PANCATANTRA STUDI by A. VENKATASUBBIAH, S 1. Mother Sandili's Barter of Sesame. ‘The story of Mother Sandi's barter of sesame is found in all the older versions of the Paficatantra (i.e, in T, SP, Spl, Pn, So, Ks, N, and Pa') excepting the Hitepadesa’. In Spl, this story is introduced by the ve nakarmée Chandill masa vibrinasi tilats tlan} huiitan starasr yena héryam atra bhavisyati|f 1 The following abbreviations are used in he course of this antes nd those that fallow: Hit: for Hitopadesa Ker for Ktemendea the author of Brbatkathamaijent (BKM) aud also for ‘the Pafeatantra verson contained ie that worl Ns for the Nepale version of the Paacatanira se pushed by Heetel ‘his editions af the Southern Pofeatantra snd the Taste ydyike Pai forthe onginal Pahlavi tramlation ofthe Pasestantes and sho Tor the SSytian and Avabie veruong derived from i sic: for Pabcatantra and alw for Hercel's byck, Dar Pascktunra. Seine Geschichte und Verbretung an for the Padeséantra Reconstructed ob Prof, Franklin Edgerton. Pot for Péxaabhiadta, author of the socalled texts ornatior of the Pafcas ‘antsa and also for that work (edited by Hertel in the HOS). So; for Semadeva, author of the Kathssantssgara (RSS) and al forthe Paicstaniea vesion euotaiped in that work SP: for the Southern Pateatantee (Hertel's ition) Spl> forthe sacalled texts simplicior ofthe Pateatanta (edted by Buhler fad Kielhorn in the BSS). 7 and Tantra; for Tantittyayika (Hertel’s elo princeps). 1 The sony Fs, hkewise, not found in Durgasiqha's Padeataner, a version ‘of the Pata. wenten in the Kannada or Canarere language at some te ia 1085 tw 1ox2 A.D. és Man, BUDS on 2308 A. VENKATASUBBIAH “Mother Sandili docs not, without grounds, exchany usec sesame for wrhsked sere; there mast be sme ean ad ‘is briefly as follows: ‘ 4 Brahana, once, on the morning of the day ot daksipayana- sankrinti, ated hie wie to feed a (Brahmage) gue on the tceaton in honor ofthe sun-go. The wile at fat sid that thre wa absolutely noting in the haute with which ahe could eed 2 fest and began to upbrad her husband for his povecty: but ake lust alowed ere tobe pated by her hunbaed and sai that there was some sensi the howe and that she wold sk and pound it and feed Besmagn with She accordingly poured tome hot water over the sete, removed the hus, an placing ft inthe sun ody, Became engaged i ther work, Inthe mean, 1 dog came and pied inthe sstne, esing wich the Bruna Thought: "Alia With what ingenuity does fate pesca perso! Event sa row tron mae ft rel wee, 0 to somebody's hose and get unsked seein exchange for this Everyone will agree toch an exchange”, Sb accordingly went to somebody's hose an inguved: “Wil any one give the Unhusked sesame in exchange fet this husked sone The mistress ofthe house, eating this, went within in order to bring Uhsked sesame and exchange i forthe husked sesame when hee son, looking toto Kictndats Sook, said: "Mother, do not tale {hi hiked setae of thi wemat in exchange forked ssa “There mist be some reason why ceils husked same it cechange for unused seusie™” Hearing thi, the mites af the hone rected the hiked sesame In Tantra, onthe other han, the above verse ready as — sahaiide Chindili mata vibrinat tila than] Iuicitin Iter toa hiryom aire Dhvigas|] “Mother Singit does aot, without grounds, exchange hisked st lr Med cae lhe th ome ree or and the sory rated thei, fy dfs in some respect Hom Spl version. It is, briefly, as follows: ees from the ‘A Bahmana, once, on the morning of 4 parva-divasa, ask his ites fed tome Benen on the occasion, "The ile por fete that i was not pose to do sand aid that one to pose Aehe should not entrain ideas of feding Brahmagan, After sone PANCATANTRA STUDIES 309, time, she came round and ssid that she had some rice and some sesame with her anid that she would, with the hetp of the disciple Kimandaki, prepare some éysara with them and feed three Brah- smanas. Accordingly she placed a measure of susame before the pupil Kamandaki and asleed him to husk it. *As the attention of the pupil was wholly engaged otherwise, the sesame was defited by a ‘og’. Seeing this, the Brahmagi said to Kamandaki: “Alack! This is a misfortune and I can not feed the BeShmanas with this sesame. Go you however with this sesame, and exchanging it for black sesame, return without delay. 1 shall even prepare black dysara” Kémandaki accordingly went to a Brahmana’s house to effect the exchange and was there asked by the Brahmapa’s wife, “How do you give this sesame?” Kamandaki replied fublans krgnaike prayacchémi yadistam grhyatam sti] fatheme lwiicita bhadre fohcitén eva dehi mej} |As the exchange was accordingly effected, her husband returned home and asked his wife what the matter was. She ssid, “I have ‘obtained an equivalent quantity of white sesame in exchange for black sesame", Hearing this, he laughed and said, nakasmide Chavedile mata vibringté ribais titan | Luficitdml bwicitair eve hdryam atra: bhavigyati f “Mother Saqdili does not, without grounds, exchange husked sesame for husked sesame only; there must be some reason for it” ‘Thus, in the Tantra., the introductory verse speaks of the ex- change of husked for husked sesame while, in Spl, it speaks of the ‘exchange of husked for unhusked sesame. This is the themcof the prose story aiso, not only in Spl, but in SP, Pn, and the Pahlavi versions. ‘Which of these two forms of the introductory verse and of the following prose story is original and which secondary? This question has been discussed? on more than one occasion (der das Tantra., > The stated passage is a vepraduction of the traualation of Hertel, The ginal tens which reads ¢ethd cdot ilopeastham Kasmandahind'itethiters ancayety aacutam falta edttyagrad te GREA hatha ph dts chun biveaitg is obecare and in all pecbabiiy careup 1 The question has likewise been divested is AJP, Vol 3p. 26017 and in is Pascatantra Reconstructed 2, 6 an 1,317, by Prof. Franklin Egerton iho, though difering from Hertel i some minor pointy gates wis in that {he tares. version i origical and, /n esience, teproduces this version in bis “ceconsrseted™ Pafcatantr,310 A. VENKATASUBBIAH. pitaptt; Dar Suid. Pafca., p. LXW MH; Tansra.- User, 1, 284; Das Paiica., p. 4g0{t) by Prof. Hertel who has every time arrived at the conclusion that the Tantra. version of the story and of the introductory verse is original while that of the Spl and other versions is later and corrupt. The reasons urged by him in these books in support of such conclusion are mest ingenious and plausible; but, wnfortunately, not one of the propositions mentioned by Hertel in the course of his argumentation can in fact bear examination 1. In the first place, it is not certain that the reading Aiestes Woncittaih sdmerddha of the Spl MS. bin piida c of the introductory verse is an obvious corruption of the reading lucida! Juicitaid sirdham. Rather is it more probable that it is a corruption of the reading luitcitod ubcitaih sirdham (where the second ward is, not Juicitaih but alwicitaib) which seems 10 be the reading intended here. With this reading, the introductory verse yields the same ‘sense as do the corresponding verses of Spl, SP, Pa, N, and the Pahlavi versions, and like these, is ia conformity with the Following. prose story, Similarly, the Sp! MS. of the H-class, on which, according 10 Hertel, Ratnasundara based his Gujarati version, seems Likewise to have read huicited lwicitaih sardham o¢ soine corrupt reading derived from it, in pada ¢. The latter seems more probably to have been the case; for, pada e, as given by Ratnasundara, is corrupt and makes the verse unintelligible, while pada a has a reading that is found nowhere else. Moreover, Ratnasundaca’s reading! luilitair Auticité yena differs so much ffom that of Tantea., fwicitant date citasr eva, that it is difficult to accept Hertel's opinion that it supports the latter. It thus becomes clear that Hertel's contention that the Tantra. reading of the introductory verse is supported by that of the oldest Spl MS. of the e-class and one MS. of the H-class does not rest on a solid foundation. 2. Secondly, it is difficult for one to assent to Hertel's pro- position that the redactors of the SP, N, Spl and Pahlavi versions, all derived from K that had a lacuaa in the prose story, filled up lucy, the prose story, 10, ja Ratnasundara refers to the exchange of busked for husked sesame — a feature that fe found in the prove story of 80 ‘other Patca. version, nov even in tbe Tanta; ste below, PARCATANTRA STUDI 3 thi lacuns falsely, each one as he liked anil independently of the fothers, and that it is a mere accident that these versions have all filled up the lacuna in the same way. I for one can not believe in such accidents; and besides, Hertel has overlooked the fact that, ‘according to his own hypothesis, all these versions had proseeved intact the introductory verse in its original forn there was no necessity for the redsetors of these versions (o fill up the lacuna as each one liked. If there really were a Jacuna in the prose story, the most natural thing for the redactors of the above versions to do would be to fill it up in conformity with the intro ductory verse. ‘This is what one expects them ta do; and one has, in the absence of valid reasons to the contrary (and Heetel has brought none such forward), the right to assuine that they have in fact done so. Tt follows then from this that the agreement amongst the above versions in respect of the incident of the exchange of husked for unhusked sesame in the prose story is due, not to an accident, but to the fact that this incident is in conformity with the introductory verse. Hertel's talk therefore abuut the lacunis in the archetype K an its filling up is unnecessary and aot quite to the point; for, since the redactors of the above-named versions must have filed up the lacuna Gin ease there really was one) in the prose story in conformity with the introductory verse, they must have used words of the same import ss those that stood there originally. And as we are not at present concerned with the words of the story but with the sense, it makes no difference to us whether there was a lacuna in the arche type K which was later on filled up by the redactors of phe above: ‘named versions or whether we have before us the original words ‘of the prose story. As a matter of fact, however, T agree with Prof. Edgerton in huis opinion (Paiea, 2, 118) that ‘Hertel's "lacuna"” and subsequent ‘restoration’ are alike imaginary’. Hertel, I conceive, was abliged to have recourse to such conjectures because, though confronted with the SP, Spl, N, Pn, and Pahlavi versions of the introductory verse and prose story which are unanimous in referring to the ex change of husked for unhusked sesame, he still elt convinced that the Tantra. version alene of this verse and story, whieh, in his opinion, refer to the exchange of husked for Husked sesame, has preserved these features of the original Pafeatuntrs, He has ther and that hence