The Original Rāmāyana Author(s): E. Washburn Hopkins Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 46 (1926), pp.

202-219 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/593806 Accessed: 26/01/2010 03:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

it is yet possible to utilize the new text for a better comprehension of the epic problem in general than was afforded even by the valuable introduction given his work by Professor Jacobi years ago in Das Raimayana. 9. as has been demonstrated by Dr. of Bala and Adi (Bomb. texts). but note in NW and Beng. has evam uktd tu sd devya Manthara pdpadarsini. and NW after la interpolate to 8 (= Bomb. 8: Beng. Beng. for the publication " drags its slow length along " at the rate of only a few fasciculi per annum. though on the surface these citations appear to coincide well enough with one or the other of the accepted texts without exactly following either the Bombay or Bengal version. There is frequent mention in the works of the Mahratti saints of comparatively recent date of an ddi-Ramayana. This heretical suspicion I will seek to justify by an examination of a few passages (as already published in that recension) and a comparison between them and the corresponding readings in the other recensions. from which they profess to draw their citations and make paraphrases.a book of great learning and of keen insight. The abrupt beginning of the NW text. 3) with unimportant variations. kasyacit tv atha kalasya (in a sentence meaning "after some time king Dasaratha summoned his son Bharata. 4 =NW Beng. coinciding with the beginning of the seventy-seventh and seventyninth chapters.THE ORIGINAL RAMAYANA E. WASHBURN HOPKINS YAIE UNIVERSITY THE VERY WELCOME TEXT of the North Western Recension of the Ramayainaadds much to our knowledge of the poem as a whole. and said to him "). But the North Western text raises the question whether there ever was an ddi-IRmayana. (lb) alone the expression jane te bhaktim uttamam. Abbott. Despite the scanty material thus far available. Ramartham upahinsanti Kaikeyim idam abravit. Bomb. but the abruptness must imply that some unknown matter lies back of this beginning. son of Kekayl. suggests that the whole first book is a later addition. 202 . Beng. with slight but significant variants: Bomb. which may perhaps be left for later publication. respectively. and Beng. To proceed with NW 11-=Bomb.

of which 5-6 are a sub-group. pdpapnis'caya. Bomb. and Bomb. A tendency to coincide with the Bengal version distinguishes the MSS 1-3. NW has the same except for mahdbhago instead of mahdrajd (sic). 37): Draviddh Sindhusauvirdh Saurdstrd Daksirndpathdh VahgdngamagadhdMatsyah samrddhah Ksikcosalah NW: Prdcyas ca Sindhusauvirdh Surasd (v. Yet at the close of the exhortation following. One of these follows immediately where a list of peoples expands the simple mention of the realm in all three texts and NW alone follows Bomb. (10. but not in NW Beng. Surdstra-)-vartayas tatha. On the whole the NW text is nearer to Beng. 9. 10-11 Beng. calls the Balakanda the Balacarita and includes it in Ayodhya. Before taking this point into consideration.. abhisastd'si gives the same idea in a different compound. it is necessary to warn against a too hasty inference from the example of concord just given between Beng. than to Bomb.hfor Matsydh in the next hemistich. a point so slight as to be easily overlooked. In Bomb. 7. (e. and NW. 28 in Bomb. but of fundamental " importance in determining the original " text.16) and Beng. there are more descriptive verses in Bomb.The Original Rdmdyana 203 has evam ukta tayd devyd . as in the preceding hemistich Beng. however. with desd. kend 'bhiyuktd 'si= Beng. In the very first sarga it becomes a question of manuscript authority whether we are to read with nearly all manuscripts . by the way..rnvantu daivatih (11. where Bomb. 10). while the close of the section has several upendras in Bomb. vkcyaTmduhhkhaya Ramasya and this is the text of NW. and this tendency would have become more capable of being handled critically if the divergences had all been noted. has sarve s. but exceptions are not far to seek. 1. has satyasandho mahdrd&ja dharmajiah susamdhitah. though with different readings. our NW text follows Beng. It is to be regretted that the editor has found the MSS marked as 7-12 (inclusive) to be "too divergent" to be collated after the fourth sarga. The first of this group.. and not Bomb. g. has satyasandho mahateja dharmajnah satyav&ksucih. (28b) has tan me srnuta devatdh.. as follows: Bomb. 31 goes only to Beng.

. and in regard to elephants.4b) reading. as a result of this training: NW sets down so 'nupurvena tan sarvdn parijagrdha suvratah saha bhrCtrdmahatejdh Satrughnena yasasvind and Beng. as above). the second sarga. artha. (79. 9. where NW corresponds to Beng.ndmagame bhrscamudyatah ca Satrughasahitas tad&. as NW has it. has dnupuirvydhi sastrd. and learned in different arts . Such seems to be the implication. forms. namely. lechyasah7chydvidas. grahane. there is no uniformity as regards that agreement. and Nyayasastra. what matter how this is worded precisely? 13). 77. has thirty-two slokas in each text while Bomb.m cakre or assume as correct the reading of one MS (ti) which has the older Beng. Thus Bharata explains what sort of teachers he wishes to have. and words. which says in slightly different words that when Bharata had be- . Washburn Hopkins 'tha gammane mati. 1. NW 2. has "proficient in dharma. v. . and wagons. But we must do as well as we can with what the editor has given us.Beng. gamanayo 'pacakrama or (with Bomb. as if two different persons were giving substantially the same account but each in his own words. But after 15 (-Beng. jrdina and acquainted with writing and counting. For example. in regard to elephants (etc. vidydnndm sasilpdndam The matter is unimportant in detail. 11. cars. while Beng. 180) gamandyd 'bhicakrdma. and others proficient in the meaning of Veda. proficient in regard to works on polity and practical affairs. has nothing of the sort. clever in Gandharvavidya (magic). 8. that in the frequent cases where NW stands with Beng. pathane. only the general meaning is quite the same in NW and Beng. "those who know writing. e. horses. Bharata and Satrughna both studied hard and became proficient in their scholarship.204 E. 7.Beng. Vedaniga. 80 and describes how Bharata and Satrughna are instructed in science and how Bharata sends greetings to his parents. g. rather than with Bomb. "absorbed in reciting" or "absorbed in learning" the texts). proficient in regard to arrows and darts and versed in works on polity. well-trained old Brahmans learned in the Veda" and so forth. g." After this slight but marked difference the texts are similar though still not the same (e. And a second observation immediately presents itself. it sums up the preceding.

. the first Kausalyam has taken the place of kus'alam. but the v. but with differences which may be roughly expressed in translation thus: " then he got the idea of sending a messenger to his father. since he wished to learn "from aged Brahmans and Bhiksus.rpottamam pitaram kus'alam brithi mdtrs ca bhrdtarau tathd prstvd ca 7cusalamtebhyo vdcyo Das'arathahprabhuh mdtdmahagrhetdta vartate (v. which conjointly may hint at Buddhistic teachers. brayds ca .The Original Radmyana 205 come acquainted with all sciences he desired to learn the real meaning of what he had memorized... it is recorded in NW that he began to cultivate all the twice-born who were expert in dharma.). by the presayitwcm of Beng. The important point is that the text as a whole occurs in these two versions only (not in Bomb. This is followed by another of these baffling descriptions of simple content and duplicate form (21): Bengal Recension tadd 'sya buddhih samjajiie dutam presayitum pituh atha 'huyd 'bravid vrddharm suhrdam brahmavddinam te Ayodhyam gaccha bhadrarm tvarito javanair hayaih pitaram tatra Kausalyydm bruyds tvam mdtaram ca me mdtdmahakcule cd'pi yathd vartdmahe vayam . Kausalyam abhivadanam. kcrtam). 1. The Beng. text is expanded in the matter of greetings (omitted above). but this is a small matter. " and summoning him he thus addressed a venerable kindly priest. North-Western Recension tasya buddhih samabhavat pituh sampresanam1 prati samdidesa tadd dctam brdhmanam subhalakcsanam Ayodhydmr gaccha bhadram te duta sighram n. varte 'ham) tvadanugrahdt yathd 'jnaptam krtarmtdta mahat tava subham priyam (v." which does not appear in Beng. at all. It is obvious that in Beng. nor does the neighboring phrase (16 and 18) tapo 'hiisaratah." " as messenger he comThe editor has admitted the reading sampreksanaim." " then he had the idea as to sending ". as the greeting to K. . sampresanam is required by the sense. 1. 1.. and by the fact that no such word as sampreksanam exists.. occurs later.

to express sense by special syllables onomatopoetically. where choice words are not important.. Washburn Hopkins missioned a Brahman having lucky signs". There is not the slightest use in trying to get at the original form of this episode. one text adding "hastening on with rapid steeds" and the other having "(go) 0 messenger. except for the one phrase "go to Ayodhya. In the second place. For the most part the verse. To understand how this can be. etc. the epic narrator is no dita or caste-herald trained to deliver his mes- . which is as near prose as verse can be. The loose agreement of sense and words resolves itself into what is on the one hand a substantial agreement in meaning for any one sloka with a complete or partial disagreement in the form of expression. for example. There are precious few verses. The general content is identical. In the unstudied narrative style of the epic there is very rarely any attempt to produce a combination of words which is artistic.206 E. the manner of expressing that content is quite different. sweeps on in a continual stream of story-telling. No comparison of the varied readings in the two versions will enable one to discover the ddi-form. blest be thou" (a conventional expression) there is only a loose conformity of words and even this phrase is not sustained. the text being chosen not to please with sound but to proceed with a tale as monotonously recounted as the battle-scenes of Homer. This then is carried so far that supplementary passages long enough to make an extra sarga are sometimes added in the same way. but the interest lies in the succession of events recorded. In the passage just cited. In the first place. so that. an episode of 32 slokas entirely lacking in the Bombay recension is handled with this verbal freedom in the Bengal and North-Western recensions. several items of historical moment must be appreciated. in the whole Mahabharatawhich show any attempt to play with words in an attractive manner. these plastic verses are not art-forms. or to invent felicitous verbal combinations arresting to the ear. to the king in haste." It is not my intention to discuss in detail the varied reading of the new text but only to draw from certain selected passages such historical inferences as seem to be justified. Therewith comes in addition the pregnant fact that either text is liable anywhere to embellish or at least add to the text by means of supplementary stanzas not found at all in the alternate text.

though unusually noticeable in the more exact agreement between the Bengal and NW recensions. 13-17) : tasmat tasyo 'paghdtena prajah paramapiditdh audakcdn'va sattvdni grisme salilasamkcsayat pidayd piditam sarvam jagad asya jagatpateh mulasye 'vo 'paghdtena vrrksah puspaphalopagah mulam hy esa manusy&nadm dharmasdro mahddyutih puspar phalam ca patram ca sakhds cd 'sye 'tare janah another after another episode. Whether he expresses the idea of tasya buddhih samabhavat pituh sampresanam prati in exactly these words or in the form tadd 'sya buddhih samjajne ditam presayitum pituh. He feels at liberty to say what he has to say as he will. or at some place. 12 are dnrsansyam anukrosah srutam sIlam damah samah (Raghavam sobhayanty ete sad gundh purusarsabham) whereas in NW and Beng. intent not on the form of words but on their graphic and historical value. and the six qualities of Rama in Bomb. which appears as below in the two texts of the Bombay and Bengal recensions respectively (the slight variations of NW 36 are noted under Beng.The Original Ramdyana 207 sage as verba ipsissima of his lord. Thus both (vs. 33 and Bomb.m srutam satyam parakramah dnrsanhsyam (sobhayanti gucndRdmam ete suprathitd bhuvi). as Jacobi has noticed. is a matter of complete indifference to himself and to his audience! Another illustration. [Beng.Beng. NW 36 . 33 is in all texts substantially the same but with many variae lectiones. 2 The dislocation of certain episodes. has ete sat prathita] There follows immediately the lament of the people. Sometimes the same incident appears. and even where he will. but told in slightly different words. 33. 14 alike they are ksamd sila. but a man who has certain things to say at a certain place. appearing in one text before and in . in two places in the same text.2 if only he says clearly what belongs to the passage.) Bombay (ii. 16) describe Rama as Lokanatha. in his general narrative and says them more or less in his own words. points to a narrative freedom in the enumeration of incidents. not in the Bombay text.

continue with parityaktdni daivataih to which Beng. a slight "improvement" by substituting lokanatha for jagatpati.RahugrahanapZdaya (NW-grahanipidayd) ayam sa data bhogandm paritrdnasukhasya ca (NW paribhogaprasdddndm ) tathd 'bhayapraddnasyaddta gacchati no vanam sadhu Lakcsmanavat sarve tyaktabhogaparigrahah Ramam eva 'nugacchamnah kim no darair dhanena vl saputradhanaddravd sapasudravyasarmcaydh (NW sca for vd) r 'yam sadhur gacchati Rdghavah (NW ta gacchdmas yatra sadhu) vihdro 'dyanasayanasaranasanasadhanam parityajya 'nugacchamas tulyaduhkchanrpdtmajam One sees almost at once how the matter works out. Bengal (ii. 33. a suggestion that in this particular passage we have an older text of sorts slightly revamped. where both texts fill up or distend a simpler passage descriptive of the desolation anticipated in the event of the people following the prince ? This simpler passage is conserved in both texts in identical words of clauses afterwards separated by divergent attempts to embellish the old matter.208 E. the old metaphor abandoned in favor of a fresh simile. A few phrases identical or nearly so. adds at once the gist of the whole matter asmattyaktdni vesmani Kaikeyi pratipadyatdm vanam nagaram eva 'stu yatra gacchati Raghavah . then the return to the burden of the song " we will follow him where he goes. Thus Bomb. and Beng. But what shall we say of the following verses. Washburn Hopkins te Laksmana iva cksipra. 15-20): vivdsend 'sya tena 'yam duhkhito 'dya mnahdjanah(NW has vivasenadya tendsya) audakdni 'va sattvdni salilasya pariksayat lokanathasya Rdmasya pidayd piditam jagat aparvani 'va somasya. both begin with the words samuddhrtanidhdndni and then after two and three hemistichs." In other words.m sapatnyah sahabandhavah gacchantam anugacchdmo yena gacchati Raghavah udydndni parityajya ksetrdni ca grhani ca ekaduhkhasuckhRdmam anugacchama dhdrmikam. respectively.

asmdbhis tu parityaktam puram sampadyatdmvanam.na 209 which in Bomb.: ity evam vividhd vaao ndndjanasamiritah susrava Rdghavah srutvd na vicakre 'sya mdnasam Beng.went to his mother's apartment which was Kaildsaikcharaprabham (two common iterata of epic verse) and then: pratilsamdno 'bhijanam taddrtam andrtariapahprahasann ivd 'tha jagama Rdmah pitaram didrkcsuh pitur nides'am vidhivac cikcrsuh 2 . prefaces it with a couple more slokas explaining that Rama. And then the tag at the end of the chapter immediately following this verse.sdni (hinasarmmdrjandnica) instead of apetodakadhiumIdni hna-etc.The Original Rdmaya. with an apparent expansion of the text in Bomb." But one hemistich here makes one of those (almost the same) that appear in Beng. 24): aranyatdm parityaktam asmabhir ydtv idam puram yatra vatsyati Rdmo 'yam puram tatra bhavisyati The following verses show the same colloquial variations as noted above. Again the words change but the content remains. text has at 22c-d a hemistich immediately following yena gacchati Rdghavah (above) which appears in the same words in NW. praksinadhanyako. appear verbatim (except yena for yatra) but only after four more unnecessary descriptive hemistichs concerning the deserted homes "infested with mice and snakes running about out of their holes. All our classical notions of a fixed original from which manuscripts vary by the slightest alterations vanish into thin air before such freedom of transmission as is instanced here. in the first group of separated clauses. without change of meaning till the finale is reached in the two texts: Bomb. homes deprived of water-libations and incense and purification and all religious activities (pranastabalikcarmejydmantrahomajapani ca) and with utensils broken as by an evil Fate. who was mattamatangavikramah. What possible criterion will give us the "original" form? What was original was the sense. The Bomb.: etas ca 'nyds ca vividh&vacah paurajaneritdh srnvan Rdmo vayau mdrge vanavasakrtodyamah. Bomb. not the precise words in which the sense was conveyed. which is slightly changed and expanded along the lines already given (Beng.

The whole of the next chapter contained in NW 37 and Beng. has RJmo garmisyan tat pi2rvamaiksvdlcasuto mah&tma nrpamdrtarftpam tadd Sumantranmpitur mahatma pratiharanvyatisthata pre7scya &irtham pitur nides'enatu dharmavatsalovanapraves'ekrtabuddhilis'cayah sa Rdghavah preksya Sumantram abravin nivedayasvCt 'gamanam nrpeya me and Bengal: ce pitur ves'ma tad&ryavrttah R?'%mah isdadya 'k7svd7ca7culapradipo vyatisthata prelcsya tato niyoge sthitam Sumantram pratiharam istam. Beng.210 E. Wa-shburn Hopkins which Beng." but in what manner do . Sumantra's address in Bomb.) brJhmaytebhyodhanam(dattv& sarvarmcai 'vopajivinam sa tvam pas'yatu bhadramm Ramah satyapardkramah te sarv&in suhrda &prchyatv&imhi 'dcnirmn didfk?ate tam pasya jagatipate gamisyati mah&rayzyam vr-tamrajagunzaihsarvair &dityamiva ras'mibhih (Beng. who put in what they could recall of the words but were intent mainly on transmitting the message as a whole. has without introduction and with merely the slight change in d of satyapratijiiam n. after which Bomb. (Bomb. 34 is omitted in Bomb. etc. It is as if certain catch-words were remembered by two transmitters. Compare. and Beng. 16b-17a and the hemistich after 20b) and the three texts unite again in the next passage (Bomb. NW 38) though verbal similarity is still largely lacking.) datttvddvijebhyah svadhanam bhrtyebhyas'co 'pajivar&am lole guna-n's'ubhih svarasimibhiriva 'dityah 7chyatto te siras 'ddya vanamli ganturn krta1sanah djiVJm Laksmanena saha bhr&ttret Sitay&ca naradhipa dra.rpatim (v.3tumte 'bhyjgatah padau tamypasya yadi manyase. 35. 34. for example. The text of the two agreeing recensions is substantially the same though there are slight variations and omissions (NW omits Beng. pitaram) cikirsuh. 1. Here indeed the texts "unite again.

Indro yathainam s'arado naydty AV. 35. 3). 4 = Bomb. Let it be conceded that Valmlki originally composed a Ramayana. . 4=Beng. impatient to go to the wood. who wished to preserve the substance but were not much troubled in regard to the exact form. (RV 10. 0 lord of men. 161. 11. ." We have here precisely the same sort of concordant discord that satasdradena . 3. 8 Perhaps rather " giving to twice-born and to servants his property all (as) a means of livelihood. appears when the Rig Veda verse sahasrdkcsena satam yathemarm sarado naydtindrah appears in the Atharva Veda as sahasrakcsena sataviryena . with his brother Laksmana and with Sita. if thou art so minded. into the great forest will he go. yet the words are quite different: " Giving all his property to Brahmans and those dependent upon him." The NW text (38. 0 lord of the world. 6) has dattvd dhandni viprebhyo bhrtyebhyas co 'pajfvanam. " When Greek meets Greek" is not a true quotation but it does as well as " When Greek joins Greek" and facilis descensus Averni has almost superseded the original Averno. . But no such care ever bothered the repeaters of epic verse any more than today it worries the repeaters of popular quotations. The meticulous care later lavished on the Vedic texts preserved them from continual disintegration of this sort and conserved the words as conscientiously as the meaning. and no sooner had his poem become the public property of rhapsodes and bards than this process began to affect whole clauses and verses and.The Original Rdmdyana 211 they unite? The situation is identical. having bid all his friends farewell he now seeks to see thee. 3 the text must have originally appeared but only to be modificd in more or less degree by successive repeaters and alterers. words. . blest be thou." as compared with: " To the twice-born giving his property all and a means of livelihood to his servants. But when he himself began to repeat the verses in which he had enshrined the tale he probably varied them in unessentials. the content of each passage is the same. see thou him encompassed with all royal qualities like the sun with its beams. but otherwise has exactly the Beng. . 34. In some form or other ati. etc.3 like the sun with its rays glorious in the world with his rays of good qualities. such for example as (above) viprebhyah for dvijebhyah. see him. Rama the hero of truth should see thee. he has approached thy feet to see thee. taking upon his head thy command.

ni. 1 and NW 51. Both intentions are combined in passages where. This whole section is an admirable illustration of the way the text has been handed down. makarais ca nisevitam is represented by bhujamrgaisca samanvitam and (sanighais ca) varanais' ca nisevitam by (haisasdrasasanighwstdm) cakravakopasobhitam! One sees it is an entirely different verbal text. taking up the sloka which appears in Beng. with the two hemistichs sisumdrai ca and haisasdrasasanghais ca.m ramyam after Rdghavah.-Beng. 47. 12. 2. but with different forms of b in each. 24b has the significant hemistich Visnupadacyutramdivydm apapdm papandsinam (Gangam). for example. he becomes Lokanatha (etc. Ganges is extolled and verses are obviously added in honor of the goddess as well as to describe the river. above). Then Bomb. Rama crosses the Ganges and meets the Nisada king Guha. and NW. with whom he talks and by whom he lets his horses be cared for. Washburn Hopkins further. reads tatra for Gangtam in the first hemistich and divyamzsupunyam rsisevitdm in the second and does not mention Gaingdmtill the last half of the next sloka: havam pavitrasalilasparsadrhimavacchailasamb nadim. seq. 1. replaces Gangdam and in the second hemistich has Ganga. as accepted by Beng.212 E. text adds twelve verse to the text. Of the latter sort (not to speak of the whole seventh book) are those additions which emphasize the religious importance of the hero. disposes one of them at 19a and the other at 25a. Thus the Bomb. with divyLam Bomb. but . but Beng. The simplest text is that of NW: tatas tripathagdm Gangaimsitatoydm asaivaldm dadarsa Rdghavah punyaimdivyarn rsinisevitam. The scene in itself is unimportant..m the last hemistich appearing in NW as svargarohananihsreni. Gaingambhdagrathimr svargatorananihsre. by no possibility to be referred to divergent forms of an original. 50. some bits of which appear (not as wholes) in the other texts. describing the passage of the Ganges in Bomb. thus: Beng. the original text began to be expanded partly for the sake of beautifying it and partly for the sake of inculcating moral and religious teachings. but only Bomb.m maharsiganasevitdm. expands the description by adding some kvacit verses and.

especially as NW adds an extra hemistich (mdm viddhi) caturdasasama. but dissimilarly. (44) and Beng.: tam iurmikcalildvartdm anvaveksya maharathah Sumantram abravit sftam ihaivadya vasamahe.: tatra rajd Guho nama Rdmasya 'tmasamah sakchd Nisidajdtyo balavan Sthapatis' ce 'ti vis'rutah. Bomb. though Bomb.: tatra raja Nisddandm RImasya dayitah sakha dharmikcah satyasandhas [Beng. with NW 4. treated in two ways as to expression.. In the following verses almost the same conditions hold. but NW in 7c has rathdd avdtarat tasmdt with Beng. Bomb. both Bomb. (20) have na hi varte pratigrahe. as contrasted. and so with the next following: NW: Sumantram abravit suitam ihaiv&dya vasamahe Sumantram abravmd Ramo nivasama ihddya vai Beng. Rama accepts none of the offerings of Guha except . in a-b thus combines NW and Beng. tdm irmisalildvartdm anvavekcsyamaharathah. Still.The Original Rdmdyana 213 the same text substantially. (18) as snehad dghriya murdhani. rathdd avatarat tasmdt. etc. Finally. where NW 20 has na kalo me pratigrahe.h saumya vatsyantam pitur djiayd. In the next sloka Bomb. as compared with Bomb. which gives Guha a new name. which ought to give the hero time enough! In virtually the same passage the two texts thus agree here and differ there. says the verbal form is for avdtarat.'s snehasamdarsanena ca (41) appears in NW (18) and Beng. and Beng.: Bomb. Then comes the introduction of Guha: NW and Beng. preksdmi saritdm sresthdm. inserts 29. though even here there is still the improbability that one text varies from the other because of a copyist's error. tam urmikalilavartdm anvaveksya sa Rdghavah which is practically identical with Beng. satyavadi] ca Guho nAma maahbalah Bomb. perhaps as more antique form. for example. and follows NW in c-d. read mocayitva hayottamdn instead of NW's sndpayitva. which are common enough. certainly not to avoid the three iambi. the latter the better reading. where the Comm.. the two half-verses say virtually the same thing.

This NW order is that of Beng. The condition is not precisely the same. Also NW 87 and 89 are the same as Beng. has no sargas corresponding to NW 84 and 85. 98) fails in Bomb. 75. The subject-matter is the events after Dasaratha's death. with which it coincides more closely than with the Bomb. had they been original. thus remain in general less antique than does the Bomb. 86) till NW 102 (= Beng. after which the three texts proceed together (NW 98= Beng. But from the historical point of view we may take a wider sweep than is afforded by the Ramayana texts. either inserted in maiorem gloriam of some person or thing to be revered or of decorative intent. Washburn Hopkins "fodder" (Bomb. yavasa). text. Moreover. that is that. while the condition in the Ramayanais implied . asvdandm yavasendrthi na 'ham anyena cenatcit. recension. for the Mahabharata text argues what would happen yadi radj na palayet. as may be seen toward the end of Ayodhya. which are Beng.two simple clauses that could scarcely have resulted from divergences of the same written original. the sargas would be. 83 and 85. consecutively. order followed that of NW. all the texts have about the same material but this subject and its discussion are also treated in the Mahabharata. 80. text omits several sargas common to NW and Beng. und Gorres. m khddanend 'ham arthk nd 'nyena kenacit versus asvand. khadana) or " corn" (NW and Beng. It is highly improbable that amplification and exaggeration do not deserve these terms. 82 (Bomb. where different bards have given free rein to their conception of what would be fitting. (Jacobi's Concordanz der Bomb. Ausgaben is at fault here. 1-3) represent them and the next sarga in Bomb. 93 should be 94). and the same is true of casual differences where the slight praise of Rama or Ganges or Visnu of one text is amplified or exaggerated in another. 80 and 81. Texts NW and Beng. to NW 97 Beng. if the Bomb. and only a few verses (77. rather than follow a less ornate description. where a whole sarga appears in one recension and not in another. text. Thus Bomb. because such sargas are obvious additions. 93 (not in Bomb. Apparently the NW recension is a variation of the Beng.214 E. 94= Bomb. that is. 77.). 81. where the Bomb. The shorter text. 78. the other recension would have toned them down or pruned them of their edifying features. In the discussion of the unhappiness resulting from the lack of a king. is presumably in most cases the older. 75 =NW 82-83). 76.

who has died through grief for his son. yajnds. include Vasistha while Bomb. the absence of sacrifices. in the Mbh. yajidas. vedan na 'dhiyate viprdh Here too there is no verbal similarity sufficient to imply that one text is a copy of the other. 12. 12. brahmanas'caturo vedan nd 'dhiyirains tapasvinah Ram. 68. have it: . vivdhds. 69.. texts under consideration are evidently based on a common tradition differing as a whole from that of Mbh. utsavds. that is. as NW and Beng. yet the ideas imparted are the same. it is to point out the necessity for having a guarding king. which is to all intent the Ramayana condition in another form. but this is virtually the same verse as that of the Raim. 14. except that NW and Beng. Only the Mahabharata suggests the improvement arising from having a king.The Original Rdmdya. 22. Yet in another chapter of the Mahabharata this is led up to by a statement introduced by the broader condition arajake jivaloce.but in Bomb. alike have the title rdjaguravas. In the Ram. 12. practically the same list in all texts. The three texts begin with a list of sages who act as king-makers. Beng. 49. in Mbh. one text is discussing the woes induced by a bad king who does not properly protect his people and the other the woes induced by not having any king at all. in Ram. where Vasistha appears as the chief. 32: sarvalamkadrabhiusitdh striyas cd 'purusd. 2. samajas. In the preceding. 18: h ndrdjake janapade visvastdh kculakanyakc alamkirtdrajamdrge kridanti viharanti ca. These sages in NW and Beng. The three Ram. feasts. 70. they are called r&jakartdras. inserts Katyayana and omits Vasistha till verse 4. They address Vasistha saying virtually the same thing in different words to the effect that the night is now over which has seemed like a century to them who have been grieving for king Dasaratha. and assemblies is emphasized.without the negative: Mbh. and the lack of Veda-reading: Mbh.margcam nirbhaydh pratipadyante yadi raksati bhiimipah Ram.na 215 by the repeated shibboleth ndrdjake janapade. 16. samdjas. the argument is given to induce the "king-makers" to appoint a king after Dasaratha's death. 26. ib.

. 2. version as a whole in close connection with the Mbh. Bomb. c-d: narajake pituh putro bhdryd va vartate vase but NW and Beng. 41. 69. while Bomb.mn. asmin paicatvam apanne putrasokena parthive Both traditions keep the word putrasokena and express the rest each in its own way. W. The well-known sloka at Mbh. . N. svakam bhavati kasyacit. 31 na . copied from the " Rama-carita. 11. represents the adi-form. which does not have the parigrahah verse.216 E. e. the other texts emphasize svam and parigrahah at this point and in so doing bring the Ram. g. but NW 24 has here svdsthyam. The two epics are here playing the same tune but with variations much more pronounced than in the case of the different Ram. 11: svam nasty ardjake r&streprasantas ca parigrahah Beng. 11: svamn nasty arajake ristre pumsdm na ca parigrahah Mbh. 12.rpam in Bomb. ca Instead of dhanam here. ardjake dhanarmndsti ndsti bhdryd 'py arajake idam atydhitamn 'nyat kutah satyam arajake. 27. . ib.. 73. 9. svamrvai bhavati karhicit seems to be a repetition." seems to be only another version of the above: . thus: R.. has at 67. texts. 14-15: hareyur balavanto 'pi durbaldndm parigrahan mame 'dam iti loke 'smin na bhavet samparigrahah na na dard na ca putrah syan na dhanamc parigrahah. 10. though it is impossible to decide which of the three texts of Ram. Washburn Hopkins socatam putrasokena mrtam Dasaratha.. In Beng.57. ndrdjake pituh putrah samyak tisthante sasane and Bomb. or. na . Then begins the theme of ndrdjake janapade in which the texts vary little at first.

but only to the particular citation under question here. in an attempt to excuse Arjuna after Bhurisravas' death. . has here borrowed from the Ram. but without reference to the Ram. This applies not to the Ramastory in Mbh. Yet those who do not believe in the evolution of the epic will not be affected by this fact. contrary to Jacobi's general opinion that Bomb. above in Bomb. agrees most closely with Mbh. . text at 28 has durbaldn balavattardh bhaksayanti nirudvegd matsydn matsyd ivd 'Ipackn (NW v. text are more closely allied. isle matsydn ivJ 'paksyan durbaldn balavattardh. or with the Bomb.160.The Original Ramdya. Ram. 1.na vindet tato bhdryam tato dhanam rdjanam prathamarm asati lokasya kuto bhdryd kuto dhanam. absence of the word would imply perhaps that in this place at least the Mbh. g. Professor Jacobi himself is careful to say only that the Ram. so that the argument is not convincing as regards the priority of the great epic qua epic but only as it now exists in its encyclopedic form. though the insistence on parigrahah in the former and in Mbh. 67. agrees more closely with the NW Beng.). 143. continues the text above with the words: matsyd iva jand nityam bhaksayanti parasparam The Beng. It would at any rate have been more convincing if Valmiki had been cited by name in some part of the Mbh. text. (as e. and thus shows its later date. not otherwise marked as late. While not prepared to dispute the further generalization that Mbh. 20-21 what appears to be a popular saying: yadi na pranayed raja dandam . Bomb. I would observe that the induction refers only to the pseudo-epical didactic twelfth book and to the later first book. 31. 11). in that the quotation appears in Mbh. was known as an old work before the (whole) Mbh. p. and yet in point of fact a somewhat similar objection to the above generalization may be made in the case of the purd gito lokcoVdlmikcina(na hantavydh striya iti etc. svdmyarm na sydt ca kasyacit. 12. and NW Beng. 7. 67. This (Drona) quotation was probably inserted midway in time between the creation of the Kuru epic and the addition of the dharmasdstra. 71). rdjany 217 The first hemistich is found also at Mbh. 1. as opposed to the Bomb. But to proceed: In Manu's Dharmasastra there is at 7. It is difficult to say whether the Mbh. was completed (Das R.

ib. the following: R. 12.. But there is more here. 15. Washburn Hopkins ksapayanti). 67. 20 and Beng. 70: arajake jivaloke durbald balavattaraih pidyante na hi vipresu prabhutvam kasyacit tadd. Compare also Mbh. 13. 69.rsigoraksajzvinah NW 73. and note that here the reading of NW is not that of Beng. 30 (an entirely different section) has jale matsydn iva 'bhaksyan durbaldn balavattardh and at ib.218 E. Obviously here is a proverb caught up by various authors and repeated in about the same language. agopdla yathd gdvas tath&rdstram ardjakam Beng. appear without exact parallelism in NW and Beng. compare. while these two unite in verses comparable only with the Mbh. agopas'ca yathd gdvas. 68. 25). 25. for example. verses in Bomb. . Thus Beng. Bomb. . Besides the above. From this point. 12. text. the verses are more diffused) on the same subject and in just about the same language. 68. 12. but of Bomb. Also: Bomb. namely a whole section of verses more or less closely connected (in Mbh. and add Mbh. it consists of a simile.49. 30: vivrtya hi yathdkcmarm grhadvardni serate . 31 and NW 28 have rdstre vindanty arajake dasyavo 'pi na ca csemarm dvav ddaddte hy ekasya dvayos ca bahavo dhanam and Mbh. 20 (above). 29. a7cuto- bhaydh (akut. 14. "as big fishes devour little fishes" and is characterized by the phrase durbalan balavattardh or its equivalent. 67. 67. Here Mbh. agopah pasavo yathd. 16 repeats Manu 7.18: serate vivrtadvardh k. 20: serate vivrtadvdrd visvastam akcutobhaydh Mbh. 12. also in sl. papa hy api tadd kcsemar na labhante kaddcana elcasyahi dvdu harato dvayos ca bahavo 'pare .

aho tama ive 'da. The editor has rendered a real service in publishing it. We shall await the further fasciculi of this new edition with great eagerness. dasyavo 'bhibhavanty uta. where both Bomb. But again in NW 73. From the very beginning there were variations in words and in arrangement of words. referring to notes. etc. . but there has been a steady progress toward clarity and the varied readings are abundant. is quite vain..27. 10. sadhu sadhu vm). At some vague period these oral versions were reduced to writing according to the local authorities and the written texts still hold the divagations of various ancient bards. Sufficient to give the pregnant word as it lingered in memory.The Original Ramdyana 219 and ib. 36.mcana and Mbh. 67. were not decided upon in advance. 2. perhaps beautified by the latest transmitter. let us say. by working back from the textual variations handed down in the several recensions. if not quite so complete as desirable. as Jacobi also believes. The text must therefore. andham tama ive 'darmsydn na prajniyeta ki. the first repetition of the text. there is a parallel to the evidently incorrect reading of Bomb. disfigured with huge O and N against line after line. 68. and Beng. have vibhajan sddhvasddhuni. andhe tamasi majjeyur apasyantah parasparam. 1. and it is a pity that the numerals. In the hands of manuscript copymakers such a condition as now exists would have been almost impossible. In some ways it is an unsightly text. while added slokas and even added sargas were so ingenuously yet ingeniously produced that only when the subjectmater smacks of religious excess can one reasonably argue that one text is more original than another. whether Sanskrit or Arabic. The induction which one is entitled to make from a study of the texts appears to be that the hope of getting at any adi-Ramayana. no original Ramayana.m sydn. the scene as it traditionally occurred. a line completed in NW by raja cen na bhavel loke vibhajan sadhv asddhu va (v. There can be no plausible original reconstructed and practically there was from the time of. have been handed down by word of mouth and the bards who transmitted it were little concerned to reproduce exact tradition by the precise words or arrangement which they had heard.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful