2023-03-16 06:44:16 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
The thirty-two Bharataka stories.
Our author, it is true, evidently avoids words and phrases which
could give a clue as to his creed. Not the least trace of Jain doctrine
and worship is to be found in his book; but the same remark is
true with regard to the doctrines and forms of worship of other com-
munities except those of the Shaivas. In one place, however, he
uses the Jain technical term (see story 3). Another word
which is known to me only from Jain sources is
(story 32)
al. The
'To cacare', a synonymon of the more frequent
purport of story 31 equally hints at the authorship of a Jain, in
as much as it is directed against meat nourishment. The wise
scholar who prevents the Bharatakas from eating the burnt crows,
gives his instructions in accordance with an old Jain principle
which Hemachandra in his Parisistaparvan ii, 293 clothes in the
words बुध्येत यो यथा जन्तुस्तं तथा बोधयेत्. But this scholar
bears the name Suvichara; he is therefore no Jain monk.
Considering the role which Jain monks, and especially the
Kevalins, as well as Jain worship usually play in the narrative
literature of the Jains, it is difficult not to see here the clever
calculation of a man who avoids showing his book in the light of
a pamphlet inspired by selfish motives; and the circumstance that
none of the scholars who hitherto have spoken of his work were
aware of its true character evidently shows how well be succeeded
in his endeavours.
The author, then, was a prudent man, and whosoever reads
his amusing stories without prejudice and with the know-
ledge necessary for understanding them, will admit
that, with all the simplicity of their style, they are well told, and
very probably produced on the readers for whom they were written
the impression at which the writer aimed. Pavolini's judgment
referred to above, p. 3, can only be explained by the fact that
he was not at all aware of the nature of the work under con-
sideration, and that he did not understand the greater part of it.
Without the least idea as to what the vernacular could possibly
be in which some stanzas of the book are composed, he does not
hesitate to translate them. So he quotes a stanza from the Flo-
rentine MS., story 8: रूडद् रूडड संपजइ । विरुअइ विरुओ लड़ ।
सुंदरि राजघरई गई । भरडउ मंकडि खद्ध । (Pavolini wrongly
transcribes ladva, khadva, and has the blunder gharaim). This
he translates as follows: 'Does he wail? Let him wail! It is
quite right if misfortune has befallen the bad. The girl went
to the royal palace, and the monkey scratched the monk'. The
language of these verses, of course, is Old Gujarati, and their correct
translation is: 'By good comes good, and by bad bad has been
gained. The girl went to the royal palace, and the Bharataka was
Our author, it is true, evidently avoids words and phrases which
could give a clue as to his creed. Not the least trace of Jain doctrine
and worship is to be found in his book; but the same remark is
true with regard to the doctrines and forms of worship of other com-
munities except those of the Shaivas. In one place, however, he
uses the Jain technical term (see story 3). Another word
which is known to me only from Jain sources is
(story 32)
al. The
'To cacare', a synonymon of the more frequent
purport of story 31 equally hints at the authorship of a Jain, in
as much as it is directed against meat nourishment. The wise
scholar who prevents the Bharatakas from eating the burnt crows,
gives his instructions in accordance with an old Jain principle
which Hemachandra in his Parisistaparvan ii, 293 clothes in the
words बुध्येत यो यथा जन्तुस्तं तथा बोधयेत्. But this scholar
bears the name Suvichara; he is therefore no Jain monk.
Considering the role which Jain monks, and especially the
Kevalins, as well as Jain worship usually play in the narrative
literature of the Jains, it is difficult not to see here the clever
calculation of a man who avoids showing his book in the light of
a pamphlet inspired by selfish motives; and the circumstance that
none of the scholars who hitherto have spoken of his work were
aware of its true character evidently shows how well be succeeded
in his endeavours.
The author, then, was a prudent man, and whosoever reads
his amusing stories without prejudice and with the know-
ledge necessary for understanding them, will admit
that, with all the simplicity of their style, they are well told, and
very probably produced on the readers for whom they were written
the impression at which the writer aimed. Pavolini's judgment
referred to above, p. 3, can only be explained by the fact that
he was not at all aware of the nature of the work under con-
sideration, and that he did not understand the greater part of it.
Without the least idea as to what the vernacular could possibly
be in which some stanzas of the book are composed, he does not
hesitate to translate them. So he quotes a stanza from the Flo-
rentine MS., story 8: रूडद् रूडड संपजइ । विरुअइ विरुओ लड़ ।
सुंदरि राजघरई गई । भरडउ मंकडि खद्ध । (Pavolini wrongly
transcribes ladva, khadva, and has the blunder gharaim). This
he translates as follows: 'Does he wail? Let him wail! It is
quite right if misfortune has befallen the bad. The girl went
to the royal palace, and the monkey scratched the monk'. The
language of these verses, of course, is Old Gujarati, and their correct
translation is: 'By good comes good, and by bad bad has been
gained. The girl went to the royal palace, and the Bharataka was