Art. VIII.—The Nīti-Mañjarī of Dyā Dviveda
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
127 ART. VIII.—The Niti-manjarl of By a Dvweda. By A. B. KEITH, Boden Sanskrit 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 Vedas 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 Rigveda. 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.