WEBER ON THE RAMAYANA.
August 2, 1872.]
which are the same in substance at least, and correspond to some extent also in expression ; they read as follows:— priyā" tu Sità Rāmasya dārāh pitrikritat iti gunād rúpagumäch châ 'pi pritiri bhāyo vyavardhataş || tasyáš cha bhartà dvigunamſ hridaye parivar tate" | antargatam” api vyaktam akhyātitt hriday am hridã if| -
In Gorresio there is nothing at all corres
ponding (see I. 79, 45-48); and the chapter in which the two verses now quoted occur in Schlegel, &c. is not the last in Gorresio, but (as in the Serampore edition) the one before the last of the Bālakānda.
There is, on the
other hand, one text at least, namely A, that gives the two verses quite identically with Bha vabhāti's text, with only trifling variations: “abhivardhitah, hy eva, "yogam purātanam”;
and in fact they appear in this text also imme diately before the close of the Bālakānda : after them there follow, just as in BC. Schl., only two other verses, the second of which likewise closes
the book in BC. Schl. §§ The second of the two passages from the sixth Act (being the third we cite from the Uttararámacharita) reads thus:– “tvadartham iva vinyastah siläpädo ’yam agratah | yasyā’yam abhitah pushpail, prayrishta iva kesarah ||’’
The corresponding verse, however, reads thus in Schlegel (II. 96, 6), in Carey-Marshman (Ser., II. 70, 5), and in the Bombay edition (II. 96, 5.6):—
“tvadartham iba vinyastá tv iyam slakshna samá šilă
yasyāh pārśve|taruh pushpaih prahrishta"" iva kešarah "|
- svayam BC.—t pratikri C., priyakri B.T.: gunē rūpa
gunas' châ pi punar BC–Š "pite dhikāh (!) Cº. pi vard dhatáh (!)
1. 'bhivardhate, Ser.
Bomb.
hidi bhūyoBC.— vahugunam RāmamBC.—tt C.–M punar | punar vyākhyati BC.—“anakhyātam sthitāb if hyidi BC. §§ These read as follows:–
Sitayā tu taya Rāmah priyayā Saha samgatah | priyo 'dhikataras tasyā vijahārā maropamah || taya sa rājarshisuto nurūpayā, (1) samiyivan (2) uttama rājakanyaya
ativa Ramah sus'ubhe sukāntaya, (3) yuktah sriya Vishnur ivā 'parājitah| (4)
1 *bhikāmayå C. Schl.-2 sameyiván B.C. Schl–3 "bhiramaya B.C., mudānvito Schl.—4. vibhuh sºriya Vishnu rivā'mares varah Schlºs'asiva pürnah sahitah svakåntaya C, s'asſiva pūrno divi Dakshakanyaya, B. | parsºva, Ser. T" pravishta, Ser. Bomb. *kes'araib, 1 késaraib, Bomb.
247
in Gorresio (II. 105, 6) on the other hand :— “tvadartham iha vinyastal, Šilăpatto 'yam agratah | asya pārśve taruh pushpail, pravrishta iva keśarah ||.”
and in A. fol. Lxxviii” (unfortunately the second book exists here only in one MS ):— “twadartham ihavinyastah Silāyām sukhasam
starah | yasyāh pārśve tarul pushpai(r) vibhrashta iva kesarail ||.” If, then, we are to draw any conclusion regard ing the rest of the text from the differences in
these three examples, it must be allowed that the result as regards its authenticity, in the form in which we possess it, will be very far from en couraging. But with respect to this matter we are entitled to ask, whether, as matter of fact, Bhavabhūti made his quotations with such ac curacy as that they really represent the text then in existence 2
And when we remember the ex
tremely unreliable way in which Indian authors are accustomed to make their quotations, we are fully justified in asking such a question. But it ought to be considered, on the other hand, that the quotations here in question were made from a work that was universally known and esteemed, that any considerable deviations from it would therefore have certainly been noticed by the public before whom the drama was represented, even though they might not have been possessed of any great critical acumen, and that conse quently the poet would not be likely to lay him self open to the charge of mis-quoting.f. It must, however, in my opinion, be allowed that the diversity in the above quotations does not on the one hand permit us, by reason of their limited range, to pronounce any decisive verdict on the question at issue, and that on the other hand it is not after all so very serious—not in + And we learn from the beginning of the Mālatīmā dhava that
Bhavabhūti had some bitter antagonists to
face, probably from among the circle of his own Brahma nical relations, who reproached him, the Brahman, for not
having given himself “to the study of the Vedas, and to acquiring a knowledge of the Upanishads, of the Sähkhya and Yoga,” and for turning his attention instead to the dramatic art.
He treats these opponents of his with
lofty disdain, and appeals from their judgment to the verdict of futurity and to the world at large —“Those who are here seeking everywhere to depreciate us, do they really
known anything? This work of mine is not for them" | “There will arise, yes, even now there lives many a one like-minded with myself (who is able to appreciate me) || for time is boundless and the world is wide" ||
Bold words
reminding us of Ovid ; quaque patet domitis Roman a t
potentia terris. . . .
