Note.
Oesterley states that this tale is No. 26, in the Persian Tútínámah, in Iken, p. 109. The deliberations about carrying off the wife of the commander-in-chief are, in this form of the story, carried on in the presence of the counsellors only; and the king is the only one that dies. From the Persian Tútínámah the story has passed in a very similar form into the Turkish Tútínámah. Compare Malespíní, 1, No. 102, (Oesterley’s Baitál Pachísí, pp. 207, 208.) The story, as told by Śivadása, will be found in Bezzenberger’s Beiträge zur Kunde der Indo-germanischen Sprachen, Vol. IV, p. 360. Dr. Zachariæ, the author of the paper, gives a reference to the Rajataranginí, IV, 17–37, which Professor Bühler pointed out to him. He tells us that the story is the 14th in Jambhaladatta’s recension. The story is also found in the parables of Buddhaghosha; in a form based upon the Ummadantíjátaka. Dr. Zachariæ gives the Pali text of this Játaka in an Appendix, and the corresponding Sanskrit version of the tale from the Játakamálá of Aryaśúra. He also refers his readers to Upham’s Mahávanso, pp. 212–213; Beal, Texts from the Buddhist canon, commonly known as Dhammapada, Section XXIII, Advantageous Service; Bigandet, The life or legend of Gaudama, the Buddha of the Burmese, pp. 220–221; and Mary Summer, Histoire du Bouddha Sákya-Mouni, (Paris, 1874,) p. 145.
In the Pali version the Bráhmans are so bewildered at the sight of the girl that they cannot eat, but put their rice on their heads &c. instead of putting it in their mouths; so she has them driven out by her servants. Out of revenge they tell the king that she is a kálakaṇṇi, which according to Childers means “a hag.” In the Játakamálá they are too much bewildered to stand, much less to eat; but the report which they make is much the same as in our text, and made from the same motives.
[1] See Vol. I, pp. 104, 294, and 574.
[2] The Sanskrit College MS. reads prág for náma.
[3] The Sanskrit College MS. gives mándyam̱ for maurkhyam̱.
[4] The Sanskrit College MS. gives mankshu for mantram̱.
[5] Duḥkhávahe, the reading of Brockhaus’s edition, is obviously a misprint for sukhávahe, which I find in the Sanskrit College MS.
[6] May we compare this king to Daphnis, who τὸν αὑτῶ
ἄνυε πικρὸν ἔρωτα, καὶ ἐς τέλος ἄνυε μοίρας?
[7] Cp. the behaviour of the followers of the emperor Otho.
Chapter XCII.
(Vetála 18.)
Then in that cemetery, full of the flames of funeral pyres, as of demons, flesh-devouring, with lolling tongues of fire, the undaunted king Trivikramasena went back that same night to the aśoka-tree.
And there he unexpectedly saw many corpses of similar appearance hanging upon the tree, and they all seemed to be possessed by Vetálas. The king said to himself, “Ah! what is the meaning of this? Is this deluding Vetála doing this now in order to waste my time? For I do not know which of these many corpses here I ought to take. If this night shall pass away without my accomplishing my object, I will enter the fire, I will not put up with disgrace.” But the Vetála discovered the king’s intention, and pleased with his courage, he withdrew that delusion. Then the king beheld only one Vetála on the tree in the corpse of a man, and he took it down, and put it on his shoulder, and once more started off with it. And as he trudged along, the Vetála again said to him, “King, your fortitude is wonderful: so listen to this my tale.”