Do You Speak Sanskrit On A Class Of Sanskrit Texts Composed In Late Middle Ages

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269644/1

Page #1

CHAPTER FOURTEEN
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT? ON A CLASS OF SANSKRIT TEXTS COMPOSED
IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES
A. Wezler
1. In 1960 appeared-as No. 4 of The Maharaja Sayajirao University Oriental Series of the Oriental Institute, Baroda--a booklet of only 38 + 86 pages entitled Girvanapadamasjari and Girvanavārmañjari. According to the information given on the reverse of the title page it is "reprinted from the Journal of the Oriental Institute." The editor of these two short Sanskrit texts, and author of the "Introduction which is in fact only appended to the texts themselves.is Umakant Pre. manand Shah. In publishing them, however, he but took up, and carried out, a suggestion of P. K. (=Parashuram Krishna) Gode's, as is quite frankly stated by Shah himself. It is hence Gode to whom the credit goes for having first drawn attention to these texts and for having rec. ognized their importance, though mainly in terms of their cultural and historical significance only.
Of the two texts the first one, the Girvanapadamarlari (GPM), was composed by Varadaraja, the well-known author of the Madhya-, Laghu- and Sara-Siddhantakaumudi, i.e. "a medium, short and supershort version"-to use Cardona's (1976:287) apt rendering-of the Siddhantakaumudi of the famous grammarian Bhattoji Diksita, who was also his guru. Varadaraja "may be assigned to ca. 1600-1650
Viz. the Text" as "Supplement to Jol Baroda VII (1957-1958) and the Introduc tion" as "Supplement to Jol Baroda VIII (1958-1959) and IX (1959-1960), respectively Note that these supplements are not (normally) bound together with the journal in one vol ume
Shah 1960:4; cf. also Gode 1956:170. C. Gode 1941 [1954, in particular 195F (3241

Page #2

328
A. WEZLER
A.D." As usual, i.e. as in most other cases in the history of Indian literature, practically nothing is known about the author's life, etc."
The second text, viz. the Girvanavanmañjari (GVM), was in its turn composed by a certain Dhundiraja (alias Dhundiräja)-one of the 35 authors of this name listed in the New Catalogus Catalogorum. His date is also discussed by Gode who assigns this work to ca. 1702-1704. Shah flatly states that "the GVM is an imitation of the GPM," but "as a literary composition" he regards it as superior to the latter. The GPM is quite aptly described in the India Office MSS Catalogue' as "being courses of elementary conversational questions and answers on everyday occurrences, on literary, devotional and other subjects."
As far as I can see, the publication of these two previously unedited texts has almost totally been ignored by Sanskrit scholars. "That is to say, the GPM and the GVM have drowned in the growing, and indeed really terrifying, mass of new books appearing year after year. Yet I for one don't at all think that they in fact deserve this fate; but my own earlier attempt at drawing attention to them "has evidently not been successful. As for the GVM, however, the situation has changed for the better, though only quite recently; for Madhav M. Deshpande's book of 1993 on Sanskrit & Prakrit Sociolinguistic Issues contains a chapter "On Vernacular Sanskrit: The Girvanavanmañjarī of Dhundiraja Kavi," published in his book for the first time. Yet I shall have to refer to his findings not before the third part of the present paper.
According to Shah (1960:1) both texts were "composed with a view to teach Sanskrit by Direct Method... in the form of dialogues (uktipratyuktibhiḥ)." He feels "reminded of the Ukti-Vyakti-Prakarana of Pandit Damodara" of Varanasi also insofar as in both, the GPM and the
Quoted from Shah 1960: 1; cf. Cardona 1976.286 (the reference to "Gode 1950" is not clear to me).
3 For the little that is known cf. Gode 1941.
4
Viz. Vol. VIII, 10ff., i.e. s.v. Dhundhi /Dhundirāja
Shah 1960:5; but cf. Gude 1941:189 n. 711954:317 n. 3].
*Shah 1960:5; for the reasons cf. also Gode 1941.
1904: 1574, Ms. No. 4108.
"I know of just one review, viz. by V. S. Agravala, published in JOI, Baroda X (19611962) 3271, but the article of R. Salomon (1982) is another of the very few exceptions.
Cf. Wezler 1985.
See p. 5.
329
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
GVM, too, "the scene is laid in Banaras," and hence assumes that "all three texts preserve for us the direct method of teaching Sanskrit in Banaras, the great centre of Hindu culture and Sanskrit learning." "Both the texts," he says a little later (1960:7), "are written in a simple language, the main object being to acquaint a student with Sanskrit composition," but in the sentence next but one he contends that they "are originally meant for teaching Sanskrit," and at the end of his "Introduction" (1960:86) he states by way of summary that "the GVM and the GPM are, on a very modest scale, works meant for those who wish to obtain proficiency in reading, writing and speaking in Sanskrit." Already Rajendralal Mitra had described the GPM as "an elementary grammar of Sanskrit language, in the form of a dialogue interspersed with moral tales" and Gode, on his part, had, apparently elaborating the notion "elementary grammar," classified it as "a Sanskrit conversational grammar," meant "to enable junior students of Sanskrit to pick up the language quickly without frightening them with dry grammatical forms.""
D
Shah's own description of the character, or rather purpose, of the two texts is slightly self-contradictory and especially when taken together with those of Rajendralal Mitra and Gode-puzzling to such an extent that it seems imperative to do what we could, or perhaps even ought to, have done right at the beginning, viz. look for relevant statements by the authors, Varadaraja and Dhundiraja, themselves. The usual bow to Ganesa apart, the first sentence of the GPM reads as follows:
kevalavaidikānam vyavahärärtham katipayasamskṛtapadani maya vilikhyante
I am going to write some words (ie. a few lines/a short text) in Sanskrit for the vyavahara of people who are only vaidika s (i.e. know, or are supposed to know-but not necessarily also understand-those Vedic
Cf. Gode 1941:195 (1954:324).
Ibidem.
One of the MSS. used by Shah for his edition omits this phrase; cf. Shah 1960
("Text"):1.

Page #3

330
A. WEZLER
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
mantras which are obligatory for the performance of religious cere
monies like the upanayana, marriage, etc.). This is evidently a much clearer statement: The specific 'target group is named and the aim to be achieved by the work is given with equal clarity; for vyavahāra cannot but be used here in the sense of 'communicative activity the emphasis lying-rightly, as of old in India" on the verbal aspect. Varadarāja's intention is hence expressly to provide a means for the active use of the Sanskrit language by brahmins who have some knowledge only of the Vedic form of Old Indian. It should be noted, though in passing only, that the expression samskrta seems to be used here in exactly the same manner as in the West, viz. to denote the 'classical form of this language as opposed to and insofar as it is to be distinguished from the older Vedic Sanskrit
This introductory statement of the GPM is echoed, as it were, in its concluding verse which reads
krå varadabhattena girvanapadamanījari /
ganesapr i taye caiva vaidikapri raye bhavet (in which the addition of God Ganesa among those the author wants to delight by his work may be taken to express his hope that it will spread over a large area to be studied by many without tears)."
Dhundiraja's statement of his aim is much more detailed; for apart from the first half of the first verse, in the särdülavikridita metre, all the ärambhaslokas without exception are meant to reveal the purpose of his GVM. For they read thus:
kasisthena hi dhundirajakavina girvanavärmafjari bilinim sukhabodhanaya racita samsodhaniya budhaih! kevalam vaidikanam tu sabdăbdhim atidustaram svalpyasena santartum nirmitā taranir drdha sabdalingavibhaktyádi kartkarmakriyavyayam
nanapadärthasamjitärtham anaya budhyate 'khitam For the poet writer Dhundiraja, who lives in Varanasi, has composed the GVM --which is to be can be corrected by the learned-for the easy understanding of beginners.
But (thus) a firm (i.e. reliable) boat has been made by which (those who are only vaidika (brahmins) are able with little effort to successfully cross over the ocean of words that otherwise is ex tremely difficult to cross.
Nouns, their gender, case endings, etc., the karakas) agent, direct object, (the verbs and indeclinables become fully intelligible by
this GVM) so that various matters (padithas) become clear Which padärthas the author has in mind he explains in the last two of his introductory verses:
pratar irabhya vidusä kartavyam karma yad bhavet / uktam asayaparyantam asti yar kramado 'khilam uktipratyuktibhih kiricit stripurbhyam và vinodatah 1 grhakrtyavidhau sarvam vaksyamanam udiryate The duties to be observed by an educated man (ie, a brahmin), starting from the morning right till the evening, are completely taught in accordance with the sequence of their performancel part of it in dialogues, and (what is done by husband and wife as a diversion / when amusing themselves. Whatever calls for instruction regarding the rules about
household matters is stated in the GVM). This shows that Dhundirāja is not only much more explicit than Varadarāja, but that he also pursues a second didactic aim: In addition to leading 'beginners' to an easy understanding of, nay to mastery of Sanskrit, the language of the gods which necessarily includes its active use--he wishes to instruct as regards the daily duties of a brahmin and similar household matters, and significantly, he even touches on the topic of love-making, i.e. the GVM ends, as Shah (1960:5) remarks, "in the climax of srngära, with the happy union of the Brāhmana householder and his wife-a romantic end (for a Brāhmana on a parva day) in a work which is professed to have been composed as a primer of Sanskrit for bālas (bälänām sukhabodhaya (sic!);" the exclamation
"As was pointed out to me by Ashok Aklujkar, vaidika brahmins are not srotriyas, and can, at this point of time, not any longer be considered as "well-versed in the Vedas" (as V. S. Apte (1957) characterises them).
Cr Wezler 1994-Note, however, that Varadaraja himself professes that he *writes
Shah 1960 ("Text"): 18.
CI, however, Gode 1941:196 [1954:325) who asks whether it is possible to suppose that Ganea was the name of VR's father and Durga the name of VR's grandmother."
Shah 1960 ("Text"):19.
The particle hi does not, however, seem to have a real semantic function here Cl, the preverb sam da is an emendation (by the editor) of di- attested in all the MSS.
In later Sanskrit, e.g. Navyanyāya texts, the passive participle of the future is often used in a sense similar to that of the gerund
This is after all the literary meaning of girvanavini/vic

Page #4

332
A. WEZLER
35
mark Shah puts at the end of this sentence is a clear signal of his indignation, flowing from the well-known 'modern', i.e. Victorian, Indian prudishness; one has the impression that he is undecided only insofar as he does not know what is worse, sex between a brahmanical husband and his wife at the end of a parvan-day-i.e. a day of full moon or new moon on which a particular ritual has to be performed by the couple throughout their lives which includes inviting samnyasins and (other) brahmanas for dinner, and a day further on which one should give up sexual intercourse as well as oil and meat according to the Sastra-or the fact that sexual intercourse is at all referred to in a text meant for boys. In reality, however, Shah's indignation is not justified, at least not in the latter case; for clearly, the expression bâla is not used here to denote a male person who is biologically not yet mature, but a vaidika, i.e. a man of uncertain age who has learned by heart at least a number of Vedic mantras and knows how to perform certain important rituals. And it is this special 'target group' which the GVM has in common with the GPM-a remarkable fact to which we shall have to return later.
2. Shah (1960:3) correctly observes that "manuscripts of both works are not rare" and that "they seem to have been popular in Northern and Western India within a century of their composition"; but he fails to note that there are also more works of this type. Two of these other works "I should like to present here, viz. texts manuscripts of which happened to arrest my attention more than 20 years ago when they were put on my desk (I was working at that time for the "Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project" in the National Archives of Nepal at Kathmandu). Already at that time it occurred to me that they should be made accessible to scholars, perhaps even in critical editions, and I hope that the 'Introduction into Spoken Sanskrit', the publication of which I announced long ago and which will contain these texts, too, will now definitely appear in the near future.
Cf. eg. Gonda 1980:179, 244 and 349.
* Cf. History Dharmasastra V, 1:221. Note that Apte (1957) knows a compound par vagamin, "one who has sexual intercourse with his wife at particular times or occasions when such intercourse is prohibited by the sastras."
.
For still others see Madhav M. Deshpande 1993a:37f
333
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
The first of these two works bears, according to the colophons, the title Samskṛtatattvabodhini (STB); it was composed by a certain Vamadeva Misra about whom I have been unable so far to find any information. It is basically a story about a brahmin, Devadattaŝarman, and his extraordinarily gifted son, Gopībhattaśarman, who is also his pupil. They live in Višălă, i.e. Ujjayini or the modern Besäḍ in Bihar." One day the father takes his son to the 'royal assembly' (rajasabha) where the young man gives so convincing and astonishing evidence of his Sanskrit erudition that the king spontaneously decides to entrust his father with the education of his own son, prince Candradhvajavarman. Out of deep respect for the learned brahmin the prince then comes every day-except, of course, those days on which teaching is prohibited"-to the house of Devadattaŝarman. The narration of the education the prince is given is interrupted, as it were, by a detailed description of the invitation of brahmins and svamins to Devadattasarman's place on the occasion of a parvan-day: An account is given of the preparations of the arrival and reception of the guests, of the meal with its many courses and of the conversation between the svamins and their host. After the departure of the ascetics one of the brahmanical neighbours, Mahadevabhatta, starts a conversation mainly with his host's son which, however, before long assumes the character of a veritable examination; that part of the 'curriculum' which Gopībhattasarman still has to cover is outlined and finally he is given the opportunity to show his extraordinary capacities as an extempore poet (samasyapūraṇa etc.) The observation that he is not yet married quite naturally leads to the discussion of the suitability of a brahmin girl from Pațaliputra as bride. The arrival of prince Candradhvaja who comes for his daily class prompts the brahmanical guests who had stayed behind to take leave in
Dr. S. Ramaratnam, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Vivekananda College, Madras, was kind enough to check the entries under Vämadeva Misra" in the manuscript of the relevant, yet still unpublished volume of "New Catalogus Catalogorum," but could not find a Samskṛtatattvabodhini among the texts written by various Vamadeva Mišras. -Internal evidence in the STB seems to point to the 18th or 19th century as the date of its composi
tion.
Quite oddly, in the body of the text itself the city clearly referred to is Värāṇasi! I don't know how to explain this striking contradiction. Did Vämadeva Misra-like the author of a roman à clef want to veil the identity of persons he mentions? 34 Cf. e.g. Balbir 1990: especially 50ff.

Page #5

334
A. WEZLER
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
335
their turn. The reader is informed about the subjects the prince is being taught-evidently for quite some years now—which reach from the Prakriyakaumudi down to the Kanādaśāstra. Then the guru declares his education to be complete. When the king has convinced himself, through his own questioning, in fact examining, of his son, that the brahmin has surpassed the hopes set on him as a de-facto rajopadhyāya. he secretly orders various gifts to be fetched and then to be presented to him by the prince. This gurudaksină consists in various animals an ele. phant, horses, cows), jewellery, goll, coins, a house and land, clothes, and even Gopibhatta is given some presents. The return of father and son to their place hence becomes a veritable procession, accompanied as they are by the prince and his retinue. "Rescued from the ocean of poverty," as they now were thanks to the generosity of the king. Devadattaśarman and Gopibhattašarman henceforth lived happily.
In his introductory verse Vāmadeva Misra also discloses his aim in composing the STB, viz. by stating
vinsipi kurve bahubhih prayisair girvantipunan kisorin I shall inake youngsters familiar with/proficient in the language of the
gods (ie. Sanskrit) without much effort. Quite evidently his expression kisora is used here as a synonym of bala which is quite common in the text itself. Since it is first of all Gopibhatta who is referred to by it, there cannot be any doubt that bala denotes a young man, not yet married, but a husband-to-be.
No similar statement is found in the verses at the beginning of the second text I should now like to deal with briefly. The text is entitled Varasamskrtama jari in the second of the three drambhaslokas, but only Samskrtamañjari (SM) in the colophons. The author calls himself "son of Makarandasüri" (Srimakarandasurisūnu) "and declares that he has been entreated to compose his work-by his beloved one. He
further says that the work consists of three parts, i.e. "flowers (kusuma), and that he resides near the gate of the city of the destroyer of strongholds" which could be a periphrasis for Värānasi (puraharasya pure puragopure), but most probably refers to Deopatan (now a part of Kathmandu).
But in the body of the text itself, viz. at the very outset of the prose text preceded by the three verses just mentioned, a relevant statement is found: significantly however it forms an integral part of the story itsell A young man, a poet' (kavi), whose name is to be disclosed only later, is again and again requested by his priyatam.. while he is sitting with her at a window on the upper story of a temple-to teach her "the language of the gods' (girvanavāni): willing to comply with her wish he asks her the name of her father and similar matters, pretending that he does not already know the answers. She answers in Sanskrit, and in the course of this conversation tells him that she has learned "the Amara. koša, etc., from her father, together with the youngest of her brothers, and that she should like her husband to teach her brother the Vyakaranasastra. What she actually says is: tasya buddhih samicini vartate / tasmai vyākaranaśāstram tvaya pathyatam, "he is very intelligent, thou shouldst teach him grammar," whereupon he replies: re mürkhe, tvaya ity ekavacanam asmäsu kimartham prayurkse, "you stupid girl, why do you use the singular thou' with reference to us (ie. me)?" She apologizes and admits that she does not know how many numbers there are and when which of them has to be used. What then follows is Sanskrit morphology presented as dryly as imaginable; the case affixes are enumerated as they have metalinguistically been named by Panini, i.e. together with their 'markers' (anubandhas); paradigmata of the nominal and pronominal declensions are given, some of the car dinal numbers are taught, etc., etc. In short, as the young lady herself states at the beginning of the second chapter" ("Power"), she is taught the "knowledge of the case endings" (vibhaktijnana), "of the genders" (lingajñāna) and of the numbers" (vacanajñāna), and in some detail at that (vistarena). It is, however, this second chapter which really makes up for the hard task of reading practically only paradigmata of Sanskrit declensions. For this is not just, as indicated by its title, a chapter on the
In one of the MSS. this title is also given to the GPM; cf. Shah 1960:
3 2 According to what he tells about himself, and his descent, in the concluding verses his name was Sivasarman, he was the youngest of three sons, and a muni. It seems that the SM was composed by him during the reign of the eldest son of Pithivinarayana Saha who conquered Kathmandu - viz. Pratapa Surendra, le Simha, Saha (1775-1777).
dayitayā hrdayasthitaya kayacid api vitapito muditananah vikasitam kusumais tribhir uttamaih puraharasya pure puragopure
The third part deals with the daily duties of people. Viz. Sigararasasamgraha

Page #6

336
AWEZLER
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
337
srngåraras-and hence an elaboration, so to say, of the concluding part of the GVM- but in fact an highly amusing and funny dialogue in which growing erotic tension is built up, only that its finding relief is tactfully not described by the author. Much of the charm of this chapter--which leads the readers into the house or rather bedroom of the couple--I feel, ultimately lies in the character of the young wife who is, at least within the Indian context, remarkably self-assured and frank, and with an unusual lack of shyness.
Thus after having listened to the almost endless series of paradigmata of declensions, etc., she resumes the topic of the use of the singular with reference to her husband and argues that he himself has stated that the singular is used to denote what is numerically one, i.e. a single entity. His reply is that with reference to one's husband the singular should not be used. She asks on which authority this is based, and he then quotes a Sruti passage to the effect that the singular should not be used with reference to a guru or to oneself. But she does not regard her case to be lost and objects that he is after all her husband and not her guru, whereupon she is informed by him about the various meanings the substantive guru has in Sanskrit - with the help of two verses quoted from a Nitišastra which are then explained to her word by word. The husband is so pleased by her eagerness to learn and the manner in which she apologizes for her lack of knowledge that he declares his love for her, assures her that his only happiness is she and declares that on that day there will be no class. "Play la game] with us! Do you know to play) or not?" She confesses that as a young girl she had secretly watched her parents playing and therefore has some knowledge of the rules. Before they actually start playing, they discuss which stake each of them is to make. He promises to give her 50 coins with which he could have jewellery
made for her in case he loses, and suggests that if she loses she should "give him every day two additional ratis.
The game the young couple plays is evidently similar to or identical with backgammon or tric-trac." She wins and gets the 50 coins, but the game is continued. She catches him attempting to cheat, but in the end she loses nevertheless. When he demands her stake, and wants to kiss her, she confesses, or pretends to be hindered by bashfulness to comply with his wish. This provokes a lesson about lajā, most eloquently given her by the husband, culminating in his reyuest that while staying with him in the antahpura she should abandon all bashfulness and behave like a vesya. She admits that he is right, but says that for her, born and brought up in a great family as she is, it is simply impossible to do that; even talking about such behaviour is improper. The husband then quotes the following verse from the Mahānātaka:
käryeșu mantri karanesu dási dharmesu patni ksamaya dhariri snehesu mata sayanesu veya
sayyāsakh i laksmana sa priya nel in which the various roles an Indian wife ideally should fullil-in the view of the Indian macho-are clearly stated. The detailed explanation of this verse is followed by quoting another relevant one, from the Rasaviveka, "viz.
särāsāram na jänati surate yāpi sundaril nayakānām tayá särdham suni maithunam ucyate / Sexual intercourse of lovers with a beautiful young lady who does not know the good and the bad side in love-making is called intercourse
with a she-dog. This, too, is explained word by word, and thus she is finally persuaded to do what he wishes her to do, but only after more of such coquettish, and by no means only verbal, foreplay. And again she proves a most worthy partner of her husband, full of self-confidence: e.g, she says that she is strong enough to throw him down on the bed in her turn, she ridicules him for being himself not free from bashfulness, she tries to em
If one takes into consideration works like the Kumarasambhava and the Nepalese-Svasthanivratakatha, one wunders whether and, if so, to what extent, the author of the SM could have been influenced by religious erotic literature. -As is well-known, one of the most basic forms of presentation of a narrative in ancient Indian literature is to have one person telling a story to wher" (Warder 1974 117) and to make this an event within another story on the literary device of the frame story' cf. Witzel 1987), no work, however, has been done as far as I know on the role of females, especially of female narrators or instructors
"Vizchavacanam w prayunjila gurau câtmani, which I have not yet been able to identify, besides, I am not at all certain whether this is really a quote from a sruti text.
CAP Thieme 1961, 1977, and quite recently 1994a. Cf. In addition Syed 1994 Viz. 59, the problem of the varianis is something I don't want to address now.
In spite of my endeavours I have not been able to procure a copy of this text edited by TK.V. N. Sudarsanācārya, Tirupati 1956) and hence have managed to identify the quo tation

Page #7

338
A. WEZLER
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
339
barrass him in that she refuses to take such a position that her feet are directed towards him which would indeed not be in accordance with the rules of the Sastra although these, of course, refer to quite different a situation and in that she asks him to do what he wants to do standing at the head of the bed, etc. All this makes for good reading and is in fact so amusing that the third chapter, devoted to a description of the daily religious duties of a brahmin and similar subjects, cannot but compare rather badly with the preceding one; therefore, and not only because time and space are limited, I deem it legitimate to break off my presentation of the SM here, in order to turn now to a number of problems posed by all the four texts, the GPM, the GVM, the STB and the SM; for it cannot be disputed that the latter two belong to the same class as the first two, although questions like that of relative chronology and hence that of their relation to each other have still to be answered.
brahmins by which these texts clearly and remarkably stand out against most of the known Sanskrit literature."
Nevertheless there are, of course, also features which have a long 'prehistory' in Indian literature, e.g. the-aesthetically highly problematic-"device of merely enumerating names of trees or vegetables or fruits or dishes, etc. The originality' of texts like the GPM, etc., can hence at best be styled a relative one, especially as the description of a normal day, i.e. a day conforming to the norms of the Dharmasastra valid for brahmins, cannot be dislinked from the didactic goal the authors evidently have set themselves. I do not mean so much the 'secondary aim of (most probably) impressing these norms by de. scribing their being, so to say, naturally obeyed by brahmanical householders; what I have in mind is rather the primary' didactic aim of "teaching Sanskrit' by using this language itself in describing that which is best known to the pupils-to-be, viz. everyday life as they themselves led. In the case of the STB and even more so of the SM it is less clear precisely of whom the target group' consists. The contents of the narrative parts of the STB, it should be noted, do not warrant the conclusion that it was written with the aim of teaching Sanskrit to brahmin ladies who have a more or less limited previous knowledge of the language. On the contrary, the conclusion which really suggests itsell-if the outline of Sanskrit morphology is taken into consideration, too-is that the author had in view members of his own class in general who do not any longer speak Sanskrit svabhävena daivānugrahena vd, to modify a phrase of Patanjali's, the Mahabhāsyakára, or who have learnt or picked it up as children from their fathers and other male adult
3. The significance of this class of texts for our knowledge of the cultural history, especially of the way of life of brahmins in Northern and Western India, was already recognized by Gode, and the relevant testimony of the GPM and GVM has been used and discussed in great detail by Shah in his "Introduction." With regard to the STB it has to be emphasized that much information can be gathered also about the
system of education of the times when this text was composed, the usual curriculum' of a brahmin or a prince, i.e. which works or parts of works they were expected to study and in which sequence. The history of traditional Indian education has great gaps and not only in this re
gard,
It should not, however, be forgotten that texts like the GPM, etc., cannot by any means be classed as documentary reports on the contrary, they are quite evidently literary fiction, although of widely unequal a quality. Yet it is no less evident that their authors wish to draw a basically and virtually realistic and colourful picture, and that they by and large also know from their own experience and/or observation what they are talking about. It is precisely this conspicuous endeavour to describe elements of every day life-of members of the class of
Cr Werler 1985.-falso E Auerbach's remarkable observations about Petronius "Cena Trimalchionis. viz. that his realistic manner of representation comes closer to our modern one than anything else in classical literature (1988: 33ff.)
*Cl in this connection Rau's apt remark (1957:53) that 'ancient India did not know a romanticism of the forest ("Waldromantik")" which is true to some extent even for the Epics, ie the descriptions eg of a forest that are practically but enumerations of tree namnes. On the other hand, in terms of an emic interpretation one would have to take into consideration that enumeration is an elementary form of gathering information of making sure of one's own knowledge and of memorizing it. As for the Varnakas see Shah 1960 56. ct passim.
For their explanation see Shah 1960:56ff: cf 1201 (who, however, calls this chapter 'Food and Drinks - just like Mr. Om Prakash in the first edition of his book (1987)).
Viz MRh 3:174 10ff
C. Gode 1941 and especially 1956:161-171. The fact that the GVM has some impor tance also as regards political history seems rather a coincidence

Page #8

.340
A. WEZLER
relatives, but who have at best only a rudimentary knowledge of the langunge and are in this regard similar to the vaidikas of the GPM and GVM. Yet, also with reference to the 'primary' didactic aim it is interesting to note that means and aim overlap to a very large extent: the active use of Sanskrit as a means of conversation is demonstrated with a view to guiding the members of the 'target group' to follow this example and to speak the language themselves. This not only seems to be the common central purpose of all the four texts under discussion, but also a trait which clearly distinguishes them from grammatical works in the proper sense of the word. For this very reason I cannot agree with Gode who calls the GVM a "grammatical work": That there is a close and multifaceted relation to the Vyakaraṇasastra cannot be disputed, but texts like the GPM, etc., are to be classed not as 'grammar textbooks', but rather-as 'conversation textbooks' or 'manuals of spoken Sanskrit. In view of this their specific character they, however, differ from bilingual phrase-books, which are also attested within a wider area which was exposed to Indian cultural influence "or from bilingual manuals for teaching Sanskrit to speakers of vernaculars like the UktiVyakti-Prakarana or the Lekhapaddhati which were carefully examined by R. Salomon 12 years ago." On the other hand, they would clearly deserve to be studied more closely by scholars specialized in or at least familiar with language teaching methods and the research carried out on this subject. It is hardly necessary to state that the problem is an almost universal one, viz. of leading students or people in general to an active use of a language that they are learning or have already learnt; but it would, no doubt, be interesting to analyse the solution(s) the Indians or perhaps I should say: the brahmins, have found."
Yet there is another question one cannot help asking oneself, especially in connection with the subject of this Seminar: Of what kind was
I am referring, of course, to those which are in fact meant to teach Sanskrit, in contradistinction to earlier works like Panini's Astädhyayi. Cf. also fn. 53 below.
Gode 1956:169.
"I have in view e.g. Kumamoto 1988, or a text which my friend Dr. Ch. Cüppers hus published, the first part of which is a kind of Tibetan-Newari Dictionary and the second a corresponding phrase book, i.e. Cüppers 1992.
Cf. Salomon 1982.
An interesting and highly informative picture of "The Pandits and their Manner of Teaching" has been drawn by Dr. J. R. Ballantyne (1866-67).
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
the knowledge of Sanskrit at the time when these texts were composed? And why did the authors deem it at all necessary, or at least desirable, to produce such 'Sanskrit conversation textbooks"? It is by far more difficult to answer these questions than to ask them. For even in those cases where a text can be dated with a high degree of certainty and precision and where it is possible to determine the city in which its author lived and worked, our knowledge of the contemporary situation, cultural, political, sociolinguistic, etc., is unfortunately such that we cannot deduce a plausible explanation for the composition of texts like the GPM. That is to say, I am not fully convinced that Shah is right in assuming that what he calls "a great revival" of literary activity and Sanskrit learning at Käsi in the 16th century is alone, or even basically, responsible for the appearance of texts like those under discussion. I also do not want to dispute the existence of "a periodic Sanskritizing language reformism among the orthodox elements of Hindu society" that Salomon (1982:15) finds "vividly attested for medieval times... in the UVP." But should we not go at least one step further and wonder why brahmins regarded such a 'revival' at all as necessary? In this connection it is also important to note that with the exception of a portion of the GVMall four 'textbooks' attest an ideal world of brahmanical life, not in the least affected by political events, e.g. the fact that political power is in the hands of Muslims or other mlecchas, etc. But this latter observation perhaps gives a clue for finding an answer to the questions just mentioned: The appearance of these 'Sanskrit conversational textbooks', of these works of "Sanskrit instructional literature," to use Salomon's term for this genre, might well have been provoked by the fact, or the feeling, that traditional Sanskrit learning was endangered in brahmanical circles, real pandits apart, or that it had become too bookish, too much a language of the Veda and the Săstra only," and was not any longer a living means of communication among the brahmins; after all brahmins are according to their self-understanding gods on earth, though of a special kind," who not only have a special adhikara with re
341
3
Viz. that dealt with in detail by Gode 1956.
"In this connection it should also be noted that according to its concluding verse Varadaraja's Särasiddhantakaumudi ed... by G. V. Devasthali 1968:224 has been composed vedavedapravesaya (only this is quoted by Gode 1941:191 [1954:3201) as also sarvasástrapravesaya.
"Le. different from the ksatriyas; see e.g. Manusmrti 1.92; 2.135; 9.245, 3131.

Page #9

342
A. WEZLER
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
343
gard to the girvanavani but whose specific 'weapon also is speech, i.e. Sanskrit. Do we hence have to reckon with the possibility that not only the strict observation of traditional custom or the transmission of Vedic or Sastric texts was regarded by members of the highest varna as a central element of their self-identity, but also the active use of that language which had become theirs' in a very singular sense? And that the contemporary political etc. conditions were of importance only in sofar as they were essentially responsible for a general 'climate' which was either in favour or against expressing this self-identity?
Be that as it may, one cannot help wondering whether the authors of these texts were sufficiently qualified for the task they set themselves, i.e. how good their own knowledge of Sanskrit actually was. Now, in the case of the texts under discussion the situation is clearly different from that of the UVP: It is perhaps true that the Sanskrit used in the GPM, etc., may be called 'popular', too, but the question whether it is "an artificial 'Easy Sanskrit', invented and propagated by their authors, which Salomon has to address, does not arise because strange verbs and odd constructions like those found in the UVP, in no small a number at that, are practically absent. Nevertheless, it suffices to read one page of any of these texts in order to see that the language in which they are composed cannot be classified as pure 'classical Sanskrit either. Quite evidently this is due, at least to a very large extent, to the influence exercised on this Sanskrit by the NIA languages, i.e. mothertongues, of the authors; the influence, however, becomes apparent first of all in the sphere of semantics and of the choice of words. Let me give just two examples: the participle vijñapita is used, in the third ärambhasloka of the SM, as we have already seen, in the sense of 'entreated', and this is decidedly nearer to the meaning the historically related verbs have in Old Awadhi, Gujarati and Marathi than to that of
Skt. vijilapayati." Again, the comparatively frequent use of the root mil, and deratives, is equally a vernacularism.
That is to say, though in a different manner, these texts, too, testify to a peculiar Sanskrit just like the UVP, but the results of the interfer ences between certain NIA languages and Sanskrit is markedly different. Hence the language of the GPM, etc., also calls for a thorough and comprehensive examination, and the results it will certainly yield in abundance will draw the attention of scholars-who seem to have been particularly fascinated by the perhaps indeed more spectacular interferences, eg, between Tamil, or other Dravidian languages, or Newari and Sanskrit -to the less conspicuous, but no less interesting interfer ence between the Sanskrit of the late middle ages and various NIA languages, or rather their old(er) forms. The study of the language of these texts will thus ultimately contribute to throwing some light on a phase in the development of Sanskrit of which very little is known so far, i.e. the last centuries before British Civil Servants became more and more interested in the 'sacred language of the brahmins.
In fact, Madhav M. Deshpande has already carried out such a study, and a detailed and penetrating one at that, though with regard to the GVM only, viz. in his latest book (1993a). Our thanks are due to him also for drawing our attention to J. Hertel's half-forgotten essay of 1922 "On the Literature of the Svetāmbaras of Gujarat" and the highly impressive and in my view fully justified-plea Hertel makes for an entirely unbiased study of the various types of Sanskrit as they are actually attested not only in texts, but also in speech. I do agree with both, Hertel and Deshpande, in most of what they say, nevertheless, I should like to add on my part a few remarks which are, however, critical in their regard only to some extent.
I don't find Deshpande's term 'vernacular Sanskrit really appropriate: what is meant is a variety of non-standard Sanskrit which is admittedly heavily influenced by a vernacular, or by vernaculars, i.e. "a lan
Cf. eg. Manusmrti 11.33
I agree with Shah (1960:7) that the authors of the GPM and GVM are not to be expected to have made any morphological mistakes and that it is hence methodically correct to accept the grammatically correct forms or even restore them by emendation wherever nec
essary
C. Salomon 1982:16: see however p.4. Quoted from Salomon 1928:18.
Cf. Turner 1966: $11705. Turner 1966:582 and 510133ff. Quoted from Salomon 1982:14.
Cleg Schrader 1928, or the paper on the grammar of the Svayambhūpurna by my friend B. Kolver, to be published in the Festschrift for Manfred Taube
It is not covered by Renou 1956b.

Page #10

345
DO YOU SPEAK SANSKRIT?
A. WEZI.ER
guage/languages widely spoken in a country or region," "a language/languages or a dialect/dialects native to a region or country." but it does not itself have this character. Hertel's proposal to call it
popular Sanskrit' is equally unconvincing: we are not in a position to prove that it was "enjoyed or liked by a lot of people" or even "approved of or held by most people or else that it "aimed at the needs or tastes of ordinary people." I should even go so far as to wonder whether Hertel is right in assuming a continuous tradition of a popular and colloquial spoken Sanskrit," although I admit that the evidence given by Deshpande speaks in favour of this assumption, i.e. to be more precise, the assumption that brahmins who happened to meet at tradiLional centres of Sanskrit learning like Varanasi or at places of pilgrimage used Sanskrit as means of communication (among themselves), and that this sub-species of the language of the gods," strongly influenced by various vernaculars as it was, may be regarded as continuation of spoken Sanskrit,' "the bhayā of former times. Nevertheless to me it rather seems necessary to first study much more comprehensively and thoroughly all the relevant material and data before a final conclusion can be drawn. The peculiar Sanskrit used by the authors of texts like the GVM, etc., i.e. the extent to which it is influenced by their first language, or perhaps we could say, their mother tongue, could after all also be explained by presuming that they just did not generally, or hardly ever, use Sanskrit in conversation about everyday matters, but only in connection with Sastric discussions. It is at this point that I should like to draw attention to a statement found in the Vrtti on Bharthari's Vákyapadiya I 14, which reads thus: sarvo hi prayena svasyām vidyāyām
vyakaranam anugacchati, apabhramsaprayogena ca niyatam apatra pate, "for everybody usually follows grammar in his field of learning and is certainly ashamed by the use of i.e. if he by negligence uses) an incorrect word(form). "By sarva the author of the Vitti most probably refers to a particular group of people only, i.e. the brahmins, or even a particular elite of them; in any case this statement not only testifies to diglossia and not only to a clear functional differentiation between correct Sanskrit (i.e. a Sanskrit that is in conformity with Paniniyan grammar) and a vernacular--at a particular point of time in history but it testifies equally, at least implicitly, to a much more liberal, if not even indifferent, attitude toward the type of Sanskrit which is written or spoken when other subjects than one's own vidya are dealt with Quite recently I read again Kumārasambhava 3.3
ajnapuya jõtavisesa pumsām lokeșu yal te karaniyam asti
anugrahan Susmiranupruvrtcam icchami samvardhitam ajaya tel where Käma addressing Indra says: "O you who discern the special qualifications of men, command what you desire to be done for you in the (three) worlds. I should like this favour, shown by your remembrance (of me), to be enhanced by the bestowing of a command." What occurred to me once more in reading this, was that Sanskrit has not only been, as Hertel states, also the language of the courts and of diplomacy," but that it is, and in no small measure, a 'courteous' language in the etymological sense of the word; yet this is but another feature of the language of the gods', which has still to be studied; and I need not add that it ought to be studied precisely because of its signifi
Qucted from Collins Cebuild English Language Dictionury, London 1990.
Que From The New Penguin English Dictionary. London 1986 *CI.not.
As kindly pointed out to me by Thomas Oberlies, Sukumar Sen 1957, contains a chapter (36-51) on Spoken Sanskrit, yet his peculiar conception of the language which he kives this label quite clearly calls for a critical recinations also his theory about the nature and development of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit -Halayudha Misras's Sekaubho daya, edited by Sen, however, deserves full attention, at least as regards the interference between Sanskrit and NIA (c.also Sen 1928). As for the type of language used in the texts under discussion in the present article, mention should also be made of Edgerton 1926/27.
According to another of Ashok Aklujkar's useful comments this should include Jambhaladatta's version of the Verlapuricavimsati and the Sukasaptati, iwo texts which could very well have served, if not even been composed, as a kind of accompanying reader
That is to say, I by and large agree with M. Biurdeau's (1964a: 51) rendering of this passige.
The translation is that of M. R. Kale 1967
As quoted by M. M. Deshpande 19932:38-In passing I n e that the second paragraph quoted by Deshpande from Hertel (1922) contains an irritating misprint: instead of that in this country read that in his country": what Bilhana describes in the last canto of his Vikramarkadevacarita is Srinagar, and Kashmir
With the locus classicus of the idea of a peculiar common responsibility of ksatriyas and brähmanas for the other living beings and the world' which in my view forms the basis of the Indian ideology of the relation of the upper two varnus, viz. Gaur DhS 18.11., 1 shall deal at some length in an essay still under preparation

Page #11
346 A. WEZLER cance for the "Ideology and Status of Sanskrit in South and Southeast Asia. >> 73 Ceterum censeo terram Tibetanam in veterem dignitatem ac libertatem esse vindicandam. "As for the designation, I should like to note that P. Thieme very recently (19946:323) has expressed his sad feeling about M. Mayrhofer's "throwing aside the name 'Sanskrit'"; indeed, one could very well consider using 'Sanskrit' as the designation for Vedic as well as all the various forms of standard and non-standard 'classical' Sanskrit. Though scholars of Indo-European studies will, I am afraid, hesitate to follow Thieme or me, Indologists, especially those among them who attended this Seminar, or now read the present Volume, will accept this proposal much more readily because the Indian grammarians, and not only they, did not after all regard Vedic Sanskrit' and Classical Sanskrit' as two different languages, but distinguished only between Vedic' and laukika words. Hence the notion of a linguistic continuum to which Ashok Aklujkar rightly draws our attention (see his contribution to this volume) also covers these two varieties of 'correct speech', and not only Sanskrit' and the apabhramsas. Finally, regarding the question where samskra is first attested as designation of a language - and the verse from the Ramayana (Ramayana 5.28.17-18) quoted by Sheldon Pollock in the discussion of Aklujkar's paper , I should like to add that this whole issue including this passage has already been discussed by E. W. Hopkins 1902:83ff. (cf. Hinuber 1986:19), who in his turn refers to Jacobi 1893:112-119.