By these marks, good sir — keep them by heart — and by the conch and the lotus drawn one on each side of the door, you are to know it: the house whose brightness has gone thin, now, surely, because I am away. A lotus does not keep its own beauty when the sun has gone. **This is the stanza the last five were for.** एभिः reaches back six verses and gathers them, and Mallinātha says how far it reaches — एभिः पूर्वोक्तैर्लक्षणैस्तोरणादिभिरभिज्ञानैः, 'by these, the marks stated before, the gateway and the rest' — तोरण being the arch of 2.15, where he had announced that four more stanzas of tokens were coming. **And the stanza's last line is not a description at all.** Mallinātha marks the turn with तथाहि, 'for so it is', and what follows is a general truth about lotuses offered as the reason for a guess about a house. The handbooks have names for that move; he gives it none, and closes instead with the comparison the verse itself never makes: सूर्यविरहितं पद्ममिव पतिविरहितं गृहं न शोभत इत्यर्थः — 'the sense is that a house bereft of its husband does not shine, as a lotus bereft of the sun does not'. **The इव is his and not Kālidāsa's**, and neither witness names a figure, so no figure is written. It is the first stanza since 2.14 with none, because 2.15 to 2.19 were carrying one उदात्त between them. What he spends his notes on is smaller and sharper. साधु he refuses to read as 'good', citing the Kāśikā's साधुः समर्थो निपुणो वा to make it 'skilled' — a compliment to the cloud's eye, since the errand is to identify a house. The locative singular द्वारोपान्ते he overrules outright: एकवचनमविवक्षितम्, the singular is not what is meant, द्वारपार्श्वयोः, at the two sides of the door — because the treasures are two and a pair at a doorway is one to a jamb. अधुना he stops to classify, “अधुना” इति निपातः, heading off a reader who would take its -ना for an instrumental ending. And क्षामच्छाय he gives a cause the verse withholds: उत्सवोपरमात्, because the festivities have stopped. The house is not neglected. Nobody is celebrating in it.
uncheckedthe reader's reading, following Mallinātha's gloss; the reach of एभिः back to तोरण, the Kāśikā for साधु, the ruling that the singular of द्वारोपान्ते is not intended, the naming of Śaṅkha and Padma as treasures with Amara behind it, the classification of अधुना as a निपात, the cause उत्सवोपरमात्, the supplied सति, and the closing simile of the sunless lotus are all his. That the fourth pāda is a maxim brought in to support a guess, and that he names no figure for it where he had just named one for the five stanzas before, is the reader's“tathāhi | sūryāpāye sati kamalaṃ padmaṃ svām ātmīyām abhikhyāṃ śobhām … na puṣyati nopacinoti khalu | sūryavirahitaṃ padmam iva pativirahitaṃ gṛhaṃ na śobhata ityarthaḥ”
By these marks, good sir — keep them by heart — and by the conch and the lotus drawn one on each side of the door, you are to recognise it: the house whose brightness has gone thin, now, surely, because I am away. A lotus, once the sun is gone, does not keep its own glow. एभिः gathers the five stanzas of tokens before it; लक्षयेथाः is an optative, 'you should make certain' (निश्चिनुयाः), not an order, and it holds to the end of its clause after the three accusatives it governs. Mallinātha supplies सति to turn सूर्यापाये into a locative absolute, 'the sun being gone', which makes the last line a rule and not an hour; and he gives क्षामच्छाय a cause the verse withholds — उत्सवोपरमात्, 'because the festivities have stopped'. The house is not neglected; nobody is holding a party in it.
- Mallinātha, Sañjīvinī — 2.20, whole-verse gloss; kṣāmacchāyaṃ … utsavoparamāt kṣīṇakānti; sūryāpāye sati