possible) that the Mahā-bhārata episode was epitomized from the Rāmāyaņa, and altered here and there to give it an appearance of originality. There are, however, remarkable differences. The story in the Mahā-bhārata, although generally treating Rāma as a great human hero only, begins with the circumstances which led to the incarnation of Vishnu, and gives a detailed account of what is first mentioned in the Uttarakānda of the Rāmāyaņa—the early history of Rāvaņa and his brother. The birth of Rāma, his youth, and his father's wish to inaugurate him as heir-apparent are then briefly recounted. Daśaratha's sacrifice, Rāma's education, his winning of Sitā, and other contents of the Bāla-kāņda are omitted. The events of the Ayodhyā-kāņḑa and much of the Araņya-kāņḑa are narrated in about forty verses. A more detailed narrative begins with the appearance before Rāvaņa of the mutilated S'ūrpa-ņakhā (see p. 355), but many variations occur; for instance, Kabandha is killed, but not restored to life (see p. 358); the story of S'avarī is omitted, and there is no mention of the dream sent by Brahmā to comfort Sītā (see p. 358)[1].
There are other references to, and brief epitomes of parts of the story of the Rāmāyaņa in the Mahā-bhārata, e.g. in Vana-parvan 11177-11219; in Droņa-parvan 2224-2246; in S'ānti-parvan 944-955; in Hari-vaṉśa 2324-2359, 8672-8674, 16232.
The story of Rāma is also (as Professor Weber observes) referred to in the Mŗiććhakațikā (Act I); and although not mentioned in Kālidāsa's dramas, it is alluded to in his Megha-duta (verses 1, 99); and in his Raghu-vaṉśa—which is a kind of abridged Rāmāyaņa—the poet Vālmīki is named (XV. 63, 64). Moreover, the Rāmāyaņa forms the basis of a Prākrit work called the Setu-bandha (ascribed to one Kālidāsa, and mentioned in Dandin's Kāvyādarśa I. 34), as well as of the Bhațți-kāvya, or grammatical poem of Bhațți (written, according to Lassen, Ind. Alt. III. 512, in Valabhi-pura under king S'rīdhara-sena, between 530 and 545 of the Christian era), and of the two celebrated dramas of Bhava- bhūti, called Mahā-vīra-ćaritra and Uttara-rāma-ćaritra (whose date is
- ↑ These and other differences have led Professor Weber to suggest the inquiry whether the Mahā-bhārata version may not be more primitive than that of the Rāmāyaņa, and possibly even the original version, out of which the other was developed. 'Or ought we,' he asks, 'to assume only that the Mahā-bhārata contains the epitome of an earlier recension of our text of the Rāmāyaņa; or should both texts, the Rāmopākhyāna and the Rāmāyaņa, be regarded as resting alike upon a common ground-work, but each occupying an independent stand-point?'
