177

WEBER ON THE RAMAYANA.

JUNE 7, 1872.]

of being employed as chronological capital for determining the time of the composition of the poem itself.” And with reference to this part of the subject,

great extent of the work, which shows that it cannot have been the composition of one poet only, but that centuries must have contributed to

I think it desirable that we should, in the first

mould it into its present form.

place, investigate such data bearing on the time of the composition of the Rāmāyana as can be furnished by internal evidence, and that we should

sult of this has been that the text has been split

then collect the external data for the existence

of the poem, so far as these are to be found in

Rāmāyana (and it is a very perplexing one) is the

The natural re

up into several distinctly separate recensions. Indeed we can say with almost perfect truth that there are as many texts as there are manuscripts or editions ºf And a further consequence has been

Indian literature and elsewhere.

that even within these individual recensions there

The first point then which meets us in connec tion with the internal evidence furnished by the

have been found numerous contradictions and ob

• We are unfortunately unable to determine exactly the

time to which the account given in Dio Chrysostom ought to

consider also that the different provinces of India had each their own peculiar styles (riti), which differed from one another in important respects; and that consequently the work of Vālmiki, as it gradually spread over the whole of India, would be exposed to the modifying influences which such a state of things would naturally exert. For our

be assigned. My own view, which I have stated in the Ind. Stud. pp. 164 and 165, and which has received the ap roval of Benfey (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1852 p. 127), that it should to the time after Pliny, who would hardly have left so important a fact unnoticed, still seems to me preferable to that of Lassen, (Ind. Alt. II., Anhang p. xlix), namely, that we are indebted to Megasthenes for the report in question. But at least I can no longer sup port my opinion as I endeavoured to do there, by the argu ment that the account given by Dio Chrysostom in the same passage, to the effect that the Great Bear is not visible to the people of India is to be regarded as a mariners' report brought to Europe (from the South of India), also after the

{...

time of Pliny; for as Lassen has justly pointed out in the

vious additions, which afford sufficient evidence of

earliest and at the same time most detailed information

regarding this variety of style, we are indebted to the (Karyādar-'a, I. 40–101) of Dandin, who in all probability lived as far back as the 6th century; and Pandit Prema chandra Tarkavagis'a, in the commentary with which he has accompanied his edition of this work (in the Biblio theca Indica, Calc. 1863), has made a most admirable col

lection of what is known on this subject from other sources, namely, from the works of Wamana, Bhojarāja, Mammata (Kavyaprakſis'a, IX. 4) and Visvanātha (Sáhityadar

place already quoted, this report is mentioned so far back as by Onesikritos and by Megasthenes. (On this subject, see also Ind. Stud. II. 408, 9.) And in any case, the

pana, Chap. IX $ 624–630).

circumstance that Pliny makes no mention of the Indian Homer is at least no proof that up till that time no information on the subject had reached Europe; for he

and the Sarasratikanthabharana of Bhojarāja, as found in Aufrecht's Co alogue, fol. 20, a, 208a; according to 210a ibid. the same subject is specially treated also in Chap. IX. of

might have omitted to mention this just in the same way as

the Alamkarakaustubha of

he left unmentioned the information regarding the Great

it so happens that the Bengalis (Gauda) play quite a conspicuous rôle. Dandin recognises only two kinds of

Bear.

It must be admitted at the same time that both

Compare on this subject the

detailed statements from the works of the first two of

these authors namely, the Kavyalamkira of Vāmana,

kº

And in this matter

omissions are remarkable enough in a man like Pliny. + With reference to the various recensions of the

style, that of the Bengalis (Gaudi) and that of the Vidarbha

Rāmāyana, we are hardly able to say with certainty at pre

of the Panchāla (Pānchāli), Wis’vanātha speaks of the Lati

sent, which of them should be considered as most closely cor

style, and Bhojarāja adds to these the Avantikä and the Magadhi styles. (Instead of Gauda, Dandin uses also the name, paurastya I., 50, 83, or adakshinatya I. 80; while he

responding with the original. The so-called Bengal recen sion has found its keenest opponent in Hall, who speaks of

(Vaidarbhi). Vāmana and Mammata mention also the style

it, in his edition of Wilson's translation of the Vishnu Purána (II. 190), as “a modern depravation,” and even characterises it as “spurious” (ibid III. 317). Guerin, too, in his Astronomie Indienne (p. 239 note), refers to it as a pro duction of the 11th century. 'i. justly describes Schlegel's

designates the Vaidarbhi style as that of the dakshinātya.

edition as “composite;" and, in his opinion, the “genuine Rāmāyana” is contained only in the editions of Calcutta (which unfortunately I am acquainted with only through

scribed as having the preference, on account of its being smooth, simple and universally intelligible, while that of the Gauda is characterised as having the opposite qualities.

Muir's extracts), and of Bombay.

(He has seen in India no

Whether the latter, and especially the detailed statements in

fewer than seven commentaries “on the real Rāmāyana :” old. with accompanying text.)—At the same time, I have

Dandin, &c., are to be understood as having in some way a reference to the recension of the Rāmāyana edited by Gorresio, and by him, following the example of Schlegel,

made it, I hope, sufficiently clear by the arguments I have adduced from the Berlin MSS.,-partly in my Cata

questions that cannot be answered without further special

and one of these was a manuscript nearly 500 years

logue of the Berlin Sanskrit MSS. p. 119 ft., partly in the Indische Streifen, II. 240 ft., in the present paper passim, that these views of Hall's must undergo

Fº

I., 60.) It is greatly to be wished that some one would work up carefully and thoroughly the details that are furnished

in so rich abundance by these passages; I content myself with remarking here that the style of the Vaidarbha is de

designated as “Gaudana"—and if so, to what extent—are research. (The same remark holds good also of the so called Bengal recension of the Sakuntalā; for the authen

throughout in Devanāgari, partly correspond to a large

ticity of which, and especially for its being truer to the original than the so-called Devānagari recension, Dr. R. Pischel has recently been contending very earnestly, in

extent with Gorresio's text, and therefore lend it additional

what is at all events a very valuable dissertation (Breslau

considerable modification.

These Berlin MSS., written

authority ; and partly they represent, as compared with

1870, De Kālidasae Sākuntali recensionibus, pp. 67);

Gorresio and with the Bombay edition, a perfectly inde

though to be sure Stenzler had expressed his opinion to the same effect a long time ago (vide Hallesche Literatur Zeitung, 1844, p. 561 ff.). Gorresio's recension received the name “Gaudana” on two grounds: 1. Because the

pendent text; in other words they form a recension for them selves.

And there is no reason to doubt that the same result

will be frequently repeated as further new MSS. are brought to light and compared with one another. In fact, it could hardly be otherwise, considering the manner in which so national and popular a poem must have been handed down,

MSS. on which it was founded are written for the most part in the Bengali character; 2. Because the statement in Carey and Marshman, I. p. 212 that the text from this

beyond a doubt merely by means of oral tradition (in the

place to the foot of p. 214 [I, 15,69-80 in Gorresto] is to

Uttarakánda mention is made continually and exclusively of recitation of the poem): the wonder really is that after all there is so much substantial harmony among the different

this recension (v. Gorr. I. 19, 1–10), while the verses in

versions.

question are wanting in Schlegel (in I. between 18 and 19)

And this

is the more

surprising when we

be found only in the copies of the Gaura Pandits and not

in those of the south or west”—is especially pertinent to