________________
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.