A History of Sanskrit Literature c24.s1.1

c24.s1.1

THE obvious parallelisms between Indian and Greek fairy tales and fables have never been ignored, and have evoked lively controversies. Wagener¹ held that Greece was the recipient, but both Weber² and Benfey³ came to the conclusion that the Indian fables were borrowed from Greece, and for this view there could be adduced the question of chronology; the Greek fable is clearly in existence in the time of Hesiod, is hinted at in Homer, appears definitely in Archilochos and Simonides, and is developed into an important branch of literature, though the actual date of our collections is less certain. Herodotos, however, knew of Aisopos as a fable-teller, and Babrios (*c.* A.D. 200) and Phaedrus (*c.* A.D. 20), if themselves late, drew from earlier sources. Benfey complicated the position by holding that fairy tales were normally Indian in origin, thus establishing a dualism which was difficult to defend. Keller⁴ contended for the priority of India, and this view has recently been revived and insisted upon.⁵ As a chronological consideration stress has been laid on the monumental evidence in India, especially at Bharhut of the third or second century B.C., for the existence of beast fables, and some would accept the Jātaka stories as already existing in the fourth or fifth centuries B.C., although this is manifestly dubious. Various criteria have been imagined by which to decide priority; Weber preferred the test of simplicity, naturalness, or naïveté, Benfey thought that incompleteness was often a sign of greater age, while Keller laid stress on the doctrine of logical sequence and conformity to the habits of animals as revealed in nature. Thus he developed the argument that the fact of the jackal following the lion to partake of the remains of his kill is true to nature, and easily suggests to the early fabulist the conception of making him minister to the lion as king of beasts, whence, as the minister must according to Indian tradition be a miracle of cunning, the jackal is thus reputed; in Greece where the fox appears in the role of the jackal, his position is unexplained, for he is not in reality a very cunning animal. Unhappily this ignores, apart from the fact that it is fancy, not fact, that creates a world of intelligent beasts, the possibility that the fable had its origin neither in India nor in Greece, but was a product of lands intermediate between these countries. Weber justly contended that, if the relation of lion and jackal came thence to Greece, it would have to be changed to suit Greek conditions, while, if it later reached India from Greece, it would have been necessary there to reinstate the jackal. Or, more naturally, it may be held that the fable reached both west and east from the common source in the early fables connected with the name of Aisopos. We cannot ignore the possibility of Egypt having played a part in the genesis and transmission of fables, and Diels¹ has with special reference to Kallimachos claimed for Lydia a substantial share in the work of diffusion. Hertel,² again, has insisted that the idea of making use of fables to given instruction in politics is essentially Indian, and on the strength of it has claimed for India originality in respect of the best Greek fables; but the assertion is as little capable of proof as the claim that Greece excels in witty and pointed fables which in India have often suffered watering down at the hands of Buddhist and other preachers.