by turns become prominent. Sometimes Arjuna, sometimes Yudhishthira, at others Bhíma, appears to be the principal orb round which the plot moves *. Moreover in various passages Siva is described as supreme, and receives worship from Krishna. In others, Krishna is exalted above all, and receives honour from Siva t. In fact, while the Rámáyaṇa generally represents one-sided and exclusive Bráhmanism ‡, the Mahá-bhárata reflects the multilateral character of Hinduism; its monotheism and polytheism, its spirituality and materialism, its strictness and laxity, its priestcraft and anti-priestcraft, its hierarchical intolerance and free-thinking philosophy, combined. Not that there was any intentional variety in the original design of the work, but that almost every shade of opinion found expression in a compilation formed by gradual accretion through a long period. In unison with its more secular, popular, and human character, the Mahá-bhárata has less of mere mythical allegory, and more of historical probability in its narratives than the Rámáyana. Hence also it contains many more illustrations of domestic and social life and manners than the more ancient epic. Its diction again is more varied than that of the Rámáyaņa. The bulk of the latter poem (notwithstanding interpolations and additions) being by one author, is written with uniform simplicity; and the antiquity of the greater part is proved by the absence of studied elaboration, and the use of occasional irregular forms of grammar. The Mahá-bhárata, on the other hand, though generally simple and natural in its language, and free from the conceits and artificial constructions of later writers, comprehends a greater diversity of composition, rising sometimes (especially when the Indravajrá metre is * In this respect the Mahá-bhárata resembles the Iliad. Achilles can scarcely be regarded as its hero. Other warriors too much divide the interest with him. † In the Bhagavad-gítá Krishna is not merely an incarnation of Vishņu; he is identified with Brahma, the supreme spirit. It is well known that in Homer the supremacy of one god (Jove), and due subordination of the other deities, is maintained. Some free thought, however, has found its way into the Rámáyaņa; see II. cviii (Schl.); VI. lxii. 15 (Gorr.); VI. lxxxiii. 14 (Calc. edit.). G employed) to the higher style, and using not only loose and irregular, but also studiously complex grammatical forms *. In contrasting the two Indian poems with the Iliad and the Odyssey, we may observe many points of similarity. Some parallel passages have been already pointed out, and others will be noted in the analysis at the end of this book. We must of course expect to find the distinctive genius of two very different people in widely distant localities, colouring their epic poetry very differently, notwithstanding general features of resemblance. Though the Rámáyana and Mahá-bhárata are no less wonderful than the Homeric poems as monuments of the human mind, and no less interesting as pictures of human life and manners in ancient times, they bear in a remarkable degree that peculiar impress ever stamped on the productions of Asiatic nations, and separating them from European. On the side of art and harmony of proportion, they can no more compete with the Iliad and the Odyssey than the unnatural outline of the ten-headed and twenty-armed Rávaṇa can bear comparison with the symmetry of a Grecian statue. While the one commends itself to the most refined classical taste, the other by its exaggerations only excites the wonder of the Asiatic mind, or if attractive to the European, can only please an imagination nursed in an Oriental school. Thus, in the Iliad, time, space, and action are all restricted within the narrowest limits. In the Odyssey they are allowed a wider though not too wide a cycle; but in the Rámáyana and Mahá-bhárata their range is almost unbounded. The Rámáyaṇa, as it traces the life of a single individual with tolerable continuity, is in this respect more like the Odyssey than the Iliad. In other points, especially in its plot, the greater simplicity of its style, and its comparative freedom from irrelevant episodes, it more resembles the Iliad. There are many graphic passages in both the Rámáyana and Mahá-bhárata which, for beauty of description, cannot be surpassed by any thing in Homer. It * The use of irregular grammatical forms is sometimes due to the exigency of the metre: thus, parínayámása for pariņáyayámása, má bhaih for má bhaishíh: but not always; thus vyavasishyámi is used where the metre would admit of vyavasásyámi. should be observed, however, that the diction of the Indian epics is more polished, regular, and cultivated, and the language altogether in a more advanced stage of development* than that of Homer. This, of course, tells to the disadvantage of the style on the side of nervous force and vigour; and it must be admitted that in the Sanskrit poems there is a great redundance of epithets, too liberal a use of metaphor, simile, and hyperbole, and far too much repetition, amplification, and prolixity. Let the reader of these poems, however, bear in mind, that Oriental compositions must not be judged from an exclusively European point of view. In the eyes of a Hindú, quality is nothing without quantity; and even quantity does not commend itself to the taste, unless seasoned with exaggeration. The reader's appreciation of many passages will depend upon his familiarity with Indian mythology, as well as with Oriental customs, scenery, and even the habits and appearances of the animal creation in the East. Most of the similes in Hindú epic poetry are taken from the motions of Asiatic animals, such as elephants and tigers †, or from peculiarities in the aspect of Indian plants and natural objects. Then, as to the description of scenery, in which Hindú poets are certainly more graphic and picturesque than either Greek or Latin †, * An interval of many centuries must have separated the language of the Indian epics from that of the Rig-veda. A comparison of diction would, I think, lead us to place the Rámáyaṇa very close to Manu, if not to make these works nearly contemporaneous. †Thus any eminent or courageous person would be spoken of as 'a tiger of a man.' Other favourite animals in similes are the lion (sinha), the ruddy goose (chakraváka or rathánga), the buffalo (mahisha), the boar (varáha), the koïl or Indian cuckoo (kokila), the heron (krauncha), the ox (gavaya, i. e. bos gavæus), &c. &c. It should be noted, however, that similes in the Indian epics, though far too frequent (see p. 25 of this book), are generally confined to a few words, and not, as in Homer, drawn out for three or four lines. The descriptions of scenery and natural objects in Homer are too short and general to be really picturesque. They want more colouring and minuteness of detail. Twining accounts for this by observing that the Greek poets were not accustomed to look upon nature with a painter's eye. (Poetics, p. 43.) the whole appearance of external nature in the East, the exuberance of vegetation, the profusion of trees and fruits and flowers*, the glare of burning skies, the freshness of the rainy season, the fury of storms, the serenity of Indian moonlight †, and the gigantic mould in which natural objects are generally cast-these and many other features are difficult to be realized by a European. We must also make allowance for the difference in eastern manners; though, after conceding a wide margin in this direction, it must be confessed that the disregard of all delicacy in laying bare the most revolting particulars of certain ancient legends which we now and then encounter in the Indian epics (especially in the Mahá-bhárata) is a serious blot, and one which never disfigures the pages of Homer, notwithstanding his occasional freedom of expression. Yet there are not wanting indications in the Indian epics of a higher degree of civilization than that represented in the Homeric poems. The battle-fields of the Rámáyaṇa and Mahá-bhárata, though abounding in childish exaggerations, are not made barbarous by wanton cruelties; and the descriptions of Ayodhya and Lanká imply far greater luxury and refinement than those of Sparta and Troy. The constant interruption of the principal story (as before described) by tedious episodes, in both Rámáyaṇa and Mahá-bhárata, added to the rambling prolixity of the story itself, will always be regarded as the chief drawback in Hindú epic poetry, and constitutes one of the * The immense profusion of flowers of all kinds is indicated by the number of botanical terms in a Sanskrit dictionary. Some of the most common flowers and trees alluded to in epic poetry are, the chúta or mango; the aśoka (described by Sir William Jones); the kinśuka (butea frondosa, with beautiful red blossoms); the tamarind (amliká); the jasmine (of which there are many varieties, such as málatí, játí, yúthiká, &c.); the kuruvaka (amaranth); the sandal (chandana); the jujube (karkandhu); the pomegranate (dáḍima); the kadamba (nípa); the tamarisk (pichula); the vakula, karṇikára, śringáța, &c. †There is a beautiful description of night in Rámáyaṇa (Gorr.) I. xxxvi. 15, &c. There is something savage in Achilles' treatment of Hector; and the cruelties permitted by Ulysses, in the 22d book of the Odyssey, are almost revolting. Compare with these Ráma's treatment of his fallen foe Rávaṇa, in the Yuddha-káṇḍa. } 6 most marked features of distinction between it and the Greek. Even in this respect, however, the Iliad has not escaped the censure of critics. Many believe that this poem is the result of the fusion of different songs on one subject, long current in various localities, intermixed with later interpolations, something after the manner of the Mahá-bhárata. But the artistic instincts of the Greeks required that all the parts and appendages and more recent additions should be blended into one compact, homogeneous, and symmetrical whole. Although we have certainly in Homer occasional digressions or parentheses, such as the description of the 'shield of Achilles,' the story of Venus and Mars,' these are not like the Indian episodes. If not absolutely essential to the completeness of the epic conception, they appear to arise naturally out of the business of the plot, and cause no violent disruption of its unity. With eastern writers and compilers of legendary narratives, continuity was often designedly interrupted. They preferred to string together a number of distinct stories, like detached figures on a running frieze, rather than combine them into one harmonious outline, like the finished group on a medallion. They even purposely broke the sequence of each story; so that before one was ended another was commenced, and ere this was completed, others were interwoven; the result being a curious intertwining of stories within stories, the slender thread of an original narrative running through them all. A familiar instance of this is afforded by the 'Arabian Nights,' and by the well-known collection of tales called 'Hitopadeśa' (known in Europe as Pilpay's Fables); and the same tendency is observable in the composition of their epic poemsfar more, however, in the Mahá-bhárata than in the Rámáyaṇa. Passing on to a comparison of the plot and the personages of the Rámáyana with those of the Iliad,-without supposing, as some have done, that either poem has been imitated from the other, it is certainly true, and so far remarkable, that the subject of both is a war undertaken to recover the wife of one of the warriors, carried off by a hero on the other side; and that Ráma, in this respect, corresponds to Menelaus, Sítá to Helen, Sparta to Ayodhya, Lanká to Troy. It may even Uor M |