Review

Reviewed Work(s): Gods, Priests, and Warriors: The Bhrgus of the Mahabharata. by Robert
P. Goldman
Review by: Madeleine Biardeau
Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Feb., 1978), pp. 386-387
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2054218
Accessed: 19-03-2018 22:28 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Asian Studies

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.193 on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:28:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 130.132.173.193 on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:28:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS
trying to trace the building of a myth back to its
component parts and deciding that such-and-
such element belonged to such-and-such mythic
cycle rather than the Bhargava. Only those who
can believe that these reconstructions come to
something close to the history of a myth will be
ready to follow him. But the main problem may
be altogether different: a myth is a symbolic sto-
ry, the meaning of which has to be deciphered in
the light of all available data-mythic or other- fortunate subjectivity verging upon solipsism.
Thus, although he denounces as destructive (p.
wise. By shifting one's attention to the history of
mythic motifs (another dangerous concept), one I 3) the efforts of textual critics to provide a crit-
is inclined to take them at face value and to mis-
understand the whole point of a myth: a myth is
one story before it is a complex of motifs.
Perhaps the best example of this kind of mis-
interpretation is Goldman's contention that the
epic Bhargavas have no connection whatever
with the cow Kamadhenu-which is supposed
to be Vasistha's exclusive property (p. 79):
Jamadagni's stolen calf then must be a borrow-
ing from the Vasistha cycle. Looking at MBh
III.ii6, we find a clear mention of Jamadagni's
cow, but its name is Homadhenu, not
Kamadhenu; and Goldman does not take it as a
proper name (p. 23). Is it possible that he has
not recognized the very same brahmanical cow
under these two names, with the result that the
"motif" should not be made more Vasistha than
Bhargava? But because of the ksatriya leanings
of Raima, because of gukra's association with the
asuras and other obviously deviant features of
the Bhargavas, he had decided that these
strange brahmans could only be upstarts among
brahmans (through a process of sanskritization).
Would it not be more fruitful, for instance, to
ponder over the fact that Rama Jamadagnya,
and not Vasistha, could be made into one of
Visnu's avatcras?
MADELEINE BIARDEAU
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
Rama and the Bards: Epic Memory in the
Ramayana. BY ROBERT ANTOINE. Cal-
cutta: A Writer's Workshop Greybird
Book, 1975. 114 pp. Rs. 40.00 (cloth);
Rs. 15.00 (paper). (Dist. by InterCulture
Associates: $8.oo [cloth]; $5.00 [paper]).
A reading of this small volume is enough to
see that its author not only knows his Ramayana
but loves it as well. Professor Antoine's enthusi-
asm for the text is especially noteworthy in the
This content downloaded from 130.132.173.193 on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:28:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
387
light of the fact that, although the Ra-ma-yana is a
work of unrivaled influence and popularity in
India, it has often been displaced in the hearts of
Western scholars by its somewhat racier big
sister, the Mahabha-rata. This enthusiasm, al-
though it is welcome and lends a certain con-
viction to some of the arguments in the book, is
inadequate compensation for the book's weak-
nesses. It has, moreover, led Antoine to an un-
ical edition of the Ra-ma-yana based upon the
available manuscript evidence, he has himself
succumbed to the temptation to define and re-
construct the "original epic" on far less scientific
grounds.
Antoine's vision of the epic, interesting
though it may be, is essentially personal and fun-
damentally religious. He tells us that we cannot
understand the Ra-ma-yana, this "popular epic of
transcendence and redemption" (pp. 102-03) or
the "deeper meaning of the oral tradition" (pp.
19-20) unless we possess "mythic sensitivity"
(p. 13) and can " go back into the past and try to
share the mentality of the ancient audiences" (p.
14). This attack on the "rationalist scholars in
the field of textual criticism" is a very serious
matter. There is, however, little in this book to
substantiate his objections-nor, for that mat-
ter, to suggest that Antoine is sympathetic to or
even really understands the nature of the contri-
bution made by the editors of both Sanskrit ep-
ics. Thus, for example, although he is evidently
using the Baroda edition as the basis for his
study, he is capable of identifying as the "culmi-
nation of the epic vision" (pp. 103-04) a passage
found only in the Lahore recension. This is
hardly the place to reopen the issue of the value
and function of the critical editions. One would
have thought that the fundamental issues had
been settled by Sukthankar. Yet, as Antoine's
book shows, there are still some who-out of
misunderstanding or other reasons-feel that,
on the flimsiest of grounds, they can lightly dis-
regard the results of these valuable works of
scholarship.
A number of Antoine's arguments, although
correct, seem trivial and unnecessary. I would,
for example, agree with his denunciation of the
contention that the opening sarga of the
Ra-ma-yana constitutes the "original" epic, a de-
nunciation that he feels worthy of iteration
twice in this short work (p. 2I and p. io6). It is,