________________
AUGUST 2, 1872.]
which are the same in substance at least, and correspond to some extent also in expression; they read as follows:
priyâ tu Sîtâ Râmasya dârâḥ pitrikṛitat iti | gunad rupagnach châ pi pritir‡ bhuyo vyavardhata tasy as cha bharta dvigunam|| hridaye parivar
tate
WEBER ON THE RAMAYANA.
antargatam** api vyaktam âkhvatitt hridayam hridâ ++
In Gorresio there is nothing at all corresponding (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 Bâlakânda. There is, on the other hand, one text at least, namely A, that gives the two verses quite identically with Bhavabhûti's text, with only trifling variations: "abhivardhitaḥ, hy eva, yogam purâtanam"; and in fact they appear in this text also immediately before the close of the Bâlakânda: 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 Uttararamacharita) reads thus:
"tvadartham iva vinyastal silápido 'yam agrataḥ
yasya 'yam abhitaḥ pushpaih pravrishta iva kesaraḥ || "
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):"tvadarthanı iha vinyasta tv iyam slakshuasama sila |
yasyal pârsve taruh pushpail pralirishta¶¶ iva kesarah
svayam BC.- pratikri°C., priyakri B.- guna rupagunâs' cha 'pi punar BC-§'pite dhikab () C., pi varddhataḥ (!) B., 'buivardhate, Ser. Bon.
punar vahugunam Râmam C.- punar bhuyo hridi sthitaḥ BC. anakhyâtam BC.-ft vyakhyâtí BC.#hridi BC.
§§ These read as follows:
Sitaya tu taya Râmah priyaya saha sam gatah | priyo 'dhikataras tasya vijabârâ 'maropamah taya sa rajarshisuto 'nurûpaya, (1) samiyivân (2) uttamarajakanyaya
ativa Ramah s'us'ubhe sukantaya, (3) yuktah s'riya Vishnur iva parajitab|| (4)
1 'bhikamaya C. Schl.-2 sameyivan B.C. Schl.-3 'bhirâmtâ B.C., mudânvito Schl.-4. vibhuh s'riya Vishnuriva 'mares'varah Schl., s'as'iva pûrnah sahital svakantaya C, s'as'iva pûrno divi Dakshakanyaya, B. I pars'va, Ser. 11 pravishta, Ser. Bomb. kes'araib, kesaraiḥ, bomb.
i
247
in Gorresio (II. 105, 6) on the other hand :"tvadartham iha vinyastal silâpatto 'yam agra uḥ
asya pâréve taruh pushpaih pravṛishta iva kesaraḥ ||."
and in A. fol. LXXVIII. (unfortunately the second book exists here only in one MS ):"tvadartham iba vinyastaḥ silâyâm sukhasamstaraḥ |
yasyaḥ pâréve tarul pushpai(r) vibhrashta iva kesarail."
If, then, we are to draw any conclusion regarding 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 encouraging. But with respect to this matter we are entitled to ask, whether, as matter of fact, Bhavabhuti made his quotations with such accuracy as that they really represent the text then in existence? And when we remember the extremely 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 consequently the poet would not be likely to lay himself open to the charge of mis-quoting. 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 Malatimadhava that Bhavabhûti had some bitter antagonists to face, probably from among the circle of his own Brahmanical 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 Sankhya 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 Romana potentia terris...!
