I would add Ryutaro Tsuchida's 2002 article (Über die direkte Quelle für die kaschmirischen Versionen der Bṛhatkathā) in Indologica Taurinensia 28: 211-250, where the verses in question (1.1.10-12) are translated as follows:
 
Das vorliegende [Werk] ist genau so beschaffen wie das Originalwerk [Guṇāḍhyas]. Es gibt nicht die geringste [inhaltliche] Abweichung [des einen von dem anderen]. Der Unterschied [zwischen den beiden Werken] besteht lediglich in Länge und Kürze des Textes und in der Sprache. [Einerseits] wird Bewahren der Angemessenheit des Ausdruckes nach Kräften bewirkt; [andererseits] wird Zusammenstellung des Buches, das in sich mehrere Züge der Kunstdichtung hat, unternommen, ohne dass dabei dem Inhalt der Erzählungen und der poetischen Stimmung irgendein Abbruch geschieht. Meine Bemühungen zielen hier nicht darauf ab, dass ich Ruhm in dichterischer Gewand[t]heit erwerbe, sondern darauf, dass [der Leser] die verschiedener Netze von Erzählungen leicht im Gedächtnis behalten könne.


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:17 AM, George Hart <glhart@berkeley.edu> wrote:
The Tamil Peruṅkatai was probably earlier than Somadeva’s work and is thought my many to be based on the Bṛhatkathā.  I would think the first thing to do would be to look at that work.  And if you seriously want to study the Kathāsaritsāgara and its antecedents, it would be important to know Tamil, as I would think the Peruṅkatai is an indispensable link.  Note that R. Vijayalakshmy has written a study of the Peruṅkatai. — see http://www.amazon.com/study-Perunkatai-authentic-Publication-International/dp/B0006EC8I2. George Hart

On Apr 6, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Adheesh Sathaye <adheesh1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jacob,
>
> One could also consider also that Somadeva is writing after (and therefore responding to) Kṣemendra; thus could it be that both his usage of the technical term “aucitya” and his comment on the relative value of kathā (narration) vs. kāvya (aesthetic discursus) were directed towards his predecessor?
>
> On another note related to your query, I’ve always wondered, and perhaps there are new opinions out there, on whether this “original Paiśācī” Bṛhatkathā ever existed. Everyone seems to take it for granted, but is there any actual evidence for its existence as a fixed, circulated text? Or is it simply a very nice meta-story about a storytelling tradition that crossed many language boundaries—including perhaps Persian?
>
> Best wishes,
> Adheesh
>
>
> ----
> Adheesh Sathaye
> Department of Asian Studies
> University of British Columbia
>
> On Apr 6, 2014, at 13.18, jacob@FABULARASA.DK wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Michael Hahn, Willem Bollée, and Roland Steiner for responding to my query. You have all given me something to think about.
>>
>> I am aware of the disputed translation history of the verses as given in Speyer (1908) and Lacôte (1908), but no consensus appears to have been arrived at since then. I am curious to find out whether Somadeva is hinting that he translated the work from the original Paiśācī and/or versified or rearranged its contents. While the former would only confirm what we already suspect, the latter might tell us something new about how he reworked the popular story material he was working with.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Jacob
>>
>> Roland Steiner skrev den 2014-04-06 17:35:
>>> See also J.S. Speyer: Studies about the Kathāsaritsāgara, Amsterdam,
>>> 1908, esp. p. 22 f.:
>>> "My interpretation of çl. 11 is different from that of Lévi. This is
>>> partly in consequence of a various reading, partly because he
>>> misunderstood the meaning of the words aucitya and anvaya. As to the
>>> difference of reading, vidhīyate (Durgapr.'s ed.) seems preferable to
>>> abhidhīyate (Brockhaus); but in 1886 the ed. of Durgapr. had not yet
>>> appeared. Aucitya does not mean 'les convenances littéraires'; it is
>>> the technical term to signify 'appropriateness' [p. 23] taken in the
>>> widest sense of the word and bearing as well on the different objects,
>>> characters, individualities to be represented in a poetical
>>> composition as on the adorning implements and the choice of words,
>>> expressions and images. Aucityānvaya, then, is the same as
>>> aucityānvitatvam, literally 'the being provided with appropriateness'.
>>> Lévi also misunderstood kāvyāṃçasya yojanā. Mańkowski rightly objects
>>> that the sing. kāvyāṃçasya cannot at any rate mean 'chacune des
>>> sections du poème' [...], but his own interpretation, that kāvyāṃça
>>> should be referred to some special part of the poem, is right neither.
>>> To catch the meaning of kāvyāṃça, it must be compared with devāṃça,
>>> aṃçāvataraṇa and the like. Somadeva declares that he does not claim
>>> the pretension of making a kāvya out of the Bṛhatkathā, he has only
>>> admixed a small portion of kāvya qualities to the simple collection of
>>> popular tales. In other terms, aṃça has here the signification not
>>> unlike °gandhi at the end of compounds taught by Pāṇini V, 4, 136, 'a
>>> tinge of', 'a little of'. My translation of çl. 11 is accordingly: 'I
>>> have taken care to preserve the appropriateness (of description,
>>> diction etc. of the original work) and I have added to it some
>>> qualities proper to a kāvya, without, however, spoiling by this the
>>> flavour of the tales', v. a. I have added elegance of style and many a
>>> poetical ornament, yet so that I have not deprived the tales of their
>>> power to express the rasa's or sentiments aimed at."
>>> Best,
>>> Roland Steiner
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
> http://listinfo.indology.info


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info