* I suspect an error in the text here; viz., shãstra for
shastra; for the third suitor had already claimed the
possession of unrivalled excellence in the shãstras, while
the fourth boasts of his superior shill in archery, which
would certainly seem to accord better with shastra than
shãstra. Moreover, the judgment of King Vikram shows
satisfactorily, I think, that shastra is the word intended.
“On hearing the statements of the four of them, the king began to think to himself, ‘All four are on a par as to excellences; to which should I give the girl?’ Having reflected thus, he went to his daughter and set forth the virtues of the whole four of them, and said, ‘To which of them shall I give thee (in marriage)?’ On hearing this, she hung down her head through modesty, and kept silent, making no answer.”
After relating so much of the story, the sprite said, “Now, King Vikram! for which of them is this woman suited?” The king replied, “He who makes cloth and sells it is a südra by caste; and he who knows the languages is a bais by caste; he who has studied the learned writings is a Brahman; and he who hits with an arrow an object which is simply, heard, and not seen, is of her caste: the woman is suitable for him.” On hearing these words, the sprite went again and hung himself on that tree; and the king, too, went thither, bound him, placed him on his shoulder, and carried him off.
TALE VIII.
Then the sprite said, “O king! there is a city named Mithalãvatï, the king of which is Gunãdhip. A young rãjpüt, named Chiramdeva, came from a distant land to enter his service. He used to go daily to pay his respects to the king, but did not obtain an interview. And in the course of a year he consumed all the money he had brought (with him) while tarrying here without employment, and there (in his native land), his home went to ruin.”
“It happened one day that the king mounted his horse for the chase, and Chiramdeva also joined his cavalcade. The king became accidentally separated from his followers in a forest, and the attendants lost themselves in another jungle; one, however, Chiramdeva, was following the king. At length, he called out, and said, ‘Your majesty! all the attendants have remained behind, while I am accompanying you, making my horse keep pace with yours.’ On hearing this, the king reined in his horse, and so he came up (to the king). The king looked at him, and asked, ‘How hast thou become so emaciated?’”
“Then he replied, ‘If I live with a master, such that he cherishes thousands of people, while he takes no thought of me, no blame (attaches) to him for this, but rather my own fate is to blame. As, for example, by daylight the whole world is clearly visible; yet it is not visible to the owl;—what blame can be imputed to the sun for this? It is astonishing to me that he who caused the means, of subsistence to reach me in my mother’s womb, should take no thought of me now, when I have been born, and am capable of enjoying worldly aliment. I know not whether he sleeps or is dead. And, in my opinion, it is better to swallow deadly poison and die, than to ask for goods and money from a great man who, while giving the same, makes a wry face, and turns up his nose (in contempt), and raises his brows. Now these six things render a man contemptible,—first, the friendship of a perfidious man; second, causeless laughter; third, altercation with a woman; fourth, the serving a bad master; fifth, riding a donkey; sixth, unpolished (or uncouth) speech. * And the following five things the Creator records in a man’s destiny at the time of his birth,—First, length of life; second, acts; third, wealth; fourth, know-ledge; fifth, reputation. O king! so long as a man’s virtues ** are conspicuous, all continue to be his servants; but when his virtues decrease, his very friends become his enemies.”
* Lit.—A dialect without Sanskrit.
** I should much prefer translating “so long as a man’s
fortunes are in the ascendant,” were it not that none of the
lexicons I have seen sanctions the sense of “fortunes” for
punya.