The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Do these thirty-six chapters, then, form one integral work? Are they all the work of one and the same author ? These are the questions which next present themselves for consideration. The evidence bearing upon them, however, is, as might be expected, excessively scanty. Of external evidence, indeed, we have really none, barring Sankara’s statement in his commentary on the Brzhadaranzyakaupanishad’ that the verse which he there quotes from the Anugita has Vyâsa for its author. That statement indicates that Sankara accepted the current tradition of Vyâsa’s authorship of the Anugita; and such acceptance, presumably, followed from his acceptance of the tradition of Vyâsa’s authorship of the entire Mahabharata, If that tradition is incorrect, and Vyâsa is not the author of the Anugita, we have no means of ascertaining who is the author. And as to the tradition in question, it is difficult, in the present state of our materials, to form any satisfactory judgment. We therefore proceed at once to consider whether the Anugîtâ is really one work. And I must admit at the outset that I find it difficult to answer this question. There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus in an early portion of the work, we find the first personal pronoun is used, where the Supreme Being is evidently intended to be signified, and yet the passage is not put into the mouth of Kṛishṇa, but of the Brâhmaṇa. A similar passage occurs a little later on also. Now it must be taken to be a somewhat strained interpretation of the words used in the passages in question to suppose that the speaker there used the first personal pronoun, identifying himself for the nonce with the Supreme Being*. Again, in a passage still further on, we have the vocative O Partha! where the person addressed is not Arguna at all, but the Brâhmaṇa’s wife. Now these lapses are susceptible of two explanations—either we are to see in them so many cases of ‘Homer nodding,’ or we may suppose that they are errors occasioned by one writer making additions to the work of a previous writer, without a vivid recollection of the framework of the original composition into which his own work had to be set2. I own, that on balancing the probabilities on the one side and the other, my mind rather leans to the hypothesis of one author making a slip in the plexus of his own story within story, rather than the hypothesis of a deliberate interpolator forgetting the actual scheme of the original work into which he was about to foist his own additions* And this the rather, that we find a similar slip towards the very beginning of the work, where we have the Brâhmaṇa Kasyapa addressed as Parantapa, or destroyer of foes—an epithet which, I think, is exclusively reserved for Kshatriyas, and is, in any case, a very inappropriate one to apply to a humble seeker for spiritual light. This slip appears to me to be incapable of explanation on any theory of interpolation*. And hence the other slips above noted can hardly be regarded as supporting any such theory. Another circumstance, not indeed bearing out that theory, but rendering interpolations possible, deserves to be noted. The scheme of the Anugita certainly lends itself to interpolations. A story might without much difficulty be added to the series of story joined to story which it Contains. Against this, however, it must not be forgotten, that the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and the Yogavasish¢/a exhibit a precisely similar framework of contents, and that the Pañkatantra and the Kathâsaritsâgara, among other works, follow the same model. And from this fact it may be fairly argued, that while there is, doubtless, room for suspecting interpolations in such cases, there is this to be remembered, that with respect to any particular one of these cases, such suspicion can carry us but a very short way. And further, it is to be observed, valeat quantum, that the connexion of the several chapters of the Anugita one with the other is not altogether a loose one, save at one or two points only, while they are all linked on to the main body of the narrative, only in what we have treated as the last chapter of the Anugita, without any trace of any other connecting link anywhere else. Upon the whole, therefore, we here conclude, though not without doubt, that the whole of the Anugita is the work of one author.
! See Preface, Sâhkhya-sâra, P. 37. ? Ph234.
Do these thirty-six chapters form one integral work? Are they all by the same author? These are the questions that now arise. The evidence bearing on them is, as might be expected, extremely scanty. We have no external evidence worth speaking of, apart from Sankara's statement in his commentary on the Brzhadaranzyakaupanishad that the verse he quotes there from the Anugîtâ is by Vyâsa. That statement shows that Sankara accepted the received tradition of Vyâsa's authorship of the Anugîtâ, and this acceptance presumably followed from his acceptance of the tradition of Vyâsa's authorship of the entire Mahabharata. If that tradition is wrong, and Vyâsa is not the author of the Anugîtâ, we have no way of discovering who is. As for the tradition itself, it is difficult, given the state of our materials, to form any satisfactory judgment. We therefore turn at once to the question of whether the Anugîtâ is really a single work. I must admit from the outset that I find this question hard to answer. There are certainly features of the work that might be taken to indicate different authorship for different parts of it. In an early portion, for instance, the first personal pronoun is used where the Supreme Being is evidently meant, yet the passage is placed in the mouth not of Kṛishṇa but of the Brâhmaṇa. A similar passage occurs a little further on as well. To suppose that the speaker in these passages used the first personal pronoun by momentarily identifying himself with the Supreme Being is a rather strained reading of the words. Again, still further on, we encounter the vocative O Partha! addressed not to Arjuna at all but to the Brâhmaṇa's wife. These lapses admit of two explanations: either we see in them so many instances of Homer nodding, or we may suppose they are errors made by one writer adding to the work of a previous writer, without a clear recollection of the narrative framework of the original composition into which his own work had to fit set2. I will own that, on weighing the probabilities on both sides, I incline rather to the hypothesis of a single author slipping within the intricacies of his own story-within-a-story, than to the hypothesis of a deliberate interpolator forgetting the actual scheme of the original work into which he was about to insert his additions. And this the more so because we find a similar slip near the very beginning of the work, where the Brâhmaṇa Kasyapa is addressed as Parantapa, or destroyer of foes — an epithet which, I think, is reserved exclusively for Kshatriyas, and is in any case a very inappropriate one to apply to a humble seeker after spiritual light. This slip seems to me incapable of explanation on any theory of interpolation. The other lapses noted above can therefore hardly be regarded as lending support to any such theory. One further circumstance, which does not support that theory but does make interpolations possible, deserves mention. The structure of the Anugîtâ certainly lends itself to interpolation: a story could without much difficulty be added to the chain of stories it contains. Against this, however, it must not be forgotten that the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and the Yogavasish¢/a display a precisely similar framework, and that the Pañkatantra and the Kathâsaritsâgara, among other works, follow the same model. From this fact it may fairly be argued that, while suspicion of interpolation is no doubt warranted in such cases, that suspicion, when directed at any one particular case, can carry us only a very short way. It should also be observed, for whatever it is worth, that the connection between the several chapters of the Anugîtâ is not altogether loose — save at one or two points only — while they are all linked to the main body of the narrative only in what we have treated as the last chapter of the Anugîtâ, with no trace of any other connecting link anywhere else. On the whole, then, we conclude here, though not without some doubt, that the entire Anugîtâ is the work of one author.
! See Preface, Sâhkhya-sâra, P. 37. ? Ph234.