AUGUST 2, 1872.]
WEBER ON THE RAMAYANA.
241
gether unnoticed. The narrative really begins,
the bridge is finished (16314), not before (Ram.
after the mention of R a ma’s birth and a few
W. 92). Kumbhakarna is killed by Laksh mana (16426), not by the arrow of Rāma. The
brief words regarding his youth (15947–50), with the wish of Dašaratha to inaugurate him as heir-apparent to the throne. Even the Ayodhyā kånda and a great part of the Aranyakánda are
dispatched in a few verses (15950–90). The more detailed account begins, in accordance with the purpose for which the story is told, with the appearance before R a y an a of the mutilated
Šàrpanakhā(=Rám. III. 36, Gorresio); but from this point onward the various incidents of the Rāmāyana are related in essentially the same order as in that poem, although with many variations in details. The putting of Kab and h a to death is told without the alleviating balm of his restoration to life (Ram. III. 75, 33). The story of Šavari is wanting. Equally so is the account of the dream sent by Brahma to comfort S it a. The dream of Trija tä (Ram. W. 21) and Rav an a’s visit to Si tā (Ram. W. 27) are inserted between the installation of Sugri v a (Ram. IV. 26) and the subsequent summons addressed to him four months afterwards to come
forth and take part in the battle (Ram. IV. 32); inserted here, no doubt, because the discovery of S it a by Hanum a n t, in connection with which
these incidents are narrated
in
the
Rāmāyana, is only slightly touched on in this
episode, and indeed merely in the brief re port of it which Hanuman t himself gives to Rām a.” The god of the Ocean consents here at once to the building of a bridge under Nala’s direction (16300), without waiting, as in the Rāmāyana, V. 93, to have that consent forced from him by the arrow of Rāma. Wi bh i s h an a comes over as a deserter only after
- It is worthy of notice that a portion of this report recalls
the story of Ikaros—that, namely, which tells that the vulture Sam på ti singed his wings when, in a race with his brother
Jatayus, he flew too near the sun (16246). Cf. Ram. VII.
twice-performed sacrifice of Indrajit in Nikumbhila (Ram. VI. 19, 39; 52, 18) is want ing. The striking down of Rāma and Laksh
man a by the Šarabandha (arrow-charm) of In drajit occurs only once (16466), not twice, as in the Ram. VI. 19, 76; 52, 51; and con sequently their revival is necessary only once, not twice (Ram. VI. 24, 2; 53, 2ff.) The herb that has the power of healing wounds is not fetched
even once (much less twice, Ram. VI. 53 and 83)f by Hanum ant from G and h a mad a na,
but is found in the hand of Sugri va (16470). Sit à does not pass through any fire ordeal, but the gods summoned by her as witnesses, Väyu, Agni, Varuna, Brahma, all come of their own accord, and bear testimony to her chastity. Without doubt, then, this narrative in the Mahābhārata is in many respects more pri
mitive than that of the Rāmāyana;f and in fact we are now and then tempted to ask, whether, instead of an epitome of the latter work, we may not rather have before us the ori
ginal out of which the Rāmāyana has been developed 2S. Or ought we to assume only that the Mahābhārata contains the epitome of an earlier recension of our text of the Rāmāyana 2 an assumption, however, which would imply, with regard to the latter, an alteration so serious in the interval, that we could no longer speak with any propriety of the identity of the work; as there would in that case be rather two dis
tinct texts treating of the same subject, and agreeing substantially in the main, but with important variations in detail. Or, thirdly, sity on the part of the people with reference to this matter sought to satisfy itself by supplementing the story with the repudiation of Sità, as we find this related in the Uttara
kanda, in the Raghuvansa, in the , Uttararamacharita, &c.
38, 79.
But if they went
unquestionably a great
deal
only once (VI. 74,33ff); while, on the second occasion of
too far in their punctiliousness, yet it must be allowed that in this respect they show throughout a higher moral tone than we find among the Greeks, in whose epic
its being used, Sushena immediately applies the herb, which is already by this time in his possession (VI, 92,24ff.). And
Menelaos without any hesitation takes back the beauti ful Helen as the wife of his bosom, after she has
so it is also in A (fol. 58a and 75a) and in C (fol. 250b
spent years with her paramour, Paris –In the Mahā bhārata the Pán d a v as do not make Draupadi herself suffer on account of her being disgraced by Duhs'āsana, or of her being carried away by Jayadratha, as she was quite innocent in the matter (just as S it à was); but they vent their fury exclusively upon the offender ; and in this re spect the Mahābhārata unquestionably occupies a more primitive and more chivalrons stand-point, even as com pared with what is contained in this episode. § Though of course this would not hold good for the entire narrative in the Rāmāyana, but only from III. 36 onward, as the preceding incidents in Rāma's history, which
- In the Bombay edition the fetching of the herb occurs
and 287b).
f Thus, the circumstance that Rāma is satisfied with the oath of Sică and the
º of the gods
to her innocence
especially appears to me to be more ancient than the re; presentation in the Rāmāyana, where she is not purified until she has first passed through the ordeal of fire (VI. 111,
25ff.). It is singular enough that in the Uttarakſinda also, twice over (48, 67: 104, 3), Rāma speaks only of the oath of Sità and the testimony of the gods to her purity, not at all of the ordeal ; so that the latter could hardly
have existed in the Rāmāyana at the time when the uttarakózıda was composed In the course of time,
even the ordeal was felt to be no longer satisfying; and the constantly growing feeling of fastidiousness and scrupulo
were of no importance so far as the purpose was concerned for which the episode was introduced into the Mahābhārata
are accordingly almost entirely wanting in that poem,
