The Rámáyan of Válmíki, translated into English verse
“The punishment which the Code of Manu awards to the slayer of a Brahman
was to be branded in the forehead with the mark of a headless corpse, and
entirely banished from society; this being apparently commutable for a
fine. The poem is therefore in accordance with the Code regarding the
peculiar guilt of killing Brahmans; but in allowing a hermit who was not a
_Divija_ (twice-born) to go to heaven, the poem is far in advance of the
Code. The youth in the poem is allowed to read the Veda, and to accumulate
merit by his own as well as his father’s pious acts; whereas the exclusive
Code reserves all such privileges to _Divijas_ invested with the sacred
cord.” Mrs. SPEIR’S _Life in Ancient India_, p. 107.
Page 174. The Praise Of Kings
“Compare this magnificent eulogium of kings and kingly government with
what Samuel says of the king and his authority: And Samuel told all the
words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over
you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his
chariots, and to be his horsemen: and some shall run before his chariots.
And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over
fifties, and will set them to work his ground, and to reap his harvest,
and to make his instrument of war, and instruments of his chariots.
And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks,
and to be bakers.
And he will take your fields, and your vineyards and your oliveyards, even
the best of them, and give them to his servants.
And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give
to his officers, and to his servants.
And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your
goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have
chosen you. I. _Samuel_, VIII.
In India kingly government was ancient and consecrated by tradition:
whence to change it seemed disorderly and revolutionary: in Judæa
theocracy was ancient and consecrated by tradition, and therefore the
innovation which would substitute a king was represented as full of
dangers.” GORRESIO.
Page 176. Sálmalí.
According to the Bengal recension Śálmalí appears to have been another
name of the Vipáśá. Śálmalí may be an epithet signifying rich in Bombax
heptaphyllon. The commentator makes another river out of the word.
Page 178. Bharat’s Return.
“Two routes from Ayodhyá to Rájagriha or Girivraja are described. That
taken by the envoys appears to have been the shorter one, and we are not
told why Bharat returned by a different road. The capital of the Kekayas
lay to the west of the Vipáśá. Between it and the Śatadru stretched the
country of the Báhíkas. Upon the remaining portion of the road the two
recensions differ. According to that of Bengal there follow towards the
east the river Indamatí, then the town Ajakála belonging to the Bodhi,
then Bhulingá, then the river Śaradaṇḍá. According to the other instead of
the first river comes the Ikshumatí … instead of the first town Abhikála,
instead of the second Kulingá, then the second river. According to the
direction of the route both the above-mentioned rivers must be tributaries
of the Śatadrú.… The road then crossed the Yamuná (Jumna), led beyond that
river through the country of the Panchálas, and reached the Ganges at
Hástinapura, where the ferry was. Thence it led over the Rámagangá and its
eastern tributaries, then over the Gomati, and then in a southern
direction along the Málini, beyond which it reached Ayodhyá. In Bharat’s
journey the following rivers are passed from west to east: _Kutikoshṭiká_,
_Uttániká_, _Kuṭiká_, _Kapívatí_, _Gomatí_ according to Schlegel, and
_Hiraṇyavatí_, _Uttáriká_, _Kuṭilá_, _Kapívatí_, _Gomatí_ according to
Gorresio. As these rivers are to be looked for on the east of the Ganges,
the first must be the modern _Koh_, a small affluent of the Rámagangá,
over which the highway cannot have gone as it bends too far to the north.
The Uttániká or Uttáriká must be the Rámagangá, the Kuṭiká or Kuṭilá its
eastern tributary, Kośilá, the Kapívatí the next tributary which on the
maps has different names, _Gurra_ or above Kailas, lower down _Bhaigu_.
The Gomatí (Goomtee) retains its old name. The Máliní, mentioned only in
the envoys’ journey, must have been the western tributary of the Sarayú
now called Chuká.” LASSEN’S _Indische Alterthumskunde_, Vol. II. P. 524.
Page 183.
_What worlds await thee, Queen, for this?_
“Indian belief divided the universe into several worlds (_lokáh_). The
three principal worlds were heaven, earth, and hell. But according to
another division there were seven: Bhúrloka or the earth, Bhuvarloka or
the space between the earth and the sun, the seat of the Munis, Siddhas,
&c., Svarloka or the heaven of Indra between the sun and the polar star,
and the seventh Brahmaloka or the world of Brahma. Spirits which reached
the last were exempt from being born again.” GORRESIO.
Page 203.
_When from a million herbs a blaze_
_Of their own luminous glory plays._
This mention of lambent flames emitted by herbs at night may be compared
with Lucan’s description of a similar phenomenon in the Druidical forest
near Marseilles, (_Pharsalia_, III. 420.).
_Non ardentis_ fulgere incendia silvae.
Seneca, speaking of Argolis, (Thyestes, Act IV), says:—
Tota solet
Micare flamma silva, et excelsae trabes
_Ardent sine igni_.
Thus also the bush at Horeb (Exod. II.) flamed, but was not consumed.
The Indian explanation of the phenomenon is, that the sun before he sets
deposits his rays for the night with the deciduous plants. See _Journal of
R. As. S. Bengal_, Vol. II. p. 339.
Page 219.
_We rank the Buddhist with the thief._
Schlegel says in his Preface: “Lubrico vestigio insistit V. Cl.
_Heerenius, prof. Gottingensis_, in libro suo de commerciis veterum
populorum (OPP. Vol. HIST. XII, pag. 129,) dum putat, ex mentione
sectatorum Buddhae secundo libro Rameidos iniecta de tempore, quo totum
carmen sit conditum, quicquam legitime concludi posse.… Sunt versus
spurii, reiecti a Bengalis in sola commentatorum recensione leguntur.
Buddhas quidem mille fere annis ante Christum natun vixit: sed post multa
demumsecula, odiointernecivo inter Brachmanos et Buddhae sectatores orto,
his denique ex India pulsis, fingi potuit iniquissima criminatio, eos
animi immortalitatem poenasque et praemia in vita futura negare. Praeterea
metrum, quo concinnati sunt hi versus, de quo metro mox disseram,
recentiorem aetatem arguit.… Poenitet me nunc mei consilii, quod non
statim ab initio, … eiecerim cuncta disticha diversis a sloco vulgari
metris composita. Metra sunt duo: pariter ambo constant quatuor
hemistichiis inter se aequalibus, alterum undenarum syllabarum, alterum
duodenarum, hunc in modum:
[-)] [-] [)] [-] | [-] [)] [)] [-] | [)] [-] [-)]
[)] [-] [)] [-] | [-] [)] [)] [-] | [)] [-] [)] [-)]
Cuius generis versus in primo et secundo Rameidos libro nusquam nisi ad
finem capitum apposita inveniuntur, et huic loco unice sunt accommodata,
quasi peroratio, lyricis numeris assurgens, quo magis canorae cadant
clausulae: sicut musici in concentibus extremis omnium vocum
instrumentorumque ictu fortiore aures percellere amant. Igitur disticha
illa non ante divisionem per capita illatam addi potuerunt: hanc autem
grammaticis deberi argumento est ipse recensionum dissensus, manifesto
inde ortus, quod singuli editores in ea constituenda suo quisque iudicio
usi sunt; praeterquam quod non credibile est, poetam artis suae peritum
narrationem continuam in membra tam minuta dissecuisse. Porro discolor est
dictio: magniloquentia affectatur, sed nimis turgida illa atque effusa,
nec sententiarum pondere satis suffulta. Denique nihil fere novi affertur:
ampli ficantur prius dicta, rarius aliquid ex capite sequente anticipatur.
Si quis appendices hosce legendo transiliat, sentiet slocum ultimum cum
primo capitis proximi apte coagmentatum, nec sine vi quadam inde avulsum.
Eiusmodi versus exhibet utraque recensio, sed modo haec modo illa plures
paucioresve numero, et lectio interdum magnopere variat.”
“The narrative of Ráma’s exile in the jungle is one of the most obscure
portions of the Rámáyana, inasmuch as it is difficult to discover any
trace of the original tradition, or any illustration of actual life and
manners, beyond the artificial life of self-mortification and selfdenial
said to have been led by the Brahman sages of olden time. At the same
time, however, the story throws some light upon the significance of the
poem, and upon the character in which the Brahmanical author desired to
represent Ráma; and consequently it deserves more serious consideration
than the nature of the subject-matter would otherwise seem to imply.
“According to the Rámáyana, the hero Ráma spent more than thirteen years
of his exile in wandering amongst the different Brahmanical settlements,
which appear to have been scattered over the country between the Ganges
and the Godáveri; his wanderings extending from the hill of Chitra-kúṭa in
Bundelkund, to the modern town of Nasik on the western side of India, near
the source of the Godáveri river, and about seventy-five miles to the
north-west of Bombay. The appearance of these Brahmanical hermitages in
the country far away to the south of the Raj of Kasala, seems to call for
critical inquiry. Each hermitage is said to have belonged to some
particular sage, who is famous in Brahmanical tradition. But whether the
sages named were really contemporaries of Ráma, or whether they could
possibly have flourished at one and the same period, is open to serious
question. It is of course impossible to fix with any degree of certainty
the relative chronology of the several sages, who are said to have been
visited by Ráma; but still it seems tolerably clear that some belonged to
an age far anterior to that in which the Rámáyana was composed, and
probably to an age anterior to that in which Ráma existed as a real and
living personage; whilst, at least, one sage is to be found who could only
have existed in the age during which the Rámáyana was produced in its
present form. The main proofs of these inferences are as follows. An
interval of many centuries seems to have elapsed between the composition
of the Rig-Veda and that of the Rámáyana: a conclusion which has long been
proved by the evidence of language, and is generally accepted by Sanskrit
scholars. But three of the sages, said to have been contemporary with
Ráma, namely, Viśvámitra, Atri and Agastya, are frequently mentioned in
the hymns of the Rig-Veda; whilst Válmíki, the sage dwelling at
Chitra-kúṭa, is said to have been himself the composer of the Rámáyana.
Again, the sage Atri, whom Ráma visited immediately after his departure
from Chitra-kúṭa, appears in the genealogical list preserved in the Mahá
Bhárata, as the progenitor of the Moon, and consequently as the first
ancestor of the Lunar race: whilst his grandson Buddha [Budha] is said to
have married Ilá, the daughter of Ikhsváku who was himself the remote
ancestor of the Solar race of Ayodhyá, from whom Ráma was removed by many
generations. These conclusions are not perhaps based upon absolute proof,
because they are drawn from untrustworthy authorities; but still the
chronological difficulties have been fully apprehended by the Pundits, and
an attempt has been made to reconcile all contradictions by representing
the sages to have lived thousands of years, and to have often re-appeared
upon earth in different ages widely removed from each other. Modern