Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c18.s5: 5. The Derivative Forms of the Pañcatantra

A History of Sanskrit Literature c18.s5

Language
English

5. The Derivative Forms of the Pañcatantra

c18.s5.1

Of the versions derived from the *Pañcatantra* that into Pahlavi will be considered later. Of the Indian texts the *Tantrākhyāyika*¹ may be given first rank by reason of its comparative closeness to the original. It may be granted that this relation has been exaggerated by Hertel, but, after all allowances are made, it remains still the nearest approach to the reconstructed text. Its date is uncertain and probably indeterminable. Already it had added certain stories which may be dismissed as not original. These include probably in both recensions that of the blue jackal (i. 8), the outwitting by a jackal of a camel and a lion (i. 13), the weaver Somilaka (ii. 4), king Çibi (iii. 7), the old Haṅsa (iii. 11), and the punishment¹ of the onion thief (iv. 1). In the *a* recension we have the clearly later tale of the wicked procuress (iii. 5), in recension β those of the jackal and the wary fox (iii. 11) and the sham warrior (iv. 3). The relation of the recensions is disputed; Hertel's view is that recension β was interpolated from use of the original 'K' source, whence all but the original of recension *a* are derived. It seems impossible to accept his proofs as establishing the existence of any such 'K', and, if so, the superiority of recension is open to serious doubt. Moreover, though in substance the *Tantrākhyāyika* seems original, its language appears to have been a good deal varied; we find also some attempts in recension *a* at rhythmical prose² unknown to the other versions.

c18.s5.2

¹ Ed. J. Hertel, Berlin, 1910; trans. Leipzig, 1909.

c18.s5.3

¹ Zachariae, *Kl. Schriften*, pp. 170 ff.

c18.s5.4

² See pp. 8, 69, 118.

c18.s5.5

The *textus simplicior* was composed somewhere in western India by a Jain at an uncertain date, but doubtless before Pūrṇabhadra (1199) and after Māgha and Rudra Bhaṭṭa,³ from whom verses are taken, perhaps, therefore, *c.* 1100. It is substantially altered from the original. The five books are made more approximately equal; several stories from iii are placed in iv, to which new matter is also added. A continuation is appended to Book v, the framework of which is altered by making the story of the barber who killed the monks the main story in which the tale of the ichneumon is inserted. The frameworks of Books iii and iv are also rehandled, and new tales added also to Books i–iii. Of the quite original matter seven tales are Märchen, one a witty anecdote, two intrigues, and one a story of a fool. The most remarkable addition is the tale (i. 5) of Viṣṇu and the weaver; the latter gains access to a princess by pretending to be Viṣṇu and mounting a wooden Garuḍa, and, when the fraud is being disclosed through the folly of the king who, proud of his divine connexion, wars unsuccessfully on his neighbours and is beleaguered in his city, Viṣṇu, to save his reputation, has to come down and save the city. This story itself would hardly prove Jain origin, but there is better evidence in the mention of Jain monks in lieu of Brahmin ascetics and the occurrence of Jain terms like *kṣapaṇaka*, *digambara*, *nagnaka*, *vyantara*, a species of spirit, and *dharmadeçanā*, teaching of the law. A very large number of new stanzas is found, while perhaps of the original stanzas not more than one-third was retained. The original of the text appears to have been a text akin to the *Tantrākhyāyika*; like that text the Simplicior contains the unoriginal tales of the blue jackal, the jackal outwitting camel and lion, and the weaver Somilaka.

c18.s5.6

³ Not Rudraṭa as Hertel, *Pañcatantra*, p. 72; see *Çrṅgāratilaka*, i. 68.

c18.s5.7

A second Jain revision was undertaken to please a minister Soma by a monk Pūrṇabhadra in 1199.¹ The work is marked by the appearance of twenty-one new stories, including a famous one of the gratitude of animals and the ingratitude of man (i. 9), while from the *Mahābhārata* hints are taken for the story of the pious pigeon and the hunter (iii. 8). Pūrṇabhadra's version appears to rest in part on our *Tantrākhyāyika*, in part on the prototype of the Simplicior rather than on that text, and in part on some other unknown version. In this connexion it may be noted that the Jains evidently took to study of the Nītiçāstra as they became important at courts; the Āvaçyaka legends, perhaps of the seventh century, have parallels to *Pañcatantra* tales, perhaps derived from one of the older forms of that text. Some of Pūrṇabhadra's matter may have arisen in Jain circles, though his work has no special Jain touches. Its language is marred by Gujarātī and Prākrit intrusions. But, like the author of the Simplicior, he is by no means a bad writer. In his case the title appears as *Pañcākhyānaka*, a name also applied sometimes to the Simplicior. From the two Jain versions are derived various contaminations; one of these, the *Pañcākhyānoddhāra* of Meghavijaya (1659–60), is noteworthy, as it contains many fables of special interest to the investigators of connexions with the west.

c18.s5.8

¹ Ed. J. Hertel, HOS. 11–13, 1908–12; trans. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1901.

c18.s5.9

The north-western version of the *Pañcatantra*, which gave rise to the reproductions of the work in the *Bṛhatkathāmañjarī*² and the *Kathāsaritsāgara*, seems to have been before the authors of these works in the form of a section of the prototype on which they founded their poems. This prototype was not, as will be seen, the original *Bṛhatkathā* of Guṇāḍhya, but a version made much later in Kashmir, and in it apparently the five books of the original were separated by other matter. It omitted the introduction and Tale 3 of Book i, perhaps nothing more. Its language is uncertain. Kṣemendra, however, made use also of recension β of the *Tantrākhyāyika*, whence he derives five unoriginal tales, and perhaps also the plan of keeping the books consecutive. His brevity diminishes the value of his work, but Somadeva's treatment is clear and effective in his wonted manner. He omits our other original tales, probably for reasons of his own.

c18.s5.10

² Ed. L. von Mańkowski, Leipzig, 1892.

c18.s5.11

The Southern *Pañcatantra*¹ exists in at least five recensions, representing the text which won currency in southern India. It is essentially in most of these versions an abbreviated account, in which, while nothing essential has been omitted, a good deal of shortening has been done; Edgerton estimates the amount preserved as three-quarters of the prose and two-thirds of the verses. It is later than Bhāravi. One tale (i. 12) of the cowherdess and her lovers is clearly unoriginal. There is no doubt that it goes back to a common original with the Nepalese version and the *Hitopadeça*, and, as these versions save the last quote a stanza of Kālidāsa, the original cannot have been older than A.D. 500. There exists a much expanded version of this text, based in part on Tamil sources with ninety-six tales in all; from this was derived in substance the Abbé Dubois' *Le Pantcha-Tantra ou les cinq ruses* (1826).

c18.s5.12

¹ Ed. J. Hertel, Leipzig, 1906.

c18.s5.13

A Nepalese manuscript of the *Pañcatantra* gives only the stanzas with one prose piece mistaken for a stanza; other manuscripts give also a prose accompaniment in Sanskrit or in Newārī. The recension in this case is clearly derived from an original which was before the compiler of the *Hitopadeça*; in both alone do we find the transposition of Books i and ii.

c18.s5.14

In addition to these sources many mixed versions of the text can be found in Sanskrit; moreover, it was rendered into old and modern Gujarātī, old and modern Marāṭhī, Braj Bhākhā, and into Tamil, and it was used freely by Çivadāsa in his *Vetāla-* *pañcaviñçatikā*, the Sanskrit texts of the *Çukasaptati*, and the *Dvātriñcatputtalikā*, while its fate in western lands has been still more brilliant.

Linked texts (8)