Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/276

 242

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

should these differences be perhaps regarded as merely emendations which were to be found in the epitomiser's text of the Rāmāyana, and which he selected by way of preference 2*—this consideration only being opposed to such an idea, that a large proportion of these variations bear the impress of a greater simplicity and an tiquity.f Or lastly, as a fourth possibility that may be advanced, should both texts, the Râmo pākhyāna and the Rāmāyana, be regarded as resting alike upon a common groundwork, but each occupying an independent stand-point,f and therefore representing the incidents of the

story in accordance with different purposes 2 I am unable at present to commit myself to any decision. One thing is certain : with all the admitted difference, there yet remains a mutual connection so evident that we are justified in regarding this episode of the Mahābārata as at all events furnishing a proof of the existence at that time of some form of the Rāmāyana. It is true that we have not succeeded in gaining here a chronological datum, as we do not know when this episode became a part of the Mahābhārata ; this only we can say, that whether or not we strike out, with Muir (Orig. Sansk. T.I.V.,412-3) the Vaishnava introduction, the admission of the episode undoubtedly belongs to a time in which the Rāmāyana was made use of for Vaishnava— in other words for anti-Buddhist purposes. Nor is the testimony of the Mahābhārata to the existence of poetical representations of R à ma's history restricted merely to this one episode : other passages also of the same work furnish similar testimony. § Thus in an earlier portion of this same third book, a description

is given of a meeting between Bhima and the Monkey Hanumant, in which the latter is direct ly mentioned (11177) as : ‘Rāmāyame 'tivi khyātah, and in which he himself gives (11197 —11219) a brief sketch of that portion of the Rāmāyana which follows the rape of Sitā.] which the histories of Kadambari, Das'akumâracharita, &c.
 * Compare, for instance, the considerable alterations

have undergone in the Kathásaritsagara ! + We can hardly be expected to recognise as original all the useless repetitions and re-touchings, which he has judiciously avoided (the space at his command of course was limited 1) and which served only to increase unreason

ably the extent of the R a may a m a.

t It is noteworthy that the Râmopākhyāna assumes as its

[AUGUST 2, 1872.

Regarding Rāma it is said in the same place that he Vishnur mânusharúpena chachāra vasu dhātalam; he is thus regarded as an incarnation of Vishnu (compare on this point Mahābhārata XII. 12949, 12968, where he appears as the eighth of the ten avatāras of Vishnu).-In the seventh book also (2224-46, amplified from XII. 944–955) the story of Rāma is given as one of sixteen proofs" taken from the olden time that even the noblest are overcome by death, his con

test with Rä van a for the ravished Si tā being briefly told, the chief stress being at the same time laid on the wonderful happiness of the peo ple under his reign. The earlier recension of this episode, contained in the twelfth book, is perfectly silent regarding Si tā and R a y a na, and describes only the happiness enjoyed during the time of R a ma’s reign, and indeed repre sents it in the liveliest colours as a truly Golden Age. This Brahmanical representation of the Rāma-Saga is therefore that which comes nearest to the version found in the Dasaratha-Jätaka.

Since, however, it is also perfectly silent re garding the exile of R a ma, we should cer tainly be in error if we were to employ it as a proof that, at the time when it was composed, the version of Välm i ki was not yet in existence.

It is evidently not at all intended to give a de tailed account of the incidents of Rāma's life, but only to describe the splendour of his brilliant reign ; and in point of fact it does this (as does also the enlarged form in Book VII) in essential, partly even in verbal agreement with the Rāmāyana, I. 1; VI. 113. And besides, there is nothing said in either of the versions of this episode (either in Book XII. or in Book VII.) regarding Rāma's being an incarnation of Vishnu.—In the twelfth book there is quoted also

a sloka (2086) regarding the indispensableness of royalty, which reads thus: “pură gito Bhār gavema mahātmanā | àkhyāne Rāmacharite.” And this is evidently a direct reference to the are all found in the overgrowth of episodes with which the original body of the work (8800 slokas, according to I. 81) is enveloped. Compare on this point my Worles. iiher Ind. L. G. p. is 1 and Indische Skizzen p. 38.

and the Râmopſikhyāna, the history of Rāma closes with his return to Ayodhya (where he enjoyed a prosperous reign of 11,000 years), and that no mention is made of the puttin away of Sità (on account of the suspicion of the citizens o Ayodhya), which is not found even in the Rāmāyana until
 * It is worthy of notice that here, as in the Rāmāyana

starting-point the incarnation of Vishnu in Rāma, but yet

we come to the Uttarakāvda.

treats the latter throughout as a merely human hero.

276-77. The putting to death by covetous robbers of the prince Suvarnashthivin, who was continually dropping gold about, recalls the hen or the goose that laid the golden eggs of our nursery tales, and their similar fate.
 * These are sometimes very interesting : see Ind. Stud. I.

§ We remark, however, in passing that such testimony affords no materials for deciding the question, which of the two epics is the earlier ; for none of these passages bel. ng to the substance of the Mahābhārata proper, but they