Sabda-Vilasa or Parasinamamala of Mantri Salakya and Mahipakosa of Saciva Mahipa

Summary

U. P. Shah’s article “Sabda‑Vilasa or Parasinamamala of Mantri Śālakya and Mahipakosa of Saciva Mahipa” examines two rare lexicographical works from medieval India. The first work, *Sabda‑Vilasa* or *Parasinamamala*, is a bilingual lexicon compiled by the minister Śālakya (also called Sālaḳya). It lists synonyms for Sanskrit words in Persian and Arabic, thus providing a bridge between Indic and Islamic culturesfile:///home/oai/share/520751_ocred_compressed.pdf#:~:text=1945. Manuscripts of this lexicon are preserved in libraries at Baroda and Bikaner, but the text had not been adequately studied. Shah summarises its contents and notes that it was likely composed for courtiers who needed to communicate with Persian‑speaking administratorsfile:///home/oai/share/520751_ocred_compressed.pdf#:~:text=Paraanamamala%20and%20Malapakola%20MK40,Pratapa%20Bhaita%20wrote%20and%20spoke. The compiler defends his purpose by citing earlier scholars who composed bilingual glossaries, showing that such works were respectedfile:///home/oai/share/520751_ocred_compressed.pdf#:~:text=Paraanamamala%20and%20Malapakola%20MK40,Pratapa%20Bhaita%20wrote%20and%20spoke. The article also discusses *Mahipakosa* (or *Mahīpakośa*), compiled by the royal secretary Mahipa. This lexicon is similar to *Parasinamamala* in its bilingual nature but differs in organisation: it arranges words by subject rather than alphabetically. Shah describes sections that list geographical names and titles of government offices and notes that the lexicon reflects the needs of an administration dealing with Persian envoysfile:///home/oai/share/520751_ocred_compressed.pdf#:~:text=1945. Although some scholars have dismissed these lexicons as minor, Shah argues that they illuminate cultural exchange between Indo‑Persian courts and preserve terminology that would otherwise be lost. These works shed light on how Indian scribes transcribed Persian names and reveal patterns of lexical borrowing. Much of the article is devoted to establishing the provenance and authenticity of the manuscripts. Shah compares the style and script of different copies and points out scribal errors and variant readings. He emphasises that both lexicons were likely composed in western India during a period of increasing contact with Muslim rulers. To justify the production of a lexicon of foreign names, the author cites examples of Indian scholars who mastered several languages, such as Varāhamihira and Pratāpa Bhatta, and notes that proficiency in Persian, Arabic and local dialects was considered essential for court officialsfile:///home/oai/share/520751_ocred_compressed.pdf#:~:text=Paraanamamala%20and%20Malapakola%20MK40,Pratapa%20Bhaita%20wrote%20and%20spoke. Bilingual lexicons, he argues, were part of a broader tradition of linguistic trainingfile:///home/oai/share/520751_ocred_compressed.pdf#:~:text=Paraanamamala%20and%20Malapakola%20MK40,Pratapa%20Bhaita%20wrote%20and%20spoke. In addition to summarising the contents, Shah criticises earlier catalogues for misidentifying the lexicons and conflating them with other works. He proposes corrections to the titles and suggests that a critical edition should be prepared. The article concludes by stressing the importance of preserving and studying these bilingual glossaries, arguing that they offer a window into the linguistic and administrative realities of medieval Indo‑Persian courts and provide valuable data for historians of language contact.