An Introduction to the Delarāmākathāsāra

　　 Delarāmākathāsāra [henceforward designated as DK] or “the essence of the story about (the courtesan) called Delarāmā” is a literary work composed in Sanskrit verses by a certain Rajānaka Bhaṭṭāhlādaka. About this author we know practically nothing except that he was most probably a Brahmin born in the land of Kashmir. Rājānaka as the title of a high officer in the service of a Kashmirian king occurs at least twice in Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī1; and several well-known Kashmirian authors bear the same title, which has almost become their family name2.

　　In DK the poet relates the wonderful adventures experienced by a young prince in exile as well as the strategems used by him to bring a brilliant though wicked harlot named Delarāmā into subjection. Apparently this amusing story has hitherto engaged little more than the cursory attention of a few Sanskritists3. To my knowledge, the only scholar who has ever made any serious attempt to investigate the contents and the background of DK is Johannes Hertel. In his volume on Jinakīrti’s Pālagopālakathānaka4, which shares some narrative motifs with DK, Hertel summarizes the whole story related in the latter5 and then, in the form of an annotation to the title, sets forth his opinions on the date, the author and the source of the work6.　Most of these observations of Hertel seem reasonable to me, so that I can, on my part, add only a little to what he has already said about DK in the said annotation.

　　It lies beyond doubt that the story of DK did not spring up in the cultural soil of the Hindus but originated somewhere in Islamic countries, perhaps in Persia. Indeed, the occurrence of such personal names as Muhammada and Ibrāhīma as well as the use of such words as sultrāṇa and masedā in the text of DK already suffice even for those readers who have no acquaintance with the languages and literatures of Muslims to recognize the non-Hindu origin of the story. The whole narrative begins with the vivid description of the prosperity and pleasures enjoyed by the denizens of the city called Halābha. According to Hertel, this city is none other than Haleb, i.e. Aleppo in Northern Syria7. DK is, therefore, one product of the attempts of Indian poets to translate or adapt the Islamic stories from their originals into Sanskrit. Another example of such an attempt is the Kathākautuka of Śrīvara, who therein relates the famous story on Yūsuf and Zuleikha in Sanskrit verses, relying upon the Persian original of Jāmī. Richard Schmidt, who edited the Sanskrit text of this poetical work8, holds this Śrīvara to be the same person as the author of the Jainarājataraṅgiṇī, a chronicle of Kashmir during the dominion of Muslim kings9.

　　For the investigation of the circumstances under which DK came into being, we have practically no other means than to examine such internal evidences as the statement of Bhaṭṭāhlādaka himself, who at the outset of his narrative tells about his original source in the following manner:

eṣā kathā Mausalaśāstradṛṣṭā

　　　　　bhūyiṣṭhasadvācyamahāviśiṣṭā /

　　manovinodāya satāṃ janānāṃ

　　　gīrbāṇavāṇyā kriyate mayâdya // (DK 1,2)

This story, found in a Mausalaśāstra, which is highly distinguished by 　　the most frequent occurrence of the objects of excellent expressions, is now to be told by me in the language of gods [i.e. Sanskrit] for the purpose of pleasing the minds of respectable people.

According to Hertel, who identifies Mausala as Mauṣil, i.e. Mosul, the famous city on the western bank of the Tigris in Northern Iraq, the word Mausalaśāstra means “ein Lehrbuch aus Mosul”10. This interpretation of Hertel, which derives its sole argument from a mere phonetic resemblance, seems rather precarious. A simpler and more convincing solution suggests itself to us from a totally different angle, if we come to notice that a word which shows only a slight phonetical and scriptural difference from Mausala occurs in a certain work of Kashmirian authorship. It is namely in Śrīvara’s Jainarājataraṅgiṇī11 ― mentioned just above ― that we can find the word Mausula at several different places12. At these places the word is undoubtedly employed in the sense of a Muslim. So, for instance, in the following verse of Śrīvara the nominal compound Mausulaveda means the Koran, expressed as the Veda of Muslims:

divyaṃ Mausulavedena te kṛtvâpi parasparam /

nâtyajan hṛdayād vairaṃ kārṣṇyam aurṇā ivâṃśukāḥ //

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(Jainarājataraṅgiṇī 1, 84)

Even after having mutually taken an oath in the name of the Mausulaveda [, i.e. the Koran], they did not abandon their old enmity in their hearts any more than the woolen cloth [woven from black yarn] do their innate blackness.

On the grounds of this and other instances of Mausula in the chronicle of Śrīvara13 we can safely construe Mausalaśāstra, a compound which is closely analogous to Mausulaveda, as having the sense of “a textbook of Muslims.” Here the tiny difference between Mausala and Mausula is of little significance for us, as these forms are both only approximate phonetical reproductions of a foreign word. In North-Indian scripts such as the Śāradā and the Devanāgarī the sign for the vowel u, which in most cases consists in a stroke or a hook added to an akṣara from below, can easily be dropped by a careless scribe. Thus we might perhaps even go so far as to assume that not Mausala- but Mausulaśāstra was the original reading of the compound.

　　In any case, it is certain that some “textbook of Muslims” served Bhaṭṭāhlādaka as the source of his Sanskrit composition. Presumably this “textbook” had not existed in the form of such ethical or religious treatise as the term śāstra usually suggests, but consisted for the most part of the stories collected for some pedagogical purposes14. The title of Bhaṭṭāhlādaka’s composition, having the word kathāsāra as its final component, indicates that the story on Delarāmā, as it is related in his Sanskrit version, represents rather the essence (sāra) or an abridgement of the original one, which had been more comprehensive and perhaps contained a few episodes and other kinds of digression.

　　We have no means of determining the exact date of the composition of DK. In any event, it cannot go back to great antiquity. As Hertel points out, the employment of the suffix -paṇa attestable in the word dāsīpaṇa (status as a female slave) in DK 13, 45 suggests an influence exerted on Bhaṭṭāhlādaka’s Sanskrit by some modern Indo-Aryan dialect15.

　　The text which offers us some clue to our chronological discussion on DK is the Kathāratnākara, a collection of stories composed in Sanskrit prose by a Jaina monk Hemavijaya. The same Hertel, who took special interest in this collection because it contains a good number of stories attestable in several recensions of the Pañcatantra16, tried to translate the whole text into German17. One of Hemavijaya’s stories, which directly concerns our present topic, is that about a harlot called Rūpasenā, narrated in the 57th chapter of the Kathāratnākara18. The outline of this story, as it is related by Hemavijaya, is given by Hertel in his book on the Pālagopālakathānaka19, because both narratives use several common motifs. This chapter in Hemavijaya’s work, however, agrees far better with the story of our Delarāmā than with the tale on Pāla and Gopāla. The parallelism in regard to the main plot as well as to subsidiary motifs which exists between DK and the Rūpasenā-story is so close that we can hardly regard them as two distinct narratives. Each of them represents rather a different version of one and the same story, although in Hemavijaya’s version there occur no such Muslim proper names as we find them in DK. So long as we give credit to Bhaṭṭāhlādaka’s own statement as to DK’s derivation from a non-Indian source, and, unless we do not entirely dismiss the possibility of the same story having been translated into an Indian language more than once, we must necessarily recognize the precedence of his version over that of Hemavijaya. Most probably Hemavijaya drew on DK or some unknown version derived from DK, when he composed his narrative on Rūpasenā in prose. As for the date of the Kathāratnākara, we are fortunate enough to be able to fix it exactly in the year 1600 of the Christian era. For, according to Hertel, who could take the codex of Hemavijaya’s own handwriting at the basis of his German translation20, the Jaina poet himself tells in the 29th of the concluding verses (praśasti) of his work that it was composed by him in Ahmedabad in the year 1657 of the Vikrama-era21. On the other hand, such an adaptation from Islamic source as we attest it in DK, presupposes the acceptance of Muslim language(s) by literate Hindus, which was made possible only by the established rule of Muslim kings. In Kashmir the earliest possible date of such Muslim rule is the middle of the 14th century22. All these considerations induce us to assume that DK was written some time between the latter half of the 14th and the end of the 16th centuries.

　　 DK possesses almost all the characteristics of mahākāvya (sargabandha), as they are enumerated by Daṇḍin in Kāvyādarśa 1,14-1923. As a kāvya-work, however, DK is rather simple in respect of language and style, as Bhaṭṭāhlādaka only seldom indulges in the luxury of rhetorical embellishment. Nevertheless, he has such a good command of Sanskrit language that his verses only seldom show grammatical or syntactical anomalies. Further, the skill he displays in employing a number of kāvya-metres deserves our special appreciation.

　　The whole work, comprised of 473 verses, is divided into 13 chapters (sargas). A small portion of the text, i.e. the last 2 verses of the 2nd chapter and the first 12 1/2 verses of the following chapter, is lacking in the printed edition. The only printed text of DK that has ever been published is the 77th volume of the Kāvyamālā-series24. On the English title page of this volume Mahāmahopādhyāya Paṇḍit Śivadatta and Kāśīnāth Pāṇdurang Parab are presented as the editors of the text. Strangely enough, it is two quite different names, i.e. Mahāmahopādhyāya Paṇḍita Durgāprasāda and Paṇaśīkara Vāsudevaśarman, which are given as those of the editors on the Sanskrit title page. We have no means of detecting the cause of this inconsistency.

　　This volume, which has neither preface nor introduction but contains only the text of DK with scanty annotations, does not provide us with any information as to how the edition came into being. Nevertheless, the presence of the lacuna referred to just above suggests that the edited text is based either on a single manuscript25 or on a few different ones which are closely related to each other.

　　Obviously, the editors cared only little about the exact meaning of each verse. Everywhere they left the errors and the ambiguities as they stood in their manuscript(s). Below I present the list of the corrections and emendations which I would like to undertake on the printed text of DK. This list, which is merely a tentative one, lays no claim to being complete. My hope is merely that this list will be of some help for those who wish to enjoy the fantastic story about Delarāmā as found in the original text printed in the volume of the Kāvyamālā-series.

　1,4b: krīḍāprapañceṣv･･････

　1,8c: ････câsu radacchadena

　1,25a: tāṃ vīkṣya･･･････････

　1,26c: ākṛṣṭabāṇadhanuṣī(?)･･････

　1,33c: ･･･････････prayāvaḥ

　2,3d: ･･････････-senâjagāma

　2,9a: katipayapathavartmâtītya･････

　2,14ab: ･･･････kaṃcana paradeśaṃ･･･････

　2,17cd: ･････････yaḥ sadânayati･････････

　2,19b: ････pathibhojanāya saḥ

　2,23c: mātṛpaitṛ(?)･･･････

　3,14d: ･･･amaradhāma･･･

　3,21c: ･････upāttadhanāsthā

　3,21d: ････gurudīptisudīptam

　3,22d: sâpaṇāntaram･･････

　3,26a: ････････-vittacayā

　3,31c: ･･･････-kathā vibudho

　4,12cd: yatra durlabhasupīnameṣamāṃsāśanaṃ tu kṛśayânayâtra kim

　4,15a: sâjagāma･･･････

　4,20b: ･･･････pratīkṣase

　4,21a: ･･････no bhavatsamā-

　4,31a: ekāṃ tau･･････････

　4,32b: ･･････gatā bhavatsvamātā

　4,32c: ････････tayā prayuktā

　4,34a: ānīya･･････････

　4,34d: tāṃ pakvāṃ･･････････

　5,7ab: anyaśātitaśakuntakarṣitoraḥśiraḥsuparipūritāṅgakam

　5,9b: ････････-saṃmadaḥ

　5,10a: śākinīgadita-･････

　5,10d: ･････-kṛte ’nurāgiṇī

　5,16c: 　･･･tanayâbhavad･････････

　5,18a: ･･････punaḥ śṛṇu･･･････

　5,18b: ･･tanaya sāra-･･････････

　5,19b: ････････tanaya bhūri-････

　5,20c: ･････････････uccair guṇaḥ

　5,21b: avāpsyati･････････････

　5,23b: tad adya yadi tatprabhāva-････････

　5,27cd: ･･････････vāñchitāmeyasiddhi-

　　　　　　prāpti prājyānupama-･･････････

　5,28cd: tat tvatpremṇā･････････････

　　　　　　kiṃ caitad dhy asthiyugalam atho prāpayiṣyad bhavantam

　5,31a: ･･････････sâyayau････

　5,32c: ･･････････dhāritādattamaunaṃ

　5,32d: ････parihṛtamukham(?)･･･････

　6,5a: utpāṭyaṃ･･････････

　6,19b: dāsaṃ(?) puraḥsthitam････････

　6,19d: ･･････････-pūraṇaṃ me

　6,24c: no durgrahāt･･････････

　6,30b: ･････sahasâprakaṭaṃ･･･

　6,31a: ････････ghana-････

　6,31c: ････vividhayātanayâtipīḍā

　6,34a: ･･････tayâhitayā･･･

　6,37b: ････････････buddhyā

　6,41a: ････････････sa dāserakaḥ

　6,42b: ･････････-caraṇau･･･････

　6,42c: ････････pratibhayāt svaṃ･･････

　7,1b: ････-gavākṣa-････････････

　7,5c: ･･･････īkṣamānāv

　7,32c: ･･････-guṇābhirāmāṃ

　7,40d: niśāsukhaṃ･･･････

　8,4a: yadamitotkalikā-･････

　8,12b: ････sadhane･････

　8,14c: ･･････････tad asthi････

　8,17c: ････････････vidhāvyâsthi tan

　8,21d: haṭhena･･････････････

　9,2b: skhalan pratipadaṃ･･･････････

　9,2d: ･･･munijatrayaṃ(?)･････････

　9,5a: bhastrā śukaś･･････････

　9,15d: ･････avasādanigarhaṇārtham(?)

　9,17a: ････bahuvidhāmitarakṣivarge

　9,18c: ･････-vanitâvatatāra･･

　9,20a: ･･････････-gocaraṃ tvaṃ

　9,26a: so ’mūṃ････････････

　9,28ab: ････････nijatūlitalpam utsṛjya･･･････････

　9,29b: yāmy etayā･･････････

　9,30a: ･･･nau vasatir･･･････

　10,4ab: ･････････samākṛṣya･････････

　10,5b: ･･････vastum adya me

　10,5c: ･････････rude(?)

　10,6d: karma toṣayati･････

　10,14c: ･････-samaṃ････

　10,19a: ･･･････yadânayāmāsa

　10,24b: sâsamañjasa-･･････

　10,24d: ･･sapraṇayam･････

　10,33a: ･･･････････sthalasthā-

　10,35c: ākhyāt taṃ nṛpa-･･････････････

　11,4b: āśvasya･･･････････

　11,7a: ･････vidhiyogavaśena･･

　11,8b: āplāvamajjam･････････

　11,13b: ･･･････････dadāma

　11,14b: ････vadata･･･････

　11,20c: bhūyo ’pi･･･････････

　12,5a: ･･vali-･･････････

　12,6c: ････････kadâvām

　12,8c: ･････････-viśikhāmarseṇa cetobhavaś

　12,9a: ･･･････śuśubhe sitā

　12,11d: ･･･rājīvapalāśaramyam

　12,12d: nirdagdho ’dya･･･････････････

　12,14a: ･･･････････････-kāntyākaraṃ

　12,14c: ･･････････････kalaṅkāśrayāt

　12,17c: ････････････bālā

　12,20b: ･･･････ratnavalaye aṅghridvaye･･･

　12,21d: ･･･････････himānī

　12,23d: saṃmānato(?)･･････････

　12,26a: ullaṅghya vāri-･････････

　12,31b: utthāpya･･･････････

　12,33d: ･･aśiśriyad････････

　12,35a: ････････samāṃsā(?)

　12,35d: ･･dine nâvatatāra･･

　12,36a: ･････････-ceṭyo

　12,37b: ･･･････kuṭṭanī ca

　12,38a: ･････api rājadhānīṃ

　12,38d: ･･････-gaṇena･･

　12,44d: câśiśriyan･･･････

　13,5a: ･･･････putri pṛṣṭhe

　13,7b: ･･kharīdeha-･････

　13,12a: ････tvadguṇahṛṣṭacittā

　13,13a: bhavādṛśāṃ･･･････

　13,13c: ･････suta yuktam･･

　13,15a: ････putra virodha-･･

　13,16cd: ･･･････dāsyasevyaṃ bhajasva mārge･･････

　13,25ab: ･･････････sa cchadma-･････････

　13,27b: gardabhī samu-･･････

　13,29b: ････purataḥ････

　13,39c: ･･･saṃprāptanarendratasya

　13,41d: ･･vrajāvo varam････

　13,44d: dattvâparasmai･･････

　13,45a: dāsīpaṇopārjita-････26

　13,46c: rājyacyuto･･･････

　13,46d: sajānir････････

　13,52a: āmuktavarmā･･････

13,56c: ････････････tāṃ delarāmāṃ･･

Footnotes

1　 Rājataraṅgiṇī (edited by M.A. Stein. Bombay 1892) 6,117,261.

2　On the name Rājānaka cf. Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī translated by M.A. Stein (Westminster 1900, Delhi 1961) vol.1, p.244.

3　Cf. M.Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur Dritter Band (Leipzig 1922), S.78, Anm.4.; S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Sanskrit Literature ―Classical Period ― Vol.1 (Calcutta 1947), p.629, n.1.; Sures Chandra Banerji, A Companion to Sanskrit Literature (Delhi1989), p.22.

4　J.Hertel, Jinakīrtis ,, Geschichte von Pāla und Gopāla“. Leipzig 1917.

5　Hertel op.cit, SS.61-66.

6　Hertel op.cit, SS.135-136.

7　Cf. Hertel op.cit., S.136.

8　Śrīvara’s Kathākautukam — Die Geschichte von Joseph in persisch-indischem Gewande. Sanskrit und Deutsch von Richard Schmidt. Kiel 1898.

9　Cf. Schmidt op.cit., SS.IX-X.

10　Cf. Hertel op.cit., SS.55,136.

11　 Rājataraṅgiṇī of Śrīvara and Śuka edited by Srikanth Kaul. Hoshiarpur 1966.

12　See Jainarājataraṅgiṇī 1,76,84; 2,89,91,205; 3,224,270,546; 4,505.

13　In the fifth volume of the lexicon compiled by Böhtlingk and Roth ( Sanskrit-Wörterbuch bearbeitet von O. Böhtlingk und R. Roth. 7Bde. St.Petersburg 1855-75) the word “ Mausula” is registered as having the sense of “ein Moslim”. Böhtlingk and Roth refer to the instance of the word found in A Weber’s description of a manuscript of the Jainarājataraṅgiṇī. Cf. Verzeichnis der Sanskrit-Handschriften ( Die Handschriften-Ver zeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Erster Band) von A. Weber. Erster Band, SS.165-166. Cf. also M. Witzel, The Brahmins of Kashmir ( A Study of the Nīlamata edited by Y. Ikari. Kyoto 1994), p.278 and n.305. Jainarājataraṅgiṇī 4,505, to which Witzel refers in this note, seems to be mistaken by him as a verse from Śuka’s Rajataraṅgiṇī.

14　Cf. Hertel op.cit. S.136, Anm.1.

15　Cf. Hertel op.cit. S.135. The reading “dāsīpāṇo(?)pārjita-” in the printed edition, which does not fit into the metre of the verse, is emended by Hertel into “dāsīpaṇo-”.

16　Cf. J. Hertel, Das Pañcatantra ― seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung (Leipzig 1914), S.249.

17　Kathāratnākara. Das Märchenmeer ― Eine Sammlung indischer Er zählungen von Hemavijaya. Deutsch von Johannes Hertel. 2Bde. München 1920.

18　Hertel, Das Märchenmeer, Bd.1, SS.165-169.

19　Hertel, Geschichte von Pāla und Gopāla, SS.59-61.

20　Cf. Hertel, Das Märchenmeer, Bd.1, S.XX.

21　Cf. Hertel, Das Pañcatantra, S.249; Das Märchenmeer, Bd.1, S.XV.

22　Riñcana (Rin-chen?), a Buddhist king of Tibetan origin, who held sway over the land of Kashmir during the years 1320-23, was, according to the Persian sources, the first convert to Islam among the rulers of that country. Although Jonarāja designates him as sultrāṇa in the 174th verse of his Rājataraṅgiṇī, historians dispute whether he really embraced the religion of Islam. Be the matter as it may, it was not until the reign of Śahamīra, the founder of the first Muslim dynasty in Kashmir, which began in the year 1339, that the rule of Muslims in the country was firmly established. Cf. Raghunāth Singh, Rājataraṅgini of Jonarāj (Varanasi 1972), pp.75-76,79.

23　Cf. Daṇḍins Poetik (Kāvyādarśa) ― Sanskrit und Deutsch ― herausgegeben von O. Böhtlingk (Leipzig 1890), SS.3-4.

24　 The Delarāmā-Kathāsāra of Rājānaka=Bhatta= Āhlādaka. Edited by Mahāmahopādhyāya Paṇḍit Śivadatta and Kāśīnāth Pāṇdurang Parab. Kāvyamālā 77. Published by Pāndurang Jāwajī. Second Edition. Bombay 1923. Hertel used the first edition of the same volume which appeared in 1902.

25　Cf. Hertel, Geschichte von Pāla und Gopāla, S.135.

26　See above p. 7.