. I V were left a>ide ? 
when he was preparing the edition of the rest, as necessarily re>ults 
from a comparison of the two prefaces of 1S39 and ISO I. It is 
plain that he could no longer avail himself of M = nr. 3 ( ,)5 ( .) of 
the Catalogue of the Sanskrit manuscripts in tin' libra n/ of the 
India Office, for it stops after lamb. V, but it is not clear what 
prevented him from making use, as he did before, of A = nr. 
394850, B .. = either nr. 395153 or 3950-5-, ( = nr. 
3954 and 55. Of the other two, one was employed accordingly 
for the whole work: I), a copy taken from a Calcutta MS, the 
original of which belongs to the Sanskrit college; this copy is now 
in the Royal Library at Berlin 1 ); as to the other, W. a copy 
from a Benares MS, forwarded to him by Wilson, Brockliaus 
says: ,,aus ihr liabe ich cap. 27 Gl copirt"; it is now at Oxford 
in the Bodlevana. The four new manuscripts acquired for the con- 
stitution of the text of lamb. VI XVIII, II. (.. 8, and R are 
now at Berlin in the Royal Library (see Weber's Verzeiclnti** <l^r 
Sanskrit and Prdkrit-Handschrifte* | der Konigl. Bibl. zu Berlin] 
II, nr. 1574 1578). Of them S (nr. 1577) is a copy from a 

') Brockliaus presented it to the Royal Library of Dresden; but afterwards it passed 
over to Berlin, see Weber's Ycr^lchm^s IF, nr. If)*;-.' i:7:> with the foot-note 5 on 
p. 158. 


Sagor MS which he had obtained from Fitz Edward Hall; its 
original, a Kashmir MS, the oldest pustaka of his whole apparatus 
,,gehorte wohl in den An fang des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts" (Weber). 

The two pandits who brought about the Bombay edition, printed 
at the Nirnayasagara Press, had besides the edition of Brockhaus 
two more MSS at their disposition. The former of which they describe 
thus (p. 2 of their Preface) : tatra KagtmralikMtam chain navmam 
pray ah puddham asmadlyam puqtakaw. The other MS did not be- 
long to them , but to the Townhall Royal Library at Bombay, being 
formerly Dr. Bhau Daji's; it has been written samvat 1743 = 1686 
A.D. at Benares and is not so good as the former one -- natirud- 
dhaw though very neatly kept, manoliarasvarupcnn. I suppose 

that it is from the Kashmir MS the editors took a good deal of 
the excellent corrections by which their publication surpasses the 
edition of Brockhaus. 

Neither edition has the right to be called a critical one. The text 
is critically edited, but there is no reference whatever made to the 
various readings of the MSS. Brockhaus, in the Preface on his first 
volume (p. IX), declares that he did his utmost to make the best 
of the discrepancies of his MSS. ,,Nicht uberall ist mir dies ge- 
lungen, viele Stellen sind mir undeutlich oder ganz unerklarlich 
geblieben, doch habe ich es als strengen Grundsatz durchgefuhrt, 
keine Conjecturen in den Text aufzunehinen, sondern mir durch 
Handschriften autorisirte Lesarten." In 1839, though he realized, 
it seems, that a scholarlike edition could not do without a mention, 
however succinct, of the most important various readings, especially 
in such places as remained undeutlich oder ganz unerklarlich", 
yet the addition of them, he says, would have augmented the cost 
so exceedingly that he was obliged to omit ,,diese Zugaben, fur 
so wichtig und nothwendig ich sie auch halte''. A similar complaint 
is made in the Preface on p. IV of the last volume (1866): ,,l)ie 
Varianten aus den Handschriften mitzutheilen , war unmoglich; ich 
hatte dazu den doppelten Raum, den der Text einniinmt, gebraucht." 

It is a matter of course that the Nirnayasagara Press edition is 
likewise devoid of even the shortest apparatus criticus. Something 
like this is not in the habit of Hindoo scholars. 

If once, in time hereafter, the critical edition suitable for a 
work of that importance will be called for, many more MSS must 
be consulted. Aufrecht, in his Cat alogus Catalogorum , registers them 
at p. 78 of his I st vol., to which he adds others in his Part II 
and III. I cannot find that Brockhaus availed himself of MS 1579 
in Weber's Catalogue. 

M'" 1 T nil. k \l II \MI;IT-.\(,AI;\ 03 

Tawney, in the notes on !ii< translation, some! lino makes men- 
tion of better readings than the lc\t of Mrocklians offered him, 
which lie borrowed from MSS of the Calcutta College. Tho lirst 
time he cites one, is Vol. I , j). I I s . with ropect to t;ir. 1 ( .> , 64, 
where Mr. r ) reads <l<il f<ix<i>,ii>ti<l(ili and I) ', has |)iit into the text 
9aminada/t\ his MS \\\\* x<n,,l)luir<ili. At p. I .">.") Tawney doubtle 
refers to the same MS ,,lent to me by the librarian of the Sanskrit 
College," cp. his note; on p. 203 , where he ealU it excellent 
MS." Afterwards he liad the opportunity of u-ing al>o three India 
Office MSS lent to him hv Dr. Kost, which I >nppo>e to be those 
denoted by Broekhaus as A. \\ and C; rending from them are 
mentioned in the foot-notes from tar. I O'J till the end of the work, 
see note on II , 388 etc. 

Upon the whole the MSS contain nearly the same text. There 
are instances of clokas found in one MS and wanting in another, 
but they are few, very few. Tar. 23, 4 7 in Hr.'s ed. have one 
line less and one more, than thev have in I). D's 23 , 4 ab is 
wanting in Br. , and Hr.'s 23, 7 cd is wanting in D. - - Met ween 
Mr. 24, 140 and 147 I) interposes one eloka ; this cloka (I) 24, 
147) added improves the narrative style. -- Likewise at t. 20, 134, 
I) has two elokas more and in a place, where they are indispen- 
sable. This is even transparent in T's ^translation (1, W 22G): ,, There- 
upon the Brahman set out with the merchant's agents to go to that 
island of Utsthala , and by chance the sons of the king of tishermen 
saw him there." It is told here that Qaktideva set out to Utsthala, 
but it is not told that he arrived, but his departure is closely connected 
with his meeting in that island with the sons of Satyavrata. In I) 
the passage runs thus - I have bracketed that which is wanting 
in Br. : 

itt/ ifkffts ten a vanija sa fais tadvyavaharibhih 
snkaw fnd Utsthaladwpam (Qaktidevo ynyaH tatah || 
yah sa hamUun' malidtnw me I'hinulatto * tra fixf/iati 
prfiyraf taw/aira Hikafaui ruxfinn icc/iflmi fanuinf/tam || 
/// smuprripifa ra ilripaw tat ka lam cci cicntfi/a sa// 
vipammadhyamargena) f/ftnft/ni ftrnvartatn dri/ah || 

In T after Utsthala" there must, therefore, be inserted this: 
,,with the intention to stay there with his relative (his uncle) 
Visnudatta , the reverend inmate of the monastery of that island, 

') From henceforward the sign Br. denotes Brockhaus and his edition, D that of 
DufgaprasSd, T Tawney's translation, t. = tarariga. 


as before. So Caktideva reached the island and forthwith began to 
take his way through the bazar. Then by chance etc." 

D, in a note on p. 311 of his second edition, notifies that the 
line, corresponding to t. 00, 93 of Brockhaus, is wanting in 
one of his MSS. Considering it an interpolation , he has not put 
it into the text. I think, he is right doing so. In this way the 
necessity of supposing a hiatus of the former part of el. 96 disap- 
pears; Br. 95 c d and 96 c d belong together, nothing is wanting 
between those lines, as Br. erroneously believed, in I) they are 
connected, and T II, 32 connected them likewise. 

In the vetala nr. 7, t. 81, 15 I) in a note gives 1 1 / 2 additional 
cloka which he has not put into the text. Those lines are found 
in one MS and are not mentioned by Br. 

One cloka, t. 103, 159 of D, is wanting in Br. Its addition 
greatly improves the style. The abrupt transition from the turgid 
description of the ocean-like host of Mrgankadatta and his father- 
in-law in cl. 157 and 158 to the very plain matter-of-fact content 
of Br. 159 disappears in this way. D has put this cloka into the 
text; it fills up a gap, indeed. - Likewise 1) has two lines more 
than are found in Br.'s ed. in t. 108, viz. between Br. cl. 154ab 
and c d ; this additional cloka depicts the beauty and loveliness of 
the maiden Vayuvegayacas. They are quite appropriate to the situ- 
ation and I hold them for genuine. 

After t. 123, 260 there is a gap of sundry clokas which Br. did 
not realize. It is disclosed by D's text. We detect the gap by putting 
together the parallel places in Kathas. and Brhkin. Kusumayudha, 
pupil of a learned brahmana, had fallen in love with the daughter 
of this teacher. She answered his love, but having been promised 
to another suitor, told him to cause her to be carried off. A ser- 
vant of his whom he had ordered to take her with a mule, trea- 
cherously desiring to keep her for himself, conduced her to some 
distant place, not to his master; then he told her, he was going 
to marry her himself. On beholding herself in his power, the girl 
cunningly feigns to acquiesce to that sudden change of husband; 
but, she says, you must marry me duly and in good order; go 
and fetch the requisites for the nuptial ceremony. Meanwhile he 
set out to the next town to buy the necessary things, she fled 
with the mule to the dwelling of a garland-maker, who concealed 
her. In Br.'s Kathas. the feigned assent of the maiden is only 
indicated by the half-cloka: Qrutvaitat sabravit prajnu: ,,tvam hi 
me sutarant priijah" (cl. 260 cd), the next line relates his going 
to the town to make purchases. D inserts here between both one 

HI DIES M 1 '"' i i UK K vi ii teARITSiG \K\ r>:> 

eloka , the former part of which i> //v//// crtilra ,^/ ///// 
IKirun't/t) '.s;// /7//o IIKIIIKI . the latter part i- loxt. It i>. hour 
obvious tli;it tin-re is lost m<>re. Cp. tin- parallel in Bihkm. (p. 404, 
(-1. :r> toll.): 

pracchftdya vra/ta . /w ^.sv/.v //>//// wctniftbhyadkikah />rit/a/i || 
///// tUcitavidhflnena tvayodvQham ulntm />///v/V. 
dnayotsavasamagrim Irani vikri*ngufoyakam l ] \\ (3G) 

iti prtttva (/ale A/.V///////.V 
viverff /yv/Av// xrd<///it/(i niu 

If we consider that Ksciiiciidra h;i> much ^Imrtrurd lu-rr , we 
must conclude to tin- |n< s ,t' I 1 ;'., or H 1 /., (;lok;is ;it least, which 
contained her conditions ;md the suggestion to lm\ the nmn 

The line t. 124, 111 c d Br. is not found jn 1). It is, in 
fact, a dittogniphv of cl. 109 cd; <;1. llx? Hr. is in 1) tin- 
second part of 111 find Hr.'s erroneous >i^ii> of quotation mu>t 

For the rest the differences of reading are not great and move 
between limits sufficiently narrow as to make it plain that there 
can hardly be question of more than one redaction. Instances 
of variances bearing to whole clokas are none, except t. v ^ 
3G, where the same fact is said with quite different words in 
Br. and in 1). Other instances of minor importance are 1 s . 
189. 44, 60. 59, 8:2 (D's reading is here much better). 94, 
5 1 (here the Calcutta MS considerably differs from both Br. 
and D) and 116, 49. The last passage deserve> a more accurate 

Pad ma vat! learns from her attendance that the young man in 
her presence who has rescued her from the two giantesses, is the 
very prince destined by her father to be her husband. She is extre- 
mely rejoiced by that news, and likewise the young man is 
delighted. The cloka descriptive of their mutual feeling, is in Br. 
as follows : 

tato y nyonya-farijndna~har$a-purne nijdtmani 
^yuktam i/ad adt/a "iha 'ai/tira.'" iti kinnarl-vardc ubJiau || 
in T's translation (II, 525): Then the princess and her lover had 
their hearts rilled with joy at discovering one another, and they both 
thought, ,,it is well that we came here to-day." Here the absence 

') The aksara lost and marked as such in the printed text, may be ya ; I conjecture 

Vfi-hand. Kon. Akad. v. Weiensch. A fd.. Letter!; N. R. HI. VIII. N. 5. 5 


of the word meaning thought in the original is somewhat strange, 
though not impossible. But D has a quite different reading, doubt- 
less the right one : 

yuktam tad y an na mat ah s m a tau kumarwarav ubhan 
,,it was a matter of course that they could not contain themselves 
(for joy)." Cp. 22, 131 na mati sma muda kvacit. The comparative 
rareness of the idiom na mati with that meaning may be a factor 
in the origin of the various reading. 

Another instance of a genuine reading ousted by its difficulty 
is t. 18, 189. The gallant Vidusaka, having rescued the princess 
and placed her into her private apartments, is taking his leave, but 
she does not allow it; ,,stay with me", she says: ,,when you are 
gone, this breath of me will leave my body overcome with fear." 
Whereupon he resolves to remain, reflecting thus |_T. 1 , 134]: ,,If 
I go, and leave this maiden, she may possibly die of fear. The 
original line in question translated thus by T from Br.'s text, is: 
tyaktvemam yadi gacchami muncet pranan bhayad iyam. D has a 
lectio difficilior, viz. yad asfu me na gacchami etc. = ,,happen 
what may, I remain; she might possibly die of fear". The idiom 
yad astu = come, what will, fr. acfoicnne qtie pourra, has given 
way in most MSS, it seems, to a somewhat synonymous turn of 
phrase, more common but less forcible. In the other instances, 
where it occurs, it has, however, kept its place: 27, 86. 58, 
123. 71, 133; 153. 73, 156. 84, 21. 101, 308. 113, 40. 
Yad . bhavatu with the same meaning is met with 33, 45 and 
57, 161; likewise yad vidliattam vidhir mama 57, 99, and yatlia 
castu 101, 135. I have enumerated these instances, because they 
represent also a syntactical peculiarity not registered elsewhere. 
It is of course an elliptical turn : yad astu (bhavatu) is a brachy- 
logical form of yad astu, astu,; yad bhavatu, bhavatu. A slight 
variation of it is exhibited 119, 86 Br. yad bhavita = 'quod 
futurum est' sc. fiat ; but I) instead of yadbhaviteti has yad bhavaUti, 
evidently a false reading. 

A few times the variances concern some rare or provincial 
word, for which in part of the mss. a more common word has 
been substituted, as mecaka 124, 197 I) (qyamala Br.); hevakl 
121, 237 D, cp. T II, 584, n. 1 (Jayantah Br.); likewise 1, 
25 D 

priyapranayah e v a k i yato manavatimanali . 
Br. has priyapranqyahetvartham, the vitiated reading. 

Finally I remind of the various reading in the first stanza of 
the pracasti at the end of the work and edited in D. Br. did not 

9TI DtftB LBO1 i mi': K\III\-\I;M-.\'-\I;\. 61 

take it up in In- edition. I nimiol underhand for what reason, 
for he found it in his MSS, \\imi: in hi- Catalogue of MSS, 
vol. II (18S6) p. 1C) I repaired the omission of the editor of 

Kathas., publishing the /y/v/rW/ m extenso with the discrepancies 
of the Berlin MS^ B we know that king Safigramaraja of 

Kashmir, the forefather of king llarsa. in who>e reign Somade\a 
composed his poem, is eonneeled in some MSS with Satavahana , 
in others, it seems, not so. The MSS (marked by Br. , II and ^ 
begin \\\v /ii-drfixfi thus: frtSatavakanakulSmbudhiparijaiah Sfiiiyrfi- 
martijd ///, and this is also the reading adopted h\ I). Hut in 
the MS \Y the first pada is: sani^ranialabd/ta^a^ubhraya^oviiSnah^ 
what is materially different It looks as if the reputed descen- 
dance from the legendary king Sata-(or Sali)vahana was disbelie\ed 
l>\ some who changed the words of Soniadeva accordingly. 


While perusing Br. , I was strucken by the comparatively great 
number of verses in that edition that sin against the laws of the 
metre. All of t/ieni , wit /tout exception, are edited in D irit/nntt 
fault. In 191 cases his verses are too short, in 60 they are too 
long. Here is the list of them : 
too short: 2, 39. - 3, 38. 48. 7, 111 (vasantatilaka). 

10, 45. 12, 24. 157. 13, 14.0. II, 11. 

74. 18, 260. 320. 323. - 20, 173.183.221.- 
22, 195. 24, 43. 64. 25, 60. 112. 140. - 

26, 201. 229. - 27, 79. - 28, 66. --30, 121. - 
31, 62. 33, 26. 36, 5. - 37, 234. - - 39, 

10. 29. 175. 40, 28. 10, 90. 191. 43, 

133. 44, 165. 45, 115. - 46, 16. 74. 112. 

147. 47, 84. 118. 48, 54. 63. - in, 35. 

231 [=== 0:29 D]. 50, 35 ! ). 130 ! ). 172 J ). 206 ! ). 
[vasantatilaka]. - - 51, 60. 130. 151. - 0. 243. 314. 

53, 93. - - 54. 41. 53. 61. 105. 210. -- 55, 222. - 
56, 34, 384. 313 *). 335 ! ). 338 *). 349 J ). - - 57, 70. 
135. 151. 58, 133. - 59, 61. 113. 129. --60, 
74, 217 !). 232 '). 244 *). - 61, 056. - 62, 128. 
216. 63, 22. 59. 141. 65, 101. 005. 041. - 
66, 21. 43. 51. 69, 27. 60. 116. 132. 170. 

*) In D the cipher of the (jlofca must he diminished with one. 



70, 36. 46. - 71, 19. 101. 158. 218. 287. 72, 

65. 75. 173. 301. 350. 392. 73, 8. 178. 291. 
403. 438. 74, 222. 227. - - 75, 123. - - 77, 32. 
56. 80, 6 (see T's note at II, 261). 10. - - 81, 
21. 48. - - 82, 15. - - 86, 57. 85. 122. 128. --90, 
13. 92, 2. 22. 38. - - 93, 94. - 94, 132. 
95, 16. 51. 52. 66. 91. - - 97, 27. - 101, 32. - 
102, 48. 103, 172. - 104, 111 [=110 D]. - 
105, 29. 47. 53. 63. 106, 48. - 107, 25. 118. 
123. - 108, 180 [== 181 1)]. 109, 49. 60. 94. 142. - 
110, 22 l ). 63. 89. 123. Ill, 60, - - 112, 165. - 
113, 48. 82. 114, 67. 83. 104. - 115, 3. 82. 
146. - 117, 166. 118, 20. 179. 119,5.67. 
108. 115. 121, 24. 44. 118. - 123, 67. 200. 
221. 247. 322. 124, 105. 214 [=-213 D]. 

too long: 1, 36. 57. - 6, 56 2 ). - 10, 92. --11, 64. - - 17, 
80. 18, 153. 316. - - 21, 112. 116. --25, 160.- 
26, 12. 30, 48. - 34, 95. - 38, 27. - 39, 

105. 236. - - 40, 22. - 43, 252 (ana). 256 (cardulav.). 
274 (upaglti). - 44, 73. - - 45, 142. - 49, 4. 21. - 
50, 88 [== 87 D]. -- 52, 111. 331. -- 55, 55 2 ). 232. - 
60, 32. - 64, 132. - - 65, 157. 167. 254, 66, 
35. 71, 221. 72, 305. 356. 74, 153. 

77, 53. - S6, 143. - - 92, 5*7. 81. - - 96, 34. 
98, 44. - 101, 127. 208.-- 104, 153 [== 152 D]. - 
110, 73. 114, 99. 115, 26. 116, 55. 

117, 40. 95. 118, 108. 123. - 1 1 9, 28. - - 120, 

66. 123, 110. 

The total of these inaccuracies bears on a little more than 1 / 

/ o 

of all the verses, which proves a want of exactness not so great 
in itself, yet considerable enough to make us in some measure 
diffident as to the trustworthiness of Br. as a witness of the tradition 
of manuscripts. In some cases even trisyllable words are dropped, 
as: 49, 231. 73, 438. 80, 6. 108, 180. 114, 83. 123, 200. 
Elsewhere, as may occur in mss. by oversight of the scribes, he 
leaves out one of two words similar to one another, e.g. 52, 314 
puspat before puspam; 39, 10 tatra after ekatra. A remarkable 
case of pramada is 59, 129 a: Br. reads that line: 

, drsfva Somaprabham , n ko 'yaw?" ity aprcchyata. 

') In D nivivrttya is an error of print for vinivrfya. 
2 ) Br. has suuarnam for svarnam, and prthivyam in 

instead of prthvyam. 

-II Dl |-> AIJUI I -INK KAT!l.\v\i;ri>A<.Ai;A 1 J 

From D it appears that the genuine text 18: 

drx(rn Sowaprabham /><> 'yam ///' xca'n'am aprcckyata. 

Consequent!) Mr. not only (lroj)j)C(i the word jttztVa** but applied 
the sandhi to ///' aftm-liyahi without becoming aware that lit; 

destroyed the metre. - At 25, 60 Satyavrata being asked, whether 
IK- knew ( ioldciu , answers: 

//'/// hi r//'.y / ra bahudvlpadr <; / a n " /; i n(i x'l mat/ft 

no (jar i tvaddbMpreta </<//;///</<'*?/ /////// /.////#// ; 

..though I have \isited inaii\ ishincU I nc\cr siw the cit\ \\hicli 
you an- longing lor, u't I have heard of it while >t;ivinr in the 
i'arthesl islands". This is the right text of I ) : Mr., whether o\\ ing 
to bad rciulings of his inss. or a mistake of his own. repreM-nN 
it as follows: kim tu dr$ta baJiudwpft drytd, W^a [his peculiar analysis 
of dr*(mlyn\ na ad indi/n etc., spoiling not onl\ the \er-e of one 
syllable, but eclipsing at the same time an interesting instant 
a compound with V/YVY/// according to Panini 3, '2, '.) 1 . 
In the same t. :25, at el. 112 Mr. edits, with the oiniion of 
one syllable, abhrflvidyudapfttaddrunam , where he had to put 
ajtab/ira , as of course. 1) has; by this o\ersight he impairs the 
poetical expression, for Somadeva does not say, as T translates 
according to Br.'s text, ,,an attack of the tire of grief, terrible 
like the falling of lightning from a cloud", but ,, from a 
cloudless sky," a frequent image in poetn . 

Tar. 69, 138 where Er. edited the last pada jwrt/diiis t<nn era 
intniaiwli , his mistake and, in consequence of it, his disturbing 
both the rule of sandhi and the metre, was caused b\ a misreading. 
For luniuuid/i 1) has tan, ma unit, and now all is right. Another 
instance of the same fault, but in inverse sense, i- 01. ~^\ 
nday/iuxt/atu (D), Br. tad ayh . 

The misreading coincides here with vitiation of the metre. Apart 
from the metre Brockhaus must have made such mistakes many 
times; part of the better readings of D do not correct faults of the 
manuscripts but of the editor. It is of course not possible nor of 
great utility to try to draw the boundary between the two sources 
of errors. It may, however, be useful to mention in general the causes 
of confusion and consequently of depravation in Br.'s text. 
dy and y h are confounded 57, 1, see \\KHKK. Verzeicliniss etc. 

(1886) p. 159 n. 2. 

s and m\ (e. g. 102, 113 $a xamnnayat for $a mama nay at}, 
sv and kh\ 106, 110 (kheda for sveda). 

v and dh: 12, 49 (dhrtavan for crtavan}\ 26, 17 (tilt a ray ami for 
varaynmi); 49, 2 (d/ilra for clrd). 


v and n\ 45, 232 (pravrttam is to be corrected into pranrttam 
D. Prahlada beheld ,,her dancing" not her who came forward 
to dance", as T I, 425 translated, misled by Br.). So 15, 
82 (niyojitah for vi); 59, 46 fyyadkat for nyadhaf)-, 23, 40 
(Br. vidhim avapsyasi, it ought to be nidhim, cp. 45 nidhanam}\ 
74, 221 (nivartita for vivartita ; the same blunder 104, 32. 
113, 65. 123, 58). 

n and t 119, 200 (Br. na pacyan $ instead of tapasyantl 1) and T). 
86, 111 (anayanta for anayatta, as Kern corrected already 
in 1868). Sometimes the particle of interrogation nu has 
become to tu, as 54, 258 (D has here also the corrupt 
reading). 71, 57. 78, 107. 

nn and tr. Br. put tatra for tan na 46, 178. 101, 230. 106, 
157, and inversely 106, 90. Cp. also 105, 73. A somewhat 
comic result of that interchange is met with 65, 46, where 
Br. makes a Bodhisattva gratify living beings and Picacas by 
,, presents of water and jewels" (T II, '104), while the poet 
meant jalair annaih (with water and food) not jalai ratnaih, 
as we read in Br. The same mistake impairs 66, 154. Instead 
of dhanai ratnaip ca (Br.) D has dhanair annaig ca\ the 
evident meaning of the passage is .clear from 9!. \ prepay am 
asa .... pakvannani dhanani ca. An instance of putting tra 
into the text instead of ni occurs 57, 106. 

t and bh: abJii for ati 38, 115; inversely t. 99, 50 Br. has 
wrongly atyatusyat for abliyatmyat (D). At 77, 13 Br. misread 
sabkyam 'judge, umpire', and put satyam into his text, D 
rendered to the verse its true wording niccayayatha sabliyam 
tarn rajaputram upeyathuh. The inverse error, sabhya for satya, 
occurs 56, 247. The plain and appropriate expression of this cloka 
tac chrutva divyaliamsam sa matva s a ty a bhibbasinam 
mwnoca Damayantl tarn evam astv itl vadinl || 
as it is edited in D x ), is miserably perplexed in Br. , where 
the word sabhyabhibhasinam deceived Tawney, who (I, 560) 
translates: ,,she thought that the celestial swan was a polished 
speaker" instead of ' spoke the truth'. Here Boehtlingk 
detected the mistake of Br. , see Petr. Diet. VII, 674 s. v. 
sabhya in fine. 

r and ri: 10, 107 (trtaya for tritaya}. 26, 269 Br. == 271 D 

(trsu for trim). Likewise r for ra\ 108, 187, see T IT, 459 n. 3. 

Other samples may be 58, 139 tatah sa samprapya punah 

l ) Where it is 9!. 246. 


(Hr. spod> this line editing luhili Mtittfiiii ]>r<ij,i/<i etc 
08, II udgkatott miM-cad In Hi. u udvHtHt t see I'\VK ') I, 234 

s. v. ndrtifft; 88, 52 mit-nhliml /ij,i XY//-/////////// |). when- Hr. ha> 
xr<irublni<l; 103, ") \\heiv Hr. against the obvioOB 861186 pat foqPlftt 

instead of ,SY/,v//r.y// ; the wrong reading //.y/// ^ fur //-y//^/ ;it ^7, oO 

;.nd 124, 130 Ik. [= 185 I) ep. T'a note on II, oi'.i : the 

confounding of anns\ara with / and c at I ( J , 7'i and '!') . 204 
ill the former place I) ha> /// <i him a / -<lti bli (tt/o , in the latter t<> 
(Hr. tani] - ; 7, 84 wiimtl/jfilt/d Hr. scenic to repre-ent a mi-read 
x(iniit/N(ii'i/(i (I)); 4tf, J3 xfi/jfaktt (Hr.) a mi>) > ead muxlnkn fl) and 
73, 7 riritrfikftt/Hiiii nf/nt lam (l^r.) a inisivad VicHrakaihosamjna' 
kam (D). 

Mistakes such as: putting r/v/ tor //v/ 1:5, li; 25 L02. 55, 
131. 120, 62) or inversely (111, 76); evamtoT ekm (123, 171); 
eta for <?/ (25, 197); Ma for //^//// (20, 220. 75, 05) or in- 
versely (84, 8); ajjekx for ///W'.y (17, 12) or in\er>el\ /<>, 17); 
(ipft/ii-'u/n for iipaknyfi (93, 08); ^//// tu\ nli<un (21 I. 109); 

vlsmrta for c'mmitn (34, 210); //'////v for ////// ^ or in\t-rsel\- re. g. 
45, 308) and the like ma\ l>e caused parth l)\ inexact reading 
of the MSS, partly also by not correcting ordinary clerical erroix^ 
wherever common sense convinces them. The ingenuous a\o\\al of 
Br. in the Preface of the First Volume (p. IX) that he nowhere 
has put into the text any conjecture not backed b\ mss. authority, 
practically resulted towards preferring occasional abdication of his 
intellectual faculties to disregarding a palpable corrupt tradition in 
the mss. which he happened to have the use of. 

The confusion between b and v and bet \\een the different >ibi- 
lants in his MSS made him now and then take a wrong way. Of 
the former kind t, 123, 175 and 191 afford good instances; 
in both places Br. writes janyncalnkam , which should be written 
janyabalakam > as is edited, indeed, in D = 'the company of the 
bridegroom's friends' (T. II, 002). As to the sibilants ? Hr. some- 
times puts dflad for drwa 'fisherman' (e.g. 52, 337), vern for / 
A remarkable mistake is t. 20, 122 uni c (Br.) for fista ca (D), 
which could be easily made, since sta and #// can be very similar 
in manuscripts; another t. 101, 13 biwl/ri spelt cirr/ni. 

Another source of errors was effected by his singular method of 
separating the words and wordcomplexes , something very proper 
to produce errors of any kind. In the 2 d and 3 d volumes the 

') Henceforward PW denotes the Petropolitan Dictionary, PWK the Petr. Diet. w in 
kurzerer Fassuug". 


necessity of transcription added to this other fresh opportunities of 
mistakes. In a very great number of places a is printed where a 
is meant or ought to be meant, or inversely. See e. g. T. 11,332 
n. 1 appertains to t. 93, 73 --; PW V, 1468 s. v. tar an a y 
VI, 833 s. v. vas-\-a at the end; t. 107, 118 (hanta for hanta), 
all cases of a erroneously put for n.. Examples of the inverse 
mistake are e. g. 42, 93 rdjdnitim (sic Br.) for rajamtini (T I, 
383 understood it rightly); 52, 334 phalahaka for ka. 62,.] 82. 
71, 191. 72, 56; 344. 103, 61, cp. also PW V, 1491 s. v. 
darl\ VII, 414 s. v. coacurya (t. 89, 57 to be added) and VII, 
456 ^samyatrika Kathas. 80 , 30 fehlerhaft flir samyatrika" . Even 
a few instances occur in the first volume with nagarl types: 25, 
284 pupacarau for papacarau , ib. 203 and 17, 93 (see PWI, 
739 s. v. asid/tard). 

Sometimes the aspirate consonant is erroneously put instead of 
the non-aspirate one or inversely: 14, 16 (/// for k). 16,46. 74, 
210. 101, 186 (dh for d). 19, 65 (kh for k). 22, 240 (dford/t, 
cp. T, I, 185 n., D confirms his emendation). 39, 161 (b for 
b/t). 46, 199 (viyna\Ji^\ for vighna\Ji. 90 , 12 (adrcyah for adhrsyah, 
cp. T II, 308 note). 110, 14 and 98 (dh for d). A similar kind 
of error through transcription is nd for nd 9, 7 (danda instead of 
danda). 9, 9 (Sandilya instead of Candilya). Once, by a similar 
inadvertence , writing / for (/, Br. destroys the pointe of a saying 
(t. 54, 92). 

Another kind of mistakes consists in wrongly dividing the scriptio 
continua of his JVJSS. At 7, 17 Br. edits the second line thus: 
sa ca ' avatlrna devl tvetasya 'eva munikanyaka , where he had to 
divide sa ca 'avatlrna devitve tasya 'eva. At 13, 23 sahastikapan- 
camah , sa is erroneously made part of the compound, D. severs it 
from the rest x ) ; the inverse mistake of separating sa , where it 
is part of a compound, occurs e. g. 15, 109; in the next 9!. 
tad utsaham is printed instead of tadutsaham. Similar faults are 
numerous in Br. T I, 400 note writes ,,I read with a MS in the 
Sanskrit College - - bliayade ha murta iva sahase' ; Br. had before 
him the same reading but misunderstood, his text, dividing it as 
follows bltaya-dehdmurta iva sahase (t. 43, 202), which is devoid 
of sense; of a similar nature are T's notes on I, 442 (t. 46, 172), 
II, 344 (t. 95, 38 Br.), 398 note 4 (t. 103, 41), 444 note 1 
(t. 107, 62) and on p. 406 and 612, T (II, 155) tacitly corrects the 

*) Cp. also 88, 31. 122, 70. The adj. sabrahmac-arin is 70, 19 and 71, 29 erroneously 
into sa brahmacurinl 


nonsensical reading of 71 ~1 Hi. , and elsewhere. KI-.KN corrected 
some of these mi-lake- in hi> /,V//////-/.v in the Journal of UK' Hoi/. 
As. Socicf// of l s (') x , p. Kis toll, lii some cases the wrong analysis 

would h;i\e been concejded, it' the editor liiul IIM-(| nairan t \ jje- 
;iiid in the u.Mial way, Of the kind i- t. 45, 'V.''J I nil rant wrongly 
for l<tl tvam\ t. HO, I:.' 1 

Devt/ft 'a/if i at iH't'xhilti In I in pralyddishtam <-// ///////' tarn. 
whereas the line muM lie rend '///vW" //v//// /y/v//// ailixlaui r/v < 
t. 54, 149 

apart/an xa ('iil)liani /(ifj/ifiiii pari/an uti rakundni w// , 
where the obvious meaning of the context compels to divide 
(U-akuiHini , cj). PW VII, 13 s. v. ^akinm with /7; t. 80, 
ran ram are two words, not one compound, we have here an instance 
of the turn nn /Hiram. . . . i/<irat\. a. = ,,not only. . . . but also", 
ep. my AV///.y/r/7 Ki/ntax 480 R. 1 ! ). Sometimes Br. was wrong 
in his distribution of two words amalgamated b\ eventual contraction 
of final and initial vowel into a (ya , vfi , ra). At JJ4, 97 it is said 
of a boy seven years old that even at this age he always took 
pleasure in benefiting his fellow-men ; in good Sanskrit this must 
be expressed. . . . sada /ja/'ft/tife rata/t , Hr.'s anah >is xmln 'aj,ara/t<t<' 
ratah is against the idiom. Other instances are: 10, 40 (see T's 
note at 1, 111); 25, 200 (fiyniitaw for yant(uti)\ 73, 77 (see T's 
note 2 at II, 195). A similar fault is committed 101, 91 to 
read st/tane klialu\ Br.'s 'st/tane is impossible, since this should 
be connected with the preceding words, klialn would become the 
first word of the sentence. 

In sundry cases Br.'s erroneous distinction of the scrtptio continua 
deceived Tawney. I adduce some instances. 

T. 24, 24 king Paropakarin tells his queen that he is troubled 
with anxiety about a suitable marriage for their daughter Kanakarekha. 
The poet makes him use this elegant turn of phrase, that she is 
growing up together with his care thereabout : vardhantfina saliai- 
vaitatsamanodvahaciutat/a / e*n Kanakarekha me lir<l<ii/a,ii , deci , 
bndliate. Br. destroyed the savour of the expression, as he edited 
vardltamana ' asalta 'eva, ' etatsamanodwiliacintaya etc. , a nonsensical 
phrase, which prevented T from catching the intention of Somadeva. 

Tar. 46, 147 and 148 contain a theory about dreams. They 
are threefold : one kind of dreams betokens something different 
from that what is dreamt; a second kind foretells the very 

') This turn is frequeut in Kathas. See 19, 96. 23, 65. 27, 14. 29, 123. 47, 91. 
92, 56. 118, 39. 


events which one has seen asleep; a third kind has no 
significance at all. In the text the three types are distinguished as 
par art ha, yathartha and a part ha. In D the two clokas 
run thus .- 

svapuac canekadha \ ' nyartho yathartho 'partlia cva ca ; 
yah sadyah sucayaty artham any ar tit ah so 'bhidlilyate || 
prasannadevatadecarupak svapno yatharthakali ; 
gadhaniibliavacintridikrtam ahur aparthakam || 
This is plain and interesting. Br. has edited the former c;loka in 
this corrupted form : 

svapnac ca ' aneka-dhdnydrtho , yathdrtlio 'partha eva ca 
yah sadyah sucayaty artham dhanydrthah so 'bhidMyate. 
Is it wonder that Tawney was perplexed how to get any sense 
out of it? see T I, 441 with note 1. 

At 121, 169 Br. rinding in his MSS devagarekqanaya = ,,for 
contemplating the temple'', divided it in this manner devagare 
ksanaya, by which T (II, 580) was adduced to translate ,,took 
that wicked ascetic] to the temple for a moment". It suffices to 
read the whole passage to understand the awkwardness of the 
reading of Br. 

A remarkable misunderstanding of Br. disturbs the meaning of 
59, 29. He took the first two syllables of the complex wayeqvaro- 
payogitvat for containing the proper name Maya. Hence T, having 
to translate these lines : 

devayam Castraganjakhyac catttrvedadliarah (;ukah , (28) 

kavih krtsnasu vidyasu kalasu ca vicaksaiutl; 
mayecvaropayogitvad ihamto 'dya, grhyatam (29) 

rendered them as follows: King, here is a parrot that knows the 
four Vedas, called Sastraganja, a poet skilled in all the sciences 
and the graceful arts, and I have brought him here to-day by tlie 
order of king Maya, so receive him" (II, 19). The words I have 
italicized in this translation are to be corrected. There is no question 
of a king Maya. The Bhilla maiden simply says ,,I have brought 
him here" (may a . . . . ihamlaJt) ,,since he is suitable for a lord" 
(icvaropayogitvaP). In fact, upayogiiva does not mean ,,order", but 
signifies the being upayogin i.e. ,,suitable, fit, of utility", cp. 45, 
127. 113, 48 (kim canyanupayoginya laksmya vidyudcilolaya]. - 
Another instance of a proper name existing only in the idea of 
Br., but not really found in Somadeva's poern is Devajnanin 30, 
130. Here must be read, as is in D: deva jnamti; deva is the 
voc. , and jnam is the subject to be construed with the pronoun 
e$ah in the preceding line. 

-I i Ml - \l:oi I I lih KATHlSARITSlGARA. 

I could fill some paj^rs more with augmenting the list of errors 

committed In Br. ;nid corrected in i) in ;l l| tin- instaiico quoted 
D's text is right hut what utility ma\ he obtained from itr 

What 1 have >tatrd >ill'liee>, I helie\e, to pro\e tliat the ta>k which 

Brockhaus took on his shoulders \\a> inadequate to hi> ahilities, 

owing lor a i;Teal deal, certainh , to the di>fa\onr of the time lie 
lived in, when Sanskrit Mudies encompa.-( d ;i \er\ limited are;i 
and conld he neither hroad nor deej). Durtrapr;':>ad'> edition, then- 
can he no question about, lias >uper>eded no\\ada\> the Kuiopean 

text of the Kathasariteagara, and ha- become our sole .-tandard 
edition, to be consulted find <juoted up to that future day, when 
a critical edition in the true sense of these words will ha\e heen 

* 3. 

The question may arise, why I have allowed in the foregoing 
so much room to expatiating on more or less evident mistakes and 
faults in an obsolete edition, which has been replaced by a much 
better one, in which the said errors are set right. I did so lirstlv, 
because the necessity of putting aside a text which for some decad> 
of years had enjoyed a great authority among the Sanskriti>ts and 
was much consulted by them, required a somewhat extensive account 
of argument. Secondly, it might be of some use to remind editors 
of the ubiquity of clerical errors in manuscripts, the emendation 
of which in cases of evidence must not be checked h\ the for- 

tuitous circumstance that the faultless reading is not found in an\ 
of the mss. at the disposal of the editor; certain permutations of 
aksaras owing to palaeographical similarity or to likeness of pronun- 
ciation dt/fi and yl a; ma, ya> pa, sa; $a and sa\ r and //; // and 
va\ ca and va etc. etc. are so common that a critical editor is 
not only qualified, but even obliged to bring them into account 
as a sort of tare when establishing the net weight and the value 
of the readings with which he happens to meet in a gross form 
in his manuscripts. 

The third and, I dare say, the chief reason that moved me was 
this. The Petropolitan Dictionary is very much indebted to the 
Kathasaritsagara. Boehtlingk took care to profit of the lexicographical 
materials laid up in. that important text, edited by a competent 
scholar at a time when the number of Sanskrit works in editions 
of European scholars was comparatively small. The imperfections 
of Br., which fully came to light by the publication of D, have 


left their traces in the Dictionary. Though Boethlingk ofttimes 
detected and corrected mistakes of Br. - - vide e.g. supra.]). 71. 
72. 73 and infra p. 77. 80. 84 - - it was something impossible for 
his perspicacity to be misled nowhere. 1 think it will be of some 
profit to make up a list of corrections in PVV and PWK chiefly 
owing to the new light cast on the Kathasaritsagara by D's edition. 
In doing which I follow the alphabetical order. 

List of corrections to be made in PW and PWK. 

amcavatara = tara/ia occurs 22, 1 D. The reading of Br. vatara 
implies a metrical blunder. 

ativahya 18, 106 is to be cancelled and ationlia to be put in its 
place. D has mcativaliayoyya 'proper to pass the night'. 

animitta 121 , 181 'evil omen', a meaning omitted by mistake. 

anikinl 47, 42; dele the asterisk in PWK. 

anunayana the #V# slpypsvov t. 14, 89 does not exist. D has 
aniinatliana (from nUtli, natltate 'to beseech') which must be 
substituted for it. From ami ~f- n~t the nomen actionis ought 
to be anunayana, not * nay ana. 

anupattrika 71, 111 'etwa Brief PW VII, 1694. The word 
seems to take its origin from a blunder of Br.^D reads the 
last pada of that cloka haste dattvanuyatrikdn 'having given 
an escort in his hand'. Likewise 

anupatim 73, 410 is to be cancelled. D has prakrtlr anuy&yinlk. 

anuposana 48, 101 has been forgotten. 

anvesa with the meaning of 'investigator, inquirer' is to be added 
from 123, 310 D (= = 309 Br.). Br. has anvetfum, but D's 
reading anvesan is preferable. T (II, 609) was perplexed by 
the infin. 

apayantranam adv., a new word, 104, ^\).>\.\v&$>aniyantranam. 

The asterisk before asm with the meaning 'blood' may be put 
away; D and the India Off. MSS read so at 114, 88, Br. 
reads asrf. Cp. T II, 543 note 1. 

awasthyam is the reading of D in the two places 101, 89 and 
117, 90, whereas Br. reads asvasthyam (see PW V, s. v.). 

ap -f- prati desid. : PW T V, 1108 ,,werben urn (ein Madchen) tvat- 
svamyartliam praUpsa tam" . This unaccountable signification 
of the desid. of prati -f- p is false. Br. did not understand 
the passage. D reads the line in question : etadartham tvam 
aliutas tvatsvamy arthani pr a tip sat a (sc. mayo), and is 

-M mi> \I;OIT rill-: KATHASARlTSiGAKA 77 

evidently right in doing BO. The z~. fl:, /y/v//// is here 
Miionymou* with ftb/n/jsfifi , oa might In- expected a priori. 

//////////;//// l'\V V, 11:51 ..;i(lj. /n;'bi'i:iii'nffitt kathav IK), 1 I 1 eine 
Ungramfflatische I'orm". D has the regular gerund tt/irti/ft, 

cp. PUK I, 197. 

As to itt/(//Ki/fi and it/Hit/(//i(i/(i \. /I, '.M)."), I refer to the following 

n/}firib/ntnii suhst. 5s, 70 not incut ioned neither in I'\V nor in 
PWK. The hitter mentions only ti/tttrib //////// adv. 

upasamkhi/a I'\Y V, I 1 <) 1 and l'\Vk I. 245, which Hoehtlingk 
was at Ji loss how to explain, nin-t he cancelled. l ; or 
f/jfis antkli/i a ili, t. /I. -1 ] ^ Hr., I) ha- ///^/.sv/ ////////////. r rii<- 
right reading, 1 think, is ///y^/.sv/////-////^//// irardfl the 

hattle, -the war', an avya\ ihhava. T II. 0:J X ha> found out 
the right explication of this el oka. 

umbhita, quoted from t. 51, 180 in P\V V, 12(M) >. \. hii. i- a 
good correction of Uorhtlingk; Hr. \&& ratncutambkobkitdbkogam. 
The correction is confirmed by D. And not only here, Init 
also in three places more nmhhiln has been restored in D, 
where Rr. had failed to recognize that participle: 49, 4 
(sunirmalagunombJiitaik > Rr. gunanvitaih}\ 71, I .'if) (vufya.... 
saptakmroHib/iitd , \]\\ onmit&)} 117, 14 (tatrti rtif/towk/rita- 
stawb/ta , Hr. ftifrft rafaasthitaafawbkif \) It may he rendered 
'made up of, 'beset with'. 1 think it is indeed, as is com- 
monly accepted, akin to the idg. root *vchli . *t/6//, the 
offspring of which t/n/rtrMi is a welcome guest in linguistic 
handbooks. Of the Rigveda instances (pioted in P\V I. s. v. 
Kb/i 1 hold but one for belonging to this root ub/i, vix. R\ 
4, 1, 15; the other two having a quite different meaning - 

I, 03, 4 Vrtfnm.... uhhitfih 'you killed for: vexed, or: 
oppressed] Vrtra' and similarly 4, 19, 4, cp. Sayana on both 
passages - - must be referred to another root ub/i. 

ullrighayati 'to heal'. Tar. 72, 407 is a new instance to be added 
to the two recorded in P\V V, \-2()\ and PWK 1, 253. 
D and T's Calcutta MS read iiUnyliaymt , see T II, 191 
note ; in Rr. it has been corrupted into ullangkaya*. I 
found also a good instance in Tantrakhyayika (ed. Hertel) 

II, 77. 

a and rkikn. The distribution of these two forms of the fern, 
of ckaka, instanced PW V, 1*217 from Kathas., is the same 
in both Br. and 1). Only add t. 73, 196, where 1) has 
'kfl, Rr. rkakn. 


kampra. A new instance of this adj. is t. 52, 49 I) kopakam- 
prangasamdhikam. This is preferable to kopakampa Br. Cp. 
dlpra infra. 

karnin PW II, 127. Cancel the meaning 2. b) ,,Steuermann, 
Schiffsmann Kathas. 25, 68". It rests on the bad reading of 
Br. D reads: sadhaywyati catra te j istam dvipUntaragaccliad- 
vanikk a r n a paramparfi . The term karnaparampara = 'oral 
tradition, hearsay' is well known and recorded in PW, even 
from the Kathas. 

karmratha 'covered litter'. To the few instances registered in PW 
and PWK we may add Kathas. 27, 168, where it is found 
in both editions, and two more passages met with only in 
D the second of then also in T's MS --: 94, 91 and 

120, 118; Br. in both cases failing to recognize the word, 
has torn it asunder, destroying the sense. 

karnejapa, as taught by Panini (3, 2, 13) and recorded in PW 
and PWK occurs Kathas. 60, 54 D. The form karnajapa 
found in Br. is a monstrum lectionis, and must be cancelled 
in PW V, 1258 and in PWK II. 

kalana s. v. kalana PW V, 1265. The proposal of Boehtl. to cor- 
rect the meaningless reading of t. 100, 57 Br. drca kalatayu 
giro etc. is superseded by the right reading of D drcakuli- 
taya gira pramadamanthar arambhayci ,,with eves troubled 
(by agitation) and a voice faltering with joy". 

kakmankin 32, 52 must be registered in the lexicon as a nick- 
name for a superstitious person who sees omens in everything. 

kacara PW V, 1275 is also found t, 20, 108 D (Br. krdard] and 
t. 123, 164 D (Br. kekard): kacaraksim and kncaralocanah. 

karmana. A good instance of karmana = 'sorcery' is t. 26, 198 
1) tatra capaqyad ekaM sadhitanekakarmaiiam .... mahavratmam 
ekakam. The word is hidden under a corruption apud Br. 

karsaka is instanced PW V from t. 62, 20; 23 Br. D has here 
karsika; the same form occurs in both editions 61, 7; 9. 

kinnarl as name of a musical instrument 37, 64 D, where Br. has 
kinnara cp. PW II, 284; to be added in PWK s. v. 3 b). 

,,Kosala f. Kathas. 56, 415" PW V, 1332 is to be cancelled. 
Br. wrongly adopted a vicious reading of one or more of his 
MSS. D reads in this stanza (414 of his &.} jar/rima Koqalan, 
as it ought to be. 

ko$tkastha t. 49, 68 Br. is doubtless a corrupted reading; D reads 
kott astham Somakepvaram. 

kllbdyase t. L04, 126 Br. The reading of D is kllbayase, a form, 

BTI MI- \r,oi T TNI; K \TII.\>\I:IT>V;\IJ\ 79 

not re ( i>;i>lered in PW nor PWK. but more conform to tin- 
rules of grammar. 

kfjam cans. PW II, 5:$ -2 adduces one in-tanee tVom the Kamavana 
for the meaning\\a> .uydnhli^ ertra^cn". he-t one miirht 
acknowledge another instance in Kntha-. B9, 286 Mr. /,-xa,,iat/<i 
I observe that the line in which thi< imperative occur- i< too 
long b\ one s\ liable. I) read- that line: t<ihi ^annl l,<n,i t'kani 
Irani kxnni u A- rn ixtnn Lr/mni ////// and so restore! both the 
metre- and the idiom. 

(/alia, a prakritism for ////// //r/, is illustrated bv a few in>tancex IVom 
literature in PW V, s.v. Add to them l\atha>. 68, 1 
where D utjftnowhunagallcnn is evidently ri^ht (Mr. ha- i]ulam\ 
cp. AITK'S Diet. s.v. and the instance produced from Kavva- 
prakaca, a parallel to the Katha>. pa-sage. 

f/rfi/Kt as a nomen actionis is treated in PW II and PWK II 
under c.) In PW c Sr the meaning ^Kampfanstrengang' 1 
ranodyavla is taken from dictionaries, not instanced from 
literature. An excellent instance is Kathas. 50, 53 1), where 
Mrahina urges Indra to cease the hostilities: AY//////////// kuruta 
kirn yr nh a ili ,,make peace, what have \o\\ to do with 
endeavours to tight one another':" Mr. has here a somewhat 
bewildering reading samdhiw kuruta viyra haih (50, 54 Br.). 

(f-rnlnka quoted as V# slpyftsysy from t. ID, 1 (i Mr. in PW II 
,,hartnackig auf etwas bestehend". D reads here ///Y/////Y/, 
likewise an #V. sip. 

The interesting word (fhanriy liana l ) occurs t. 16, 121 I ) , where 
Mr. (jhanncjama is manifestly the bad reading. 
-f- mm, (to kiss) instanced in PW VII, 1-1-03 with one place 
in Kathas. (113, 50), must be cancelled. Mr.'s text is here 
corrupted by a misreading; jritroh pridar n/itrd/n/r/t/a -honouring 
his father-and-mother's feet'. 

can PW II, 983 ,,a kind of pepper." The instance adduced 
there from Kathas. 0, 151 is owing to a mistake of Mr. and 
must be cancelled. Instead of the nonsensical (Jarracarmri 
can Install I) has nhatlah ( 'armrnrma ca \ riliasta ,,perplexed, 
at a loss" (PWK VI, 140 s.v. 1 d)*). Other instances in 
Somadeva are 00, 4S (vihastatft) and tlu 1 participle rihaxtifn 
(104, 98). 

PW V, 1423 quoted from Kathas. 58, 5( and repeated 

*) Cp. Album Kern, p. 43. 

*) BOHTT.INGK apnd L.\XM.\N, Sanskrit Reader, p. 52 corrected Carvavannaca vihastah. 


in PWK II, 132 does not exist at all. D reads here cirantisu, 
conformably to the form known by grammarians and lexico- 
graphers. We have here the ,,Belegstelle" from literature for 
cirantl ,,old spinster". The word, me thinks, is a prakritism 
and a tadbhava of skrt. cirayanil (vo-rspovo-a), which has got 
the special meaning of stay ing (too) long (at the paternal home, 
instead of being transported to the home of a husband)". 

clra PW V, 1423. Boehtlingk's suspicion that clra Kathas. 73, 
240 (Br. and D) should be corrected into Ctrl is fully con- 
firmed by the parallel passage t. 87, 32, where D and Ts 
Ms. (see his note 2 at II, 205) agree in reading cincltkara 
against elra Br. At 73, 240 the same must be corrected by 

chatva 62, 213 Br. is obscure. Some villagers, it is told, took a 
buffallo belonging to a certain man and mtva vatatale chatva 
vate vyapadya bhaksitab [viz. mabims taib~\. Instead of this 
out-of-place absolutive D reads bJdllaih. The villagers were 

Of jlampa and c pa 'jump' (see PWK III, 281) but one instance 
is quoted from Kathas. in PW, V s. v. There are two more, 
but Br. has them not, since they are hidden under corrupt 
readings. The former is t. 103, 8; in 1) it runs thus: 

utphelur b/uil/a/iiiifiiii dramsi bhuj a$alinfim 

divi dattvordhvaj bamp ani divyastrir iva cumbitum 

( . . . .jumping, as if it were, upward to the sky to kiss the 

heavenly maidens") [Br. utpetw bkruvaqalinam 

dattvordlivaja-pdnadwyastrir (sic, or is here some typothetical 

error?). And t. 115, 08 I) has dattajltampo 'patad bhuvi 

(cp. T II, 517 n. 4). 
darnara t. 100, 44 Br. (see PW, V s. v.) is a bad reading. D has 

jaya tandavadambaraniarda . Transport this quotation to dambara, 

cp. 107', 5.' 
dagbna 'reaching to'. Add to the few instances from literature 

mentioned PW, III s. v., Kathas. 101, 291 D gulphadag hn- 

occhaladdhulau (Br. gulplalagncf), cp. T II, 381 n. 2. 
daridryo t. 49, 210 Br. is a misprint for daridro (49, 208 D), 

cp. T I, 469, n. Happily PW does not record the vitiated 

dipra, taught by Panini 3, 2, 167 and exemplified by the Ka^ika 

with dlpram Jcastam, occurs five times in the Kathas., once 

in t. 25, where it is found in both editions, which place is 


regime -red in l'\\ III -. \ . , and tour times in the latter part 
of tin- poem, where it stand-* only in I), not in Hr. : t. 101, 

28. lo<;. c.l; I s;>. 110, 14 (Br. everywtitee chatiged, it 

seems, tliju-n into </i/,/fi). 

, as adj. I'\V. V I .~>00. IN fern, i. nn-t wit!. 1 26; 

Br. reads rujmli . . . . dmjfi n <i I; (aCC, |)1.), l>nt D </t/r/<i /////. 
dn/i*tti'jHi Vine bose Selilange' (jiioted from t. 1)1), 40 in I'\V, V 
1505 is a misreading. Br. divided the word- of the line 
wrongh . In I) 1)1), )('>< and d run \\\\\> . hit ie pfityfi va 
i/ul I a I kuriixra ! / / / a /// in c h <i // <l // // // .v a r // // damqartiJtartd. 
^therefore perform what 1 tell von moved 1>\ friendship! \on 
are my relative, voii who have relieved me from the di>; 
caused l>\ tlu^ bite of the serj)ent" T'fl II. -5'' I ti;ni-Iation 
is accordingly to be rectified. 
(//HIT ~\- sain -\- ri , causative 'to suspend (a punishment' l\;ii 

27, :H lacks in P\V and I'\YK. 

<l/i(irfld/rirti<//tft, rightly interpreted In Hoehtlin^k (l ) \\. Ill 3, 
notwithstanding Br.'s mistake in t. (i , 02, also occur- 
t. 84, ( .). 

with the special meaning of ,,pious-, religious man, 
devotee" 'to be instanced with Kathas. 00. s toll. 

is registered - Vet ill a in PNV. \" s. \ . from Katha-. 89, 
115. I) has here Vctrilah instead of I) lir fa fulfill . 
d/it/rt -\- pra -\- tii P\V, III and V s. v. The instance (pioted \. 
1529 from Kathas. 101, 155 is false; D has: #///// *,//.,-, 
dhil if niltiw . . . . nbrfirif. The other instance taken from the 
Bhagavatapurana must likewise be wrong; />/v////V/W///tf// i> a 
miswritten or misread pranidad/tau. 

nafyatramala = 'string of (27) pearls'. P\V gives but one instance 
from literature of this meaning. It is met with in Kathas. 
four times: 1)1, 31. ( .M, 02. 100, 1 (with a double meaning). 
118, 101, 

narmada adj. 'jesting' is wholly out of place Kathas. oO, 305 Br. , 
whence it has been instanced 1'W, IV 04. In I) (50, 304) 
Damayanti says more conformably to the situation: fat twlu- 
nni/(inc i/iiklir in d a nia t a krii/tttdm it/am ( the contri- 
vance 1 which I have approved"). 

nnmaqminkn 1 , 252 D ,,a would-be astrologer, an astrologer 
nominally, not really". This -. sip. is to be added to the two 
other examples of compounds of this type : nnmanau and 
namayajna. Br. failed to see that namaffana&aA 1.1. is one 
word, he wrongly divided iwma cjaiiakali. 

Vcrhand. Kon. Akad. v. Wctcnr,ch. Afd. Lelterk. N. R. Dl . VIIT. N. 5. 6 


moasaka = nivasa 28 , 1.41 Br. and D is wanting in the Dictionary. 

mrahgi 'veil'. A new instance of this rare and deci-word is ? 1 , 
167 D tarn Kamalakara upayeme sanirahylm ,,K. wed- 
ded her, who had veiled her face". D explains the word 
in a foot-note mukliacchndanavastram mrahylty ucyate. Br. 
upayeme sa gaurahgvm *). 

padapa = 'shoe' is recorded in PW, V. But also the inasc. padapa 
occurs in this meaning Kathas. 67, 97 (both Br. and D) ; 
this is wanting in PW and PWK. 

pamnda. The fern. l occurs 61, 290 Br. (cp. PWK III, s. v.) ; 
D reads pctkhdndd, for pasavd/i. 

pinjarika (name of some musical instrument) registered in PW V, 
1600 from t. 65, 75 ; 78 Br. , is written pinjaraka in D. 

prasthanika, not prasfhrtnika , as in Br.'s ed., is indeed found t. 
31, 38 D, cp. PW IV, s. v. prristlmmka. I think, krta- 
prmth(imlm means after performing the auspicious rite con- 
nected with the undertaking of a journey", cp. the passages 
from Ramayana and Raghuvamca quoted in PW 1.1. and the 
word mangalika infra. Tawney (T, 278) translates as if it 
simply meant 'setting out'. 

preqtJta. To the few instances of this superl. may be added t. 104, 
45 D (ptirvam p rest // ay a , Br. purvapntaya), 

\.phal -\- ut in PWK, III s. v. The meaning 'to bounce up' 
instanced there with a passage of the Balaramayana , is also 
met with Kathas. 108, 132 I) bfiro 'mitagater vaksasy 
utphalan qvasatah krudha, Br. hat utphullak, an evident 
corruption , of course. 

baliraja t. 95, 4 means, I suppose, 'tributary king'. Cp. the note 
on this loka in Chapt. II. 

bandhaw PW V, 1647 and PWK, IV s. v. 2) must be cancelled. 
The sole instance given of it, Kathas. 121, 243 Br., is not 
confirmed by I). Instead of b/tartrbr/ndhavyai it has bhartr- 
br/ndhavt/an \jnrgam etc., the abl. of the abstract noun 
bandkavya , not the dative of an hypothetical bandhavl. 
bha 'to please' is not found in ' PW, in PWK s. v. it is recorded 
and exemplified with one instance from Boehtlingk's C/trestJi. 2 
227, 8 [== (Ka$.'s) schol. on Panini 2, 3, 2] bubhulmtam na 
prati bkfiti kimcit, and Boehtl. doubts, whether pratibltati 
should not rather be taken for one word. He did not mind 
Kathas. 24, 142 bliati c. gen.: esa . . . . bhnty axya na va 

! ) T. II, 162 translates accordingly married that fair-hued maid." 

STUJULs \i;ni I NIK K\T!!\MI;II-;\(-\I;\ 

'whether this man /'leases him or not', ttlmti c. gen., there- 
fore, = rocati c. gen. 

mada with the meaning 'musk' [= mryawada] \- red \\ithan 

asterisk in I'WK (V, 12 s. v. k). It is met with in Kathas. 
t. 82, tttf, hut lies hidden under a corruption in Br. In D 
this eloka is edited thus: //';//"/// qrikhandakarpurakafaguru 
in a (I o lt<i nut ili I krtaprasadhand. etc. 

is not ,,kost hares Oel", as it has been rendered in I } \V 
and ('UK, hut 'human fat', See Tawnev 1, :jm; n. and his 
tianslation of t. 7tf, -SOO and 1)1), I ; cp. alsu mtiliumn 
alikd. To the one instance of meaning 2) registered in l'\\ !\ . 
V s. v. this may he. added Kathas. 115, 150. |) has doubtless 
the right reading ( '///> r/i/i ( m-u-wila /// '/ //// a // / a // /v/v/A/.s-///^, 
Hi\ mangalakah. 

numtrika ,,fehlerhaft fiir miinlnkn" \ y \\ and PU'K -. v. Likewise 
Kathas. 121, 42 Hr. nuiiilnkiili is corrected in D: mftntriko 
dlptftitidtifro 'pi etc. 

yuddhaka = yuddha P\\', VI s. v. and PWK, \ >. v. must he can- 
celled. The sole place, where it is found, is Katha>. 41), 71 
Br. King Mahasena, while besieging some \a<sd (knUn* tlm, 
cp. supra, p. 71) s. v. k<M(lui*Uia} is himself besieged by 
Vikramacakti. Being thus obstructed, he Bays to his excellent 
minister Gunaciirman : 

ekani ruddhva stliitdli *a/tfo ruddkah XHIO ^in/end r/i ////////, 
tad hlruiim qparyaptah katliam yvdhyamahe dcd/foli / 
== While we are occupied in besieging one enemy we 
besieged by another, so now how we are to fight with two 
enemies, as we are unequal in force?" (T I, 402) and a>k> 
this question more : 

aynddhe yuddhake rirtih sthasyQmaQ rn kii/dn-ini,,! ? 
What may this mean? Strictly speaking, ayuddke yuddhake, 
even if the latter word should be = yuddhe t is here nonsen- 
-sical, and T's translation without fighting a battle" is very 
forced. But D has aifinldh^ ru ddhakr cirnli etc., that solves 
the riddle. Rttdd/iaka = 'enclosure' or rather ,,the state of 
being enclosed, besieged". Transl. ,,how long, being brave 
men, are we to be kept shut in, without righting?" 

ratfianganaman. Boehtlingk's correction (PW, VI s. v.) of Kathas. 
104, 112 is confirmed by D. The same error of Br. against 
the genuine reading of is also met with t. 55, 110. 

l.raa PW, VI s. v. The instance quoted Kathas. 108, 100 is 
false. Not rnsnt (Br.) but /dsdt (D) is the right reading. The 



compound in full is raJdaliptalasatkhadyalatajihvak-, the sword 
red with blood is compared to a tongue. Cp. T II, 455, 
n. 1. 

rajyalllayita, an &r. iip. registered in PW, VI s. v. as occurring 
Kathas. 43, 59 and repeated in PWK, represents the reading 
of Br. only; D has raj no, lllayitam. 

Of rista (n.) = 'distress, calamity', registered in PW, VI s. v. 1. 
ris 3), a certain instance is Kathas. 115, 54 D. The 4 th 
pada of this cloka tanvan ristam svarvasinam iva preparing 
calamity, as if it were, to the celestials" represents doubtless 
the genuine text, Br.'s tanvann istam is a corruption thereof, 
T is at a loss how to explain it, see his n. 1 on II, 517. 
The variance t. 116, 4 tany arista n~i (D) , tany anis,tani 
(Br.) is more doubtful. At 119, 160 both editions have 
amstaqanJcinaJf . 

ruh -\- ati ~\- a PW, VI s. v. Atyarudha exorbitant" is the 
right reading Kathas. 61, 251 (D), not anyarUdha Br., which 
is void of sense in that context. 

Ifff// -\- nis. With respect to the cans. PW and PWK omit to 
mention the meaning 'to demolish, to overturn [a building]' 
Kathas. 76, 30 Br. and D, and 121, 180 D. In the latter 
place Br. has erroneously put into the text nirlocya tad 
(T II, 580 ,,take this into consideration and") instead of 
nirlothya tad 'demolish this (temple) and [level it with the 

1. vaca PW VI, 820. The meaning 2) ,,unter Jmds Befehlen stehend, 
unterthan, abhangig" is, among other instances, exemplified 
with Kathas. 81, 102. But D has sapuraliam vacc tava 
[not vaca, as Br.] agreeably to the usual idiom. 

vidarana PW VI, 1056. The meaning sub 3) d ,,das Abweisen , 
Zuriickweisen" instanced with Kathas. 26, 63, is based on 
the wrong reading of this ?loka in Br. The right one is 
edited in D : 

leva vidyadhdrama taw$ tan varan addi^ato bahlni 
pi fur vidhSranam krtva kanyaivadyapy a/iaw stkita.\ 
T.'s translation (I, 223) ,,For this reason, though my father 
has recommended to me many Vidyadhara suitors, I have 
rejected them all and remained unmarried up to this day" 
is accordingly in want of a slight modification. She does 
not say, she rejected the suitors, but she checked (obstructed, 
stopped} her father in his design. This is the meaning of 
vidharayati. To the instances thereof quoted in PW, add 


A v ;t (I a ii a <; a 1 a k a I . v! \! :5 . 1 f) hlinifurnn r<ij(i,n<i rt]<' 'nt/atame/ia 
hriiliuiihiciin. . . . ridliilntn ifi. Brorkhaii* nm-t have written 
vidtirniidut In >ome mi-take of tin- kind as i> pointed out, 

p. 72. 
suh>1anti\e -sv//W/// (Katha-. .VJ, J : Lfl not mentioned 

iii PWK. 

i> exemplified in PW s. v. \vitli hut two instanced, nne 
from the RgvedasanihitS and <nc from the class krit. 

This place is Kathas. x!0, 1^7 15r., hut I) lias tarvafra. An 
exact account of the evidence to hi: ohtained j'roin iiiaiiu>crij)t> 
is miieli wanted here.... hut it is misMiig! 

Hoehtlingk, 1 J W s. v., underMood that tln^ . in 

t. GO, 145 Br. is a corruption and conjectured /vx/'/v/////^//// <-f> 
'becomes estranged.' D lias cnu'llrnm eli , which i> douhtle-- 
the genuine reading. 

V\\ s. v. estahlishes the meaning 1 . c.) ,,entstellt . \erandert" 
and quotes several instances from the B h a g a v a t a p u r a n a. 
Kathiis. 54, 235 1) is a new instance : krimamohajn'ticrltfi.- 
Cabala dharmavasana = ,,in the mind of tho>e abandoned 
to the intoxication of love the idea of dutv and religion is 
distorted". Br. has capalfi instead of r/i/m/n ; , a had reading 
which disfigures the purport of the sentence. 

f/'$ -\- sam - - ut. The partic. samitcchiqta = ,,rituallv impure" is 
forgotten in PW VII s. v. 3. r/\. 

l.pic causative 4) PW s. v. r Fhe wneaning ,,reinigen i- (\cmplitied 
with one instance: Kathas. 19, 84. But 1) has not arm-ay at but 
acodlidyat (dtlntnui trnatoyadi pratiyogair aqodhayaf), which 
is preferable for this reason that podhayati 'puri1ie>' i> confor- 
mable to rudln/dti 'is pure', but not so rocat/n/i with this 
meaning to roctili. For this reason, I think, Varamihira 
Yogayatra 7, 14 (Ind. Studien XV, ICb) rucat/ct is also 
to be corrected into ^od/iat/et\ cp. PWK. s.v. rue. 

cesya PW VI, 299 ,,bei Seite zu lassen, fernerer Beachtung nicht 
werth" is instanced with but one case: Kathas. 74, 213, 
where this meaning is forced. T. II. 22") translates ,,(to be) 
only worthy of neglect", which lies still farther off. In fact, 
the gerundive of ris is not at its place in the pas>age ([noted, 
and 1) has instead of it AT a Ijxtti - - ,,very insignificant". 
Br.'s qesya is certainly corrupt and must be cancelled in the 

samjwana. The quotation Kathas. 101, 188 in PW VII s.v. 4 a) 
is to be put aside. Since there is no question there of 


resuscitation", but simply of ,,life" opposite to death", D's 
reading sa j iv a n a pram ay ay oh etc. is the right one, not 
Br. samjlvana 9 . 

samnyasa with the meaning of ,,agreetnent" 'Uebereinkunft', PW 
VII, 654 s.v. 4) and PWK VII, 46 s.v. 5) does not exist 
at all. The sole instance of it, the quotation Kathas. 4, 36 
Br. is corrupt. Instead of krtasamnyasa, D ha.s krtasamdha 
sa; it is sawdha, not samnyasa that means 'Uebereinkunft'. 

saptaka n. 'HeptacT. The quotation Kathas. 43, 13 in PW VII 
s. v. should rather be omitted. D has the good reading mastaka 
instead of saptaka (Br.) and reads accordingly the line in this 
manner: viveca easy a sauvarnapuram a s takacobhinah '/ abliyan- 
taram etc. = ,,he entered within it [viz. that palace] which 
possessed the greatest beauty of the Golden Town." 

sabhajayati 'to render homage (to)' is instanced in PW with Kathas. 
62, 8. It occurs also Kathas. 46, 25 I) tatah sabhajayann 
any an etc., where Br. falsely reads tatah sa bhcljayann, for 
the pronoun salt is already present in the same sentence. 
Likewise Br. disregarded sabhajana in Kathas. 45, 36 sabJiu- 
ianaya ca pruyvat Prahladasya sabham ynyan\ he reads sa 
bhojanaya '- to take his meals (T, I, 431)' destroying 
thereby the meaning of that passage, as Somadeva intended 
to say that ,,he went to the hall of P. to pay his respect." 

sampadat t. 45, 366 must be a false form, as Boehtlingk sup- 
posed already PW, VII s..v. The Babu Syama Charan's con- 
jecture sammadat, mentioned by T, I, 431 n. and recorded 
PWK VII, 68 is certainly right. Somadeva uses the word 
sammada (joy) oftener than should be inferred from the few 
quotations of it from Kathas. in PW s. v. It occurs also 
19, 64 D carada dattasammadah (Br. -sampadah); 26, 287 
sammada may im . . . . dacam (both edit.); 104, 51 D datta- 
sammadah, cp. T II, 414, n. 2; 108, 121, too, D has 
bheje kamapi sammadam against Br. kamapi sampadam. 

sahayyaka quoted PW s.v. from Kathas. 17, 18 and 55, 208 is 
spelt in both places sahayaka in D. Yet, cp. PWK s. v. 

suhita 'satiated'. To the scanty instances from classical Sanskrit, 
quoted in PW s. v. may be added Kathas. 66, 35. Kern's 
opinion (Journ. R. Asiat. Soc. 1.1.) that sukMtasya (Br.) ought 
to be corrected into suhitasya is fully confirmed by D, where 
the line runs thus : 

adhyasya kirn ca dhanena su. h i tasyacanena kirn. 
SukJtita for suhita is likewise written Avadanacataka I , 

9f] i DIBS \l'.ui i mi-. tATHlSAKITSlG \K.\. - ; 

189, 7, r|i. the Index o!' m\ (-(litK.n. B. v, At .hit. I. 266, 

11 we have ;ui instance of xithilu ill Tali. 
.Y//// 'Niederkuuff ..cliild-hirtli". Tin- ^notation Katha-. 01 

niii^t he cancelled. I) ivad> %utakante : not A- /////////. the 

reading <>f Hr. The woman to the river to bathe at 

the end of the xnhikn , the impnritx can-ed In child-birth. 

veril\ not at the time of her deli\ei\ Stttikdla 
xti train! la ni // and rtir s. v. .V////Y/ :J; 'Me^ehnui l'\\ and r\\l\. 

The MLrnilicatioii could l,e better del MM ah d . T I. '.).") n. 3 

tran.slates 'to test', like\\ i-e I. I ( J / . \\here he render- Kalha-. 

:1 I , t)'5. The c\j)i 1 cioii !Mis\\i-r>. indeed, allno-t to Latin 

'periculuni fnm-e'. 
vpluir) -\ MM is to he added in P\\ and P\\ l\ The part ic. of the 

present act. of this \erh is met with t. ( .Mi. I -J D: Idtal; 

svajdiui A- ,</ /// \yy // /^ // a d avamanHhatntmanain etc. Hr. ha> 

svajanajasphurjad . 
6VY/yv// Kathas. 9(), 3 must he- cancelled in P\V s. \. The ri 

reading is nagareqvarah (D); ward/ a> a -imj)le apjiellatixe 

is uncommon, and, even if it were not so, it would he 

proper in that context. 
srdntavant. I think, this 2.77. ii?. in t. 37, 25 (in hoth editimi- 

is genuine (cp. the notes of 1) and T. 1, 330 n. l)and take 

it for a synonym of svd/t/a = ma/iff* or hrdaya. 
Italia 1, 'vvehe!' (PW VII s.v.) Kathas. 28, 24 I) huha against 

Br. ha la. 

^ 4. 

The possession of a hetter edition affords also the ad\anta_ 
getting rid of some grammatical singularities in the text of the 
Kathasaritsagara, about which formerly it was more or less uncer- 
tain how to account for. They mostly concern verbal form> 
and a few syntactical blunders. 

I) is as constant in exhibiting abracam as Hr. in the barbarism 
abruvant , cp. Kern, ,lourn. R. As. Soc. 1.1., p. 109. 1) is not so 
correct in the case of e negligently put for ai in verbal forms from 
the root /, e.g. 37, 81, where the yaksini says to Niccayaclatta 
aliens i/dini nijatn xllitinaiti (il^yumi [= redibo] en n\gftgaine\ botli 
editions esyami against the obvious meaning. Likewise 43, 266. 
86, 34 etc.; 62, 71 to correct a'uny ah am for the edited emy 
all am. 

Tar. 16, 72 Br. has htblieyam , but D labheya the middle voice, 


as usual. In the same way the uncommon active of ji -\- para t. 
72, 67 Br. is not found in D; it has vade parajay e ta i tarn (Br. 
vade parujayed etam). Boehtlingk's correction pravwyate t. 45, 247 
(PW VI s.v. vie -\-prd) is confirmed by D. - Bhanjami t. 62, 
142 is corrupt, D has uhajami, cp. T II, 73 n. 2. 

The present of or (to choose, to adhere) according to the 5 th class 
is met with t. 66, 109 Br. sattvahlnam na vrnvate .criyak; 
D vrnate according to the 9 th class. Both forms are grammati- 
cally good. 

The ungrammatical aorist aprasta 29, 62 Br. disappears in 1), 
whose reading tain uprstaSvayamprabham (a bah uvrihi) is doubtless 
right. On the other hand D restores in two places the aorist of 
vip (37, 197 npaviksan*, 38, 102 praviksat), where Br. has imper- 
fects which disturb the metre; cp. t. 42, 156. 

In 1868 Kern (1.1. p. 176) had already intimated that qraddhatuh 
t. 103, 93 Br. is a monstruin lectionis and should be corrected 
into qraddadJiub. So, indeed, is edited in D. The other monstruin 
uldavantyau t. 124, 20 is also limited to Br. ; I) has uktavatyau. 
Nor is hr$an or dhrsan (t. 53, 130 Br.) found in D - - the line 
in question is edited there as follows: tac cJirutvaiva ca so ' vadid 
dlirsto (rejoiced) Vlravard dcija/t. - And t. 124, 192, where 
Br. produces an absolutive anurajya (sic) = = 'having propitiated' 
(see PW. VI, 232 s.v. raj -\- anu, caus. 2), D has the right reading 
anuranjya\ likewise D corrects the vicious arajyata t. 86, 109 of 
Br., it reads tatharanjyata sa rajnu. Another vicious form 

is the infinitive mmitum, t. 98, 15 Br. (not mentioned in PW), 
instead of it D has, of course, mo si tutu. Kern in his paper men- 
tioned above corrected also yunjatyah t. 106, 24; both editions 
have the faulty ytmjantyah. 

Mamathuh t. 46, 220 Br. is a legitimate various reading of 
mamanthuh I). Perhaps also drdlayati 46, 10 Br. of dradliayati 
(D); in Prabodhacan droday a V, stanza 28 Brockhaus like- 
wise edited drdliayati, whereas the Nirnayasagara ed. of 1898 of 
that drama (p. 189, st. 22) reads dradliayati, also Jivananda 
Vidyasagara's ed. of 1874. 

Has Somadeva used the liberty granted to epic poetry of omit- 
ting the augment? According to Br.'s edition, one would be 
inclined that he availed himself of that license, but sparingly. 
The few cases, however, of its being wanting are checked by the 
veto of D !. 

J ) T. 43, 244 D lias ubhinandata, hut here (Br.) abhincmanda is preferable. 

BT1 DIES AUDI T Tin. KAiii.\-\i;nx\(iAK\ 89 


Hr. 50, | ()() fv//////v////////^//. with I) (50, I.V.I r//,^v//v////V////7/ 

51, 201) ulict'iliiui . ,, D ftf>/(/r<//,(t//fif 

57, 135 nilntd In/din , ,, I) nyabadkyata 

,, 05, 1 s o pulinQny avalokayat t ,, 1) /W/ ///-//// vyalokayat 

71, 5 i /y/vx/vvy//////. ,, 1) /y/v/'/vvv////// 

DO, 10 avalambayam } ,, I> udalambayat;i > a prefe- 

rable muling also for tlii- rea>on that uHnmbnifnly <it,,i<in<i,n - not 
///v//. is the typical expreoioii fur committing suicide l>\ Bos- 

pending one's M-ir. 

Br. 72, 39 fimit/df, hut I) limii/ul. \c\cithch-. I) onlinnrilv 
agrn's \\ifh Hr. in the ahscncc of the augment in the case af a verb 
commencing hy ^ followed by t\vo consonants. It i> especially wantiiiir 
in tlie inij)fts (ir/Hit/fif and Ntiiiifii'/Jtit/fif at the end of the :2 J or 1 
pada (10, 100. 205. 213; 12, 27. 172 ! ) ; 13, L01 ; 28, 84; 
21, 105; 27, 112; 29, 161; 33, 47; 85, \ 1 . 38, 18; 89, 
201; 43, 127; 44, 25. 158; 45, L79; -1-0, 15; 54 
(51, 288; 73, 304; 74, 267; DO. 55; 102, 133; 105, 
117, 117; 119, 27; 1:21, 232. 233: 123, 10:2. 124. 311: 
124, 121. 197) op. *nnt<irjtyat 70, 20; samarpayata 72, 54. 
Of the kind are also ar/iflf 42, C> s ; vdaist/ata , 121, 5:2 : D has 
also ablydsyat 43, 274, but here Br. ablii/n^inii (participle) seema 
to me the better reading. At t. 118, 81 1) reads ^/v/V///,/// Main- 
yadhvajah against Br. nrddi/ftd. 

Somadeva, therefore, seems, to have altogether abstained from 
imperfects and aorists without augment (the aor. with wfl, of course, 
excluded), save this case of a -\- two consonants. In this respect 
he contrasts with his rival Ksemendra , who - - if we may trust 
the printed text - admitted of imperfects without augment rather 
freely, e.g. Brhkm. p. 254, 476. p. 413, 21. p. 451, 11. 
p. 453, 36. p. 456, 76. 

At t. 101, 91 it is D that has the incorrect passive yuttyatt! , 
the right from yulyate is in Br. 

Several times there is variance in the two editions in such cases, 
where both forms are good. Br. has kxayita 21, 28. 22, 202. 64, 
161. 77, 36; 1) everywhere ksapita. The same applies, it seems, 
to such orthographies as (In kin t -- dnyitii; kocilika (D) kaii^ilika; 
petn pedtl ; c/iHt/ala - - chayala ; kuUanl kutfinl : picc/tila 
piccJiala; balmla -- bahala; kqurika churikct\ tfhatturaka d/nistu- 
rnka ; praghunika - prakunika ; fiffib/ia flfibJia ; peyiisa plyUsa, 

a ) Bat t. 12, G4 D has samarpayat against Br. samaryayat. 


Tu part of them one of the forms is nearer to the original PaicacT. 

Prom a syntactical point of view it may be observed that 
D now and then restores enam and the like in such cases as where 
etam etc. found in Br. are less correct or inversely, e.g. 42, 177 
1) so 'py enam [Br. etani\ ayraliit > but 45, 368 D Sumtynctikam 
caitam [Br. ca 'enam]. At. t, 49, 183 D and 50, 195 D both 
editions have wrongly etam for enam. 

Tar. 118, 100 Br. ywyam prayatam Patalam ,,do you march to 
Patala!"; D reads yucain pmi/fitcun. The connection of the plural 
of the pronoun-subject with the dual of the imperative-predicate 
is apparently due to some oversight of Br. The same must be said 
of 20, -152 na 'evani vadlh Br. , in D we find maivam vndih, as 
must be expected a priori and cp. the similar passage 103, 47. 
Nor can I anyhow believe that Br. found in his manuscripts that 
which is edited 42, 58 darabhyam for darebhyo (D), such a dual 
being unheard of. 

The rare instance of an accusativus cum infinitive t. 20, 172 
Br. crmttah Jiamapi rujanain 6- n a t a ID tatra dadarca ca , which I 
have quoted in my Sanskrit Syntax p. 307, n. 3, falls away; D 
reads snantani, the participle wanted here! 

The 1 pers. of the imperative katluun pibn-iii t. 61, 238 Br. , 
though good in itself, had become uncommon in Somadeva's days. 
It is not met with in D, which has katham pibami. Here and in 
the preceding case it is impossible to guess, how far Br. went in 
his modification of the text he found in his manuscripts. 

Tar. 45, 400 Br. contains a modus irrealis expressed by a con- 
ditional in the apodosis and an aorist(!) in the protasis, as follows: 
bhasm akarisy ad asmatkrodhDynis tvam ogham vy a d h a s tac cet 
= ,,The fire of my wrath would have reduced thee to ashes, if 
thou hadst committed that sin". Yet it is not Somadeva, but Br. 
who is liable to that syntactical sin; D reads - and manifestly, 
he is right - - ay ham vyadhasyac cet. 

Here are some other cases of syntactical irregularities put away: 

1. In t. 84, the tenth Vetala-tale, cl. 44 relates that ,,a certain 
thief saw Madanasena,. . . . and rushing upon her, seized her by 
the hem of her garment" (T. II, 280). The words I have italicized 
render Br/s kenapi rurudhe vasanancalat. Instead of that abl. , which is 
hard to be accounted for , D has the locative vasanancale conformably 
to the use, cp. my Sanskrit Syntax 139 d. - - 2. The structure 
of the sentence t. 58, 41 Br. pray eva mama nadi^tam Mm deve- 
nadhundpi tat is clumsy; in D its elegance is restored, since yat 
takes the place of tat. - - 3. The singular vartate and the inter- 

ST1 I'll- \iiui 'I THE CATHlSABItSiGARA ( .H 

punction in t. IIS, l~l impair the meaning of tin- context apud 
Hi 1 ., wlio eiToiieoii>l\ joins cfirtti/i' with /v/v//y/V//v/A/// : this word i- 
;ni adjective <|iialil\ inu; 'A//v/.sv///////v///^//. '\\\\< i> plain in D. 

rti/i'fii'fi/i , i>ittr<t, i/ urn nun Itlu'iititrim t/nrnm . 

a /V//V//Y/- ////"r ^v/, ////7//" /V/r /v/ t/fin^ilfi/i 

r ft i' / fi // / c . prdpJ-akQlas hit /////'/////// d&rasamgrafiak. 

4. The use of a dual of the neuter gender />ftri/rtfr . t. 1~:>. \^'> 
Hr., to express tin- common predicate of the two xiilject> /y///v//// 
/V/////>////v//// and Dcrafd/t /,'ihi i> -niLndar, and D'> readiiiir 
/jfiri/rif fix. l<i<l nt/tilii etc. must he considered tlie riirht one. ('p. t. 
121, 218. - - 5. The interpnnction of t. lo:>, 37, as edited in 
Hr. , is proper to lead a-tray the reader: i/ullm <i<itli<i victnvdno, nn 
trim jirti/.tt l(ttli<i fdf/if/. I, at least, troubled m\ account for 

that partic. of the present rn-'inninnh with the function of a veil) 
finite, but afterwards, when I read the >anie pa airc over in the 
non-interpunged edition of 1), it was iinmediatel\ clear to me, that 
Br. ought to have interpunged t/fif/i/i t/af/tfi rii-im-d/nt //ft A//// y//"'//^/. 
tallin tatha I /e*i> feqii pradeqequ . . . . MI 'b/trdntdf. \erilv, it is hi 
to edit Sanskrit texts with nagari t\j>c> and little interponction 
than in transcription and with Occidental fulness of stops, semi- 
colons, signs of exclamation and interrogation, etc. These squ- 
are better dispensed with. 

Durgaprasad and his collaborator were better Sanskrit i>ts than 
Brockhaus; they availed themselves of his editio princepa -, moreover 
they had the good chance of having in their ps<es>ion an excel- 
lent manuscript not known to their predecessor. So they could carry 
out an edition of the Kathasaritsagara , in many respects superior 
to that of the European scholar. I have stated above that never- 
theless their work cannot be called a critical edition, nor 
has it the pretension of making this claim. Inaccuracies and bad 
readings are not wanting in that better text, too. Now and then, 
Br.'s text is even preferable. This is chiefly the consequence of 
typographical errors and misprintings, easily recognizable as such 
and less adapted to misleading than the errors and mistakes of Br. 
Another drawback for Hindoo editors is the right division of the 
words according to the standard of European and American use, 
something unfamiliar to minds accustomed to the scriptio conti/nta. 
Errors in this respect are not wanting neither, but they are easy 
to be detected. The first edition of D contained a yiddhapattram 


with a great number of corrections, yet not complete; this list is 
not added to the 2 d edition - my copy is from 1903 - - but 
the editors have, of course, corrected their text accordingly. The 
accuracy in revising it was, however, not so great as to forbid 
new typographical errors to make their, appearance : e.g. 42, 172 
jayama D 1 and Br. , jayada (quite nonsensically) D 2 ; - - 45, 398 
na ca tasyeccha vitatha D 1 and Br. , na ca tasyeccliami tatha (sic) 
D 2 ; - 54, 32 udbhuta D 1 and Br. , tadbltuta D 2 ; - - 64, 101 
panamatta D 1 and Br. , pa/iavatta (nonsense) D 2 . Upon the whole 
the amount of such inaccuracies and misprints is not too great for 
a text edited in India by Indian scholars, and such cases as 62, 
72 Myadhah , 71, 255 viqayogarnavottlrnau instead of krtvadlah 
and viprayogarnavottirnau, where the oversight of the error of the 
typographer who put one wrong aksara for the right one, destroys 
the understanding of the whole sentence, are comparatively rare J ). 
Another face of the shortcomings of the learned pandits, measured 
by the standard applied to Western scholarship, however laudable 
their work may be from a vernacular point of view, shows itself 
in the following. The editors have taken Br.'s text for the base 
of their edition. This was the most natural course to be followed; 
even if they had not explicitly named Br. together with the two 
manuscripts as the three pustakani which were the sources of their 
text, .we would consider it a matter of course that they made the 
,,editio princeps" the groundwork of their own performances. I 
suppose, they will have marked their corrections and modifications 
in some copy of Br. Yet in doing this useful work they could 
have been a little more careful. Now and then it is likely some 
faults of Br. have passed 'over in their edition, by want of accu- 
racy, not because the same faults are in their manuscripts. In the 
beginning of t. 71 Mrgankadatta rescues a Qabara king from 
drowning in the river. The grateful prince offers him his friendship 
and assistance, and invites him as his guest: 

tat prasadam kurusvaihi yrlian bhrtya&ya te prabho 
,,So do me the favour, my lord, of coming to my palace, since 
I am your slave" (T. II, 154). It is clear, that blirtyasya te must 
be read. Both editions, however, have bhrtyasya me. The mistake 
of Br. remained unchanged by inadvertence of D. Other instances 
are: 21, 96 Br. and D bkeje 'par am my am, though it is evident 
that bJteje par am criyam is meant; 73, 396 baddhva Br. and D. 

') Cp. also 105 , 8 D paradaragrham a nonsensical reading for graham. Tar. 34, 96 
Br. tarn is doubtless preferable to D sa. 

-ii 'IHI.S \l;oiT Till, k 

for vadhni cp. '\ II 01:2 ,. \\illi hi> wife"; '2~>, :2 1 fatmSunifi fox 

f(ix//ff>/i niri . ('>:*), 17") loll. />/v//-/7// fur /jfd/.-r/ft. In thi- n>j)ect, the 
2 d edition is >oiiicwli;it hctici': :M , I I) 1 with H lias the un^mm- 
ninticjil participle kurrnnli. I)- /v//-/v/// : l v . ."> I) 1 with H the 

barbarism hh'nlanii* D- bMndanti. 

It would he, ageless to deal lon^T oi- fuller \\ith this >ul>ject. 
Mveu if I succeeded iu drawing a complete li>t uf all those e. 
when^ D's readings are inferior to those uf Hr. , the profit \\uuld 
be small. Taking all iu all, I) is the standard edition uo\vada\> 
and ought to keep this worth up to that future time, when the 
text of the Kathasaritsagara, critically revised in the strict < 
of the word, and with help of all iuaun>cripN available duly selected 
and classified, will lav before us. 



After expounding in the preceding chapter the progress obtained 
for the understanding of our text by the edition of D, we will 
now proceed to make up a list of the more important cases 
of improved readings, not yet mentioned in the foregoing. Sometimes 
the meaning of the text is greatly modified by them, sometimes 
the bearing of the change is less, but I have avoided from noticing 
such corrections - - and they, too, are numerous - - as are of no 
consequence for the understanding. 

1, 42 D tacca tatsamcayayawa with a meaning more appro- 
priate than that of the text of Br. ; also the metre 
is improved. Cp. T I, 3 n. 

61 1) moksyate, the 3 d person is indispensable, as Qarvani 
does not address Malyavant ; Br. moksyase will not 
do here. 

5, 11 1) pancabhir militaih kim yaj jagatlha na sadly ate, 

doubtless right, kirn na being, as usual, = sarvam 
api ; Bi\ kiyat. 

133 1) cakacinam 'eater of vegetables', instead of Br. $aka- 
sanani, unmeaning. T already detected the fault, cp. 
his translation I, 31, n. 2. 

6, 20 1) g an avatar o jato 'yam Gunadhyah, where Br. gunti- 

vataro etc. ; hence T translates ,,this child is an incar- 
nation of virtue", what ought to be ,,an incarnation 
of one of his Ganas." Another instance of confoun- 
ding guiia and yana is at 45, 368. In D the similar 
mistake has been made 114, 70; Br. has here the 
right reading. 

32 In the pleasant story of the merchant Musaka it is 
related that he was born after his father's death and that 
this mother, having lost her property by the wickedness 
of las relations, educated him in poverty. From lack of 

STUDIKs \IJOITTIIK K \TII.\s \ !;ll >.\<; \ 1,'A. Do 

money to pa\ a teacher, she prr>iiad-> some teacher to 
give him -ome iiMniction b\ \\a\ of charity. Mere H.'s 
reading (which has aUo paed into Lamnan'- 
p. 10.: up&dhyQyam aiksbkyarthya /'///'/ /////fv///^/ 

is not satisfactory: what ma\ hen- be t IK- u-e of /////''/////- 
The good reading is of course l> ftit/ <i /> i ,,i r a ny a- 
(liiKiifii, 'she, dc>er\ing coni|)a^> ion IM c;i IM- ot her poverty 
akinicanyd)' . 

86 Instead of Hr. //// r/v//// n<lil<>r<> , wliicli T could not 

render properly, D has /'/// frm,/ /f/.t/f/cfe. 

150 T translates well: ,,and the kin^ for his part was 
comforted", l>nt thi> is not e\pi'<><ed h\ \\v.\ rt/x/ f // f , 
hut 1)\ the text as constituted in I) rSJdpy nfilnn/titali 
xit/i//ihii nififr a r r <i .v / <> Imlili urn xali . 

In other passages, too, Br. has failed with respect to 
the verb r/.v/\ : 25, 201 I) and T xamnrmsya (Hr. 
samapvasya); 33, 173 I) vipvcteya (Ri. \\roniz;l\ ////); 

IOC),' LOO I) and T krta^vSsa (R ///// V/V' 

7, 5 (/annvannan narrates to his king his jonrnev to 

Karttikeya's shrine in order to obtain the hel ( of that 
god to fulfil his extraordinary promise. When, /kv//// 
near ///.v <tnn , he fell senseless on the ground, e\hau>ted 
by austerities and fatigue, some ati'able man, so he said, 
had comforted him and taken awa\ his hunger ami thir>r. 
The words I have, put in italics are ^<> corrupt in the 
original text of Br. , that T could not find out their 
meaning. 1) gives them in their genuine shape, editing 
ffifo V///v/y// manctkckeije jnfc 'when there was (still) 
little remaining of the way'. 

7i) It must not he read with Hr. jnttro M<> ///r.y//V/// k< 

(T ,,iny son has been sent away somewhere"), but with 
1) proxitah 'my son is abroad somewhere'. 

84 1) xamiitxHri/a preferable to Hr. sdHittfpntt/fi. 

10, 12 QrT gratifies her worshipper Kalanemi with the promise 

that he shall become wealth} and obtain a son who 
shall rule a kingdom, yet himself shall be put to death 
in an ignominious manner, ..because thou hast offered 
flesh in the fire with impure motives." T has translated 
so from Hr. hut am c()u<ui tvaya yasinad ami^am kaluqatmana. 
The offering of fiesh looks somewhat strange in this place, 
as the preceding clokas mention only libations (liomas) 
offered to the goddess of Fortune. The right reading is 


found in D yasmad amarsakalusatmana 'because them 

hast offered libations with a mind troubled by anger.' 

47 D jlgnya suits better the structure of the period than 

Br. jitya ca. 

11, 6 Br.'s reading cka Vasavadattakhya kanya kamayate 
param (T ,,the maiden named V. alone has a liking for 
me") purports an impossibility. At this point of the tale 
Udayana, who speaks these words, either did not know 
Vasavadatta at all or only by name. Moreover, the tale 
itself makes her fall in love with U. a long time there- 
after and in consequence of a contrivance of U. The 
right reading is in 1): cku Vrisavadatlaklya kanyakri 
qruyate param etc. = ,,there is but one maiden, they 
say (that suits me as a wife)". 

52 What may be the meaning of the last word of the 
line sa tarn praty abravid evam manmatliajnanuvandim (Br.)? 
Since there must be expressed by that phrase that Anga- 
ra vatl spoke so, moved by love towards Candamahasena , 
D's reading manmatliajnaimvartini is of course, to be 
adopted . 

12, 49 ff. Yaugandharayana associates himself with the brahmara- 
ksasa Yogegvara, who 'chose him' as his friend, as is rightly 
said in D mitrabhavaya . . . . vrtavan abhyetya, whereas 
B, confounding the aksaras dh and v - see supra, 
p. 70 - - has dkrlfirrni upcti/n. Thanks to a charm taught 
to him by that friend, Y. altered his shape changing 
himself into a deformed, hunchbacked old man with 
the appearance of a madman; unmattavecali in Br. must 
be of course ve$ah *); the words that follow in Br. 
klialv attahnsyasamjananali (cl. 51) cannot be genuine, 
for attahasya does not simply mean 'laughter' and is 
wholly out of place here. From D it appears that he was 
bald, too, kltalvato hasyasamjananah. In 9!. 52 D 
has siranaddhaprthudaram for B's nrnnaddham pr. 
64 D vlnatantriniyojitfin. . . . rfijne 'swai sa samarpayat-. 
Br. has here yocitnn (typographical error?) and 'smai 
samam arpayat. 

14, 46 In the tale of the clever deformed child this boy says 
to his father: ,,'Papa, I have two papas'. So the boy 
said every day, and his father suspecting that his wife 

') vepa is the ordinary orthography of this word in Br. 

STUIHI-:s \i;.)i I Till. K\Tll.\-\l;n>.v;\i:\. 

had a paramour, would not even touch her." This the 
child spoke ..with >upprerd \oice", Bt8 Ta\\ ne\ translates 
Ur.'s fird/i'irix/fiy/i ////v7 = 'mil Ici-cr ^timme' in his 
(ierman translation. This >uppieed \oicc. though not 
contrarv to the situation, can IK MT he meant by the 
quoted words of (he text ; ///////////'*/</ -iirmiies 'occupied , 
p<>x>e>sed tor the half. I) has the appro] . 
firix/jt/xfayr/ f/i/'fi, 'with his inarticulate voice', a> he wa> 
a little child. 

15, 57 I) hlmrcnui vyabhicGrinah , preferable to \\r. Itlmrci 

10, 46 D avasarant duduli more in conformity \\itli tin; idiom 

than Hr. . . (Itnllinh. 

91 According to Br. , Vasavadatta accompanied the army 

incognito ,,ascending a comfortable carriage sent hv 
Padmavati, with its great horses also put. at her di-|>"sil 
by her (T)." As she is said to have got a carriage, it 
was not necessary to add that she obtained it with its 
horses. Somadeva, indeed, does not narrate so; instead of 
tannial&turagaih (Br.) we find in I) tanmakattarakaik, 
attendants of rank and high personages were put at her 
disposal, besides the carriage. 

121 When the celestial voice has testified with roaring 
sound to the innocence of Vasavadatta, all bystanders 
are astonished and rejoiced like peacocks hearing the 
pleasant sound of thunder. In this likeness the epithet 
vdydtkarfib 'with uplifted hands' of Br. is less appro- 
priate than D's reading u than dim rdr ca wirum etc., 
for uplifting the neck towards the celestial apparition does 
apply as well to the king's attendance as to the peacocks. 

17, 19 In the myth of Pururavas and Urvael it is told how 
Indra after vanquishing the demons made a great feast. 
This utsavah is characterized in Br. by the epithet 
pravrttasarvavadftusSrtkah (T. ,,a feast, at which all the 
nymphs of the heaven displayed their >kill", Geldner Ted. 
Studien I, 257 ,,ein Fest, an welchem die Himmels- 
madchen theilnahmen"). Better 1) jtrfmrthf 'where the 
Apsarasas executed their dances'. Cp. supra, p. 70. 
32 King Udayana by his narration of the adventures of 
UrvacI had abashed a little his w r ife YaVavadatta suspect- 
ing a disguised reproval of her own conduct. Yaugan- 
dharayaiia, in order to dispel that thought from her 

Verhand. Kon. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. 5. T 


mind and to appease her, begins to narrate some other 
story about a wife who loved her husband most sincerely. 
This is said in clear and plain words in D : 

tarn drstva yuktyupalabdham rajna devim vilaksitam 
athapy ay ayitum bhupam alia Yaugandharayanah \ 
Br. has here tatha ' apy upayitum, which cannot mean 
'to make him feel in his turn' [T] (,,um ihn auch etwas 
empnnden zu lassen" Brockhaus' own transl.) and is 
obviously nonsensical. 

73 foil. The merchant Dharmagupta, knowing that his daughter 
Somapra'bha must not be given in marriage, concealed 
her; yet a young merchant, Guhacandra beheld her on 
the occasion of the spring- festival and no sooner had 
he got sight of her, than sa manobhavavallyeva sadyo 
hrdayalagnaya / taya mumurccheva (Br.), which in T's trans- 
lation is rendered: ,,she clung like a creeper of love round 
his heart, so that he was, as it were, faint". This sin- 
gular image we happily get rid of, finding in D's text 
that he fainted because his heart was hit, as it were, 
manobJiava b h a I lyeva , that is 'by Amor's arrow'. 

The enamoured youth having informed his parents of 
his love by the mouth of a friend, his father Guhasena 
went to Dharmagupta to ask his daughter in marriage 
for his son. This demand is followed by a refusal, but 
the pretext of madness of the girl, which Dh. gives in 
Br.'s text, cl. 76, kanya ' arthato me mudha 'iti (T ,,the 
fact is, my daughter is out of her mind") is not suffi- 
ciently in accordance with the rest of the tale. In I) the 
father answers kanya kuto me mudheti \= mudha -\- iti~\ 
,,I have no daughter at all, fool!" In fact, Dh. , after 
the birth of that extraordinary and heavenly being, 
had given out abroad that she was dead (mrteli khyapi- 
' tarn bahih cl. 70). 

128 Afterwards, Somaprabha having become Guhacandra's 
wife on condition that she never should share his bed, 
the husband endeavours to excite her love by degrees, 
in order that he may enjoy the pleasure of a conjugal 
life. He feigns to prepare himself to call upon a certain 
hetaera and so rouses her jealousy. Looking at him 
askance with wrinkled brows she says : 

hum jnatam etadartho 'yam vesas; tatra ca ma sma gah! 
kim taya? mam upelti tvam; aham hi tava gehim. 

STUDIES ABOUT Till- K.V1 I!A- \ 1:1 I >A< , A K A. 99 

According to lir. , >li<- -peak- these word* vid&rya vdmena 
kart'iia , a phrase I cannot understand; IN translation 

('/og ilin an dcr linkcii Hand herbei', 'I' 'lifting up her 
veil witli her left hand') is effected \\\ herim-iini! ical AV///-.V 
(/c forrt'. I) restores the genuine text reading nivSrya 
etc, 'retaining him with her left hand'. 
133 A small mistake di>lignre> tlie ///o/v/A- </<> hi fab/, 

exposed by the great fattgandharayana, In-tead of yoga" 
there is to be read with I) y 8 g apradQnScfoukrtaih 
ru/th ftk ftnu ft tt dm . . . . tixHianli ///// /////;W<?. There is here 
no room for yoga, but the good works, the reward 
of which are such excellent heavenly who, eon>ist of 
sacrifices, acts of charity and tlie like. 

18, 24 In Br. the splendid beauty of the royal palace i> c(, in- 
pared to that of the sea at moonrise or of a lotuspond 
pravate (,,in windy weather" T). 1) has prabli<if<- -at 
daybreak', and this Somadeva surely must have meant. 
46 foil. In the description of the golden throne dug up for 
Udayana by the peasants, which is a foretoken of his 
future domination , there are three errors in Br. , one of 
which has been corrected by T (dar^ayat for yaii), 
another by Boehtlingk (mati for sati, see LVtr. l)ict. 
VII, 569 s. v. sati). Both corrections make part of I)'s 
text; moreover the first compound is there aru/ifima- 
ii iff r a v akiranaprasaralli , Br . grSmef. 

53 King Udayana exhorted by his first minister to seat 
himself on the golden throne, with these words: etat 
kulakramayatam mahasimhasanam tvayajyat pm plain tat 
samaruliya dev&lamkriyatam ///, declines on account that 
such a high place behove.s only one who has performed 
the digvijaya. The king's answer is made up of the el. 
53 and 54. Yet the former of them has such a shape 
in Br. , that the translator must add the former line to 
Yaugandharayana's speech and assign only the second 
part of the cloka to the king. Br. reads: 

vijtii/d j n't helm an'idhn i/atra te prapitdmakak 
f (if i'd jit en (lira /i sarcd/t kamam arohatah prat huh. 
In D, however, the ?loka has this fashion: 

i'ijih/a prthvlm arudhri yatra m e prapitamahaU 
ta t r (1 j i tea dicah sareah fc a m a m arohatah prat ft a 
= ,,That throne which my ancestors mounted after con- 
quering the earth, how can I gain glory by ascending 


it before conquering all the regions? etc. Thus speaking 
(ity ucivan narapatir) and so on". 

88 Adityasena mounts on horseback; his horse is an excel- 
lent runner ,,that in spirit and fury resembled a torrent" *), 
as T translates (Br.) varacvam darpodghatananirjharam. 
This somewhat surprising image, where also udgltatana 
itself is employed in a strange manner, to say nothing 
more, disappears in D. The horse is simply described there 
as darpody adghar m anirjharam 2 ), that is literally sweat- 
ing [gharmanirjlara = sveda] from (ardour and) pride". 
136 This cloka is a variation on the ovx ayzSw Trotoxoipaviy. 
Br.'s text disagrees here in two points with D; it has 
in pada b buddki, but D vrddhi, and in pada d two 
words vibhinnam bahunayakam that make up a compound 
in D. The reading of the latter is : 

varam hi daivayattaikavr ddhi stlianam anayakam 
na tu viplutasarvartham vibhinn aba hunayaJcam 
,, better, indeed, is a state without a ruler so that their 
prosperity merely depends on Fate, than one with many 
discordant rulers, which entails the scattering of all their 
wealth". Surely, this is a sentence more suitable to the 

145 Vidusaka has obtained the promise of the brahmans, 
his cohabitants, that they should recognise him as their 
chief and lord after he would have well performed a 
certain difficult enterprise. 'If you do this', so they speak 
in T's translation , 'you shall be our lord , we make this 
agreement.' This translation expresses their declaration 
otherwise than the text , which it is supposed to render. 
They did not say ,,we make this agreement" but ,,we 
consider ourselves bound by this word", evam krte tvam 
asmakam svami niyama esa nah (cl. 144). By itself the 
difference is extremely slight, but it seemed worth notic- 
ing to me because in the next cloka a word for 
'agreement' being wanted, Br. has niyama that may be 
= 'obligation, bond' but can never mean 'agreement' 
commonly expressed by samaya. The whole cloka in Br. 
runs as follows : 

ity eva khyapya niyamam pro play am rajanau ca tan 
amantrya vipran pray ay an cmacanam sa VidUsakah. 

*) T I, 129 adds this note: 'More literally, a torrent of pride and kicking.' 
*) In D* yaddharma, a typothetical error. 


111 it. besides nii/tnmnit, the al>>oliiti\e /////"/;//'/ is gramma- 
tically incorrect. I) again removes tlie ilitliciilties, reading 
i/t/<T ii / //// ii fti/n .v a in at/ a ,,/ etc. : cp. 1 \'l xamaye ca 
t'fit/(tui xtliiluli and \\\\} mnnm/tnii W '/'/'/"///// ulnim. 

207 Princess DuhkbalabdhikS had been given in marriage 

to the king of Kacchapa. hut as the hii.-hand entered 
at night the private apartment of his newly married 
wife he died immediately. The same di>a>ter occurred 
anew at her second wedlock, .,aiid when through 
of the, same fate other kin^s did not wisli to marrv her, 
the king gave this order to his general - - 'You mu>t 
bring a man in turn from even single house in the 
country so that one shall be supplied every day, and he 
must be a Brahman or a Kshatriya. And after you have; 
brought the man, you must cause him to enter by night 
into the apartment of my daughter; let us see how many 
will perish in this way, and how long it will go on. 
Whoever escapes shall afterwards become her husband'. 
The last sentence is Ts (I, 138) translation of 9!. 207 a, 
as edited in Br. : 

yas tarisyali pafcfic ca so 'w/n blmrtn M/ari^/nfi . 
here paccat (afterwards) is superfluous with the future 
bhavityati. In D the line reads much better thus: 

utta riqyati y a $ gutra so 'syri bluirfd bkavijyati, 
'who survives in this (trial) shall become her husband/ 

280 Vidugaka offers himself to that dangerous adventure. 
While he was staying in the apartment of the princess, 
he saw the Raksasa, that caused the death of the former 
bridegrooms who had perished there, opening the door 
and stretching his hand through the entrance into the 
room. So according to I) apavrtakapdtakam .... r/i/n/ihiHi 
.... aikqata. The reading of Br. apdvrtiakavdtakim is 
evidently a corruption thereof. 

374 Br. kn*ffi(/(itftni snelint , T (I, 143) renders this thus: 
,,to him who though a flection had endured the utmost", 
hesitating, as it were, between accepting ka$tfi or 
as the necessary correction of the unmeaning 
From D it appears that the genuine reading is /v7 .<?/// r/- 
gatasne/tnt, a compound regarding not the love of 
Viduaka but of Bhadra. ,,At hearing this, her affection 
came to its highest pitch/' Cp. Kumarasambhava 3, 35. 
10, 04 For dattasampadah (Br.), a doubtless corruption, D 


has dattasammadah 'much rejoiced', a better reading than 
that mentioned by T, sambhavah. At 104, 51 Br. has 
the same fault; here, too, D and two of T's MSS read 
sammadak. As to sammada, cp. 26, 287. 46, 366. 
70 This cloka describes the impression made on the mind 
of the spectators by the march of the victorious army of 
Udayana by means of the simile that the clouds of dust 
raised by it ,, concealed the brightness of the sun." This 
is rightly said in D itlva taccamuremir arkatejas tirodadhe. 
Br.'s text itiva tac ca bhurenuh etc. (sic) is unmeaning. 
96 na par am Muralanam sa sehe murdhasu nonnatim 

karair ahanyamanesu yavat kantakucesv opi. 
So D. In Br. to^fl being severed from kucesu is conside- 
red a word by itself, which caused T to misunderstand 
the meaning of the whole phrase *). There is no men- 
tion at all of tributes (kara) or other exaction by which 
the Muralas ,,were completely beaten down", but of their 
womankind. 'Not only', says the poet, 'he did not allow 
the Muralas to keep their heads high, he abated also 
the elevation of their women's breasts beaten down by 
their own hands (in mourning over their killed relatives)'. 

107 When Udayana set out to conquer the Northern region, 
he marched, says Somadeva, to the quarter made lovely 
by the smile of Kubera: K alias alias asublia yam aqam abJd- 
sasara sali. In Br.'s text this line is preceded by the words 
Kuberatilakam Alakam ahgaramsinim, manifestly epithets 
of the Northern quarter. Yet Alaka is Kubera's city , it 
is not synonymous with Kubera's quarter, and how to 
explain angacamsinlm^ D substituting one aksara (sa for 
ma) dispels this perplexity. It has : tatah Kuberatilakam 
Alakasangagamslnwi etc. 

20, 137 The terrible aspect of the witch Kalaratri is qualified 
by several epithets, among them nayanananavatolka. From 
D we learn that is should be vantolka casting forth 
flames out of her eyes and mouth". 

219 Yaugandharayana applying to king Brahmadatta the 
story he has told says to Udayana: 

tasmat tava sa rajendra jitvapy acaratali cubham 
Brahmadatto vilmrvita yadi, lianyas tvam eva tarn. 
So D. The apodosis in Br. is lianyeta sa 'eva tat (sic). 

*) Brockhaus himself tacitly omitted the difficult line in his translation. 

STUi>n:s MJOI.T TIM-; KATiiAMiiiTs.viAiiA. 103 

21, (>() The merchant Va-udatta be-t o\\ ed >o much wealth on 

his -on-iii-law, ;i king'- BOD, that his pride on account 
of his father'- splendour \ani-hed. Thi.- i- the meaning 
of the cloka as found in 1), whose second line is 
fi (/ a / f/ (I IttilitiiiKiitt) '.si/// t/a///d svapitrvaibha 

evidently preleiable to H firfi/ad etc. 

I H) ,,Narada s-:id that urn -hould obtain a son li\ propi- 

tiating (,'iva" (T I, 172). This is tin- purport of the 
line in Hr. 

Mere the. reader tacitlv corn-cts 
putrftiii, and tliis is found indeed in I). 

22, 38 Jlinutavahana , having got the perniiion of hi>iather 
Jlmutaketu, lu'sought his \vi>hinr-trec to di-pl;i\ it- won- 
derful power only to the benetit of others, in order that 
poverty should cease to be in the world. Accordingly ..the 
wishing-tree .... showered much gold on the earth, and all 
the people rejoiced (T)". The glory of that fact and the 
attachment of the people to JimutaVahana and his father 
filled the kinsmen of that prince with envy and hatred. 
They became hostile to Jlmutaketu, ,,they thought it 
would be easy to conquer that place, which possessed 
the excellent wishing-tree that was employed for bestowing 
gifts, on account of its not being strong (T)." If I 
rightly understand, the last clause must mean that they 
held the seat of the royal power for having lost its strength, 
since the wishing-tree instead of serving a> an in>trument 
for upholding the reigning dynasty had been assigned to 
different aims. But if Somadeva intended to say so, wh\ 
should he not state it explicitly? He is not aecti>tomed 
to an obscure style. The fact is that Br.'s text, which 
T had to follow, has here a reading hard to explain; 
for what may be the meaning of yuktaspadam in dnnv- 
payuktasatkalpavrk$ayukta8padam3 1) has nnikta instead 
of yukta. So the purport of the whole 9loka 

danopayuktasatkalpavrkqa m u k t u xpadam ca tat 
men ire ni^prabhavalvSJ jetmn xvkaraw eca ca 
becomes plain. 'They thought it would be easy to conquer 
that (kingdom, rfijyani in 9!. 37), as it had lost its strength 
on account of the cliange of place of the excellent wishing- 
tree now employed to bestowing gifts'. In 9!. 34 it has 
been narrated that the wishing-tree, at Jlmutav.'s request, 


showered gold on the earth. In order to produce this 
effect it is necessary that the kalpavrksa must have lifted 
up itself before from the earth into heaven. That this, 
in fact, is presupposed by the narrator of our tale, is 
fully demonstrated by comparing the other redaction of 
the story of Jimutavahana in the Kathasaritsagara, where 
that withdrawal to the celestial sphere is expressly stated, 
tar. 90, 27 foil. 

135 Instead of bkavan, which from a grammatical point of 
view is unimpeachable, but is not admissible, since it is 
not idiomatic to use b/tavan for san = w, D has naman. 
T's translation (I, 179 i. f.) is accordingly to be corrected 
thus : ,,But he, assuming heavenly garments and ornaments, 
<^bowed to me and> thus addressed me." 

200 Br. Patale tu pravestavyam na tvayci mandakarina,.\\\ 

T's translation: ,,But you must not act so foolishly as to 
enter Patala." Better than mandakarina, that necessitates 
a somewhat forced interpretation to make something not 
too absurd out of it, is D's reading mar dakarina. 'You 
must not enter Patala, pursuing your work of destruction', 
so Vasuki said to Garucla. Soinadeva uses mar da = mardana 
also 101, 362 and 108, 193. 

23, 50 I think we do better to assume with I) that Simha- 

parakrama made his repudiated wife a grasaikdbUugim 
whom he accorded her livelihood and nothing more, 
than that she became a grawaikcF (Br.), in T's trans- 
lation ,, after assigning to that Kalahakari one village only 
as her portion." Cp. the punishment inflicted by Canakya 
on the two wicked high officials in Mudraraksasa Act III 
(p. 135 ed. Bombay) *). 

24, 22 In Br.'s text the sentence cannot be construed, because 

there is no verb. D has the genuine reading pitra Kana- 
karekheti matrnamna krtatmaja (Br. nrpatmaja)*}. 
100 104 In the humorous relation of the pious conduct of the 
hypocrite devotee Civa D improves Br.'s text unquestio- 
nably in three places. At 100 b, where Br. has trisan- 
dliyum, a doubtful word both from a grammatical point 
of view and from that of the context, D reads: 
bliiksatrayam tatah]. . . cakre trih satyam ivakhandacah 

') tau. . . .maya Unkarabhyam avaropya svajlvanamutrenaiva stliapilau. 
2 ) Cp. 26, 174 Br. (= 176 D), another instance of perverted construction. D again has 
the intact shape of the sentence: ksanad apapyat savasam udyanagahanam mahat. 

8T1 DIBS Al'.oi T Till-, KATHlSABlTSAGABA. 105 

'In- divided the he^vd food. three hiindi'uls of rice, 
into three parts. just sis he broke ;i>umler the trutli'. 
(.1. 10:2 has in I) this ..hap 

/til nail xii xdi'rfi/ttijju/ii /n'juni (fan a //ami tva 
jfi/jfi/nt tn'firtfii/tiiiifiMi <-iram /////// //'//'.SY///W//V////. 

And inic I) has .sv/ t a trdvaijaySmSsa (Hr. 8arvah 
25, 1 '-\ D lias tasmin xmnuiili //7/v/ .not A/.v///^//. a- Hr.) a 
manifest correction. 

140 Line I) of this eloka is not only defective in Hr. , hut 

is also depraved by a t'aUe reading which obscures the 
meaning. T's translation (I, 211) ,,like the night adorned 
with the rays of the moon, now that the moon itself had 
set, its splendour having waned in the dark fortnight, 
come to worship the funeral pyre", rests on Hr.'- 
citarcaya. In D all is plain, for instead of r/A/'/w///^/ 
('to worship the fun. pyre!') it has c/ffiro/tf/i/f/. The wife 
who sits down on the earth near her empaled hu>l)and 
is duly compared to a night of the dark half of the 
month, at the time when the moon has set; hoth, in 
fact, are preparing to ascend the pyre that is to con- 
sume their husband, the woman after the death of the 
tortured man and Night in the glow of the approa- 
ching dawn : 

kr$napak$apdrik$ine gate 'stai/t rajimpatan 

ci tar oh ay a tadraqmramyam ru ////// ir/iy/i trim . 

169 ,,Let him therefore" says the queen in T's translation 
(I, 213), ,,be united to him, as a spring-creeper to its 
stalk." The image is bad, and contrary to the use of 
Indian rhetoric, that always compares the union of hus- 
band and wife to the creeper clinging to a tree. In fact, 
D has here, as must be expected , vrkjcnevartavi latil, 
not vrnfen , as in Br. 

183 D vikrlnano makamamsam grliyatam iti glioxayan , 
evidently the right reading, Br. has vikrlinte\ the present 
tense disturbs the structure of the phrase. 

:2 01 and 211 On both places the pronoun of the 2 d person has been 
ousted in Br. by a false reading. D has in the former 
place nkarxandya bhuyas te , where the personal pronoun 
is indispensable, whereas Br. bhuyas taw with an unne- 
cessary demonstrative. In the latter one D reads eka- 
t v a n n uparaspardh Id rill y a nay ana m way a. 

238 The absolute locative, that describes the dreadfulness of 


the evening-twilight, when the raksasas are roaming 
about, has in D this shape different from Br. : 
spliuraddlpavallda n t amala b hasv arabhlsane 
jrmbhamane maharaud re nig an aktamcaflmukhe. 
Br. , reading in pada a avalldka etc. failed to realize 
that here is meant the tooth-like row of flame-lines which 
diffuses some light in the fearful time of the commen- 
cing night. - By the same oversight Br. perverted 26, 
142 qvalidantamalam (adj. bahuvr.) into avalidhatamalam. 
Qaktideva is taken off to the temple of Candika to whom 
he is destined as a victim. Somadeva draws some outlines 
of the figure of that blood-thirsting goddess. ,,Her belly 
was enlarged as if it continually swallowed many lives", her 
face is compared to that of Death, but not of Death ,,de- 
vouring tamala with projecting teeth", as must be inferred 
from Br.'s text, but whose rows of teeth are adorned with 
bells", for so it is in D: khacadghantavahdantamalamziz. 
26, 20 Br. does injustice to Qaktideva, making him seize the 
branch of the fig-tree ,,in his terror". On the contrary, 
the hero was fearless , visadhvasah , as is edited in D instead 
of (Br.) 'tha sadhvasat. 

58 D calls the insolent girls who sprinkled the holy her- 
mit with water atinirbandhimh , a term more appropriate 
to the case, since they did so incessantly and with eager- 
ness, than atinirvartinlh (Br.), a strange and obscure 
expression in this place. 

96 The text of D takes away the difficulty of explaining 
etad in fair etannrpateU\ it exhibits pada a in this way: 
tais turn am nr pater agram, doubtless the true reading. 
114 The confusion of nirvartate and nivartate in mss. is 
common, cp. my observation in W. Z., XVI, 112. Here 
Br. has na nirvartante erroneously, D as it ought to be, 
na nivarlante. Again tar. 44, 107 Br. nivrtte is inver- 
sely corrected in D into nirvrtte, likewise 84, 27 and 
104, 150 !). 

136 Br. (= 138 D). Br.'s tatah disturbs the sense. The sons of 
Satyavrata did not say, as T must interpret from the 
text of B: Brahman, you went with our father to 
search here and there for the Golden City v etc.", but 
this: ,,At that time you went with our father to search 

*) At the former place D has nirurttodvahamahgala and at the latter nirvartitahar&h. 

STUDIES ABOUT Till-; K \TII.\- \ IMTS.ViA i;\. 107 

for the Golden City, and now von come back alone; 
how is thi-'r" In I) pada h i- cinvann iff/* tadft. 

229 Br. (= 2S1 D) The ascetic .lalapada, having received from 
I )c\adatta the rmbno taken out of the womb of the 
vaksim \'idyutj)ralili;i, deceived his mate and consumed 
the embno alone, after sending Devadatta away under 
some pretext , tut p&tayitvaiva garbham&msam, tlic reading 
of Br. T. translates ..the great BSCetic divided the child's 
flesh." But it is obvious that D's reading Int j> <i c <i i/'if- 
vaiva garbkamQmsam is preferable. .Jala pada cooked the 
fetus in the presence of Devadatta, then he caused him 
to withdraw that he might enjoy the benefit of eating 
that dismal food alone and immediately. 

233 Br. (= 235 D) Devadatta lamenting over the fold trick of 
.lalapada says among other things, ,,to whom does not 
excessive compliance entail misfortune:'' The Sanskrit 
original, here translated, is: 

yadi vatyantamrdutd na ka**i/a paribhutaye? 
To say nothing of the point, whether wrdutn 'softness, 
mildness' may be the equivalent of 'compliance', the 
reading of D 

yadi vatyantam rjuta na kasya paribhutaye 
is doubtless to be preferred. It is not 'excessive compliance' 
but 'excessive uprightness' that makes an honest man the 
dupe of scoundrels. 

259 Br. (= 261 D) In Br. the simile has been made incomprehen- 
sible by a bad reading; tikrxta/i satatak cannot be right, 
even if satatak is considered to be erroneously put for sa 
tatah. D has here : 

nkrstak sattvatah Siddfieh keqapaqa ivdyatak. 
The embryo drawn out by its neck is compared to the 
long hair of Fortune seized by the grasp of courage (sat tea fa//). 

279 Br. (== 281 D) After Qaktideva has become finally a vidyadhara 
and has recovered his four wives in the Golden Cit\ , 
his father-in-law, the king of the vidyadharas, bestow r s 
on him his kingdom. And before abdicating the old king 
performs also something else. What this is, is not plain 
from the text of Br., where the second half of this malim 
strophe has this shape: 

api ca krtinam cnam Cakfidevam svanamna 

vyadhita samudltena svesu vidyadharequ. 
T translates this: ,,and he gave the successful hero his 


name by which he was henceforth known among his 
Vidyadharas. The fact seems as strange as the Sanskrit 
expression of it ((^aktidevam svanamna vyadkita). D's text 
makes the matter sufficiently clear: 

api ca krtinam en dm (JaJctiv eg a m svanamna 

vyadkita samucitena svesu vidyadJiarequ , 
that is: he (the old king) changed the name of his son- 
in-law a little by transforming (its latter part) deva into 
vega, a common name with his vidyadharas. Names 
ending in -vega are frequent among that lofty people. 
So Madanavega in tar. 30 and foil., Manasavega 34, 106 
etc., Padmavega 64, 62 (ib. 58 Br. Padmavepa by 
mistake, D has Padmavega), another Madanavega 87, 7. 
27, 146 In Amaragupta's praise of hunting as an appropriate 
and useful pastime of kings , T translates Br.'stext: ,, hun- 
ting is approved to give them exercise and excitement, 
but warlike expeditions are not recommended" (I, 243). 
The strange second part of this sentence ought to be 
thus corrected: ,,for kings who have not exercised them- 
selves in the way of fighting are disapproved'' according 
to D yuddkadh vani na qasyante rajano hy akrtacrama/i. 

185 Br. paravat sac/a, D paravartmana. For any one who 
reads the whole story of Karabhaka it must be plain that 
it is D that exhibits the good reading. The woman whom 
K. has rescued so that she prefers him to her coward 
of a husband , prompts him to folio w her but ,,by 
another way" than that taken by her husband arid his 
company, of course. T (I, 245) has endeavoured to elicit 
some apposite meaning from Br.'s paravat sada ( though 
I passed for some one unconnected with her"), but that 
translation not only omits sada, but its content is less 
appropriate to the course of the tale. 

196 Br. tatrantah sthitayor nau ca, madliyaline tarn tadaiva sa 
mitram me bhratrjayayas tasya vecam [ vesani] akarayat. 
The beginning of this cloka is to be accepted , according 
to the interpunctioii, as an absolute locative, but what 
has the awkward mentioning of midday-time in parenthesi 
to do here? MadkyaJme is corrupt. D reads mad by ad 
etam tadaiva sa. In fact not the absolute locative is here 
wanted, but sthitayor nau ca are two genitives to be 
construed with madliyatKX\&. either significative of two couples, 
,,as the two women and w^e two [the two brahmans] stayed 


tin-re," or the meaning is ,,as we two also stayed there/' 

28, (').") The singular conduct of tin; yakginls, the tViends of 

the jipsaniN liambha. who in order to benefit the king. 
her lover, till up his land with heap- of gold by ., trans- 
forming thcm>el\e> into trees" (T I, 250), seems to in- 
due to a misread rrx/(iir\ Hi', took it for ///*,///. The 
\aksims poured down the gold ns rain from heaven, a 
'well-known Indian rhetorical ini; 

29, 02 In Hr. this eloka is thus edit..! : 

(ij(ir<il)Ii<ij(iiul)linf<jiii In HI a i ranta (sie) Svayctmprabks. 
Svayamprabha takes her leave from Somaprabha. This is, 
however, impossible, since it is she who had called upon 
Svayamprabha, with her friend Ksilinirax-na. In fact,itis 
Kaliiigasena , who takes leave , as is plain from I ) : 

ajarctbhdjariibh u tum l<im n prqt &8va$amprabh a m 

Kalingasenam aropya ycintre etc. 

I have connected the two parts of the bahuvrihi which 
closes the first line , in D they are by mistake separated 
(cp. supra, p. 92). Cp. also supra, p. 88. 
150 Klrtisena, having overheard the conversation of the 
Rakasi and her children about king Vasndatta's disease 
and the means to cure it, reflects that she may avail 
herself of that knowledge and save the life of that king 
who deserves it, for ,,he takes but small duties" from 
the merchants. In Br. this deliberation is made obscure 
by a fault; in 9!. 150 etam ecfifdcini 90 ' Ipaqulkak pran- 
tasthito vahih the ace. has no verb to rely upon, and 
bahih after prantastUtali is a tautology. Better I ) : 
etam evuhicim so 'lpa(;ulkdli pranfast&ifo 'cati, 
= ,,by the small duties he takes he is a bliss for this 

31, 3 Kaliiigasena tells her friend Somaprabha that her father 

wishes to give her in marriage to Prasenajit, who is an 
old man, but Udayana, so she says, the kingofVatsa, 
is young and handsome, you have told me, ,,so first 
shew me Pras. , and then take me there, where the king 
of Vatsa is" (T I, 276). In the original text batlinrupe 
defies the hermeneutical art ; T's rendering by ,,in the 
course of conversation" cannot be approved of. D makes 
the yloka intelligible, which runs thus: 

Vatsecas tu y a i 1i a rupe tcayaica kattifas ttitlia 
Irtam tena yatha manal , 


,,but you have described the beauty of the king of 
Vatsa in such a way that - ." 

27 and 29 D restores the true reading of two clokas, which are 
obscure in Br/s text. Citralekha has delivered to Aniruddha 
the love-message of Usa, and having excited thereby his 
eagerness to see Usa, she takes him up to her, ,, looking 
exactly as he had before appeared in Usha's dream", as 
T (I, 277) endeavoured to render B's text: 

dddya cdttatadrupam svapndvatdra eva tarn ; 
yet it is plain that neither of the two compounds 
attatadrupam and svapnavatare properly convey the 
meaning given to them in the translation. D has adciya 
cattatadrup asv ap navr ttantam eva tarn = ,,took him , 
having made him know the story of her dream, just as it 
was." - Her joy when beholding him is thus described apud 
T. 1. 1. When Usha beheld that Anir. arrived in bodily form, 
resembling the moon , there was a movement in her limbs 
resembling the tide of the sea" ; a note at the bottom of 
the page informs the reader that ,,veldtd is evidently cor- 
rupt". So indeed it is. Instead of ofrrriFTT D has ^fFTFTT- 
The cloka is very plain in D, where it runs thus: 
so, drqtvaivAniruddham tarn U$a sakqad upagatam 
amrtamcum ivambodhiv e I a nahge^v avartata 
= ,,when U. beheld A. arrived in bodily form, her 
limbs could not contain the emotion within her, as little 
as the seatide can do so under the influence of the moon". 
Accordingly the hypothetical expedient of Bohtlingk (PW VI, 
1375, s. v. vela) falls away. The expression nahgesv 
avartata to signify an exuberant sudden joy is well-known. 
A variation of it occurs t. 110, 112: Kalihgasena tarn 
drstva jamataram athatmajam / trailoTcye 'pi na mati sma 
svesv ahgesu tu ka katha (cp. also supra, p. 66). 
35 D anayat param better than B anayet param. T's 
translation 'might take up a strange man' is not wholly 
inconsistent, but the imperfect tense does better. 

32, 56 Br. = 55 D is a general sentence, incorporated by Bohtlingk 
in his ,,Indische Spriiche", who translates it thus : ,,Wenn 
ein Weiser unter vielen Toren gerath, so ist er sicher 
verloren, wie eine Wasserrose, die auf den Pfad der 
Wellen gerath." This ,,Pfad der Wellen" answers to 
pathas tarahganam of the text of Br. T, who rests on 


the smie text, has likewise: ,,A single wi>e man fallen 
among many fools, like a lotus in the path of the waves , 

i- sorely overwhelmed/' Hut it ix n,,t in tin- oi' 
San.skrit rhetoric to employ comparison- of *\n-\\ an arid 
character, and 1'urtlicr tin- plural pallia* cannot be 
accounted for. Mow nnicli better the eloka appear- in D: 

eh) lifilivntiiii umrlJuiiiiini inadlii/c /lipalifi, Ituillnili 

padmak pallia* tarn ////// ///-//// /'/v/ ci/j/acatf d lira ram . 
So \ve get a well elaborated Mimle and, at the same 
time, a pun. The one wise man fallen amonir many fools 
is like a lotus fallen on the waves. Either of them ciplaraf,', 
the wise man because he comes into distress, the lotus 
inasmuch as it floats about on the back of the waves. 
Pat/i as = 'water' is quoted in the Petr. Diet, from our 
author twice, 27, 122 and 73, 194; it is also met with 
102, 54 and 103, 57. 

87 Br. = 80 D is thus rendered: ,,Whom will not a wicked woman 
kill, when won over by another man, like a sword in 
an enemy's hand, since enticed by love she commits reckless 
crime without being taught" (T I, 285). The last three 
words look rather odd in this connection. Yet T rendered 
faithfully Br.'s reading acikqitrr, D has araiikita without 
any scruple", doubtless right. 

35, 58 A misreading of what he found in his mss., is the 
cause, it seems, of Jcanthakaih put by Brockhaus for 
kandukaih. By the vicious reading the pun is lost. D ha>: 

utpatadbhih patadbfriq ca hany.amanaik svapSnind. 

dram mrgaig ca simJiaic ca kndttva k an dak air lea. 

The king killing in the sport of the chase antelopes 
and lions makes the impression as if he played with 
-balls; utpatati denotes the 'rising up' of the wounded 
or hunted deer and at the same time the 'jumping' of 
the ball; both patatiti, the animals, when hit and unable 
to arise from the ground, the balls, when coming down. 

37, 85 The elegance of the expression is enhanced, if we read 

with 1) rag in stricitfani etmlrk, where ragin is a vocative. 
Br. has raoistricittam. 

38, 28 The hetaera Madanamala conjectures that the Rajput 

who visits her must be a person of high condition for 
the reason given in this cloka, which has in Br. this form: 
sd tarn kakskyusu sdkilta-nircraiiita-ltayddikam 
qrutvd parijanad, inatvd pracchannam kamcid uttamam. 


T thought the adj. nirvranita must convey this meaning , 
that the king in disguise by his appearance alone cured 
wounded horses and other animals. So he translated the 
cloka accordingly (I, 348), adding in a note a parallel 
taken from one of the romantic stories about Launcelot. 
Yet such cures are wholly out of place in our passage, 
which treats of the horses and elephants of a rich hetaera 
in the style of Vasantasena (Mrcchakati act. IV) not of 
war-horses, and of a king who never is represented as a 
possessor of supernatural power. T himself remarks that, 
with this acception of the text, sakuta cannot be trans- 
lated, but reading sakutam, as he does with one MS, 
implies the necessity of construing that adverb with crutva, 
something improbable on account of the distance which 
separates both words. Now it appears from D that B's 
nirvranita is nothing but a misread nirvarnita: 

sa tain kaksyasu sakutanirvarnitahayadikam etc. 
T's translation should, therefore, be amended thus : ,,She 
having heard from her attendants that, as he passed 
through the zones, he contemplated with interest the 
horses and other animals". Now it is indifferent whether 
we read sakuta or sakutam. 

103 (Br.) sa tasmai veda-samkliydtdn dadau suvarna-pum- 
bhujdn can mean nothing else but 'she gave him the arms 
of golden men , which arms are counted (or : enumerated) 
in the Veda (or: Vedas)'. This purport does not at all 
suit the course of the tale. For this reason, to get at 
least something intelligible out of it, T translated the 
line quoted: ,,she gave him as many arms of the golden 
figures as he knew Vedas", and this Somadeva has doubtless 
meant, cp. vs. 118. Yet the proper expression is found 
in D: veda-samkby akan. Some verses below (106) D 
has arajaraksite ksemam nasmin me kancane b/iavet. 

39, 106 It is plain that (D) samgliatayati is the true reading, 

not (B) samghattayati, the meaning being 'he assembles'. 
And vs. 118 (D) ksipram seems preferable to (Br). ksemam. 

40, 21 Qakra admonishes a brahman who thinks he may acquire 

wisdom without learning and study by mere tapas, 
that he is wrong striving after something impossible. 
Such a wish, says he, is like longing for writing without 
letters, painting in the air or horns of a hare. Br. is 
here totally corrupt, the first pada rupyam caqavisHne va 

STUDIES ABOUT Till, k kTHASAKFESlG \i:\. 1 1 :J 

defies interpretation, cp. '!"> note on I. -\~iO. I 
difficulty disappears in |). which lias 

/'// (I i/t (VAY//-/AV/,/ i' r r li (i VyOtni t I'll kill fti: 

nmikxarn l> [tim/nxo i/ml vidy&dkyayanam > 
This eloka is found witli the self-aim- \\ords in Ksemeii 
Ui-liatkathamanian . XIV. :\\'2 (p. 1 ( JO of the printed 
edition). I'm- the rot cp. Hhartrhan Nitie. stan/a 4. 
34 The words with which Maruhhuti. that drunk and 

quarrelsome fellow, addresses (iomukha convej a conve- 
nient meaning in I), which in Br. has been lo-t owing 
to bad readings. T (I, 371) translates: ..There is power 
in the speech of G., but there i- IK. mi-ht in the aim- 
of men like you. A garrulous. (pian-eNnnie. effeminate 
person makes heroes blush." This is a unx.d rendering of Br. 

balam Gomukha-vdcy eva, na In fniliror him //. 

vdcdlali kd hi lii kite (I* Irajjdkrld bdhufdfcnam . 
but it has a strange purport. A /////Vs ///o/vV/.v//.v. like 
Marubhuti, never would avow that a pirrulous poltroon, 
as he takes Gomukha, should make him blush! In 1) the 
pada c is vaculaih kalahal; klihaili. Adopting this reading 
and dissolving Br/s compound Gomukkavaci into two 
separate words, we get the genuine form of our eloka : 

balam Gomukha vacy eva na tu bnhcur 

vacalaih kalaJta // klibais irapnkrd 
,,Men like you, G., have only strength in their tongue, 
not in their arms. It is blameful for heroes to quarrel 
with effeminate braggarts". 

53. 54 The physician to whom the old king Vilasaella applie- 
to make him young again is a cunning fellow; he pro- 
mises to fulfil his wish, but only under this condition 
that the king shall remain for eight months in an under- 
ground room alone. The ministers, who do not trust the 
matter, dissuade the king. ,,In days of old, they >a\ . 
there existed herbs etc. which had the power of rejuve- 
nating, but nowadays such a thing is impossible". The 
argument with which they assert that "opinion is vitiated 
in Br. by several corruptions. restores its true form , 
as follows: 

adyatve ca c nit tiny ecu rasruiij eiuni blivpate 

samagryabhavat kurcant'i if at prati/uln viparyayam. 53. 

fan na i/nktam idam; dlmrtnli kfidanty eca kibalifaih. 

kirn deva xartatikrrmtain uyaccliati punar cayali: ~>[. 

NVrh.-ind. Kon. Akad. v. \VKenscli. AM. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N u : 


,,But in the present time, king, these elixirs 1 ) are 
only heard of [= they do not exist in reality], and owing 
to the want of proper materials , produce the opposite 
effect to that which is intended. For this reason, it is 
not ft [t-o do] so [as the physician advises] ; for rogues 
do in this way make sport with fools, etc." I have 
italicized the phrases, which correct T's translation, the 
rest is given with his own words. 

81 The cunning physician having succeeded in persuading 
the king to shut up himself in a subterranean abode, 
made king in his place a young man , named Ajara. 
Rut king Ajara shows little gratefulness to the physician, 
though he honours him , and avoids to take his advice 
about state-affairs. The physician in his uneasiness once 
reminds Ajara that it was he who made him king , 
whereupon the other answers, 'you are wrong: it is not 
you' but my praktanam karma that gave me this royal 
power'. At these words the physician is perplexed and 
reflects in this manner, as I literally quote from T's 
translation (I, 374): ,,This man is not to be intimidated 
and speaks like a resolute sage. It is better to overawe 
that master, the secret of whose character is instability, but 
that cannot be done with this man , so I must submit 
to him." I do not understand the purport of the words 
I have italicized, which seem to be the endeavour to a 
faithful translation of Br.'s yad fahasyam taranoatvam, a 
clause rather unmeaning, in my opinion. Here, too, D 
removes the difficulty. The cloka is edited there in 
this shape : 

yad rahasy (intarahcjatvam svfimisamvananam param 
tad api ksamate nasminn. amivartyas tad esa me. 
Its purport is quite different. ,,Even the most excellent 
means to gain one's master's favour, the possessing a 
secret in common is useless with this man ; so I must 
submit to him". 

42, 166 D tad grliawa tvam evaitatkhadgam, nistrimcakarmikam 

atyaktajatidharmam mam etenaiva nipataya 
(cp. T I, 387, 2) ,,so take you his sword etc.", mani- 
festly a correction of Br.'s text, where nistrimcakarmikam 
is quite unmeaning. 

*) Perhaps we should correct rasyani [= rasavanti}. T's MS has ramyani (see his 
note at I, 372). 


13, 248 ThU L^iti >t;m/a in Hr. i- troubl. the wonU 

rib/Hixifftiit sudafdrhakiUenajaladkm eannot be understood. 

T \v;is iit ;i los> liow to translate tin-in. B66 hi- H(' 
I, 402. All heeome- plain in I) : 

sarve ca <te mbh^itaSudcuflrhakvlena jcdadhim <iLramya 
8aiH"/ifi/irt(iiit xrti/id/imi ri/(iki(uii sodoryamUriim timr/fixi/fi 
ajarftnganti$atayut8m ni/nhim (/////'//// ivSbhyanan ///. 

= ,,;iii(l they all welcomed her \i/ karpurika; ar 
with her hushnnd (\;ir;i\;ihan;idatt;i ,. the (rnai: .,:iit of 
the illust lions family of the Daearhas. wliu had brought 
her over sea, as a manite-tntion of the \erv 
of the fii/irffi , yea as if she were Qrl accompanied 
with a hundred of ever young nymph^". The riir'nt 
acceptation of the epithet vibhfyita is secured hy the 
comparison of 107, 40, cp. PWK VII, 147 s. v. 
sudcqarhakula. Though Naravahanadatta is a descen- 
dant of Arjuna, not of Krsna see our author 9, 

G he is reckoned to belong to the family of the 

259 Br. wnila-gag(mfyatdgamana-kkedaK is rendered by T 

(I, 403) Naravahanadatta], having made his parh of 
air-travellers forget the fatigues of the journey". The 
inelegant agglutination agat&gamana disappears in D, 
where the compound has this shape cinltuyw;' 
gamanakhedah. As \& gagancingana = 'the wide firmament , 
the sky' cp. Apte's Dictionary s. v. aitganu. 
201 Instead of Br. bliuktvd ' irfhir<itn , which is no Sanskrit 
at all , to convey the meaning required here ^immediately 
after (he) had taken food" (T I, 403), D has bhukto- 
ttaram, as usual. Cp. 44, 107. 73, 15. 11 I. 51. 121, 
2. ]23, 52. It is only in the last three places that Br. 
has edited the word as it ought to be; 44, 107 we 
find again bhuktca '-uttaram and 73 , 15 even blniktetaram. 
Cp. also Ksemendra (p. 329) IK, : :>19. (p. 542) 
XVI, 17. 
44, 65 etat krtva (Br.) is a mere slip of the pen, it seems, 

for etac c/irutcn (D), which is required. 

108 Prahasta relates to his master his conversation with 
the king of Qnkantha. In Br. his relation begins with 
this half-cloka : 

deva fylkan(havi$aye prablum samyataran a/mm 
where the ace. prabhum is a syntactical monstrum, the 



instrum. being wanted. It is plain that D's text, where 
that line runs thus : 

. deva Qnkanthavisay e prabhr a man gotavan aliam , 
has the right reading, and it is highly probable that 
Brockhaus has misunderstood his mss.; prabhum samyata 
and prabhraman gata may be very like to each other in 
the mss. he had at his disposal. T's translation (I, 410) 
must accordingly be thus modified: ,,King, in the 
course of my wandering I arrived in the country of 

133 When king Janamejaya of Kaucarnbi performs the 
marriage ceremony of his daughter with prince Suryaprabha, 
Br.'s text contains the memorable fact that ,,he made 
such a feast , that even the realm of Pluto was exclusively 
engaged in music and dancing" (T I, 411): 

cakre ca vddya-nrittaika-yama-lokam mahotsavam. 
What, may be asked, had king Yama to meddle there- 
with? Nothing at all, indeed. In D he disappears with 
his realm, it is there simply said, that ,,he made a great 
festival to his guests, which entirely consisted of music 
and dancing" == cakre ca vadyanrttaikamay am loka- 
maho tsav am. 

176 D = 177 Br. has koshtham instead of kottam (D). The same 
error (in Br.) and correction (of D) 49, 68. 

186 D ~- -- 187 Br. is thus translated by T (I, 414): ,,Then Sakala, 
inhabited by that fortunate one, appeared glorious, as 
if the chiefs of the gods , of the followers of Kuvera , 
and of the snakes had made in it many deposits of much 
wealth." If, however, we read with D in pada c : sura- 
Dhanada-b h uj ag a-n aga raih (in stead of bhujanga-varaiJi) , 
this nrya stanza will contain a more convenient meaning : 
. . . .appeared, by its great wealth and heavy treasures, 
as if it were made up of the cities of the Gods, of 
Kubera, and of the Snakes, put together". In pada b 
(D) Wiogina is preferable to (Br.) bhagina. 

45, 183 Prince Sunshine (Suryaprabha) is described lying alone, 
without any of his many wives , on his couch sleepless. 
The reason of his sleeplessness, says the poet, was that 
Sleep (Nidra) herself was angry at him saying to herself, 
'what is the use of this unloving man, who leaves his 
wives outside?" (T I, 423). The original in Br. is: 
nihsnehena kirn efana sva-priyds tyajatd vahih?" 

STUhll- \i;oi T Illl. KVIll LamTSAGARA 

/'// '//v/ ///V//V/-.Y//V nitii/ixifn V/Y///-< 

Mere the compound ///V//v/-.v//-/ i> SUSpicioUB, T translates 
it 'the goddos o!' sleep", hut nidi'ti . brinii- a feminine 
noun, does not \vani the addition of */// for the sake 
of personification, and ///'/y/.v//^/ in connection with the 
words following inii-t impl\ the mraninir that Surya- 
prablia slept alone habit iialh ; yet, he did >o that nurht 
exceptionally. Much better i> the reading of the second 
line in 1 ) : 

i hra j/K/f" 8 trinity asy aikasy Spy <i*i/<i //////^///^/// 
with this appropriate meaning: ..The Sleep-deit\ Nidrd. 
thus (considering) did not come to him who was in the 
habit of female cornpain, though he was alone." 
207 I) confirms the correction made by T on account of 
his MS, and moreover restores in pada c the true reading 
In r a ^(K-i/afti caiqo 'pi (viz. rupam). See T's note on I, 424. 
46, 28 Br. has here drtfcn instead of dixtyn (D), ti not untre- 

quent clerical error. 

52 foil. The two rival hosts of the Asuras, who favour Surya- 
prabha , and of the Vidyadharas, the followers of Qrnta- 
carman, are to meet together at the place named Valmika. 
in order to witness the appearance of a sign of future 
domination. The lakmna of the future Cakravartin over 
the realm of the Vidyadharas will there be visible. AY hat 
that sign shall be, is not expressed in Br.'s text. In the 
sequel (vss. 62 85) it is narrated that this sign shows 
itself a quiver, appearing at first in the shape of a ser- 
pent. Neither Qrutacarman nor any of his men was able 
to lay hold of it, but Suryaprabha seized it. and in that 
very moment it changed into a priceless quiver. Now 1) 
names the quiver already in vs. 52, it lias in pada < 
I (in am instead of tarnam (Br.). And in 53 it reads 
sainyasamvidkina, whereas Br. has&zt/^c. *tu'id/ii/in. Both 
variants are real emendations, as clearly appeals, if we 
transcribe the two clokas in full and modify T's trans- 
lation accordingly : 

/V/.w////// cotpadyate tatra lakxaiidnt cakravartinak 
fo/tatii. Vidymllmrri r/rniti tdtki'tc alfrn I run fif/ii/n. (52) 
era m Sumeruna prokte saint/ a # a /// r / d // i n <~i din am 
nltca pratar t/ayi's tat te Valmlkam sahala rathaih. (53) 
(T I, 136) ,,And on that day there is produced there a sign 
to shew the future emperor, a quicer, and for that reason 


the Vidyadharas are going there that day. (I, 437) After 
Sum era had spoken thus, they spent that day with the 
arrangement of the army, and went on the morrow to 
Valmika in chariots with their army." I have italicized 
my modifications. As to samvidhi, cp. 115, 8. 
159 Br. yd ca 'agamy a lirild judteh Sunitlia-tanayd tvayd. 
The singular jnateh is strange to express ,,your carrying 
off from her relations", as T (I, 441) necessarily trans- 
lates; the connection of the tale excludes here the mention 
of but one relative. Better is D hrtajnate == 'carried off 
stealthily [= hrta -|- ajnate].' 

47, 97 The trifling absence of one vowel-sign has perverted 
the meaning of the second line of this cloka in Br. A 
great and undecisive battle has taken place. The night 
has put an end to it. The wives of Suryaprabha who 
have to deplore the loss of relatives fallen in that battle 
meet together in the night to console each other. ,,But 
even on that melancholy occasion \rudit avasare\ they 
indulged in miscellaneous conversation." For, as the poet 
adds with a gnomic turn (Br.) : 

strmdm na ca ksano yatra na kathasv apardcraydh. 
It is not easy to understand the last word. Paracraya 
and its negation aparacraya, whether taken as a tatpu- 
rusa or as a bahuvrlhi, seem to be out of place here, 
nor will apara (== other) -|- aqraya. (resting place, support) 
be of use. T, translating the line thus : ,, there is no 
occasion on Avhich women are not irrelevant in their talk" 
(I, 451), has analysed the compound, it seerns, in this 
way a -f- para (high[est]) -f- aqraya = resting on [i.e. 
treating of] not high [= irrelevant] (matter)". But this 
interpretation is forced. The reading of D satisfies better 
and gives to the saying of Somadeva its very point. 
D has: 

strmam na ca ksano yatra na katha sv ap u r a c r a y a ; 
the meaning of -which is, T think, there is no occasion 
on which women would not talk of the c/tronique scan- 
daleuse of their town". 
114 It is clear that D prasadhanojjvala is preferable 

to Br. prasddena 'ujjvald. 
49, 24 Br. darcaydmdsa sac-cdstra-vidyd api sa tatkramdt. 

That this verse introduces the episode of Gimacarman, 
the gifted minister, displaying his skill at arms, appears 

-li hll- \i;oi I THE K Mil LSARITSlGARA. 1 1 ( -> 

fl-Olll tllC MMjIlr! I'nr llll> IVa-Oll there ran I,. IK) l> i> right reading in-!* ;i<l "I tacchOstravidya - 
a Strange turn to express ^kill in the nobler >tudirs' 
('I' I, 100) - fastraatrtwidyd. ..hi> >kill in hand- 
ling Imth kind of weapon Mriking and throwing". 

Similarly at el. v D 1m- tin- good reading kafafastrfc 

xlriirid , wh Te \\l. Trad- /v/A/r^.v//v/.v 1,-nrnl. 

foil. I cannot account tor ko^anibandhsdi in \>. HiO. the 
reading of Itotli I) and \\v. , l>nt there can he no donht 
as to the purport of this \\ord. \\hetln-r it be corrupted 
or incornipted. Hut the following <;l>kas (103 108) 
which are (piite ohscni-e in Hr. , recover their proper 
meaning in T3. T did not know how to translate them 
well and adopted Hr.'s conjecture that there must be a 
gap after 104, cp. the note of Brockhan> on p. '2- 
his edition of ,,Huch VI, VII, VIII" (Leipzig, 1862). 
l ; roin I) it appears, however, that nothing is wanting. 
I write out its text: 

hnn cfi koQambandh&di Gfun/fint /v//r////////// nrpam 

(103) visasarja sa dutam svam guphtm <iplanj dvyfidtamoA. 
him drxh-ii tutni stldas tarn apto rfijanam MtyaMUt: 

(104) aliani te and/ttn/fiutt/ chit '>-<lr//am . ///^//7//^/-.y///^//// /cr thrift . 
ity uh'lcii bandhayitva him *Y/ dutdnj Guna^arMonak 

(105) sudo mantra* nitim nik*nnn ifirit/f'n/ vijadayakak. 
tanmadlye ca palf/yi/aiva tato niryatya bandhnm'it 

(100) Guna$armantikam duta* tadu/ali .yo 
ten&dhjgatovrttantenoktoa AY//VV//// AY/ 

(107) sudo maliuiKixc *xnifjfi(iiH /irftcixfu Gunagarwane 1 ). 
tato jTirifcri xa dlmrtciKi xnpakrd brahwabcmdkund 

(108) viqadanodyafas tcna t 'nbli yam needy a gkatitak. 
The few corrections in 1.) are important enough to 

substitute a clear and consistent account for the confused 
and obscure facts, involved in Br. and to dispel the 
difficulty mentioned by Krockhaus 1.1. ,,auch fehlt ein 
Moment in der Erzahhmg, etc." It i> in el. 104, not 
105, that the cook of the Gauda king is spoken of at 
the first time. Queen Aeokavati. in her anger against 
the faithful minister Gunacarman who had declined her 
propositions of love , makes a false report of him to king 
Mahasena, her husband , telling him this invented story 

') So already proposed by conjecture by T, cp. bis note 2 on 1, 464. 


of herself: Gunacarman had despatched one of his servants 
as a messenger to the Gauda king to make a bargain 
for the sake of treason. Thereupon the cook of the Gauda 
counselled his lord to commit to himself the work of 
killing Mahasena by poison; so he might reach his aim 
without loss of money (marthaksayam krthah 104). The 
cook then, after persuading his master and making him 
cast into prison Gunacarman's messenger, that the secret 
could not transpire (mantrasrutim raksan 105), set out for 
Ujjayini to perform his purpose. In the meanwhile the 
messenger made his escape from prison, succeeded in 
coming back to Gunacarman and told him that which 
had happened. Thus informed G., realizing that he could 
make no profit by the murder of Mahasena, his master, 
overtook the cook in the royal kitchen, in which he had 
entered already and denounced him and so had him 
put to death". 

The only difficulty that remains is in the first pada 
of 106. If the text is genuine, it is l ly said that the 
messenger ran away and made his escape or even more 
literally, made his escape from prison after running aivay 
and 2 ly tanmadhye = ,,in the meanwhile". Both state- 
ments are improbable: the former implies an awkward 
mode of expression and a vrrspov Trporspcv opposite to the 
habits of Sanskrit composition; as to the latter, tanma- 
dhye is not synonymous with atrfintare and cannot have 
another meaning but ,,in the midst (amid) of it (them)". 
I propose to correct the evident corruption by conjecture: 

ta dr a k a c ap aly en a iva tato nirgatya bandhanat 
,,afterwards (tataJi), having made his escape from 
prison in consequence of the negligence of his gaoler(s}" . 
This correction restores the sense and is not inconsistent 
with the paleographical account of the origin of the 
depravation of the text. 

120 1) = 121 Br. ,,For in the beginning wicked women sprang 
from Lying Speech". So T (I, 464) translates the line 
which in B runs thus : 

dddv asatya-vacandt papa jdtd hi kustriyah. 
The double designation of the wicked women by papah 
and by ku- makes us suspect the genuineness of the 
transmitted words. D, indeed, has this. different wording: 

adav asatyavaca nam pace aj jata hi kustriyah 

8T1 DIES \i;ui i TIM, K LTHiSAKHBiG \I;A 

= ,.l ; or in the beginning L\ing Speech wa- born, 
thereafter wicked women 

22J 229D = 229 :J:U Br, In lour pla<v> of the . plokaa 

D's le\i greath improve- l>otli the -t\le and ti 

It ha- 227) * " k /t fi nt and nnit'lui xi/ [aa T alread\ 

proposed, I. 170 n. 1| in.-tead of .wv////y/// and cmir/i/iti/ 

(Br.) ; (228 tade*a for a eftwio Hr. : 281, wliere Br. 
//w/v AV///A, ha- It-It out a full word [cp. .V/////Y/, p. O x . 
it fills up the L'ap. readily t'^llin -" ] na to^>yut 
Accordingly T's tran>latioii (T, 470) is to he modified 
in such a manner as I indicate In italicixing my correc- 
tions. ,,And as lor your *///>///// for Jiti/jjti/H'** //// ///y/'///- 
t/o/tiiiy the body, in this al-o you arc led a-tray, tor in 
the next world suicide- -iifier more severe pain- than 
here. Therefore, this folly /* unhecomin^ fit one so 
young and wise as you are: decide tor your-elt : you 
must certainly do what I tell you. 1 will have made for 
you here a spacious and beautiful subterranean dwelling; 
marry Sundari and live at ease in it /////v/o//V. 
50, 4 T has very well seen that (jir<ir<l ajri (Br.) cannot be 
right. The wild Qabaras have nothing to do in this 
battle of Asuras and Vidyadharas. lie was also right in 
supposing, that the arrows are meant, not the wild 
forest-tribes. D reads the pada t/ia/lti/d/t / c * m d card 

c7 t/ 

api ,,even the arrows (shot by the two hosts) fought 
with each other". 

54 Krali ma counselling Indra to make peace with his foes 

ends his speech with the words, rendered by Til. 1/1 
thus: ,, These are now favoured by Siva, so it is not 
now a time of victory for you, make peace with your 
foes". The original concluding line is in Br. : 

tad na 'oi/fiin jdya-kqlo culi, samdhim kurv.tti vigrakaih. 
I do not think, T intended to make a literal rendering 
of the last word, which is here quite unmeaning, for 
neither ,,with wars", nor ,,with bodies" what other 
meaning can rnjraliaili purport: i> consistent with 

the context. Now, D once more restores the sense. It 
has: sanidhim kurula kin) grahaih? = ,,make peace: 
what is the use of fighting r" This meaning of f/ralta is 
registered in PAA\ s. v., IT, <-. r ..Kampfanstrengung = 

on l v testified to from dictionaries, cp. 


also PWK, IT, s. v. II, c, 3", where the sphere of this 
signification is extended. 

1) 157 -- - Br. 158 Here, too, D's text is decidedly preferable: 
tatraitam ca g h a n a c leqadacanacchadnkhandanaih 
tyajayitvd canair lajjam navodhosulabham tata/i. 
Br. has cumbandqlesJta and vydjayitvd canaih Jcantdm 
navodhdm su '. And in 158 (D) =^159 (Br) we read 
ratam anasvaditam any ah hy ah, for andsdditam. 
52, 185 T (I, 503 in fine) ,,Then Jivadatta rose up delighted 
and praised Durga". Here B has nutdmbikah. If it had 
been possible that T knew the reading natambilah (so D), 
he would have preferred it, I think, and translated 
and bowed to Durga" which is more adapted to 
the situation. Moreover the use of nuta- in this very 
connection, though irreproachable by itself, seems some- 
what uncommon. 

54, 60 T (I, 528) After remaining there for four days thus 
occupied" = evani sthitvd 'atra caturo divasdn (Br.). D has 
a more elegant turn: evani sthitvd tricaturan divasan. 
' for three or four days'. 

235 The second part of this cloka is a sententious saying 
of the poet on the occasion of the capture of some queen 
by the king after vanquishing her husband and making 
him a prisoner. Her he put into his zenana and she 
underwent that change of husbands rather willingly; for, 
says Somadeva, 

kamamohapravrttanani cabala dharmavasana. 
So I), Br. has capala, not cabala. I think, D is right, 
and translate the sentence in a manner somewhat diffe- 
rent from T (I, 536): ,,in those who act up to their 
desires (karna) or their delusion (m o h a) the impressions 
of virtue (d h a r m a) are impure [properly : variegated , 
spotted, viz. have lost their white, pure colour]". 

230 D evam bahun api ripUn r a b h a s apravrttan . . . jayati 
is doubtless better than Br. samar apravrttan ; that it is 
a victory 'in the front of battle' is expressed by samyu- 
yamurdhni in pada d and is not in need of another 
tautological expression. 

241 In Br. nindya samf/itarasdf/dtdm tathd / nicdm sa gay an 

svayam angandsakhah etc. the second word is difficult to 
analyse without hurting either the grammar or the sense. 
T's (1, 537) translation, therefore, is philologically speaking, 

-I i DIES \i;oi I 'I in-: k \ni AMKI CBlG \i;\ 
insufficient ; %aniff\tara8(igatft mt-a i> not adequate to a 

..night, which W;IN tlcrnli'tl to tin- amiM-ment ofaCODO 

I) luis, ill<l<vl, ;i ditl'ereiil reading itnt<i>/<i *<i miji hi r <i .> n r 

ni ft/,ii etc.; ,,afl In- w;i- loud ni' mu-ic, he -pent that 

night etc." 

55, 1) MITOIICOIIS division of OIK- \\ord into two ,mirkltn 

hlitirah instead of iniirklnihli'irali - impair." the under- 
handing of \ara\ahanadatta'- reproach of Marabhuti that 
he has answered with a joke the claim of hi> -er\ant, 
wlhe wa^vs lie had not paid. T- I initiation of this line 
(I, 537) ,,vvhat are von thinking about , uu fool'r Jfoui 
intentions are not o\er-ereditaUe" depend- on \\\. In D 
the line has this form : 

///// ci-fiiif mUrkhabhSua* /<' nQdkikeyam mnlix (>. 
I take both sentences for interrogations and translate 
thus: ,,Is your stupidity (still) snchr Does your wit not 
exceed it?" 

27 T, rendering this eloka into English, subjoins in a 
note (I, 538) ,,the puns here defy translation." The poet 
uses here the rhetorical figure named parisamkhyS. In 
Br. it encompasses three links, but in 1) theie are four. 
It is obvious that D's reading: 

yatra bandlmli kavigiram rf/eda// /W//v.y adrqyata 
bhahyo 'lakequ nnrhinni sasyasanujTakane khnlah. 
is preferable to that of Br. (sada instead of r/u'da/i). 
67 ,,And then she made me paint a very handsome youth. 

slowly tracing out the form on the ground with trem- 
bling, nectar-distilling hand, to guide me". (T 1 . ~>1<>. 
What is a nectar-distilling Imnd that traces a form on 
the ground? This is hard to understand. From l> it 
appears that (Br.) pdiilnii 'amrita-vartind is a false reading. 
In D the line runs thus : 

//// aktni rc/jfin/d/te/Ki /jf//> um d It r I a curtmn. 
It is not a nectar-distilling, but a pencil-holding hand 
that traces the figure of the young man. 
79 Roladeva, having excited the curiositx of king Kana- 
kavara about the princess whose likeness he has painted, 
is summoned to show the picture. He obeys and 
tato valffulikqntahstkam dr^frtf {j<tfnni ad&rqayat 
sa vitrnki'it t<!m citrasthdm raj no Madanasundarwi. 
So Br. The painter accordingly shewed the king Madana- 
sundari in a painting" (T I, 540) but the preparatory 


action is here rather obscure. T's translation ,,Then the 
painter looked out a piece of canvass which was in a 
bag" endeavours to make the best of it. Especially 
drstva is strange in this connection, where one expects 
to read that Roladeva drew the painting out of the bag. 
Yet D has this very sense, reading: 

tato vatyulik at as t am kr stv a patam adarvayat 

,,Then the painter drew the piece of canvass from the 
bag etc." 

175 Kanakavarsa enters the temple of Kumara, which 
bears the epithet of ,,sanctifying temple" (T I, 545) in 
Br. (viveca garbhabhavanam tasya devasya pdvakam). For 
the last word 1) has pavakeh. Pavaki is an epithet of 
Kumara = Skanda Karttikeya. 

216 T's translation (I, 547) of the account how the king 
escaped the assault of the furious elephant is right as 
far as it expresses that which ought to be said in Br. 
,,When the king saw that, he fled by a way full of 
holes etc." is not an adequate rendering of tarn drishtva 
cvabkra-mdrgena sa .raja 'updcarat tatlici. 1), once more, 
presents the right reading raj ap as a rat tatlia. 

234 Kanakavarsa has regained his wife and returns home, 
passing by the possessions of his father-in-law, king 
Devacakti. How, then , is it likely that Somadeva related 
his arrival at the residence of Devacakti, in the way as is 
related apud T (1 , 548): And in a few days he reached the 
residence of his father-in-law, a hermitage in the country 
of Vidarbha, and after that his wealthy city of Kundina"? 
A reigning king does not keep his residence in a hermi- 
tage. From D it appears that it is not Somadeva but 
some copyist's error that brought in the word a$ramam, 
as is edited in Br. ; D has acritam. Here is the whole 
prthvT stanza, in its corrected shape: 

avapa ca sa vasaraih katipayair grliam cvacuratti 
Vidarbliavisayaqritam tad atlia Kandinakli.yam pwram \ 
samr ddliimati tatra ca qvacurasatkrtak kanicid 
dinany abhajata sthitim tanayadarasenayutak || 

Therefore, he did not come at first to ,,a hermitage" in 
Vidarbha and afterwards to Kundina, but it is narrated, 
that he reached Kundina, the capital of his father-in-law, 
situated in Vidarbha, and stayed there for some days. 


5, 7s_s(). Hr. supposes IKT. . of two liii' b, Ml a 

in \\\^ edition ; probably he was induced to do so In the 
beginning of 80 b /'// ///V/ytfW// ///,/* A/ ca. Hut there U 
nothing wanting. |) , V! id> ////>//,,/,/,//,,//,,-*/,/ CO. When 
tin- Mother^ asked her the 1ir>t time, -he laughed without 
.H'i\in^ reason of her laugliii fa ndbrovif). 

Hut on their strong instances, -he told it them. 
"'7, 12 In the, story of the porter who found kimr 1 du\;ina's 

bracelet and sold one jewel out of it. a -liu'ht corra 
in the text and according in T's translation II, 2) is 
to be obtained from I), where the eloka I '2 is thus edited : 
etac chrutva sa Fatsecas tafoSnOyayati xm'i tun 
bhdrikam taw 8 aval ay am *a r<ii n<t m /V/////V//// en //////. 
Udayana summoned the porter to come ///// //><> hracelet 
and the merchant ////// f/n> )nr<>/. Br. has un. inn /////// 
satfratnavanijam. Likewise cl. 9 D corrects the vicious 
reading of Br. sadratnakatakam, reading sarat 
katakam .,a bracelet beset with jewels." 

1 6 Though the lectionis varietas of this 9!. - - Br. >v//-.y,/v//////,/ . 
D ratnfirf/ifiin does not affect the sense, I great I \ 

doubt, whether rtikyirtlmm may have, in good Sanskrit, 
the meaning of ,,for keeping for himself" and for this 
reason should prefer the reading of D. 

58, 98 In the story of Vajrasara whose wife cut off his nose 
and ears" (T TI, 14 foil.) the ironical turn of the poet's 
words representing the state of mind of the foolish hus- 
band whom his passion of sensual love compels to deliver 
himself to the rage of his faithless wife is almost ht in 
the corrupted form of 9!. 98 b in Br. For citto, a> 
edited there, 1) has citrani, having the line as folio 

fr/iasfirlkrtftr. citram Vajrasaro Manobhuvri 
,,it is a wonder, how a Vajrasara \_= who has the 
hardness of a diamond] was made by the Love-god to 
a trnasara [== who has the hardness of stubble]?" 
Some lines before, 9!. 91 a, D reads tr/>ar<>ri/a for 
if/)avi$ya (B); rightly, for, when he had entered the dense 
wood, he made sit down ///* wife before speaking to her. 
113. 114 In the relation of the prowess of Simhabala fighting 
lions and elephants in the wilderness, two variances of 
reading are remarkable, since they slightly change the 
meaning. According to D , he did not strip the elephant 
whom he killed of his jewel (T II, 1 6) but he made the 


elephant fall down roaring. Instead of muktaratnam (Br.) 
D reads muktaratim, cp. 52, 123 where the same adj. 
is found, in the same situation, in both editions (cp. 
also 70, 94 the partic. aratatsu}. And in the comparison 
of the bandits overthrown by hirn with lotusponds 
trampled down by an elephant, D adds the adject. ,,fresh" 
to the subst. "lotuses"; it reads el. 114 thus: 

ekaki taskaracamar vidalan navapankajah 

mamflthuranyavikrantah karl kamalinlr iva. 
By this the cloka recovers its genuine form. InBr.'stext 
(vidalann iva) the repeated iva is intolerable, and pan- 
kajah (ace. fern.!) disturbs the sentence. In D navapankajah 
is a bahuvrlhi and the attribute of kamilinih. 
139 Samam (Br.) appears from D to be a mistake. In D 
the tristubh is edited in its original form : 

tatah sa samprapya punah svarajyam 

rinlya bharyam ca pitur f/rJirit tarn etc. 

60, 154 D = 155 Br. In the Story of the Lion, the Panther, the 
Crow and the Jackal it is related how the attendants of 
the wounded lion contrive a plot by which they will 
induce the camel to offer himself his own body to the 
lion. The crow who is charged with the execution of 
the contrivance entices the camel by a false message to 
make that offer. This part of the story is introduced by 
a cloka which is somewhat different in Br. and in D. 
Br. : ity ukte fair, anujndtas tena sinhena vdyasah 

vidhdya samvidam, gatvd karabham tarn ablidshata. 
D: the first line identical , the second : vadhaya samvidam 
krtva karabham etc. We may supersede to demonstrate 
that and why D's reading seems to be better Sanskrit. 
T's translation (II, 36) should be modified, in accor- 
dance with it, in this manner: ,,When they had said 
this, the crow, by the permission of the lion, after 
arranging the plot to kill him, addressed that camel with 
these words!' 

61, 126 The snare in which the antelope Citrariga is caught, 
is called kalapaqa in Br. in T's translation (II, 52) 
,,the fatal noose" but kllapaqa in D, which word 
is expressive of the kind of trap used, some pin or wedge 
being employed. 

145 foil. In this passage, which treats of the beautiful wife of 
a jealous husband falling in love with a young Bhilla 

STUDIES \uoi T Till-; K . \TII.\S.\ i;n SA ; \i:.\. I :J ; 

with whom >he elopefl from her hou>e T II. 
Tawney ha> adopted e|. ll/j the IV;K 1 1 ni: i>a linn from 
his MS instead of /jfitiinn 'Hr.j. I) likewise ha> 

Illld tln-M- more eonvet ion- <,f |',r.\ te\t: el. II") 

(I Inn ni (1 i/i'r dr*lr<i x u hulltluii/nt . e|. NO 
t/flt/ft/t Idtttli for (//:?/(</ ..she /yoA//// eloped" . 
62, 13 and The word (iru<li/(i 'blameful' ha- been twice oh-'-iired 
1();3 in tliis t;ir!in^!i in Hr. , \vlinv;is it re;i|)]>e;n- in I). The 
lirst line of el. 1 3: 

yoddhavyam /c//// AY//Y//// //// //////// 'avapeiui '//-///////// hr. 
has this fonn in D: 

y. t. .v. y/w krtQvadyena (Y///-////// = ,,we mu-t I 
with that enemy who acted llaniei'nll\ townrd- u-". 
r r (II, 64) translates ,,we nin>t g(j and ti^ht with that 
feeble enemy." Neither the idea of weakness nor it> c\|>re>- 
sion here by avftra fit the situation, but krtSvadya repie- 
sents the very idea wanted and is its proper expn^>ion. 
Ql. 103 krtdvftdyasya (Br.) is an obvious misprint for 
krtavadyasya. I do not understand why T (II, 71) has 
rendered it by ,,a hereditary enemy." 

63, 108 In Ts translation, Tl , 84, begins the famous storx 
of the Monkey and the Porpoise, which Somadeva nar- 
rates at large and with amplifications. With him. the wife 
of the porpoise has a confidante by whose intermedium 
she makes known to her husband her desire of being 
cured with a soup made of the heart of a monkey. The 
porpoise reflected: ,,Alas! how shall I obtain the lotus- 
like heart of a monkey? Is it right for me to plot 
treachery against the monkey, who is my friend? On 
the other hand how else can I cure my wife, whom I 
love more than my life?" In this reflection, which 1 
quote from T, there is nothing inconsistent, but the 
words ,,how else can I cure" do not answer exactly to 
the text of Br. sadhyu kim at ha en hhnrya, since not ///// 
athavfi , but kat/iam or katham ani/atli<i would be required 
to represent that meaning. Krom 1) it appears that some- 
thing different is said. Instead of sudhyri it has sak/tyd . 
and the whole line has accordingly this form, in trans- 
cription and adding the punctuation: sakhya kim ! 
athacn bliaryn prdnebhi/o 'py adhikupni/d = ,,VVhat 
matters me my friend ? It is in\ wife , forsooth , whom 
I love more than my life." 


168 In the odd story of the teacher and his two jealous 
pupils (T II, 88) there is a trait which, owing to the 
bad reading in Br., is misrepresented. The pupil who 
washed and anointed every day the right foot of his 
teacher being abroad, the teacher asks his second pupil 
who was in charge of his left foot , to wash and anoint 
the right one also. That pupil refused , as the right foot 
belonged to his rival. When the teacher insisted ,,then 
that pupil , who was the opposite of a good pupil , took 
hold of his master's foot in a passion, and exerting great 
force, broke it." The words, printed in italics are wrong, 
they rest on Br.'s false reading: 

tato vipakshah sac-qishydd roshdd dddya tasya tarn 
guroh cishyah sa caranam balad gddhac ca bhagnavdn\ 
here the awkward and not idiomatic expression vipaksah 
sacchisyat to denote 'a bad pupil', the tasteless style un- 
worthy of an elegant poet such as Somadeva, and the 
strange turn balad gadhat made me a priori suspicious 
about the genuineness of the lines thus edited. All this 
trouble vanishes , if we adopt the redaction of D : 
tato vipaksat a cchisy a r o sad adaya tasya tarn 
guroh cis/yah sa caranam balad gr civ na ca bhagnavan 
= ,,then this pupil, in a Jit of anger at the (other) 
pupil , his rival, took hold of that foot of his master 
and broke it violently with a stone". 

179 D = 180 Br. The ,,Story of the snake with two heads" con- 
tains several various readings in Br. and D which do not 
affect the meaning. A bad reading of the concluding cloka, 
which he found in his mss. , induced Brockhaus to sup- 
pose a gap of one cloka between 178 and 180. This is 
quite unnecessary, if we read with D: 

avate \gnau paribhrasto margadrster adahyata. 

184 D = 185 Br. In the story of the foolish man who had put a 
handful of rice into his mouth in the house of his 
father-in-law and was surprised by his mother-in-law, it 
is said in T's translation (II, 89) ,,his mother-in-law, 
seeing that his throat was swollen and distended." Of 
course, there can be no question of his throat, though 
Br. edits gala , D has the very word required here , galla : 
tatplnocchunag allam ca. This correction restores at the 
same time the fault against the metre in Br. He had 
not a swollen throat , but a swollen cheek. 


64, 101 Dhanadeva returning home is informed of the mis- 
conduct of hU di nlute wile. She |<-t> down c\cr\ night 
a basket, ,,and whoever enters it i> dmwn up into the 
house, ;md is dismissed in the same way ?it the end of 
the nielli. And the woman i> alwa\ - -i upetied \\ ith drink. 
so that she is absolutely void of discernment. I II, ( JG). 
The last sentence is cl. 101, c. d. In Br. ft has this shape 

jjiiiHt-iiiattd 'avacd naiva vicdrayati 
lu I) it is edited as follo\\>: 

ca sa naiva nibhalayati 
must be a misprint, Br. jitinamaf/ti is right. 
Hut the other variance of I), which I have marked In 
spacing, restores the original wording, misread In Hr. 
Note the new instance of the verb nibkalayati 'to con- 
sider'. In 9!. 102 D bahukalo gato is also an im- 
provement (Br. bahukalagalo). 

67, 57 The merchant who tells Naravahanadatta his adventures, 

narrates his despondency, when the news was spread of 
the shipwreck of the vessel on which his bride made the 
journey to Ceylon. ,,So I, though comforted by my elders, 
made up my mind to throw away my property and pro- 
spects and I determined to go to that island to ascertain 
the truth." (T II, 128). The words printed in italics 
are the translation of the pada vittam dcftb/iir aksk^pam 
(Br.), which for several reasons rouse doubt as to their 
genuineness. D, in fact, has a much better reading 
cittam acabhir a k sip an. The merchant says, that after 
the consolation of his elders, ,Jie cherished ///* ////W 
with hope and determined etc." 

70, 31 Crutadhi after saying his name and that of his father, 
thus continues: 

(Br.) sa ca may ft saha 

durbhikshe mrtajatih san bhraman prapad imam b/iuvam 
,,and once in a time of famine he was wandering about 
with me, and he reached this place almost dead" (T II, 
148). These last words 'almost dead' have to render 
mrtajatih, but this translation is impossible. The compounds 
in jatlya are synonymous with those ending in kalpa = 
'almost', but not those in jati, and if mrtajuti signifies 
anything, it must be = 'having lost by death his clan 
(or caste)'. Br.'s reading is the consequence of a misreading. 
D has mrtajanih 'having lost by death his wife', and 

Verhand. Ron. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. 5. 9 


so Somadeva wrote, as is confirmed by the parallel 
passage in Ksemendra, where the cause of her death, 
too, is reported. She starved from hunger, after giving 
away her food to a beggar : 
tatah kadacit durbhikse mata me nijabhojanam 
dattvarthine ksudhartaya dhanya tatyajajwitam (IX, 1,196). 

95 In this cloka the interrupted meditation of some mer- 
ciful ascetic is mentioned 'who discharged fire at the 
webs' (T II, 151) of two sets of spiders, hanging one on 
wholesome flowers and the other on poisonous flowers. 
This allegorical representation of the power of tap as 
and dhyana to destroy the textures of karma, though 
consistent with the whole imagery sketched, is not quite 
accurate if tested by the very words of the original. T 
translated Br,. kendpi jdlato muktd tato jvdld tapasvind. 
Now, it is impossible to express the conception ,,to 
discharge fire at the webs" by the words jalato jvalam 
muncati. The word ending in tas can only signify 
the source of the fire, not its aim. Here again, D 
restores the hand of Somadeva, who wrote kenapi 
blialato mukta etc. ; the ascetic made fire break forth 
out of his forehead. Cp. Qiva's front-eye, e. g. Kathas. 
104, 2, where bhaleksana has remained intact in Br. 
Brhatkathamaiijari, IX, 1, 236, the parallel place 
has also tallalatasamutthagnf*. 

71, 39 The queen says to the warder, apud T (II, 156) 
,,When the king was seized that day by monsters in 
the water of the Narmada, Mrigankadatta alone was 
ready to rescue him". I do not object to this translation, 
but the verb was seized, which is here indispensable, 
does not answer to Br. dglirdto 'bJmt. One would rather 
expect akranto 'bhut, as is, in fact, found in D. 
147 An anusvara wrongly put, or perhaps even wrongly 
believed to have been put on the aks. 3J has disturbed 
the wording of the first line of this cloka in Br. T (II , 
1.61) thus translating: ,,Out on the spite of destiny ! she 
brings trouble on her handiwork, even when full of 
excellencies" made the best of it. But his rendering of 
ahhah (sin) by 'trouble' proves his conviction that a literal 
translation would lead him to nonsense. Now, if we put 
together Br.'s text 


gunavatydm tva-trishtdv "/>// ahho\ d/iiy mf/fmro 
and that of I) (which I tran>lit<-r;iir , adding tin- punc- 

</nii<irfi/t/(ttti xoa&rQtfiv apy <i h <> '////// matsaro ci<llu>li .' 
there can be no <l<ml>t. I -uppo-e, \\\\\\ the hitter alone is 
right, Mainsavall exclaims: ,,O ! What a pit\ that Destiny 
feels jealousy touards her creation, even when full of 

252 In Hamaavall's outcry the words Aa viparitanidAe vid&e ! 
(Br.) are translated In T (II, 167).,:ila-'. D-tin\ . -ource 
of untowards events!" hut //><//// mean- 'treasury 3 not 
'source'; if T. had put 'treasury', the likeness would ha \e 
lost its proper application. Br. has been induced into 
error, it seems, by his MSS reading nidhe instead of 
Q vidhe, as is edited in D, which makes a better meaning. 
,,Alas! she cries, Destiny, operator of wrong decisions." 
Cp. supra, p. 70. 

295 Udghata has been misunderstood by T (II, 169). He 

was misled by the ace. pi. in Br. From D it is clear 
that the right reading is smrtvodghat a t , abl. sing. 
Udghata has among others the meaning 'hint', 'allusion' 
- cp. PWK, I, 231, s. v. 5) ,,das zur Sprache kom- 
men" testif. Kathas. 17, 3 --, and so it must be under- 
stood here. Owing to Qrutadhi's hint about the wondrous 
peacock , the king of the Bhillas changes his mind. 
Parallel places of ours are 35, 27 and 68, 1] tac 
chrutaiva tadudghatcit smrtva, where Br. has udrntnt 
,,fehlerhaft fiir M^i*fe".'pWK, I, 234. Cp. Kathas. 
3, 65 upodghata with a similar sense, and 27, 79 ; in both 
places this word is a neuter. M u d r a r a k s a s a Act III 
(beginning) kirn anena vak pranaharena kathodgliateiui / 
72, 292 The young merchant Malayamalin has miserably fallen 
in love with the king's daughter. His friend , on hearing 
that cause of his sorrow and altered state, reminds him 
of the hopelessness of his love. ,,Let the swan, he sa\-. 
desire the beautiful face of the lotuses of all ordinary 
lakes, but what has he to do with the delight of enjoying 
the lotus of that lake , which is the navel of Vishnu ?" 
(T II, 185). By the bye, I remark that there is here 
perhaps some pun on lakxml, which T has translated by 
'delight', and which may also signify the wife of Visnu. 
In fact , the princess is as distant from the merchant as 



Laksmi is from the swan. But it is not for this reason 
that I treat of this place, but because of the discrepancy 
between Br. arid D. Br.'s text runs thus (292 b, 293 a): 
hanso vdncJiatu ndma ' anya-saro-mbuja-mukha-qriyam , 
hari-ndbJd-hraddmbhoja-bkoga-lakshmya sa kah punah? 
whereas D reads: 

hamso vancliatu namanyasarombujas ukliamyam 
HarinabJdhradambhojabhogalaksmyak sa kah punali? 
The reading sukha for muklia is an evident correction ; 
as to the genitive laksmyah , it satisfies better than the 
instrumental of Br.'s text, which it is not easy to account 
for. The genitive is the dative-like one; cp. Jataka- 
mala p. 221, 15 kas tv aham varapradanasya. Used 
in this manner with ka it is a synonymous turn with 
the usual idiom kva. . . . kva ca (cp. my Sanskrit Syntax 
410 Rem. and Kathas. 74, 204). 

296 Instead of the meaningless last pada of Br.. tayd 'ovrtya 
'akarot kriydh, T (note on II, 185) from one London 
MS reads taya dhrtyakarot etc. D has lay a vrttyakarot 

73, 81 For (B?.} prakrishtdbhydm D has prav is tabby am , which 

is more appropriate to the situation. Instead of bestowing 
on the goddesses Qrl and Sarasvati who claim each for 
herself the superior rank in KacmTr, that paradise on 
earth, the epitlieton ornans ,, glorious," the text of D 
makes them contend at the time of their entrance in that 
divine country. After penetrating into Kacmlr (and be- 
coming aware of its wondrous loveliness) they exclaim 
one: ,,abam atradhika' and the other: ,,naJiam" [= na, 
'aham Br.]. 

74, 226 From the I.O. MS T (note on IT, 226) has adopted 

the reading drntam anuddlirtya for anugatya (Br.), 
which is out of place. D has another reading, quite 
satisfactory and almost equivalent to anuddhrtya, viz. 
anddr ty a. 

75, 41 foil. In the description of king Vikramaditya leaving his 
palace in the dark night alone and unperceived to assist 
the sorcerer - - introduction of Vetalapancavimcatika 
D corrects Br.'s text in several places. Besides that (vs. 40) 
it divides, in accordance with Boehtlingk, Chrestomathie^ 
p. 110, 30, pratipannam tarn. The two following clokas 
have this form : 


ft ratloy ,nlaca*a // n .v / a m a lakftawklmrah 
>"V//'/'/"" I'fijad/iti/tila/i k/tfH/i/a/ttifiir alak*ilali || 

/I'll/an r/t ghoranHndadhvSn tavratmitahmasam 

rihnitilofirnn a if a // ajvUlsdQrunodar^aiutm || 
Whether na/iana is the right correction of hijaina (Hr.), 
is not certain, hut in the first line the in-\v reading 
Beeme to make a hetter 861186 than hr/> mlai'iixn 

malamkrto-$ekkarah 1 ), which is not quite = T (II, 233) 

'he ('//t'f/fj/jcf/ his head in a black cloth/ According to 
D, the king had taken the precaution to wear a Mack 
dress and to paint a dark-hrown tilaka on hU forehead 
6*2 I) tasyQbh&d Vaffamukutas lanayn r3pa$awryayok 

k a / i- a ii <> darpadalanaw SniaratyQrijanatya i-a \ 
kiifcaito for akaroil (Hr.) restores the grammatical >tructnre 
of the sentences. 

80 T (II, 235) ,,\Vhat! did \ou not see, what she told 
you by her signs?" These words of the minister's son to 
the prince convey the very meaning of their San-krit 
original, yet, in Br. (and consequently, in Boehtlingk's 
C/irest? p. 113) they are badly expressed, the line 

knn na drishtam tvayd ', yad yal samjfUzyd .v//r/7^/// taifii 
can have no other meaning but this: 'did you not see, 
whatsoever she told etc/ I) restores the genuine wording: 
.... tvaya tad yat etc. 2 ) 

140 This cloka has become almost unintelligible, owing to 
a mistake in transcribing of Br., it seems. He has edited 
tad munca ma/it/inti efaxya'iii ! bandhu-tydgdn makdhnanak 
kiin/dx tram, Jtarane yuktini vakshyamy dlocaydmy a lmm. 
From the spelling Q tyauan and from the interpunction 
we may suppose that Br. took Q tyfigrui for an ace. plur. ; 
this acceptation and the strange asyndeton of the two 
verbs, one being a future and the other a present tense 
raise a strong presumption of corruption. T (II, 239) 
translated rather the purport of his Sanskrit text than 
its very words. His translation . . . .persuade the high- 
spirited woman to leave her relations, and I will invent 
and tell you an artifice for carrying her off" is virtually 
right. The right constitution of the text appears from D. 
I subjoin it, adding the interpunction: 

*) So Boehtliugk, for Br. sannihanki-ta is an error of print. 

*) Conversely yad must be read with D 118, 167, where Br. has tad. 


tan munca manyum etasyam! bandhutyagan maJiatmanah 
kuryas tvam liarane yuktim, vaksyamy alocyayam aliam. 
the gen. makatmanah depends on harane and bandhuty. 
is an abl.sing. 

78, 37 Viravara, the heroic officer, who is immediately ready 
to execute the perilous order of the king, his master, 
sets out for the weeping woman in the darkest of the 
night (cl. 36). It is very strange that the poet should 
describe his behaviour, when starting, so awkwardly as 
is done in Br.'s edition : 

nava-m egli andhaMram taj-jva lad-vidyud-vilocan am 
sthula-dhdrd-qild-varshi Raksho jivam ajlganat (37); 
in T's translation (II, 252) rendered thus: ,,He looked 
upon the world as a Rakshasa black with fresh clouds, 
having the lightning flashing from them by way of an 
eye, raining large drops of rain instead of stones". It 
is not the comparison of the dark raining night to a 
Raksas which wonders the reader most, but the poet's 
remark that this imagination rose up in the mind of 
Viravara. Now, in D the reading is slightly different, 
but brings us the natural and proper conception which 
is wanting in Br. ; for nava it has na ca, and for 
Raksho jw am : Raksorupam. Further taj should be 
loosened from the compound jvalad and put aside as a 
separate w r ord. The whole, then, means this: ,,He did 
not mind that Raksas-like darkness, black etc." 

80, 10 T, in his note 2 on II, 312, mentions the reading 

tatha of the Sanskrit College MS. for taya (Br.). Br.'s 
prishto mdtrd tayd must be corrupt, as taya cannot 
be accounted for. But the true correction is in D : prsto 
matrartaya ,,when his mother distressed asked him the 
cause (of his strange behaviour)". 

81, 16 The king being astray in the wilderness, asks his 

dependent and only companion : ,,Do you know the way 
by which we came?" The other replies: ,,I do know it, 
but let my lord rest here for some time" (T II, 265 
in fine). T translated well that which must be read in 
the text, but is not in Br. , where we find vedmi; 
kimcit ksanam tavad iha viqrdmyatu prabhuh ! the good 
reading vedmi Jcimca ksanam etc. is found in D. 

82, 47 In the conclusion of the ludicrous tale of ,,the three 

fastidious men" who being gone off to fetch a turtle 

STUDIKs \|;ol T TIIK K \TII.\M !;ll s.v - \ I: \. 185 

for their father in behalf of In- -acritiec never returned . 
having made their fortune at the court of a foreign kinir . 
the poet laughingly Mate- that ..little did the\ reck of 
the fact that the\ had incurred >in b\ obstruct mir their 

father's sacrifice" (T II, 273). The' half-cloka 'of the 

original translated in tin- manner. i> thus edited in Rr. 

/>///// vigknita-yajUdrtham helopdrjita-pdtakdk . 
The word liflu is incoim-nieiit ; if expiv-r.e of the 
obstruction of the res divina, it is a tantolo i ir\ next to 
r i (//mila, if it denotes the insult wherewith they acted 
to their father, the word implies too much, for the\ 
were guilty of d^famada , not lirla. Moreover, the whole 
expression t/ftjiifi r / // a /// helif is improper. In fact, the 
text in Br. is corrupt. The true reading is found in |) : 

pitur vig/initayajftflrt /> a /j // a lop&rjitop&taknh 
= ,, though they had incurred sin by oltriictinir tin- 
success of their father's sacrifice/' 

S6, 36 It is plain that D reading the second part of thisoloka: 

cirad avapta$aytino <//<<// ninnln ninm/u A//// 
is right, not Br., where it has this form: cinlil fij/ti*lti- 
qayano etc. T's translation (II, 2SO) ,,tlie minister, who 
had long discarded the use of beds, spent that night in 
his house" is materially satisfactory, but does not exactly 
answer to the necessary meaning of the phrase i-irdd 
apastct(;ayanab , which must imply that Dlrgbadarch) had. 
a long time ago, taken a vow of not sleeping in a bed; 
apa&taqayanah = Lat. abjecto lecii usu. D's text signifies 
that after a long time (cirri t) he had got (again) a bed 
to pass the night, etc." 

88, 11. 12 Br. has here made an odd mistake, editing multya- 
mana/t and wu/u/nnmJie in a place, where it is said that 
the town was robbed by thieves. The right reading 
wu$y<f and niusya is of course found in D. 

89, 76 Manahsvamin, feigning to acquiesce to an unjust decision 
of the king concerning himself, protests indirectly by 
pointing out the king's responsibility for his own actions. 
In Br. this passage runs as follows: 
krinutm tad astii; r<!j<! Irani dharmddharmau tava ' u titan 
= T (II, 305) ,,I must, I suppose, acquiesce; you are a 
king, and justice and injustice are matters familiar to 
you." How much better D dkarmadkarmau ten- tidy a 
tau = . . . . from hence the righteousness or injustice 


(of that which is to be done) is yours;" it is not I who 
am responsible for it, but you (who are the dispenser 
of the dharma) who are to enjoy the fruit of the right 
or injustice you have done by your sentence. So we have 
caught the very argument in the case from an Indian 
point of view. 

91, 60 Ql. 52 60 contain the verdict of Trivikramasena in the 
case of the king who died from unsatisfied love rather than 
to accept the ravishing Unmadin! from the hand of her 
husband. In its conclusion I prefer D's reading pranan 
api s a d liar mat ma tatyaja na punah padam / amarcje 
nidadhe to Br. pranan api samantdc ca tatyaja etc.; 
samantat is a mere padapurana, but nothing can be more 
appropriate to the context here than sa dharmatma. 

93, 9 In Br. it is said that the relations of the merchant 

Dhanapala after his death ,,seized his property, as the 
Idng did not interfere to protect it" (T II, 328). The 
words I have put in italics answer to nljdsdndtliydd 
(akrdntam) of Br. D has this slightly different text: 

taddlianam raj asanatliyad akrantam atha gotrajaih, 
which imports the very contrary, viz. that the relatives 
robbed the widow of the inheritance with the assistance 
of the king. D's text is supported by Ksemendra's. 
parallel (IX B 1018) gotrajaih / liartum dravinam aksipta 
tadbUarya rajasamcritaih = ,,his relations backed by the 
king sued his wife to seize the inheritance." 

94, 91 King Candravaloka is bound to the Brahmaraksas, 

whom he had unwillingly obstructed, to deliver him 
a brahman boy of seven years ready to offer himself in 
sacrifice for the king's sake. When being in a down- 
cast mind, how to fulfil his promise, one of his ministers 
shows him the way to find out such a boy. ,,He had 
made with the utmost rapidity a golden image of a 
seven-years-old child, and he adorned his ears with jewels, 
and placed it on a chariot, and had it carried about in 
the towns, villages, and stations of herdsmen," with a 
proclamation of this purport, that if such a brahman 
boy as whose image was being carried about, should 
willingly offer himself for the good of all the creatures, 
and his mother and father should permit him to do so 
and should comply to some other hard and requisite 
conditions, this image of gold and gems together with 

STUIMI- \i;ui i mi. K \iii.\MUir\i. \i;\ I:',; 

a hundred village- would be given them in reward. 

Ill the passage quoted tVoln I t 1 aii-lat loll II. 

the sentences ,,he adnmrd In- ears \\ith j-\\ds. and 

placed it (Ml a ehariol" aiv In render tln> line of 

Hr. i'(if/ifiir alamkritdm A//// t-n /,-<////(', ratharpitdm. It 
is clear, howe\er. that ..In adorn tin- ears ('of the 
image >" cannot pn->il)l\ be expres-ed in Saii>kiit b\ 
nlnnikrhini (vi/. /y/Y///////////i /Y//-///'. and that tin- phrase is 
rather a nimi>trum leetionis. NOu , in I) thi> iii<.n>trum 
disa|)j)ears. l ; nr knriif rathftrpitftm it ha> /Y//-,///v////^//yy/ '//;/,/. 
So the translation i> thus to he niodilicd : ..He had made 
with the utinosi r;ipidit\ a golden iniaire of a srvni-\ 
old child and dressed it ////// ornament*. ////'// IK' / 
it in a palanquin, etc." The word kuniirnUin is t'ound 
also 27, 108, in both Hr. and |) : at L20, USD and 
T's three mss. have karmratkavatirna (*tt r l II, ->1" n. 1), 
this has been corrupted in Hr. to /Y//// /Y//////VV////-. 
95 , 4 tasyam^w.purydm^babfavanrpatib l*a<luituwMin /"// rrntali 
sajjananandaka/i n-nnun rikninln /^////v//V//Y///. 
T (IT, 342) rendered this c;loka thus: ..In it there lived 
a fortunate king, named PadmanSbha , who \\a-a -mure 
of joy to good men, and excelled king Bali." T failed to 
realize the intentional ambiguousness of the epithets. King 
Bali mentioned in the 4 th pada needs requires in the 
name of Padmanabha an allusion to Visnu, one of whose 
names is, indeed, Padmanabha. Now. 1) has in the 3 d 
pada 9accakranandakak. Adopting this reading, we 
get a worked out pun. King P. is compared throughout 
with Visnu, the possessor of his good discus (OV//Y/) and 
his sword Nandaka, who overpowered (nkrfinta-} king Hali. 
If referred to the king, it is said that he was a >mirce 
of joy to the pious, and brought into his power tributary 
kings (b(tlirfija)\ cp. supra p. 82. 

98, 35 1) mvktataraughamanditam seems to be preferable to 

B muktdhdraugha* , for it is not the fact of her being 
,,adorned with many strings O f pearls" (T II, 350), 
but the striking splendour of her pearls of the finest 
water that makes impression on the mind of Candasiinha. 
Tara has here meaning 8) in PW, III >.\. 

99, 13 The act of sacrifice to the Yetala, performed by the 

mendicant, consists of different oblations. The tirst of 
them, in Br., is an ottering ,,of white human teeth in a 


skull" (sunirmalaik / nara-dantaUi] by way of an arglia. 
In D it is very pure human blood (sun. nararaMai//) 
that is offered as an arc) ha. 

42 After finishing his long narrative: the 25 Tales of the 
Vetala, Vikramakesarin comes again to speak of his own 
adventures. This transition makes up the content of an 
aupacchandasika, the third and fourth padas of which 
are in B: 

ablddhaya punar Mrigdhkadattam 

svakritdrtham nijagdda rajaputram. 

It is no wonder that T. could not understand svakrtartham; 
finding in one of his mss. sa krtartham he adopted that 
reading and translated accordingly ,,the successful prince 
M." (II, 360). But since in fact M. is styled here 
'successful' in a rather proleptic way - - how could he be a 
Martha, before he had obtained his beloved maiden? - 
the reading of D must be considered more satisfactory. 
D reads the 4 th pada: 

prak r tartham nijagada rajaputram 
,,spoke to the prince (again) of the present subject." 
46 The old man, after giving to Vikramakesarin the 
powerful spell by means of which he will rejoin Mrgaii- 
kadatta his master, exhorts him with comforting words 
to follow his advice which he gives him in return of 
his being relieved of the serpent's poison. The calini 
stanza which conveys this exhortation, is corrupt in its 
4 th pada and the word duhsarpa does not occur in it. 
In Br. the pada has this shape: 

tvam evam duhsarpa-dancdrti-hartd , 
but in D we have doubtless the good reading 

tvam me band huh sarpadamcartil/artd 
"I hold you for iny kinsman, since you have rescued me 
of the pain of a serpent's bite", cp. T II, 361. 
100, 21 In the simile which illustrates the wavering of the 
foliage of the great and wonderful tree which Mrgan- 
kadatta beholds on the shore of the lake, the voices of 
the birds are fancied to say : not ,,Let no one question 
me in any way!" (T II, 363), but ,,Let no one touch 
me in any way !" D reads ma mam yatha tatha kaccit 
sprak^ld iti , not prahsid iti ( Br . ) . 

5 7 The p r t h v T-strophe that relates the reunion of Mrganka- 
datta with his ministers, runs thus in Br. : 


I til a li w vi kul it n *< i ma in xti/Hi</i ma it Ir'ui nli ///>//>//// ft/it 

' kiil-iini/i! i/irii proMada-manthaiulrambkayd \ 

/W nun sartibabhSihe /////' 
Here the :>'' pada pu//le> the reader. What max In- 
tin- incaiiing of knItUm/u . put between ///>// with liis 
eyes) and (jirn (with his \oiee . Borhtlingk deelared it 
a misprint tor hnlanm/n -with his gestures,' see PW. 
V, 1264; yet /Y//////// it-elf with this meaning ha> been 
put in PWK. II, s. \. under :* p.) on no other authority 
but this one and conjectural instance. I'urthcr jjriii,,n'lii- 
iii<iiilli<in<iriiiiihlia seems suspect. It would be a very un- 
common metaphor to employ nKinlliinni , the well-known 
term for ,, churning 1 ', to express the idea of agitation 
applied to something like a ..voice agitated b\ the wor- 
kings of joy" (T II, 365). Both difficulties are remo- 
ved in 1), where we read: 

tata/i sa sakaliin xdtnuni Nt/jitnli nniiilrninli /;/'"/'//</ /'/// 
dr q a k u lit at/ n ////v/ pramadaman f // a r // rambhaya 
nareqvara-suto ' dhika-pranayam el'cnn eknni ////////// 
dadarqa pariasvaje fad ant' AY//// //<//>/ //.y krti || 
In translating this stanza there must be taken account of 
the figure yathasainkhya which connects the three in>ti u- 
mentals in the 2 d piida with the verbs in the 4 th one and 
which may have been purposely employed to harnioni/e 
with the act described of embracing one after another 
(eJcam ekaui). Therefore, I think T's translation must be 
modified in this manner: ,,Then the prince, having reco- 
vered all those ministers at the same instant, looked at 
them with his eyes, embraced them with Lmpetuonsness 
and then spoke to them with a faltering voice, owing to 
the emotion of his exceeding love ; so he saluted them 
one by one, again and again, happy by his succe 
101, 278 A bad orthography misled Prof. Hroekhans. it seems, 
when he put into his text abject cfilixii in T's 

translation (IT, 380) ,,the beautiful lotuses," but ru/hi 
= 'beautiful' would be hardly defensible in. this con- 
nection! D, editing abject sr/li*ti ,,the lotuses with 
their bees," has preserved the genuine word, which is 
both in accordance with ijltullfisu ralli*u , its parallel in 
the preceding link of this chain of absolute locatives, 
and necessary, since it is the humming of the bees but 


no sound proper to the lotuses, that is represented to 
utter the phrase expressed in this cloka. 

290 The awful prison, into which Sundarasena and his 
companion were thrown by the Qabaras is thus described 
(T II, 381): ,,The prison was full of multitudes of 
vermin, filthy with cobwebs, and it was evident that 
snakes frequented it, as they had dropped there the skins, 
that clung to their throats etc." What is said about 
the snakes, is somewhat shorter in the original which, 
in Br. , has this form : sucyanidndki-sanicdre nirmokair yala- 
lambibhih , and nothing is stated about the dropping of 
the skins. If we interpret this half-cloka as philologists, 
we can draw from it only this meaning: 'frequency of 
snakes was betrayed by the snake-skins that clung to (their) 
throats.' Of course, this is in fact almost nonsense. 
D's text is more satisfactory. For galalambibhih it has 
g ar talambibhih. That the prison was haunted by serpents 
was to be inferred from the snake-skins that clung to 
the holes (in its walls). 

358 Sundarasena, after many adventures, has been reunited 
with his beloved Mandaravati, and from the residence 
of his father's vassal, where he dwells, he despatches a 
messenger with a letter to his old father to announce 
him that happy news. The messenger arrives just in time; 
for Mahasena and his wive were preparing to enter the 
fire, and his oral affirmation that Sundarasena is alive 
and will soon come back to his parents changes their 
despair into joy. Then he delivers his letter: 
ity udlrya ca tasyatra rajnah padantike nyadltat 
lekham sa Bhiliabhupalalekhaharo haran cue am. 
So D, whose text restores the genuine wording. Br. has 
rahah qucih, a corruption which embarrassed Tawney 
who made of rahah the best he could (II, 384) and 
pretermitted cucih. That the messenger spoke his com- 
forting words not in secrecy, but aloud, is plain from 
the sequel (cl. 359) ,,then all the people there, being 
delighted, raised a shout of joy". 
102, 29 Br. Kirdta-rdjena tatlid bdliqa-brdtimacdrind 

D Kir a tarcijen a tat ha ba lasabr ah macari/t (1 . 
That D is right, not Br. , is plain by the comparison of 
70, 19, where it is narrated that the king of the Kiratas 
had been a fellow-student of Mrgankadatta (sabrahmacan 


r'n/1/fixu .SY/ ca bflldtiH/trn mama, says M. ibid.). T (II, 
:JM), line \) \\;is deceived by Br.'s text. 

T II, :l'jn - - see his ao te follow- in hi> fcrans- 
latimi one of his MSS which has viaUyany&yabkayodaycit 
for Ihe non-ciiM- which is in |;'> i.-\i ; //////.v///;//^/ 
bhayodayQt. I) reads : m&t9yanyftyabhay8d ////"/// (viz. 

113. In Br. the first word: /////-A/// i> subject. T (11,393) 
renders it with ,, assembled", he CODStrueS it with nripalin 
in the 4 th pada, and translates Mho-c M-nubled kings'. 
But nobody, I suppose, would translate this from Knirli-h 
into Sanskrit by tan nrpatln i/uL-tiin. Kithei- Brorkhaus 
found a bad reading in his MSS or misread the good 
one. 1) has m u k ta mrgamadair etc. Durgapi^aca honoured 
his royal guests with pearls, musk etc. 

103, 43 In Br. this cloka is made up of a sentence without 

main predicate; praviqya and tarubaddh&^vah are predi- 
cative attributes of Mrgankadattah, neither of them -can 
be the predicate. D restores the predicate lost in Br. It 
has Gauryagarayramam gat ah (went to the sanctuary 
of Gauri) whereas Br. reads GaMry-dgdrydqramqfrratah (in 
the front of the s. of G.). 

109 Here D replaces asddhyemi , the h'rst word of the cloka 
in Br. by a? at hyena and thus renders to the words 
of Crutadhi their full weight. For it is for this reason 
that Crutadhi advises Mrgaiikadatta to act upon the invi- 
tation of Kannasena, because ,,/7 cannot be wit It an 
insidious purpose , that he sent you this message ; other- 
Avise how would a powerful prince like that, when his 
daughter had been carried off, give up fighting, and go 
home?" Cp. T II, 402, who paraphrases asadhyeixi 1>\ 
because he saw no other way out of the difficulty", 
but I scarcely believe that asridlii/ctid can be used as 
equivalent to asadhyafaya. 

104, 8$ In the description of the lake (^aiikhahrada , where it 

is developed how charming this lake was by the scents 
and perfumes imparted to its waves from the women 
who bathed in it, D's text: 

wcikastaih pcffamr$tajag1tana -v / a n a iini/n/(ilani 
seems more appropriate than Br. ^jaghdna^thala-mandalam: 
D 195 = Br. 196 Better than in Br. where tadrfi yadrcl looks 
suspect, the composition of the period appears in I). In 


D's text the first word of the line is not tadrfi, but 
yadrqam which must be construed with the preceding; 
the new sentence begins with yadrfl \ 

inayapi tvatkrte dukkkam anubUutam suduhsaliam 

yadr^am, yadrcl caisa prapancaracctna Vidliek 

vaksyami vistardt tat te etc. 

In T's translation (II, 422) this would make necessary 
some modifications, in this way: Hereafter I will tell 
you of what kind was the intolerable sorrow I, too, have 
endured for your sake , and how strange a variety of 
effects in this phenomenal world Fate produces." 
106, 41 is rendered obscure in Br. owing to one vowel. Dha- 
navatl, the Vidyadharl, has descended from the sky with 
her daughter Ajinavati whom she presents to Naravahana- 
datta as his future wife. 'It is dangerous for you, she 
adds, to stay there where you are now; we will carry 
you to another country, where you may dwell in safety 
for one year, until we come back to perform the 
marriage.' Ql. 41 expresses her advice to allow her 
to bring him to another country ; she compares him to 
the moon in a certain state. In which? B's text: 

naindub ksbipati kirn kdlam, pariksMiie ' rka-mandale? 
seems to hint at the time of an eclipse of the sun. 
Accordingly, T translates (II, 432): Does not the moon 
delay to shine, when the circle of the sun is eclipsed?" 
But what may be the meaning of this? Firstly , the moon- 
shine is wanting not only at the time of the eclipse of the sun, 
but also always at the time of the moon's conjunction 
with the sun. And secondly, if Naravahanadatta is com- 
pared with the moon, it would be consistent to say that 
the moon does not shine at all when it is obscured itself; 
there is no reason why the eclipse of the sun should be 
mentioned. Moreover, kalam ksipati may signify ,,to 
delay" but it can never mean ,,to delay to shine." So 
we must infer that B's text must contain some corrup- 
tion. Indeed, D reads, with a slight variant, 

nenduh ksipati kirn kalam parikslno 'rkamandale? 
,,Does not the moon, when he is in a state of weak- 
ness, spend some time within the circle of the sun?" 
So the comparison receives its full light. Naravahanadatta, 
at this point of the story, is in a state of want of power 
which is analogous to the want of lustre of the moon, 

STUDIES ABOUT Till; K ATM \> \ Kll > V , \ i;.\ 143 

when it is new. As tin- moon iv-ides \vitli the -mi. to 
;i\\;iit his time ;ind to regain h: V i- to 

re>ide ;it (Ya\a>ti with kin^ IVa-ciia j it . \\here he ma\ be 
>!iid ktildui kxc/j/ ti HI. Somadrva apparentU pla\> with the 
double meaning of iHftiit/fi/fi 1." and "2. ..In -| iton " 
or ,. sphere of power" and nf /v//,/,,/ /.yy/////// . \\hieh i- no! 
only = 'to delay' but al>o 'to await one'> proper time." 
<) ( .) Br. prafatManti, \5 pragmnsantl. I think, I) i> ri^lit, not 

Br. Tlic female apparition, who awaki- \;t|-a\ahana<latta 
at night-time to remind him of his beloved Madaiiamari- 

enka. speaks thus: 

anySsaktam /jrnr(ii//xu // / / 

,,alas! JMadanamaiienka . \on are undone! l ; or \oii pi'ai-e 
a husband who is attached to other women." With pra- 
qamsanti cp. 77 tvadguncAkal^pinwi. 
IIS Br.'s text of the line 118 a and b, 

evaw i'k /tix ffit/fi patnyu sddhyqkdldnurddhavi 
demands from the part of the interpreter a so great 
connivance at grammatical and lexicological incongruen- 
cies xridhya for &W////Y /////// and supposed to mean 

,,recognising the fact" (T II, 437); aktiliimirodha is 
inexplicable for sound exegesis - - that D's variant must 
necessarily be acknowledged as representing the hand of 
Somadeva. D reads thus: 

evam uktas lay a pat ny a sHfl/ict/r/. k Q iBnwrodkav&n 
Naravahanadatto 'ilia suntvayan sa jayuda tarn 
,,When N. had been thus addressed by his fait/if t'/ wife, 
he, taking account of t/ie present rirriiinxfa/ices, said to 
her by way of calming her." The italics denote m\ 
modification of T's translation. 

108, 68 D asu, though it changes the meaning of the hermit's 
words but slightly, is preferable to Br. (ten, inasmuch 
as it improves the diction , for it adds to the word 
indicative of the woman whose clothes are to be carried 
off the necessary demonstration of the group to which 
she belongs. 

82 T, in his note on II, 454, treats of this cloka, which 
is obviously corrupt in Br. , and communicates a much 
better reading which he found in the Sanskrit College MS 
(supra, p. 63), and which he followed accordingly in his 
translation. 1) fully agrees, with the exception of yaq ca 


in pada c, for which it has yac ca. This is, in fact, the 
right reading, as will be plain to him who reads the 
whole cloka as follows: 

sacandrardhah (Jivo 'dyapi Harir yacca sakaustubhah 
tat tayor vedmi kuttanya gocarapatane phalam. 
= ,,That Qiva still retains his crescent and Visrm his 
kaustubha jewel, they have to thank for it, I am sure, 
that they did not fall into the clutches of a kuttanl." 
The italics show ray modification. 

88 Br. prdptam mam ripund tadd, but I) p rasta m mam 

etc. As Haricikha has been thrown on the earth, the 
participle praptam seems to be rather improper to the 
situation. T (II, 454) translates ,,when I was seized by 
my enemy", rather, I think, to make something not 
too absurd of it, than because he held prapta for equi- 
valent to ,,being seized." 

132 Two Vidyadharas of the party of Naravahanadatta 
come into his audience-hall to inform him of the immi- 
nent attack of his foe Mandaradeva. At this news, the 
whole assembly are filled with anger, and the poet des- 
cribes the tokens of its outburst which showed them- 
selves in the gestures and movements of the different 
chieftains. So it is said of Amitagati, that his necklace , 
rising up on his breast , as he sighed with anger , seemed 
to say again and again: Rouse thyself, rouse thyself, 
hero" (T II, 456). In the original text of Br. : 

hdro 'mitagater vakshasy utphullah qvasatah krud/id, * 
"iittishta 'uttitha, vira, tvam" iti 'iva muhur abravlt, 
the rising up of the necklace is expressed by the par- 
ticiple of the past utphullah. But neither a past ptcple 
is here required but a present, nor has utphulla another 
sphere of employment but to signify wide-opened objects , 
as expanded flowers, eyes etc. For this reason , it is plain 
that D's reading utphalan for utphullah is a good cor- 
rection. As to utphalati = 'to jump' cp. PWKIV, 200 
s. v. phal -f- ut and the %TT. tey. utphalaKt&has. 26, 20. 
110, 37 In the words of the pact by which the five princesses 
oblige themselves, that if one among them were to 
marry Naravahanadatta alone , the other four should enter 
the fire, laying the guilt at the door of her who was 
wedded (T II, 471), the apodosis (Br.) 

uddicya tdm dtmd tyaktavyo 'nydbhir astv iti 


contains tin- impn il)le tin n t//<iktavyo '*///; I do not 
wonder ;i1 D reading f/rr ///' in-tead of t/*fr /'//'! 
75 The second line of thi- eloka i- made up of one of 

the absolute locatives descriptive of the wi*e-e-6ce*e of 
\ara\ahanadatta's ahliiyka. In \\\. it run- thii 

.sv//y////7///tf turya-nddeshu innkluirc^lin ////////W/ /'/,// 

= ,,and the assembled e\nd>aU of the hea\enl\ iiwnph- 

resounded aloud" (T II, 473). The use of thq absolutive 

Nfiiiiyatya is rather Mrange in thi> conneetion , a parti- 
ciple in ta would be more rational. Yet MM////////// \\onld 
scarcely make a plausible correction. Brockbaus, in fact, may 
have misread his Vorlage. L) has ma/if/fi/t/fi for 
and in some kinds of writing RTTF^T ^<1 
very similar to each other. The whole line in I) is: 

mahyalyaturyanndem sugitexti dyuyo$itG.m 
,,at the beautiful songs of the heavenly nymphs siceom- 
panied by the auspicious sound of the (heavenly) musical 

130 Brockhaus supposes a lacuna after this eloka (cp. I 
II, 476), for this reason, 1 believe, because //&/////*' 
kopakale 'pi, the first words of the cloka, seem to pic- 
pare the mention of an instant quarrel or a period of 
quarrelling", as T translates it, which, however, is no 
more spoken of in the sequel. Durgaprasad firstly states 
that the good reading is asannakopaksle t and in a 
note at this cloka (p. 524 of the 2 d ed.) he remarks 
that this is to be divided into nsann akopaknl?. He is 
right. The meaning is: ,,The wives of Naravahanadatta, 
though there was no opportunity then of being angry, 
had nevertheless contracted eye-brows and tier\ e 
for they were tipsy". This is followed by the statement, 
that they went to another room to take their meal, etc. 
There is no gap. 

Ill, 77 A slight variant or rather the misreading of one aksara 
comes to the detriment of the wit of I'daxana when. 
being on the point of leaving Kaucambi to become a 
cfiHaprtfst/ia, he rebukes his brother-in-law by a denial 
of the permission to be his companion in the forest. 
Feigning to be angry at Gopalaka's disobedience to his 
order to reign in his place, he exclaims: 

adyaica learn atiuyatto jato withyanuvr tta me. 

svapadac cyacamanasya kasi/ujnam ko hi many ate? 

Verhand. Kon. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. 5. 10 


So D, whereas in Br. the first line ends thus: withy - 
anuvrttaye. Udayana says: ,,To clay you have become 
disobedient , showing your affection to me a sham ; for 
who cares for the command of one who is falling from 
his place of power?" I have put italics, where I alter 
the translation of T. 

81 Some lines below, D has Gopalako vah puteti (Br. pdti 
iti] a better reading, for the future, especially that in 
tr, ,,he shall ' is here the tense required. 

115, 115 D has any any a for Br. anyonya, and so both times, 

in the first and in the third pada, confirming Ts con- 
jecture, cp. his note 2 on II, 520. 

116, 69 The decisive single combat of Muktaphalaketu and 

Vidyuddhvaja took place on the 25 th day of the great 
battle. In Br's text it may seem that this duel happened 
after sunset , for it is edited there : 

pancavihce dine kshine prdyayoh sainyayor dvayoh 
pradhdna-dvandvayuddheshu pravritteshv atra samgare. 
T (II, 527) renders this cloka: ,,And at the end of the 
twenty -fifth day a series of single combats was taking 
place between the principal warriors of both armies along 
the greater vart of the line of the fight!' I have italicized 
the translation of both pancavime dine kshine &\\& prdyayoh 

sainyayor dvayoh. The former may perhaps be accounted 
for, however improbable it is, but the latter is nothing 
but a desperate effort to draw forth something acceptable 
from a phrase which defies sound philological interpre- 
tation. In D both difficulties cease to exist , for there 
we read : 

pancavimqe dine k sin ap ray ay oh sainyayor dvayoh etc. 
= ,,on the twenty -fifth day, when the two armies were 
almost exhausted." 

79 Muktaphalaketu, who fights on the side oftheDevas, 
has vanquished and killed the Asura Vidyuddhvaja 
(76 78). Thereupon the Devas shout for joy and pour 
showers of flowers on the hero, as usual in such cases. 
According to Br., they did so from Svarga - Devdh 
svargad anupadam jagaduh ,,sddhu sddliv!" iti - - but 
how could they, being excluded at that time from heaven 
and waiting for the victory of their champion to be 
reinstalled in their seats? For this reason, I think, D is 
right, reading the line quoted as follows: devaq ca 


etc. ..the I)e\a>. immediately after (hearing) 
I In- noise of the fall of the Asura >lain by M.) cried 
etc." Op, Ka-hnv. I, 44, 

117, 31 Princess Padma\ati ha> fallen in love with Mukta- 

phalaketn and ha^ painted her >\\ eetlieart . She addresses 
the picture with a pathetic declaration of her love, be- 
ginning thus- in T's translation. II. .")30--: ..When 
tlioii ditUl >lay the formidable A>nra and deli\er Indra, 
how come> it that thon doesl not deli\er me from my 
woe, though near me, by speaking to me ;it an\ rater" 
As T rests on Hr.'s text, he must have added ontofliis 
own the words ,,from my woe'', for they do not occur 
in Br. 

durjaydn Asurdii liatvd yena ' Indro ra/.-x/iifa* Irni/il . 

dldpamdkena sa mam katham drdd na raksha* 
In 1) the first line is identical, the second shows a slight 
variant, which, however, entails a considerable change 
of meaning: 

alapamatrena sa nitim k at ham Mar an na /v//-.y/.v/ 
,,how comes it that thou doest not protect me from the < rod 
of Love, were it only by speaking to mer" Mara Kama. 
Cp. the parallel passages 9!. 50: Idam . . . .ceto nofxa/iate 
kxanam / sthatum vina iam praneqam kxamati* im m M/t/t- 
mathah, and G5 : stnghnena hanyamandm /v//-.y/.y/ main 
Makaraketana na katliam. 

51 Ql. 51, which is part of the utterance of PadmaNati 
and is closely connected with the preceding cloka just quoted 
presents a remarkable variance of reading in the two 
editions. In Br. its runs thus : 

tarn eva In smarantyd me mano n'ircdti tatkshanam, 

daily ante 'itf/a'/ii, samtdpena ' ittkrdmanti 'ivaca V.SY//V///, 
but in 1) : 

tarn eva hi smaranlya me mano nirrafi a kxaiiam. etc. 
At the first aspect it will seem that the reading of the 
one conveys a meaning quite opposite to that of the other. 
And so it is. The verb /tircafi must have that signification 
of quiet gladness, which it has got* in consequence of 
the contamination of the derivatives of nis -\~ vr and 
HIS -f- va, as known from Pali nibbuia and lubbanam; so, 
T suppose, the meaning 3) of PW s.v. ca -\- nis (VI, 376) 
gets its genetical basis. According to Br. therefore, the 
sensation described in the first line is one of pleasure, 



but those mentioned in the third and fourth pada 
are disagreeable sensations; but in D all are tainted 
with the guna of rajas, so to speak. Not only the 
absence of the adversative particle, which should be 
undispensable in Br.'s text, is a formal argument for I), 
but it is also not consistent that a woman in the situation 
of Padmavat! should speak as is thus rendered by T 
(II, 531): ,,For when I think of him, my mind is 
immediately refreshed," - if translated literally, it should 
be: ,,is immediately made quiet and put in calm rejoicing." 
The tire of passion, not the calmness of dispassionate 
joy [nirvrti cp. nirvrta bhava cl. 62 = ,,be comforted" 
apud T (II, 532)] is kindled by her thinking of the 
man whom she loves vehemently, without knowing 
anything about his feelings towards herself. D's text 
conveys a more appropriate sense: ,/For when I think of 
him , my mind is quite troubled, my limbs burn and my 
breath seems to leave my body with glowing heat." 
90 Padmavati has come near the place, where Muktapha- 
laketu lies ill. T II, 533 ,,she said to herself: ,,Let me 
see what his illness is, that he is lying here concealed." 
The last word renders channasyaiva of Br. But as there 
is no reason at all to say that M. is concealed (cha.nnd), 
still less to emphasize this by means of the particle eva, 
it is clear that D's reading cliannasthaiv a imports a by 
far more satisfactory meaning. It is she who spies from 
her hiding-place the facts and sayings of Muktaphalaketu 
and his friend. 

118, 18 Somadeva relates how Merudhvaja was in the habit of 
assisting ,,at the assembly of the gods, on the day of the 
full moon in the month of Caitra" (T II, 539). As this 
assembly met once a year, D's reading v a t s ararambke 
for Br.'s vasararambhe is right. To correct: ,,for Merudhvaja 
always went up to Qakra's hall at new year." 
67 It is related how the Daityas fight a battle with an 
army of men, the Daityas standing in the air and the 
men on the earth. It need no further proof to demonstrate 
that not Br. Daityas tu mdnusJidn svak-sthdh bhutala-stkdn 
babddhire , but D Daifyas . . . . kkastha b/tutalasthan etc. 
is the genuine reading. The Daityas are represented standing 
not in the heaven, but between heaven and earth. T (II, 
542) rendered the line duly, notwithstanding B's false 

STUDIES ABOUT Till-; K VI ll.\> \ I.TI >.\(i ARA. 149 

reading. I think, BrockhaUfi mi>read the aksara l^T, cp. 
xv/jt'ft , p. CM in line. 

119, \~>'l foil. In tliis point of tin- tale of M nktaphaladhvaja and 

radniavati their reunion after ><-paration - a common- 
place in lo\e-storie> of that kind - i> being prepared. 
Muktaphaladhvaja lia> conn- to the temple of Civa, where 

hidmaxali , being invi>il>le to him, |)ereei\es liiin. ..He 
entered, and seeing that offerings had been recentU 
])laced in front of the god, prince Muktaphaladhvaja 
said to that companion of his * Look my friend, >ome one 
has been quite recently worshipping this >\mhol of tin- 
god; surely, that beloved of mine must be somewhere 
there, and she must have done this worship' 5 (T 11, 
557). The variance of both editions is only this that in 
cl. 152 Br. reads devo, D devam and in 153 Br. amtn 
y nai/(t, 1) arcitas lay a. Yet though the latter variance is 
rather indifferent, the former necessitates a whole change 
of construction. For D's text requires this inter- 
punction : 

so 'pi pravigya devfiyram, drqtvfi prati/ayr apt/jit am 
MuktfipJtaladhvajo devam, vayasyam tarn abha^ata. 
= Muktaphaladhvaja came in to the god, and seeing 
that the god had been worshipped recently (by offer: 
he said etc." D presents here a text of more elegant 
expression and I greatly doubt whether Mvktdpkala- 
dhvajo devah = ,, prince M." can be tolerated in this 
style. As to prarir//a dewy-rant cp. 20, IMi. 

206 Pada b of this indravaniea stanza lias been cor- 
rected from MSS by T, see his note on II, 560, which 
correction is confirmed by D: but pada d. which con- 
cludes thus: vidhivat sa bhuiimon (Br.) = ,,that j)rosperous 
(king of the Gandharvas) . . . . with due rites" in T's 
translation cannot be faultless, since sa having already 
found its place in pada c (pr fid fit -v/ Mvkt-aphalaketave 
stitrnn} is here superfluous. 1) reads vid/iicfit vibhutitnah, 
* changing the 'prosperous' king into a wealthy one. 

120, 67 For up<!d<inam (Br.) we find in D ti/jamfinam. This 

makes a quite different meaning. Vikramaditva is highly 
praised and according to Br. it is said of him in T's 
translation (II, 567): ,,Surely his glory furnished the 
Disposer [= Vidhi] with the material out of which he built 


up the White Island [Qvetadvtpa], the Sea of Milk, Mount 
Kailasa and the Himalayas." Conceding ever so much to 
the habits of exaggeration and anachronism, which are 
proper to Eastern poetry, it is hard to set to the credit 
of an Indian poet that he should be supposed to make his 
readers accept such an enormity as the Sea of Milk and 
the Himalaya created after the pattern of King Vikra- 
maditya's glory. D's text conveys something more reaso- 
nable. According to it, the Creator or Dispenser (Vidhi) 
surely used the Qvetadvipa, the Sea of Milk etc. as his 
model, when he brought V.'s glory into being. 
76 In the enumeration of the countries conquered by 
Vikramacakti for his master Vikramaditya Br. names 
these : 

Madhyadeqah sa-Saurdshtrah, sarvd Gang a ca piirva-dik ; 
which implies a very uncommon manner to express ,,all 
the eastern region of the Ganges", as T (II, 567) ren- 
ders it, or ,,the whole eastern region, where the Ganges 
flows" as may rather be meant by Gahga purvadik (!) In 
D there is no question of the Ganges, which in fact 
does not specially belong to the eastern region of India. 
These countries subdued are named there : 

Madhyadecah sa-Saurastrah sa-VahgAhga ca purvadik 
= . . . . and the eastern region with the land of Vauga 
and Anga (that is: with Bengal)." 
83 A slight, but necessary correction of Br. is D's text: 

ito devajnayci deva gatvaham praptavan Jcramat. 
The vocative deva is here as properly put as caiva (the 
reading of Br.) is unaccountable and, therefore, passed over 
by T (II, 568). 

121, 95 In the course of the ludricous story of the gamester 
Thinthakarala Somadeva gives vent to this remark, that 
even gods avoid the contact with an impudent scoundrel, 
as if they were incapable to withstand him. The cloka 
which contains this saying, is corrupt in Br. : 

akslima-bhogcid vishamdd drishtvd tato 'bhayorjifdt 
durjandd vata deva apy acaktd iva bibhyati. 
In T's translation (II, 576) this is rendered somewhat 
obscurely: ,,Even gods, you see, like feeble persons, 
are afraid of a thoroughly self-indulgent [= ak$inabhogaf\ y 
ruffianly scoundrel [= visamad durjanat~\ , flushed with 
impunity [= abhayorjitat]" Here the last epithet is 


strange, for \\\> impunity presupposes at all events the 
consequence of tin- attitude of tin- u<><U, not the source 
of it; akxiiHihliuija cannot Mgnif\ that which T lias put 
for it; and linalh drx/r/i \> not translated at all (for 
\ou see" must be the equivalent, 1 suppose, of bata) 
and, in fact, in this connection cannot be accounted lor. 
D's edition restores the genuine text : 

ukxwado $ a d viqawad i x / <i // / \ / ab/ia // <>j } // / / n f 
durjanad bata (leva, apy acakta iva bibhyati 
= ,,K\en gods, you see, as if they were incapable to 
withstand him, are afraid of an utterly perverted and 
wicked scoundrel who fearless does not at all care for 
good or evil (in his actions)." 

155 sq. Thinthakarala, in order to make the king demolish tin- 
temple and by this to get free his wife, ,,secretly buried 
in a forest outside the city four pitchers containing his 
wife's ornaments" (T II, 579): 
(Br.) tatra ' atavydm catasris/tu nyadhdd ilikxhn /y///v/V/ /v/ ///'// 

kdntdlamkdra-kalaqan nivdrya caturo b/nn'i. 
In T's translation I find no equivalent for /tirfiri/a n<i 
should I know what meaning to give ta this gerund 
in this context. Instead of it D has niklnya, the 
very word we are in want of; nyndhfid . . . . irikhnyu 
together = ,,he buried". The following half-eloka runs 
thus in Br. : 

pafaapaftca-mahdratna-savipurnam nwaklidmi xa/t 
,,and one full of sets of the tive precious things he .... 
buried within the city etc." So T, who in a note 
accounts for the term 'five precious things'. In D, 
however, we read : 

pa it rani aw ca uiaharatnasampurnam nicakhSna -v/// 
= ,,and the fifth (pitcher), filled up with precious 
jewels he buried etc." That till five pitchers contained 
rich ornaments and no di tie re nee is made between 
them, is plain from the sequel, see el. 162, 167 
and 171. 

1 SO (Br.) tac carire/ia cef krilyan) fara , nirlocya tad . iiri/ta. 

adyuicii 'rfatl driitam devakulam bMitti-samam kuru! 
,,So, if you care for your body's weal, my sovereign, 
take this into consideration and this very day quickly 
level this temple with the earth" (T II, 580). For 
n i r hey a D has nirlolhya* a reading more appropriate 


to the facts. How can there be time for consideration, 
if the temple should be demolished this very day? 
Thinthakarala says: ,,If you desire to live, demolish the 
temple and level it with the earth quickly, even this 
very day." Nirlothayati ,,to demolish" is also used by 
Somadeva 76, 30 nirlothya mathikam , answering to T 
II 244 ,,remove this hut and - ." 

122, 21 Br. sa dvy-aliena try-aJtena 'asmai rdjne prdb/irita-putrikdm 

likhitvd ' any any ay a riipa-bliahgyd citrakaro dadau. 
It suffices to observe that D reads dvyahena dvyaliena, 
to understand that this variance is really an emendation 
of Br. So both the symmetry of the composition (cp. 
anyanyayci in pada c) and the rules of grammar concer- 
ning the vipsa have got their due. 

63 Vikramaditya , so it is related, had a pleasant dream, 
that in a very beautiful city across the sea he met with 
a charming lady, the man-hating princess Malayavati and 
married her. When he awoke not perceiving her he grew 
sad, and time going he became so afflicted that he lost 
his interest in everything. His door-keeper Bhadrayudha , 
having heard in private the secret cause of his sorrow , 
induces him to paint the whole scene of his dreamed 
happiness on a canvass. This being done, Bhadrayudha 
had a new monastery made and the picture put up 
there on the wall. ,,And he directed that in relief houses 
attached to the monastery, a quantity of food, with pairs 
of garments and gold, should be given to bards come 
from distant countries" (T 11,590). The sentence I have 
placed within signs of quotation is the translation of this 
$loka in Br.'s text : 

mathe ca ' atra 'akarod dura-deqdgantuka-vandindm 
satreshv anna-samdkdram sa-vastrayuga-kdmanam. 
In D it is not ,, relief-houses" from which he orders to 
take the presents destined to the bards, but one such a 
building; on the other hand, the food is qualified to be 
delicate, having the six (required) flavours. The pada c 
reads in 1) : satire s ad r as am altar am. 

123, 196 The boatmen, bribed by the old brahman, push the 

boat where Kecata was into a place of the river where 
the current ran strong and, swimming themselves ashore, 
leave him alone to be carried to the sea. His reaching 
the sea is narrated in this manner in Br. : 


It' xdHHiiku '/y/' nnili/ii krifotfarangayd 

* nt It n < I IKI u rtifnrnrtil 
= ,,l!ut 1\. \\;i- ciirricd with the hoat . 1>\ llu- ri\<-r 
which \\as laslu-d into waves l\ the wind , into the sea" 
(T II, 603). 1) has: 

Keqatn* In xinmnko ' />i mnli/n ///// <j fff/i 'nii<;<iif<i etc. 
,,K. carried awav wjth the hoat l\ the river which 
ran with hijli waves b\ the wind, wa- pii-ln-d into 
the s< ;i 



It has been sufficiently proved, I think, in the Chapters I and 
II that the edition of Durgaprasad marks a considerable progress. 
We are filled with gratefulness towards that upakurin, whose 
labours contributed so much to the better understanding of the 
important text on which he bestowed his care; and Tawney must 
feel somewhat sorry, I think, that D's edition was not out at the 
time when he made his translation. Nevertheless, as hns also been 
stated above, it is no critical edition. Though the tradition of the 
text is upon the whole a good one, so that the number of trou- 
blesome or difficult passages owing to corruption and depravation 
of the author's words is comparatively small, yet such puzzles are 
not wanting altogether. In such cases the absence of an apparatus 
criticus makes itself painfully felt. The actual state of what is really 
found in manuscripts is hidden in a dark terra incognita. The only 
and scanty light that sparingly illuminates small spots of it is emit- 
ted by the apparatus of Tawney in those cases where his translation 
is not based on Br.'s text but on different readings of the manu- 
scripts at his disposal. It is something encouraging that his 
corrections of that kind often confirm conjectural emendations 
previously proposed by scholars. 

For it is a matter of course that, considering at one side our 
ignorance of the lectionis varietas in the manuscripts, at the other 
the insufficient x&oTrurTiu of Br., conjectural criticism is sometimes 
by necessity to be resorted to. Some competent Sanskritists whom 
some reason or other caused to attend more closely to the outer 
form and the elocution of the ,, Ocean of the Streams of Tales", 
did good work in that direction. First of all BOEHTLTNGK was 
obliged to ponder Br.'s text for the wants of his Dictionary, and 
TAWNEY had to fulfil this task as a cautious and judicious trail s- 
jlator. Both proposed many conjectures de sno, among which excel- 
ent corrections. After the appearance of Br.'s volume III (lamb. 


IX XVIII) Kl.UN published ;i paper ill the Jom'ii'il of tin' l\<></. 

As. 'Society, 1S6S, containing :i li-t of conjectural emendation-. 

A very invat number of them arc incorporated in D'> text. I 
dare not say, that they ha\c found their \\a\ thither. 1 hold it for 
more likeh that they happened to airrer with the reading of hi> 
new manuscripts and from thence pa ed into hi- tr\t. llo\\e\rr 
this may be, the good right anjl the utility of conjectural critici-m 
as ultimum rcmcd'nun is once more attested. 

Boehtlingk's corrections are dispersed in the Metropolitan I)ictio- 
uary; for this reason I give some fuller indication of tho-c \\hich 
agree with l)'s text, as far as 1 have noted them. At .",."). 1 fiT) 
ritr/H/kftr/ifi/t for r//r//a ; 56, 247 ^ihlii/n for AY/////V ; (\*2 , \^^ 
anokaha for amuf' ; (>8, 11 tn/tj/itiff// for tnlnf ; 08, o7 sctmoara 
for qahvara -, 72, :20 rtinlhnka for rf/raka-, 80, 30 .v///////////v7r//// 
for sanf '; 98, 5 niniitldliknh for AW ; 103, 30 jjtn'fi,n/tfirfiiH for 
li(tr(isp?\ 118, 112 and 120, 25 ^/// /*////// for <///i*f/ifi and u<//tixf/iu 
(sic); 120, 39 vai^amyatfili for caiqasyatah ; 120, 123 f/tl/jf/////r<;, 
for Gand/iarva\ 122, 67 pauraxti/a for paula . 

Conjectures of Tawney confirmed by 1) are found: 0, 1!). 10. 
108. 13, 147. 15, 1. 20, 122. 35, 129. 68, 55. 70, 100; 123. 72, 
366. 73, 134. 78, 23. 87, 14. 92, 86. 93, 67. '-'I, KM;. \\:>. 
115. 122, 139. 123, 294. 

Conjectures of Kern similarly confirmed: 5, 103. 56, 1^. ". ;. 
66. 60, 15. 63, 185. 64, 218. 66, 35. 72, 86. 81, 102. 86, 
111. 90, 33. 94, J19. 101, 31; X 186. 102, 113. 103. 84; 93. 
104, 160. 107, 25; 30; 38. 112, 161. 113, 18. 117. If.. 120, 
62. 121, 107. 122, 8. 123, 15s. 124, 128. 

Sometimes, but rarely, conjectural emendations not continued 
by D agree with one or more of Tawney 's MSS. , e. g. Kern's 
proposal as to 114, 113. 

Pandit Mookerjea mended 55, 184 (see T I, 546), which 
emendation has been continued by 1). Similarly that of an anony- 
mous scholar as to 29, 150 (Y/v/V for bahili , vid. supra, p. 109). 

The following striking corrections are not warranted by l)"'s text. 
Of Tawney with respect to 22, 238. 24, 184 (185). 25,1 i 7; 216. 
45, 167. 47, 117; of Kern as to 52, 189. ^, 218. 100, 178; 
of Boehtlingk as to 73, 240 (clrl for clra, cp. v /. 32 where the 
same correction agrees with D); 75, 76 (asf/ult for dst/ir/t}. Yet I 
would not a moment hesitate to take them up into the text, if 
ever I were to perform a critical edition of the Kathasaritsagara. 

Now I proceed to some proposals of conjectural criticism for 
my own part. Except one passage, treated in Ch. II (supra, p. 120), 


where I could not avoid it for a practical reason, I have hitherto 

abstained from bringing forth my own guesses about corruptions 

of the text without the support of manuscript readings. Tn this 

way the conjectural proposals after the publication of D will stay 

apart from those made before that time on the sole text of Br. 

6, 108 I begin with correcting a slight error in a name. In 

tar. 6, 108 Devakrtam tad ndyanam must be changed 

into Devakrtim etc. , cp. ibid. 72 Devakrtir iti kliyutam 

udyanam etc. 

Ill In this gloka both Br. and D have jahnuh, an impos- 
sible form. Brockhaus translates this perfect by ,,schlugen 
(auf ihn) zu", hence Tawney likewise ,,pelted him vigo- 
rously" (I, 37), as if it were jaglmuh. I read jahruh-, 
this verb agrees better, I suppose, with the adjectives 
qualifying its subject. The bathing wives ,,with bodies 
the proportions of which were revealed by their clin- 
ging garments" incited the mind of their husband to 

lovesport , jaJtruh tarn anganuh = 'mulieres euin 


119 Some lines below it is related how the king was wholly 
abashed at the manifestation of his ignorance of Sanskrit 
appearing by his misunderstanding the words of the queen: 
^modakaif deva paritadaya mam." ,,The king was at once 
overpowered with secret shame" (lajjakranto jJiatity abliut 
cl. US). (X 119 th " s proceeds: 

parity aktajalakndo vitadarpacca tatksanam 
jatavamano nirlaksah praviqan nijamandaram , 
so D. In Br. is edited nirlaksyctb, LANMAN has adopted this 
reading in his Reader, 50 14 . But neither nirlaksah nor 
nirlaksyah seem to represent the genuine word. If we admit 
of its correctness, we have to comply with such an V# 
slpyuevov as is scarcely consistent with the general laws of 
structure of Sanskrit words. There does not exist such a 
verb as nirlakayati, if it existed, it would not at any rate 
mean ,,to avoid the sight." On the other hand, analysing 
nirlaksya (or k$d) = where the laksya is wanting" cannot 
account for the translation neither of Br. , who makes the 
king return to his palace, ,,um von Niemandem gesehen 
zu werden," nor for that of T., who renders the con- 
clusion of this cloka in this manner: ,,and immediately 
entered his own palace unpereeived" The simplest corre- 
ction would be to change nirlaksah into vilaksa/t. But it 

-I! IUKS Al'.oi T Till-; KATHASABrralGABA, 15*3 

improbable that an as common word as ri/akqa 
should IIJINC hem altered. If \\e correct: nirlakjmlh, 
all will be right. /^//.y//// has often tin- meaning of ..bril- 
liane\, lu>ire" In one's outer appearance (cp. A.PTE'S Diet.. 

8. r. 4); nirlakxmi i> the same a- tin- more eoinmon 
word iiix/>rfih/if/. Tin- king. being aba-lied ;ind put to 
shame, was in low >pirit> and in a dejeeird Mate of 
mind: this he showed In his perplexed eoiintenanee. ( 'p. 
the parallel phires Divvavadana O.'J.'i-"' and A \ a- 
danaeataka, I, 48 10 where nijpratib/ifina i> n^ed of 
persons, vanquished in disputation. 

9, 77 For ri/jfimic pftmffif/c i>nrr<iui \ read r.j,. p&rve. The 

mountaineer says to Udayana: ,,I am a poor man. and 
I always maintain myself by exhibiting snakes [jivdmi 
bhujagam khelayan sods]. The snake 1 previously had 
having died, I. ... finding this one. . . . captured him 
\ayam. . . , may ft labdliali^ (T I, 55). Now as the phra-e 
'the snake I previously had' corresponda to /^/////^/// 
pUrvah, not purvam, it follows that jturram i> a corrupt 
reading and must be corrected into purve. 

10, 159 The hunter who finds Qrldatta and tells him that his 

wife whom he had lost is safe and stays at Nagasthala in 
the house of an old brahman, concludes his message with 
this cloka, which is edited (in both Br. and D) as follows: 
tataq crihmn iliHyrdo buddln'u Ivan nn ma tammiklifit 
tarn anve^tum tato gacc/ta r//////y//// Xayaxthaluin jjrnfi. 
T (I, 64) renders the second line thus: ,,Therefore \<m 
had better go quickly to N. to search for her." But 
how can Qrldatta be urged to search for his wife, when 
he has been just before informed of the place, where 
she is. The right reading is, of course, / ' c n /// f//^r.y //////, 
with punctuation after these words, for it is aliam 
ihanalal that lias I cam an cesium for its complement. 
'Hie hunter says: ,, having learnt your name from her 
lips, I came here to search after you. Therefore, go 
quickly to N." 

11, 77 tat all kalena jatQsya rajnal; kanya tu la/icy atlia. 

The particle tu is here not required and inconvenient. 
Correct: UK fancy atlia - 'a very delicate daughter' or 
'a beautiful daughter'. 

13, 196 Vasavadatta leaves her uneasiness at her having left 
stealthily the paternal home with her lover, king Udayana, 


being moved by the lovely tale narrated by Vasaritaka 
about the adventures of the faithful wife Devasmita. 
These are the contents of this cardulavikndita stanza, 
the third and fourth padas of which are thus edited : 
tallajjasadanam vidhaya vidadhc Fatsecvare bhartari 
prakpraudhapranayavdbaddhani api tad bliaktyekatanam manah. 
The subject of the passive perf. vidadle is Vasavadattaya 
in the second pada. Tawney has well caught, I think, 
the purport of the first part of pada c) , which Brockhaus 
must have considered so difficult as to overlook it wholly 
in his translation. He translates: ,,she got over the fee- 
ling of shame [= tallajjas. vidhaya] at having recently 
left her father's house [= navaparityakte pitur vecmani 
in pada $)]". Apparently he does not take sadanam = 
'Sitz', as is done PW VII, 603 s. v. sadana 1), but he 
will claim for it the meaning 3) 'Erschlaffung', as I do. 
Yet, this being the case, its connection with vidhaya 
does not make a proper sense. Not vidhaya but vihaya 
must be the right reading; tallajjasadanam vihaya answers 
to Latin liujus pudoris lanyuore relicto. 

14, 15 The nuptials of Udayana and Vasavadatta are come to 
an end, and U. with his wife go back to Kaucambi: 
sa pratasthe tato devya saha .... svapunm prati. After 
two or three days viqayam tarn avapya sah etc. Correct 
visayam svam, for he arrived in his own territory. 
100 Both Br. and D have gacchatAvantikam brutha. For 
brutha to restore brut>i y it is an imperative. 

17, 72 I change pramodena into pramadena. Somaprabha, that 
wondrous girl, who spoke immediately after birth, had 
told her father, he must not marry her to anybody; 
accordingly the father concealed her in his house", and 
in this manner she grew up hidden from everybody. 
But, so relates our tale-teller, once it happened that on 
the festival of spring she looked down from the top of 
her house. That she did so pramadena 'by some impru- 
dence (of her wardens)' is something essential which 
cannot be missing; pramodena, wdiich denotes that ,,she 
looked on out of gladness", is to no purpose. Even in 
the parallel extract in Brhatkathamanjari, however 
shortened, the accidental character of the fact is indicated; 
see p. 80 , cl. 139 tarn Cakrotsavayatrayam daivadvata- 
yanastliitaui / Galiasenasuto 'paqyat. 


l.")(i Yaugandharayana counsel- his ma-ter to return to 

Kailraml)!. ..fur \\ e know that there i- nothing to he 
feared iVuin the king of Magadha. e\en though lie li;is 
been deeei\ed. I'ur lie IIMS been coin pletely gained o\er 
l)\ mean- ut' the negut i;it iun termed '(Jiving "fa daughter'." 
(T I, 123). lleiv the -enteiire ..he lm> been gal lied OVCr" 

is the translation of tamadhitah in Mr., an impo ible 
form, explained in r\\'. VII. I 1 an XTT. iip. - 

xduidliihi. D rends MI /W////V/// (=,,he lm> been eheek- 
The true reading is, of euiirx-, .v // .v n <l ////////. that 
expresses nearly the same BS T'fi ..h<- ha- lieen gained 
over"; the whole line runs thn>. 

kanyasambandluindmna /// .v///////// AY//////^//- AY/ sftdhitak. 
21, 90 It is almost superfluous to ol>ser\e that the a\agraha 

in both editions should disappear; 9a /v//V//y////-o hln>j<' 
par (i in <;ri//am. Cp. s/f/j/vi p. ( .)2 in tine. 

24, JOG I read the cloka thus: 

tavac ca sa dvitlyo *xya mkhri cnramukkena tnt 
vijnn?/a Madhavo ' py evani nagariM praviveqa /'////. 
The edited text has tain and <>tfiiniftt/(inni. 

25, 88 Both Br. and 1) edit this cloka as full,u>: 

rfitrau ca fair a suptequ sarceqc adkiyatadkvasn 
rrfinte$v astlrnaparnadipan thagayySn /AY/^/M-// . 
Here I cannot account for adhigat&dkvan as a designa- 
tion of people who have travelled the whole day and 
are now fatigued, as is required by the context; T 
(I, 209) translates: ,,And at night, while all were 
asleep, wearied with their long journey etc." Adli'njatri- 
d/tvan does not suit this meaning, it ought to denote 
rather 'one who has found his way/ I propose to correct : 
sarve$v apt yatadhvasu = while all travellers without 
exception, were asleep"; gatadhian is here as appropriate 
a word to signify people at rest after travelling, as 
adhvaga and adhvagacchan (J ata ka ma la, VI, 27) to 
signify travellers on the road. 

247 I think tarn at the end of the 2 d pada is to be cor- 
rected into tat\ sarovaram is a neuter always and every- 
where. Cp. PW and PWK s. v. 

26, 142 D = 140 Br. The sons of Satyavrata, having laid hold 
on Qaktideva, are going to make an expiatory offering 
of him to Durga, since he had occasioned the death of 
their father. They sav: 


tad ea Candikadevyali purastat pitryhataJcah 
asmabhir upahartavyah $vah prabhate pacukrtak. 
So must be read and not upahantavyah , as edited. There 
is no room here for the gerundive of han -\- upa, which, 
if existing, must mean 'to be touched, to be hurted"; on the 
other hand upahartavya is the proper word required. Cp. 
6, 79 lokah paqupali arena pnnati varadam imam; 18, 161 
atmopaliarena prinami bhavatlm aliam\ 22, 64 D tatraham 
upaharartham upanitah etc.; 53, J37 tatra prabodliya 
(viz. Vlravarali) bliaryayai. . . . capamsa sah / svaputram 
upaliartavyam r ajar the vacanad Bhuvah\ Brhatk. tar. 
2 , 113 Bhillair (so to read) Durgopah&rdya nibadd/to 
bnliucrnklialaik. - - Cancel upahantavya in PW and PW.K. 
226 I) ==224 Br. Both editions have 

tarn ca krstam puras tyaktva Devadattam tarn abliyadliat. 
I think it must be punas, not puras. T (I, 230) trans- 
lates: (She, after cleaving her body and taking out the 
child) flung it down before him and said", but how 
can the sole pur ah convey the meaning of the two words 
puras tasya^ Punah signifies that she took the child out 
and immediately after again abandoned it. 

27, 148 The minister Amaragupta, counselling his lord Vikra- 
masiniha to go a hunting, calls hunting a fine and useful 
sport, yet it ought no to be practised with excess. Pada 
a of the cloka where this is stated, is edited thus: na 
cati te niqevyante. As no plural noun immediately precedes 
to which to refer the subject te, T (I, 243) accepts te 
as meaning the mrga dustriJt , named in pada a of 147, 
and translates: ,,but wild animals should not be too 
unremittingly pursued." A forced interpretation, also with 
respect to nisevyante. I hold the words for slightly cor- 
rupt and emend them in this way: na cati sa nisevyas 
te ,,yet, you should not love that (hunting-sport, 
akheta, named immediately before in 147 d) too much." 
29, 91 Klrtisena who during the absence of her husband is 

exposed to the vexations and the ill treatment of her 
mother-in-law reflects within herself, what I put here with 
the words of the translator (T I, 261): ,,My husband 
is rich, I was born in a good family, I am fortunately 
endowed and virtuous, nevertheless I suffer such cala- 
mity, thanks to my mother-in-law." By the bye I remark 
that the words ,,I am fortunately endowed" answer to 


saubhSyyam and e\pn that she pocssed beaut \ and 
other qualities apt to captivate a husband. The condition 
,,thanks to my mother-in-law" is a clever rendering of 
(raqruprawidftt of the original. Vet ///v/.sW", being not 
used as our ,, thank- to" as a vox media indicator of 
any cause, even of mishap, is wholly out of place here. 
And the nature of the context forbids u> to explain 
qvaqruprawulnl as an ironical utterance = ,,by the favour 
[that is: ill-favour] of m\ mother-in-law". The \\ord i- 
doubtless depraved. I guess the ITCH nine ablatiu- may be 
easily restored and read the cloka a- lollo\\- 

luUiyah patik kule janma Mut/j/iw/yatn 8a<lhurrftata 
tad apy aho mama pvaprv ap a # a <l <i <l idrri ripat. 
. . . .nevertheless I suffer such calamity because of that 
accursed mother-in-law." For ftpasada with this meaning, 
see the instances quoted by APTE, Scuwlcrit-EnglM I)icf. . 
s. v. and also Dacak u m aracarita, I ttarakh. , 4 th 
Ucchvasa (p. 131 ed. Taran.) kva yasi kunjarapasadfi. 

32, 135 D = 136 Br. The structure of the period which makes 
up this cloka is somewhat disturbed ; the clause yat W//v/ 
me 'sti napita/i is not accounted for satisfactorily from a 
grammatical point of view, whether it should be construed 
with the preceding sentence , or with the following. I 
think, yat suhrt should be corrected into yah *//////, and 
I read the cloka thus: 

ekas tatrubhyupayah syat : yah *// ///// ////' V/ ////////#/ 
n/rgvijntinakugalah , sa cet kn-n/rnl iliodyanidm. 

144 D = 145 Br. What may be the force &i param , the li'st word 
of the first line of this gloka? The female ascetic deli- 
berates with her friend, the barber, about some mean> 
to remove queen Kadaligarbha from king Drdhavarman , 
her husband, who is much attached to her. The barber 
dissuades to use violence; therefore it is far better", 
says he ,,that she should be separated from the king by 
means of our ingenuity", etc. (T I, 288). There can 
be no question of doubting the tightness of this trans- 
lation. But it is not param that means 'far better,' but 
varam, and so, I am sure, the edited text is to be 
mended : 

tasmad buddlnbalenaiqa raj no vi$li*t/afe car am. 
This , too , is in accordance with the habit of our author 
of employing varam in the way of an adverb, so as to have 

Verhand. Kou. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. N. R. Dl. VIII. N. .">. 11 


almost the nature of our rather". Here are some in- 
stances: 22, 84 tad etam upasarpUmi tavaj jijnasitum 
varam I it y alocya\ 26, 250 astam tatraiva blmyo 'pi 
pnpali kapaliko varam - ,,let the wicked kapalika rather 
remain there still longer"; 39, 50 (Br.) tad ihaiva varam 
devi bltugrham kriyatam iti\ 101, 8 varam Ujjayinimyami 
tatra prapyeta jatu sah\ 123, 57 tad yaccliami varam 
patlia I etatpradarqyamanena. Other instances see PW, VI 
s. v. varam ,2/5. 

34, 167 I read this cloka with a slight correction, altering 
tayamya into tasya\ 

tatra parqvam tasyamya sutam Madanamancukam 
Kalingasenaya prltya rajyamanali, sa tastliivan. 
Pargvam cannot be destitute of the genitive depending 
on it. 

212 The words yatha latha at the end of the 2 d pada 
must be interchanged , the meaning being ,,he conducted 
himself in such a way [cerate sma tatha] that [yatha~\ 9 
though attacked by an emperor, he was not defeated" 
(T I, 314). 

37, 165 Tawney translates the line anubhuladbJiMtanekajanma- 

mutraiva janmani having endured more than one [add: 

'wonderful'] birth in this very life" (I, 343). But amutra 

janmani is ,,in the other life", the very counterpart of 

this life (idam janmd}., Somadeva wrote, I am sure, 

janmamutr e v a janmani = having endured many won- 

. derful births, as if in the other world." 

38, 111 It is said of the hetaera Madanamala that she, having 

lost her sweetheart, determined to die, if in the space 
of six months he should not return. Her temper of mind, 
v\ T hile being in this disposition , is thus described in the 
edited text (Br. and D) : 

tat as tadviprayogarta jwitam visavedanam 
dekam niqplialamayasamaliaram caurayatanam 
manyamana , 

and rendered by T (I, 352) as follows: . . . . afflicted 
at his departure a and considering life to be poison-agony, 
and the body, that fruitless accumulation of delusion, 
to be merely a punishment for thieving." We may under- 
stand that she, heavy with sorrow, looks on life as an- 
guish caused by poison, but what in the world may 
account for the strange and absurd opinion , that the body 


-hould he hold for 'a pnni.-hment lor thieving'? Besides, 
though mat/ft (delusion) is tlie acknowledged can-.- oi' the 
phenomenal \\orhl , from the orthodox Vedantic stand- 
point , Mich a trnrt Bfi </t'/id ////////MY////////"/V/ is unheard of 
and, if considered well, almost an iiiipo>-ihilit\ tor an Indian 
mind; the mnt/a does not con-i>t of >mall paiticido, the 
sum or xa nt ah dra of which makc> up a lod\. Brockhaus 
\\a> mistaken, when hedi\ided m*hphala-mdyd-9amdhdram. 
He ought to have divided thus: /iixjj/ia/am //////*/// ^/ 
in three \\onU. And BS to cauraydtanUm t I am >mv it 
- sents a misread caiva yafauf'nn. I restore, accordingly, 
Sonmdeva's genuine cloka in this manner: 

tatas tadviprayoyarta jirihim rixarct/a/Kim 
deliam ni$phalam ayasam fib (Irani caiva ////////////// 

= . . . . considering life to be poison-agony , the body 
fruitless toil and food to be a punishment. ' 
39, 215 For rnjanam yatanj buddhva savftkchdlam I sambfaivyaxva 
I propose. . . . svav^lkchalam jsambhOvyawa == ,,guessiii t ir 
that the king was gone after knowing her false tongue"; 
buddhva has the king for its subject, not the queen. T> 
translation (I, 366) is to be corrected in thi^ \\a\. 
41, 31 King Cirayus the long-lived, whose minister was the 
wise Nagarjuna (see supra, p. 48), has anointed his 
son Jlvahara yuvaraja. When he, rejoiced at his dignity 
of crown-prince, comes up to his mother, she say- to 
him: ,,Why do you rejoice without cause, my son, at 
having obtained this dignity of crown-prince, for thi> i> 
not a step to the attainment of the kingly dignity, not 
even by the help of asceticism? For many crown-princes, 
sons of your father, have died, and not one of them 
has obtained the throne, they have all inherited disap- 
pointment. For Nagarjuna has given this king an elixir, 
by the help of which he is now in the eighth century 
of his age/' These words of the mother, which I transcribe 
from T (I, 377) - -- original text 41, 3133, offer no 
difficulty, but for the mention of asceticism. The life and 
the business of a crown-prince are the very contrary of 
the life and the occupations of an ascetic. What, then, 
the tapas has to do here? Nothing at all, I think. If the 
cloka 31 were free from corruption, that tapas would cease 
to be. I surmise, the genuine form of this ?loka was: 



yauvarajyam idam prapya putra hrsyasi kim mrsa? 

rajyapraptyai kramo hy esa na kadacana vidyate 
= ,,do not rejoice at your being anointed crown-prince: 
this is never at all a step to the attaining of the royal 
dignity;" ^f^^^rJ has been depraved into 

44, 57 Suryaprabha, the future lord of the Vidyad haras kidnaps 

many princesses as his wives, thanks to the favour of the 
Asura Maya. Roaming with his chariot through the air 
he took Madanasena from TamraliptI, CandrikavatI from 
Aparanta, Varunasena from Kanci, Sulocana from Lava- 
naka etc. From TamraliptI he carried away also a second 
princess , 

ayayau Tdmraliptwi ca punas tatrapy apaharat 

aparam rajatanayam kanyam namna Vilasinim. 

Here I have corrected apaharat for upaharat 9 as is 
edited in both Br. and D. Perhaps it was an error of 
print in Br. , thoughtlessly repeated in D. Cp. 9!. 63, 
where the king of Tamtalipti complains to the father of 
Suryaprabha: putrena tava me 'pahrte sute. Supra, p. 71 
we have conversely corrected apa 3 instead of upa . At 48 , 
34 D has upakrtam , which is preferable to Br. apakrtam. 

Another instance of the same confusion is 75, 95. The 
woman says: 

kim tv aham na sada tatra cjacchamy ap a hrtambara. 

kuputrah kitavo vastram drstva hi karate mama. 
Here Br. reads upahrtambara , I) upaJmiambarci. The 
fault escaped the attention of Boehtlingk, who in his 
Chrestomafhie' 2 ' p. 114 (cl. 37) kept the reading of Br., 
Tawney rightly translates, as if his text had apahrta -. 
,,but I never go at present, as I have been deprived 
of my clothes, for my wicked son, who is a gam- 
bler, takes away my clothes, as soon as he sees them." 
(II, 236). 

45, 27 In the answer of Maya, the advocate of Suryaprabha, 

to Narada, Indra's messenger, Br.'s corrupt text: yat 
,,prd<}vamedh(ikaranam devdvajndm" cajalpati I tad asat has 
misled T (I, 415). D much better: yaq ca^vamedhcf . 
Read : y a c ca qvamedhakaranam devavajnam cajalpati tad 
asat = ,,and with regards to his (Indra's) saying about 
the not-performance of an acvamedha (by us) and our 
contempt of the devas, that is false." 


49,175D = 17(J Br. I'or .v//,/ /V/ /////////"/ eva \ think it must be 

J)llt .v///y/ tuniituklii'ii a i r n \ tun mtilJni era cannot In; accoun- 
tt-u lor grammatically, neither as num. nor a> loc., and 
cp. the preceding cloku pravr&jakamukhena. 
'1 1 (\ ..And a wife, [says (iniiaearman who ialU in love of 
lirr own accord with a man, is sure to In- chaste, hut 
if she i-> given a\va\ by her lather airain>t her will, sin- 
will be like A.soka\ati" (T I, ir.'J . The original tr\t 
of tliis sentence, whose meaning is exact l\ rendered \\\ 
the words quoted, is thus edited: 

jdi/d en .WY//Y/.SY/ raktu bharcd 

avaga pitrdatta ca syad AqokdvaA 
Here, I suppose, every Sanskritist must be at a loss how 
to account for svaraxti. That word mu>t be somehow 
corrupted, and I think we do not go much amiss by conjectu- 
ring the true reading to be s v ft u a <; n. The wife got 
against her will and given by her father avafd 

pitrdatlfi m is contrasted with her who of her own 
accord comes to her husband, whom she loves 
vapa rakfi't. 

53, 40 Labdhadatta, a dependent (karpatikd) of king Laksa- 
datta, had received from his lord a citron tilled with 
jewels. He, however, thinking it a common citron, 
sold it to some Buddhist mendicant, who visiting the 
king, presents him with it. Laksadatta, recognizing the 
fruit, asks the mendicant, how he came by it. The first 
line of 9!. 40 contains the question; Br. differs here 
from 1) : 

Br. HintHlttiu/ttin kuta idain xuirtlabdhaiH bhacatum ill 

D mri1nlnh()am kuta Idam bhadanta bhavatum ifi. 
I prefer the reading of D, but as it is very impro- 
bable that the king addresses that ordinary mendicant 
in so respectful terms as is implied by the plural 
blmcatum , I hold this word for a corruption and con- 
jecture : 

ma hd a it (j ant kuta idani bltadanfa b h a // // a t a /// /// 
= ,,How did yow come by that citron? Tell it me, 
reverend sir." 

57, 111 foil. These two clokas, in which the rescue of Sundari 
from the well and the returning of her lover Icvaravarman 
are narrated (T II, 7), seem to be badly transmitted 
in mss. Partly D, partly my own conjecturing may help 


to improve the reading. So, 1 think, Somadeva compo- 
sed them: 

utkqipta mrtakalpam sa krtvatmanam nivedite 1 } 
praty agate vanikputra alapam canakair dadau || 
samaqv as tarn 2 ) samadaya hrqtas tarn sanugaJi priyam 
agad Icvaravarmasau pratyavrtyaiva tadgrliam || 

62, 143 Since it is impossible to construe yuyam sarve 

tistliantu, and no other grammatical employment of the 
imperative is left than to be the predicate of yuyam, 
tisthantu must be a clerical error for tisthata. 
63, 59 The water-genius relates how heias been born as such, 
by a fault committed in a previous existence, when being 
under the vow of the uposana he , though not purposely, 
had had sexual intercourse with his wife. ,,When this 
vow was almost completed" he says, ,,orie of my wives 
wickedly came and slept in my bed." (T II, 82). 
Then happened that which is told in cl. 59 defectively edi- 
ted in Br. one syllable is wanting - - , in D it is 
as follows: 

turye tu yame vismrtya tadvrate tannisevanam 

nidramohat taya sakam ratam sevitavan aham. 

It is plain that he did not forget tannisevanam but tan- 

nisedhanam. As to the confusion in mss. between v 

and dh see supra, p. 69 at the bottom. 

65, 81 The meaning of upaMramca, as is edited in Br. and 
D, must be a mystery to the interpreters of this passage. 
Somaprabha has cursed her brother to become a bird with 
a golden crest, and puts this term to the curse, saying: 
,,When. . . . you fall, in your bird-form, into a blind 
well, and a certain merciful person draws you out, and 
you do him a service in return, then you shall be released 
from this curse". I transcribe the words quoted from T II, 
105 and I have italicized the equivalent of tasya krtvo- 
pakaramcam of the edited text, to show that Tawney 
translated upakaramga as if it were simply upakara. I 
surmise that the genuine reading is: 

tasya krtvopakaram tvam ^apam etam tansy asi. 
67, 72 Since there is no species of ruddy goose (cakravaka) 

*) Br. nivedya tarn / pratyagatam vanikputram a c 

D niveditam / pratyagatam vanikputram a 
*) So D ; Br. samapvastali 

STU I )!!;> Ai;ui i TIN-; KATHlSARITSiGARA. 16? 

which i- styled nfacairavSht, and there is made mention 
in this cloka of the cakravaka separated from his cakra- 
/v//v ,,at night" i'l' II, 129), a vcn <,!, ,1,1011 simile, 
the edited reading need he corrected into // > <; / 'Y//-/V////Y/- 
xtidrri /v//y// f/rfixf/td mtinifib/ifivat. 

71, II Mrgankadatta lia> rescued the king of the Hhillas from 
the peril of drowning, whereupon that prince shows 
his gratitude by offering him hi- friendship and a>M>tancc 
in his undertaking, inviting him to enjoy his ho>pita- 
Jity with these words (T II, 154): ,,So do me the 
favour, my lord, of coming to my palace, since I am 
your slave." It is obvious that the original text of thU 
content thus edited: 

tat pratsadam karvQVfAhi /////"// bkrtyafya me prnblm 
must be corrected into. . . . b/irft/anya te prab/to. 
105 In the speech, with which king Vimalakara blames 
the inaction and the want of energy of his son Kama- 
lakara, an instrumental has perchance ousted the legi- 
timate locative from its place. Read the tirst line of the 
cloka thus: 

tvayi ca dr$ta nadyapi /////*// sukhasangini 
and translate ,,up to the present time no longing for 
conquest has manifested itself in you, a person addicted 
to pleasures". The edited text has tcai/a . . . . sutkasaiiginQ, 
as if drsta were synonymous with darqltti. 

74, 69 I suppose pragalbhate to be corrupt. We have to expect 
ywagalbhatam. The citizens thought: ,,(But) let Samara- 
bhata not dare to rob him of the kingdom." The cloka. 
therefore, is to be corrected thus: 
mdtvattya rrijyam Scmarabhato karfawi pragalbkatam etc. 

82, 44 The man who was fastidious about beds, one of the 
three fastidious brothers, bore a red mark on his side 
caused by a hair that was found upon examination under- 
neath seven mattresses. This mark qualified in cl. 4J 
nnidrerd kutilaruna is again spoken of in 9!. 44, for not 
a iii/ani, as has been edited, but aiikam must be meant. 
It is said that the king was astonished on beholding 
that mark-. 

so 'py amtasya vik$ya tat 
tadrHpam tulikacangasy a ii k a m rnjfi visismiye 
(T II, 273 translates: ,,when the king saw the state of his 
body"). Cp. R&emendra telling the same tale IX, 2, 362 


qayyacahgo 'dhikas tebhyo yo valenankitas tanau. In 
the parallel place of the prose redaction ofVetalapan- 
c a v i m c a t i edited by Jlvananda Vidyasagara in 1873 
(tale 5, p. 27 12 ) likewise: fayyacdneoh prsthe cihnam 
drstva brute: ^satyam ay am qayyacancuh." 

83, 30 Jlvadatta, one of the suitors for the hand of Anan- 
garati being asked his name and his profession or art, 
answers : 

vipro 'ham Jwadattakhyo vijnanam ca mamedrqam . 
jantun mrtan apy amya darqayamy a$u jwatah. 
So this cloka is edited. Its meaning is plain, but for 
apy amya. That T's translation (II, 276) ,,I can restore 
to life dead creatures, and exhibit them alive" is mate- 
rially right, is out of question. But T did as less under- 
stand the words apy aniya as I do. I believe they are 
vitiated and perhaps we would not be far from the truth , 
if we restored anupranya. The anupranana, in 
its most strict acceptance , signifies a certain ceremony 
in the ritual of the jatakarrna, the object of which is 
to vivify the newborn child by inspiring into it succes- 
sively the five different breaths which constitute life. In 
a figurative sense it is used in the Prabodhacandrodaya, 
IV (p. 137 of ed. Nirnayas. , 1898) pranayamadyanupra- 
rianena. Here, too, the verb anupranayati would be 
apposite to express the idea of 'restoring to life' dead 
people. Cp. viqvasya hi pr an an a m jtvanam tue (RV. 1 , 
48, 10) ,,in you (Usas) resides that which makes every 
being breathe and live/' 

94, 100 The boy of seven years who willingly offers his life 
to save that of the king and to relieve his poor parents, 
says to them, when he asks their permission : permit 
me to do so, and put an end to your poverty" (T II, 
340). The Sanskrit original of this sentence is vitiated 
by a grammatical blunder, which I should pass over 
tacitly , for it seems to be a simple error of print in Br. , 
if not D had the same fault. Of course, it must be 

tan mam abhyanujanitam ha tarn capadam atmanah\ 
both Br. and D have hatam. 
95 , 1 2 tato dinesu yate$u tlksnasuryamqusayakaih 

proitanam niruddhadhva yliarmakala ihabhyagat. 
The adverb iha is out of place. This is so obvious that 
T (II, 343) omitted it in his translation unconsciously, 


met!iink>. Itc.-id : (//itir/nn/cti/n i r u hlnf fit/fit ; tin- particle of 
comparison , though put after ////tf/v//tf/v//V/// , logically 
belongs to /ji'uxild/tdiit iiirii<l<Ui<i<Hir<i. The three following 

c|oka> arc built up in a >imilar \va\ : the\ are descrip- 
tive of characteristic- of the hot Reason , <-ach trait being 
embellished by a compari-on denoted b\ iva, Thi> ODD- 
>ideration favours the pi-oposed correct ion. 

108, l:*l The spies who have vi>ited incognito the court of the 
ri\al Yid\adhara king Maiuliiriuh \a report to Nai 
haiiadatta the hostile intention^ of that monarch and his 
disdaining utterance about him. On hearing this. ..the 
assembly of N.'s parti/ans. . . . were all beside them- 
selves with anger. . . . The arms of Chitningada, fre- 
quently waved and extended, seemed with the tinkling of 
their bracelets to be demanding the signal for combat, 
etc." (T II, 450). What is said here of Citrangada 
corresponds to this loka: 

Citrangadasya bahu svau vidhutapratrfau jtunnh 
ftiHriryafrim icddecam yoddlium valayambsvanai I; . 
Anybody who reads these lines must be stricken by the 
impossibility of explaining svau. This pronoun is not 
only quite superfluous, but as little as one would say- 
in English: ,,Citraiigada's own arms frequently waved", 
can Somadeva have expressed himself in a similar way. 
I hold svau for corrupt, and suggest that the good rea- 
ding is khe\ C. made strong movements with his arms 
in the air to give vent to his anger. As to the palaeo- 
graphical ground of this emendation, cp. 106, 110 
where Br. has kheda-cltalril . but D the right reading 
dacchalat (supra, p. 69). 

119, 140 Muktaphaladhvaja says to his friend that the temple 
of Gauri, near which they have descended, is the place 
where he rescued formerly his beloved Pad mil van from 
the injury of the Raksasls [116, 27 foil.]. In T's trans- 
lation (II, 556) his words are: ,,Here 1 had my first 
interview with my beloved, when she had been terrified 
by the Raksasls, etc.," the original of which is: 

amutra Rakqa&itrastd i^h'cam samblavita mayu. 
But sambhavita may a cannot be the equivalent of ! had 
my first interview with her;" on the other hand no 
meaning inherent to sambJtticita befits the situation. I think 

sambhavita is a misread s a m t a r ita, which being restored 



makes the meaning this: ,,Here 1 rescued her, when she 
had been terrified by the Raksasis." 

184 Padmavati is about to put an end to her hopeless 
life and deliberates, what means of suicide is the best 
in her case. The blazing funeral pile, which has consumed 
the bodies of Muktaphaladhvaja and Mahabuddhi does 
not like her, since ,,it is not fitting, that I should enter 
this fire and be mixed up with strange men. So in this 
(difficult conjuncture) hanging, which gives no trouble, 
is my best resource" (T II, 559). I have put within 
brackets two words added by the translator. The origi- 
nal Sanskrit cloka is this: 

parapurusamadhye tu pravestum anale 'Ira me 
na yuktam tad anayasah paca evatra me gatih. 

Should hanging be styled by that girl a manner of 
killing one's self ,, which gives no trouble?" And even if she 
thought so, this declaration is not the contrast of what 
precedes, as it ought to be; for it is not on account of 
the trouble which she fears that she is not willing to 
throw herself into the fire. In short, anayasah must be 
a corrupt reading ; the genuine word hidden under the 
corruption is an as t hay ah, I think. By restoring it, we 
get this meaning : hanging alone is the proper act for 
me, destitute as I am of hope". 

121, 148 Qakra has cursed KalavatI and added the term of the 
curse. She goes back to the earth and weeping ,,told 
to Thinthakarala the curse Indra had pronounced, to- 
gether with the end he had appointed to it, and how 
he himself was to blame" (T II, 579). Of the Sanskrit 
original of the quoted passage, as it is edited, 

itlndraqapacapantav etya sacruh cacamsa sa 
tasmai KalavatI Thinthakaralaya savacyatam, 

the last word cannot be right. Read: savacyakam, an 
avyayibhava = ,,with words of blame". 

123, 266 B = 265 Br. The wicked servant who had in vain tried 
to keep the lady whom he had to lead to his master 
for himself, and now returns to him without her, excul- 
pates himself with a lie. He says: ,,no sooner did she 
come out and was seen, than I was seized there by 
those other men, etc." (T II, 607). The words quoted 
represent nearly the meaning of the original text, but 


ill tin- edition- the Conjunctions ifm'al . . . . far/if ha\e 

interchanged their plaer-. It HUM 1, 
naira &/ Htraijud // a r ,i <l . ,1 / * / // $ I ,, / lt ,1 dint,,, ////////// . 
Hr. reads tin- line tlui-: 

mi'ira xii nirttt/fi/ liirml t/rix/,/,; , /////v/>/ nlidm jnnail, 
D as folio \\ - 

naira AY/ niratjul hinnl <lrxh, yur<nl a //am januili. 
The iiirsining is: .. Hci'oi-c she had come uiit. other 
people saw me, those seized me and look awav niv 

124, 32 The style of the second line of this eloka \\ould be 
much improved by correcting 

ko ndma Vikrofuddityak? */t eva 'dfodm <l<i<l<lti 
(Hr. and likewise D), into 

l\n nii ma Vikramadityah *u >/ <i <l 

Care has be taken to offer only such emendations to the con- 
sideration of competent judges as are evident or almo>t evident to 
myself. I have avoided advancing uncertain guesses and vague con- 
ceits. Many corrupt places are still waiting the hand that restores 
them to soundness, in the first place if possible, by the light of 
duly examined manuscripts, or this failing. b\ critical acumen. 
For though, as stated before, the text has been upon the whole 
preserved tolerably well and cruces interpretations* are , therefore , 
comparatively rare, now and then there exists a strong presump- 
tion of depravation being the cause of our want of understanding 
a given passage. Among others I mention 10, (>3. 11, !('. 11. 
72. 16, 58. 22, Ho 1 ), 37, 102. 44, 107. 53. B8 tempted 
without success by Kern). 55, 173. 57, 17. 72, 69. 102, 111. 
112, 153. 

In the course of these researches comparison of SomadevaV text 
with the Brhkm. has sometimes proved a useful instrument in both 
exegetical and critical respect. I am persuaded that a thorough and 
close examination of both works in concordance with each other, 
as Mankowski and Hertel have done already for the hmeatnntra 
portion , must bear good fruit. 

1 will give a fair sample of what I mean with that help. It is 
worth while to deal with it more fully. 

l ) Perhaps to read him vyajenar juke jane? [= vyajena -\-rjnkejane]. The reading 
of the editions vyajenarjave jane implies an impossibility. It is inadmissible to take 
arjava (uprightness) with the meaning of 1711 'upright'. Cp. also t. 24, 79. 


In Somadeva's t. 72 a remarkable story is told which may be 
called the very different Indian fashion of the legend of Daedalus 
and Icarus. The Sanskrit text that contains it, is edited as fol- 
lows by Br. : 

Asid Mdlddharo nama purvam brdhmanaputrakah*. 
so 'pacyad ekadd Siddha-kumdram vyoma-ydminam. 278. 
tat-spardhayd trinamaydn pakshdn dbadhya pdrgvayoh , 
utplutya ' utplutya cjagane (jaty-abliydsam acikshata. 279. 
pratyaham cd tatlid kurvan pariqramam apdrthakam 
dadrice sa kumdrena kaddcid vyoma-cdriiid. 280. 

,,dJiairya-yuktaJi parlor dmy an dushprdpe 'rtlie 'pi sodyamah 
,,bdlo 'yam anukampyo me, mama hy esha parigrahah " 281 
iti samcitya tushtena nitvd tena sva-caktitah 
skandhena, dvijaputro 'sdv cttmano 'nucarah kritaJt. 282. 
Tawney , since he had no other instrument for interpretation at 
his disposal but the text as transcribed here, acquitted himself well 
of his task by translating it as follows: 

,,Once on a time there was a young Brahman of the name of 
Maladhara: he beheld one day a prince of the Siddhas flying 
through the air. Wishing to rival him, he fastened to his sides 
wings of grass, and continually leaping up, he tried to learn the 
art of flying in the air. And as he continued to make this useless 
attempt every day, he was at last seen by the prince while he 
was roaming through the air. And the prince thought: ,,I ought 
to take pity on this boy who shews spirit in struggling earnestly 
to attain an impossible object, for it is my business to patronize 
such." Thereupon, being pleased, he took the Brahman boy, by 
his magic power, on his shoulder and made him one of his fol- 
lowers." (T II, 184). 

Here is its parallel in Brhkm. p. 258: 
cfyur Maladharo nama braJimano Daksinapathe 
dadarqa nabhasa yantam javat Siddhakumarakam. IX, 1, 532 
tarn drstva talapalcsubliyam krtvatmanam pariskrtam 
akaqe gamanabliyasam vyadhad utsalianirbliarali. 533 

tato yadrcchaya yuto Bhagavan varado Guliali 
tarn drstva balakrpaya cakara vyomagaminam. 534 

Leaving aside a few slight differences between both narratives, 
with Ksemendra it is not the young Siddha-prince who pities the 
energetical fantastical man, but the mighty son of Qiva himself. And 
considering more closely the tale told, it is much more likely that 
a god made him one of his followers than a simple Siddhahu,- 
marah, who for the rest may rather represent ,,some young Siddha'' 


Ks. names him SiddkakumOrakam than a ..prince of the 

Siddlms." It is no\v plain that hrorkhans misund<T>tood tin- word 
kumarena cl. 280. It denote- not ..that prince ol'Siddluis" hut Kmnara 
= Guha = Skanda, the wargod. And if we compare also D's edition 
of the Kathasar it samara, it appear> that Hr. in el. 2^'2 hv mistake 
wrote skandhena ['I 1 '- ..upon hi> >houlder"] for A'/y/x/Vr//^/, a- he will 
have found in his MSS. So it is plain that Somadeva and Ksemendra 
fully agree as to the main fact, that it was Skanda who took up 
the undertaking brahman to his dominions and made him hi- 
follower. Ts translation is to be altered accord inirlv. 


Somadeva was a skilled metrician. He handles the most various 
metres with facility and does not seem to have had great trouble 
to harmonize his elocution with the severe exigencies of the diffe- 
rent kinds of versified style. As a rule he writes with the same 
fluency and lucidity, whether he uses the ordinary anustubh cloka 
or composes cikharim and cardulavikridita stanzas. It is the old 
custom of Indian artful narrative poetry to change the metre in 
the last verses of the cantos. Somadeva, who in accordance with 
his predecessor Ksemendra composed the bulk of his poem in 
ordinary clokas and made that metre the main metrical form of 
each of the 124 tarangas of his sugar a of tales - - the popular 
style and the literary character of the fairy stories being little 
adapted to more severe and more refined metrical schemes for the 
composition of whole cantos, as is the case in the Buddhacarita 
and the classical epics of Kalidasa, Magha and others - - affords 
a comparatively large room to that metrical variety of the con- 
clusions. In the first lambakas he observed some restraint, but 
gradually he must have allowed himself to indulge freely into his 
talent of displaying the richness of his descriptive and representing 
power in an elegant variety of metres. He does so especially in 
the last canto of each lambaka. The ninth lambaka ends with 
thirteen, the seventh with thirty-four, the long twelfth even with 
forty-nine such free stanzas. 

As I am not aware of a conspectus metrorum of the Kathasa- 
ritsagara already existing, and this may be a useful instrument for 
further research, I subjoin it here in the way of an appendix to 
these Studies 1 ). 

*) I follow D's text for the numbers of the verses in each taranga. Those of Br. 
agree with them , if the contrary is not stated. 



Ary a-. H.) j> <i I It n //: 

1, 68 <>:>. 3, 64; 7578. 4, 135. 8, 3537. II, 8183. 
12, 1<J3. II, 88, l, 122, 18, 400. 21, 147. -2-2. .':>:> 258. 83, 
91. 24, 230. 25, 2'J-J : 293, -2. ( .M -' i "> 278 (271 276 1 )); 2 
(284). 27, 211. :u. 251; 252; 265. 35, 103; 164. 36, 135. ;;: 
288; 239; 244. 38, i:>(; ; 157. 39, 240. 43, 245; 252*); 258; 
259; 262. 44, 140; 180 (is?). 45, 370; 371. 50, 207 (208); 
210 (211). 51, 220225. 52, 405; 400. 53, 82; UN, 51. -240. 
55, 235237; 239. 56, 33S (339), repeated 35S (359); 417 1 1 J 
(418420); 421423 (422424). 58, 141. 59, 171. 61. 
64, 102; 103. 65, 255; 250. 66, h)2. 67, Ml. 6s. i 
70, 131. 71, 70, repeated 99; 304. 74, 320. 76, 41. 77, 93 :> < 
80, 54. 82, 48; 49; 51; 52. 83, 0207. 86, 104170**). 
88, 5700. 89, 115. 90, 201200. 93, 100. 5 . 92 j 93. 96, 
4550. 98, 32. 99, 4447. 100, 44- 48. 101, 874; :i?5; 385. 

103, 242 (241). 104, 218 (219). 107, 139. 110, 145 (140). Ill, 

104. 112, 214. 113, 9s. 116, 95. 118, 193; 194. 119, 193; 204; 
ill; 214; 215; 218. 121, 277; 278. 122, 103; 104; 110; 1 1 1. 
123, 339 (338). 124, 58. Amount: 177 stanzas. 

*) In D, with Br. the stanza is a giti, but his reading is bad. 
**) Vs. 168 I follow Br., whose reading I prefer, in D that stanza is a giti. 
b.) giti; 

23, 89; 90. 24, 53; 231. 25, 297. 26, 140 (144); 147 (M:> : 
271 (209); 272 (270); 284 (282). 34, 254; 203. 41, 01. 12. 
223. 43, 242244; 240251; 253255; 200; 261; 263274*). 
44, 139. 382412. 50, 203 (204); 204 (205); 211 (212). 51, 
227. 52, 410. 56, 300 (301). 57, 175; 177. 59, 173; 179. 60, 
.054 (255). 66, 193. 67, 115. 69, 183. 78, 90 92 2 ). 81, 111: 

115. 82, 50. 85, 39. 87, 00. 92, 82; 83. 95, 9490. 99, 39; 
43; 57; 58. 100, 58. 101, 392. 103, 218(217) 221 (220). 243 
(242) 245 (244). 104, 219 (220). 105, SS; 89. 106, ISO. 107, 
135138. 108, 207 (200). 109, 140148.110,144(145); lie. 
(147) 148 (149). Ill, 100. 112, 208211. 114, 141144. 

116, 94. 117, 05; 00; 175181. 119, 191; 199202; 219. 
121, 279. 123, 344 (343); 345(344). 124,241 (242) 246 (247). 
Amount: 102 stanzas. 

*) Vs. 274 is corrupt in D. Br.'s text has here the right reading. 

*) The bracketed ciphers mark the numbers of the verses in Br. 

3 ) These three gltis are also distinguished by their elegant inner rhyme. 



Vaitaliya: 43, 257. 56, 414; 415 (415; 416). 103, 215 (214). 

Amount: 4 stanzas. 
A up a c c h a n da s ik a 

Somadeva has these three types: 

a.) each pada begins by ^^ : 

3, 79. 4, 137. 7, 112. 10, 216. 14, 90. 32, 194; 195(195; 
196). 38, 160. 45, 372. 56, 420 (421). 57, 174. 62, 236; 237. 
64, 164. 72, 405. 92, 87. 101, 389; 390. 103, 201 (200) 209 
(208). 211*). 106, 185. 112, 212. 116, 91; 92. 117, 171174. 
Amount: 36 stanzas. 

*) In Br., owing to a various reading, vs. 211 belongs to the type b.) 

b.) each pada begins by^^^v^: 

2, 82. 14, 89. 16, 123. 20, 227. 21, 145. 25, 298. 26, 270 
(268). 34, 256. 36, 133. 59, 167. 73, 440. 102, 153. 103, 210 
(209). 109, 149; 150. 116, 93. 123, 340 (339). Amount: 17 stanzas 

c.) both types mixed. 

34, 261;* 262. 53, 197. 72, 406. 95, 97. 99, 42. 100, 59. 
103, 215 (214). Amount: 8 stanzas. In all of them one pada 
begins ^^v^^, the other three w . 


Tritubh I a.) indravajra- 32, 192 (193). 45, 375 377; 379. 
48, 123; 125; 126; 128; 136. 59, 168; 169; 174; 
175. 72, 407. 76, 42. 88, 61. 92, 84; 86. 99, 48- 
50; 52; 53; 55. 103, 237 (236). 119, 198. Amount: 
27 stanzas. 

b.) wpendraoajra: 34,257.101,380.103,232(231); 
235 (234). Amount: 4 stanzas. 

c.) upajati: 4, 136. 12, 195. 25, 291.29, 198; 199. 
45, 369; 378; 380; 381. 48, 121; 122; 124; 127; 
129135. 49, 249 (251); 250 (252). 50, 208 (209); 
209 (210). 58, 139. 59, 170. 90, 207. 92, 85. 96, 51. 
99, 51; 54; 56. 101, 376379; 386. 103, 198200 
(197 199); 213 (212); 231 (230); 233 (232); 234 
(233); 236 (235). 118, 195. 119, 207; 209; 210. 123, 
341 (340); 342 (341). Amount: 51 stanzas, 
d.) $alini'. 18, 407. 25, 295. 36, 134. 37, 241. 53, 
195. 84, 68. 99, 46 (cp. supra, p. 138). 101, 391. 
110, 143 (144). Amount: 9 stanzas. 
e.) rathoddhata-. 8, 38. 15, 148. 38, 159. 45, 365 

STUD IKS AIMHT TIIK K A'l II A- \ IMI - .\ . A I!A. 177 

367. 46, 240. 70, 1UO. 119, 194; 11)5. Amount: 10 

f.) 8VHffatH\ 10, 110. Amount: 1 -tan/a. 

JagatT II a.) vam^asf/ifi-. 12 I'M. 13. 195, 32. I '.3 (194). 34 , 
249. 38, 15&. :>o. -.'DC, (207). :>3. I '.Hi. :,i, 241. 58, 
140. 59, 170 17s. 101 \\^\\. lo:{. 197 l'.'<; . 

212 (211). 222 (221; 228 280 22 1229). 

106, is:*. 119, 197. 122, 112. Amount: 21 Man/as. 

h.) i,u/rrfl nirti: 119. 205: 2(M'>: 2 Mi. Amount :', 

stan/; is. 

c.) mixture of a.) mid !>.): 20, 225. 101, 381, Amount: 
2 stanzas. 

d.) drutavilambiffi'. 119, 20 V Amount: 1 stanza. 
Tristubh and jagati mixed: One stan/a 103, 230 (229). 
Atijagat! III. prahar$in / : 79, 50. 86, 171. Amount: stai 
QakvarT IV. vasantilaka: 1, 60. 2, 83. 5, 141. . 166. 1,111; 
113. 13, 194. 15, 149. 16, 121. 17, 170. 18, 105, 2. 
226; 228230. 21, 246. 23, 87; 88; 92; 93. 21, 229 
(228). 25, 296. 26, 282 (280); 283 (281); 287 (285); 
288 (286). 27, 208210. 28, 193. 29, L9$ 197. 30, 
142; 143. 31, 95; 96. 32, 191 (192); 196 (197). 33, 
217. 34, 248; 250; 253; 255; 259; 260; 264. M. 
159162. 37, 242; 243. 38, 161. 39, 247. 41, 60. 
42, 224. 43, 275. 46, 246; 247. 48, 119; 120. 49, 241 
(249); 248 (250); 252 (254). 50, 205 (206*); 212 
(213). 52, 409. 54, 239. 55, 238. 56, 412 (413); 113 
(414); 424 (425). 57, 176. 59, 172. 60, 253 (254). 61, 
330. 66, 188; 189. 67, 113. 69, 1*4; 185, 71. 305. 
73, 441. 90, 199. 99, 40; 45.' 101, 384; 387; 388. 
103, 217 (216); 224 (223); 288241 (237 2 In . 
105, 90; 91. 106, 181; 182; 184. 108, 209 (208). 
109, 151. 110, 141 (142); 142 (143); 148 (149), 
111, 105. 112, 213. 113, 99. 114, 140. 115, 155; 156. 
117, 182. 118, 197. 119, 192; 203; 213. 120, 133. 121. 
275; 276. 123, 343 (342). 124, 247 (248); 248 
(249). Amount: 122 stanzas. 

*) defective in Br. 

Atieakvarl V. malinl: 2, 81. 5, 140. 6, 165. 22, 259. 26, 279- 
281 (277279). 29, 194; 195. 33, 216. 34, 247. 46, 
248. 47, 121. 48, 138. 49, 251 (253). 67, 112. 74, 325. 
98, 75. 110, 138 (139). Amount: 19 stanzas. 

Atya?ti VI. a.) fikbaritti: 9, 90. 10, 217. 17, 171. 22, 254. 37, 


240. 40, 116. 44, 184 (185). 45, 368. 102, 152. 

Amount: 9 stanzas. 

b.)prt/ivl: 19, 118. 21, 148. 28, 189; 190.30, 144. 

34, 258. 44, 187 (188). 45, 364; 413. 47, 120. 52, 

408. 54, 238. 55, 233; 234. 69, 182. 70, 132. 100, 57. 

109, 152. 113, 100. 118, 196. Amount: 20 stanzas. 

c.) mandakranta-. 23, 94. 26, 285 (283). 42, 225. 

64, 161. 66, 190. 110, 140 (141). Amount: 6 stanzas. 
Atidhrti VII. cardulavikrldita-. 6, 167. 13, 196. 24, 228 

(227); 232 (231). 25, 290; 294. 26, 289 (287). 28, 

191; 192. 43, 256. 44, 159; 160; 185 (186). 45, 373; 

374. 48, 137. 52, 407. 56, 416 (417). 59, 31. 63, 195. 

66, 191. 71, 303. 75, 196 *). 78, 132. 83, 39. 91, 61. 

94, 137. 97, 48. 99, 41. 103, 214 (213). 104, 217 

(218). 108, 208 (207). 110, 139 (140). 119, 196; 212; 

217. 120, 132. 121, 280. 124, 249 (250); 250 (251). 

Amount: 40 stanzas. 
Prakrti VIII. sragdhara-. 24, 233 (232). One stanza. 

Moreover there are two stanzas in Prakrit: 55, 125 and 126. They 
are composed in arya metre. The second is a giti; it is uncertain to 
what variety the first belongs, owing to the uncertainty of the text. 
The total sum of these variously versified stanzas is 761. All 
other verses are anustubh glokas. As the whole number of the 
verses of the Kathasaritsagara is 21388, it appears that about 
3V 2 / of them are composed in other metres than the ordinary 
epic gloka. As a rule the artful versification displays itself at the 
end of the tarangas, but now and then such stanzas are met with 
amid the .anustubhs, the course of which they underbreak; yet this 
is done sparingly and always for some good reason. 

The list of the metres used shows also that the poet betrays his 
moderateness in this as he does in other respects. Though he 
was able to give samples of a greater metrical richness and variety, 
he limited himself to the most frequent types. He had apparently 
a predilection for the giti form of the arya and for the vasan- 
tatilaka, the latter of which he likes to employ for resuming 
the result of the events, narrated or the morale de la fable \ his use of 
qardulavikridita and prthvi is also relatively frequent. He 
must have avoided the sragdhara, employed but once, and the 
harini, of which no instance at all is met with in his poem. 

*) It is much for the credit of their author, that this stanza and the five next to it, 
each being the last of a taranga, are gardulavikriditas of quite the same content, but 
of various expression, built as easily and fluently as ever. 

Index of notable Sanskrit \\onU 

As the words milking up the list of p. 7687 are put 
in nlphabetical order, they are not included here. 


anvaya 22. 23 

. 32 













upahartavya etc., confoun- 

ded with upahan 


root nbli 


aucitya.. ., 22. 23 

. 31 



kalatra 53 










yalla ( ga/idd) 




cirantl (= cirayanli) 










drdhayati - drad/tayati . . . 




na par aw yd cat 


na mati sma 00. 


nuhgeso acartata 



nibhalayati ............. 129 

niyamd ................ HM) 

nirlakfnti .......... 150. I ."M 

niqpratibhana ........... 1 ") ? 

pathas ................ Ill 

paravatakkho (PaicacI) .... 3U 

IK i mi ii a ............... 53 

mar da 



Mi hi /drop?/ a 37 

mnrkhakatkas 17. 18 

mecaka 66 

yad fix /ft 

f \ ( \ 

yad bhacifd 
yad vidhatt 

ruddhaka 83 

rupaka 55 



car am used as a particle. 161. 162 

veya. Names ending in- 108 

qalabhanjika 10 

sabrahmacarin 72 note. 140 

xamaya 100 

santmada 102 

8tfkhavati 20 


11. 59 

Index of passages quoted from other Sanskrit texts than 
Kathasaritsagara and Brhatkathamaiijarl 


Avadanacataka I, 48 10 157 

189 7 87 

223 15 85 

Ksemendra: Amity avicaracarca cl.7 23 note 

The (Pali) Jataka " 1, 266 14 87 

Jatakamala VI, 27 159 

p. 221 15 132 

Tantrakhyayika I, 56 51 

(ed. Hertel) 

Dagakumaracarita Uttarakh., IV th Ucchv 161 

Divyavadana p. 633 25 157 

Panini III, 2, 13 . 78 

Prabodhacandrodaya V, st. 28 88 

Mudraraksasa I, st. 15* 54 n. 

III, at the beginning 131 

IV , p. 1 79 (ed. Trimbak Telaug) 51 

bharatavakya 52. 53 

Rgvedasamhita I, 63, 4 | 

IV, 1, 15 77 

IV, 19, 4 

Varahamihira: Yogayatra 7, 14 * 85 


Qlokasamgraha of the Brhatkatha, 
and judgment about it. 


The asterisks point out places critically treated. 



PK Speyer, Jacob Samuel 
3741 Studies about the 
S8S7 Kathasaritsagara