To be or not to be Sigupdla: which version of the key speech in Magha's great poem did he really write?

• Author: Bronner, Yigal
• Position: Critical essay

1. INTRODUCTION

   Imagine that the famous soliloquy in act 3 of Shakespeare's Hamlet existed in two completely different versions, in only one of which Hamlet is in doubt about the value of existence and action; in the hypothetical alternate version Hamlet would express his full confidence about the right mode of being and behaving. Had such a radical divergence existed in the text of Shakespeare's most famous play, this fact would certainly not have gone unnoticed. Careful scholarly attention and probably many monographs would have been devoted to the study of this textual problem: to examining the variants and their provenances, to determining, if possible, which of the two soliloquies is original or more authentic, and to explaining how the other version came to be included in the text. Scholars would not have limited their attention to text-critical studies of this one passage but would certainly have explored its connection to the larger work of which it forms a part. The question of which version best fits the style and structure of the play, its development, and the character of its protagonist would certainly have been considered and might well have been a key issue, if not the key issue, in Hamlet studies. (1)

   In fact, just such a divergence exists in one of the best-known and most celebrated works of the Sanskrit poetic canon, Magha's Sisupalavadha (The Killing of Sisupala), written probably in the late-seventh or early-eighth century. At the key moment in the story, when the titular antagonist Sisupala directly challenges Krsna, the poem's divine hero, the work splits into two versions. In one version SiSupala's speech, one of the most scathingly blasphemous tirades in the history of Sanskrit literature, derides Krsna in no uncertain terms. In the other version his speech contains two simultaneous registers of meaning: one denounces Krsqa in similar terms, but the other actually praises him resoundingly as the Supreme God. It is hard to believe, but this total divergence has received virtually no scholarly attention. Many (although not all) editors of the poem, both premodern and modern, were aware of this textual split and often included both versions of the speech in their editions, but very rarely did they even bother to comment about it, let alone voice an opinion about the authenticity of either version and its significance. (2) As for secondary scholarship, the very existence of this divergence has, with only one exception, been completely overlooked. (3)

   This neglect, stunning though it may seem, is symptomatic of the way in which studies of Sanskrit poetry, and in particular the flagship genre of mahaKavya, have been carried on since the dawn of modern Indology some two and a half centuries ago. This is a field where questions of the integrity of whole works, consistency of character, and the development of the plot have rarely been asked and in some cases have been explicitly dismissed as irrelevant. But as we intend to show here, a serious consideration of the textual problem at hand necessitates consideration of what should be major questions in the study of Sanskrit literature, if not, in fact, literature as such. Broadly, our queries can be divided into three categories. The first concerns the kind and degree of integrity we should look for in a whole narrative poem: How consistent should we expect characters to be in their psychology and their actions, and to what degree does the plot revolve around their meaningful development? To what extent should the individual verses and episodes be viewed as parts of a well-designed narrative structure? And can particular poems be recognized as bearing throughout a distinctive individual style? The second category of questions relates to the culture of the transmission of Sanskrit literature: How were Sanskrit poems received and reproduced by redactors, copyists, commentators, and literary connoisseurs? What capacities and liberties did editors and commentators have, and what were the discursive rules governing editorial decisions? More specifically, what role did censorship play in the transmission and consumption of kavya poetry, for example, when speaking and ill-speaking about God? The third category concerns our own critical and editorial practices: How should we decide the authenticity of a contested passage, if this is indeed what we should be trying to do? And what role should our own literary and aesthetic judgments play in our reconstruction of the text? Obviously, we cannot fully explore all these questions in a single article devoted to one specific textual problem, significant though it may be. Still, we hope that by bringing this problem to light and trying to resolve it, we can at least begin to address these questions and, we hope, generate more discussion about them.

   We will begin by situating the episode of igupala's verbal attack on Kia in the larger context of the poem. Then we will examine each of the two versions of the speech in detail, after which we will weigh them against one another and attempt to reach a judgment that tentatively accounts for the development of this textual split.

2. MAGHA'S POEM

   Magha'Sisupalavadha is based on an episode from the second book of the Mahabharata (2.33-42). During the royal consecration (rajasaya) of Yudhisthira, the oldest of the five brothers who are the main protagonists of the epic, the question arises as to who should be the ceremony's guest of honor. On the recommendation of Yudhisthira's great-uncle Bhisma, the family elder, the honor is given to Krspa. This choice surprises and offends many of the kings of the world who have gathered to attend the sacrifice, since Krsna is not a king and, in fact, is of very humble social origins. One king in particular, Krsna's cousin and bitter personal rival Sigupala, stands up to challenge Yudhisthira's choice. Angry speeches from both sides follow. Bhisma defends his recommendation, claiming that Krsna is no ordinary mortal but, in fact, the Supreme Lord Visnu incarnate, a claim that Sigupala ridicules. At this point Sigupala and a large group of kings threaten to walk out, which will effectively spoil the sacrifice, a ritual enactment of Yudhisthira's imperial authority. At this point Krsna decapitates Sigupala in midsentence, using his discus. This settles the question, and the other kings allow the ceremony to continue unimpeded.

   We should note that like Krsna, Sigupala too is no ordinary man, as Bhisma explains during the exchange. Sigupala was born with four arms and three eyes, and a disembodied voice prophesied that whoever caused him to gain a normal human appearance would also one day kill him. Along with other members of the family, Krsna comes to see the newborn, and when the baby is placed on Krsna's lap, his additional arms and eye disappear. In view of the prophecy, Sigupdla's mother begs Krsna to forgive any offenses Sigupala may commit against him. Krsna promises that he will tolerate up to one hundred death-worthy misdeeds (Mbh 2.40.22). When Kia decapitates Sigupala, presumably after his hundredth transgression, a great light arises from Sigupdla's headless corpse and enters the body of Kona. Bhisma, who again seems particularly well informed about such matters, explains that this is actually a portion of divine energy that Krsna had wished to recover (Mbh 2. 37.11, 2.42.3, 2.42.22-24).

   Magha's magisterial poem greatly expands on this episode. It begins with the fiery descent to earth of a divine messenger, Narada, who comes to tell Krsna that he must destroy a threat to the world: the demon Hiranyakagipu, whom Visnu first destroyed when he took on his man-lion incarnation, and who then was reborn as the demon Ravana (whom Vispu killed during his incarnation as Rama), has once again taken birth, this time as Sigupala. Krsna, the current incarnation of Vin.u, must now destroy him for the good of the world. Krspa promises to do so, and Narada returns to heaven. Kona next confers with his closest advisers and kin: should he leave at once to kill Sigupala, or should he go to attend Yudhisthira's sacrifice, to which he has been invited and which is about to take place? Krsna decides to attend the sacrifice instead of pursuing Sigupala. (4) His leisurely journey to Yudhiqhira's city is described at great length and takes up nearly half of Mdgha's great poem. Then the poet recounts Yudhisthira's sacrifice, at which, fortuitously, Sigupdla appears and openly challenges Krsna's preferment, opening the way for a direct confrontation.

   Sisupala stands up in the assembly and delivers a long speech attacking Krgia. This is the key speech that exists in two completely different versions and forms the main subject of this article. Following it, Bhisma insultingly challenges any king who wishes to dispute the honoring of Krsna, at which point Sigupala and the kings allied with him storm out in anger and both sides prepare for battle. Sigupala now sends an envoy to Krspa with a dual message, pleading for peace while threatening war. These two messages are presented in a "bitextual" form (slesa)--a single text that can be interpreted to convey two different, in this case opposite, meanings. (5) After some deliberation, Kona's advisers conclude that the real import of Sigupala's message is hostile and humiliating, and war is inevitable. A battle ensues, and in the end Krsna decapitates Sigupala with his discus, this time on the battlefield rather than in the assembly hall. (6)

3. THE EXISTING VERSIONS

   As we have already pointed out, Magha's Sisupalavadha is one of the most cherished and celebrated works ever written in Sanskrit. It circulated widely throughout the subcontinent and was commented on many times; a great number of manuscripts and more than thirty commentaries are preserved in libraries all over South Asia. (7) These numerous testimonia of the poem are remarkably similar, showing for the most part only minor variations...