127

ART. VIII.—The Niti-manjarl of By a Dvweda. By A. B. KEITH, Boden Scholar and Scholar of Balliol. 1 HATING procured three manuscripts of this work, I at first proposed to edit the text. But in going through the work for that purpose I soon found that Professor Kielhorn was right in supposing it to be too dependent on Sayana to deserve publication in full. Under these circumstances Professor Macdonell suggested to me that I should collect all that was of interest in the work. This I have here attempted to do. The manuscripts at my disposal for the task were the following:—(A) A copy presented by Professor Kielhorn to the University Library at Gottingen,2 and containing all the eight Astakas, was copied in 1869 from a codex of 1778 A.D. ; {B) India Office Library, No. 1,649, which Professor Eggeling tells me dates probably from about 1750 A.D. It contains only Astakas 1-4. The third MS., India Office Library, No. 966, dating from about 1650, consists of two parts — (C) containing Astakas 3-5 ; and (D) containing Astakas 2, 5, 6, 7 (2 and 6 being frag- mentary). All these MSS., representing the same recension of the text, are very closely related ; A and B, however, frequently agree in exhibiting errors from which C or D is exempt. The only other MS. in Europe belongs to Professor Max Miiller, though at least nine or ten MSS. of the work are known in India.

1 The Niti-manjarl has already been treated of by Professor Kielhorn in the Indian Antiquary, v, 116 ; by Professor Peterson in his Second Report, 1883-4, p. 8; and in correction of this account by Professor Kielhorn in the Gbttinger Nachrichten, 1891, p. 181 sq. * See Indian Antiquary, v, 116. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 128 THE NITI-MANJARI OF DYA DVIVEDA.

All our information regarding the author is derived from the writer himself. He was the son of Laksmldhara and Laksmi. His paternal grandfather was Atri, son of Mukunda Dviveda, and belonged to the house of Mukunda, according to the j introductory verse of the sixth Astaka. Two of the MSS. j (0 and D) begin Astaka 5 with a verse in which the author j styles himself Mahodadarbhakulajah.1 This family is not otherwise known, and in any case the genuineness of the verse may be suspected, as A has a quite different version. Under these circumstances little can be said for the attempt to bring the author of the Niti-manjari into local connection with IJata, the commentator on the Pratisakhyas of the Rig- and the White Yajur-veda. As to his exact name there is a slight divergency in the MSS. In the actual text he is named once Dya Dvivedah, once Dya Dvivedakah, and often simply Dya. On the other hand, in the concluding notices of the MS. C to Astakas 3, 4, 5, and of D to Astakas 2, 5, 6, he is styled Dya Dvivedi. These, however, differ from the corresponding notices in A and B, and we may fairly conclude from the analogy of Mukunda Dviveda that the correct form of the name was Dya Dviveda. To what two his family devoted itself cannot be gathered from the Niti-manjari. Nor is there any information as to what his position in life was. It is true that the MSS. do give us some choice of epithets like yuvan, sattrayajvan; but as they are not in agreement upon the matter, they evidently are not following any tradition, but are merely guessing. Dya appears to apply the title Niti-manjari to the com- mentary as well as the text of his work, for the MSS. offer us not only Nitimanjaribhasyam but also Nitimanjaryakhyam bhasyam; but he seems to have meant to distinguish the commentary from the text by the title of Vedarthuprakaka, as appears from the phrase Nitimanjaribhasye vedarthaprakase nitivakhyani vy&khydtdni. He doubtless borrows the title from that of Sayana's commentaries on the Vedas.

1 The preface to Astaka i in A, J3, C calls him Madodakulajah, and in Astaka 5 C has only darbhakulajah. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 THE NITI-MANJAKI OP DYA DVIVBDA. 129

The work consists of some 170 slokas, of which eight or nine are prefatory, distributed among eight Astakcts. The first contains 50 verses, the second and third 16 apiece, the fourth has 22, the fifth, sixth, and eighth 19, while the seventh has but 9. The plan of the work is simple. While the first half of each sloka contains a maxim of common-sense morality, the latter half adduces a parallel from the . This reference is explained at length in the commentary, which, like the work itself, is the composition of Dya. In this process the commentary proceeds on fixed lines. First come a few words of explanation of the actual text, which, however, are often omitted by one or more of the MSS. ; then follows the Rigvedic verse, accompanied by a legend either in prose or verse; finally, a more or less complete comment on the ric Each Astaka of course corresponds strictly to the like division of the Samhita, and the verses follow the order of the Vedic text. This rule causes some com- plications in the not unfrequent cases when the poet tries to better his statement by quoting two examples. The commentary on one of these must then be looked for later on, but always in the same Astaka. For example, i, 34, reads :—

Samrddhim sdrthikim kurydt supakdrena satyavdn Vaimadyd, Jdhusdj jatam Ndsatyano hi sdrthikam.

The case of Vaimadi (Rigveda, I. 116, 1) is immediately disposed of, but Jahusa (I. 116, 20) has to wait till after v. 46. This transparent regularity of order cannot, however, be attributed to any artistic sense on Dya's part. He simply adopted it as being the easiest way of writing. His only merit, if merit it be, is ingenuity; it is certainly surprising that he can manage to extract so many rules of conduct from the Rigveda. But the process of extraction is painful, and the resultant morality is worth so little that we may charitably hope it is not on a level with the theory Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge.r.K.A.s Core .terms 1900 of. use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. 9 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 130 THE NITI-MANJAKI OF DYA DVITEDA.

of the author's day. If, however, Dya adds nothing to our knowledge of ethics, he adds little more to our knowledge of mythology. As we shall see, all in the work that is his own is represented by the slokas and a few words of the commentary. These facts combine to make the work a very dull one, and to render its publication quite needless, especially as a specimen of it has already been given by Professor Kielhorn in the Indian Antiquary (vol. v, p. 116). The verses are written with sufficient care and correctness, but are stiff and, as was inevitable, lifeless. Dya does not use a single rare word, though naturally his subject forces him to employ a few Vedic technical terms. Nor has he any recherche constructions, though he employs the aorist and the perfect more frequently than is usual in so late an author. One use, which is repeated six or seven times, and is confirmed by all the MSS. I have collated, is to write a sentence like tam Indram iti matva. Such a practice, however, goes a good way in proving that the writer lived at a time when Sanskrit was merely a scholastic tradition. The attraction is indeed not very unnatural, but it seems to have been strictly avoided in classical Sanskrit. On the other hand, Dya is usually very exact in Sandhi. A misconception as to the date of the work has perhaps attracted to it more interest than it could otherwise have claimed. The late Professor Peterson, in his notice of an Ulwar MS.1 of the work,2 stated that this codex bore the date of 1st day of the light-half of the month Magha, Samvat 1110, i.e. 1054 A.D. Had this been a possible date for the work, it would have been of great value, as giving a pre-Sayana commentary on 180 verses of the Rigveda. Unhappily internal evidence proves conclusively that the manuscript is wrongly dated, and that Professor Kielhorn3 is correct in holding that the work is subsequent to Sayana. Though Dya usually borrows in silence, and never mentions Sayana's name, he four times heads an extract from him

1 No. 4,183 in Ms Catalogue. * Report for 1883-4, p. 8. 3 Gottinger Nachrichtm, 1891, p. 181 ; Indian Antiquary, vol. v, p. 116. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 r

THE OTTI-MANJAEl OF DYA DVIVEDA. 131

with. Atha Bhasye. The passages are (1) his comment on Rigveda I. 20, 6, where he quotes the Bhasya on I. 116, 1; (2) on Rigveda I. 53, 1; (3) on I. 116, 3;' (4) on X. 28, 1. This direct proof, taken in conjunction with the fact that •every comment on a Vedic verse is a direct copy from Sayana, can leave no possible doubt as to his date being later than that of Sayana. That 1054 A.D. could not stand, would also be proved by his references to the Cdrucarya and the Anukramanibhasya, which will be noted below. Thus we have got as his earliest date the end of the fourteenth century, Sayana having died in 1387 A.D.1 But we may fairly suppose that it was some time before Sayana's commentary won such a position that an intending author should be contented with wholesale copying. Thus we may take 1450 A.D. as an upper terminus. On the other side we have no evidence save that of the probable date of our MSS. As already stated, Professor Eggeling is inclined to refer MS. D to about the middle of the seventeenth century. One or more of the Indian MSS. may be older; but with our present evidence we must be content to refer Dya Dviveda to the period between 1450-1600 A.D. ' So late a work can of course interest students of Sanskrit Literature and Mythology only in so far as it preserves ancient material which has not otherwise been handed down, or affords assistance in fixing the text of extant works. For the former purpose the NUi-manjari is practically worthless. Its most considerable contribution is a variant of the difficult story of Saranyu and Vivasvat, alluded to in Rigveda X. 17, 1 sq.; but even this seems merely to be a prose version of the Brhad-devata account, which he has quoted on Rigveda I. 116, 7, and here refers to. If this view be correct, and that it is so will, I think, be evident from a comparison of the two versions, which are given in full in Max Miiller's Rigveda, vol. iv, p. 5, then all the legends quoted are directly derived from either Sayana's commentary or the Brhad-devata. The comments on the Vedic verses come,

1 Cf. Burnell, Vamia-Brahmana, Pref., p. viii. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 132 THE NITI-MANJARI OF DYA DVIVEDA.

•with but few exceptions, straight from Sayana, quotations from whom thus form a proportion of between two-thirds and three-fourths of the whole work. It remains for us to give a list of quotations, together with some remarks on their value for textual criticism. The verses of the Rigveda cited are the following :—I. 1. 1, 6,9; 4.6,7; 10. 2; 11. 5; 18. 1; 20. 4, 6 ; 24.1; 30.16; 32.11; 33. 5 ; 35. 9 ; 45. 3 ; 51.1, 13 ; 53.1; 54. 6; 58.1; 61. 15 ; 62. 3; 84.13,14; 85.10,11; 97.1; 101. 8 ; 103. 8 ; 104. 6; 105.17; 110. 4, 8 ; 114. 6; 115.1 ; 116. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12,13,14, 15,16,17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 ; 117. 6, 7, 8 ; 122. 5 ; 125. 7 ; 126. 6, 7 ; 147. 3 ; 158. 5, 6 ; 161. 6; 162. 9 ; 170. 1; 179. 1; 182. 3. II. 12. 1; 14. 6 ; 28. 9. III. 17. 4; 31. 6 ; 33. 1, 5, 10 ; 53. 4, 14. IV. 16. 10; 18. 13 ; 24. 9, 10 ; 25. 4, 7 ; 26. 1; 27. 1; 42. 8. V. 2. 9 ; 30. 15; 34. 3, 9; 61. 1, 6, 8, 17, 19; 78. 5. VI. 3. 2; 27. 4, 5, 8; 45. 31; 49. 20, 22; 52. 1 ; 53. 3, 5 ; 75. 1. VII. 1. 23 ; 6. 3; 11. 2 ; 32. 26 ; 33. 2 ; 55. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 72. 2; 95. 2; 103. 10; 104. 15, 16. VIII. 1. 34; 2. 19, 20; 14. 12; 18. 14; 19. 5, 6, 36, 37; 21. 18; 33. 19; 46. 12; 56. 3; 61. 11; 62. 12; 64. 2 ; 66. 16; 67. 5 ; 77. 10 ; 91. 7 ; 95. 7 ; 96. 13 ; 97. 2; 100.12 ; 102. 19, 22. X. 8. 8 ; 10. 11, 12; 11. 3; 27. 1; 28. 1; 33. 7; 38. 5; 44. 4; 47. 1; 48. 1; 51. 8; 57. 1; 60. 12; 61. 8; 62. 1, 8; 95. 14, 15 ; 102. 9 ; 107. 8; 108. 9,10,11; 109. 6; 117. 6; 145. 2; 156.1; 191.1, 4; while V. 40. 9, VIII. 1. 6, 43.16, IX. 85. 8, are quoted out of place. The most interesting point in this regard is the fact that MS. A substitutes a different ending for one verse (X. 102. 9: pradhane jigaya). From the Brhad-devatd a good many legends are borrowed, in all some 180 slokas, corresponding to I. 2; III. 141-9, 155 sq.; IV. 1, 2, 11-15, 21-5, 41-50, 62-6, 99, 111, 126; V. 13-22, 32-5, 49-77, 95-101, 110-126, 128-138; VI. 11-14, 28, 35-8, 51-62, 80, 100-111, 163 sq.; VII. 43-8, 63-75, 86, 94-6, 148-156, in Rajendra Lala Mitra's edition in the Bibliotheca Indica. The text presented by the MSS. of the Niti-manjarl is certainly superior in some points to that printed in the edition. Its absolute value will be better Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 r~

THE NITI-MANJAEI OF DYA DVIVEDA. 133

understood after the appearance of Professor Macdonell's critical edition, which will make use of this material. The borrowing from Sayana is done carelessly: alternative renderings are usually omitted; difficult grammatical remarks are left out, or merely alluded to so briefly as to be un- intelligible without Sayana's text. Many of the passages quoted at length in Sayana are merely referred to by the first few words, or are reduced to simplicity by the easy process of omitting all that is difficult. All this renders it very hard to discover which of the three classes of MSS. distinguished by Max Miiller1 is his guide. The evidence on the whole points to his having adopted an eclectic method, usually with unfortunate results. At any rate, in difficult passages the printed text has almost invariably a much better reading. When we subtract from the total of quotations in the Niti-manjarl those passages which are simply borrowed from Sayana's commentary, we have very little left, and that little is of no importance. Yaska's name is frequently mentioned, but usually reflects the ' Niruktam' of Say ana's Bhasya. Independent quotations are only for the meaning of a single word : Sakapuni is once quoted from Yaska. Of the supplementary Vedic works he cites Saunaka's Riglaksana, Vaidikalaksana, and Anuvakanukmmanl once •each on Rigveda I. 1. 1. The Valakhilya Anukramanl is also once quoted on Rigveda VIII. 56. 3. More important than these, as bearing on the date of the work, are the three quotations from the Anukramanibhasyakara, Sadgurusisya, who composed his work, according to the date he himself gives, in 1184.2 They are on Rigveda I. 24. 1, 147. 3; VIII. 1. 34.3 Further, the Sarvanukramani itself is twice independently quoted.4 The only work of this class, how- ever, with which Dya was really well acquainted, is the

1 Rigveda, I. xviii sq. 3 Biihler, Indische Palaeographle, p. 82; Kielhorn, Gottinger Nachrichten, 1891, p. 182. 3 Cl Macdonell's edition, pp. 84, 127li , 134. 4 Preface, i, 14, and on Rigveda I".. .53. 1. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 134 THE NITI-MANJARI OK DYA DVIVEDA.

Rigvidhdna, which on the other hand Sayana very seldom quotes. The passages quoted1 are all verifiable, with only slight variation of text, in R. Meyer's edition. The Nighantuh is referred to on RV. I. 161. 6. The remaining quotations may conveniently be divided into two classes, the Vedic and the Classical. Of the former very few are left when we subtract those due to Sayana directly; some certainly, and possibly all, come from comments of Sayana on verses not referred to in the Niti- manjari. All references to sutram are to Asvalayana's Srauta-Sutra as given in Sayana. In commenting on RV. I. 126. 6, 7, a maxim from the Karmapradtpa is quoted. The Tdndya or Pancavimsa Brahmana is thrice alluded to, for the stories of Vrsa (RV., V. 2. 9), Trisiras (X. 8. 1), and Kutsa (X. 48. 5). The Kaufitaki Brahmana is quoted as an authority for the story of Kavasa, the seer of Rigveda X. 30-34, who, rejected as a slave's son by the Risis, found comfort in Sarasvati, and to explain the epithet 'Bharata' used of . The Satapatha Brahmana is referred to for the story of Dadhyan Atharvanah (RV., I. 116. 12), for Trisiras (RV., X. 8. 1); from it, in illustration of RV. VI. 27. 8, X. 17. 1 respectively, are cited the maxims, aparam vai rajyam param samrdjyam and ardho ha vai esa dtinano yaj j'dyd. A vague reference to Brahmana generally is made for the story of Dlrghatamas (RV., I. 158. 6), for the debt of sacrifice due to the Gods (ib., 162. 9), and for the phrase somo vai paldsah. The Grhya Sutra of Asvalayana is alluded to in the comments on RV. I. 115. 1, IV. 25. 7, VIII. 91. 7. From the , that is, probably from a Sutra of that Veda, comes the phrase, yo vai diksi- tdndm pdpam klrtayati, tritiyam esdm pdpmano harati. The TJpanisads are represented by a quotation anent , Set yakcayam akarlrah prqjndtmd, yakedsdv Aditya ekam etad, and a few words from the conversation of Pratardana and

1 On RV. I. 1. 1, 26. 1, 97. 1, 115. 1; II. 12. 1; III. 33. 1, 5, 53. 1, 14; IV. 25. 1; V. 2. 9, 78. 5; VI. 75. 1; VII. 1. 23, 55. 1 eq. ; VIII. 21. 18, 91. 1, 95. 7; X. 9. 1, 155. 1. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 THE Nm-MANJARI OF DYA DVIVBDA. 135

Indra concerning .1 The Oobhila Grhya Sutra (III. 5. 3) is once cited. If the Vedic knowledge of the author was sufficiently small in quantity and quality, no better account can be given of his knowledge of classical literature. He only cites seven works in all, and none with any frequency, Manu is cited twice to prove that a Brahman may take from whatever caste he please;2 and for the tale of Bharadvaja and Bribu (10. 107 sq.) Yajnavalkya contributes the maxims yatrdnukulyam dampatyos trivargas tatra vardhate and na stenah sydn na vardhusi. A list of synonyms for is cited from Amara : Sutrdmd, Gotrabhid, Vajri, Vdsavo, Vrtraha, Vrsd. From the ' Atmawitti' the fundamental doctrine of the Yedanta is enunciated: Andtmabhute dehdddv dtmabuddhis tu dehindm. Hari (i.e. Visnu), according to MS. A in the Visnu- Purdna, is cited as propounding an Indian parallel to the proverb " God helps those who help themselves," in this form :— Parihdya nijam karma, Krsna Krsneti vadinah Maddrohino 'pi tejneyd, yatah karmamayo hy aham. Varndsramdcdravatd purusena parah pumdn Visnur drddhyate, panthd ndnyas tattosakdrakah. The Bhagavat (i.e. the Bhagavadgitd) is quoted for the following opinions:— Sreydn svadharmo viguno paradharmdt svanusthitdt? Istdn bhogdn hi vo devd ddsyante yajnabhdvitdh, Tair dattdn apraddyaibhyo yo bhuhkte stena eva sah.* Four citations are made from a more modern work, the Cdrncarya:— Na svaklyastutipadair gldnim gunam gunam nayet, Svagunastutivddena Yaydtir apatad divah.

1 The former reference is not in Jacob's Concordance; the latter is Kaufitaky Upanitad, 3. 1. 8 The passage is not in our text of Manu. 8 Bhagavadgita, iii, 35. « Ib., iii, 12. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337 I 136 THE JSriTI-MAtfjARI OF DYA DYIVEDA. \

Satyoktyd bahavo yatdh svargam sarvajanavrtah. Asatdm sahgadosena sddhavo ydnti vikriyam, Duryodhanaprasahgena Bhlsmo goharanam gatah. Mithydpavadabhahgesu yatnam kurydd vwaksanah Krsno 'pi ratnani dniya yaduvarge sukhl bhavat.

This is probably the Cdrucarya of Ksemendra, the Kashmirian poet of the eleventh century, whose voluminous works have been made known to us by Biihler's and Peterson's Reports. Finally, we may add that while the author is content to cite Panmi only where Sayana has already done so, he quotes with great freedom the Migveda-Prdtikdkhya for the simplest details of sandhi, such as the use of the lingual n and s; but as usual his quotations are inaccurate.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. La Trobe University, on 03 May 2018 at 18:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00027337