Talk:Panchatantra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Indian literature. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale by the Indian literature project.

	Panchatantra is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents 1 Proposed merger 2 Image 3 Confusing/Contradictory Section: "Two Links with Aesop" 4 TODO

[edit] Proposed merger

Based on the article texts, there doesn't appear to be any reason why the Syriac translation of the fable collection deserves an article of its own, but then again I'm not an expert on ancient literature. Opinions? 84.239.128.9

In my opinion, if the Kalilag and Damnag is very old translation, no merger is required. Both the pages may grwo independently. --Bhadani 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles have grown independently to cover much of the same material in different words, which is why a merge would seem appropriate. I don't quite see how the oldness of the translation would be relevant, can you expand on that? As far as I can see, the main question would be whether the Kalilag and Damnag is substantially different from the original. 84.239.128.9 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with you. However, I am trying to get views of someone having a deeper understanding (than me) of the both the texts. I have also requested you to create a user name, if you wish. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I am against this merger idea because the oral and literary history of this blended work is overwhelmingly complex and curious. Each of the main classical versions (translations/retellings) should have its own distinct article/identity, and indeed the Syriac title line used here (Syriac being a minor tributary source, and thus misleading) should probably be deleted, leaving only the Arabic 'Kalila and Dimna' -- which (circa 750 AD) is the undisputed mainstream rendition that transmitted these fables throughout world culture.

Part of the problem is that three distinct versions (in Sankskrit, Arabic and modern Persian) are ethnocentrically regarded by each originating culture as being the 'true' literary masterpiece. Yet in each culture's verison there are very siginificant variations of story and treatment -- including gratuitious moralistic additions to satisfy local time-bound religious or political ideologies. Furthermore the original Sanskrit version is LOST as is ALSO the first translated version into Pehlevi (or old Persian). The Syriac translation of 570 AD (two removed from the original lost Sanskrit 'Panchatantra') according to Keith-Falconer¹ (a 19 Cent Cambridge Syriac scholar) refelects the Pehlevi "perhaps more perfectly than in the Arabic". Be that as it may, it is the Arabic version, 'Kalila and Dimna', (also translated from the Pehlevi by a Persian convert to Islam, later in 750 AD) that ensures the book survival in world culture, much as Arabic scholarship sustained Greek learning for humanity during the same period.

'Kalila and Dimna' remains a classic of secular Arabic prose², known throughout the Arab world -- rather like Chaucer is to English speakers. Similarly the 15th Cent version in Persian called the 'Anwari Suhali' is also deemed a great classic by Farsi speakers. The novelist Doris Lessing, in her Introduction to Ramsay Wood's 1980 English retelling of 'Kalila and Dimna' ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0892818166/202-1445389-2081465?v=glance&n=266239 ) discusses many of these issues in detail. She begins with these words: "The claim has been made for this book that it has travelled more widely than the Bible, for it has been translated through centuries everywhere from Ethiopia to China. Yet it is safe to say that most people in the West these days will not have heard of it..."

Thus to put all versions of these worldwide fables under one article about 'The Panchantantra' would firstly be misleading as there isn't a single source Sanskrit manuscript. There are dozens, and indeed it was only in 1924 that Franklin Edgerton³, a Yale Sanskritist, reconstructed a defined modern version based on a "a minute study of... all versions which seemed to provide useful evidence on the lost Sanskrit text to which, it must be assumed, they all go back." Secondly it would ignore the unique and separate (though related and certainly equal) classical masterpieces that are enjoyed in Arabic and Persian today. --Debongu 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the explanation. It is more than sufficient justification for me to withdraw my merger proposal, although I think it would still make sense to reduce the duplication of content between the two articles. Since you obviously know more about the subject than any of the previous contributors, I hope you will have time to improve the articles some day soon. 84.239.128.9 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

–––– Thanks, I shall. But I'm new to Wikipedia so am stumbling along trying to master its rules,terms, language and usage skills. Do you want to see here what I've got so far, or do I just stick it up and wait and see what reaction, if any, occurs? My concern is some areas of this subject are ethnologically sensitive, so what happens in disagreements -- do different factions start wiping each others words/ideas out in the interest of 'their' truth? --Debongu 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. As an occasional Wikipedia dabbler I am not exactly the best person to answer, but if worst comes to worst, there are dispute resolution mechanisms that are mostly successful in discouraging and eliminating unreasonable contributors. But then even reasonable contributors, with a willingness to discuss their differences, may end up creating a stilted article where every sentence is based on a long discussion and as a result there is no spirit or overall concept behind the text. However, don't let my worst-case example discourage you - if you accommodate the neutral point of view and cite your sources, your knowledge will most likely come through in the end.

As regards your initial contributions on these two articles, I recommend being bold and simply making changes to the articles -- there hasn't been that much contributor interest to date, and if someone feels you're heading to the wrong direction, it's up to them to bring it up. 84.239.128.9 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

From Dutch wikipedia. Relief from Java, Indonesia. deeptrivia (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing/Contradictory Section: "Two Links with Aesop"

The article on Aesop's Fables says,

The collection under the name of Aesop's Fables evolved from the late Greek version of Babrius, who turned them into choliambic verses, at an uncertain time between 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD. In about 100 BC, Indian philosopher Syntipas translated Babrius into Syriac, from where Andreopulos translated back to Greek, since original Greek scripts had all been lost. Aesop's fables and the Panchatantra share about a dozen tales, leading to discussions whether the Greeks learned these fables from Indian storytellers or the other way, or if the influences were mutual.

This seems to contradict the glaringly incomplete section in this article which says there are exactly two stories shared (which two is not said) and that India is seen as the source of the fables.

I'm inclined to trust the "Aesop's Fables" version more.

Can any expert on this subject clear this up? Perhaps the section should be removed for its seeming incompleteness if not for inaccuracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pediddle (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Good point! I've added in the names of the two stories from Edgerton, once a Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit at Yale. This is a contentious and tricky area; in fairness it's up to the writer of the Aesop article (or someone checking his/her references) now to specify the titles of the "about a dozen tales" that overlap with The Panchatantra. And the source of that information. Debongu 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TODO

May I request editors of this wikipage to go through a proper review process. For me, it looks better than B. Thanks. GDibyendu (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)