of K - Philipps-Universität Marburg

4
Daśāvatāracarita (Ananta is mentioned, but Kalaśa is the ruling king). DATTARAY (1974), p. 71,
suggests that “the important period of K¤emendra’s literary activity, as may be evident from an
inquiry into the chronology of the poet’s work, almost synchronises with the period of Ananta’s
sovereign rule and continues for a few years more after the king’s formal abdication in favour of his
son, Kalaśa”.
It might be interesting to mention the peculiar features of two satirical works: Deśopadeśa and
Narmamālā. Both works were found together in the same manuscript and share many allusions,
witty characters and references to political and social issues. It seems that both works were written
at a time when K¤emendra was concerned about the corruption and moral decline of religious authorities,
and this leads me to believe that
“BibliographyofK¢emendra’sMinorWorks”
and Deśopadeśa were conceived as kinds of
“romans a clef” (Schlüsselromane). Deśopadeśa is cited in his Kavikahābharaa V.1.40, but the
co-name Vyāsadāsa is not mentioned. SATO suggests in his introduction to his translation (1994, p.
8) that the Deśopadeśa is composed of “condensed stories” in independent verses (muktakas) with
ridiculing and satirical elements. As K¤emendra does not give any examples of good conduct, so,
pace SATO, the poem appears to be the product of an early stage of K¤emendra’s career as a poet.
The Narmamālā
is not mentioned in his poetical treatises, and K¤emendra is not referred to by his
co-name Vyāsadāsa.
Narmamālā
But in the edition of RĀGHAVĀCHARYA (1961), pp. 321, 335, 346, the editors may have added to
the colophon “iti śrīvyāsadāsāparākhyakemendraviracitāyā narmamālāyā ...” at the end of the
chapters (parihāsas). In Narmamālā
the the author attacks the powerful caste of clerks and scribes
(kāyastha) as agents of the corrupt official machinery of his time. The king Ananta having killed the
kāyastha-demons (I. 3-4, I.9) is compared with Vi¤u. In her English translation of Narmamālā
the
(1999), p. 6 & (2005), pp. XIV-XV) BALDISSERA suggests:
“K¢emendra is generally believed to be the author of this satire, for Narmamālā the has many stylistic,
lexical and narrative affinities with other works of his, in particular with his satires. The
mātkāSamaya-
and Deśopadeśa, for instance, are works that share many situations and characters with the
Narmamālā. The Kavikahābhāraa [sic], on the other hand, a work on poetics, shares with the
mamālāNar-
many interesting terms (kāmatattva, ghaī, etc.).”
MAHAJAN (1954), pp. 24-25, interprets the introductory verses in the prologues, holding that the
period in which K¤emendra wrote the Deśopadeśa and Narmamālā, fits in well with the time of
king Ananta’s reformatory success after accession to the throne in 1028 A.D.:
“Some discussion is required to understand the period of composition of D.U. and N.M. D.U. is clearly
a series of discourses on important topics for the benefit of the students. When it was written,
K¢emendra must have had some students under him; otherwise why should he write for students?
Similarly N.M. refers to king Ananata’s [sic !] request to compose a satirical poem on the ways of Kāyastha[s]
who were not longer in power then. (hāsāyātīta kāyastha-carita [cf. Narmamālā, first
parihāsa, verse 6.]) Which was this period in the history of Kashmir when Kāyasthas were not powerful?
That is really a vexing question. King Ananta came to the throne in 1028 A.D. and there was no
peace till he defeated the Dards. King Ananata [!] was regarded as a benign ruler when he ruled sagaciously
under the strict supervision of queen Suryamati [!]. This period seems to have come at least 10
to 15 years after his accession to the throne, and therefore, the composition of N.M. must also be during
he same period. Thus D.U. and N.M. must have been written after or about 1040 A.D. or 1045
A.D.”
Luckily, as mentioned above, in some poems K¤emendra provides an approximate calculation in the