Bhüte 'äha' iti pramädät: Firm Evidence
for the Direction of Change Where Certain Verses
of the Raghuvamsa are Variously Transmitted '
By Dominic Goodall, Oxford.
When a work has a long, geographically widespread and richly various trans¬
mission and one of which all exemplars of the first few centuries after the
work's coming into being have been lost, establishing with certainty the au¬
thor's wording is in many places tricky and in some places impossible. Of the
Raghuvamsa thousands of manuscripts survive and are accessible, as well as
manuscripts of in excess of fifty commentaries, whose dates of composition
range from the tenth century to the present day. Even those who believe that a
stemma should ideally be an editor's mainstay would have to admit that, even
if it were possible to collect and collate all of these, huge gaps and blatant
eclecticism in the transmission - eclecticism that goes back at least to the pe¬
riod of our earliest sources, the early commentaries - would make it impracti¬
cable, if not actually impossible, to construct a stemmatic tree of relationships
between the sources. And the defenders of the 'best-text' method - according
to which the editor should, wherever not impossible, reproduce the text of an
accurate manuscript written as close as possible in space and time to the au¬
thor while reporting the readings of all other sources as variants - would
' I thank Dr. Harunaga Isaacson (currently Research Fellow of the Oriental Institute of the University of Oxford), in collaboration with whom I am preparing an edition of Vallabha¬
deva's commentary on the Raghuvamsa, the Raghupancikä. It was Dr. Isaacson who first suggested the project and began to collect copies of the manuscripts we have consulted, and the work on which this article is based is his as much as mine. I am grateful to Dr. James Benson for correcting my misunderstandings of some points of grammar. I should also like to thank Professor Albrecht Wezler, who most kindly helped us to acquire microfilms of manu¬
scripts filmed by the Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project, and also the following persons for help in acquiring copies of manuscripts: Dr. Christoph Cüppers, Mr. Csaba
Dezsö, Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Mr. William Douglas. I thank all the libraries
whose manuscripts we have consulted: the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the India Office Library and the British Library, London; the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insdtute, Poona; Profes¬
sor Srinivas Rath and the Scindia Oriental Instimte, Ujjain; the Oriental Institute, Baroda;
the Universitäts- und Staats-Bibliothek in Göttingen; the Shri Ranbir Sanskrit Research Insti¬
tute, Jammu; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; and the National Archives of Kathmandu.
acknowledge that no manuscript survives that could serve as a 'best text'. As
for the apparently fashionable view that many narrative Indian texts have al¬
ways been and still are undergoing 'composition in transmission', it offers no
way forward, but encourages us rather to think that, since the re-discovery of
Kälidäsa's creations is in any case impossible, to endeavour to do so would be
futile. Certainly we can never perfectly achieve the goal, but that does not
mean that the goal is not worth our striving towards, nor does it mean that we
cannot make real progress towards the goal. In short, no method can be ap¬
plied that will allow us in a mechanistic fashion to reconstruct what Kälidäsa
wrote; but nor is it true that all efforts must be vain: we can discover ways of
distinguishing what is secondary and what is primary among the transmitted
readings of Kälidäsa's works, as I intend to demonstrate below.
A tiny handful of pre-modern commentaries on the Raghuvarnsa have
been published to date, and a large number of editions of the poem itself, some
of which are more critical than others. None is even remotely close to being a
definitive critical edition (if such a thing could exist), and {pace Dwivedi^) a
sizable body of some of the most useful evidence, and therefore a fair quantity
of readings, has not yet been considered by any editors until today: Kashmir-
ian manuscripts have not been collated by past editors of the Raghuvamsa,
and the testimony of the earliest commentary has never been weighed.^
Three years ago (in an article that has not yet appeared'*) I announced that
an edition of that commentary, the Raghupancikä of Vallabhadeva, was being
^ See p. 119 below.
' It is widely accepted that Vallabhadeva lived at the beginning of the tenth century. For a brief discussion of the evidence, see Eugen Hultzsch (ed.): Kälidäsa's Meghadüta edited from Manuscripts with the Commentary of Vallabhadeva. London 1911, pp. xvii-xviii. The
editors of the Vakroktipancäsikä of Ratnäkara with the commentary of Vallabhadeva appear
first to have established this date (Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Durgäprasäd and
Kasinath Pandurang Parab (ed.): Kävyamälä. A Collection of old and rare Sanskrit
Kävyas, Nätakas, Champüs, Bhänas, Prahasanas, Chhandas, Alankäras & c. Part 1. Bombay 1886, p. 11 4f, footnote). Their evidence is a set of dated colophon verses to a commentary on Änandavardhana's Devis'ataka supposed to be by a grandson of his, a certain Kaiyata
(Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Shivadatta and Väsudeva Laxman Sastri Panasikar
(ed.): Kävyamälä. A Collection of old and rare Sansknt Kävyas, Nätakas, Champüs, Bhänas, Prahasanas, Chhandas, Alankäras & c. Part IX. Bombay 1916, p. 31). For an ingenious at¬
tempt to pin down Vallabhadeva's floruit more precisely see the discussion of Prakasavarsa in
Krishnamacharya 's prastävanä to the Süktimuktävali (Embar Krishnamacharya (ed.):
The Süktimuktävali of Bhagadatta falhana. Vadodara: Oriental Institute 1991, pp. 41^2).
Dominic Goodall: 'Announcement of the Proposed Edition of the Earliest Com¬
mentary on the Raghuvainsa with some Methodological Reflections on the Editing of Works of Kälidäsa and of Commentaries on Kävya', forthcoming (revised version of a paper deliv¬
ered in January 1997 at the international colloquium 'Les sources et le temps' jointly organ¬
ised by the Ecole frangaise d'Extreme-Orient and the French Institute of Pondicherry).
Bhute 'aha' itipramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 105
prepared by myself and by Dr. IdARUNAGA Isaacson. In that announcement I
explained at some length some features of the complexity of the transmission
of Vallabhadeva's commentary, the most striking of which is that the majority
of manuscripts whose colophons proclaim them to be transmitting Vallabha¬
deva's commentary on the Raghuvamsa actually transmit such fundamen¬
tally altered versions that they may fairly be described as different works.
Thus less than half is true of what the fifth and latest edition of the Raghu¬
vamsa by Nandargikar^ has to say about Vallabhadeva's commentary and
about Vallabhadeva's readings of the root text.^ Having in that article fo¬
cussed on the difficulties and the rewards of reconstructing Vallabhadeva's
commentary, I intend in the following pages to show how Vallabhadeva's
commentary provides what I believe to be firm evidence for accepting as pri¬
mary a number of variant verses (or parts of verses) that in almost every case
^ Gopal Raghunath Nandargikar : The Raghuvarnsa of KäUdäsa With the Commen¬
tary of MalUnatha Edited with A Literal English Translation, Copious Notes in English Inter¬
mixed with full Extracts, elucidating the text, from the Commentaries of Bhatta Hemädri, Cäritravardhana, Vallabha, Dinakaramisra, Sumativijaya, Vijayagani, Vijayänandasüri's
Varacaranasevaka and Dharmameru, with Various Readings etc. etc. Delhi: Motilal Ba¬
narsidass 1982, 5* Edition. It is worth remarking that this fifth edition is very considerably altered from the first (of 1885) in many respects and not least in the allocation of readings to Vallabhadeva and the allocation and number of passages quoted from the commentaries listed. (In chapter 4 alone Nandargikar has changed his mind about how Vallabha read the root text in more than twenty instances.)
^ On the basis of our edition of chapter 4, for example, we came to the conclusion that less than a third of Nandargikar 's pronouncements about Vallabhadeva's readings are cor¬
rect. This is because Nandargikar relied only on Nägari MSS purporting to transmit Vallabha's commentary, and not on Säradä ones. There is a great profusion of such Nägari MSS and not one that I have yet seen transmits what Vallabha wrote. Furthermore they differ from each other not only in their text of Vallabha's commentary but also in the readings they support of the Raghuvarnsa itself.
Note that L. G. Parab in his article that purports to compare the variants of Vallabha with those of Mallinätha ('Vallabhadeva and Mallinätha as Commentators of the Raghuvarnsa' in
S.N. Gajendragadkar and S.A. Upadhyaya (ed.): H.D. Velankar Commemoration Voh
ume. A Volume of Indological Studies by his students presented to Prof. H. D. Velankar on the occasion of his seventy-second birthday on 3rd October 1965. Bombay 1965, pp. 82-90) ap¬
pears to base himself not on the manuscripts but on the readings reported by Nandargikar.
For our edition we are relying only on Kashmirian MSS (8 in Säradä and 1 in Kashmirian Nägari). In places these too differ alarmingly widely from each other, but they do form a group transmitting always a distinct Kashmirian text of the Raghuvamsa, itself embedded in a succinct commentary from which the other versions can, in many passages, be shown to have derived. (The evidence for this, some of which is presented in the Announcement [Goodall, forthcoming], is that for certain verses the non-Kashmirian MSS all offer entirely different commentaries that appear to share little between themselves, but each has some dis¬
tinctive element or elements in common with the Kashmirian version.)
have either been ignored by ah commentaries printed so far or, if transmitted in them, have been pointed out to be unsatisfactory/
In the above-mentioned announcement (Goodall, forthcoming), I dis¬
cussed a handful of verses transmitted in more than one version about which I
beheved that the version known to Vahabhadeva was more hkely to be pri¬
mary. In each case I argued that the taste of transmitters of the poem led them
to find the primary version in some respect unsatisfactory and so to compose
a replacement. I still feel convinced by such arguments, but I appreciate that
they seem to some to be too subjective to be compelling. In this article, there¬
fore, I shall concentrate on a single type of hard evidence that determines the
primariness of seven variant verses beyond reasonable doubt. In each case
what is proved is which version must have been written earlier. Some sceptics
may say that Kähdäsa (if indeed the Raghuvamsa is the work of a single au¬
thor whom we may, for convenience but not because of certainty, refer to as
Kälidäsa) might well have circulated more than one version of the poem, or
might have corrected or improved certain copies, but not others, that were in
circulation in his lifetime. To these sceptics I shall reply later; but let us first examine the evidence.
1. Raghuvamsa 2:42 as transmitted by Vallabhadeva and, with variants, the
other printed commentaries, in which Dillpa speaks after discovering
that his arm has been paralysed and that he cannot fire an arrow at the
'lion' that has attacked the cow whom DilTpa is protecting:
pratyabravic cainam isuprayoge tatpürvasange vitathaprayatnah \
jadikrtas tryamhakaviksitena vajram mumuksann iva vajrapdnih \ \
Variant to Raghuvarnsa 2:42 that is discussed by Vallabhadeva and (with
variants within it) by Hemädri:
' For the commentary of Mallinätha I refer to the 5''' edition of Nandargikar, which has been mentioned above. Of the other printed commentaries I refer below to the following edi¬
tions: for the commentary of Hemädri, Rewä Prasäda Dwivedi (ed.): Raghuvämsadarpana.
Patna: Kashiprasad Jayaswal Research Institute 1973. (Classical Sanskrit Works Series. 1.);
for that of Jinasamudra, Tapasvi Nandi (ed.): Jinasamudra's Commentary on tite Raghuvamsa of Kälidäsa. Gandhinagar: Gujarat Sahitya Akademi 1989; and for those of Arunagirinatha
and Näräyana, Achyuta Poduval and C. K. Raman Nambiar (ed.): Raghuvamsa hy Ma¬
häkavi Kalidasa with Prakasika Commentary of Arunagirinatha & Padarthadeepika Com¬
mentary of Narayana Panditha [,] Cantos 1 to 6. Tripunithura: Sanskrit College Committee 1964. (Sri Ravi Varma Sanskrit Series. 3.) The numeration of verses in the Raghuvarnsa I use below is that of Vallabhadeva's text.
Bhute 'aha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 107
pratyaha cainarn saramoksavandhyah säpatrapatvät svarahhedam
äptah I
prahmapürvadhvaninädhirüdhas tuläm asärena saradghanena | |
Hemädri reads bhayatrapatvät (for säpatrapatvät).
2. Raghuvamsa 2:52 as read by Vallabhadeva, in which the compassionate
Dillpa replies to the lion's cogent speech while being observed by the
cow, whose eyes express her terror at being mounted upon by the lion:
tathä samartharn giram ücivärnsam pratyaha devänucararn diltpah I
dhenvä tadadhyäsanakätaräksyä niriksyamänah sutaräm dayäluh \ \
The same verse as read in the printed commentaries:
nisamya devänucarasya väcarn manusyadevah punar apy uväca \
dhenvä tadadhyäsitakätaräksyä niriksyamänah sutarärn dayäluh \ |
3. Raghuvarnsa 3:25 as read by Vallabhadeva, Hemädri, and Jinasamudra, in
which the infant Raghu delights his father Dillpa by repeating what his
nursemaid uttered, by walking while holding on to her finger, and by
bowing upon her teaching him to do so:
yad äha dhätryä prathamoditarn vaco yayau tadiyäm avalambya
cängulim \
abhüc ca namrah pranipätasiksayä pitur mudam tena tatdna so
'rhhakah \ \
The first päda in Mahinätha's text reads:
uväca dhätryä prathamoditarn vaco
and in Arunagirinatha and Näräyanapandita's text it reads:
uväca dhätryä prathamoditäni yat.
The last päda in Arunagirinätha's text reads:
pitur mudarn tena sisus tatäna sah.
4. Raghuvarnsa 3:51 as read by Vallabhadeva (and by Jinasamudra and re¬
ported as a variant by Arunagirinätha), in which Raghu, an Indra upon
the earth, laughs and fearlessly tells the real Indra (who has snatched
away the sacrificial horse that Raghu is protecting) that he must take up
his weapon if he means not to return the horse, since he will not be al¬
lowed to get away with it without first defeating Raghu:
tatah prahasyäha punah purandaram vyapetahhir
bhümipurandarätmajah \
grhäna sastrarn yadi sarga esa te na khalv anirjitya raghum krti
bhavän \ \
Raghuvarnsa 3:51 ab as read by Hemädri, Mallinätha, Arunagirinätha,
and Näräyanapandita:
prahasyapabhayah purandararn punar babhäse turagasya raksitä \
5. Raghuvarnsa 5:3 as read by Vallabhadeva and Jinasamudra, in which
Raghu, a prince among those whose wealth is their sense of honour, hon¬
ours the ascetic Kautsa and with hands clasped respectfully together ad¬
dresses him, once Kautsa has been seated:
tam arcayitvä vidhivad vidhijnas tapodhanarn mänadhanägrayäyi \
krtänjalih krtyavicäradakso visampatir vistarabhajam äha \ \
Raghuvarnsa 5:3 cd as read by Hemädri, Mallinätha, Arunagirinätha, and
Näräyanapandita:
visampatir vistarabhajam ärät krtänjalih krtyavid ity uväca \ \
6. Raghuvarnsa 5:12 as read by Vallabhadeva, in which Kautsa (who had ap¬
proached Raghu to ask for money), after listening to Raghu's noble
speech and inferring that Raghu had expended all his wealth from
Raghu's use of an earthern vessel to offer water when honouring guests,
replied with faint hopes about accomplishing his purpose to the blame¬
less Raghu:
ity arghyapätränumitavyayasya raghor udäräm api gärn nisamya \
svärthopapattirn prati durbaläsah pratyaha kautsas tam
apetakutsam \ \
Raghuvarnsa 5:12d as read by Hemädri and Jinasamudra:
tarn pratyavocad varatantusisyah
Raghuvarnsa 5:12 d as read by Mallinätha, Arunagirinätha, and Näräya¬
napandita:
tam ity avocad varatantusisyah
7. Raghuvarnsa 10:3 7 as read by Vallabhadeva, in which Visnu rephed to the
gods, drowning the roar of the ocean with a voice that resounded in the
mountain caves that were open to the ocean's tide:
Bhute 'aha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 109
atha veläsamäsannasailarandhränunädinä \
svarena bhagavän äha paribhütärnavadhvanih \ \
Raghuvarnsa 10:37c as read by Mallinätha, Arunagirinätha, Näräya¬
napandita, and Jinasamudra*:
svarenoväca bhagavän
The rest of the verse does not differ in the printed commentaries, except
that Ffemädri and Mallinätha read "nuvädinä (for °nunädinä).
In all seven instances, one reading contains the form äha used with past sense,
while another reading is transmitted (in two instances, more than one other
reading) in which a different verb is used that conveys the same sense. But
since äha is a very short word and one which both begins and ends with a
vowel, the alternative versions necessarily differ in more than just the verb
form. In each instance I think it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable
doubt that the variant in which äha occurs is what was written first, and that
the other variants are therefore secondary 'improvements'. Furthermore I
think that it can be shown that it is likely that the secondary 'improvements'
were introduced during the course of the transmission of the Raghuvarnsa
rather than by Kälidäsa
Four considerations lead me to these conclusions:
- Commentators either express their disapproval of the use of äha with
past sense or deny that it is a finite verb.^
- We find numerous instances of the use of äha with past sense elsewhere in
Kälidäsa's oeuvre. Even in Mahinätha's text of the Raghuvarnsa there are
a further two (in 3:63 and 12:2). In the Kumärasambhava there are
seveni°: 4:43, 5:64, 6:25,6:88, 7:47, 7:82, 8:50. In the Abhijnänasakuntala
* Ahhough DwiVEDl prints this as the reading of Hemädri, the word order in this passage of Hemadri's commentary rather suggests that he read with Vallabhadeva:. .. tena svarena paribhütärnavadhvanih bhagavän harih aha uväca.
^ Whether or not the usage is justifiable is not relevant to the argument here. What is significant is that it has long and widely been regarded as problematic, because it is plainly implied by Astädhyäyii.4.S4 (with anuvrtti of 3.4.82-3) that äha and the other forms of that defective verb are used only with present sense, since they are taught as optional alternatives to present-tense forms of brü (Otto Böhtlingk: Panini's Grammatik. Leipzig 1887 [re¬
printed Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms Verlag 1977], p. 145). For a brief discussion of the commentarial responses see below.
'° For the text of the Kumärasambhava 1 refer here to the following edition: M.S. Nara¬
yana Murti (ed.): Vallabhadeva's Kommentar (Säradä Version) zum Kumärasambhava des
Kälidäsa. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag 1980. Where 1 mention the commentaries of
there is one usage in the king's first prose speech after 6:11.'^ In Megha¬
düta 100 and 108 äha occurs, but in both instances it is used with present
sense.'^ The other forms of the defective verb from which äha derives
Kähdäsa appears invariably to use with present sense;'^ hut äha with past
sense is unquestionably a usage of Kälidäsa's.
- Deliberate alteration of the text (such as is self-evidently the cause of vari¬
ation in these cases, since no accident could by itself have been the cause)
from what is widely perceived to be satisfactory to what is widely per¬
ceived to be unsatisfactory is not likely to have taken place.
- The fact that in all but one instance we find only the versions with äha
transmitted in the earliest commentary (even though Vallabhadeva him¬
self was evidently uncomfortable with the usage) suggests that Vallabha¬
deva did not know of alternatives, which in turn suggests that they were
revisions thought up during the subsequent course of the transmission.
The last of these, being based on negative evidence, may seem to be so weak as
to be not worth mentioning: Vallabhadeva, it might be conceded, might in¬
deed be unlikely to have omitted mention of alternatives to these (to him)
problematic readings had he known of alternatives; but why must he have
known them even if they had been original? This line of response cannot be
Mallinätha and Cäritravardhana I refer to the following edition: Kalidasa's Kumära¬
sambhava with the commentaries of Mallinath Charitravardhana and Sitarama ed. (accord¬
ing to prastävanä), by Vitthala, son of Dhundiräja [not accredited on title page]. Delhi:
Nag Publishers 1989 [reprinted from an edition printed in Bombay of 1898]. AsÄ (Kälidäs Kri- yäsabda-kos [Bhäsik Vislesan Sahit]. Delhi: Parimal Publications 1995, p. 143) records two more instances: äha in 6:64 and pratyäha in Kumärasambhava 6:33. These readings are not in the above editions, but the first is recorded by Dwivedi in his second Kälidäsagranthävali (Rewäprasäda Dwivedi (ed.): Kälidäsagranthävali. Benares: Banaras Hindu University 1986, p. 113, verse 6:65). The second I have not found, and ÄsÄ gives no information about the editions consulted for the kosa.
'' For the texts of Kälidäsa's dramas I refer to the editions in DwivedI's second Käli¬
däsagranthävali (mentioned above).
There are also a number of usages of äha in prose portions of the dramas, but here they almost invariably appear in the mouth of a character reporting what another character has said or referring to a closely preceding speech, and so although they could be understood to have past sense, they can also be treated as present in sense on the grounds that they have ref¬
erence to something immediately proximate in time to the present. See, for example, in the Ahhijnänasäkuntala: after 5:14, 5:20, 7:32; in the Vikramorvasiya: introducing 3:5, king's first speech after both 5:2 and 5:8; and in the Mälavikägnimitra: introducing 3:12 and intro¬
ducing 5:4.
'3 ähuh occurs m Raghuvarnsa 2:50,2:58,6:22,18:1 and \%:2'i;Kumärasambhava(i:i)7 and 6:77; Abhijüänasäkuntala 1:1; Vikramorvasiya 1:1 and 4:25; Meghadüta 109. ättha occurs in Raghuvarnsa 3:48 and in Kumärasambhava 2:31, 5:74.
Bhute 'aha' itipramddat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 111
absolutely rejected, but it should be borne in mind that the persuasiveness of
negative evidence of this l5.ind when provided by the testimony of a commen¬
tary is arguably stronger than when provided by a manuscript, since copyists
of texts might often not have looked at any other source than the exemplar
from which they copied, whereas we know that commentators frequently
gathered and compared a number of manuscripts of the texts on which they
commented. Though Vallabhadeva does not, as some commentators do, state
that he followed this proceeding, it is not unlikely that he did. His references
in numerous places to variant readings show that he was certainly consulting
more than one source. He is therefore likely to have come across a wider range
of readings than most copyists of the müla}'^ And since the unproblematic
variants without the form äha used with past sense are widely known and
supported by a number of subsequent commentators, it is not unnatural to
expect that Vallabhadeva too would have known and at least mentioned them
if they had been original. But perhaps, it might be argued, though original,
they did not happen to be transmitted in Kashmir at the time when
Vallabhadeva wrote. This is not unthinkable, but to support such a claim we
would have to make some just conceivable but truly awkward assumptions:
we would have to assume that the primary readings were deliberately modi¬
fied, though no grounds are obvious or appear to be voiced in the published
commentaries why they should have been thought unsatisfactory, and that
they were deliberately modified in such a way that they all incorporated the
word äha with past sense, a usage of which many commentators express dis¬
approval. Furthermore we would have to assume that the primary readings in
six of the seven above cases, though transmitted in many manuscripts from all
parts of the country later than Vallabhadeva and supported by many later
commentaries, had all been supplanted by secondary replacements using the
word äha with past sense and that these secondary replacements were alone
transmitted to Vallabhadeva, or else that (in some or all cases) both the
Some readers may expect at least a mention here of the testimony of the earliest surviv¬
ing independent manuscript of the Raghuva mia, since it may have been written in Vallabha¬
deva's time. Unfortunately it does not afford us much help with the verses we are discussing, because it has lost most of them. This is the manuscript transcribed by Taticchi in Raniero
Gnoli (ed.): Udhhata's Commemary on the Kävyälarnkära of Bhämaha with an Appendix
by Margherita Taticchi including some Fragments of Kälidäsa's Raghuvarnsa. Rome: Istituto Itahano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente 1962. (Literary and Historical Documents from Pa¬
kistan. 2.) As for its date, Gnoli (p. xiv) assigns the fragments discovered with it that trans¬
mit the Kävyälarnkära to '9th-llth cent.' Taticch; however, writes (p. 83) that the frag¬
ments of the Raghuvarnsa 'apparently belong to the same epoch, namely the 10th-12th century.' Only in two of the verses we are discussing can we deduce whether the manuscript supported the reading with äha: in 5:3 it did not, and in 5:12 it did.
supposedly primary readings and their supposedly secondary replacements
were transmitted but that Vallabhadeva chose not to mention the supposedly
primary readings even though he disapproved of the usage of äha found in the
supposedly secondary versions.
And in fact it is not just the testimony of the commentary of Vallabhadeva
that supports the claim that the readings with äha are primary. As we have
seen above, the one printed commentary written before that of Mallinätha,
the commentary of Hemädri, also expresses disapproval of the use of äha with
past sense and yet reports only the reading vf 'ithäha in 3:25, and probably sup¬
ports the reading with äha in 10:37, and reports as a variant the reading with
äha in 2:42. As has been mentioned above, though the editor of Hemädri's
commentary prints 3:25 as it is read by Mallinätha (i.e. with uväca instead of
yad äha), it is plain from Hemädri's commentary that he knew only the read¬
ing yad äha:
yad äheti. yad dhätryä prathamoditarn vaca äha. 'dhätrt syäd upamätäpi'.^^
tadiyäm ahgullm avalambya yayau ca pranipätasya siksayä namro 'bhüc ca tena
sah arbhakah pitur mudarn tatäna. äheti cintyam. davlyasah kälasya
vartamänasämlpyäbhävät 'vartamänasämlpya'^^ ity etan na. 'äheti bhüte 'nya-
nalantabhramät'^^ iti vämanah-^^ ata eva 'äha sma madhuräksaräm giram' iti.^'^
tinantapratirüpakam avyayam ity eke. tathä päninlyamatadarpane 'asy asmi
manye sarnke brühy fäsä nalarthakäf iti ganadarpane ca 'fnästi yäni
nayatyäf brühy ehi fpäbarthavadilidif'.'^°
Amarakosa 3:1 76c on p. 467 of A. A. Ramanathan (ed.): Amarakosa [II] with the un¬
published South Indian commentaries. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre 1978.
vartamänasämipya ] em.; vartamänasamipya Dwivedi. This is the beginning of
Astädhyäyi 3.3.131.
bhüte 'nyanalantabhramät ] em.; bhüte phalantabhramät Dwivedi.
'* Thus the text of Kävyälankärasütra 5.2.46 in Cappeller's edition (Carl Cappeller (ed.): Vämana's Lehrbuch der Poetik. Jena: Hermann Dufft 1875). Cappeller explains (pp. ix-x) that his text is based on three MSS: one in Bengali script in Paris (= B), one in Devanägari script in Oxford (= D), and one in Telugu script in London (= T), and that he has also consulted a manuscript by the hand of T containing the commentaries of Gopendratri- puraharabhüpäla and Mahesvara. For the text of other editions see p. 116 below.
" This is not metrical, but perhaps it is not intended to be. It is quoted by Vämana in his commentary on the above-quoted sütra, for which see p. 116 below.
^° Note that these corrupt quotations contain many of the same words that are grouped
together as nipätas by Vardhamäna in Ganaratnamahodadhi 1:13 Q. Eggeling (ed.):
Vardhamäna's Ganaratnamahodadhi 1879 and 1881, reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1963, p. 29).
Bhute 'aha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 113
Translating from aheti cintyam, I interpret this as fohows:
The use of äha is questionable. Since very distant time cannot be proximate to the present, this [rule of Pänini, viz.] 'When [a root is used] to denote [an action]
which is close to the present, [suffixes are added to it] as though it denoted the present' [3.3.131] cannot apply. Vämana holds that 'Aha is used [mistakenly by some] with past sense because they confuse [what is in fact] the present tense of brü with other words that have the suffix nal [which is ordinarily used for the third person singular].' It is for this reason that [we find good poets using äha in conjunction with the particle sma, in order to express past sense, as in the follow¬
ing:] '[S]he spoke words whose syllables were sweet'. Some maintain [thut äha is]
an indeclinable with the form and function of a finite verb. So it is in the
Päniniyamatadarpana: '...' and in the Ganadarpana '...'P
Furthermore the unpublished commentary of Gunavinayagani (f. 17^),^^ as
well as the two unpublished commentaries of SrInätha (f. 59'') and Vaid-
yasrigarbha (f. 38^), whose readings we have decided occasionally to report in
the notes to our forthcoming edition,^^ also support the reading yad äha.
^' For neither work are manuscripts recorded to survive in the New Catalogus Catalo¬
gorum (Vol. 5, ed. V. Räghavan, associate ed. K. Kunjunni Raja, Madras: University of
Madras 1969, p. 237 and Vol. 12, ed. N. Veezhinathan, joint eds. C.S. Sundaram and
N. Gangadharan, Madras: University of Madras 1988, p. 15).
Gunavinayagani's Vis'esärthabodhikä on the Raghuvamsa is transmitted in a paper manuscript in Devanägari script of 98 folios (of which ff. 25—40, covering the end of chapter 4 to the beginning of chapter 8, are missing) kept in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insti¬
tute, Poona: MS No. 448 of 1887-91.
The selection of these particular unpublished commentators is not entirely arbitrary:
both appear to be relatively early Northern (perhaps Nepalese) commentators, whereas all the published commentaries (with the exception of the late, poorly transmitted and deriva¬
tive commentary of Jinasamudra) are Southern. Furthermore both are transmitted in rela¬
tively early palm-leaf manuscripts preserved in Nepal, which means both that we can be cer¬
tain of their being works unlikely to have been influenced by Mallinätha and that we can be relatively confident about the quality of their transmission and of that transmission not hav¬
ing being influenced by Mallinätha. For the commentary of Srlnätha we depend on a palm¬
leaf MS of 277 fohos, written in Maithili script and kept in the National Archives of Kath¬
mandu: MS 5-835. It has been filmed by the Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project on Reel No. A 22/3. The manuscript is dated on f. 277"^: la sam 354, i.e. 1473^ ad. For the commentary of Vaidy asrigarbha we depend on two palm-leaf MSS written in a cross between Newari and Devanägari and belonging to the National Archives of Kathmandu. Together these two make up what was evidently once a single codex. The first, MS 1-1076 (filmed by the Nepal German Manuscript Project on Reel No. A 24/11), comprises ff. 1-94; the second, MS 1-323 (filmed by the Nepal German Manuscript Project on Reel No. A 23/7), comprises ff. 95-150. These manuscripts do not transmit the text of the poem embedded in the com¬
mentaries, and we cannot for every verse be certain how Vaidyasrlgarbha and Srinätha read (even if the manuscripts had been flawless autographs, this would have been impossible be¬
cause they do not gloss every word: Vaidyasrigarbha not infrequently passes over whole
Gunavinayagarii's remark ad 3:25 is of particular interest because, after com¬
menting unfavourably on yad äha, he mentions the existence of a reading
uväca, thereby probably ensuring the disappearance oi yad äha from the texts
of all who read his commentary.^''
fiemädri's commentary here is useful because it conveniently represents
the two common interpretative responses to Kälidäsa's usages of äha with
past sense.'^^ The first - that of Vallabhadeva (ad 3:25 and ad Kumära¬
sambhava 4:43, 6:25), of Gunavinayagani (ad 3:25 [but see footnote 24]) and
of Mallinätha (ad Kumärasambhava 5:64), and, before them, of Vämana (for
which see below) - is to accept them as authorial but to condemn them as er¬
roneous. The second - that of the Ganaratnamahodadhi (1:13), and, it seems,
of the Päniniyamatadarpana and the Ganadarpana cited by Hemädri - is to
defend their correctness by asserting that they are not wrongly used finite
verbs but nipätas with the function and appearance of finite verbs (the com-
verses without comment); but for the verses that concern us here we have been able to deter¬
mine that Srinatha (ff. 44"—45''), Vaidyasrigarbha (f. IT-TJ^') and Gunavinayagani (f. 13") all read both versions of Raghuvarnsa 2:42 consecutively (first pratyabravic cainarn ...) and without any indication that either was a päthäntara intended to stand in place of the other;
that Srinätha (f. 47'), Vaidyasrigarbha (f. 28") and Guriavinayagani (f. 14^ all read 2:52 with Mallinätha; that Srlnätha(f. 65'') read 3:51 with Vallabhadeva [Gunavinayagarii's commen¬
tary, as now transmitted, glosses every element Vallabhadeva's version of 3:51ab except äha, instead of which he writes (f. 19') babhäsa jagäda, though the babhäsa of the other version would be metrically impossible]; that both Srinätha (f. 88") and Vaidyasrigarbha (f. 65'-65") read 5:3 with Vallabhadeva; that both Srlnätha(f. 90") and Vaidyasrigarbha (f. 67') read 5:12 with Vallabhadeva; and that Gunavinayagani (f. 54") read 10:37 with Mallinätha. (The folios of Gunavinayagarii's commentary of chapter 5 are missing.)
f. 17'', line 4: bruvah pancänäm ity atra lat ity anuvrttyä bhüte äheti prayogah pramädaja eva. kutracid uväcetipäthah. 'Because one reads in from [3.4.83] above 'present' (lap ity anuvrttyä) into the rule bruvah pancänäm ... [3.4.84], the use of äha must arise from error. In some [manuscripts we find] the reading uväca.' But note that ad 2:42 on f. 13", lines 19-20 another view is expressed: pratyäheti pratyuväcärthe 'vyayam. anyathä bhütärthatä na syäd. uktarn ca vämanena 'äheti bhüte nalamtam pramädät'. 'The form pratyäha is an indeclinable with the sense 'he replied'. Otherwise [i.e. if it were a verb,] it could not have past sense. And this has been stated by Vämana: "The form ending in nal 'äha' [is used] out of carelessness".'
It is odd that Gunavinayagarii's commentary as it is now transmitted has both views. Per¬
haps he modified his opinion as he wrote; perhaps he adopted one or other passage without careful thought from another source; perhaps a transmitter of his text adopted one or other passage from another source. Note that the form in which Vämana's sütra is here cited, though interpretable, is different from the forms in which it appears in editions of the Kävyälankärasütra (for which see p. 116 below) and may be corrupt.
I pass over here two responses that are not interpretative: namely to accept but offer no comment on the usage (as Jinasamudra consistently does), or to rewrite the commented text so that it no longer contains an offending äha.
Bhüte 'aha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 115
monly used expressions are aheti tinantapratirnpako nipatah and, more sim¬
ply, ähety avyayam). This second response is the more popular: it is chosen
by Hemädri (ad 3:25 and ad 2:12), by Srinätha (ad 2:42 on ff. 44^5^ ad 3:25
on f. 59^ and ad 5:3 on f. SS''), by Vaidyasrigarbha (ad 2:42 on f. 27', after a
lengthy discussion), by Näräyanapandita (ad 12:2), and by Cäritravardhana
(ad Kumärasambhava 4:43).'^^
Since Vämana is frequently cited as an authority by those who condemn
the use of äha with past sense, and since the text of his siitra on the subject and
the text of his commentary thereon are given with considerable variation (and
without identification of the quotations) in the different editions, I present an
edition based on those editions below^^:
■^^ Cäritravardhana remarks: aheti iahdah kalasamanyaväcakas tinantapratirupakah.
tathä ca bhattiprayogah: 'parighoruhhujän äha hasami svägatam kapin' iti The quoted half-verse is Bhattikävya 7:63 cd. Oddly none of the published commentaries on the Bhatti¬
kävya accessible to me comment on the äha, which is indeed used here with past sense.
The sütra in question is Kävyälankärasütra 5.2.44 (5.2.46 in Cappeller's edition). The
other editions consulted are: Pandit Durgäprasäd and Käs'inäth Pandurang Parab
(ed.): The Kävyälankärasütras of Vämana with his own vritti Kävyamälä 15, Bombay 1889 [this is based on Borooah's edition and on a manuscript from Jaipur and a manuscript from
Benares]; Anundoram Borooah (ed.): Vamana Kavyalamkara sutravrtti, Vagbhata
Alamkara and Sarasvati Kanthabharana. Calcutta and London 1883 [this is based on a'copy prepared under my [seil. Borooah's] Benares Agent Pandit Ishan chandra Tarkaratna' and
two manuscripts lent by R.G. Bhandarkar of Poonah]; Ratna Gopäl Bhatta (ed.):
Kävyälankära Sutras with Gloss by Pandit Vämana anda Commentary called Kävyälankära
Kämadhenu hy Sri Gopendra Tripurahara Bhüpäla. Benares 1907 and 1908. (Benares San¬
skrit Series. 134 and 140.) (no information is given about the sources used and no variants are reported); SrikrsnasOri (ed.) [thus according to the title page, but the preface suggests that the editors were R.V. Krishnamachariar and T. K. Balasubrahmanyam]: Kävyälankära¬
sütra Vritti with the commentary Kamadhenu. Srirangam 1909. (Sri Vani Vilas Sastra Series.
5.) (for the sub-commentary, the author of which is here named Gopendratippabhüpäla, two manuscripts were used and the edition of the Benares Sanskrit Series consulted);
AsuBODHAViDYÄBHcrsANA and Nityabodhavidyäratna (ed.): kävyälahkärasütravrttih srivämanaviracitä srigopendratripuraharahhüpälaviracitakämadhenusamäkhyavyäkhya-
yodhhäsitä. Calcutta 1922 (no information is given about the sources, but variants are given);
and BechanaJha (ed. and trans. [Hindi]): Kävyälankära Sütra of Ächärya Vämana with the
Kävyälankärakämadhenu Sanskrit commentary of ^riGopendra Tripurahara Bhüpäla, with
an introduction by Rewäprasäda Dwivedi. Varanasi: Chowkhamba 1971. (Kashi Sanskrit Series. 209.) [this is said (bhümikä p. [47]) to be based on an edition printed in Calcutta, two MSS that are savyäkhyäna and one MS that is savrttivy äkhyäna: in fact it is identical here in its reading of the sütra, commentary and subcommentary to the edition of Bhatta and, Hke Bhatta's edition, it records no variants].
I use the following sigla below: Ked. = Kävyamälä edition; Ced. = Cappeller's edition;
Bed. = Borooah's edition; Sed. = the Srirangam edition; ANed. = the edition of
Äsubodhavidyäbhösana and Nityabodhavidyäratna ; Geds. = all editions with the sub-
commentary of Gopendratripuraharabhüpäla except Sed. and ANed.; B = Cappeller's Paris
äheti bhüte 'nyanalantabhramäd bruvo lati^^
'bruvahpaücänäm'^'* ityädinä äheti lat vyutpäditah.^° sa bhüteprayuktah?^ 'ity
äha bhagavän prabhur' iti, anyasya bhütakäläbhidhäyino nalantasya liti
bhramät?^ nipunäs caivarrr'^ prayunjate: 'äha sma smitamadhumadhuräksarärn giram'^'* iti. 'anukaroti bhagavato näräyanasya'^^ ity aträpi madbye^^smasabdab kavinä prayukto, lekhakais tu pramädän na^^ lik hita iti.^^
MS (reported only where Cappeller reports it); D = Oxford MS Wilson 333b, f. 55"
(a Devanägari MS copied by Pitärrivarasarman in 1815 ad from an exemplar in Bengali script - used, but not accurately collated, by Cappeller); v.l. = varia lectio.
'nyanalantabhramäd bruvo lati ] Geds.Sed.ANed.; 'nyaladantabhramäd bruvo lati
Ked.Bed. ANed. v.l.; 'nyanalantabhramät D Ced.; salantabhramät B.
bruvah pancänäm ] Ked.Bed.Geds.Sed.ANed.; bruvo lati bruvah pancänäm Ced.;
bruvo lati bruvah pamcänäm ädita D (not reported by Ced.). The quotation is the beginning of Astädhyäyi 3.4.84.
'° lat vyutpäditah ] Ced.Geds.Sed.ANed.v.l.; laty utpäditah Ked.Bed.ANed.; vyutpä- ditah D.
prayuktah ] Ked.Bed.Ced.Geds.Sed.ANed.; na yuktah D (not reported by Ced.);
prayuktah sa cdyuktah. yathä B.
°dhäyino nalantasya liti bhramät ] Geds.ANed.; "dhäyino ladantasya liti bhramät Ked.Bed.; "dhäyino nalantasyähetyäder bhramät Ced.; "dhäyino liti nalantasya bhramät Sed.; "dhäyinalarntasya dhai bhramät D (not reported by Ced.).
nipunäs caivam ] Ked.Geds.Ced.Sed.ANed.; nipunäs tv evam Bed. (and D as misre- ported by Ced); nipunäs tv evarn D.
sma smitamadhumadhuräksarärn giram ] Ked.Bed.Geds.ANed.; sma smitamadhu-
majjadaksaräm giram Ced. (and Ked.'s MS ka); sa smitamadhumajjadaksaräm giram D (not reported by Ced.); sma smitamadhuräksaräm giram Sed.ANed.
The source of this quotation I have not been able to trace, but it seems possible that it is from a work of Bäna, since Vämana's next quotation seems to be adduced partly to defend Bäna from the charge of having once apparently (but not, according to Vämana, in fact) failed to use a sma with a present verb in a past-tense narrative. In fact Bäna may occasionally (un¬
less the transmission is at fault) have used äha with past sense and without an accompanying sma, for see p. 5, line 7 of P. V. Kane (ed.): The Harshacarita of Bänabhatta with exhaustive notes [Ucchväsas I-VIII]. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1973 [reprinted from the first edition of Bombay 1918].
... anukaroti bhagavato näräyanasya ] This is the end of a sentence in the Kädambari
that occurs on pp. 9-10 of Kashinatha Pandurang Parab (ed.) and Wasudeva Laxmana
Shastri Pansikar (revised): The Kadambari of Bänabhatta and his son Bhüsanabhatta (with the commentaries of Bhänucandra and his disciple Siddhacandra, proteges of the Em¬
peror Akabar). Delhi: Nag Publishers 1985 [reprinted from an earher unspecified edition of the Nirnaya Sagar Press].
madhye ] D Ced.; manye Ked.Bed.Geds.Sed.ANed.
pramädän na ] Ked.Bed.Geds.Sed. ANed.; na D Ced. (and Ked.'s MS ka).
The sub-commentary of Gopendratripuraharabhüpäla (whom Dwivedi, on p. 43 ofhis introduction, dates to the 15* century) gives support to some of the readings accepted above:
äheti. 'kim icchasiti sph utam äha t'äjrtZ'« '[Mallinätha's reading of Raghuvamsa3:(>3] ityädisv äheti bhüte prayujyate. sa ca pray ogo 'nupapannah, 'bruvah pahcänäm ädita äho bruvah' iti
Bhute 'äha ' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 117
Äha is used [mistakenly by some] with past sense because they confuse [what
is in fact] the present tense of brü with other words that have the suffix nal [which is ordinarily used for the third person singular].^'
By the sütra beginning Tn place of the root brü, the five...' the present-tense form äha is derived. That is [sometimes] used with past sense - [e.g. in the follow¬
ing:] 'Thus spoke the all-powerful Lord' - because of a mistaken notion [that it can be used] in the sense of the perfect that is proper to other words ending in the suffix nal that express past sense."*" Now skilled [writers, when they want it to convey past sense,] use it thus: '[S]he spoke (äha sma) words whose syllables were sweet with the honey of her smile'. In this passage [of the Kädambari] too
emulates Lord Näräyaria the poet used the ■wordsma, but scribes have
out of carelessness failed to write it.
bruvo lati nalädyädes'apancakavidhänät. anyanalanteti-liti vihito yo nal tadantatvahhrän- timülo 'yarn prayoga ity arthah. ähety avyayam iti kecit samädadhate. (kecit samadadhate ] Sed.; kecit tu samädhatte Geds.; kecit samddhatte ANed.) sistaprayogas'ailim darsayati:
nipunäs ceti 'lat sme' [Astädhyäyi 3.2.118] iti lato vidhänät prasangäd anyaträpi bhütärthe latprayogasyopapattim äha: anukarotiti
This translation is an attempt to follow Vämana's interpretation, about my understanding of which I am not confident. Note that the interpretation of Gopendratripuraharabhüpäla
might appear to differ, for which see footnote 38. His remarks (after anyanalanteti) might lead one to suppose the sütra to mean: 'Aha is used [mistakenly by some] with past sense, because they mistakenly suppose it to end in the other suffix nal [which expresses the first or third per¬
son singular of the perfect].' But though his wording might seem to suggest that he presup¬
posed the existence of two nak, one used for/ft and the other {or lat, it does not conclusively prove that he did (and if he did, his interpretation of Pänini would be anomalous).
^° This is the portion of text about which 1 am most uncertain. Ganganatha Jha's English translation (Ganganatha Jha (trans.): The Kävyälankärasütras of Vämana. Allah¬
abad [1914, according to Bodleian catalogue card, but no date printed]. [Indian Thought Se¬
ries. III.], p. 127 [also numbered 111]) of the commentary up to this point reads: "In the first Five forms (the singular, dual and plural of the third person and the singular and dual of the second person) of the present tense, the root 'brü' to speak, takes the alternative forms of 'äha' and the rest, in accordance with Pän 1II.4-84; but the word 'äha' is often found to be used in the sense of the past - u e. , 'itydha [sic] bhagavän svayam ' - 'thus said the Lord him¬
self; this use must be due to people mistaking the form 'äha' to be of the past tense; this mis¬
conception arising from the resemblance of this word to verbs in that tense." It is not clear what wording of the text Ganganatha Jha here translates; he mentions (p. [i]) that he is using the Kävyamälä edition and an edition 'in the Benares Sanskrit Series, along with a commen¬
tary', which is presumably that of Bhatta. Neither text reads svayam in the first quotation.
Bechana Jha's Hindi translation of just the last portion reads (1971, p. 223): vah bhüt mern prayukt hotä hai, yathä - 'ity äha bhagavän prabhuh' kintu düsre bhütakälik nalant prayog ke bhram se lit mern prayukt hotä hai
The passage in question is cited, as Gopendratripuraharabhüpäla points out (see foot¬
note 38 above), not because it contains an äha, but because it uses a present-tense verb in a passage of narrative set in the past, which is acceptable as long as it is accompanied by the par¬
ticle sma to mark that it is past - a particle which Vämana supposes the poet to have included even though it is not transmitted.
It should be obvious from this short passage that Vämana's work, though an
old and oft quoted authority that belongs to the central corpus of classical
texts on rhetoric, is (hke the Raghuvamsa itself) stih awaiting a satisfactory
critical edition/^ Each of the existing editions that are accessible to me has
been prepared on the basis of a very small group of sources, the ones I am able
to check on have not reported or have not correctly reported their sources,
and not one appears to have made use of all its predecessors.
Returning once more to Raghuvamsa 3:25, it is easy to understand why the
secondary reading, once devised, should have been preferred by subsequent
transmitters of the text, both because it is free of grammatical solecism and be¬
cause the word uväca seems a particularly felicitous choice, since its sound
helps to suggest an infant's first attempt at speech. It seems impossible that the
syntactically correct uväca should at any time have been deliberately sup¬
planted by yad äha, which is both less attractive and felt to be wrong. If, on
the other hand, uväca were original and had at some time somewhere been
supplanted in error, then it seems equahy improbable that it should have been
unknown to a handful of different commentators from far distant parts of In¬
dia, among them the earliest to survive. The 'improvement' adopted by
Mallinätha had the one minor disadvantage of leaving the co-relative tena (in
the {omxh päda) without a corresponding relative pronoun, and so it is not
surprising to find a further refinement develop in South India: the commenta-
Perhaps some edition that 1 cannot check deserves such an accolade. I am aware of but do not have access to Narayan Nathaji Kulkarni (ed.): Kävyälankärasütravrtti of Vämana.
With extracts from the Kämadhenu. Poona: Oriental Book Agency 1927. (Poona Oriental Se¬
ries. 34.) (This edition is mentioned on p. 738 of Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Jeffrey Moussaieff
Masson and M.V. Patwardhan (trans.): The Dhvanyäloka of Anandavardhana with the
Locana of Abhinavagupta. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1990).
I have also consuked the edition of Kedara Nath Sharma: Kävyälankärasutravritti of
Vaman With Kamadhenu Sanskrit and Vidyadhari Hindi Commentaries. Varanasi:
Chaukhambha Amarabharati Prakashan 1979 (Chaukhamba Amarabharati Granthamala.
19.). But this I have not reported since its text of the sütras and commentary are identical to that of Geds., i.e. the majority of the editions with Gopendratripuraharabhüpäla's sub- commentary, and his text of that subcommentary too is identical to theirs in all but that he reads kecit for kecit tu (which is, I think, as likely to be the result of misinterpretation of the damaged type of Jha's edition of 1971 as it is to be the result of checking some other source or of independent thinking). Sharma 's edition does not mention the editions of Bhatta and Jhä, nor does the editor state what source(s) it is based upon; but he mentions Sed. as being the. .. sarvottam sarnskaran (Hindi preface, p. (5)) and he mentions (but appears not to have used) the edition of Cappeller, of which he says only: vah bhi acchä hai.
The New Catalogus Catalogorum (Vol. 4, ed. V. Räghavan, associate ed. K. Kunjunni Raja, Madras: University of Madras 1969, p. 114) omits to mention ANed. and the edition of Kulkarni, but it mentions one other edition to which I don't have access: that of Jivänanda Vidyäsägara published in Calcutta in 1892.
Bhute 'aha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 119
tors Arunagirinätha and Näräyana modify the ürstpäda to supply the missing
pronoun/^
Vallabhadeva's only comment on yad äha in 3:25 is the following: bhüte
'äha' iti pramädät, whence the title of this article. This (to us today) laudable
tendency - the tendency to present the text as transmitted to him without ei¬
ther altering it to remove perceived faults or covering its faults by sophistic in¬
terpretation - appears to be typical of Vallabhadeva,'''' and is another factor (in
addition to his antiquity) that encourages us to accord especially high value to
his testimony.
Our edition of Vallabhadeva's Raghupancikä, of which a first volume cover¬
ing the first six chapters will be submitted to the press in 2001, reveals that it is
manifestly untrue that, as Dwivedi has alleged,''^ 'no fresh approach to manu¬
scripts is needed[,] as they do not provide new readings, but only point out
scribal mistakes'. Even if it were true that there were no further meaningful
Even though the distribution of readings reveals that it cannot be original, by the criteria (of aptness, coherence, etc.) usually applied by those who weigh the readings of Kälidäsa, this is perhaps the 'best' reading. It is welcomed as such by S. Venkitasubramonia Iyer in an article entitled 'Textual Criticism of Raghuvarnsa on the Basis of Arunagirinätha's Commentary' (Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. XXI, 1984, pp. 152-168), pp. 162-163.
'*'' Compare, for instance, Vallabhadeva's judgments on other sorts of blemish in Kumära¬
sambhava 3:61 and in 5:42, and compare Vallabhadeva's treatment of a problem similar to ours in Kumärasambhava 1:34. Some explain away the aberrant form ijsd (intended as a per¬
fect of as) mKumärasambhava 1:34 by classifying it as a nipätatha.t functions as a finite verb.
This is the strategy we find, for example, in Vardhamäna's Ganaratnamahodadhi 1:13 (p. 29), admittedly without explicit reference to Kumärasambhava 1:34, but see below. It is also, as we have seen above, exactly the tactic adopted by many commentators to explain away the use of äha with past sense; indeed this is how Vardhamäna accounts for the usage in the same passage {Ganaratnamahodadhi 1:13), and here his commentary refers explicitly {ibid., ■p. 31)
to an instance in the works of Kälidäsa: Kumärasambhava 5:64a athäha varni vidito
mahesvarah .
Vallabhadeva's opinion, however, is that the form äs^? cannot be treated as a nipäta with the form of a finite verb, since such a verb form is impossible, but should rather be recognised as a slip of the poet: äseti kavinärn pramädajah prayogah. 'aster bhür' [Astädhyäyi l.A.bl] iti bhübhävaprasangät. yat tv anye bruvate 'tihantapratirüpako nipätah ' iti tad asat, tadrsasya tinantasyaiväbhävät. (tihantasyaiväbhävät is the reading of MS D, supported by Malli¬
nätha's quotation of the passage in his commentary ad loc; Narayana Murti prints
titiantasyaiva bhavanät.) Vallabhadeva's uncompromising stand on this point is cited (and attributed to Vallabhadeva) by Vardhamäna in his commentary on Ganaratnamahodadhi 1:13 (p. 29) and also, as we have mentioned, by MaOinätha.
It is worth mentioning as an aside that this reference in the Ganaratnamahodadhi may be the earliest dated surviving quotation of Vallabhadeva's words. Vardhamäna gives the date of his own composition as sarnvat 1197, i.e. 1140 ad (see Eggeling's preface, p. vi).
Rewä Prasäda Dwivedi (ed.): The Raghuvarnsa of Kälidäsa. New Delhi: Sahitya
Akademi 1993, p. xlviii.
variants yet to be reported (and it is not true), we would still be in a much better position to assess the transmission if we could date and place readings.
This is exactly what commentaries help us to do. Ah the readings with äha
that we have been considering above are ones which are known from pub¬
lished collations, but which, though primary, have not until now been in¬
corporated into the accepted text of any edition, because editors until now
have not taken into consideration their distribution among early commentar¬
ies, in particular the circumstance that all but one is supported by the earhest commentary.
Now it might seem obvious that the many surviving commentaries can
help us to weigh readings and to determine both how the poem was shaped
during the course of its transmission and at the same time which among the
many transmitted variants are most likely to have been part of Kälidäsa's com¬
position; but it is nevertheless something worth pointing out, because there is
an extremely strong conflicting tendency that has plainly swayed many read¬
ers and the many editors of the Raghuvamsa to date, including the most
prominent among them today, Rewä Prasäda Dwivedi . The tendency I refer
to is the desire to defend as primary whatever the editor (or reader) finds most
attractive. The fundamental (and erroneous) presupposition that justifies this
approach is clear: Kälidäsa is a great poet, and all that he wrote must be
flawless poetry by the criteria that the editor imposes."*^ Thus Rewä Prasäda
Dwivedi declares that his principle criterion for judging authenticity is con¬
formity with his perception of Kälidäsa's style'*'' and, on the authority of
Abhinavagupta's opening verses to the Abhinavabharati, he advocates boldly
striking out what seems spurious, rearranging the order of verses 'on the basis
of aptness of meanings', resolving apparent contradictions, 'skilfully' filling in
Dwivedi is perhaps alone in avowing his presuppositions (see below), but he is not alone in following this attractive (though flawed) approach. 1 have referred above to only one instance in which another scholar reveals himself to be guided by this tendency (see foot¬
note 43), but could refer to many more. Even Möhrke in his comparison of the readings of the Kumärasambhava offered by Vallabhadeva with those of other commentaries appears re¬
peatedly (e.g. ad 2:9,2:15,2:39,3:3,3:18) to be approving readings as 'old' on the grounds that they seem more appropriate or more pleasing (Edwin Möhrke: Vallabhadeva's Commentar zu Kälidäsa 's Kumärasarnbhava ( I-VII) in seinem Verhältnis zu anderen Commentaren vor¬
nehmlich zu dem des Mallinätha. Eine textkritische Untersuchung. Würzburg 1933). N. V. P.
Unithiri is one of few modern scholars who defends bringing text-critical principles to bear on readings in Kälidäsa's works: 'A modern researcher aims at finding the original reading, irrespective of its grammatical correctness or incorrectness, or relative propriety or impro¬
priety.' (p. 142 of N.V. P. Unithiri: 'Meghadüta - Criticism through Commentaries.' In:
Journal of the Oriental Institute [of Baroda], Vol. XXXIV, 1984, pp. 141-154).
■•^ 'The decisive factor here [seil, in editorial decision making] is the familiarity with Kälidäsa's own craftmanship. This alone would show what is spurious.' (pp. Ivii-lviii).
Bhute 'aha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 121
gaps, and sucfi like. I have no quibble with boldness, nor, in principle, with
emending the text in accordance with our judgements about how Kälidäsa
wrote; but we must be careful that we do not not simply continue to do what
the commentarial and scribal tradition has been doing to the text for centuries:
removing inconsistencies, supplanting what was grammatically suspect, and
polishing over perceived errors of taste. When we find preserved in the earli¬
est extant commentary readings in which we can detect flaws, or what might
have been considered to be such, we should rather rejoice that we may be un¬
earthing fresh fragments of Kälidäsa's creation.
There are of course many other published readings which Vallabhadeva's
commentary supports that have no support from the commentaries printed to
date, that have never been accepted into the text of any edition, and that may
nevertheless also be primary. Although I cannot argue so clear a case for the
primariness of many of these as for the group of readings with äha, such read¬
ings plainly deserve to be considered as possibly original. I shall cite just two
examples:
1. Raghuvarnsa 8:26, as read by Vallabhadeva,''* in which Aja hears of the
death of his father, mourns and, accompanied by the family priest
Vasistha, performs his father's obsequies:
srutadehavisarjanah pitus dram as'rüni visrjya räghavah \
vitatäna samarn purodhasä kratum antyarn prthivtsatakratoh \ |
The printed commentaries read vimucya for visrjya and have the follow¬
ing as the second half:
vidadhe vidhim asya naisthikarn yatibhih särdham anagnim agnicit
The reading on which Vallabha comments states obliquely (and poi¬
gnantly) that with the performance of his funeral rites Raghu finally
equalled Indra in attaining the glory of having accomplished a hundred
sacrifices (Dillpa's failure to accomplish this is the theme of 3:38ff - in
which Indra intervened to prevent his doing so - and 6:74). The version of
^est pädas given in Hemädri, Mallinätha, and Jinasamudra may be a sec¬
ondary correction made in order to obviate an entailed inconsistency:
Raghu's obsequies could not have been performed with fire because he
was a renunciate.
And also by Srlnätha (f. 140") and Vaidyasrigarbha (f. 109"). Gunavinayagani (f 41'') reads the first half as Vallabhadeva does, but the second as the printed commentators do.
2. Raghuvamsa 6:34, as read by Vallabha,''^ in which the suitor of IndumatI
who hails from Ujjayini lives not far from the temple of Mahäkäla, and so
can enjoy the pleasures of his harem by moonlight even in the daytime:
asau mahäkälaniketanasya candrärdhamauler nivasann adüre \
diväpi jäläntaracandrikänäm närtsakhah sparsasukhäni hhunkte \ \
The commentator Cäritravardhana condemns this reading in the follow¬
ing terms^°: yady api asmin päthe 'tisayoktir vidyate, tathäpi divä
candrikävarnanasya kälaviruddhatväd dustahpäthah. The printed com¬
mentaries, perhaps because other transmitters had similar thoughts, read
the verse as follows:
asau mahäkälaniketanasya vasann adüre kila candramauleh \
tamisrapakse 'pi saha priyäbhir jyotsnävato nirvisati pradosän \ \
Transmitters who felt as Cäritravardhana did, or who had similar criti¬
cisms, may be responsible for the 'improved' version of this verse that we
find transmitted in the printed commentaries. Apart from removing the
offending diväpi, their text finds room for a mitigating kila, 'so they say'.
Thus the reading that is alone favoured by the printed commentaries^'
may well be a secondary 'improvement'; nonetheless it is still, it seems to
me, not unproblematic, since the ordinary moon is visible in both the
darkening and the lightening fortnights. Furthermore the conceit in
Vallabha's version has parallels in other verses of Kälidäsa: Meghadüta 7
and Kumärasambhava 7:35 and 7:69. In both the latter two instances the
expression diväpi also occurs.
I have mentioned that there are also readings supported by Vallabhadeva and
attested in Kashmirian manuscripts that have not appeared in published colla¬
tions to date. Some of these as yet unpublished readings are also arguably pri¬
mary. Again I cannot present such convincing proof for their primariness as is
possible for the äha verses; but I give below one example, which is different
from all those that we have so far considered in that it is very probably an in¬
stance in which unmotivated accidental change is the cause of variation:
And also by Srinätha (f. 112") and Vaidyasrigarbha (f. 86'). (The text of Gunavina¬
yagarii's commentary is missing for this chapter.)
*° As quoted by Nandargikar (5''' ed.), p. 718.
DwivedI's text of Hemädri gives a variant of Vallabha's reading: diväpi jäläntaracandri- käyäm närimukhasparsasukhäni bhunlete; but the quotation of the variant is omitted in one of his MSS and appears only in the margin of another and so was probably not part of Hemädri's text.
Bhute 'äha' iti pramadat: Firm Evidence for the Direction of Change 123
1. Raghuvarnsa 7:56, as read by Vallabhadeva,^^ in which Aja fought with
such speed that, after he had once drawn the bowstring back to his ear,
neither his right nor his left hand could be seen moving over the opening
of his quiver, and the bowstring seemed itself to be generating fatal
arrows^-':
na daksinarn tünamukhe na vämarn vyäpärayan hastam alaksyatäsau \
äkarnakrstä sakrd asya yoddhur maurviva hänän susuve ripughnän \ \
The printed commentaries all offer unsatisfactory interpretations be¬
cause their verse begins sa daksinarn .
The emendation of sa to na was advanced in the absence of any manu¬
script evidence by Dwivedi in his second Kälidäsagranthävali}'^ Val¬
labhadeva and Srinatha here support his astute conjecture, but at the same
time they demonstrate that he is wrong to assume that further recourse to
the manuscripts is unnecessary.
Up till now I have offered no speculation about why it is that the Raghuvarnsa
should appear to have been subjected to so much more revision than other
early mahäkävyas. It is clear that its having been transmitted without, it
seems, any commentary to secure its wording for some centuries and over a
wide area goes some way towards explaining this. No commentaries In San¬
skrit on purely belletristic works appear to survive earlier than those of
Vallabhadeva of the tenth century, and although we know that earlier com¬
mentaries were written on purely belletristic works,^^ the third opening verse
And also by Srinatha (f. 133"). (The text of Gimavinayagani's commentary is missing for this chapter.)
Cf. Rämäyana i.32:7: nädadänam s'arän ghorän na muncantarn mahäbalam I na kär-
mukam vikarsantam rämam pasyämi sayuge.
Dwivedi 1986, p. 202.
As a commentator on other works of kävya it is clear that Vallabha had and knew of many predecessors from an opening verse to the Sisupälavadha: krtä mahadbhir yata eva
tikä mamäpi yatnas tata eva yuktah / hrahmäcyutäbhyarcitapädapadmo na püjyate kirn
manujair mahesah. (Ram Chandra Kak and Harabhatta Shästri (ed. [from three Säradä
MSS]): Mäghabhatta's Sisupälavadha with the commentary Sandehavisausadhiof Vallabha¬
deva. Shrinagar 1935.)
Having said that no earlier commentaries on belletristic works survive, I should observe that it is however possible that the Prakäsavarsa whom Vallabhadeva cites (as upädhyäyafh]
prakäsavarsah) ad Sisupälavadha 1:35, 16:17 and 20:71 might, as Hultzsch suggests (p. x, and also p. 735 of Hultzsch's 'Supplementary Notes on the Meghaduta.' In: JRAS 1912, pp. 734-736), be the Prakäsavarsa whose laghutikä on the Kirätärjuniya survives today in a number of manuscnpts.
The first evidence we have of written commentaries being composed on purely belletristic works belongs to the seventh century ad. The New Catalogus Catalogorum (Vol. 4, Madras
to Vallabhadeva's Raghupancikä imphes that he knew of no commentary on the Raghuvamsa:
tathäpi kriyate 'smäbhih paücikä raghuvarnane \
tikävirahakhedärtasädhusärthapravartitaih \ \
... nevertheless I am creating this commentary on the tale of the
Raghus, urged on by the scores of good people pained by the trouble
of being without a commentary.
But this will not suffice as an explanation, for why then should so many in¬
stances of äha with past sense have survived uncorrected in the Kumära¬
sambhava} The huge number of manuscripts of the Raghuvarnsa, as well as
the huge number of commentaries (many of them pedestrian) on the poem
(which is written in a language that, for all its subtlety and beauty, is relatively
easy to understand), suggest that the Raghuvarnsa has long been a popular
choice as an improving text for young students of the Sanskrit language. It
seems possible that its widespread use as a first 'schoolroom text' might have
led to its being altered by 'improvers', who would have wished its language,
imagery and ideas to be in every way exemplary.
1968, p. 162) lists the no longer extant commentary of the seventh-century Gähga King DurvinTta on the fifteenth sarga of the Kirätärjuniya, which we know of from an inscription.
The speculation (ibid.) that he may have commented on all the chapters up to the fifteenth is implausible as an interpretation of the sole evidence, namely the single phrase ... kirätärjuni- yapancadasasargatikäkärena durvinltanämadheyena ... The fifteenth is the chapter replete with citrakävya and must have been regarded as the only part to need commentary. Other, more famous evidence from the seventh century implies the existence of commentaries on purely belletristic works, but, as above, implies at the same time that such commentaries were not common and were not necessary for most belletristic writing: the penultimate verse of the Bhattikävya (22:34) reads vyäkhyägamyam idam kävyam utsavah sudhiydm alam / hatä durmedhasas cäsmin vidusäm pritaye mayä (ed. Jivänandavidyäsägarabhattäcärya,
Calcutta, 1876). Some dispute whether Bhämaha's Kävyälankära 2:20 is a rejoinder to the above: kävyäny api yadimäni vyäkhyägamyäni s'ästravat I utsavah sudhiyäm eva hanta durmedhaso hatäh (ed. and trans. C. Sankara Rama Sastri, Madras 1956. [Sri Balamano- rama Series No. 54.]). But however we construe the relationship between the two verses, both clearly convey that kävya accessible only through commentary (whether written or oral is not specified) was then thought unusual.
Macht-Worte
Die konstitutiven Elemente des Staates
in der Ausdruckswelt der japanischen Antike
Von Wolfram Naumann, Sulzburg
Nach der klassischen Definition von Georg Jellinek bilden Staatsvolk, Staats¬
gebiet und Staatsgewalt die Ingredienzien eines Staatswesens. Wie manifestie¬
ren sich diese drei Faktoren in der altjapanischen Geschichte? Wir suchen eine
Antwort im sprachlich-literarischen Bereich, in der Welt des Ausdrucks,
nicht in der Domäne politischer und historischer Fakten.'
Wir beginnen mit dem Begriff der Staatsgewalt, der Souveränität. Da haben
wir es zunächst mit allgemeinen Selbstverständlichkeiten zu tun. Wenn sich
der japanische Monarch nach chinesischem Modell als „Himmlischer Souve¬
rän" und „Sohn des Himmels" oder in eigner Regie als „gegenwärtige er¬
lauchte Gottheit" ehren läßt, so offenbart sich in dieser Sakralisierung die
höchste denkbare Legitimation der Herrschaft, wie sie die mannigfaltigen
Phänomene des Gottkönigtums in den antiken Großreichen zeitigten und
wie sie in der christlichen Vorstellung des Gottesgnadentums weiterlebte.
Hier ging es immer darum, höchste politische und religiöse Autorität zu arti¬
kulieren und zu manifestieren, und zwar so apodiktisch und demonstrativ,
wie nur eine Demonstration von oben sein kann.
Die japanische Bürokratie des S.Jahrhunderts sanktionierte diese Demon¬
stration mit dem „Gesetz über das offizielle Protokoll" (kushiki-ryö)} Hier
legte man bis in die letzten Feinheiten die chinesisch formulierte Schreibung
für kaiserliche Willensbekundungen fest.-* Das Protokoll schreibt für wichtige
Adressen an „Gesandte aus dem Barbarenland" - gemeint ist der koreanische
' Hier ist auf einen verdienstvollen Vorstoß in dieser Richtung zu verweisen; Ulrich Goch: „Der Herrscher ist (wie) der Wind. Naturmetaphern und -vergleiche zur Herrschaft und zum Herrscher in der japanischen Geschichtsschreibung." In: Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung Bd. 12 (1989), S. 105-123.
^ Hans Adalbert Dettmer: Die Urkunden Japans vom 8. his ins 10. Jahrhundert. Band l.¬
Die Ränge. Zum Dienstverhältnis der Urkundsbeamten. Wiesbaden 1972, S. IX übersetzt bzw.
paraphrasiert „Gesetze zur Geschäftsordnung".
' Ryö.no gige Fasz. 7, (Shintei zöho) Kokushi taikei, S. 227fl.
