New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press 2000
In Righteous Rama (Oxford University Press, 1984),
Brockington had made his first attempt to trace the evolution
of the epic, subjecting it to linguistic and stylistic examination
to find five distinct layers the text went through to establish
Rama as the moral ideal of righteousness: He also made a very important point regarding the difference between the two great epics of India. Mahabharata, as it evolves, depicts a steady tendency to shift from the dramatic to the ethical viewpoint, while the evolution of Ramayana shows a change from the poetry of action to the poetry of feeling, emphasizing the emotional and lyrical at the expense of the heroic. Frank Whaling's 1980 study showed that around 4th century BC Valmiki is known simply as belonging to Koshala ignorant of Central and South Indian geography. This changed by the 1st century BC in the Balakanda to a famous sage whose ashrama was near Gliga. By the 2nd century AD in the Uttarakanda Valmiki has become a friend of Dasharatha and a Bhargava. In the latest texts, he is a robber belonging to a low caste. According to Whaling, a ballad of 12000 verses split into adhyayas developed into cantos (sargas) with tag verses of variant metres. Then regional variants sprang up interpolating geographical cantos and supernatural material. Finally, under Brahmanical influence, came the legendary part of the Balakanda and the entire seventh book with the mythic origin of the epic through divine inspiration. Epic Threads is a selection of Brockington's studies that is possibly one of the supreme examples of "lower criticism." The Western obsession with an "ur epic" is grimly pursued through lexical microscopic analysis to determine the accretions, perhaps missing the point Whaling made that the significance of the epic lies not in the cause but in the effect, the end, that is what Rama developed into for people as a symbol of meaning from Rama the man through Rama the successor of Indra to Rama the avatara of Vishnu, though not yet worshipped. The papers span the period 1969-1995 and are arranged in four sections: linguistic evidence of stages of composition in six papers during the period 1969-1982; manuscript studies in two papers of 1986 and 1991; four papers setting forth the implications of such analysis (1976-7, 1995-97); finally three papers on the relationship between the two epics (1978, 1985, 1986). An extremely useful table has been added from Righteous Rama plotting the stages of composition of the Ramayana (reproduced above). Brockington's thesis is that it is not just the "growth" of a martial ballad through padding, such as the Bala and the Uttara kandas, into a classical epic. It is also, as Greg Bailey perceptively notes in his learned introduction, a thematic and theological development mirroring changes in the socio-cultural and religious context. Brockington furnishes exhaustive statistical and typological surveys of linguistic features from the Ayodhya, Aranya and Kishkindha kandas, analysing even particular manuscripts within recensions to reveal peculiarities of syntactic structures, using raw linguistic data of the numbers and statistical frequency of occurrence of words, phrases, and grammatical forms. The focus is non-narrative and the plot is referred to only for explaining particular linguistic features.
In terms of the nominal system, Ramayana, like Mahabharata's older portions, falls in-between the Brahmanas-Sutras and classical literature. Important findings for dating the epic are the infrequent use of a gerundive as a prior part of a compound, whereas it is characteristic of Buddhist Sanskrit, and the use of multi-member dvandvas and dhara compounds that are absent from the early Upanishads. The eight books of Ayodhya and Aranya kandas that are abnormal in other respects also show a heavy incidence of vriddhied derivatives, thus arguing for considerable interpolation (e.g. Bharadvaja entertaining Bharata's army, Bharata's return to Ayodhya, Lakshmana's description of winter, Sita's dissuasion of Rama from unprovoked killing, Rama's visit to Agastya's hermitage). Brockington points out that the significant increase in the proportion of long compounds from the Ayodhya to the Kishkindha kanda argues for interpolated material retained even in the Critical Edition. Lakshmana's entry into Sugriva's palace, the entry of the Vanaras into Rikshabila, Hanumana's views of Lanka and Ravana's palace, his emotions on seeing Sita, the killing of Aksha--all show an unusually high proportion of long compounds. Brockington even isolates a particular class of compounds beginning with krodha peculiar to the Balakanda and with taptakancana in the Aranyakanda that are wholly absent from Ayodhyakanda. His conclusion is that none of the compounds of more than eight syllables can belong to the genuine epic. The syntax of cases is simple, regular with infrequent use of prepositions or their substitutes and of periphrases, all indicating that "the genuine epic dialect belongs to the older strata of the language." By studying stereotyped expressions, Brockington concludes that the epic is the work of a conscious artist working "within the limits, and in the spirit, of a living epic tradition." It is revelation to find that only Rama is called satyaparakramah in Ayodhyakanda frequently, and that this recurs just once in Aranya and Sundara kandas, is absent in Kishkindha kanda but becomes frequent in Yuddhakanda. In Aranya and Yuddha kandas, he is most often described as son of Dasharatha, which is absent in Ayodhyakanda. Aklishtakarman is restricted to Rama in the epic but is applied to both Krishna and Partha in the Mahabharata. Stock epithets for Sita are only three in Ayodhyakanda, but increase in Aranyakanda and later, all relating to her being Janaka's daughter and belonging to Mithila and Videha. In the forest she is most of all Vaidehi and slender-waisted. A common phrase she shares with Draupadi is dharmapatni yashasvini. Ravana is most commonly described as ravano rakshasadhipah, Hanuman as marutatmajah. The implications of these findings are spelled out in the paper "The names of Rama" where he infers that this is due to the shift in emphasis to Rama as a morally righteous hero. Brockington cites no reason for concluding that, "the story of Surabhi at 2.68 is undoubtedly borrowed from the Mahabharata" (p.122) despite the admission that there is only one really close parallel in language. In the last paper of the book he summarises this study by dividing these formulaic expressions into four main groups: those frequently occurring in both epics and indicating a common inherited tradition; those occurring only in Mahabharata or borrowed from it in later parts of Ramayana; those peculiar to Ramayana or only in the late passages of Mahabharata; and those occurring only in later parts of both epics showing interlinkages with the Puranas. The analysis suggests that "redactors of the Northern recension were more familiar with the Mahabharata than those of the Southern" and that the two traditions had merged by the time of the later parts of the epics. The fourth variety has a broad religious import reflecting the altered area of interest and could be a consequence of epic transmission having been taken over by Brahmins. The parallels or borrowings are concentrated in certain books of each epic, which helps to unravel their textual history. Figures of speech are analysed to reveal that the epic is in the early stages of formation of the corpus of standard imagery that characterises classical Sanskrit literature. Thus, there are few similes referring to the lotus, in contrast to its profusion in later literature. Similes are the commonest figure of speech and others are used very sparingly only at dramatic points of the narrative towards the later parts of the epic. This is where the suspect passages differ strikingly, as they amplify a detail or episode by using a figure of speech. Finding that one in six of similes in Ayodhyakanda, one in four in Aranyakanda and one in five in Kishkindha kanda have exact or similar parallels in Mahabharata, Brockington concludes that there was a common stock of similes shared between the epics and displaying the homogeneity of the epic tradition. He also points out the greater frequency and sophistication in using figures of speech in Ramayana than in Mahabharata, but does not realise that this is what sets apart the kavya from the itihasa. An important finding is that Indra predominates among the gods mentioned in the similes, with no mention of Vishnu and Shiva in Ayodhyakanda. The suspect passages abound in similes referring to Vishnu. Brockington identifies four similes of Shiva and two of Vishnu as interpolations retained in the Critical Edition besides 2.85 (Bharata's army being entertained) and 2.88-89 (the beauties of Chitrakuta). The fact that similes referring to cattle reveal no veneration of the cow indicates the antiquity of the epic. The elephant accounts for the maximum number of similes referring to animals, followed closely by snakes (frequent in Sundarakanda). The natural world predominates in Ayodhya and Kishkindhakanda similes, the gods in the Aranyakanda. The ocean occurs frequently in Ayodhyakanda but is absent in Kishkindhakanda (where mountains are much more) and rare in Aranyakanda. Ayodhyakanda has ten similes involving the night that do not recur elsewhere. Brockington concludes that "the similes reflect a pattern of society and culture characteristic of a fairly early period" and the usage bears out the dating of the original epic as having been composed by the fourth century BC. In the earliest stage of the text, proverbial expressions are few, accounting for just a quarter of the total and many occur for the first time in the Ramayana. Over 40% occur in the reworked or added portions; some revealing a didactic element that is so obvious in the Shanti and Anushasana parvas of Mahabharata. Brockington improves upon Sternbach's specialisation in this field by noting 72 proverbs of which 52 recur in the later epic as well (Sternbach and Hopkins mention 20). Over a third of these do not occur in other Sanskrit texts. Many of the proverbs recurring in Mahabharata relate to the evils of a king not protecting his people and to a kingless state. He points out that in the Northern recension, proverbs are twice as many as in the Southern, and the alamkaras are also more frequent, reflecting the more polished text of the former. Studying the syntax of the epic, Brockington finds that the connective particle uta, frequent in the later epic, is rare in Valmiki and restricted to added passages. The relative system is simple with infrequent use of the double relative, restriction of a causal sense to yad, rare occurrence of pronominal adjectives and similar forms (even yatah is seldom used). Sentences are connected by a connective particle often stressed by use of anaphora through repeating the verbal idea of the earlier sentence by an absolutive or participle. He concludes what is surely axiomatic, viz. "the earlier portions were written in what is basically a very simple, straightforward style" complex constructions becoming more frequent later. A major contribution by Brockington is his research showing that several assertions in the Critical Edition are mistaken and the simple contrast posited between Northern and Southern recensions "does not adequately represent the complexities of the chain of transmission involved." He finds that the Southern recension is not as uniformly consistent as presumed, that the interrelationship between various recensions is far more complex than recognised so far and that Kerala had a definite alternative tradition. His textual study of Malayalam manuscripts of the Ayodhyakanda shows that those selected for the Critical Edition do not represent fully the Malayalam subrecension. He found around 125 manuscripts that the editors did not use until the Uttarakanda. Only 29 mss were used for the Ayodhya, Aranya and Sundara kandas against 41 for the Uttara. He also discovered that the manuscript evidence in the Critical Edition is incomplete. No Oriya mss have been used and only one Maithili. He found that attention had not been paid to checking the mss for their alignment that can alter not just from one kanda to another but even within a single kanda. He points out that the Varadaraja commentary is the oldest extant one on the text and would contain valuable clues. His findings warrant reopening the "closed" status of the Critical Edition for taking full account of the wealth of available material. He makes a pathbreaking suggestion that needs to be taken up by editors of the epic: instead of the Critical Edition's system of assigning mss to recensions or to script versions, which is too limiting in either slotting a particular mss to a version or dismissing it as contaminated, a better model would be the Venn diagram of mathematics (T.S. Eliot would have condemned this as a typical instance of "jargon"). This model (p.204) depicts the different originals that have formed a specific mss while avoiding the impossible task of reconstructing the entire chain of transmission. After such intensely demanding reading, the remaining papers show a welcome move into the area of "higher criticism", an exemplary instance of which can be found in Sri Aurobindo's writing in the early years of the twentieth century:
Brockington cannot scale such heights, but examining the religious attitudes in the epic by drawing upon his study of similes he finds that the religious pattern is more archaic than has been generally recognized. The elaborations of Brahmanic literature are absent, leading him to propose "a definite dichotomy between Brahman and Kshatriya in the immediate post-Vedic period." The pantheon is markedly Vedic (even Garuda occurs more often than Vishnu, with whom he has hardly any association in the epic; neither has Shri). Indra is the most important deity and commissions Rama's exploits. Whaling showed that Rama's heroic exploits follow the paradigm of Indra's victory over Vritra and he actually uses Indra's weapon and chariot. Indra even says that with his help Rama will defeat Ravana whose son has conquered him. Thus, Rama is his successor in the battle against the demons.2 Brockington's findings are that Varuna has faded in importance, his twin Mitra is absent, and his pasha (noose) has been taken over by Yama. There is no serious thought regarding life after death, or of a previous existence. Destiny is assigned a limited role. Brahma becomes prominent in the second stage as the creator (but not four-headed) and replaces Indra as boon-bestower. It is he, and not Vishnu, who as a boar raises up the earth from the waters. While in Ramayana it is Indra who restores the dead warriors to life at Rama's request, in the Ramopakhyana of Mahabharata this is changed to Brahma. Ganesha is absent, but Skanda is mentioned as Kartikeya and Guha. Shiva is not regarded as superior to the gods and is usually referred to as Rudra along with his wife Agrajaputri and mount Nandi. References to images are totally absent till the third or fourth stage. Buddhism and Jainism are unknown. There is little sign of cow-veneration (Bharadvaja offers Rama beef at 2.48.16 and Rama refers to the sage Kandu killing a cow at his father's command). The Asuras are characterised more by power than by demonic traits. The meagre detail regarding sacrifices mostly relates not to the sages but to the Rakshasas who are associated with caityas (cult spots). Both epics make no reference to any fixed or constructed place of worship. Religion is projected more as social duty, matching the Kshatriya background of the epic, and less formal aspects of worship receive emphasis. The ashvamedha description comes in the later Bala and Uttara kandas, and it is interesting to see the similarity between the description in the Balakanda and Yudhishthira's ashvamedha (Vyasa cites the example of Rama when urging Yudhishthira to perform this sacrifice). Brockington challenges Sheldon Pollock's argument that the
divinity of Rama is integral to the epic from the earliest stages
and was suppressed from the Ayodhya to the Yuddha kandas by pointing
out that many interpolations make no mention of such divinity
while others do. In that case, how can Pollock maintain that
Rama's divinity is part of the un-interpolated part of the epic?
Moreover, the two passages on which Pollock depends are in sargas
that differ markedly in style from the epic core. Brockington
points out that Rama is wholly human in the earliest stage. Hanuman
denies identification with Vishnu twice and explicitly calls
Rama human in 5.48.11 and 49.26. In the second stage, Rama begins
to display divine qualities and is compared particularly with
Indra (60 times at least), while Lakshmana is compared to Vishnu,
in keeping with the early tradition of Vishnu being the youngest
of the Adityas. Indra remains the standard comparison for the
warrior king as the Kshatriya's ideal. Indra loses ground in
Bala and Uttara kandas to Vishnu and Shiva who gain status
considerably. The latest parts subordinate Shiva to Vishnu. In
the third stage, around the second century AD (Bala and Uttara
kandas and sarga 105 of Yuddhakanda) Rama is identified
with Vishnu. This is consolidated in the fourth and fifth stages.
Whaling also made the telling point that the critical century of the Ramayana tradition was not that of its composition in the fourth century BC but when people came to believe in him as God (Tulsi and Kabir in the 15th century AD). Brockington points out that while filial duty is the mainspring of the first part of the plot, it is devotion to Sita in the second. Moral scruples creep in at the second stage (Sita advising Rama against killing Rakshasas, Rama justifying killing Vali, the fire-ordeal). Later still Sita has to prove her chastity by appealing to the earth and Rama's character has evolved from the martial to the moral, from the hero to the avatara. The analysis of "the names of Rama" reveals the relative lack of stereotyping in epithets stressing his strength, prowess, and pugnacity, suggesting that the martial aspect was not particularly important in the conceptualisation of his character. Moreover, the popular image of Rama as the bowman has no support in the epic where this appellative is applied more often to Lakshmana and as often to others, including Rakshasas. Surprisingly, allusion to Rama's wisdom (ramasya dhimatah)
is not noticeably frequent except in the fourth stage. Brockington
points out that the reference to Rama's wisdom in the context
of Sita's banishment "indicates the (later) poet's explicit
approval of the attitudes involved." The terms indicating
Rama's parentage decline in frequency while the more general
dynastic terms raghava and kakutstha increase,
with a shift to the elaborate raghunandana in the later
stages-the form preferred from Kalidasa to Tulsidas. ----------------------------
|
||||