A History of Sanskrit Literature c3.21

c3.21

It is indeed probable that no assured results can be expected regarding borrowing of tales; Sir Richard Temple's ingenious suggestions¹ as to non-Aryan origins of certain *motifs*, with which may be compared those of Professor Przyluski² regarding the influence of Austro-Asiatic peoples on early Indian thought and speech, are inconclusive, nor is it clear that, as Dr. Gaster³ inclines to hold, we owe to India the ideas of fallen angels, genii who return to earth, or legends of asceticism carried to ludicrous extremes. Dr. Gaster, however, rightly stresses the impossibility of assuming that India gave only and did not borrow, and insists on the importance of investigating the possibility of a literary origin for many fairy tales current among the people. Moreover, parallelism should often, it appears to me, be admitted in literary development. It is instructive, for instance, to compare the scheme of development of the practice of emboxing tales within tales given below (p. 320) for India with that suggested by Schissel von Fleschenberg⁴ for Greek literature: the simple tale passes through stages illustrated by the *Milesiaka* of Aristeides, the work of Antonius Diogenes, the *Golden Ass* of Apuleius, and the romance of Petronius, to the complete outcome in later romance. The many *motifs* found in the *Kathāsaritsāgara*, for which parallels are adduced by the learned editor⁵ of a new edition of Tawney's excellent version from western literature, suggest likewise that much may be said for the doctrine of parallelism.