Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts

Hartmut Buescher.  Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts: Early
Acquisitions and the Nepal Collection.  Copenhagen  NIAS, 2011.  xxii
+ 263 pp.  $180.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-87-7694-077-5.


 Reviewed by Jinah Kim (Harvard University)
Published on H-Asia (February, 2014)
Commissioned by Sumit Guha

Manuscript Treasures from Copenhagen

A descriptive catalog of a manuscript collection is an indispensable
asset for any researcher working on manuscripts. I, for one, started
my research on painted Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts with Cecil
Bendall's _Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts in the
University Library, Cambridge _(1883). Numerous catalogs of disparate
collections aided me throughout the years in locating primary
research material, and the analytical descriptions of erudite authors
provided foundation stones with which I can agree or disagree and
build a new opinion around. That a good number of Sanskrit manuscript
collections are held by libraries in the United Kingdom, such as
Cambridge University Library, the British Library, Bodleian Library,
the Royal Asiatic Society, and Wellcome Library, to name but a few,
is perhaps not a surprise, given the British colonial enterprise in
South Asia. That a number of Sanskrit manuscripts from India and
Nepal found their home in Copenhagen may come as a surprise until we
learn about the Danish scholars who contributed much to the study and
collection of Sanskrit manuscripts, such as the comparative linguist
Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) and Rask's better-known Danish contemporary,
Nathaniel Wallich (1785-1854), who founded the Oriental Museum of the
Asiatic Society (later the Indian Museum), in Hartmut Buescher's
_Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts: Early Acquisitions and the Nepal
Collection_. This book is the seventh volume of the_ Catalogue of
Oriental Manuscripts, Xylographs, Etc. in Danish Collections
_(COMDC), a cataloguing project of the Royal Library, Copenhagen,
founded by Kaare GrØnbech and edited by Stig. T. Rasmussen, the
first volume of which appeared in 1980.[1] The present catalog
showcases the diversity and the richness of the Danish collection of
Sanskrit manuscripts in the Royal Library and puts Copenhagen firmly
on the map for scholars interested in studying the manuscript culture
and its history in South Asia.

As noted in the introduction, the catalogue "is not a survey of the
Library's entire Sanskrit collection" but rather covers only the
manuscripts belonging to three internal signatures of "Cod. San.";
"Cod. Ind."; and "Nepal" (p. xv). While the manuscripts are still
extremely heterogeneous, this choice limits the number of the
manuscripts discussed in the catalogue to a manageable total of 208
entries. "Cod. San." refers to the collection brought to Copenhagen
by Rask, who traveled to India via land route between 1816 and 1823.
Perhaps reflecting his linguistic interests, Rask's collection among
those presented in the catalog is most varied in terms of its
linguistic and paleographic features, as it includes many specimens
of palm-leaf Sanskrit manuscripts prepared in Telugu script.[2] The
manuscripts collected by Nathaniel Wallich form the bulk of Cod. Ind.
collection. Many of Wallich's manuscripts are hybrid objects, as he
commissioned manuscripts from local (mostly Bengali) scribes using
locally produced paper in large notebook format that would later be
"leather-bound in European style." The bulk of the manuscripts
discussed in the present catalog belong to the Nepal collection
purchased in Nepal by Werner Jacobsen (1914-79), an anthropologist
who spent 1957-59 in Nepal. As Buescher notes (p. xviii), it is
thanks to Jacobsen's being a cultural anthropologist with an eye for
curious materials for museum display that the colorfully painted
manuscripts and physically idiosyncratic manuscripts from Nepal came
to the Royal Library's collection. All but seven of the seventy-six
figures splendidly reproduced in color belong to this "Nepal"
collection. Overall, the manuscripts described in the present catalog
are so physically, paleographically, and chronologically diverse that
they present many more challenges than a single scholar can handle.
Hartmut Buescher has done a laudable job of cataloging them into a
recognizable order.

His introduction provides succinct but valuable information regarding
the provenances of the collection, which will undoubtedly benefit
scholars interested in other, lesser-known histories of colonial
encounters and interactions, such as the Danish involvement in India
and Sri Lanka. The introduction also explains the structure of the
catalog entries, providing the necessary guide to navigating the
catalog. Each entry begins with a description of the item's condition
and characteristics, such as material, size, physical appearance,
script, and other scribal features, followed by the title and
authorship, if the information is available. It then provides the
transliteration of the beginning and the end of each text and ends
with at times uneven contextual references for further study.
Buescher's emphasis on the physical characteristics of each
manuscript is a welcome contribution for a student of material
culture and codicology of manuscripts. The description of the
material is more detailed than those found in many similar catalogs,
perhaps owing to the previous work by Jesper Trier, who from 1962
through 1970, undertook "ethno-technological field work" for a study
of paper production in Nepal with the sponsorship of the Royal
Library. Buescher suggests Trier's _Ancient Paper of Nepal_ (1972) as
a companion copy to the present catalog (pp. xviii-xix), which helps
our understanding of the physical aspects of a number of manuscripts
described by Buescher. To Buescher's credit, his catalog also helps
us understand the rather unsystematic presentation of the manuscripts
in Trier's otherwise invaluable study.

Buescher divides the manuscripts into seventeen categories based on
their literary genres: 1. "_Mahāyāna_ S_ū_tras" (fifteen entries),
2. "_Dhāraṇī_ Texts" (twenty-one entries), 3. "Tantra and Yoga"
(twenty-one entries), 4. "_Dharmaśāstra_" (six entries), 5.
"_Vyākaraṇa_"_ _(seven entries), 6. "Lexicography" (five entries),
7. "Philosophy" (five entries), 8. "_Kāvya_ and _Chanda_s" (twelve
entries), 9. "Epics and _Purāṇa_s" (nine entries), 10. "Narrative"
(five entries), 11. "_Subhāṣita_s" (seven entries), 12.
"_Stotra_s, _Stava_s, Songs, _Mahātmya_s and _Rāgamāla_s"
(twenty-six entries), 13. "Rituals" (_Pūjā_, _Vidhi_, etc.)
(twenty-three entries), 14. "Astrology and Astronomy" (twenty-three
entries), 15. "Āyurveda" (nineteen entries), 16. "Miniatures and
Other Paintings, Drawings, Illuminations, Etc." (sixteen entries),
and 17. "Uncategorized" (three entries). While he explains in a
footnote that certain texts can belong to more than one genre, it
would have been beneficial to have an overview regarding his
categorization of genres in the introduction.[3] For example, the
Nepalese manuscripts of what is clearly the _Pañcarakṣā sūtra_
(Cat. 21 Nepal 84a, Cat. 22 Nepal 84, and Cat. 23 Nepal 42a) are
categorized under the genre "_Dhāraṇī_ Texts," which is not
necessarily erroneous as _Pañcarakṣā dhāraṇī_s appear as part
of the _Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha_, a commonly used Nepalese
_dhāraṇī_ collection. However, this choice forsakes the
manuscripts' importance in the cult of the _Pañcarakṣā_ goddesses
in Nepal and the five texts' claimed status as the _Mahāyāna
sūtra_s, as the end colophon cited in catalogue entry 22 (Nepal 84,
p. 54) clearly indicates (_etāni pañcarakṣāni sūtrāṇī_).[4]

Another curious choice of categorization is the case of two
illustrated manuals of _mudrā_s (hand gestures)--Nepal 60/1-2 (Cat.
49, figures 34 and 35) and Nepal 66 (Cat. 197, figures 73 and
74)--being assigned to two different genres, the former categorized
under "Tantra and Yoga" and the latter categorized under "Miniatures
and Other Paintings." Both are Nepalese paper manuscripts of
concertina format ("accordion book" in the author's terminology), and
probably contemporary or near contemporary productions of the late
sixteenth century (Nepal 66 bears the date of N.S. 692; 1572 CE),
given the paleographic features and similarities in the painting
style. Although the author describes them merely as handbooks
demonstrating "tantric hand gestures," they are clearly of the
Buddhist tradition, judging from the clear indication of the names of
bodhisattvas (such as Jāliniprabhā, Candraprabhā, or
Samantabhadra) and accompanying hand gestures that are shown in
figures 34, 35, 73, and 74.[5] These two manuscripts may be better
categorized under the "ritual manuals," as the hand gestures most
likely illustrate the _mudrā_s to perform in a ritual context.[6]

Given the scope and the diversity of the material, a few errors are
perhaps only to be expected. An excellent Sanskritist does not
necessarily make for an expert on manuscripts prepared in various
scripts and materials. An appendix or a plate with paleographic
charts is sorely missed, given the vague identification of
paleographic features along with a confusing understanding of certain
terms. For example, the author cites the use of term _kuṭila_ by
Bendall, which in Bendall's usage refers to the letters with hooked
or twisted bottoms in vertical strokes, or _daṇḍas_.[7] While
Buescher expresses reservation regarding the use of this term (p. xx,
n25), his description of a Nepalese manuscript (Nepal 113, Cat. 131,
p. 161) suggests confusion regarding the term's meaning because he
describes the manuscript's paleographic feature as "Bendall's 'hooked
Nepalese hand'; also called _kuṭila_ script by others," when the
cited example in Bendall (Plate II.3, Cambridge University Library
Add.1686) clearly shows what Nepalese scholars often call the
_bhujimol_ script with rounded tops.[8]

More problematic is the dating of a few Nepalese manuscripts. As
Slusser's magnum opus on Nepalese history and culture has
demonstrated, scholars have based themselves on a document dated to
N.S. 321 kārtika (October, 1200 CE) bearing the name of a new king,
Arimalla, to calculate a Common Era equivalent for the Nepal Era
(Nepal Samvat, N.S.) date that began the Malla dynasty period. The
Nepal Era universally used throughout Nepalese history until the end
of the Malla period, therefore began in October 879 CE.[9]

 So for instance, the catalog discusses the two dates found on a
single palm-leaf manuscript of the _Śatasāhasrikā
Prajñāpāramitā sūtra_, first _khaṇḍa_, in Nepal 81 (Cat. 4,
pp. 17-19): one is _samvat_ 263 (written in letter numerals of ācu 3
or 263) and the other is _samvat_ 546. Buescher concludes that the
earlier _samvat_ 263 must be a Malla period date, adding 1200 to 263
to calculate it as 1463 CE. He is arguing against an earlier reading
of the date as _nepāla samvat_ (N.S.) 263 or 1143 CE,[10] while
counting the latter _samvat_ as N.S. 546, thus reading it as 1426 CE
(546 plus 880 CE, the beginning of N.S.).

This is erroneous and shows the author's lack of understanding of
Nepalese manuscript culture and the history of Nepal in general. I am
not aware of any evidence that suggests a Malla era that began in
1200 CE. While I cannot be certain without consulting the actual
manuscript, my previous experience dealing with Nepalese Sanskrit
manuscripts suggests that it is likely that the manuscript was
originally prepared in the twelfth century and refurbished or
repaired in the fifteenth century during Jyotirmala's reign (1409-28
CE), as indicated by the post colophon cited by Buescher. The size of
the manuscript, 55.5 x 5.5 cm, also suggests that this huge palm-leaf
manuscript in 741 folios must have been originally prepared in the
twelfth century, as the size of palm-leaf manuscripts gradually
shrank from the twelfth century onwards to measure about 35- 40 cm in
average width.[11]

The same can be said of the three subsequent manuscripts of the three
subsequent _khaṇḍas_ of the _Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā
sūtra_, Nepal 175 B (Cat. 5), Nepal 175C (Cat. 6), and Nepal 175 A
(Cat. 7), all of which Buescher dates to the fifteenth century,
miscalculating the _samvat_-era dates as fictional Malla period
dates. Nepal 175A in particular seems to be clearly of
twelfth-century production judging from the paleographic features
seen in the reproduction of the folio 814 verso in Trier's plate 111,
and also because, in the published plate, the colophon clearly dates
it to _samvat_ 265 (1145 CE) during the reign of King Narendradeva
(r. 1140-46) ("_śrīmannarendradevasyavijayarajye_"), and the donor
and the date colophon's formulas follow the eleventh/twelfth-century
convention, while Buescher cites only the colophon passage dating to
N.S. 548 (1428CE).[12] Perhaps some of the more obvious mistakes
would have been prevented had the author had a collaborator with a
specialized knowledge of the Nepalese material.[13]

These oversights aside, this catalog is a treasure for scholars
interested in Sanskrit manuscripts and their art, especially given
the superior quality of color reproductions of painted pages from
various manuscripts. Although it is clear that iconography is not the
strongest area for the author, his commitment to attracting scholars
interested in art and iconography through the inclusion of a great
selection of painted manuscripts is much appreciated.[14] The
stunning painted pages from what is an arguably twelfth-century
eastern Indian palm-leaf manuscript of the _Aṣṭasāhasrikā
Prajñāpāramitā sūtra_ (Nepal 173, Cat. 2) surpass the pages from
similar manuscripts from the famed Nālandā monastery, such as the
prized possession in the Bodleian Library (MS Sansk. A. 7[R]), in
their beauty, fine execution, and unique iconographic features.[15]
The dated paper manuscript of the _Pañcarakṣā sūtra_ (Nepal 84a,
Cat. 21, dated. N.S. 741:1621CE) can help us date and contextualize
the painted folios in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.
84.171.4a-I), given the extreme similarity in paleographic features,
pictorial style, and iconography.[16] A set of painted book covers
binding a palm-leaf manuscript prepared in Telugu script showcases a
rare example of miniature paintings from South India, possibly of the
Nayaka period. Also noticeable are various Nepalese painted
"accordion books," such as one illustrating the subtle body of a
_yoga-puruṣa_ (Nepal 02, Cat. 190) and another illustrating the
full sequence of the ascent of _kuṇḍalinī_ (Nepal 38, Cat. 191),
along with a unique hybrid object acquired in 1969 (now classified
under Cod. San. [Cod.San. Add.3, OS-1971-95, Cat. 168]): a
leather-bound, painted book of horoscopes prepared for a Scottish
man, one Dr. Downie, by pandits to Maharaja of Alwar (Jai Singh) in
Rajasthan. With the publication of this catalog, one only hopes more
scholars working on South Asia will make the Royal Library in
Copenhagen their research destination. Thanks to Buescher's laborious
effort we certainly have the best of guidebooks to locate these
treasures.

Notes

[1]. C. E. Godakumbura, _Catalogue of Ceylonese Manuscripts_
(Copenhagen: Royal Library, 1980).

[2]. Out of thirty-seven palm-leaf manuscripts included in the
catalogue, fourteen manuscripts belong to the Cod. San. collection,
and according to the author of the catalogue, all of them are
Sanskrit manuscripts incised in Telugu script. Sinhalese manuscripts
collected by Rask are also excluded in this catalogue as they were
previously introduced in the first volume of the COMDC catalogue.

[3]. For example, see Sachindra Nath Siddhanta, _A Descriptive
Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Varendra Research Museum
Library,_ vol. 1 (Rajshahi, Bangladesh: Varendra Research Museum,
1972), xiii-xxiv.

[4]. For the cultic importance of the _Pañcarakṣā_ manuscripts,
see Jinah Kim, "A Book of Buddhist Goddesses: Illustrated Manuscripts
of the _Pañcarakṣā sūtra _and Their Ritual Use," _Artibus Asiae_
70, no. 2 (2010): 259-329. For the _Pañcaraḳā sūtra_'s
importance in Newar Buddhism, see Todd T. Lewis, _Popular Buddhist
Texts from Nepal: Narratives and Rituals of Newar Buddhism_ (Albany:
SUNY Press, 2000), 119-164.

[5]. Some of them can be matched to the _mudrā_s and attributes held
in the hands of bodhisattvas and other offering deities in the murals
and the clay sculptures in Himalayan monastic complexes like the main
assembly hall of Tabo Monastery. See Christian Luczanits, _Buddhist
sculpture in Clay: Early Western Himalayan Art, Late 10th to Early
13th Centuries_ (Chicago: Serindia, 2004), 43-56.

[6]. I had a chance to witness and record such a performance during
my field research in the Kathmandu area in 2004. Two _Vajrācārya_-s
(Newari Buddhist priest), Ratnaraj Vajracharya and Hemratna
Vajracharya (both members of the Kwā Bāhā guthi in Patan)
performed various_ mudrā_s similar to the ones represented in the
illustrated manuscripts as part of an empowerment ritual at the end
of a Pañcarakṣā _pūjā_.

[7]. Cecil Bendall, _Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts
in the University Library, Cambridge _(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1883), xxiv.

[8]. Hemrāj Śākya, _Nepāla Lipi-Prakāśa_ (Kathmandu: National
Archive, 1973), 45-48.

[9]. Mary Slusser, _Nepal Maṇḍala: A Cultural Study of the
Kathmandu Valley_, vol.1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1982), 52-53, 389-391.

[10]. Jesper Trier, _Ancient Paper of Nepal,_ Jutland Archaeological
Society Publications, vol. 10, (Copenhagen: Gyldendal sponsored by
the Royal Library, Copenhagen, 1972), 228. As Buescher suggests,
Trier's reading may have been based on the understanding from
readings of similar dates in Hemraj Sakya, _Medieval Nepal_
_(Colophons and Inscriptions)_ (Kathmandu: Chamunda Press, 1970), 3.

[11]. Jinah Kim, _Receptacle of the Sacred: Illustrated Manuscripts
and the Buddhist Book Cult in South Asia_ (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2013), 187, n54.

[12]. Trier, _Ancient Paper of Nepal_. It is difficult to ascertain
this point without having examined the actual manuscript.

[13]. I notice some readings from Nepalese manuscripts as published
in transliteration are incorrect, but perhaps this is also due to
typographical errors.

[14]. For example, Figure 5 (Nepal 173) represents Amitābha, not
Gautama Buddha. Figure 8 (Nepal 173) depicts the story of the
monkey's offering of honey bowl by showing the monkey four times,
three times as a monkey in different moments and once as a _deva_,
and it is not "two monkeys offering a bowl to the Buddha." Figure 36
(Nepal 153) shows a dark blue _devī _with eighteen arms, not sixteen
arms.

[15]. See Kim, _Receptacle of the Sacred_, 140-146. Also see W.
Zwalf, ed., _Buddhism: Art and Faith_ (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company for The British Museum and the British Library Board, 1985),
cat. 156; 106 and 116.

[16]. One should note that figure 27b (Nepal 84a) is Ratnasambhava,
not Amoghasiddhi.

Citation: Jinah Kim. Review of Buescher, Hartmut, _Catalogue of
Sanskrit Manuscripts: Early Acquisitions and the Nepal Collection_.
H-Asia, H-Net Reviews. February, 2014.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37065

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License.