T H E C L A Y S A N S K R I T L I B R A R Y

F O U N D E D B Y J O H N & J E N N I F E R C L A Y

G E N E R A L E D I T O R

Sheldon Pollock

E D I T E D B Y

Isabelle Onians

www.claysanskritlibrary.com

www.nyupress.org

i

Artwork by Robert Beer.Typeset in Adobe Garamond at . : .+pt.

XML-development by Stuart Brown.Editorial input from Dániel Balogh, Ridi Faruque,Chris Gibbons, Tomoyuki Kono & Eszter Somogyi.

Printed and bound in Great Britain byT.J. International, Cornwall, on acid-free paper.

ii

“BOUQUET OF RASA”&

“RIVER OF RASA”by BHĀNUDATTA

T R A N S L A T E D B Y

Sheldon Pollock

N E W Y O R K U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

J J C F O U N D A T I O N

iii

Copyright © by the CSLAll rights reserved.

First Edition

e Clay Sanskrit Library is co-published byNew York University Pressand the JJC Foundation.

Further information about this volumeand the rest of the Clay Sanskrit Library

is available at the end of this bookand on the following websites:www.claysanskritlibrary.com

www.nyupress.org

ISBN-: ---- (cloth : alk. paper)ISBN-: --- (cloth : alk. paper)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataBhānudatta Miśra.

[Rasamañjarī. English & Sanskrit]"Bouquet of rasa" ; & "River of rasa" / by Bhanudatta ;

translated by Sheldon Pollock.p. cm.Poems.

In English and Sanskrit (romanized) on facing pages.Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-: ---- (cloth : alk. paper)ISBN-: --- (cloth : alk. paper)

. Bhanudatta Misra.--Translations into English.. Sanskrit poetry--Translations into English. . Rasas--Poetry.

. Poetics--Poetry. I. Pollock, Sheldon I.II. Bhanudatta Misra. Rasatarangini. English & Sanskrit.

III. Title. IV. Title: River of rasa.PK.BR

'.--dc

iv

CONTENTS

CSL Conventions vii

Acknowledgments xvii

Introduction xix

BOUQUET OF RASA

Description of the Náyika Description of the Náyaka and Related Matters

RIVER OF RASA

First Wave Description of the StableEmotions

Second Wave Description of the Factors ird Wave Description of the Physical

Reactions Fourth Wave Description of the Involuntary

Physical Reactions Fifth Wave Description of the Transitory

Feelings Sixth Wave Description of Rasas Seventh Wave Description of Rasas Continued Eighth Wave Miscellany

Notes

v

I NTRODUCT ION

B· the most famous Sanskrit poet—certainly the most famous Sanskrit poet of early

modern India—whomno one today has heard of. Althoughaccorded little more than a footnote in standard Indianliterary histories, the two texts edited and translated inthis edition, the “Bouquet of Rasa” (Rasamañjarī; on typesof female and male characters in poetry) and the “Riverof Rasa” (Rasatarangi.nī; on Sanskrit aesthetics) attractedan astonishing amount of interpretive attention from thesixteenth to the eighteenth century, including commen-taries from a dozen of the period’s most celebrated scholar-exegetes. No other Sanskrit poet exercised anythingremotely approaching Bhanu·datta’s influence on the de-velopment of the Hindi literary tradition between and , the “Epoch of High Style” (riti|kal). No literarywork, at least of the non-religious, lyrical sort, made a big-ger impact than the “Bouquet of Rasa” on the new art ofminiature painting that burst onto the Indian scene in thelate sixteenth century. When Abu al-Fazl, the leading intel-lectual at the court of Akbar, presented a review of the artsand sciences of the Hindus to the Mughal emperor in thes, he turned in part to the work of Bhanu to describethe nature of literature. And two centuries later, when thefirst Europeans began to study Sanskrit, this poet’s works,among others nowmore celebrated, were presented to themas exemplary by their Indian teachers.Bhanu·datta’s extraordinary influence was not the result

of any truly revolutionary break-through he achieved on

xix

the conceptual plane. It was due, rather, to his consum-mate skill in summarizing the thousand-year-long traditionof Indian aesthetic theory more clearly and engagingly thananyone had previously and, more important, to his talentfor crafting illustrative verses of far higher literary caliberthan anyone had offered before him. It will be helpful toreview what we know about Bhanu himself and the genreof “science-poetry” he helped shape and to offer some as-sessment of his literary accomplishment in these two cele-brated and charming works, before briefly describing theircontent—the nature of rasa and Sanskrit aesthetics, and thetypology of literary characters—Bhanu’s central place in theminiature painting tradition, and the principles adopted forthis edition and accompanying commentary.

Who was Bhanu·datta?As is commonly the case with Sanskrit poets, however

great the literary influence they exerted (and Bhanu·datta’sinfluence can be detected already within a few decades ofhis death), there is considerable uncertainty about Bhanu’stime, place, and identity. One must start of course withwhat the poet-scholar himself tells us. He was from Vidéha(today’s northern Bihar), a member of the highly learnedMáithili brahmin community, and he was the son of a poetnamed Ganéshvara (or Gana·pati). He speaks of himself asSanskrit poets usually do, in the third person:

His father was Ganéshvara,brightest jewel in the crown of poetry,his land, Vidéha country, where wavesof the holy river ripple.

xx

With verse of his own making Shri Bhanuthe poet arranged this Bouquetto rival the flower of the coral treeat the ear of the Goddess of Language.

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )

Unfortunately, given the reticence also typical of Sanskritpoets, this is all he says directly about himself. Bhanu pro-vides only one other reference to his life—this time an in-direct hint. In a poem in the “Bouquet of Rasa” illustratingthe different “involuntary physical reactions,” Bhanu offersthe single historical allusion in the two works (and so far asI can tell in his entire oeuvre, aside from a brief genealogyin his Kumārabhārgavīya .–):

Her voice breaks, tears well up in her eyes,her breast is beaded with sweat,her lips tremble, her smooth cheeks grow pale,goosebumps cover her body,her mind absorbed, the light in her eyes dying,her legs paralyzed—did she, too, chance to glance at the royal highwayand see King Nijáma?

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )

e very rarity of such references in his poetry makes thisone a little suspect—if Sanskrit poets speak of their patronsat all, they usually do so in a far more copious if not fulsomeway. On the other hand, it is hard to see why such a lineshould ever has been interpolated, and it alone, in the entirecorpus (and in the middle, not at the beginning or end).One manuscript from Kerala and one commentator from

xxi

Tamil country make mention instead of the god Krishna,but that reading seems spurious. Moreover, Veni·datta, themost learned commentator on the “River of Rasa,” who is avery careful reader of Bhanu, cites the verse with theNijámareference.On the assumption, then, that the dominant manuscript

and commentarial tradition is credible in connecting Bhanuto a King Nijáma, to whom could this refer? One com-mentator on the poem, Anánta·pándita, who lived in theearly seventeenth century and hailed from Punya·stambha(Puntambem, near Ahmadnagar) inMaharashtra, identifiesNijáma as the “king of Deva·giri.” Deva·giri was the town,not far from Punya·stambha, that after the defeat of the Yá-davas around the beginning of the fourteenth century wasrenamed Daulatabad (and later Aurangabad). And it wasthis celebrated stronghold that, after repeated attempts, Ah-mad Nizam Shah, founder of the Nizam Shahi dynasty ofAhmadnagar in , finally captured in . e worksof Bhanu cannot have been written much after this date,since one of them, the “Bouquet of Rasa,” was adapted ina Hindi text of .It seems probable, then, that the Maharashtrian com-

mentator Anánta·pándita, who was more likely to have hadaccess to authentic tradition about his region than a copy-ist from Kerala or a commentator from Tamil country, haspreserved the truth here. But does it seem credible that abrahmin poet from the far northeast area of Míthila shouldhave made his way to a southern, Muslim court at that pe-riod? We know of many Sanskrit poets over the centurieswho traveled vast distances in search of royal patronage:

xxii

Bílhana, one of the great poets of the twelfth century, jour-neyed fromKashmir to the Deccan, and four centuries laterthe Andhra poet-scholar Jagan·natha sojourned in Delhi,Assam, and Udaipur. Why should Bhanu not have soughtpatronage in the south, especially in a new and ascendantpolitical context where other Sanskrit intellectuals, such asDala·pati·raja, author of a great work on law (c. ) andwho describes himself as “minister and record-keeper of Ni-jáma Saha, overlord of all Yávanas [Muslims],” were enjoy-ing royal support? Moreover, a Deccani provenance for atleast the “Bouquet of Rasa” would go some way in explain-ing the impact of the work on poets at other southern sul-tanates, such as Golconda in the mid-seventeenth century,where the work was deeply studied (a fact also reflectedin the large number of manuscripts of the work in Teluguscript), as well as the presence of a relatively early paintingtradition at Aurangabad, where an illustrated “Bouquet ofRasa” was prepared for a Sisodia Rajput in .In addition to the two texts edited and translated here,

Bhanu produced at least one other treatise on rhetoric,the “Forehead Ornament of Figures” (Alankāratilaka); theGītāgaurīpatikāvya, a short poem on Shiva and Gauri mod-eled on the “Gita·govínda”; a mixed prose-verse work, theKumārabhārgavīyacampū, narrating the story of the deityKartikéya; and an anthology of his own and his father’s po-etry called the “Heavenly Tree of Rasa” (Rasapārijāta). Sev-eral other attributed works have not survived. e “Bou-quet of Rasa” is an early composition; it certainly precedesthe “River of Rasa,” which refers to it (.), and hence thetwo texts are presented in that order here.

xxiii

Bhanu·datta and the Blurred Genreof Science-Poetry

e two works of Bhanu·datta presented here are rep-resentatives of a somewhat blurred genre in Sanskrit liter-ary history. Although Indian thinkers always viewed science(śāstra) as fundamentally distinct from literature (kāvya),at a relatively early date poets began experimenting witha form of text that mixed the two categories. One vari-ety, science-poetry (śāstra| kāvya), as the genre came to becalled, makes use of a well-known narrative, say the storyof Rama, to illustrate the rules of grammar or rhetoric;“Bhatti’s Poem” (Bha.t.tikāvya) from the early eighth centuryis a good example. Another is the purely scientific trea-tise that aspires to the condition of poetry, such as Varáha·míhira’s mid-sixth-century astronomical work, the “GreatCompendium” (B.rhatsa .mhitā). Yet a third type is consti-tuted by treatises of literary theory or rhetoric (alankāra|śāstra), where the rules of literary art are set out and illus-trated with poems. Or more justly put, this third variety,which we might call “rhetorical science-poetry,” became anew genre in its own right thanks to the efforts of poet-scholars like Bhanu·datta, who achieved a degree of literaryexcellence in the form that few earlier authors equaled. Abrief review of the formal history of Sanskrit rhetoric willshow this and at the same time permit me to say a wordabout its conceptual history.In texts on Sanskrit rhetoric from the earliest period,

such as Dandin’s late seventh-century “Mirror of Litera-ture” (Kāvyādarśa), the illustrative poems were of the au-thor’s own making, written ad hoc and entirely pedestrian.

xxiv

Within two centuries, poeticians had begun to draw illus-trations from their own literary works; Údbhata (c. ),for instance, took all his examples from his own courtlyepic (the Kumārasambhava, no longer extant). When, how-ever, in a momentous transformation that took place inmid-ninth-century Kashmir, the focus of literary theorysuddenly shifted from how to write poetry to how to readit, scholars began to use citations from existing literature,almost exclusively, in making their theoretical arguments.Bhanu thus represents something of a throwback—thoughalso a harbinger, since many later Sanskrit writers were tofollow his example—in producing new poetry of a veryhigh order to illustrate the aesthetic and rhetorical practicesof Sanskrit literature. He thereby fired the imagination ofvernacular poets who were seeking—as Joachim du Bellay,a contemporary vernacular writer half a world away, wrotein —at once to “defend and illustrate [i.e., ennoble]”their emergent literary languages. For them the science-poetry of Bhanu’s sort offered the perfect vehicle. e po-etic oeuvre of many Old Hindi poets in particular cameto include what they called a “definition work” (lak.sa.na|grantha)—often marked by extraordinary literary finesse—based on Bhanu’s “Bouquet” or “River.”ese two works, viewed from one angle, function some-

thing like user manuals for Sanskrit literature, of a sort es-sential for readers of the C S L. As we willsee momentarily, understanding the characterology, so tocall it, of Sanskrit literature, to say nothing of rasa, or theemotion produced through the literary work, is crucial toour capacity to appreciate the presuppositions and goals of

xxv

Sanskrit writers. Viewed from another angle, Bhanu’s textsprovide a glimpse into the workshop of the Sanskrit poet,his tools and materials and ways of composition. ereare other types of Sanskrit texts that bring us even deeperinto that workshop—the so-called “instructionmanuals forpoets” (kavi| śik.sā), which set forth, for example, how tochoose the best Sanskrit word for “king” from among thescores of synonyms to fit a certain complex Sanskrit metri-cal pattern. But Bhanu not only informs, he delights withfar more accomplished poetry than that which we find ininstruction manuals.Even a few examples suffice to show this. Take the poem

that Abu al-Fazl found worthy of translating into Persian(it was also known to and imitated by the great Telugu poetKshetrayya a century and a half later):You stayed awake all night, and yetit’s my eyes that are throbbing;you were the one who drank the rum,and yet it’s my head that’s splitting;and in the bower buzzing with beesit was you who stole beauty’s fruit,yet I’m the one the Love God woundswith his arrows that burn like fire.

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )e poem illustrates the nāyikā, literally the “leading

lady” or heroine, who is “average unsteady,” whose desireandmodesty are in balance and who, when confronted withinfidelity on the part of her lover, does not mince her words.Bhanu deftly reveals the sorrow her lover has caused byshowing how each of what are fleeting pleasures for him

xxvi

transforms into enduring pains for her. Another poem,about the same “average” nāyikā, perfectly embodies herdefinition as one whose desire and modesty are in preciseand, as the poet shows, impossible balance:

She thought, “If I fall asleep right nowI’ll lose the chance to seemy love’s face; and if I stay awake,his hands might start to roam.”Over and over she thought it through,that girl with lotus eyes,and finally decided to go to sleepand to stay awake.

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )

Yet a third poem, showing the same average nāyikā con-fronted by “lipstick on his collar,” expresses her constitutiveambivalence by reflecting on the ambivalence, so to put it,of the material world itself:

When she saw her husband’s cheststained with cream from another’s breasts,she didn’t heave a long, deep sighand didn’t say a single word;she only began to wash her facejust as she did every morningand with the water hid the waterthat came pouring from her eyes.

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )

xxvii

Contemporary readers who might be disappointed bythe conventional nature of these poems do well to under-stand that such is in fact their whole point. Bhanu’s pur-pose is to show what poets can do when working within thetightest of constraints. He uses śāstra both to explain andto defend this tradition of voluntary self-limitation whileexemplifying the especially intense pleasure that can comefrom inventiveness within narrow boundaries. is is notto say that Bhanu cannot produce something entirely new,either in pure play, as when he manufactures Sanskrit wordsin a way that some of his more fastidiously grammaticalcommentators found scandalous:

My figure shows no curvitude,my breasts no altitude,my body has no pulchritude,my hips no amplitude,my walk suggests no gravitude,my eyes no magnitude,my charm reveals no plenitude,my speech no aptitude,and my laugh no latitude—why in the world has my lover givenhis heart to me and me alone?

madhye na kraśimā stane na garimādehe na vā kāntimā

śro.nau na prathimā gatau na ja.dimānetre na vā vakrimā

lāsye na dra.dhimā na vāci pa.timāhāsye na vā sphītimā

xxviii

prā.n’| ēśasya tath” âpi majjati manomayy eva ki .m kāra.nam?

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )

Or in aspiring almost to the condition of music, withsomething like the rhymes so characteristic of the new ver-naculars:

tamo| ja.tāle harid|antarālekāle niśāyās tava nirgatāyā.hta.te nadīnā .m nika.te vanānā .mgha.teta śāt’| ôdari ka.h sahāya.h?

When nighttime lets down its thick black hairall around and you leave your house, slender girl,who will be there to stand by your sideon the riverbank at the edge of the forest?

(“Bouquet of Rasa” v. )

All in all, Bhanu·datta does represent something of thereturn ad fontes that is characteristic of much early modernSanskrit culture. He does so not only in the formal dimen-sion of his work as described earlier, but also in the ideasthat inform it. I examine first the broad theory of literaryart in the “River of Rasa,” before going on to discuss thesubset of that theory constituted by the characterology ofthe “Bouquet of Rasa.”

Rasa, or How Literature Creates EmotionFrom the beginning of their systematic reflection on lit-

erature, Indian thinkers were preoccupied by the questionof how human emotion comes to be produced by words

xxix

inscribed on a page or recited on stage accompanied bygestures and other physical expressions—and not just howemotion was produced, but what kinds of emotion, andwhy those kinds. e foundational work in this domain isthe “Science of Drama” (Nā.tyaśāstra) of Bhárata (perhapscomposed in the third or fourth century, but subject to sub-stantial revision up to the ninth century), and the analysisit set out was never fundamentally contested.In accordance with the widespread tendency in Sanskrit

culture toward schematic thinking and the simplificationof complexity in the interests of orderly analysis, Bhárataand all later Indian aestheticians promoted a theory of lit-erary representation that reduced the vast welter of humanemotions to a set of eight (a ninth would be added in latercenturies).ese eight aesthetic emotions they called rasas,“tastes,” analogizing from the sense of taste on the groundsboth of the physicality of emotion—it is something we feel,not something we think—and of the blending of ingredi-ents that complex tastes and aesthetic moods both evince.e basic ingredient is called a “stable” or primary emo-tion (sthāyi| bhāvas), such as desire in the case of the eroticrasa, to which are added “underlying factors” (ālambana|vi-bhāvas) such as the beloved, “stimulant factors” (uddīpana|vibhāvas) such as a moonlit night or swinging earrings,“transitory feelings” (vyabhicāri| bhāvas) such as longing orworry or shame, and “physical reactions” (anubhāvas) suchas perspiring or weeping. A stable emotion, when fully “de-veloped” or “matured” by these factors, transforms into arasa. Such a transformation was originally thought to besomething that comes about in the main character of a

xxx

poem or drama; it is Rama who feels the stable emotion ofdesire for Sita (not you or I) and who eventually relishes theerotic rasa that develops out of this desire. On this view,the reader’s or viewer’s response to the emotion is of littleor no concern. On the contrary, rasa theory arose to en-able literary analysis to grasp, as the American New CriticsW and B put it in their famous essay“e Affective Fallacy,” how poetry “fix[es] emotions, mak-ing themmore permanently perceptible.” And this purposewould reign unchallenged for six or more centuries afterBhárata.e sudden shift of perspective that led Kashmiri thinkers

such as Ánanda·várdhana (fl. ) to focus on reading ratherthan writing (and therefore to cite already existent poetryrather than to create it ad hoc), concomitantly led them,less than a century later, to turn their attention away fromhow the literary text or the dramatic performance producesemotion and toward how readers and viewers respond tothat emotion. Why do we not leap from our seats in thetheater and rush the stage the moment Rávana reveals him-self and prepares to abduct Sita? Why do we not shun sadstories like the “Ramáyana,” as we shun sorrow in everydaylife? In other words, how precisely does literary emotiondiffer from the non-literary? I say “from the non-literary”rather than “from real emotion,” since the emotions of fear,sadness, and so on that we experience when watching a“Ramáyana” play are certainly real. After all we do feelthem; they are just different from the emotions we experi-ence outside the theater. Clearly, these are core questionsnot just of literature but of human existence: the very capac-ity to distinguish aesthetic from pragmatic emotion, even

xxxi

to respond to aesthetic emotion, is one of the things thatmake people cultured, perhaps even human. And they arequestions that took Indian scholarship by storm in the latetenth century, transforming Indian aesthetic thought onceand for all time.At least this is what most scholars believe. In fact—and

to register this fact is to record a historical truth, and notof course to denigrate the profound insights of the in-novators—many later Indian literary theorists appear tohave been entirely indifferent to the new ideas originat-ing in Kashmir. Bhanu·datta is most certainly one of themthroughout his exposition in the “River of Rasa.” His arelargely the old concerns of how literature creates emotion,the concerns of, say, King Bhoja, the great encyclopedistwho synthesized the “normal science” of aesthetics in themid-eleventh century. Only rarely does Bhanu departfrom the classical doctrine—hence his close dependence onthe Nā.tyaśāstra—and the few times he does so, he revealsthat he is far more a poet than a thinker. (His distinctionbetween “ordinary” and “extraordinary” rasa—which dif-ferentiates between a rasa that arises for a character fromnormal contact with the underlying object and a rasa thatarises for a character in dreaming, imagining, or witnessinga mimetic representation—does mark a noteworthy if un-developed advance.) It is for the poetry we should enterinto the “River of Rasa,” not the science—though of coursehaving the science clearly in our heads, as Bhanu makes itvery convenient to do, is the only way to fully engage wththe poetry.

xxxii

Casting according to TypeAs with his “River of Rasa,” it is above all for the poetry

that we enjoy Bhanu’s “Bouquet of Rasa,” though the doc-trine of the work and its systematicity and (if such is con-ceivable) completeness were found impressive in their ownright and were everywhere imitated.e catalogue of character types with which the “Bou-

quet” is concerned fits, of course, perfectly into the thoughtworld of rasa; indeed, it is its necessary complement. Rasais all about typicality: A young man’s desire, upon seeing abeautiful young woman with swinging earrings on a moon-lit evening, will typically develop or mature into the eroticrasa—or to put this more strictly, for the erotic rasa to de-velop in literature, the nāyaka, literally the “leadingman” orhero, must be young, the nāyikā must be beautiful, and soon. Atypicality—an old woman in love with a young man,for example—would have been considered vi| rasa, or “taste-less.” Such themes would not become the stuff of literatureuntil modernity; one can even say that what makes a liter-ary text modern is precisely its violation of the expectationsof the traditional social text. (us, in the iconic drama ofearly modernity, Corneille’s Le Cid , one of the things thatenraged critics in was the marriage of the heroine toher father’s assassin, in violation of what the French critics,in an idiom remarkably similar to that of their Indian coun-terparts, called “propriety and probability”). Sanskrit po-ets were interested in exploring typicality and, accordingly,needed to master it across the whole universe of emotion.How were women expected to act when first falling in love,when confronted by an act of infidelity on the part of their

xxxiii

lovers, when desiring someone other than their husband?To answer such questions a discourse arose that aimed toconstruct a typology of characters.Again, Bhanu enters this discourse after a millennium or

more of its cultivation by dozens of writers. Bhárata hadalready discussed eight types of women (and five types ofmen) in the erotic setting. An important late-tenth-centurytreatise on dramaturgy, the “e Ten Dramatic Genres”(Daśarūpaka) elaborated further, as did Bhoja half a cen-tury later in his “Light on Desire” (Ś.rngāraprakāśa). In thesame epoch, it seems, a writer named Rudra (or RudraBha.t.ta) composed the “Forehead Ornament of the Erotic”(Ś.rngāratilaka), the first systematic account of the subjectprior to Bhanu, who knew the work well and adapted it tohis purposes, which were, however, far more ambitious.Just as in the case with his rasa theory, Bhanu’s own con-

tribution to the discourse on character types, aside frombeing the first entirely independent treatise on the subject,is relatively modest and consists largely in identifying newsubtypes of heroines. Yet the work was viewed as originalenough to provoke serious critical comment in the follow-ing centuries. At the court of Abul Hasan Qutb Shah ofGolconda in the last quarter of the seventeenth century,the “Bouquet of Rasa” was answered by the “Bouquet ofthe Erotic Rasa” (Ś.rngāramañjarī), composed (or commis-sioned) by Akbar Shah, one of the intellectuals who formedthe sultan’s remarkable literary circle.Readers of the “Bouquet” will again be struck in the first

instance by what will appear to be Bhanu’s taxonomic ob-sessions. When he concludes his overview of female charac-

xxxiv

ters by stating, “is makes types. All these can be fur-ther distinguished as ‘excellent,’ ‘average,’ and ‘low,’ whichthus gives types,” our jaws are likely to fall slack atthe hypertrophy of categories. We certainly feel a sense ofrelief when he spares us further elaboration, saying, “I re-ject the argument that there can be a further subdivisionaccording to whether the nāyikā is divine, not divine, orsemidivine—which would give us , types” (“Bouquetof Rasa” ). Newcomers to such a style of analysis arelikely to react with the same incomprehension and impa-tience of the colonial officer surveying “native education”in s Bengal, who rebuked Indian scholars for “wastingtheir learning and their powers in … recompounding ab-surd and vicious fictions, and revolving in perpetual circlesof metaphysical abstractions never ending still beginning”(B : –).Yet as I have tried to suggest, Bhanu’s typological think-

ing is an essential adjunct to the aesthetic theory in whichit is embedded, and that theory does a better job of dis-secting literary emotion than any other on offer. Its fault,if fault it is, lies in the excess of detail in the attempt tofollow out every possible permutation to its logical conclu-sion. What ancient Indian scholars realized, and most of usmoderns—to our surprise and sometimes repulsion—havenot, is that we can bring analytical order even into realmsthat seem constitutively anarchic, the world of human feel-ing, for instance, or the apparently infinite ways, ways ofpleasure and of pain, in which men and women interactwith each other.

xxxv

Bhanu·datta’s Words PaintedAnother indication of the importance of Bhanu·datta’s

work is the impact it made on the emergent painting tradi-tions of early modern India.e “Bouquet of Rasa” was oneof the best-loved poems in the sub-imperial realm of minia-ture painting that arose with the consolidation of Mughalrule at the end of the sixteenth century. e poem was il-lustrated in Mewar perhaps as early as the s, in theDeccan in the s, in Basohli between and ,in Chamba about , in Nurpur in the s, and else-where. e earliest album, from Udaipur, is an uneven as-semblage from various artists (or, in some cases, evidentlyart students), but a number of paintings strongly suggest,to an inexpert viewer such as myself, the atelier if not thehand of the celebrated painter Sāhibdīn. e commen-tary provided in this C S L edition refersto surviving folios of this early and largely hitherto unpub-lished album.What accounts for the remarkable appeal the “Bouquet

of Rasa” held for early modern artists? Its attractivenessmay partially lie in the new and intriguing challenges ofcapturing complex and subtle verbal narratives in visualimagery. In the preceding century and a half (little In-dian painting is extant prior to ), the almost exclusiveobjects of painterly attention were narratively uncompli-cated religious or epic texts such as Jain sutras, the “Maha·bhárata,” and the Hariva .mśa. As Sanskrit poetry began tobe illustrated, the texts chosen were also largely straightfor-ward in their narrative—poems like the “e Fifty Stan-zas of a ief ” (Caurapañcāśikā) or the “Gita·govínda.”

xxxvi

e “Bouquet of Rasa,” by contrast, offers the fascinationof what’s difficult in representing in the medium of line andcolor the subtle emotional situations that Bhanu depicts insophisticated and often oblique or indirect language. (esame is true of the Rasikapriyā, Keshavdas’s great Hindipoem of , which presents some of the same kinds of in-terpretive challenges and was painted in Udaipur between and .) e creators of the Udaipur album cer-tainly took the challenges of Bhanu’s text seriously.e po-ems themselves appear on the front of the painting, not,as in later periods (Basohli, for example), on the back, andwere accompanied by an Old Gujarati translation (on theverso). If it is true that later artists often painted what theywished to paint regardless of the text of the poem theywere illustrating, this was decidedly not the case in the earlyUdaipur album.How the artists met the narrative challengestill has the power to charm, as well as to instruct as if theywere commentaries in paint.

Text and Annotatione texts that form the basis for my editions of the

Rasamañjarī and the Rasatarangi.nī are found in the col-lected works of Bhānudatta published by TJ in . J in fact only reprints already publishedtexts for the two works, and I chose his edition merelyas the most recent and convenient starting point for myown work. In the case of the Rasamañjarī, nothing ap-proaching a critical edition has ever been produced. I wasable to make use of collations from two manuscripts inMalayalam script (Triv. A and B) and, occasionally, the Old

xxxvii

Gujarati translation on the back of the Udaipur album.For the Rasatarangi.nī it was possible to supplement Jwith the edition of U S. S assembles agood deal of additional textual material (on the basis of tenmanuscripts), though some editorial judgments are decid-edly odd and the number of misleading typographical er-rors surprisingly large.e transmission of the two poems has in fact been

highly stable, with no substantial variation, let alone thedevelopment of regionalized recensions that characterize somany Sanskrit literary texts. When I depart from J andS, I do so on the evidence of readings offered by oneor another of the dozen commentators I consulted.Many ofthese commentators were also editors and frequently com-ment on and weigh variants, and I have taken their argu-ments into account. I supply the evidence for my editorialdecisions in the critical apparatus to the text; however, I re-frain from reporting information already available in earliereditions and also omit variants that have no real bearing onthe sense. Occasionally, even if I do not accept the com-mentators’ readings, I record them if they seem worthy offurther consideration, especially if they are not noticed ineither J or S, neither of whommade use of severalof the still-unpublished commentaries to which I have hadaccess.Even a truly critical edition of Bhānu’s works, however

rigorously prepared, would never enable us to make edito-rial choices with anything approaching the ideal of stem-matic necessity. We would still be exposed to the potentialdelusions of our own subjectivity, assuming, of course, we

xxxviii

are aiming for something approaching authorial intention,an aim that no contemporary theory leads me to entirelydevalue. But this subjectivity becomes somewhat less unre-liable to the degree it is disciplined by the commentators,ideal readers if there ever were ones. eir commentariesoffer some of the most learned reflections on any Sanskritliterary text from the early modern period—some approx-imate veritable treatises on aesthetics in their own right—even as they provide further evidence of Bhānudatta’s aston-ishing popularity. A few of the more accomplished exegetesand poeticians I draw upon, among the ten who wrote onthe Rasatarangi.nī and the fifteen on the Rasamañjarī, in-clude (in chronological order): Śe.sa Cintāma .ni, youngerbrother of Śe.sa K.r.s .na, the most celebrated grammarian ofthe late sixteenth century (Kanpur/Varanasi, —this iswithin a generation or two of Bhānu); Gopāla Bha.t.ta (sonof Hariva .mśa Bha.t.ta), a direct disciple of Caitanya andteacher of the renowned Bangla poet K.r.s .nadāsa Kavirāja(place unknown, ); Anantapa .n .dita, grandfather of thelogician Mahādeva, and commentator on the ĀryāsaptaśatīandMudrārāk.sasa (Ahmadnagar/Varanasi, ); Ve .nīdattaBha.t.tācārya, author of the Alankāracandrodaya (Bareilly, c.); Nāgeśa Bha.t.ta, the most remarkable polymath ofthe early eighteenth century (Varanasi, ); GangārāmaJa .de, pupil of the Mahābhārata commentator Nīlaka .n.thaCaturdhara, and a scholar learned in both alankāra| śāstraand logic (Varanasi, ); and Viśveśvara, author of theAlankārakaustubha, the last of the important independentworks on alankāra| śāstra (Almora, d. ).

xxxix

e most insightful of these commentaries for the Rasa-mañjarī is without question Viśveśvara, probing the poemsas he does with a very learned eye. In a category by himselfis Anantapa .n .dita, who clearly has pretensions to be morethan mere commentator: he appears to want to claim forhis exegesis a status of expressivity almost equal to that ofthe poet himself, producing what at times approaches art-prose, though often with more heat than light. e mostknowledgeable of Rasatarangi.nī commentaries is undoubt-edly the still-unpublished work of Ve .nīdatta, and I havefrequently profited from his deep knowledge of Sanskritpoetry. Space is available in the annotations to record onlysignificant commentarial alternatives to the preferred trans-lation.ere are several earlier translations of these two works

of Bhānudatta. e Rasamañjarī, or at least its verses, hasbeen rendered several times by Indian translators; a re-cent Italian dissertation offers a version as well. e Rasa-tarangi.nī was translated only once, and only partially, intoFrench by P R in , as part of a study of theNā.tyaśāstra. e present volume represents the first com-plete translation of both works to be published together andon the basis of texts established and interpreted with thehelp of the most important extant commentaries.

Notes

See discussion of the commentators, Hindi rīti literature, and thepainting traditions that follows. [] (missed by the translator), [], and [] are cited in the Ain-i Akbari (vol. , pp.

xl

–; Bhānudatta is not named but the verses are unmistak-ably his). e European mentioned is S W J, whowrote in reference to the RM, “I have read this delightful bookfour times at least” (: vol. : ); he attractively translatedthe title as “e Analysis of Love.”

V cites the verse in RT . (f. v).

K.rpārām’sHittarangi.nī, the first work on the typology of heroinesin Brajbhasha, is dated (the interpretation of the chrono-gram has been questioned, but unpersuasively), borrows from theRM, and thus supplies a definite terminus ante quem (AB, personal communication). is would be corroboratedby the date of Śe.sa Cintāma .ni’s commentary on the RM, ,assuming that early date is indeed correct.

See also D and K : –. An argument for aterminus ante quem of is based on a false dating of a com-mentary on the RM (D andD : ; the Rasamañ-jarīprakāśa, which exists in a single MS., seems in fact to be theRasikarañjanī of Gopāla Bha.t.ta, which was also composed in). An argument for a terminus ante quem of is basedon the false attribution to Bhānu of a lawbook called Pārijātacited in another text dated (Bhānudatta’s literary anthologyRasapārijāta is confused with the dharmaśāstra Pārijāta by G: – (the verses cited are actually from the former) whois also unaware of the verse on Nijāma).

K : –; M : . We cannot be cer-tain that the Nizam in question was not Burhan Nizam Shah(r. –) rather than Ahmad Nizam Shah, as some assert. Ipass over here arguments identifying Bhānudatta and a much an-thologized poet named Bhānukara, whose references would linkBhānudatta with other Muslim rulers such as Shershah. (e ev-idence is collected in C : –, though not siftedcritically; see also D : .)

xli

On Golconda, see the remarks on Akbar Shah that follow; San-skrit manuscript catalogues list a large number of Telugu MSS.of the RM, with only two (incomplete) MSS. in Mithilā and veryscanty holdings elsewhere in the northeast. D : –discusses the Aurangabad RM.

Forthcoming in the CSL, translated by O F.

For the changeability of the category “literature” in Sanskrit lit-erary history, see P : –.

His only real peer is Jagannātha (fl. ). Southern writers usedtheir own poetry for illustrations at least from the time of Vidyā-nātha (c. ).

e list of such works is long and their authors distinguished.It includes, in addition to K.rpārām’s Hittarangi.nī (based on theRT), Nanddās’ Rasmañjarī (c. , based on the RM); Rahim’sBarvai Nāyikābhed (c. , based on the RM); Sundar’s Sundar-ś.rngār (, based on the RM);MahākaviDev’sBhāvvilās (,based on the RT). Bhānu’s influence continued well into the eigh-teenth century. (I owe this list to A B.)

Note the echo inKshetrayya (R et al. : ), thoughthe Telugu poet emends to beautiful ironic effect: the lover usedto tell her that their bodies were one—and now she knows why.Kshetrayya was patronized by the same Golconda court at whichthe Ś.rngāramañjarī was later produced (R : ).

See P .

See RT .. Another significant if under-argued innovation con-cerns the possibility of śānta constituting a ninth rasa (RT .).

For the earlier history see NŚ ch. ; DR ch. ; ŚP ch. .

e work itself has an interesting history, being first written inTelugu and then translated into Sanskrit (the latter version beingadopted into Hindi by the celebrated poet Cintāma .ni Tripā.thī).See R : – for a detailed review of Akbar Shah’s

xlii

critique of the RM. is critique is itself answered by one ofBhānu’s later commentators, Trivikrama Miśra.

e paintings are themselves undated and have been placedeverywhere between and .e best of them strongly re-semble the rāgamālāworks of Sahibdin of –, perhaps evenanticipating him. Compare, for example, B and G: –; K and D : ; W: pl. (with which compare RM pl. ). On the Basohlipaintings, see R and B , B : ;for Nurpur, A : plates –.

e original album has been dispersed. Some seventeen imageshave been published, while more than forty remain unpublishedin a variety of private collections and museums. A number of thelatter have been made available on the CSL website.

See CSL editions prepared by R G and LS, respectively.

For discussions of particular paintings, see the notes to [], [], [], [], [], [], [], and [].

ere are thorny problems of dating that I must ignore in thisbrief notice; I offer best guesses.

A copy of his unpublished commentary, the Rasikarañjanī, hasbeen made available on the CSL website, with the kind permis-sion of the British Library.

For the former, see, e.g., R and B ; for thelatter, R (unavailable to me).

xliii

Abbreviations

DR = DaśarūpakaJ = Trilokanatha Jha, ed. KavirājabhānudattagranthāvalīKS = KāmasūtraNŚ = Nā.tyaśāstraRM = RasamañjarīRT = Rasatarangi.nīSD = Sāhityadarpa.naŚM = Ś.rngāramañjarī of Akbar ShahŚT = Ś.rngāratilaka of Rudra Bha.t.taa, b, c, d = first, second, third, fourth quarter verse respectivelypl. = platev. = versev.l. = varia lectioReferences in the notes are to CSL paragraphs, unless accompanied

by “v.”

A = Commentary of Anantapa .n .dita (Vyangārthakaumudī)B = Bangla recension of Vidyāsāgara (in Kāvyasa .mgraha)G = Commentary of Gopāla Bha.t.ta (Rasikarañjanī)J = Jha edition (Kavirājabhānudattagranthāvalī)N = Commentary of Nāgeśa (Prakāśa)OG = Old Gujarati translation (on verso, Udaipur album)R = Commentary of Rangaśāyin (Āmoda) (extracts printed in Tripathi

)Ś = Commentary of Śe.sa Cintāma .ni (Parimala)Jha = Commentary of Bhadrinath Jha (or Sharma) (Surabhi)T = Commentary of Trivikrama Miśra (Rasāmoda)U = Udaipur albumTriv. A = Trivandrum MS. no.

xliv

Triv. B = Trivandrum MS. no (breaks off in the middle of v. )V = Commentary of Viśveśvara (Samañjasā)

.

B = Commentary of Bhagavadbha.t.ta (Nūtanatarī)G = Commentary of Gangārāma Ja .de (Nauka)J = Jha edition (Kavirājabhānudattagranthāvalī)N = Commentary of Nemasāha (sometimes Nemiśāha) (Kāvyasudhā)O = Commentary of Jivanathaji OjhaŚ = Sharma editionV = Commentary of Ve .nīdatta Bha.t.tācārya (Rasikarañjanī)

xlv

Bibliography

Amaruśataka of Amaruka. . Edited by D and K-

PP. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press. Kāvya-mālā .

Daśarūpaka of Dhana .mjaya with the Āloka of Dhanika. Edited by T.V. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre,.

Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana. Edited by D S. Varanasi:Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, .

Kavirājabhānudattagranthāvalī. Edited by T J. Dar-bhanga: Mithila Institute, .

Kāvyasa .mgraha, vol . Edited by JVB.Calcutta: Sarasvatiyantra, .

Kāvyasudhā (commentary on the Rasatarangi.nī) of Nemasāha. Universityof Pennsylvania Indic MS. ; Harvard Indic MS. .

Nā.tyaśāstra of Bharata. Edited by M.R. K et al. Baroda: OrientalInstitute, –

Nauka (commentary on the Rasatarangi.nī) of Gangārāma Ja.de. Varanasi:Kashi Samskrita Press, Benares ; Bhandarkar Oriental Re-search Institute MS. no /–.

Nūtanatarī (commentary on the Rasatarangi.nī) of Bhagavadbha.t.ta. Ori-ental Institute, Baroda, MS. no. .

Parimala (commentary on the Rasamañjarī) of Śe.sa Cintāma.ni. Edited byR S T. Aligarh: Viveka Publications, .

Prakāśa (commentary on the Rasamañjarī) of Nāgeśa Bha.t.ta. Edited byR S T. Benares: Vidya Vilas Press, .Benares Sanskrit Series vol. .

Rasamañjarī of Bhānudatta. GovernmentOrientalManuscripts Library,Kariavattom (Trivandrum), MSS. nos. and .

Rasamañjarī with the commentary Surabhi of Bhadrinath Jha. Editedby N S. Varanasi: Shri Hari Krishna NibandhaBhawan, .

xlvi

Rasāmoda (commentary on the Rasamañjarī) of TrivikramaMiśra. Editedby R S T. Aligarh: Viveka Publications, .

Rasaratnapradīpikā of Allarāja. Edited by R.N. D. Bombay:Bharatiya Vidyabhavan, .

Rasatarangi.nī [with bhā.sā.tīkā]. Edited by J O. Bombay:Venkatesvara Steam Press V.S. ().

Rasatarangi.nī. Edited by U S. Delhi: Parimala Publica-tions, .

Rasikarañjanī (commentary on the Rasamañjarī) of Gopāla Bha.t.ta. BritishLibrary IO San (Eggeling : I. C. ).

Rasikarañjanī (commentary on the Rasatarangi.nī) of Ve.nīdatta Bha.t.tā-cārya. British Library IO San a; Oriental Institute, Baroda,MSS. nos. (incomplete) and .

Sāhityadarpa.na of Viśvanātha Kavirāja. Edited by D. Bom-bay: Nirnaya Sagar Press, ; reprint New Delhi.

Samañjasā (commentary on the Rasamañjarī) of Viśveśvara. Edited by J- P. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Univer-sity, .

Ś.rngāramañjarī of Akbar Shah. Edited by V. R. Hyderabad:Hyderabad Archaeological Department. .

Ś.rngāraprakāśa of Bhoja, Part . Edited by V. R. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, .

Ś.rngāratilaka of Rudra.ta Bha.t.ta. Kavyamala gucchaka III , pp. –(also R P, ed. Rudra.ta’s C.rngāratilaka and Ruy-yaka’s Sah.rdayalīlā [Kiel: Haeseler, ]).

Vyangārthakaumudī (commentary on the Rasamañjarī) of Anantapa.n.dita.Edited by R S T. Benares: Vidya Vilas Press,. Benares Sanskrit Series vol. . Also (no ed.) Bombay:Gopal Narayana and Company, .

xlvii

Ain-i Akbari of Abu al-Fazl , vol. . , Trans. H.S. J; reprintNew Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

A, W.G. . Visions of Courtly India: e Archer Collection ofPahari Miniatures. Washington, D.C.: e Foundation.

B,DE., and BG. . Painting of India. Geneva:Skira.

B, A. (ed.) . Reports on the State of Education in Bengal (and ) by William Adam. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.

B, J. . Lotosmond und Löwenritt. Indische Miniatur-malerei. Stuttgart: Linden-Museum Stuttgart.

B, M C. . Mughal and Rajput Painting. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.e New Cambridge His-tory of India ..

B, E, , and A,W.G. . Rajput Miniatures fromthe Collection of Edwin Binney, III . Portland: Portland Art Mu-seum.

C, J B. . Muslim Patronage to SanskritLearning , part . Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli.

D, S.N., and S.K. D. . A History of Sanskrit Literature:Classical Period . Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press.

D, S.K. . Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics. Calcutta: Firma K.L.Mukhopadhyaya.

D, ed. .Dev aur unkā Bhāv Vilās. Delhi: Navalok Prashan.D, S. . “An Illustrated Manuscript from Aurangabad,

dated ..” Lalit Kala : –.E, R M. . A Social History of the Deccan –:

Eight Indian Lives. e New Cambridge History of India :.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

E, D. . Indian Miniatures: e Ehrenfeld Collection.New York: Hudson Hills.

G, P.K. . Studies in Indian Literary History, vol. . Bombay:Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

xlviii

Indian Miniature Paintings. Tenth Annual Exhibition, November toDecember , . Doris Wiener Gallery, New York.

Indian Paintings from Rajasthan, from the Collection of Sri Gopi KrishnaKanoria of Calcutta. . Circulated by the Smithsonian Insti-tution.

J, S W. . e Works of Sir William Jones. London:Stockdale and Walker.

K, P.V. . History of Sanskrit Poetics. th ed. Delhi: Motilal Ba-narsidass.

———. . History of Dharmaśāstra, vol. :, rd ed. Pune: Bhan-darkar Oriental Research Insitute.

K, K, and S D. . A Collector’s Dream:Indian Art in the Collections of Basant Kumar and SaraladeviBirla and the Birla Academy of Art and Culture. Bombay: Marg.

Lalitkalā portfolio . . New Delhi: Lalitkala Akademi.M, C. . “On Sūryadāsa and the Invention

of Bidirectional Poetry.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, : –.

P, P. . e Classical Tradition in Rajput Paintingfrom the Paul F. Walker Collection. New York: Pierpont MorganLibrary.

P, S. . “Bhoja’s Ś.rngāraprakāśa and the Problemof Rasa: A Historical Introduction and Translation.” AsiatischeStudien/Études asiatiques : (): –.

———. . “Sanskrit Literary Culture from the Inside Out.” In Lit-erary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, ed.S P. Berkeley: University of California Press.

——— (trans). . Rama’s Last Act (Uttararāmacarita). New York:New York University Press and the JJC Foundation.

R, V., ed. . Srngaramanjari of Saint Akbar Shah. [Hyder-abad]: Hyderabad Government.

R, A.K., et al. .When God Is a Customer: Telugu Courte-san Songs by Kshetrayya and Others. Berkeley: University of Cal-ifornia Press.

xlix

R, M.S., and S.D. B. . Basohli Paintings of theRasamanjari. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.

R, P. . La rhétorique sanskrite exposée dans son développe-ment historique et ses rapports avec la rhétorique classique. Paris:E. Leroux.

R, D. . I personaggi femminili (nayika) nella lir-ica indiana classica, tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in “Studi In-dologici (Classici e Medioevali)” approvata presso l’Universitadegli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza.”

W, J, et al. . Kingdom of the Sun: Indian Court andVillage Art from the Princely State ofMewar. San Francisco: AsianArt Museum, Chong-Moon Lee Center for Asian Art and Cul-ture.

W, W.K., and M. B. . “e Affective Fallacy.” Ine Verbal Icon. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

l

Appendix on Literary Allusions

Bhanu·datta’s original audience would have been familiarwith a wide range of stories that most contemporary readersare unlikely to know.He makes frequent allusions to the avatars or embodi-

ments of the god Vishnu.ese include: the Fish, wherebyhe saved the Vedas; the Tortoise, upon which Mount Mán-dara rested when it was used as the stick to churn the pri-mal milk ocean (which produced the goddess Lakshmi,Vishnu’s wife, and his cosmic jewel, the Káustubha); theBoar, on whose tusk he hooked the Earth and raised itfrom the ocean; the Dwarf (in this form Vishnu receivedfrom the demon king Bali as much territory as he couldcover in three strides, and he crossed all earth, the atmo-sphere, and heaven); the Man-Lion, a form half man, halflion, whereby Vishnu killed the demon Hiránya·káshipu,who could not be slain by god or man or beast; Párashu·rama, or Rama with the Axe, a brahmin who slaughteredthe kshatriya clans twenty-one times; and Krishna, who asa child lived among the cowherds (the majority of the allu-sions here concern Krishna’s beloved, Radha, and his otheramorous exploits).e avatar to which Bhanu·datta most frequently refers is

Rama, son of Dasha·ratha, immortalized in the epic poem,the “Ramáyana.” Rama was set to become king but was sentinto exile with his wife Sita (also known as Jánaki [daughterof King Jánaka], Vaidéhi [princess of Vidéha], and Máithili[princess of Míthila]) and his younger brother Lákshmana.During his sojourn in the forest his wife was abducted by

li

Rávana, the ten-headed king of the rákshasas, who took herback to Lanka, his island fortress. Rama made an alliancewith the monkeys, chief of whom was Hanumán, and hav-ing found his way to Rávana’s kingdom killed the rákshasasand their king. Vibhíshana, Rávana’s brother, lent his sup-port to Rama and was crowned king of Lanka.Reference is also often made to the second great Indian

epic, the “Maha·bhárata,” above all as a repository of heroicdeeds.e warring factions were the sons of Pandu and thesons of Dhrita·rashtra. Among the former were the greatwarriors Árjuna and Bhima, among the latter, their half-brother Karna, who was also a paragon of generosity.e stories associated with the Great God Shiva (also

known as Hara and Shambhu) supply material for manyallusions as well. Central to his biography is his marriagewith Párvati (“Daughter of the [Himálaya] Mountain,” alsoknown here as Bhaváni). Shiva fell in love with Párvatithanks to the efforts of the god of love Kama (literally, “de-sire”), but in the process Kama was incinerated by a flamefrom Shiva’s third eye, and was mourned by his wife Rati(“passion”). Shiva’s accoutrements include a snake necklaceand a tall headdress in which the crescent moon is fixed.

lii