The hirsl Western scholars to underlake the sludy of the ancient lileratures of India and Sn Lanka were struch by the discuvery therein of story molifs already familiar to them from the Greeks. Attempts to account for the phenomenon at the time were, however, litlle more than conjecture coloured by prejudice, and based on all loo few examples. 最早研究印度和斯里兰卡古代文献的西方学者们震惊地发现，其中包含的故事母题与希腊传说如出一辙。然而当时对这一现象的解释，除了带有偏见的臆测外，几乎都建立在极其有限的例证基础上。
In this book Prof. Peris, erudite in the literatures of classical Greece and Rome and widely read in the Jatakas, shows that the number of Greek and oriental,stories with comparable motifs (or fragments thereof) is far greater than had been earlier recognized, while chronology and opportunity argue for their having been swept into India with the Greeks of Alexander and after. Some of these IndoGreeks, he has reason to believe, converted to Buddhism. which was then flourishing in these same regions. and conlinbuled to Buidhist literalure as much as they so evidently did to Buddhist art. 本书作者佩里斯教授精通古希腊罗马文学，对本生经亦有广泛涉猎。他揭示出：具有相似母题（或其片段）的希腊与东方故事数量远超学界认知，而年代学与历史机遇都表明，这些故事是随着亚历山大大帝及其后继者的希腊人传入印度的。他有理由相信，部分印度-希腊人后来皈�了当时正于该地区蓬勃发展的佛教，正如他们显著影响了佛教艺术那样，这些皈依者对佛教文学的贡献同样不可小觑。
购于strilanka 购于斯里兰卡
2024.1 .16
GREEK STORY MOTIFS IN THE JATAKAS 《本生经》中的希腊故事母题
Other Books by the Author: 作者其他著作：
Published by M.D.Gunasena & Co.Ltd.
Socrates : Jeevana Charitaya
Aesop's Fables
Further Fables from Aesop
The Rest of Aesop's Fables
Longus : Daphnis and Chloe
Theophrastus : Characters
Aspects of Greek Democracy
Everybody's Aesop M.D.古纳塞纳有限公司出版
《苏格拉底传》
《伊索寓言》
《伊索寓言续编》
《伊索寓言补遗》
朗格斯：《达夫尼斯与克洛伊》
泰奥弗拉斯托斯：《人物志》
《希腊民主面面观》
《大众伊索寓言》
Published by S. Godage and Bros. 由 S. Godage and Bros.出版
Greek and Roman Writtings 希腊与罗马著作
Greek ha Roma Lekhana 希腊与罗马文献
GREEK STORY MOTIFS IN THE JATAKAS 本生经中的希腊故事母题
by 作者PROF. MERLIN PERIS 梅林·佩里斯教授Emeritus Professor of Classics 古典学荣休教授University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka 斯里兰卡佩拉德尼亚大学
Published by 由
Godage International Publishers (Pvt)Ltd., 戈达吉国际出版有限公司
No.675, Maradana Road, 斯里兰卡科伦坡 10 区
Colombo 10, Sri Lanka. 马拉达纳路 675 号出版
Tel : 074-614904 Fax 01-674187 电话：074-614904 传真：01-674187
E-mail : godageem@slt.lk Web : www.godage.com 电子邮箱：godageem@slt.lk 网址：www.godage.com
Figure 1: FRONTISPIECE: The Trojan Horse frieze from Gandhara. 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} cent.A.D. (Wylie Collection). The men wear Graeco-Roman clothes, while Cassandra, upper body bare, is in Indian dhoti. 图 1：卷首插图：犍陀罗地区的特洛伊木马浮雕。公元 1 世纪（怀利收藏）。人物身着希腊罗马式服装，而上身赤裸的卡珊德拉则穿着印度腰布。
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 致谢
If I owe thanks to any one person more than another for this book, whatever its worth, seeing the light of day, it is to my colleague in the Classics, Prof. D.P.M.Weerakkody, who thought my several articles on the jatakas deserved coming before the general reader as a comprehensive work. For me this was like calling back waters that had already flowed past the bridge. However, opportunity offered itself to me to bring the material together in a first draft when I was invited to spend four weeks (Nov. - Dec. 1994) at the Villa Serbelloni in Bellagio, (Italy) - for which I am grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Study and Conference Center. It has taken several years since then for me to get back to the completion of this book. Considering that the text, even so, was, like all my other writings, hand-scripted, I am indebted to Yamuna Pathirana of the Department of Classics of the University of Peradeniya for the diligence and patience she showed in type-setting this, revising it with each draft to take in several interpolations and admit changes and corrections dictated by my whims and afterthoughts. I need also to express here my gratitude to Profs. A.S.Kulasuriya and P.B.Meegaskumbura for looking through the manuscript and making several corrections and suggestions, also to Leela Kobbekaduwa and my wife, Kshanti for patient reading of the proofs and ridding the text of many lurking typographical and grammatical errors. If there still remain factual, critical or linguistic flaws, they only go to show how much more there would have been, were it not for the assistance I so readily received from those whom I here thank, and for all of which I would solely have had to accept responsibility - as I do now those which still remain. Lastly, I take opportunity here to record my inestimable admiration of the scholarship of the several writers, both Classical and Oriental, who have contributed so richly to the debate on the subject of this book, and upon whose opinions and observations I have depended so much in basing my own. 若论及本书得以面世（无论其价值几何）最应感谢之人，当首推我的古典学同事 D.P.M.维拉科迪教授。他认为我关于本生经的系列文章值得整合成一部完整著作呈现给大众读者。于我而言，这无异于让逝水复返桥头。然而当我有幸受邀在意大利贝拉吉奥的塞尔贝洛尼别墅驻留四周（1994 年 11 月至 12 月）时，终于获得契机将资料汇编成初稿——在此我要感谢洛克菲勒基金会贝拉吉奥研究与会议中心的慷慨支持。此后又历经数载，方得完成此书。考虑到本书稿与我所有著作一样始终采用手写方式，佩拉德尼亚大学古典学系的亚穆纳·帕蒂拉纳女士不辞辛劳地将手稿录入排版，并随每一稿修订增补内容，包容我反复无常的修改要求，其耐心与勤勉令我深怀感激。在此亦需向……诸位教授致谢。 A.S.库拉苏里亚和 P.B.米加斯昆布拉审阅了手稿并提出诸多修改建议，同时感谢莉拉·科贝卡杜瓦和我的妻子克珊提耐心校对付印稿，清除了许多潜藏的排版与语法错误。若仍存在事实性、批判性或语言性疏漏，这恰恰表明若无上述人士的鼎力相助（在此深表谢忱），本书瑕疵将更为显著——正如此刻我必须为现存疏漏承担全责。最后，谨向诸多古典学界与东方学界的学者们致以无上敬意，他们以渊博学识为本书议题贡献卓著，其观点与洞见为我的研究奠定了坚实基础。
CONTENTS 目录
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 致谢
INTRODUCTION: PART I 导论：第一部分
CHAPTER I GREEK FABLEANDBUDDHIST JATAKA 第一章 希腊寓言与佛教本生经
The Manifestation of an Enigma 谜题的显现
CHAPTER II THE BUDDHIST JATAKA 第二章 佛教本生经
Character and Content 特征与内容
CHAPTER III THEAESOPICFABLE 第三章 伊索寓言
Genre and Antiquity 体裁与古代渊源
CHAPTER IV THE ARGUMENT FROM ANIMALS 第四章 来自动物的论据
Exotic Creatures in the Aesopic Fables 伊索寓言中的异域生物
CHAPTERV THEPASSAGETOINDIA 第五章 通往印度之路
Comparable Motifs and the Question of 可比较的主题与问题
Borrowing 借鉴
CHAPTER VI RECALLINGANDRECYCLING 第六章 回忆与循环
Greek Motifs in Indian Clothing 印度服饰中的希腊元素
INTRODUCTION: PARTII 引言：第二部分
CHAPTER VII LIKEHORSE,LIKEASS 第七章 马与驴的相似之处
Some Lesser Known Parallels 一些鲜为人知的平行案例
CHAPTER VIII TWOLYINGMONKEYS 第八章 两只说谎的猴子
Conversion, Inversion and Localization 转化、反转与本土化
CHAPTERIX THEASSINTHELION-SKIN 第九章 披着狮皮的驴
Adventures of a Greek Fable in India 一则希腊寓言在印度的历险
CHAPTER X THEELUSIVEWOLF 第十章 诡诈之狼
Three Unfledged Aesopizing Jatakas 三则未成熟的伊索式本生故事
CHAPTER XI FLYING CRAFTSMANANDFLYING 第十一章 飞翔的工匠与飞马
HORSE （空行保留）
Motifs from Greek Mythology 希腊神话母题
CHAPTER XII THEDANCINGPEACOCK 第十二章 舞动的孔雀
Herodotus in the Jatakas 《本生经》中的希罗多德
CONCLUSION 结语
BIBILIOGRAPHY 参考文献
INDEX 索引
INTRODUCTION 引言
PART I 第一部分
This book brings together, with lesser detail and argumentation, my studies of the phenomenon of motif-similarity between certain Greek fables and other stories and the Buddhist jatakas already published in several articles, mostly in The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities. When I undertook the investigation of such parallels, a fair number of these had been observed and recorded by erudite scholars, both Orientalist and Classical. Excitement was first evinced when it was discovered that there occured in the Sinhala Pansiya Panas Jataka Pota fables familiar to the west through Aesop. Interest in this enigmatic phenomenon increased with the discovery and editorship of the Jatakatthavannana by Prof. Viggo Fausböll and its translation into English thereafter in six volumes under the editorship of Prof. E.B.Cowell, when more such parallels began to turn up. 本书以较为简略的论述方式，汇集了笔者关于希腊寓言与其他故事同佛教本生经之间母题相似性现象的研究成果，这些研究此前已散见于多篇论文（主要刊载于《斯里兰卡人文杂志》）。当我着手考察这类平行对应关系时，东方学与古典学领域的博学之士早已发现并记载了相当数量的案例。最初引发学界震动的是在僧伽罗语《潘西雅·潘纳斯本生故事集》中发现了西方人通过《伊索寓言》熟知的故事情节。随着维戈·福斯贝尔教授对《本生经注》的发现与编订，以及随后 E.B.考威尔教授主持编译的六卷英译本问世，更多类似对应关系陆续浮现，这一神秘现象引发的学术兴趣与日俱增。
This resulted, on the one hand, in a number of reviews and sporadic observations on the relevant stories by specialists in the field, and on the other, their ranging themselves on the side of India or Greece in the matter of the priority and borrowing, while there remained a few who sought the explanation on the basis of some other theory. Nor has there been a shortage of those who would attribute it to a common Aryan heritage or a font that was neither Greek nor Indian - popularly suggesting Babylonia. Prejudice often outran scholarship as it did when Gunion Rutherford belittled oriental capacity for mature story in strong language, and now does with Indian (and Sri Lankan) scholars evincing misplaced nationalistic or religious fervour when what is to be expected is a cool, critical appraisal of the evidence. 一方面，这导致该领域专家对相关故事进行了大量评论和零星观察；另一方面，他们在优先权和借鉴问题上分别站在印度或希腊的立场，同时仍有少数人试图用其他理论来解释。也不乏有人将其归因于共同的雅利安遗产，或既非希腊也非印度的源头——普遍认为是巴比伦。偏见常常凌驾于学术之上，正如吉尼恩·卢瑟福曾用激烈的言辞贬低东方人创作成熟故事的能力，如今印度（和斯里兰卡）学者也表现出不合时宜的民族主义或宗教热情，而本应期待的是对证据进行冷静、批判性的评估。
My own interest in this question arose from a modest undertaking to bring before the Sinhala readers as many of the fables of Aesop as I felt would create interest in this popular mode of folk-story among them, raising the quantum from a handful that was up to then known to the readership to over four hundred and fifty. These 我对此问题的兴趣源于一项朴素的尝试：向僧伽罗读者介绍尽可能多的伊索寓言，我认为这会激发他们对这种民间故事流行形式的兴趣。通过这项工作，读者已知的寓言数量从寥寥无几增加到超过四百五十则。
were, in the first instance rendered by me from Greek and Latin into English. In the course of this my attention was drawn to the parallels with the jatakas, first observed by Joseph Jacobs, whereafter their numbers were substantially increased by Cowell’s group of translators, themselves accomplished Classicists as much as Orientalists, not to mention the parallels of Greek stories with Indian literature as a whole brought together by Berriedale Keith. 最初由我将希腊文和拉丁文译为英文。在此过程中，我注意到与《本生经》的相似之处，这最初由约瑟夫·雅各布斯发现，随后考威尔的翻译团队大幅增加了这些相似故事的数量——他们既是造诣深厚的古典学者，也是东方学家——更不用说贝里代尔·基思所汇集整理的希腊故事与整个印度文学之间的相似性了。
For several reasons, however, a fair number of such parallels, which I suspect sprang from the jataka authors’ familiarity with the Aesopica, had gone unremarked. Among these reasons may be the fact that the individual scholars who failed to spot them were either only partially acquainted with the now known quantum of the Aesopica - or, again, of the totality of the jatakas of the Jatakatthavannana. There is also the likelihood that the consummate rehandling of motifs through the ingenuity of the jataka writers, partial utilization, interlocking, superimposition, transpostion and such, including the localization of detail, metamorphosing of characters and subtle other changes introduced by them may have succeeded in rendering their adaptations less obvious than those others which were the first to draw the attention of readers, much as they did that of the Rev. Spence Hardy. 然而，出于若干原因，相当数量此类相似之处——我怀疑源自本生故事作者对《伊索寓言》的熟悉——未被注意到。这些原因可能包括：个别学者未能发现它们，要么仅部分了解目前已知数量的《伊索寓言》，要么同样地，对《本生经疏》全部本生故事的认识也不全面。还有一种可能性是，本生故事作者凭借其巧思对母题进行的完美重构——包括部分利用、相互交织、叠加、移位等手法，以及细节的本土化、角色的变形和他们引入的其他微妙变化——可能成功使其改编作品不如那些最先引起读者（包括斯宾塞·哈迪牧师）注意的案例那么明显。
But it is not the Greek fables called after Aesop alone that are involved. A number of myths and historical anecdotes too have influenced stories in the jataka compendium. My first exercise then - and I hope I have not overreached myself - was to make a comprehensive list of the jatakas that appeared to exploit Greek motifs, with, against each, suggesting what I suspected was its Greek parallel - or where it was only a part of one or the other, the relevant whole or part that it reflected. This comprehensive list, first published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Sri Lanka) (vol. XXV n.s. (1980-81), p. 136-183), with brief introduction and afterword, under the title “Greek Motifs in the Jatakas”. is in somewhat summarised form, to be found in Chapter V of this book. 然而，涉及的并非仅是以伊索命名的希腊寓言。大量神话与历史轶事同样影响了本生经故事集的创作。我的首次尝试——但愿没有僭越之嫌——便是系统梳理那些运用希腊母题的本生故事，逐一标注其疑似对应的希腊原型，或指明其反映的整体/局部关联。这份详尽的对照表最初以《本生经中的希腊母题》为题，附简短前言与后记，发表于《皇家亚洲学会期刊（斯里兰卡版）》（1980-81 年新辑第 25 卷 136-183 页），本书第五章对其进行了精简汇编。
From time to time thereafter I have discussed the motifs of now one and now another of these parallels. showing the Grech whath I a 此后我陆续探讨了这些对应案例中的不同母题，试图阐明希腊元素如何......（注：原文结尾不完整）
pect lay at the back of the Indian. These essays included also a review of animals in the Aesopic fables and the jatakas to demonstrate that this strongest argument for a Greek borrowing from India is not as strong as has been made out, and another, on the Jataka Bodhisatta, in exposition of the degree to which Bodhisatta character has been compromised by the import of story motifs from alien sources into the compendium from other than purely (Buddhist) moralistic considerations. Most of these, as I said, I have published in The Sri Lankan Journal of the Humanities - and this is where they would have remained, except for the encouragement of my learned colleague (presently Professor of Classics at the University of Peradeniya), Dr. D.P.M.Weerakkody, who thought I should present my researches in this area in book-form for the wider reading public - a thing I had been all along chary of doing, since I had moved on in my interests. 这些论文背后蕴含着印度文化的底蕴。其中一篇对伊索寓言与本生经中的动物形象进行了比较研究，旨在证明希腊借鉴印度这一最强有力的论点并不如人们所宣称的那般确凿；另一篇关于《本生经·菩萨》的论文，则阐述了菩萨形象因引入异域故事母题而偏离纯粹（佛教）道德教义的程度。正如我所说，这些文章大多已发表在《斯里兰卡人文期刊》上——若非我的博学同僚（现为佩拉德尼亚大学古典学教授）D.P.M.维拉科迪博士的鼓励，它们可能仅止于此。他认为我应当将这些领域的研究以专著形式呈现给更广泛的读者群——而由于我的研究兴趣已转向其他方向，此前我一直对此举踌躇不前。
Chapter I of this book is a cursory review of the problem as between the Buddhist Birth Stories and the Aesopic fables. To abbreviate the discussion to a sufficiency for the general reader, I have left out the observations of a number of Indologists and Classicists. These may sometimes be brought into the review of individual parallels and other chapters that follow. Chapter II sets out the nature of the jataka stories and the question of their authorship and chronology. Textual issues have been avoided for the reason of my own inexpertise in Pali philology and the fact that matters literary, like the quality and antiquity of the gatha (most recently studied for the Doctor’s Degree by my colleague, Rev. Yatagama Dhammapala) and the tradition and history of the commentaries of the Jatakatthakatha have more or less been settled as a result of the scholarship of such eminent Orientalists as Max Mûller, R.C.Childers, E.W.Burlingame, T.W.Rhys-Davids, J.Hertel, M. Winternitz, Else Luders, Leon Feer and S.d’Oldenburg. 本书第一章简要探讨了佛教本生故事与伊索寓言之间的关联问题。为便于普通读者理解，笔者省略了多位印度学家与古典学者的论述，这些内容将在后续章节对具体故事母题及其他方面的比较研究中适时引入。第二章阐述了本生故事的本质特征，并对其作者归属与年代问题展开讨论。鉴于笔者对巴利语文献学造诣尚浅，且诸如偈颂质量与古老性（我的同事亚塔伽玛·达摩波罗长老近期刚以此为题完成博士学位研究）、本生经注疏传统与历史沿革等文学性问题，已通过马克斯·缪勒、柴尔德斯、伯林盖姆、戴维斯、赫特尔、温特尼茨、吕德斯、费尔、奥尔登堡等杰出东方学家的学术研究基本定论，故本文未涉及文本考据方面的探讨。
Chapter III is a cursory review of the genre and antiquity of the Aesopic fable, upon which again several scholars, this time Classicists, have expressed their opinions. Notable among these are W.Gunion Rutherford, and more recently, B.E.Perry. 第三章简要回顾了伊索寓言的体裁与古老性，对此领域多位古典学者亦曾发表见解，其中以 W·吉尼恩·卢瑟福及近代的 B·E·佩里尤为著名。
In Chapter IV I have taken up for consideration the animals which occur in the Greek fables and the Buddhist jatakas, giving prominence to this aspect for the reason that many, Rhys-Davids among them, have been inclined to the view of a Greek borrowing of the stories from India on account of the animals exotic to Greece which figure in some of them - giving scant heed to the fact that if such animals were not thoroughly familiar to the Greeks in the first place, the stories would have lost their point. (The argument of RhysDavids in respect of the fable of The Ass in the Lion-Skin, that the story could hardly have originated in a land in which the lion was unfamiliar is taken up by me in Chapter IX - where the Greek fable’s adventures in India, beginning with the Sihacamma Jataka, is taken up for discussion.) 第四章中，我着重考察了希腊寓言与佛教本生经中出现的动物形象。之所以突出这一方面，是因为包括里斯·戴维斯在内的许多学者倾向于认为：某些故事中出现希腊本土不常见的异域动物，可佐证希腊从印度借鉴了这些故事——但他们忽略了关键一点：倘若这些动物最初就未被希腊人所熟知，此类故事便失去了其核心寓意。（里斯·戴维斯关于《披狮皮的驴》寓言的论点——认为该故事不可能起源于对狮子陌生的地区——我将在第九章展开讨论，该章以《狮皮本生》为起点，探讨希腊寓言在印度的流变历程。）
Chapter V gives a catalogue, with brief description, of the comparable story motifs, on the Indian side, the jatakas, on the Greek, not just the fables but also myths and historical anecdotes. There is also discussed the opportunity either side would have had to receive story motifs from the other, and bearing on this, the chronology upon which the stories built upon these motifs made their respective appearances in either country. Chapter VI examines cursorily how the motifs borrowed have been recycled, the genius of such adapters and the manner in which they have been re-presented, sometimes so consummately transformed as to pass muster even among modern-day folklorists and critics. 第五章列举了印度《本生经》与希腊方面（不仅限于寓言，还包括神话和历史轶事）可对应的故事母题，并附简要说明。同时探讨了双方接受彼此故事母题的可能性，以及基于这些母题构建的故事在两国出现的时间顺序问题。第六章简要考察了被借鉴母题的再创作过程，包括改编者的才华及其呈现方式——有时改编得如此精妙，甚至能通过现代民俗学者与评论家的严格审视。
Reference to the jatakas is by the Pali title and number assigned as in Fausböll and the Cowell translations; reference to relevant footnotes therein, by volume and page of the latter edition. Translations accepted from these have been acknowledged - though there may be an occasional slight change made by me - which in any case would hardly affect the sense. Reference to the fables of Aesop are after A.Chambry Aesopi Fabulae Paris (1925), C.Halm ed. Fabulae Aesopicae Collectae (Teubner) Leipzig (1852), B.E.Perry Aesopica Urbana (1952) and A.Hasrauth Corpus Fabularum Aesopicarum (Teubner) Leipzig (1940). B stands for Babrius, Ph. for Phaedrus, Av. for Avianus, Aphth. for Aphthonius. 对《本生经》的引用采用 Fausböll 和 Cowell 译本中的巴利语标题及编号；相关脚注则标注后者的卷次与页码。凡采纳上述译本的译文均已注明——尽管偶有我稍作改动之处——但无论如何均不影响文意。关于伊索寓言的引用，依据 A.Chambry《伊索寓言集》（巴黎，1925）、C.Halm 编《伊索寓言汇编》（托伊布纳，莱比锡，1852）、B.E.Perry《伊索寓言集》（厄巴纳，1952）及 A.Hasrauth《伊索寓言全集》（托伊布纳，莱比锡，1940）。B 代表巴布里乌斯，Ph.代表费德鲁斯，Av.代表阿维亚努斯，Aphth.代表阿夫托尼乌斯。
Jataka and Aesopic fable references to these will be given on the first occurrence of each jataka or fable, except in the general catalogue in Chapter V, where all the jatakas suspect of engaging Aesopic fable are recounted along with the respective Greek parallels. The acceptance of the references into the text instead of relegating them to the General Index is, I am aware, not the best of options, if a reader wishes to consult authority at a subsequent location, but I trust whoever is so discriminatory a reader would have done so in the first instance. As an alternative he would be at liberty to consult the catalogue in Chapter V, which observes a sequence based on the jatakas. 除第五章总目录外，本生经与伊索寓言的相关引证将在每个故事首次出现时标注。第五章总目录中会集中列举所有疑似借鉴伊索寓言的佛教本生故事及其对应的希腊版本。我深知将引证融入正文而非归入总索引并非最佳方案——若读者需要后续查证，但这种处理方式想必能被严谨的读者所理解。作为替代方案，读者可随时查阅第五章按本生经顺序编排的目录。
CHAPTER I 第一章
GREEK FABLE AND BUDDHIST JATAKA THE MANIFESTATION OF AN ENIGMA 希腊寓言与佛教本生：一个谜题的显化
In his scholarly and thoroughgoing examination of the Pancatantra, Theodor Benfey was convinced of the possibility that the source of the folk-tales that had found their way into this ancient Indian work was somehow Buddhistic. Traces of Buddhism were evident passim, so much so that it appeared a Buddhist compilation revised by Brahmins. ^(1){ }^{1} The Tantrakhyayika, an earlier version of the Pancatantra studied by Johannes Hertel, ^(2){ }^{2} is however free of such Buddhist influence, so that it is now thought to be a Brahmin composition which was afterwards presented as the Pancatantra version used by Benfey under Jain and Buddhist revision. 西奥多·本菲在对《五卷书》进行严谨详尽的学术研究时，确信这部古印度著作中收录的民间故事可能源自佛教传统。佛教影响的痕迹随处可见，以至于这部作品看起来像是婆罗门对佛教汇编的修订本。 ^(1){ }^{1} 然而约翰内斯·赫特尔研究的早期版本《坦特拉克亚伊卡》 ^(2){ }^{2} 则完全不受佛教影响，因此现在学界认为这是婆罗门原创作品，后来才被改编成本菲所使用的《五卷书》版本，并受到耆那教与佛教的修订。
When Benfey undertook his study, however, that great compendium of Buddhist stories known as the Jatakatthakatha or Jatakatthavannana, popularly rendered in English as “The Birth Stories of the Buddha”, had not been published. Had it been, there is little doubt that oriental scholarship would have been greatly enriched by the relationship he would have seen between these two ancient works. For, even if he had to concede that the Tantrakhyayika was a Brahmanic work, he would have seen it as one that kept out the traces of Buddhism of the source of much 但本菲开展研究时，佛教故事巨著《本生经》或称《本生谭》（英语常译为"佛陀本生故事"）尚未出版。若当时已有此典籍，东方学研究必将因他发现这两部古老著作的关联而大为丰富。因为即便他不得不承认《坦特拉克亚伊卡》是婆罗门作品，也会将其视为刻意抹去佛教源流痕迹的文本——而这些源头素材
of its stories, as also pointed to it to substantiate his intuition of a Buddhist source for the Pancatantra which he himself had examined. 正如他所指出的那样，这些故事也证实了他对《五卷书》佛教来源的直觉判断，这一判断源自他本人对文本的考察。
This is only a supposition. My concern here, however, is not with the quality of the original Pancatantra but with Benfey’s other well known opinion that the stories with motifs parallel with Greek story, which had found their way into the Pancatantra, and consequently then, the preceding Tantrakhyayika version of it examined by J.Hertel, ultimately derived from Greece. Here again I have no doubt that had he had the benefit of the Jatakatthavannana, it would only have confirmed him in this opinion as well by providing him the intermediary which brought these Greek motifs from the fables and folklore of Greece into the Pancatantra. At any rate Benfey’s suspicion that Indian folk-tale literature originated with the Buddhists, together with his conviction that those of them that had parallels with Greek fables were of Greek origin, led him to date the Pancatantra to no earlier than the second century B.C. on the ground that this was the earliest date by which a knowledge of Aesop’s fables could have reached India. 这仅是一种推测。然而我在此关注的并非《五卷书》原著的品质，而是本菲另一个著名观点：那些与希腊故事存在母题相似性的故事——它们已渗入《五卷书》，进而被 J·赫特尔所考察的前身《坦特罗克亚耶卡》版本所继承——最终都可追溯至希腊源头。我同样确信，倘若他能参考《本生经注》，这部典籍所提供的中间媒介（即这些希腊母题如何从希腊寓言与民间传说进入《五卷书》的过程）只会进一步强化他的这一观点。无论如何，本菲对印度民间故事文学起源于佛教徒的怀疑，连同他坚信其中与希腊寓言相似者皆源自希腊的信念，促使他将《五卷书》的年代判定为不早于公元前二世纪，其依据是该年代是伊索寓言知识可能传入印度的最早时间节点。
Perhaps the earliest of Western scholars to have observed Aesopic parallels in the jataka stories, as he was also to have come across the compendium in one of its renditions was Rev. Spence Hardy. This work was the Sinhalese Jataka Pota, or more properly, the Pansiya Panas Jataka Pota, a compilation of free translations or adaptations of the Pali Dhammapadattakatha and dated to the 14 th century, an ola manuscript of which came into his hands in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) and is described by him ^(3){ }^{3} - a work which seems to have had an overwhelming influence on Sinhala literature in the succeeding centuries. ^(4){ }^{4} The existence of such a book had been known by Rev. Benjamin Clough as far back as 1821, when he compiled his Sinhalese-English Dictionary and commented upon it as “so sacred among the Buddhists (in Ceylon) that they will offer to it and worship it”, while Rev. Hardy himself went on to say of it, that "the Sinhalese will listen the night through to recitations from this 或许最早在西方学者中注意到本生故事与伊索寓言相似之处的是斯宾塞·哈迪牧师，他也是在某次译本中偶然发现了这部汇编。这部作品即僧伽罗语《本生鬘》，更准确地说应称为《潘西亚·帕纳斯本生鬘》，是对巴利文《法句譬喻经》的自由翻译或改编，可追溯至 14 世纪。哈迪牧师在斯里兰卡（当时称锡兰）获得了一份棕榈叶手稿，并在其著作中加以描述——这部作品似乎对随后几个世纪的僧伽罗文学产生了压倒性影响。早在 1821 年，本杰明·克拉夫牧师编纂《僧伽罗语-英语词典》时就已知晓此书存在，并评论道"（在锡兰的）佛教徒对此书极为崇敬，他们会供奉并礼拜它"。而哈迪牧师本人则进一步指出："僧伽罗人会彻夜聆听这部典籍的诵念"。
work without any apparent weariness, and a great number of the Jatakas are familiar even to the women." ^(5){ }^{5} 不知疲倦地工作着，许多本生故事甚至连妇女们都耳熟能详。
At the same time, but without advancing any theory like his successors to account for the phenomenon, Hardy made the startling discovery that 与此同时，哈代做出了惊人的发现，但他并未像后继者那样提出任何理论来解释这一现象
“Not a few of the fables that pass under the name of Aesop are here to be found; and the schoolboy is little aware, as he reads of the wit of the fox or the cunning of the monkey, that these animals become, in the course of ages the teacher of the three worlds, Budha.” ^(66){ }^{66} "流传于伊索名下的寓言故事，有不少都能在此找到；当学童们读到狐狸的机智或猴子的狡黠时，他们丝毫不会意识到——随着岁月流转，这些动物将成为三界之师佛陀。" ^(66){ }^{66}
In 1861 Viggo Fausböll published a translation of five jatakas from the Pali, in the preface to which he wrote: ^(7){ }^{7} “The original of this work is the voluminous Pali book yet in manuscript, called the Jatakassa Atthavannana or Jatakatthakatha of which the Royal Library of Copenhagen possesses a complete copy written in Sinhalese characters on 806 large palm leaves. Having transcribed the greater part of that ms. in Copenhagen, I left for London, expecting to find another complete copy of the same book there; but seeing that a long time will elapse before I shall, if ever, have it for publication, I intend, from time to time, to publish some of the more interesting parts in it, in as perfect a form as my present resources will admit.” 1861 年，维戈·福斯贝尔出版了从巴利文翻译的五部本生经，他在序言中写道： ^(7){ }^{7} "这部作品的原始版本是至今仍以手稿形式存在的巴利文巨著《本生经注疏》（Jatakassa Atthavannana 或 Jatakatthakatha），哥本哈根皇家图书馆藏有用僧伽罗文字书写在 806 片大棕榈叶上的完整抄本。我在哥本哈根誊写了该手稿的大部分后前往伦敦，期望能在那里找到同一著作的另一个完整抄本；但考虑到距离我（如果可能）将其出版尚需漫长时日，我打算根据现有条件，陆续以尽可能完善的形式出版其中某些更有趣的篇章。"
Fausböll did not follow the procedure he proposed; instead, he did even better, bringing out, between 1877 and 1897 and in six volumes, with an Index by Dines Andersen, (vol. VII) all of the jatakas of the Jatakatthavannana in Roman characters. ^(8){ }^{8} This was immediately followed, in 1880, by a translation into English of the 福斯伯尔并未遵循自己提出的方法；相反，他做得更为出色，在 1877 至 1897 年间陆续出版了六卷本（第七卷为迪内斯·安德森所编索引），以罗马字母完整呈现了《本生经注》中的所有本生故事。 ^(8){ }^{8} 紧接着在 1880 年，他又推出了该经典的英译本
first forty jatakas together with the Commentarial Introduction to the Jatakatthavannana, the Nidana Katha, by Rhys-Davids, ^(9){ }^{9} and between 1895 and 1907, all of the 547 jatakas by various hands under the happy editorship of Prof. Cowell. ^(10){ }^{10} 前四十部本生经连同《本生经注释》的导论《因缘谈》，由里斯·戴维斯译出， ^(9){ }^{9} 而在 1895 至 1907 年间，全部 547 部本生经由多位学者在考威尔教授欣然主持的编委会下完成译介。 ^(10){ }^{10}
With the publication of Fausböll’s edition of the jatakas, the curiosity and speculation that had been evinced upon the occurrence of a few seemingly Greek parallels in the motifs of Indian story increased to a major issue in the world of Oriental and Classical scholarship, with writers sharply divided upon the point of whether the ‘borrowing’ was of Greece from India, or India from Greece, while a third group (at least as far as the origin of fable and some examples were concerned) were for a common source for both. There were of course yet others who sought to account for the similarity on quite other premises and suppositions, anthropological, psychological and even coincidence being among these. 随着福斯伯尔版本的《本生经》出版，印度故事主题中出现的少数看似希腊平行文本引发了学界的好奇与猜测，这一议题在东方学与古典学研究领域迅速升级为重大争议。学者们就"借鉴"方向形成尖锐对立：一方主张希腊借鉴印度，另一方坚持印度借鉴希腊，而第三派学者（至少就寓言起源及部分例证而言）则提出两者同源说。当然，亦不乏另辟蹊径者试图从人类学、心理学乃至巧合等截然不同的前提假设来解释这些相似性。
Straightaway with the publication of the jatakas Rhys-Davids had spotted the similarity of motifs between the Sihacamma Jataka (No. 189) and the Aesopic The Ass in the Lion-Skin, the Kacchapa Jataka (No. 215) and the Aesopic The Tortoise and the Eagle, and the Jambu Khadaka Jataka (No. 294) and the Aesopic Crow and the Fox" . There is no doubt that he would have observed the parallel of the Suvannahamsa (No. 136) in Aesop’s The GoldBearing Goose, not to mention certain other parallels, if and when he came to translating them - which he did not. 里斯·戴维斯在《本生经》出版之初就注意到《狮皮驴本生》（第 189 则）与伊索寓言《披着狮皮的驴》、《龟本生》（第 215 则）与伊索寓言《乌龟与老鹰》，以及《阎浮果本生》（第 294 则）与伊索寓言《乌鸦与狐狸》在故事母题上的相似性。毫无疑问，倘若他当时翻译了《金天鹅本生》（第 136 则），必定会注意到其与伊索寓言《下金蛋的鹅》的对应关系——更不必说其他某些对应篇目——可惜他最终未能完成这些篇章的译介。
The Sihacamma Jataka tells of an ass upon whose back his owner, a merchant, used to drape a lion-skin and turn him into the villagers’ fields to graze. Watchmen, taking the animal to be a lion, kept their distance. But one day the villagers armed themselves and attacked him; whereupon the frightened animal brayed. And when they discovered him to be no lion but a wretched ass, they belaboured him to death. The Aesopica has two versions of this, The Ass in the Lion-Skin (C.267, H.336, P.188, Hs.199) and The Ass and the Lion-Skin (C.297, H.333, P.358, Hs.93). In the first the ass, putting upon himself a lion-skin, goes about frightening all the other beasts but fails to frighten the fox, who had heard him bray. In the second the ass imposes upon both men and animals, until a puff of wind blows the lion-skin off his back, whereupon everyone runs up to him and beats him with cudgels. In the Kacchapa Jataka two wild-geese (hamsa) befriend a tortoise and invite him to their home. They make it bite onto a stick in their beaks and carry it through the air. But when children down below marvel at the sight, the tortoise opens its mouth to reply and falls to its death. In the corresponding Aesopic fable, The Tortoise and the Eagle, the tortoise asks an eagle to teach it to fly, whereupon the eagle takes it to a great height and drops it on a rock, killing it. Aesop’s The Crow and the Fox (C.32, H.33, P.15, Hs.15) is too well-known to need repeating, except that it is a piece of meat, not cheese, that is involved when the foolish crow opens its beak to sing. 《狮皮本生》讲述了一头驴的故事：商人主人常将狮皮披在它背上，驱赶它到村民田里吃草。看守人误以为它是狮子，不敢靠近。但某日村民们持械围攻时，这头受惊的驴发出嘶鸣。当人们发现它并非狮子而是头可怜驴子时，便将它活活打死。《伊索寓言》对此有两个版本：《披着狮皮的驴》（编号 C.267/H.336/P.188/Hs.199）和《驴与狮皮》（编号 C.297/H.333/P.358/Hs.93）。前者描述驴子披着狮皮吓唬百兽，却因嘶叫声被狐狸识破；后者讲述驴子靠狮皮蒙骗人兽，直到一阵风吹落狮皮，众人便持棍追打。《龟本生》中则记载两只野鹅与乌龟结为好友，邀请它咬住它们喙间的树枝同行。当空中奇观引来孩童惊叹时，乌龟开口应答而坠亡。 在对应的伊索寓言《乌龟与鹰》中，乌龟请求老鹰教它飞翔，于是老鹰将它带到高空扔在岩石上，致其死亡。伊索的《乌鸦与狐狸》（编号 C.32/H.33/P.15/Hs.15）广为人知无需赘述，只是当愚蠢的乌鸦张嘴唱歌时掉落的是一块肉而非奶酪。
Why I suppose Rhys-Davids would not have missed the Aesopic parallel of the Suvannahamsa Jataka in the Gold - Bearing Goose (C.287, H.343, P.87, Hs.89) is because of the observation he makes in a footnote to the Nacca Jataka (No.32) to the effect that the epithet ‘golden’ (suvanna), when applied to a goose (hamsa), being meaningless as descriptive of outward appearance, gave rise to the fable of the Goose with the Golden Eggs i.e. The Gold-Bearing 我认为里斯·戴维斯不会错过《金天鹅本生经》（编号 C.287/H.343/P.87/Hs.89）与伊索寓言的相似性，因为他在《舞蹈本生经》（第 32 号）的脚注中指出：当天鹅（hamsa）被冠以"金色"（suvanna）这个与外表描述无关的修饰词时，便催生了"下金蛋的鹅"这则寓言——即《产金天鹅》。
Goose. ^(12){ }^{12} The jataka equivalent however depends for its plot on that very outward appearance of the goose as being golden, indeed, as being in reality gold! A man dies and is reborn as a golden goose (suvanna hamsa) and visits the house of his wife and three daughters. On each occasion that he does so, he alights on a beam of the roof and drops down to them a feather of gold, which they sell and maintain themselves in ease and comfort. But the wife, fearing that he may stop coming, finally seizes him and strips him of his feathers all at once. But since they were taken against the bird’s will, they cease to be gold. It is the same motive of greed which makes the devotee of Hermes in Aesop’s well-known fable kill the goose which the god gave him, which laid golden eggs. The man, like the wife of the corresponding jataka, could not wait for the wealth to come to him little by little; so he killed the bird, thinking its insides were of solid gold - only to find them mere flesh and blood. 鹅。 ^(12){ }^{12} 然而本生经中的对应故事，其情节恰恰依赖于鹅外表呈现金色的特征——事实上，它本身就是真金所化！某人死后转世为金鹅（suvanna hamsa），前往探访妻子与三个女儿的住所。每次造访时，它都会停落在屋顶横梁上，为她们抛下一根金羽毛。变卖羽毛所得让全家过着安逸舒适的生活。但妻子因担心金鹅不再来访，最终抓住它一次性拔光了所有羽毛。由于这些羽毛是违背鸟类意愿强行夺取的，它们立刻失去了黄金的属性。这与伊索寓言中赫尔墨斯信徒的贪欲如出一辙：这位信徒杀死了神明赐予的、能产金蛋的鹅。正如本生经中那位妻子，这个人同样无法耐心等待财富逐步积累，认定鹅的内脏是实心黄金而宰杀它——结果只发现普通的血肉之躯。
The impression Rhys-Davids got from these first examples of parallel stories is that they were of Indian origin, with the Greeks adopting them at some time. As he wrote: ^(13){ }^{13} 里斯·戴维斯从这些早期平行故事案例中得出的结论是：它们源自印度，后被希腊人吸纳改编。正如他所写： ^(13){ }^{13}
“But so far as the Greek and Buddhist stories can at present be compared, it seems to me that the internal evidence is in favour of the Buddhist versions being the originals from which the Greek versions were adapted.” "但就目前希腊与佛教故事可比较的范围而言，在我看来，内在证据更倾向于认为佛教版本是原始版本，希腊版本是从中改编而来的。"
The evidence he had in mind is of the sort that we just found him observe in the story of the gold-bearing bird, or again, in the story of the ass in the lion-skin, that such a story as this could not have been invented in any land that was unfamiliar with the lion. This was in 1880, after which he did not return to the work of translating the rest of the jatakas, which may possibly have led him to change his opinion. For he continued his observation adding: ^(14){ }^{14} 他所考虑的证据类型，正如我们刚才发现他在金鸟故事或披着狮皮的驴故事中所观察到的那样——这类故事不可能在完全不熟悉狮子的国度被虚构出来。这一观点发表于 1880 年，此后他未再继续完成其余本生故事的翻译工作，而这或许会改变他的看法。因为他随后补充道：
“Whether more than this can be said at present is very doubtful; when the Jatakas are all published, and the similarities between them and the classical stories shall have been fully investigated, the contents of the stories may enable criticism to reach a more definite conclusion.” "目前能否得出更多结论尚存疑；待所有本生故事出版后，待其与古典故事的相似性得到充分研究时，故事内容或能使学术研究得出更确切的结论。"
Soon after Rhys-Davids, the most obvious of the jatakas with Aesopic parallels came to be noted by Joseph Jacobs, ^(15){ }^{15} with whom the number then rose to a dozen or so. If we are to exempt the Nacca Jataka for the reason that its Greek parallel is not a fable but rather a historical anecdote in the historian Herodotus, Jacobs will be found to have added the following to those already identified by Rhys-Davids - (I give each jataka with what would then be its corresponding Greek parallel.) 在里斯·戴维斯之后不久，约瑟夫·雅各布斯注意到了《本生经》中与伊索寓言最为明显的相似之处， ^(15){ }^{15} 经他考证，这类故事的数量增至约十二个。若因《纳卡本生》的希腊对应版本并非寓言而是历史学家希罗多德记载的轶事而将其排除，则可发现雅各布斯在里斯·戴维斯已识别的基础上新增了以下篇目——（我将列出每个本生故事及其对应的希腊版本。）
Munika (No. 30) 《穆尼卡》（第 30 号）
== The Ox and the Calf (C.92, H.113, P.300, B.37, Av.36) == 《公牛与牛犊》（C.92, H.113, P.300, B.37, Av.36）
== The Bald Man and the Fly (Ph.v.3) 秃头男子与苍蝇（巴利文第五卷第 3 则）
Virocana (No. 143) 毗卢遮那（第 143 号）
== The Fox and the Lion (H.41, Aphth.20) 狐狸与狮子（H.41，阿普托尼乌斯 20）
Kaka (No. 146) 卡卡（第 146 号）
== The Hungry Dogs (C.176, H.218) == 饿犬本生（C.176, H.218）
Javasakuna (No. 308) 爪哇鸟本生（第 308 号）
== The Wolf and the Heron (C.224, H.276, P.256, Hs.161) == 狼与鹭本生（C.224, H.276, P.256, Hs.161）
Culladhanuggaha (No. 374) 小弓术师本生（第 374 号）
== The Lion and the Hare (C.204, H.254, P.158, Hs.253) == 狮子与野兔（C.204，H.254，P.158，Hs.253）
Kukkuta (No. 383) 公鸡本生（第 383 号）
== The Dog and the Cock = (C.180, H.225, P.252, == 狗与公鸡 = （C.180，H.225，P.252，
Munika (No. 30) = The Ox and the Calf (C.92, H.113, P.300, B.37, Av.36)
Makasa (No. 44) and Rohini (No. 45) = The Bald Man and the Fly (Ph.v.3)
Virocana (No. 143) = The Fox and the Lion (H.41, Aphth.20)
Kaka (No. 146) = The Hungry Dogs (C.176, H.218)
Javasakuna (No. 308) = The Wolf and the Heron (C.224, H.276, P.256, Hs.161)
Culladhanuggaha (No. 374) = The Lion and the Hare (C.204, H.254, P.158, Hs.253)
Kukkuta (No. 383) = The Dog and the Cock = (C.180, H.225, P.252,| Munika (No. 30) | $=$ The Ox and the Calf (C.92, H.113, P.300, B.37, Av.36) |
| :--- | :--- |
| Makasa (No. 44) and Rohini (No. 45) | $=$ The Bald Man and the Fly (Ph.v.3) |
| Virocana (No. 143) | $=$ The Fox and the Lion (H.41, Aphth.20) |
| Kaka (No. 146) | $=$ The Hungry Dogs (C.176, H.218) |
| Javasakuna (No. 308) | $=$ The Wolf and the Heron (C.224, H.276, P.256, Hs.161) |
| Culladhanuggaha (No. 374) | $=$ The Lion and the Hare (C.204, H.254, P.158, Hs.253) |
| Kukkuta (No. 383) | $=$ The Dog and the Cock = (C.180, H.225, P.252, |
Hs.268) Hs.268）
Dipi (No. 426) 第 426 则本生经《狼与羊》 == The Wolf and the Lamb (C.221, H.274, P.155, Hs.160) 《狼与羊》（C.221, H.274, P.155, Hs.160）
Despite these parallels - and one will find others emulating both the jatakas mentioned as well as their corresponding Aesopica, which appear to have gone unnoticed by Jacobs - he was of opinion that it was “idle to talk of a body of literature (Aesop) amounting to 300 numbers being derived from another (the Jataka) running also to 300, when they have only a dozen items in common”; vice versa, the same would have been held to be true. On the other hand E.J.Thomas countered the appearance of the Jataka Book on the scene by falling back on the great authority of Benfey, who was convinced during his study of the Pancatantra that the fables of Greece were of Greek origin. Thus, calling the Jataka Book “the best trumps” of the Pali scholars, he says that when it was played, it achieved nothing except to leave the folklorists without a card for the game. Thomas was aware that more than the number counted by Jacobs had been compared, but many of the parallelisms which were taken for granted as long as a common origin was assumed, he thought, had no value “now that the question was open”. As for the dozen or so parallels fixed on by Jacobs, he felt it was not necessary to prove that even these were related, since the independent origin of similar tales was still a tenable theory - though he did concede the likelihood that they were connected - “that a path of transmission from India to Greece was open long before communications were established by Alexander.” ^(16){ }^{16} 尽管存在这些相似之处——人们还会发现其他既模仿上述本生故事又对应伊索寓言的例子，这些似乎都被雅各布斯忽视了——但他仍认为"当两部篇幅均达三百篇的文学作品（伊索寓言与本生经）仅有十余篇内容相同时，讨论其中一部衍生自另一部实属徒劳"；反之亦然。另一方面，E.J.托马斯面对《本生经》的出现时，援引了本菲的权威观点进行反驳。本菲在研究《五卷书》时确信希腊寓言源自希腊本土。因此托马斯将《本生经》称为"巴利文学学者手中的王牌"，并指出当这张牌被打出时，除了让民俗学家无牌可出外毫无建树。托马斯注意到当时比较研究的篇目已远超雅各布斯的统计，但他认为许多曾被默认的相似性——在假定同源的前提下——"如今问题悬而未决时已无价值"。 至于雅各布斯所确定的十几个相似之处，他认为无需证明这些故事之间存在关联，因为相似故事的独立起源在当时仍是站得住脚的理论——尽管他确实承认两者存在联系的可能性，即"在亚历山大大帝建立东西方交流之前，印度与希腊之间早已存在故事传播的路径。" ^(16){ }^{16}
Max Mûller was inclined to a hypothesis of coincidence in the case of more than just the fables and stories of the Aesopic mode. ^(17){ }^{17} 马克斯·缪勒不仅对伊索式寓言故事，更倾向于用巧合假说来解释更多案例。 ^(17){ }^{17}
Referring to the capture of Prince Udena by the ruse of a wooden elephant filled with soldiery, Mûller agrees with Prof. H.H.Wilson ^(18){ }^{18} that this Indian tale, in the nature of its ambush, resembled the Wooden Horse of Troy - only that horse there was replaced by elephant here - but he counted it as accidental rather than a borrowing or a derivation from a common source. He writes: 在论及士兵藏身木象智擒乌德那王子的印度故事时，缪勒赞同 H.H.威尔逊教授 ^(18){ }^{18} 的观点，认为这个印度故事在伏击方式上与特洛伊木马如出一辙——只不过马换成了象——但他将其归为偶然相似，而非借鉴或同源衍生。他写道：
“However striking the similarity may seem to one accustomed to deal with ancient legends, I doubt whether any comparative mythologist would postulate a common Aryan origin for these two stories. They feel that, as far as the mere construction of a wooden animal is concerned, all that was necessary to explain the origin of the idea in one place was present also in the other, and that while the Trojan Horse forms an essential part of a mythological cycle, there is nothing truly mythological or legendary in the Indian story. The idea of a hunter disguising himself in the skin of an animal, or even of one animal assuming the disguise of another, are familiar in every part of the world, and if that is so, then the step from hiding under the skin of a large animal to that of hiding in a wooden animal is not very great.” “尽管这些相似之处对熟悉古代传说的人来说可能显得极为惊人，但我怀疑是否有任何比较神话学家会认为这两个故事源自共同的雅利安起源。他们认为，就单纯建造木制动物而言，在一个地方解释这一想法起源所需的条件，在另一个地方也同样具备；而且特洛伊木马构成神话循环中不可或缺的部分，而印度故事中却没有任何真正神话或传说的成分。猎人披上动物毛皮伪装自己，甚至一种动物伪装成另一种动物的想法，在世界各地都屡见不鲜。既然如此，那么从躲藏在大型动物毛皮下到藏身于木制动物之中，这一步跨越并不算大。”
Muller would thus imply that even such a fable as that of the ass in the lion-skin could originate independently in different countries. While there are other elements in the similar stories that need to be considered, it is difficult to accept that the Trojan Horse affair and that of the Ujjain elephant are of independent origination and a result of coincidence simply because the former is part of a mythological cycle and the latter has nothing mythological or legendary. Surely Mûller is not implying that the story of Udena is historical? Arguments such as this have been used to defend the Western tradition, stemming in Greece, from indebtedness to an 穆勒由此暗示，即便是《披着狮皮的驴》这类寓言，也可能在不同国家独立产生。虽然相似故事中还存在其他需要考虑的因素，但仅因特洛伊木马事件属于神话循环而邬阇衍那大象事件毫无神话传说色彩，就认定两者是独立起源的巧合产物，这种观点实在难以接受。难道穆勒真认为优填王的故事具有历史真实性吗？此类论点常被用来捍卫源自古希腊的西方传统，以否认其受东方影响的可能性。
evident antiquity of the Indian story literature. (As far as I am concerned, any such anxiety in this case is gratuitous, since it appears to me that it is the Indian story that is derived from the Greek.) 印度故事文学显然具有古老渊源。（就我而言，在此案例中任何此类担忧都是多余的，因为在我看来，恰恰是印度故事借鉴了希腊传说。）
Mûller takes a similar non-commital stand in the matter of fables in which footprints give a clue to a creature of some danger lying in wait for him. ^(19){ }^{19} This clue of nulla vestigia retrorsum, upon which the motifs of such fables are based, seem to have become extremely popular in India and in the jatakas as well, though the credit for reading danger from the observation is generally accorded in the jatakas, not to the jackal, cousin of the fox, but to the monkey. ^(20){ }^{20} Mûller’s conjecture is that the idea had percolated to the respective countries in a proverbial form with the Aryan migration. But, as I shall suggest later on, the popular detail traces back to a Greek myth before it ‘percolated’, if you like, into Greek fable. 米勒在面对那些通过足迹暗示潜伏危险的寓言时，同样采取了不置可否的态度。 ^(19){ }^{19} 这种"无返足迹"的线索构成了此类寓言的核心母题，在印度和本生经中似乎都极为流行——尽管在本生经故事里，从观察中预判危险的智慧通常不属于狐狸的表亲豺狼，而是归属于猴子。 ^(20){ }^{20} 米勒推测该母题可能随着雅利安人的迁徙，以谚语形式渗透到各个地区。但正如我后文将指出的，这个广为人知的细节其实源自希腊神话，而后才"渗透"（如果你愿意用这个词）进入希腊寓言体系。
To the parallels already observed the Cowell index to the translation of Fausböll (s.v. ‘Parallels and folktale elements’) adds the Saluka Jataka (No. 286), which is a repeat of the Munika, the Dabbhapuppha (No. 400) which is equated with Aesop’s The Monkey and the Cats (which I cannot trace in the collections, though see The Lion, the Ass and the Fox (C.209, H.260, P.149, Hs.154) and The Lion and the Wild Ass (C.207, H.258, P.339) for similar eccentric divisions of the prey) and a story in the Takkariya (No. 481), in which a goat who escapes slaughter for lack of a chopper, only to disclose one by her frisking in joy at her escape from death, which appears late in the Greek of Zenobius. ^(21){ }^{21} 在已观察到的相似故事之外，考威尔为福斯伯尔译本编制的索引（见"平行故事与民间故事元素"条目）补充了《萨卢卡本生》（第 286 号）——实为《穆尼卡本生》的复现；《达巴普花本生》（第 400 号）被等同于伊索寓言《猴子与猫》（虽未能在现存寓言集中查证，但可参考《狮子、驴与狐狸》（C.209，H.260，P.149，Hs.154）及《狮子与野驴》（C.207，H.258，P.339）中类似的猎物分配怪象）；以及《塔卡利亚本生》（第 481 号）中山羊因屠刀缺失而逃脱宰杀，却因欢跃暴露藏刀处的故事——该情节迟至希腊哲诺比乌斯的著作中才出现。
Cowell ^(22){ }^{22} would however consider such parallels, notwithstanding the number gleaned, as “the stray waifs of literature”, pieces of folklore which have floated about the world for ages… and are liable everywhere to be appropriated by any casual claimant"; thus, he says, the selfsame stories would, in the course of their long wanderings, come to be recognized under widely different aspects. The long and short of it is that Cowell does not commit himself to the theory of one country adopting the motifs of such resemblant stories form another. 考威尔 ^(22){ }^{22} 却认为这些相似之处不过是"文学中的流浪儿"，是"历经岁月漂流于世的民间故事碎片……随时可能被任何偶然的发现者据为己有"；因此他指出，这些相同的故事在漫长的流传过程中，会以截然不同的面貌被重新认识。简而言之，考威尔并不认同某个国家会从另一个国家借鉴此类相似故事母题的理论。
At the same time Keith admits that in many cases chronology is decisive against Indian influence on Greece being possible, citing among a number of other fables, myths and anecdotes, the stories of the fox and the crow and the eagle who dropped the tortoise to his death, brought forward by Rhys-Davids. ^(26){ }^{26} But then again, citing the parallel of the ass in the lion-skin, he thinks there does not seem to be any conclusive ground for holding that the tale was older in either country, and that the same doubt as to priority constantly occurs with other fables. ^(27){ }^{27} In short, Keith is for all the possibilities in general and for none in particular. 与此同时，基思承认在许多案例中，年代学证据排除了印度影响希腊的可能性。他援引里斯·戴维斯提出的若干寓言、神话和轶事为例，包括狐狸与乌鸦的故事，以及老鹰摔死乌龟的传说。但他又举出"披着狮皮的驴"这个平行案例，认为没有确凿证据表明该故事在任一国家更早出现，并指出其他寓言也常存在类似的起源争议。简言之，基思持开放态度认可各种可能性，但不对任何特定传播路径下定论。
Greeks and Indians had in some fields of thought and literature brought forth concepts and teachings of striking similarity, which have sometimes been accounted for by reference to their common Aryan ancestry - that they possessed them in seminal form in their language, folklore or religious beliefs. Alternately Keith explains such similar ideas among the two peoples as the result of independent development in the respective civilizations as due to the similar constitution of the human mind. This, for instance, is how he accounts for the appearance of the doctrine of transmigration 希腊人与印度人在某些思想与文学领域孕育出惊人相似的概念与教义，这种相似性有时被归因于他们共同的雅利安血统——即这些观念早已以萌芽形态存在于他们的语言、民间传说或宗教信仰中。基思则另辟蹊径，将两个民族间此类相似思想解释为各自文明独立发展的结果，认为这源于人类心智结构的相似性。例如，他正是以此解释灵魂转世学说为何会在两地同时出现。
in Greece and India ^(28){ }^{28}. But even if such a thing is likely in the case of broad beliefs and observances, it is too much to resort to as an explanation of the similarity of fable, which is not the product of the determination of logic, however simple, but of the free play of imagination and fantasy. Besides, we are not dealing with two or three strands of inevitable doctrine but with a large number of brief parallel stories, resembling their counterparts not just in motif alone but in the nature of the participants as well as in detail and thus betraying an unmistakable congruence even when consciously made to differ. In any case, as had been asked, what exactly is meant by similarity of minds? Is it that the theory of Jungian archetypes, used to explain similarity of mythopoeic thinking, could be stretched to take in the motifs of fable as well - and to that number of fables and to that degree of detail that we see evidenced in the examples we have? 在希腊和印度 ^(28){ }^{28} 。但即便这种解释适用于广泛的信仰与习俗，若将其套用于寓言的相似性上则未免牵强——寓言并非逻辑推演的产物（无论多么简单），而是想象与幻想自由驰骋的结晶。更何况，我们面对的并非两三条必然的教义脉络，而是大量短篇平行故事：它们不仅在核心母题上相似，更在参与者特质与细节处如出一辙，即便刻意制造差异时仍透露出无可辩驳的契合性。退一步说，所谓"思维相似性"究竟何指？难道荣格的原型理论——本用于解释神话思维的共性——还能延伸至涵盖寓言母题？且要涵盖我们所举案例中如此庞杂的寓言数量与精微的细节对应？
As for the theory of coincidence, such as is mooted by Müller, its credibility declines in proportions to the number of parallels we encounter in the story motifs of the two lands, Greece and India. The amount of instances amassed in Keith plus any quantum of such added of his own would be reply enough to Müller’s theory of coincidence. As W.R. Halliday observes, “It is difficult to believe that one particular fable is likely to have been invented more than once independently in different areas” ^(29){ }^{29}. 至于穆勒提出的巧合理论，随着我们在希腊与印度两地故事母题中发现的相似之处越多，其可信度就越低。基思所积累的大量例证，再加上他本人补充的任何数量，都足以反驳穆勒的巧合理论。正如 W.R.哈利迪所言："很难相信某个特定寓言会在不同地区被独立发明多次" ^(29){ }^{29} 。
The contemporaneous to and fromovement of good stories is not unlikely, but with each instance there is need of specific evidence. It may perhaps be possible to accept some such thing in the case of some motifs, but by no means of an en masse passage to India of the majority of them any time before Alexander’s invasion of nothern India, subsequent to which the great number of jatakas with parallel motifs came to be written. The same would be true of a mass drift 优秀故事在同时代的相互传播并非不可能，但每个案例都需要具体证据支撑。或许在某些母题案例中可以接受这种传播现象，但绝不可能承认其中大多数母题是在亚历山大入侵北印度之前就大规模传入印度的——须知大量具有平行母题的《本生经》正是在此事件之后才被创作出来的。同理，所谓母题大规模漂移的说法也经不起推敲。
of Indian story motifs westwards before stories from the Pancatantra, following_upon the publication of the Kalila waDimna, Arabic version of the so called Stories of Bidpai - though, as B.E. Perry points out, its translation into Greek by a certain Simeon Seth around A.D. 1080^(30)1080^{30} appears not to have had the slightest influence on the traditional Aesop. 印度故事母题向西传播早于《五卷书》故事，在所谓的《比德佩寓言》阿拉伯语版本《卡里莱和迪姆奈》出版之后——尽管正如 B.E.佩里所指出的，约公元 1080^(30)1080^{30} 年由一位名为西蒙·塞斯的人将其翻译成希腊语，似乎对传统的伊索寓言没有丝毫影响。
More recently attention has been drawn to the Wisdom Books of the Semitic Orient as the possible source of origin of Greek fables. These deserve consideration, especially because they are a challenge to scholars who, even with little or no evidence except the feeling that India was more the home of folklore and folk-tale, were prejudiced in favour of India as being the source of the comparable motifs in Greek and Indian stories even to the matter of specific instances of such. These oriental Wisdom Books, written in cuneiform script on clay tablets, belong with a lengthy and continuous literary tradition that comes down from Old Babylonian times, c. 1800 B.C. or even earlier, to the fall of the Assyrian Empire, i.e., the seventh century B.C., first in Sumerian texts, then in Akkadian, Assyrian and Aramaic, and include The Book of Achiqar. In a long and informative article written in 1960, Dr. Edmund Gordon ^(31){ }^{31} claims to have identified as many as 106 Sumerian fables and parables of the Aesopic sort. The clay tablets on which the fables and proverbs are written come from Nippur and Ur and are dated by Sumeriologists to the eighteenth century B.C. Drawing from translations published by S.N. Kramer ^(32){ }^{32}, Edmund Gordon ^(33){ }^{33} and 近来，学界开始关注闪米特东方的智慧书，认为它们可能是希腊寓言的起源。这些著作值得考量，尤其因为它们对学者们构成了挑战——即便除却"印度更像是民间传说与故事发源地"这一直觉外几乎毫无证据，学者们仍倾向于将印度视为希腊与印度故事中相似母题的源头，甚至具体案例亦不例外。这些以楔形文字书写于泥板上的东方智慧书，承袭了自古巴比伦时期（约公元前 1800 年或更早）至亚述帝国灭亡（即公元前七世纪）的悠久而连续的文学传统，最初以苏美尔文本呈现，后发展为阿卡德语、亚述语和阿拉姆语版本，其中包括《阿奇卡尔之书》。埃德蒙·戈登博士在 1960 年发表的一篇内容详实的论文中声称，他已鉴别出多达 106 篇伊索式的苏美尔寓言与譬喻故事。 刻有寓言与谚语的泥板出土于尼普尔和乌尔，据苏美尔学家考证可追溯至公元前十八世纪。译文参考了 S.N.克莱默 ^(32){ }^{32} 与埃德蒙·戈登 ^(33){ }^{33} 发表的译著
E.Ebeling ^(34){ }^{34}, B.E. Perry goes on to reiterate the theory of a Babylonian origin for the fable in Greece - though, with equal logic it might as well apply to the fable in India, considering the great antiquity of these cuneiform texts. Though still in the form of wise sayings, these “metaphorical proverbs” (Perry) would easily lend themselves to expansion into fable - as some partially have done, or vice-versa actually presume a fable. I give a few from those cited by Perry in the introduction to his Babrius and Phaedrus: E.Ebeling ^(34){ }^{34} ，B.E. Perry 继续重申了希腊寓言起源于巴比伦的理论——不过，考虑到这些楔形文字文献的古老程度，这一理论同样可以适用于印度寓言。虽然仍以箴言形式存在，这些"隐喻性谚语"（Perry 语）很容易扩展为寓言——正如其中部分已经实现的那样，或者反过来实际上预设了某个寓言的存在。我从 Perry 为其《巴布里乌斯与费德鲁斯》导论中引用的例子里摘选几则：
The fox having urinated into the sea, said, “The whole sea is my urine.” (Gordon)* 狐狸往海里撒了泡尿，便道："整片海都是我的尿。"（戈登）*
The smith’s dog could not overturn the anvil; he therefore overturned the water-pot instead (Kramer p. 157) 铁匠的狗无法掀翻铁砧，便转而打翻了水壶（克雷默，第 157 页）
Upon my escaping from the wild ox, the wild cow confronted me (Kramer p. 158) 我刚从野公牛爪下逃脱，野母牛又拦住了我的去路（克莱默 第 158 页）
The house built by the upright man was destroyed by the treacherous man. (Gordon p. 274) 正直者建造的房屋，被奸诈之徒摧毁（戈登 第 274 页）
A mouse fleeing from a… entered a snake’s hole and said, “The snake-charmer sent me here. Greetings!” (Ebeling p. 42) 一只老鼠为躲避…钻入蛇洞说道："是耍蛇人派我来的。向您问好！"（埃贝林 第 42 页）
The bramble sent to the pomegranate saying, “Bramble to Pomegranate. What is the good of thy many thorns to him who touches the fruit?” … the pomegranate answered and said to the bramble, “Thou art all thorns to him who touches thee” (Book of Achiqar: Cowley, p. 225) 荆棘托人传话给石榴树说："荆棘致石榴：你满身尖刺对摘果之人有何益处？"...石榴树回应道："触碰你的人只会感受到你的尖刺"（《阿希卡尔智训》：考利 第 225 页）
…one to the wild ass, “Let me ride upon thee and I will feed thee” … (keep for thyself) thy feeding and thy saddle, but I will not see thee riding." (Book of Achiqar: Cowley p. 226) ……对野驴说：“让我骑在你背上，我会喂养你”……（你自己留着）你的饲料和鞍具吧，但我不会让你骑在我身上。”（《阿奇卡之书》：考利版第 226 页）
This last near-fable is almost the same as the fable of the horse and the stag, which Aristotle in his Rhetoric (ii. 20=20= Aes. 269a) says Stesichorus narrated to the people of Himera when they chose Phalaris as general plenipotentiary and were intending to give him a bodyguard. 这最后一个近乎寓言的故事几乎与马和鹿的寓言相同，亚里士多德在《修辞学》（第二卷， 20=20= 伊索寓言 269a）中提到，斯泰西科罗斯曾向希梅拉人民讲述过这个故事——当时他们选择法拉里斯为全权将军，并打算为他配备卫队。
What this material establishes, however, is the antiquity of the possible origin of fable in the Sumerian-Babylonian-Assyrian literary milieu and no more. “Fable, son of Alexander”, says Babrius introducing Part II of his fables in verse, “is the invention of the Syrians of old, who lived in the days of Ninus and Belus”, and then adds, “The first to tell fables to the sons of the Hellenes, they say, was Aesop the wise” - leaving us, and rightly, with no inference that the Greeks (who had indigenous ova for an embryology of the fable in their own metaphorical proverbs) adopted fable from the Syrians. Even if Babrius meant otherwise, it has little bearing on our discussion in this book, since only one story (besides that of the “Horse and the Stag” just mentioned), i.e. that of the “Gnat and the Elephant”, is reflected in the Aesopic, and this too in Babrius, with bull replacing elephant. 然而，这些材料所证实的，仅仅是寓言可能起源于苏美尔-巴比伦-亚述文学环境的古老性，仅此而已。巴布里乌斯在其诗体寓言集第二卷序言中写道："寓言之父亚历山大宣称，这是古代叙利亚人的发明，他们生活在尼努斯和贝鲁斯的时代"，随后又补充道："据说，第一位向希腊子孙讲述寓言的，是智者伊索"——这番论述恰如其分地让我们无法推断希腊人（他们本就有本土的寓言胚胎学，体现在其隐喻性谚语中）是从叙利亚人那里借鉴了寓言。即便巴布里乌斯另有所指，这对本书的讨论也影响甚微，因为除刚提及的"马与鹿"外，仅有一则故事（即"蚊蚋与大象"）在伊索寓言中有所反映，且巴布里乌斯版本中以公牛替代了大象。
The case for a Babylonian origin of, or influence upon, the fable in India is even less hopeful, so that any theory of these Babylonian Wisdom Books as a common source of origin for the fables of Greece and India, which can account for the striking similarity of motifs in a copious number of them can hardly get off the ground. Egypt, which Keith in his all-encompassing surmise, says cannot be ignored in the possibility of having played a part in the genesis and transmission of fables, and Lydia, claimed by Hermann Diels for a share in the diffusion, at least with reference to Callimachus, are likewise unable to make a serious case for consideration in the context of such a quantum of stories with similar motifs that manifest themselves to us. 关于印度寓言起源于巴比伦或受其影响的可能性则更为渺茫，因此任何将巴比伦智慧书视为希腊与印度寓言共同起源的理论——这些理论试图解释大量寓言中惊人相似的母题——都难以成立。埃及（基思在其包罗万象的推测中称，在寓言生成与传播过程中不可忽视其潜在作用）与吕底亚（赫尔曼·迪尔斯主张其至少就卡利马科斯而言参与了传播）同样无法针对如此大量具有相似母题的故事提出令人信服的论证依据。
If then the sheer number of such puts coincidence out of the question, while a common origin is neither available in Babylonian literature nor anywhere else, borrowing is the inevitable conclusion - whether by the Greeks from the Indians or by the Indians from the Greeks. And this is a question with regard to several stories which appear in the jatakas, which scholarship cannot either ignore or treat lightly. For the matter then of cultural interaction between ancient Greece and India, which could have provided opportunity for this - one of the most momentous events in the history of human civilization, would go a-begging, while that remarkable phase of the development of Buddhist literature in India which produced that great compendium of story, the Jataka Book, will rest upon an unsolved enigma of considerable proportion and nagging insistence. 如果如此庞大的数量排除了巧合的可能性，而巴比伦文学或其他任何地方又找不到共同起源，那么借鉴就成为不可避免的结论——无论是希腊人借鉴印度人，还是印度人借鉴希腊人。对于本生经中出现的若干故事而言，这是一个学术界既不能忽视也不能轻率对待的问题。否则，关于古希腊与印度之间可能促成这种借鉴的文化互动——人类文明史上最重大的事件之一——将沦为悬案；而印度佛教文学发展进程中那个产生伟大故事汇编《本生经》的非凡阶段，也将始终笼罩在悬而未解的巨大谜团之中，令人如鲠在喉。
Right from the publication of the Jatakatthavannana, and indeed even before that, in the observation of Greek fable motifs in the Pancatantra, as by Benfey, scholars who advocated a theory of borrowing of motifs, Greeks from the Indians or Indians from the Greeks, began to take sides accordingly. 自《本生经注》问世以来（实际上早在该书出版前，当本菲等人发现《五卷书》中的希腊寓言母题时），主张故事母题借鉴理论的学者们就开始站队——或认为希腊借鉴印度，或主张印度借鉴希腊。
Among the best known of these, A.Wagener, Otto Keller and J.Hertel were for India in the matter of priority and originality, and to them is added the weighty authority of Maurice Winternitz and RhysDavids, even if the former is ready to concede that, in the composition of the jatakas in India 其中最著名的学者如 A.Wagener、Otto Keller 和 J.Hertel 都主张印度在故事原创性上的优先地位，这一观点还得到了 Maurice Winternitz 和 RhysDavids 这两位权威学者的支持——尽管前者承认印度本生故事在编纂过程中
“… it was Buddhism … which brought the Indians more than ever before into contact with other peoples; and it is not probable that it was only the Indians who brought their stories to those peoples every time; they, in their turn, must have received narratives from them too, especially from peoples who stood high intellectually, as the Greeks, Perisans and Semites. In all probability, the Greek artists, who came to India in great crowds after Alexander’s campaign and helped to build and ornament many Buddhist "……正是佛教……使印度人比以往任何时候都更频繁地与其他民族接触；认为每次都是印度人单方面输出故事的说法并不可靠，他们必然也从其他民族——特别是像希腊人、波斯人和闪族人这些智力高度发达的民族——接收过叙事素材。极有可能的是，那些在亚历山大东征后成群结队来到印度、参与建造装饰佛教艺术
monuments of art, also brought many Greek narratives and motifs to India. This is more probable, as it is precisely the Jatakas which were in many cases pictorially represented on the Buddhist monuments. For, as the literature, so, Indian and non-Indian art too, was enriched by the Jatakas.” ^(35){ }^{35} 遗迹的希腊艺匠们，同时也带来了大量希腊故事母题。这种推测尤为可信，因为本生故事恰恰是佛教艺术中最常被图像化表现的题材。正如文学领域那样，印度与非印度的艺术创作也都因本生故事而更加丰富。" ^(35){ }^{35}
Rhys-Davids is more explicitly on the side of India, writing as he does, Rhys-Davids 则更明确地站在印度立场上，他在著作中写道：
“In the first place, the fairy tales, parables, fables, riddles, and comic and moral stories, of which the Buddhist Collection known as the Jataka Book - consists, have been found, in many instances, to bear a striking resemblance to similar ones current in the West. Now in many instances this resemblance is simply due to the fact that the Western stories were borrowed from the Buddhist ones”. ^(36){ }^{36} (Italics mine) “首先，佛教典籍《本生经》所收录的童话、寓言、谜语及道德故事等，在许多情况下被发现与西方流传的同类作品具有惊人的相似性。而这种相似性往往源于一个简单的事实——西方故事正是借鉴了这些佛教故事”。 ^(36){ }^{36} （斜体为笔者所加）
Albrecht Weber ^(37){ }^{37} was strongly for the Greeks as the donors and countered, though not quite convincingly, Otto Keller’s contention in his History of the Greek Fable (1862) that it was the Indian jackal and not the Greek fox who was more truly the servant of the lion, while Benfey, who is the most authoritative voice in favour of Greece, somewhat debilitated his own case when he conceded that fairy tales were generally Indian in origin. With Hertel coming in strongly with the notion that the use of fables for the purpose of political instruction was distinctly Indian, the case seems to have gone in favour of India among the Orientalists. This is not made any better by the Classicist W.Gunion Rutherford, when he makes (adding to the authority of Benfey) a one-sided case for the antiquity of Greek fable, and in lieu of a discussion of the way in which 阿尔布雷希特·韦伯 ^(37){ }^{37} 坚决主张希腊人为故事源头提供者，尽管其反驳并不完全令人信服——他针对奥托·凯勒在《希腊寓言史》（1862 年）中的观点提出异议，认为真正作为狮子仆从的应是印度豺而非希腊狐狸。而作为支持希腊起源论最权威的声音，本菲却在承认童话普遍起源于印度时，某种程度上削弱了自己的立场。随着赫特尔强势提出"将寓言用于政治教化明显是印度特色"的观点，东方学者们似乎更倾向于认同印度起源说。古典学者 W.古尼恩·卢瑟福的介入也未能扭转局面——他在为本菲的权威观点背书时，片面强调希腊寓言的古老性，却回避讨论......
the Orientals handle the fable in their respective literature, comes up with an emotional tirade in which he charges the Pancatantra and the Kalila wa-Dimna (he does not seem to have known much about the Jataka Book) of “childishness”, “absence of originality” and of “indications on all sides of the oriental love of support, whether moral or physical”. He concludes that a great literature would have been wasted on grown-up men who could derive profit from such writings and climaxes it all the insulting expression in Greek kunes pros emeton: “Dogs to the vomit!” ^(38){ }^{38}. 东方人如何在其各自的文学作品中处理寓言时，发表了一段情绪激昂的长篇抨击。他指责《五卷书》和《卡里拉与迪姆纳》（他似乎对《本生经》知之甚少）具有"幼稚性"、"缺乏原创性"以及"处处显示出东方人对扶持的喜爱，无论是精神上还是物质上的"。他总结道，若成年男子能从这类作品中获益，那伟大的文学对他们而言就是浪费，并以希腊语中极具侮辱性的表达作为高潮："狗改不了吃屎！" ^(38){ }^{38} 。
Other writers have contributed to the debate on one side or the other. Rutherford mentions Loiseleur des Longchamps, Wilson, Dubois, Silvestre de Sasy, Edelstand du Meril and A. Wagener, but admits that “the study of Pali in the able hands of Mr. Rhys-Davids and other scholars has reopened the question”. His especial reference is to Rhys-Davids’ Buddhist Birth Stories or Jataka Tales, which he was aware the author describes as "the oldest collection of Folk Lore extant, being the Jatakattavannana for the first time edited in the original Pali by V.Fausböll, and of which 40 stories had been translated into English by Rhys-Davids himself. However, Rutherford remained with the conviction that “they will acknowledge that the facts to be stated in his essay would make it plain that the Greeks were familiar with the fable long before the Pali texts were written” ^(39){ }^{39}. 其他学者也参与了这场辩论，各自支持不同立场。卢瑟福提及了卢瓦瑟勒·德隆尚、威尔逊、杜布瓦、西尔维斯特·德萨西、埃德尔斯坦·杜梅里尔和 A.瓦格纳等学者，但承认"里斯·戴维斯先生及其他学者对巴利语的深入研究使这个问题重新成为讨论焦点"。他特别提到里斯·戴维斯的《佛教本生故事》或《本生经》，并注意到作者将其描述为"现存最古老的民间故事集——即由 V.福斯伯尔首次以巴利语原文编辑的《本生鬘》，其中 40 个故事已由里斯·戴维斯本人译成英文"。尽管如此，卢瑟福仍坚持认为"读者将会认同，本文所述事实足以表明希腊人早在巴利文本成书之前就已熟知这些寓言" ^(39){ }^{39} 。
If one is to go by the evidence in tracing the antiquity of the fable in Greece and India, there is no doubt the Greek fable, whether inspired by the far older Babylonian or not, goes back to the sixth or even middle of the seventh century B.C. They would also be 若要依据现有证据追溯寓言在希腊和印度的起源，毫无疑问希腊寓言——无论是否受到更古老的巴比伦文化影响——都可追溯至公元前六世纪甚至公元前七世纪中叶。这些寓言同样......
undoubtedly right who claim an antiquity far greater than the evidence for Indian fable, even if they do so like Benfey and Hertel by reading back a similar literary inclination in the Indian mind from the nature of subsequent compilations such as the Jataka Book, the Pancatantra, the Kathasaritsagara and Hitopadesa, not to mention the sporadic fables in much of the other works of Indian literature. 那些声称印度寓言历史远比现有证据更为悠久的人无疑是正确的，即便他们像本菲和赫特尔那样，通过回溯《本生经》《五卷书》《故事海》和《益世嘉言》等后世汇编作品所体现的印度民族相似的文学倾向来佐证这一观点，更遑论印度文学其他作品中散见的诸多寓言了。
But the matter at issue is not simply the priority of fable in either country, as Rutherford was trying to say, unless the prior appearance of such stories in one country also engrossed the stories whose motifs appeared later in the other. And here, on chronology and evidence, Greece is able to support herself both as to an indigenous development of fable in general and some of the parallel motifs in particular, from the Indian claim, while both these - notwithstanding the intuition of eminent scholars, fall into a grey area in the history of Indian literature. This, and historical opportunity to communicate the motifs of one culture to the other in the period shortly preceding the phenomenon of parallel motifs in the stories of Greece and India favour a Greek transmission to India as against the likelihood vice versa. 但问题的关键并不在于哪个国家优先拥有寓言，正如卢瑟福试图指出的那样，除非这些故事在一个国家的早期出现也涵盖了那些母题后来出现在另一个国家的故事。就年代学和证据而言，希腊能够证明自身不仅拥有寓言的本土发展历程，还拥有部分与印度主张相似的平行母题——而这两点（尽管杰出学者们有直觉判断）在印度文学史上仍属于灰色地带。加之在希腊与印度故事出现平行母题现象前不久的历史时期，存在将一种文化的母题传播至另一种文化的历史机遇，这些因素更支持希腊向印度传播的可能性，而非相反方向。
This is the stance I have adopted in this study, though the argument for its probability will take the form of a more detailed examination of the parallelisms, even if even so I cannot hope to be as comprehensive in a book of such limited conspectus as this as the matter demands. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind that we are dealing with only a relatively few story motifs which occur in the jatakas, the huge majority that is the rest being either created around indigenous Indian motifs or motifs swept into India from various other lands and peoples, perhaps some of these, along with the Greeks themselves in their passage to India with Alexander some time before the compilation of the Jataka Book. In other words, (and playing on the title of another such collection, the 这是我在本研究中所采取的立场，尽管对其可能性的论证将通过对平行关系的更详细考察来呈现，即便如此，鉴于本书有限的篇幅，我也无法如议题所要求的那般全面。同时必须牢记，我们仅涉及本生经中相对少量的故事母题，其余绝大多数要么围绕印度本土母题创作，要么是从其他地域和民族传入印度的母题——其中或许有些母题，连同希腊人自身，是在《本生经》编纂前某个时期随亚历山大大帝东征印度时传入的。换言之，（此处借用另一部类似汇编的标题，即
Kathasaritsagara) the Graecizing stories of the Jataka Book constitute just another of the many “streams of story”, and a tenuous one at that, of the several streams that have poured their waters into the ocean of the Jatakatthavannana, which Rhys-Davids was then to call “the oldest, most complete, and most important collection of folk-lore extant”. 在《故事海》(Kathasaritsagara)中，《本生经》的希腊化故事不过是众多"故事之流"中的一支，且颇为微弱，这些支流最终汇入了《本生经注疏》的汪洋——戴维斯爵士曾称这部注疏为"现存最古老、最完整且最重要的民间传说集"。
Some of these motifs I suspect, must have come to India from Persia, notable among which is the argument which a woman makes for her preference of a brother over husband and son, which appears in the Ucchanga Jataka (No. 67) - though on the consensus of the other evidence I suspect that this too has made its way to India via a Greek source i.e. the Histories of Herodotus. A few are traceable to the Bible and may be of Jewish origin, e.g. the motif of the ‘Son prasna’ of the Maha Ummagga Jataka (No. 546), which in its basic psychology as well as the methodology adopted to determine the truth of two women’s rival claims to an infant emulate Solomon’s in Kings 3.12-28. There is also what M.Bloomfield has chosen to call the ‘Potiphar motif’ in the Maha Paduma Jataka (No. 472) and again in the Bandhanamokkha Jataka (No. 120), which reflects the episode of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 34.7-20 - though here again I cannot but be of opinion that the intermediary for the motifs (if indeed it originated with that story) is, as with the Ucchanga above, Greece - in this case, the myth of Hippolytus and Phaedra. ^(40){ }^{40} 我怀疑其中一些母题必定是从波斯传入印度的，尤为显著的是《鹧鸪本生》（第 67 号）中女子为偏爱兄弟而非丈夫与儿子所提出的辩词——尽管根据其他证据的共识，我推测这一母题同样是通过希腊渠道（即希罗多德的《历史》）传入印度的。少数母题可追溯至《圣经》，可能源自犹太传统，例如《大隧道本生》（第 546 号）中的"儿子诘问"母题，其核心心理机制以及判定两名妇女对婴儿争夺主张真伪所采用的方法，都与《列王纪上》3:12-28 所载所罗门断案如出一辙。M·布鲁姆菲尔德所称的"波提乏母题"也见于《大莲华本生》（第 472 号）及《解脱束缚本生》（第 120 号），这显然对应着《创世记》34:7-20 中约瑟与波提乏之妻的桥段——不过在此我仍不得不认为，该母题（若确系源自该故事）如同前述《鹧鸪本生》一样，其中介者仍是希腊文化，具体而言则是希波吕托斯与准德拉的神话传说。 ^(40){ }^{40}
On the other hand, some Greek fable, myth and other motifs appear to have by-passed the compilers of the stories of the Jataka Book, only to reappear in other places, for instance that of the fable of The Monkey and the Fishermen (C.304, H.362, P.203, Hs.219) which Benfey rightly associated with the Pancatantra’s story of the The Wedge-pulling Monkey, both of which base themselves on the imitative nature of the monkey which lands him in trouble. There is also the fable of The Fox and the Crane (H.34, Ph.1.26), which, 另一方面，某些希腊寓言、神话及其他母题似乎绕过了《本生经》故事的编纂者，却出现在其他文本中。例如《猴子与渔夫》的寓言（编号 C.304/H.362/P.203/Hs.219）——本菲曾准确指出其与《五卷书》中《拔楔子的猴子》故事的关联，两者都基于猴子模仿天性招致祸端的核心情节。另有《狐狸与鹤》的寓言（编号 H.34/Ph.1.26），
though among the most popular of the Aesopic fables, has had no response in Indian story but (according to my interpretation of the scene) makes its appearance upon a miniature schist cosmetic tray from Sirkap. Other motifs drawn from Greek story could have appeared in the katha literature of India - some are discernible in Somadeva’s Kathasaritsagara, which with the other Kashmiri version, the Brhatkatha-manjari of Ksemendra and the Nepali Brhatkatha Slokasamgraha of Buddhasvamin, traced back to Gunadhya’s lost Brhatkatha, written in Paisaci, which with the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, was one of the great storehouses of Indian story literature. The tradition that Gunadhya destroyed six-sevenths of his work of 700,000 slokas when king Satavahana rejected the work, allegedly on account of the barbarity of the language in which it was written, recalls the story of the Sibyline books; that he read the pages he burnt to the birds and beast who gathered round him and listened with tears in their eyes calls to mind Orpheus and his songs. It is to this work of Gunadhya that the story traces back of the capture of Prince Udena by the ruse of the wooden elephant (a ruse which, as noted earlier, emulates the capture of Troy by the devise of a wooden horse, the Indian awareness of which is doubly confirmed by the discovery of a famous schist relief from Gandhara. ^(41){ }^{41} 尽管伊索寓言中最为人熟知的故事在印度传说中并无对应版本，但根据我对场景的解读，其形象却出现在西尔卡普出土的一块片岩化妆盘微型浮雕上。其他源自希腊故事的母题本可能出现在印度的"卡塔"文学中——有些可在苏摩提婆的《故事海》中辨识，该作品与克什米尔另一版本（克谢门德拉的《大故事花簇》）及佛陀斯瓦明的尼泊尔语《大故事诗摄》共同追溯至已失传的旃陀衍那用毕舍遮语写成的《大故事》，这部作品与《摩诃婆罗多》《罗摩衍那》并列为印度故事文学的三大宝库。传说当萨塔瓦哈纳国王因作品用语粗鄙而拒绝接受时，旃陀衍那焚毁了其 70 万颂诗作中的七分之六，这令人联想到西卜林神谕书的故事；而他向围聚身旁的飞禽走兽诵读焚毁书页，动物们听得泪眼婆娑的传说，则使人想起俄耳甫斯及其琴歌。 这段故事可追溯至 Gunadhya 的作品，其中描述了乌德那王子被木象计谋所俘（正如前文所述，此计谋效仿了特洛伊木马攻城的策略。印度人对这个典故的认知得到了双重印证——在犍陀罗地区发现的一处著名片岩浮雕为此提供了佐证）。 ^(41){ }^{41}
It is no surprise if but little of the story material that found its way to India went into her literature. The larger portion would have floated around, in time to evaporate into oblivion. In this context, we find that the two or three myth motifs, largely associated with the Perseus saga, which were built into the mythistorical narration of the early history of Sri Lanka in the Mahavamsa, the stories of Vijaya, Ummadacitta and Viharadevi, were made up of a knowledge in excess of what Indian literature can vouchsafe. ^(42){ }^{42} 倘若仅有少量传入印度的故事素材被纳入其文学体系，这并不令人意外。更大体量的故事会在民间口耳相传，最终随时间流逝而湮没无闻。在此背景下我们发现，与珀尔修斯传说密切相关的两三个神话母题——这些母题被编入《大史》中斯里兰卡早期历史的传说叙事，即维阇耶、乌摩达吉塔和维哈拉德维的故事——其构成元素所蕴含的知识，已超出了印度文献所能证实的范畴。 ^(42){ }^{42}
Even the motifs common to Greece and the jatakas identified by the earliest of modern scholars are not as between one and one, but account for a greater number of items than the motifs themselves. For instance, Greece has two variants of The Ass in the Lion-Skin detection by bray and disclosure by puff of wind; similarly, there are two Crow and the Fox jatakas, the Jambu Khadaka and the Anta (No. 295), one the inversion of the other. Again, if we take the motif common to the Greek Tortoise and the Eagle, which is reflected in the Kacchapa Jataka, it seems to have given rise, together with the Aesopic The Snake and the Crab (C.290, H.346), in which a crab clips the neck of a snake for failing to be straight in life, to the well-known Baka Jataka (No. 38) in which a bird (a stork) carrying a land creature, this time a crab, through the air but with a diabolical intent similar to that of the eagle in the first, inverts the roles of the original fable by having himself killed instead, his neck clipped in the fashion of the snake in the second Greek fable, and by a similar creature, a crab. Meanwhile, the attempt of the jataka tortoise of the Kacchapa to talk, which makes him fall is nothing but an inversion of the experience of the crow transferred here from quite another Aesopic fable, the already mentioned Crow and the Fox, in which it is the piece of meat (not the crow!) which drops when the creature likewise opens his stupid mouth to talk or sing. 即便是现代学者最早指出的希腊与《本生经》共有的故事母题，其对应关系也并非一对一，而是存在比母题本身数量更多的变体。例如希腊有"披狮皮的驴"的两个版本——因嘶叫而败露与被风吹揭穿；同样，《本生经》中也有两则乌鸦与狐狸故事（阎浮果本生与安达本生第 295 号），彼此形成情节倒置。再以希腊"龟鹰寓言"与《本生经》的"龟本生"共有母题为例，该母题似乎与伊索寓言"蛇蟹相争"（C.290，H.346，讲述螃蟹因蛇未能正直生活而钳断其颈）共同催生了著名的"鹳本生"（第 38 号）——故事中鸟类（鹳）携陆地生物（此次是螃蟹）飞行的情节虽与首则希腊寓言相似，却通过角色反转实现了颠覆：怀有恶魔般意图的鹳反被螃蟹钳断颈部而亡，其死亡方式恰似第二则希腊寓言中蛇的遭遇，且施害者同为甲壳类生物。 与此同时，《本生经》中乌龟迦遮波因开口说话而坠落的情节，实则源自另一则伊索寓言《乌鸦与狐狸》的桥段反转——在原故事中，当愚蠢的乌鸦张嘴鸣叫时，掉落的是它衔着的肉块（而非乌鸦本身！）。
Several other instances are to be found of two or more jatakas corresponding in motif to a Aesopic fable, as there are sometimes two or more Aesopic fable motifs combining to create a single jataka. Of the latter sort is the Kaka (No. 140) and the similar Kapi (No. 404) which bring into play the motif of Aesop’s The Man and the Fox (C.58, H.61, P.283) to explain how an ailment was caused needing prescription, and the motif of The Lion, the Wolf and the Fox (C.205, H.255, P.258, Hs.269) as the manner in which the aggrieved party encompassed the death of his enemy through his prescription. Someone angered by the depredations of 我们还发现多组本生故事与伊索寓言存在母题对应，有时甚至由两则以上伊索寓言母题融合成单一本生故事。例如第 140 号《迦迦本生》与第 404 号《迦比本生》就同时运用了伊索寓言《人与狐狸》（编号 C.58/H.61/P.283）中"病因需药方解释"的母题，以及《狮子、狼与狐狸》（编号 C.205/H.255/P.258/Hs.269）里"受害者通过药方设计使仇敌毙命"的情节模式。这些故事都讲述了因掠夺行为而激怒的......
an animal, sets him aflame in some way and he in turn causes a general conflagration to property. The second motif takes off with an aiment suffered by someone needing cure. Immediately a party aggrieved with another seizes the opportunity to recommend a part of the body of the latter as the medicament and has him killed. Giving a slighly different twist to the latter Greek fable is another, The Goat and the Ass (C.10, H.8, P.279) in which, unlike in The Lion, the Wolf and the Fox, but like in the jatakas, the one who prescribes the medicine is a human being who is consulted. ^(43){ }^{43} Two details, and the self same participant of the Aesopic fables, The Lion, Prometheus and the Elephant (C.210, H.261, P.259, Hs.292) and The Two Beetles (C.149, H.185), in combination with an inspiration from The Wolf and his Shadow (H.280, P.260) seem to have inspired the Gutha Pana Jataka (No. 227), in which a drunken dung-beetie, feeling a soft pat of dung yield under his weight and evincing delusions of grandeur, challenges an elephant to combat, only to be quashed and drowned by the latter’s dung and urine. ^(44){ }^{44} 一只动物以某种方式引燃自身，继而引发一场财产大火灾。第二个母题始于某人患病需医治，心怀怨恨的一方立即抓住机会，建议用后者的身体部位入药，致其被杀。与后一则希腊寓言略有不同的是《山羊与驴》（C.10，H.8，P.279）：不同于《狮子、狼与狐狸》，却与本生经相似，开药方的是被咨询的人类。 ^(43){ }^{43} 《伊索寓言》中《狮子、普罗米修斯与大象》（C.210，H.261，P.259，Hs.292）和《两只甲虫》（C.149，H.185）两则细节，连同《狼与其影子》（H.280，P.260）的灵感，似乎共同启发了《古塔帕那本生》（第 227 则）：醉酒的蜣螂感觉粪块在身下塌陷，妄自尊大之下向大象挑战，最终被象粪与尿液淹没溺毙。 ^(44){ }^{44}
Several jataka parallels have gone unreckoned, either because their Aesopic correspondents were unknown or because they could not be seen through their disguise. Notable among these is the ever popular Vanara Jataka (No. 342), which appears somewhat more expanded as the Sumsumara (No. 208) and of which my detailed study has revealed that they are in effect emulations of the Greek fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin (C.305, H.363, P.73, Hs.75), in which a drowning monkey, mistaken for a man, is being carried ashore by a dolphin, when he is caught lying and tossed back into the water by the fish. 部分本生经故事未被纳入比对研究，原因或是其对应的伊索寓言未被发现，或是其故事原型难以辨识。其中尤为著名的当属流传甚广的《猕猴本生》（第 342 号），该故事在《鳄鱼本生》（第 208 号）中有更为详尽的演绎。经笔者详细考证，这两个故事实为希腊寓言《猴子与海豚》（编号 C.305/H.363/P.73/Hs.75）的仿作——原故事讲述一只溺水的猴子被海豚误认为人类而救起，后因谎言被识破而被扔回海中。
Some jatakas in half their motif recall one Greek fable, in half another. For instance the Godha (No. 138). A hermit craves for lizard-flesh and throws a mallet at a lizard who used to visit him. He succeeds in only hitting the tip of it’s tail, whereupon the lizard rebukes him, asking what such as he had to do with the garb of a hermit. A man hitting a reptile with a weapon and missing appears in the Aesopic fable of The Snake and the Farmer (C.81, H.96, P.51, Hs.51). Here a farmer strikes a snake, which has killed his child, with an axe and misses. The rebuke in the jataka however comes from two different sorts of fables, The Ass and the Wolf (C.107, H.134, P.97, Hs.99) where a creature asks itself what it had to do with what it tried to do, when its usual practice was quite some other. 部分本生故事的情节一半让人想起某个希腊寓言，另一半则对应另一个。例如《蜥蜴本生》（第 138 则）：一位隐士渴望蜥蜴肉，向常来造访的蜥蜴投掷木槌，却只击中其尾尖。蜥蜴随即斥责他，质问这等行径与隐士装束有何相干。伊索寓言《农夫与蛇》（编号 C.81/H.96/P.51/Hs.51）中也有类似情节：农夫用斧头劈咬死其子的蛇却失手。但本生故事中的斥责情节实则融合了两种寓言类型——在《驴与狼》（编号 C.107/H.134/P.97/Hs.99）中，当生物发现自身行为与惯常行径相悖时，会自问为何要尝试此事。
The opposite of this - where one Aesopic fable shares its features with two jatakas (here companions of each other) is to be seen in the fable of The Bald Man and the Fly (Ph. v. 3), in which a bald man slaps a fly that had settled on his head, and misses. For in the Makasa Jataka (No. 44) we have a bald man, whose son, in trying to kill a mosquito which had settled on the father’s head, with an axe, cleaves it in two. In it’s counterpart, the Rohini (No. 45), which has female participants, mother and daughter, and (in keeping with women) a pestle for the instrument, mosquito is also varied with fly. These jatakas do not merely appear together, but the latter being so akin also to its present-life story in the paccuppannavatthu thereof, is curtly abbreviated by referring the reader back to it with a “and he too” and “in like manner”. 与此相反的情况——一个伊索寓言与两个本生经故事（此处二者互为姊妹篇）共享相同特征——可见于《秃子与苍蝇》（Ph. v. 3）这则寓言：秃子拍打落在头顶的苍蝇却失手了。因为在《蚊本生》（第 44 号）中，秃头的父亲被儿子用斧头劈杀落在其头顶的蚊子时误劈身亡。与之对应的《罗睺罗本生》（第 45 号）则采用女性角色（母女二人），并顺应女性身份将凶器改为杵，蚊子也替换为苍蝇。这两则本生经不仅成对出现，后者更因与今生故事（paccuppannavatthu）高度相似，仅以"彼亦如是"及"同前"指引读者回溯前文而大幅简写。
Sometimes it is only a detail which is imported into the plot of a jataka, and often enough this too in disguise. In the Nalapana Jataka (No. 20) thirsty monkeys come to drink at a pool haunted by an ogre. Their leader observes that the footprints of all other animals lead to the water, but do not come back. So, to help his fellows drink without falling into the power of the ogre, he blows 有时只是一个细节被引入本生故事的剧情中，而且往往还经过巧妙伪装。在《芦苇池本生经》（第 20 号）中，口渴的猴群来到被食人魔盘踞的水池饮水。猴王发现其他动物的足迹都通向水池，却没有返回的足迹。于是，为了让同伴们能安全饮水而不落入食人魔的魔掌，他吹响了
the knots off some cane stalks and gets them to suck the water through them. In the Tayodhamma Jataka (No. 58), one of the plots used by the king of the monkeys to have his son killed, involves sending him to pick flowers from a lake haunted by an ogre. Once again, as in the Nalapana, it is his observation of nulla vestigia retrorsum which saves the monkey. In the Devadamma Jataka (No. 6) the hero’s cleverness is shifted from the clue of the footprints to solving a riddle asked by the ogre, “What is truly godlike”?, all who fail to answer which he devours. In the Vanarinda Jataka (No. 57) it is a crocodile who lurks on a rock to catch the monkey vaulting across the water with the aid of that rock. The monkey requests the crocodile to open his mouth (for him to leap into it) thus causing it to close its eyes (a reflex with crocodiles, as is believed) and so vaults over it’s back to safety. 他剥去几根甘蔗的节疤，让它们通过茎秆吸水。在《大药本生经》（第 58 号）中，猴王为除掉儿子所设的计谋之一，便是派他去一个被食人魔盘踞的湖中采花。与《那罗波那本生》如出一辙，正是猴子观察到"无返程足迹"才得以脱险。在《天法本生经》（第 6 号）里，主人公的机智从辨识足迹转向解答食人魔提出的谜题："何为真正神圣？"，凡答不出者皆被其吞噬。而《猕猴本生经》（第 57 号）中，鳄鱼潜伏在岩石上，企图捕捉借助该石跃水而过的猴子。猴子诱使鳄鱼张嘴（佯装要跳入其口），使其闭眼（据信此为鳄鱼的条件反射），从而跃过鳄背安全脱身。
Details from two Aesopic fables and a Greek myth figure in the cluster of jatakas I have just mentioned. That of one-way footprints warning a wary observer of danger recalls the fable of The Lion and the Fox (C.196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147), in which an ageing lion, unable to go out hunting, feigns illness and eats up all who call on him, but fails with the fox who notices that, while footprints lead to the lion’s den, there is no evidence of footprints coming back from there (The original idea, which Max Müller thought came to Greece and India with the Aryans, traces back in the case of Greece to quite an ancient myth, that of Hercules and Cacus). Drinking without being seized by a monster figures with a crocodile in the Greek fable Dogs and Crocodiles (Ph.i.25), suitably set in Egypt. They say that dogs, when they drink from the Nile, do so running. So when a dog was doing this, a crocodile bade him take his time lapping the water. To which the dog replied indeed he would gladly have done so had he not known how greedy crocodiles were for dog-flesh. As for the Devadamma’s riddling ogre, who (killed and) ate the unsuccessful, we are reminded of the Sphinx of the Oedipus legend and the riddle he posed of which the answer was “Man”, with death as the consequence for failure. 在我刚提到的本生经故事群中，出现了两则伊索寓言和一个希腊神话的细节。其中单向足迹警示警惕者危险的桥段，令人想起《狮子与狐狸》寓言（编号 C.196/H.246/P.142/Hs.147）——年迈狮子无力捕猎便装病吃掉所有访客，却骗不过发现足迹只进不出的狐狸（马克斯·缪勒认为这个母题随雅利安人传入希腊与印度，其希腊原型可追溯至赫拉克勒斯与卡库斯的古老神话）。而关于避开怪物饮水的母题，则对应希腊寓言《狗与鳄鱼》（菲德鲁斯 1.25）中尼罗河畔的鳄鱼——据说狗饮尼罗河水时总保持奔跑姿态。当某次犬类照例奔跑饮水时，鳄鱼劝其从容舔水。狗回应道：若非深知鳄鱼嗜食狗肉，自己倒很乐意慢慢享用。 至于德瓦达玛的谜语食人魔（它会杀死并吃掉答错者），我们不禁联想到俄狄浦斯传说中的斯芬克斯及其提出的谜题——谜底是"人"，而失败的代价便是死亡。
Ingenuity in the adoption of motifs as jatakas has often enough revealed itself in the substitution of the dramatis personae, be they with animals, birds or even human beings. Even so, in many instances the adapters have, perhaps from want of equally apt alternatives to fall back on, retained those they found with the original motifs. Among these are the cock who crowed betimes of the Akalaravi Jataka (No. 119), the tortoise who took to the air and the tortoise who loved his home overmuch in the Kacchapa Jataka (Nos. 178 and 215 respectively), the monkey who rode the watercreature in the Sumsumara (No. 208) and Vanara (No. 342), the ass who put on a lion-skin in the Sihacamma (No. 189) or the goatherd who favoured the new-comer herd in the Dhumakari (No. 248). Localization was influential even so, resulting sometimes in a slight shift as from wolf to lion, fox to jackal or dolphin to crocodile, sometimes necessitating a welcome twist to the story. All these we shall see, as also more ingenious substitutions of characters with more drastic rephrasing of the happening as when Icarus of Greek myth becomes the high-flying vulture of the Migalopa (No. 381) and Gijjha (No. 427) and Intaphernes and Teisander of Greek historical anecdote reappear as a village farmer and a dancing peacock in the Ucchanga (No. 67) and Nacca (No. 32) respectively. It may even be the fabulist Aesop himself who is replaced by the Bodhisatta in the Manicora Jataka (No. 194). 在将故事主题改编为本生经时，改编者常展现出巧思，表现为对故事角色的替换——无论是动物、鸟类还是人类角色。即便如此，在许多情况下，或许由于缺乏同样贴切的替代方案，改编者仍保留了原始主题中的角色。其中包括：在《阿迦罗罗毗本生经》（第 119 号）中准时啼鸣的公鸡；在《龟本生经》（第 178 号和第 215 号）中飞向天空的乌龟与过分恋家的乌龟；在《苏姆苏摩罗本生经》（第 208 号）和《瓦那罗本生经》（第 342 号）中骑乘水怪的猴子；在《狮皮本生经》（第 189 号）中披上狮皮的驴；以及在《杜摩迦利本生经》（第 248 号）中偏爱新来羊群的牧羊人。地域化影响同样显著，有时会导致细微变化——如将狼改为狮子、狐狸改为豺狼、海豚改为鳄鱼，有时则需要对故事情节进行巧妙调整。我们将看到所有这些案例，以及更为精妙的角色替换与情节重构——例如希腊神话中的伊卡洛斯化身为《弥迦罗波本生经》（第 381 号）和《吉贾本生经》（第... 427）希腊历史轶事中的因塔弗尼斯和泰桑德，分别在《乌昌伽本生》（第 67 号）和《纳卡本生》（第 32 号）中以乡村农夫和跳舞孔雀的形象重现。甚至可能是寓言家伊索本人在《摩尼拘罗本生》（第 194 号）中被菩萨所取代。
Apart from all these, as earlier mentioned, are several quite striking parallels which had gone unrecognized, perhaps because their Aesopic equivalents were unknown to or had missed the attention of scholars in the past. Some of these I shall discuss briefly in Chapter V. But the general conclusion is that the number and nature of these parallels is so impressive that no other theory is compatible with this evidence than that of an adoption of motifs by the jatakas from Greek sources. Nor is this any cause for surprise; actually, it is the opposite that should have caused surprise, considering the long presence of the Greeks in India after their first 除此之外，如前所述，还存在几处相当引人注目的相似之处，这些可能因学者们过去不了解或忽略了其与伊索寓言的对应关系而未被发现。其中一些我将在第五章简要讨论。但总体结论是，这些相似之处的数量和性质如此显著，以至于除了本生故事从希腊素材中借鉴主题这一理论外，其他任何解释都无法与这些证据相符。这也不足为奇；实际上，考虑到希腊人首次进入印度后的长期存在，相反的情况才应令人惊讶。
arrival with Alexander. In art this impact is evident enough - both in the style of Gandhara and the emulations of classical themes that have turned up in the archaeology of this region. In drama too is the unmistakable influence of the New Comedy stage and its plays upon the Sanskrit productions of the times. And there are those who would trace the possible influence of Greek physical philosophy upon the thought of India, which gives rise to comparable cosmological and epistemological systems that cannot fail to strike the reader as anything but the product of a cross-cultural intellectual interaction. 随亚历山大一同到来。这种影响在艺术领域尤为显著——无论是犍陀罗风格，还是该地区考古发现中对古典主题的模仿。戏剧方面，新喜剧舞台及其剧目对当时梵语作品的深刻影响亦不容忽视。更有学者试图追溯希腊自然哲学对印度思想的潜在影响，由此催生出相似的宇宙论与认识论体系，读者不难发现这些体系正是跨文化思想交流的产物。
In these circumstance, how is it possible, one may ask, that the literature of India remained bereft of the impact of the far richer and extensively recorded secular literature of classical Greece? How could it be that all those numerous Greeks who invaded Northwestern India in the army of the conquering Alexander and afterwards settled there in their thousands and were perhaps assimilated into that populace, made no impact with their culture upon a land so ready to accept all streams of literature, art and thought that poured their flood into its ocean? The answer is that this had really happened, even if the evidence (what survives) is recondite to a superficial and partial study. My study of the jatakas with reference to a fairly wide range of story motifs from the literature of Greece that is to follow has, I believe, had some recompense in laying bare some part of this. 人们不禁要问，在这样的情况下，印度文学怎么可能完全未受古典希腊更为丰富且广泛记载的世俗文学的影响？那些跟随征服者亚历山大大军入侵印度西北部、随后成千上万定居于此并可能被当地居民同化的希腊人，为何未能在这片乐于接纳所有文学、艺术和思想潮流的土地上留下文化印记？答案在于这种影响确实存在，尽管现存的证据需要深入全面的研究才能发现。我通过对本生经与希腊文学中大量故事母题的比较研究，相信已部分揭示了这一被掩盖的真相。
CHAPTER II 第二章
THE BUDDHIST JATAKA CHARACTER AND CONTENT 佛教本生经的特质与内涵
The jatakas, of which we have been talking so far, comprise 547 birth-stories of the Buddha Gautama and constitute the ancient compendium known as the Jatakatthavannana or the Jatakatthakatha. This Pali work, as its name indicates, is a commentary on the jataka gatha or verses contained in the Kuddaka Nikaya of the Pali Canon. Counting 6905 stanzas of the Jatakapali, this canonical text is popularly recognized by Buddhists as the “Buddha-word”, and the stories which expatiate upon these stanzas comprise the Jatakattakatha in Pali, which, as mentioned before, Fausböll was the first in recent times to edit and publish in Roman letters, soon after which it was translated into English under the editorship of Cowell. 我们迄今所谈论的本生经，包含了乔达摩佛陀的 547 个前世故事，构成了名为《本生经疏》或《本生经注》的古代汇编。正如其名所示，这部巴利文著作是对巴利藏经《小部》中所载本生偈颂的注释。这部经典文本收录了 6905 颂本生偈，被佛教徒普遍尊为"佛语"，而阐释这些偈颂的故事则构成了巴利文的《本生经注》。如前所述，福斯博尔是近代首位以罗马字母编辑出版该经注的学者，随后在考威尔的指导下被译成英文。
Several definitions of the word jataka have been given by one scholar and another. But the best seems to me the etymological one found in the Saddaniti, according to which it is an incident connected with a life - the usual meaning derived from the verbal root jan. When taken together with the wider sense “life” itself, as yielded by the word jâta, we are left with the notion of “an incident within a life” - which is just what a jataka story is in general. Jataka, in the diminutive sense, must then imply, as H.Kern takes it, a “little story” ', or as C.A.F.Rhys-Davids takes it, a “birthlet” all the while understanding that it is not a complete biography of that birth, but a relevant incident within it - relevant, as one sees, to the matter which its narrator in the stories (always the Buddha) wishes to elucidate. In the sense that it is used by Buddhists, 不同学者对"本生"一词给出了多种定义。但在我看来，《声形论》中从词源学角度给出的解释最为恰当——它指与某次生命相关的轶事，这一常规含义源自词根"jan"。若结合"jâta"一词所蕴含的更广泛"生命"概念，我们便可将其理解为"生命中的一段轶事"，而这正是本生故事的本质内涵。从狭义而言，正如 H.克恩所诠释的，本生意指"小故事"；或如 C.A.F.里斯·戴维斯所解，是"生命片段"——需始终明确这并非完整的生平传记，而是其中具有特殊意义的插曲。这种意义，正如故事叙述者（总是佛陀本人）所要阐明的要旨所在。就佛教徒的使用语境而言，
however, the birth concerned in a jataka must be a past birth of the Buddha himself, in which he figures as it’s hero, a secondary character or at the least a spectator. Conversely, by this definition, no story of a past life not including the Buddha as a Bodhisatta (or Being on the path to Enlightenment) would be reckoned a jataka. It is thus evident that what came to be called the jatakas are indigenous folk stories or stories brought to India from other lands, which had been localized and coopted as birth-stories of the Buddha by making one of their characters or participants the Bodhisatta. These latter are of no inconsiderable number, as Winternitz himself believed when he declared “thus we can scarely be much mistaken in saying that far more than one half of all the Jatakas, if we omit the commentary, is not of Buddhist origin”. ^(3){ }^{3} 然而，本生经所涉及的转世必须与佛陀本人的前世相关，他在其中或以主角身份出现，或以次要角色登场，至少也要作为旁观者存在。反过来说，根据这一定义，任何不包含佛陀作为菩萨（即觉悟之路上行者）的前世故事，都不能被视为本生故事。由此可见，那些被称为本生经的故事，原本是印度本土民间传说或从异域传入的故事，通过将其某个角色或参与者设定为菩萨，这些故事被本土化并吸纳为佛陀的转世故事。这类故事的数量绝非少数，正如温特尼茨本人所言："若撇开注释部分，我们几乎可以断言——超过半数的本生故事并非佛教起源。"
The appearance of the Buddha and other personalities associated with him in his present life in past lives as well (or should we put it the other way round?) is established upon the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth, while the Buddha’s ability to remember happenings in all those past lives, whereby he is able to narrate them in the present, purports to derive from that power of birth-recollection possessed by a Buddha. As Müller says, “Another article of faith is that highly enlightened beings have the gift of recalling happenings of their former lives (P.pubbenivsananussati; Skt. purvenivasanañusmrti). A Buddha knows what happened to him in every existence through which he has passed and the Buddha was accustomed to explain to his disciples things that were happening by things that happened countless ages before”. ^(4){ }^{4} 佛陀及其相关人物在今生与前世中的显现（或许我们该反过来说？）建立在佛教轮回教义的基础上，而佛陀能够忆念所有前世经历并将其讲述于今世的能力，则源自佛陀所特有的宿命通。正如缪勒所言："另一个信仰要义是，高度觉悟者具备忆念前世经历的神通（巴利语 pubbenivsananussati；梵语 purvenivasanañusmrti）。佛陀能知晓自己每一世的所有经历，并习惯用无数劫前发生的往事为弟子解说当下之事。" ^(4){ }^{4}
This ability to recall previous births is one of the six iddhi “supernormal powers” which a monk was thought to be able to develop with meditation and possessed by a Buddha. 这种忆念前生的能力属于六神通之一，僧人通过禅修可证得此超凡能力，而佛陀则自然具足。
A jataka story is not, nor was meant to be taken with the seriousness of a realistic biography, ^(5){ }^{5} though some have been so taken by the naire devotee, the most popular of these being the Serivanija (No. 3), the Maha-Ummagga (No. 546) and the Vessantara (No. 547). Its ‘truth’ is, rather, metaphorical - and metaphorical with a moralistic intention. This moralistic intention is the riaison d’etre of the jataka; it must be capable, positively or in the negative, to manifest or at least adumbrate one or another of the Buddhist mores. But often enough, and from being drawn into the conglomerate that is the Jataka Book from diverse sources and through the diverse interests of the compilers (often because a story was fascinating, dramatic, quaint or witty) many a jataka finds itself hard put to do so. 本生故事并非、也无意被视为严肃的现实传记， ^(5){ }^{5} 尽管某些虔诚的信徒确实如此看待，其中最著名的包括《商人本生》（第 3 则）、《大隧道本生》（第 546 则）和《维桑塔拉本生》（第 547 则）。其"真实性"本质上是隐喻性的——且是带有道德教化意图的隐喻。这种道德教化意图正是本生故事存在的理由；它必须能够从正面或反面体现、或至少隐约呈现佛教的某种道德准则。但往往由于本生故事集编纂者从不同来源采撷、基于不同兴趣（常因故事引人入胜、戏剧性强、离奇有趣或妙语连珠）将其纳入汇编，许多本生故事难以达成这一宗旨。
Some of the jataka stories are very brief, especially those which approximate to fable and involve animals; these are more frequent in the first half of the collection, but occur less frequently as the stories lengthen out in the latter part, bringing in more complex and episodic plots. A few of the longer stories may however act like frame stories to a series of smaller stories, episodes or anecdotes, or involve a motif from a smaller other story in the course of its narrative. For example, in the Kunala Jataka (No. 536) a king of birds, for the instruction of his friend, a royal cuckoo, narrates several instances to illustrate the unfaithfulness of women; in the MahaUmmagga Jataka we have nineteen prasna, which Prince Mahosadha was called to solve (one of which remarkably reflects a Greek myth), and in the Mahasupina Jataka (No. 77) are sixteen dreams a king dreams (two of which again have distinct Greek parallels). While cynical of some of Rhys-Davids’ ideas about the origin of certain Greek fables in the Indian jatakas, the Bishop of 部分本生故事篇幅极短，尤以近似寓言且涉及动物的篇目为甚；这类故事在文集前半部出现频率较高，但随着后半部故事篇幅的延伸，含有更复杂情节和插曲的叙事逐渐增多，短篇便较为罕见了。不过某些长篇故事可能充当框架，串联起一系列小故事、插曲或轶事，或在叙述过程中融入其他短篇故事的母题。例如《鸠那罗本生》（第 536 则）中，鸟王为教导其友——一只皇家杜鹃——讲述了数个例证来阐明女性的不忠；《大隧道本生》则呈现了摩诃苏达王子被要求解答的十九个谜题（其中一题显著反映了希腊神话），而《大梦本生》（第 77 则）记载了国王所做的十六个梦（其中两个梦境又与希腊传说存在明显对应）。尽管对里斯·戴维斯关于某些希腊寓言源自印度本生故事的观点持怀疑态度，但这位主教...
Colombo at the time, Rev. Copleston, conceded that in the hero of the Losaka Jataka (No. 41), Mittavindaka, we had an Indian version of Ulysses, with some of the latter’s adventures paralleled there. ^(6){ }^{6} 当时的科伦坡主教科普尔斯顿承认，在《卢舍迦本生经》（第 41 号）的主角密多频陀迦身上，我们看到了印度版的尤利西斯，其中某些冒险情节与后者如出一辙。 ^(6){ }^{6}
The title of a jataka appears to have been decided upon an animal or character involved in the plot or the quality or feature which was most predominant in the narrative, and was always kept short. Thus we have Tortoise, Monkey, Crocodile, Jackal, Crow, Dung Beetle, Panther etc. Jataka, or following the proper names of animals Munika, Suhanu, Cula-Nandiya - or human beings, Rohini, Mahasilava, Paduma, or again from some feature, Nalapana, Sihacamma, Akalaravi, Alinacita etc. Sometimes a jataka might be known in a different context by another name, as for instance the Vanarinda (No. 57) is called the Kumbhila, the Losaka (No. 41) is called the Mittavindaka, the Telapatta (No. 96) is also known as the Takkasila, the Kacchapa, (No. 215) as the Babu-Bhani. Sometimes more than one jataka is found with the same title; there are three Kaka Jatakas (Nos. 140, 146, 395), three Kacchapa Jatakas (Nos. 178, 215, 273), two Kapi Jatakas (Nos 250, 404). Sometimes the same story appears under two different heads, as the Munika (No. 30) as Saluka (No. 286), the Sumsumara (No. 208) as the Vanara (No. 342), the Makasa (No. 44) as the Rohini (No. 45 ) with at best some slight changes of detail or expansion. Some jatakas share the same paccuppannavatthu or present life context in which they are narrated, with the composer or compiler boldly referring the reader to where he may find it. 本生经的标题似乎是根据故事中涉及的动物或角色，或是叙事中最突出的品质或特征来确定的，且总是保持简短。因此我们有《乌龟本生》、《猴子本生》、《鳄鱼本生》、《豺本生》、《乌鸦本生》、《蜣螂本生》、《豹本生》等，或根据动物的专有名称如《穆尼卡本生》、《苏哈努本生》、《小南迪亚本生》，或人类角色如《罗希尼本生》、《大尸罗婆本生》、《莲花本生》，又或依据某些特征如《那罗波那本生》、《狮皮本生》、《阿卡拉拉维本生》、《阿利那西塔本生》等。有时，一个本生故事在不同背景下可能以另一个名称被知晓，例如《瓦纳林达本生》（第 57 号）被称为《昆比拉本生》，《洛萨卡本生》（第 41 号）被称为《密陀频陀迦本生》，《特拉帕塔本生》（第 96 号）也被称为《德叉尸罗本生》，《卡查帕本生》（第 215 号）则被称为《巴布-巴尼本生》。有时会出现多个本生故事共用同一标题的情况；例如有三部《乌鸦本生》（第 140、146、395 号），三部《乌龟本生》（第 178、215、273 号），两部《猿猴本生》（第 250、404 号）。有时同一个故事会出现在两个不同的标题下，如《穆尼卡本生》（第 30 号）即《萨卢卡本生》（第 286 号），《苏姆苏玛拉本生》（第 208 号）即《瓦纳拉本生》（第 342 号），《马卡萨本生》（第 44 号）即《罗希尼本生》（第... 45）最多只有一些细节上的微小改动或扩展。部分本生经共享相同的"现世因缘"（paccuppannavatthu）即讲述时的现实背景，编纂者大胆指引读者在其他篇章中查阅相关记载。
Whatever the life may be, and whoever the participants may be, the setting of the story is nearly always Northern India. A remarkable exception to this is the Valahassa Jataka (No. 196), with fea- 无论故事描述的是何种生命形态，参与者身份如何，其场景几乎都设定在北印度地区。值得注意的例外是《飞马本生》（第 196 号）
tures resembling those of the foundation myth of the island, the Vijaya-Kuveni story, which is set in Lanka. ^(7){ }^{7} This could well have been a substitution by the translators when the Pali commentary that is thought to have come to Sri Lanka was being rendered into Sinhala - though some other explanation is not impossible. Around 394 of the jatakas take place when Brahamadatta is king of Benates - each of these in a different existence of the Bodhisatta; in 24 of these he is himself Brahmadatta and in a few, including the Manichora (No. 194) the villainous Devadatta. Despite these different existences, the environmental background of jungle and village against which the animal jatakas are enacted, ^(8){ }^{8} as well as the architectural, social and political background against which those involving human beings are played ^(9){ }^{9} remain uniform and strangely also not much different from the background of the present existence we find in the paccuppannavatthu of the stories. They all alike belong to India of the last centuries B.C. If a significant difference is to be observed as between the jataka proper and the paccuppannavatthu thereof, it is the striking fact that animals no longer hold converse, whether with other animals or with men; also that the denizens of fairy-tale and the element of the wondrous which sometimes make up the imaginative accounts in those past existences appear to have diminished under the degree of realism that necessarily pervaded contemporary life, both of the Buddha and those authors of the jatakas. 这些特征与岛屿的起源神话——维贾亚-库维尼故事颇为相似，该故事以楞伽岛为背景。 ^(7){ }^{7} 这很可能是译者在将据信传入斯里兰卡的巴利文注释翻译为僧伽罗语时的替换处理——尽管其他解释也并非不可能。约 394 篇本生经的故事发生在婆罗门达多担任贝拿勒斯国王时期——每一篇都对应菩萨的不同转世；其中有 24 篇他本人就是婆罗门达多，另有几篇（包括第 194 篇《摩尼珠》）中他则是反派提婆达多。尽管存在这些不同的转世，动物本生故事发生的丛林与村庄环境背景 ^(8){ }^{8} ，以及人类故事展现的建筑、社会与政治背景 ^(9){ }^{9} 却始终如一，且奇异的是，与我们当前在世所见的故事背景（即故事的"现世因缘"部分）并无太大差异。 它们全都属于公元前最后几个世纪的印度。如果要观察本生故事与其现世缘起之间的显著差异，最引人注目的事实是：动物不再与其他动物或人类交谈；同时，那些构成前世想象叙事的童话居民与奇幻元素，似乎在佛陀时代及本生故事作者们必然浸染的现实主义氛围中逐渐消退了。
Before proceeding further with the general observations on the 在继续对本生故事进行总体考察之前，
jataka, it would be helpful if we have one before us as an example, albeit a short one picked at random. I give here jataka No. 155, the so-called Gagga Jataka, using for the purpose Rouse’s translation thereof in Cowell. This jataka is interesting for the fact that it is both pseudo-aetiological and that too, of a custom prevalent in some societies of calling blessings upon one who sneezes. At the same time it shows the Buddha’s repudiation of the validity, yet tolerance of the indulgence of superstitions such as this. 若能以一则随机选取的短小本生故事为例将大有裨益。此处引用第 155 号《伽伽本生》（采用考威尔版中劳斯的英译本），这个故事兼具伪起源传说的特征——它解释了某些社会对打喷嚏者道祝福的习俗，同时展现了佛陀对此类迷信行为虽否定其效力却予以宽容的态度。
GAGGA JATAKA 《伽伽本生》
“Gagga, live an hundred years,” etc. - This story the Master told when he was staying in the monastery made by King Pasenadi in front of Jetavana; it was about a sneeze which he gave. "伽伽，愿你长命百岁"等语——这个故事是世尊在祇树给孤独园前波斯匿王所建的精舍中讲述的，起因是他打了一个喷嚏。
One day, we are told, as the Master sat discoursing with four persons round him, he sneezed. “Long life to the Blessed One, long life to the Buddha!” the Brothers all cried aloud, and made a great to-do. 据说有一天，世尊正与四位比丘围坐说法时打了个喷嚏。"愿世尊长寿，愿佛陀长寿！"比丘们高声呼喊，引发了一阵骚动。
The noise interrupted the discourse. Then the Master said to the Brethren: “Why, Brothers, if one cry ‘Long life!’ on hearing a sneeze, does a man live or die any the more for that?” They answered, “No, no, Sir”. He went on, “You should not cry ‘Long life’ for a sneeze, Brethren. Whosoever does so is guilty of sin.” 喧哗声打断了说法。于是世尊对比丘们说："诸位比丘，若有人因听闻喷嚏而呼喊'长寿'，此人真能因此延寿或免死吗？"他们回答："不能，世尊。"世尊继续道："比丘们不应因喷嚏而呼'长寿'。凡如此行者，即犯戒律。"
It is said that at that time, when the Brethren sneezed, people used to call out, “Long life to you, Sir!” But the Brethren had their scruples, and made no answer. Everybody was annoyed, and asked, “Pray, why is it that the priests about Buddha the Sakya prince make no answer, when they sneeze, and somebody or other wishes them long life?” 据说当时若有比丘打喷嚏，人们总会高呼："愿您长寿，尊者！"但比丘们心有顾忌，从不回应。众人颇感不悦，纷纷议论："请问为何释迦族佛陀座下的比丘们，当打喷嚏时若有人祝愿其长寿，他们总不回应？"
All this was told to the Blessed One. He said: “Brethren, common folk are superstitious. When you sneeze, and they say, ‘Long life to you, Sir!’ I permit you to answer, ‘The 这一切都告诉了世尊。世尊说："比丘们，凡夫俗子总是迷信的。当你打喷嚏时，他们说'愿您长寿，先生！'我允许你们回答'愿
same to you’.” Then the Brethren asked him - “Sir, when did people begin to answer ‘Long life’ by ‘The same to you’?” Said the Master, “That was long, long ago,” and he told them a tale of the olden time. "你也一样。"于是众比丘问他："尊者，人们是从何时开始以'你也一样'回应'长命百岁'的？"世尊答道："那是在很久很久以前，"便为他们讲述了一个古老的故事。
Once upon a time, while Brahmadatta was king of Benares, the Bodhisatta came into the world as a brahmin’s son of the kingdom of Kasi ; and his father was a lawyer by calling. When the lad was 16 years or so, his father gave him a fine jewel into his charge and they both travelled through town after town, village after village, until they came to Benares. There the man had a meal cooked in the gatekeeper’s house; and as he could find nowhere to put up, he asked where there was lodging to be had for wayfarers who came too late. The people told him that there was a building outside the city, but that it was haunted; but however he might lodge there if he liked. Says the lad to his father, “Have no fear of any goblin, father! I will subdue him, and bring him to your feet.” So he persuaded his father, and they went to the place together. The father lay down upon a bench, and his son sat beside him, chafing his feet. 从前，波罗奈国由梵授王统治时，菩萨转生为迦尸国一位婆罗门之子。他的父亲以律师为业。少年十六岁那年，父亲将一枚珍贵宝石托付给他，父子二人便启程穿越一座座城镇与村落，最终抵达波罗奈城。他们在城门守卫家中用过餐后，因无处投宿，便询问是否有供迟归旅人暂歇之处。当地人告知城外有座建筑，但传闻闹鬼，不过若他们愿意仍可借宿。少年对父亲说道："父亲莫怕什么妖怪！我自会降伏那物，令他俯首称臣。"他说服父亲后，二人便同往该处。父亲卧于长凳之上，儿子则坐在一旁为他揉搓双脚。
Now the Goblin that haunted the place had received it for twelve years’ service of Vessavana, on these terms: that if any man who entered it should sneeze, and when long life was wished him, should answer, “Long life to you!” - or “The same to you!” - all eccept these the Goblin had a right to eat. The Goblin lived upon the central rafter of the hut. 盘踞此处的夜叉曾为毗沙门天效力十二年，因而获赐这座草屋，契约规定：凡进入者若打喷嚏，当旁人祝他"长命百岁"时，若只回应"你也一样"，夜叉便有权吞食此人。这夜叉就栖息在茅屋正中的房梁上。
He determined to make the father of the Bodhisatta sneeze. Accordingly, by his magic power he raised a cloud of fine dust, which entered the man’s nostrils; and as he lay on the bench, he sneezed. The son did not cry “Long life!” and down came the Goblin from his perch, ready to devour his victim. But the Bodhisatta saw him descend, and then these thoughts passed through his mind. “Doubtless it is he who made my father sneeze. This must be a Goblin that eats all 他决意要让菩萨的父亲打喷嚏。于是施展妖术扬起细尘，钻入老者鼻腔——正当老人躺在长凳上时，突然打了个喷嚏。儿子并未喊出"长命百岁"，夜叉当即从梁上扑下，准备吞噬猎物。但菩萨目睹其降临，心中豁然："必是这妖魔诱使父亲打喷嚏。此怪定是专吃那些..."
who do not say ‘Long life to you’”. And addressing his father, he repeated the first verse as follows: "...不说祝寿之言的恶鬼。"随即向父亲诵出首偈：
"Gagga, live an hundred years, - aye, and twenty more, I pray; "伽伽，祈愿您享寿百廿载——"
Poison be the goblins’ food; live an hundred years, I say!" 愿毒药成为妖精的食物；愿我长命百岁！
The Goblin hearing these words, turned away, thinking “Neither of these is for me to eat”. But the Bodhisatta put a question to him: “Come, Goblin, how is it you eat the people who enter this building?” 妖精听到这些话，转身离去，心想"这两样都不是我该吃的"。但菩萨向他提问："来，妖精，为何你要吃掉进入这建筑的人？"
“I earned the right for twelve years’ service of Vessavana”. “What, are you allowed to eat everybody?” "我因侍奉毗沙门天十二年而获得此权利。""怎么，你能吃掉所有人吗？"
“All except those who say ‘The same to you’ when another wishes them long life”. "除了那些在别人祝他们长寿时回应'你也一样'的人。"
“Goblin”, said the lad, “you have done some wickedness in former lives, which has caused you to be born now fierce, and cruel, and a bane to others. If you do the same kind of thing now, you will pass from darkness to darkness. Therefore from this time forth abstain from such things as taking life”. With these words he humbled the Goblin, scared him with fear of hell, established him in the Five Precepts, and made him as obedient as an errand-boy. “妖怪，”少年说道，“你前世作恶多端，才落得今生这般凶残暴戾，为祸人间。若你如今再行恶事，必将永堕黑暗深渊。因此从今往后，当戒除杀生等恶行。”说罢便降伏了妖怪，以地狱之苦震慑其心，令其持守五戒，驯服得如同仆役。
Next day, when the people came and saw the Goblin, and learnt how that the Bodhisatta had subdued him, they went and told the king: “My lord, some man has subdued the Goblin, and made him as obedient as an errand-boy!” So the king sent for him, and raised him to be Commander-inChief; while he heaped honours upon the father. Having made the Goblin a tax-gatherer, and established him in the Bodhisatta’s precepts, after giving alms and doing good he departed to swell the hosts of heaven. 次日，众人见妖怪被菩萨降服，便禀告国王：“陛下，有人收服了那妖怪，使其温顺如杂役！”国王遂召见少年，擢升其为三军统帅，同时厚赏其父。菩萨令妖怪担任税吏，使其恪守戒律，在广行布施善举后，往生天界。
When the Master had ended this story, which he told to 世尊讲述这个
explain when the custom first arose of answering ‘Long life’ by ‘The same to you’, he identified the Birth: “In those days, Ananda was the king, Kassapa the father, and I myself was the lad his son.” 解释“长命百岁”回礼习俗起源的故事后，点明宿世因缘：“阿难是当时的国王，迦叶是其父，而我正是那个少年。”
Here we have the standard format of a jataka as found in the Jatakatthavannana, with the principal elements of which one is constituted. These are: 这里我们见到《本生经注》中标准格式的本生故事，包含构成这类故事的几个主要元素：
(a) the Paccuppannavatthu, that is, the story of the present, which gives the context in which the Buddha was induced to narrate the jataka in question. This introductory story usually begins by quoting, as a catchword, the first words of the gatha or verse stanza which the jataka includes, and which it purports to be commentarial upon. It is, unlike the account of the past life (i.e the jataka proper) and the samodhana which follow, not assumed to be spoken by the Buddha but by the commentator, who would then also have been the author of that particular jataka. Generally it is brief, sometimes very brief, but often enough it can be longer and more detailed than the jataka proper itself. There are again jatakas - indeed a great many, in which the past life is no more than a repetition of the present, with the com mentator being bold enough to declare the fact and spare himself and his reader of repetition. （a）"现世因缘"（Paccuppannavatthu），即佛陀讲述该本生故事的现实缘起。这个引子通常以本生偈颂的首句作为关键词开始，整篇本生故事正是对这首偈颂的注释性阐发。与后续的"前世故事"（即本生故事主体）和"联结部分"（samodhana）不同，这部分内容并非佛陀亲述，而是由注释者——很可能也是该本生故事的编纂者——所撰写。这部分通常较为简短（有时极其简短），但也经常出现比本生故事主体更详尽的情况。实际上有大量本生故事的前世情节完全复现现世经历，注释者甚至会直白指出这点以避免重复叙述。
Certain of the jatakas share the same paccuppannavatthu, for convenience even referring the reader to where it is found, or found more fully. The commonest circumstances for the Buddha to launch on a jataka is one of overhearing the Brethren discussing someone, as for instance the luxurious monk of the Nacca Jataka, or in explanation to a direct inquiry by the Brethren themselves concerning some person’s behaviour or some sundry happening. His usual response then is to profess that not this once only did such a person behave in such manner or such a thing happen in such manner, but in a past life too - and then to launch upon the story of the said past life. To quote Rev. Hardy, ^(10){ }^{10} 某些本生故事共享相同的现世因缘（paccuppannavatthu），为方便起见甚至会指引读者查阅相关出处或更完整的记载。佛陀讲述本生故事最常见的契机，是偶然听闻比丘们议论某人——比如《舞者本生》（Nacca Jataka）中那位生活奢靡的比丘，或是应比丘们直接询问某人行为或某件琐事时作出解释。他通常的回应是表明此人此举或此事并非仅此一遭，往昔生命里亦曾如是——继而开始讲述那段往昔生命的故事。如哈迪牧师所言： ^(10){ }^{10}
This practice of the Buddha, when any event of importance has taken place, to refer to a similar event involving the same people in a past life is, from a karmic point of view, neither here nor there. What the jataka achieves, however, is that, by the detachment of the participants of the past life until up to the point of the samodhana, to make his hearers view their behaviour objectively, critically - and sometimes even humorously, and thus self-evaluate their actions of the present. 佛陀的这种做法——每当重要事件发生时，就会追溯前世涉及相同人物的类似事件——从因果角度来看并无特殊意义。然而本生故事所实现的，是通过将前世参与者与现世事件分离（直至建立关联点），使听众能够客观、批判性地（有时甚至幽默地）审视自身行为，从而对当下的行动进行自我评估。
What is surprising about this feature of these Buddhist birth stories is that, notwithstanding their claim to be the Buddha’s recovery of memory of a past-life happening directly bearing on a this-life situation, the function is thus truly that of fable, holding up the former to the latter as a mirror in which the moral assessment that the speaker wishes to make can be the more clearly brought home. The jataka proper merely repeats the present life situation, with different par- 这些佛教本生故事的惊人之处在于：尽管它们声称是佛陀对前世记忆的追溯，且这些记忆与现世情境直接相关，但其功能实则与寓言无异——将前世作为映照现世的明镜，使讲述者期望传递的道德评判能更清晰地呈现。本生故事本身只是用不同角色重复现世情境...
ticipants (often animals), somewhat varied circumstances and as of a different life. By this device the Buddha succeeds in distancing himself from the evaluation, criticism or moral reprimand that the present life situation called for; it is made in and through the jataka proper, the Buddha mostly serving to recover that forgotten experience of the offender’s former life. 参与者（多为动物）身处略有差异的环境，仿佛经历着另一段人生。佛陀通过这种手法，成功将自己与当下情境所需的评价、批评或道德训诫保持距离；这些都在本生故事中完成，佛陀主要扮演着唤醒犯错者前世遗忘经历的角色。
On the other hand, what we expect - and had a right to expect of a Buddhist memory recovery of the nature of a jataka is of a pastbirth action to which the present-birth happening is directly - or indirectly, related as a moral consequence. In other words, our expectation should have been of a karma-based explanation, especially when it is evoked by the exercise of the Buddha’s transcendental power of recollecting the former lives of both himself and others. Instead, the Jatakatthavannana reduces the Buddha to the role and function typical of a fabulist, except that the logoi he draws upon purportedly are drawn through recollection from (purportedly) actual past-life happenings - and not simply such, but of the very same participants of the present life episodes. Several subsidiary stories exist which are not even grounded in this manner. Thus, if we brush aside the Buddhistization that the role has clearly undergone, and focus on the briefer of the animal jatakas, it would become evident that the jatakas have cast the Buddha, partially at least in a mould no different from that of an Indian Aesop. 另一方面，我们对本生故事佛教记忆复原的合理期待是：它应当呈现与今生事件构成直接或间接道德因果关联的前世行为。换言之，我们本应期待获得基于业力的解释——尤其当这些记忆是通过佛陀忆念自他前世的神通力唤起时。然而《本生经注》却将佛陀降格为寓言家的典型角色，只不过其所援引的"故事素材"据称源自（所谓）真实前世经历的回忆，且这些前世经历的主角与今生事件参与者完全同一。此外还存在若干连这种基础关联都不具备的附属故事。因此，若我们撇开该角色明显的佛教化改造过程，仅聚焦那些较简短的动物本生故事，便会发现本生经至少在某种程度上将佛陀塑造成了与印度伊索无异的形象。
Thus, far from interpreting the respective paccuppannavatthu experiences as the karmic fruit of the actions which constituted the jatakas, even the several lives of the Bodhisatta himself fail to trace a progression towards Buddhahood - orff they could, show the slightest evidence of a sequence that may have suffered scrambling in the order in which they are found in the Jataka Book, due to arrangement according to the number of gatha. In the circumstances, as far as the jatakas are concerned, it is no more than wishful thinking on the part of J.Herbert when in the Larousse World Mythol- 因此，与其将各个"现世缘起"（paccuppannavatthu）经历解读为构成本生故事行为的业果，就连菩萨自身的多次转世也未能展现通向佛果的修行次第——即便能够，也仅能显示微弱的序列证据，这种序列可能因《本生经》中按偈颂数量编排的方式而被打乱。在此情况下，就本生故事而言，J.赫伯特在《拉鲁斯世界神话辞典》中论述"佛陀前世"时所写的内容，不过是一厢情愿的臆想：
ogy he writes in his account of “Buddha’s previous lives”: ^(11){ }^{11} （此处保留原文特殊符号及未完成句段） ^(11){ }^{11}
“If, however, Sakyamuni deserved to become Buddha, it is because of all the virtues that he evinced in his earlier lives. The accounts of these lives are known as Jatakas, and they hold an important place in Buddhist mythology. These Jatakas also have a dogmatic value in that the deeds show, in the material world, that causal connection which according to Buddhist philosophy forms the structure of things: nay, even in present time can be explained by facts going further and further back in the past. Thus the law of karma is justified, by virtue of which each being, and in particular, the Bodhisatta, becomes what he makes of himself.” 然而，释迦牟尼之所以能成佛，全凭他在前世所展现的种种美德。这些前世经历的记载被称为本生经，在佛教神话中占有重要地位。这些本生故事还具有教义价值，因为它们通过现实世界中的行为，展现了佛教哲学所认为的事物本质的因果联系：不仅如此，甚至当下的境况也能通过追溯过去层层因果得到解释。由此，业力法则得以确证——正是依据这一法则，每个生命，尤其是菩萨，都成为自身行为的造物。
So much for the form of the jatakas. Of the content thereof, Winternitz has made as good an assortment as can be made, so I will quote him in full on this. ^(12){ }^{12} 关于本生经的形式已论述至此。至于其内容方面，温特尼茨已作了堪称典范的分类，故我将完整引用他的论述。 ^(12){ }^{12}
"As regards the contents, we find in the Jataka: "就内容而言，我们在本生经中发现：
Fables, most of which, like Indian fables in general, aim at teaching Nîti, i.e worldly wisdom. Only a few of them have a moral tendency as evinced in ascetic poetry, and only a very few are genuinely Buddhist. 寓言故事，其中绝大多数与印度寓言的整体特征一致，旨在传授"尼提"（Nîti），即世俗智慧。仅有少数故事展现出苦行诗歌般的道德倾向，真正具有佛教特质的更是凤毛麟角。
Fairy tales, including many animal fairy tales, almost en tirely in the style of the European popular fairy tales, and without the remotest reference to Buddhism. Only in a few cases have they been furnished with a Buddhist ten dency, so to speak “Buddhistised”, and some few may also be purely Buddhist inventions. 童话故事，包括众多动物童话，几乎完全采用欧洲民间故事的风格，丝毫未提及佛教。仅有少数故事被赋予佛教倾向，可谓"佛教化"产物，其中个别可能纯属佛教创作。
Shorter anecdotes, humorous tales and jokes, which have nothing Buddhist about them. 短篇轶事、幽默故事和笑话，这些作品与佛教毫无关联。
Novels and even longer romances abounding in adventures, sometimes with a greater or lesser number of narratives within the story.Here, too, there is nothing Buddhist except that the hero is the Bodhisatta. 长篇小说乃至更宏大的冒险传奇，常包含嵌套叙事结构。此类作品除主角为菩萨转世外，亦无佛教元素。
Moral narratives. 道德训诫故事。
Sayings, and 箴言，以及
Pious legends, all of which are only partly of Buddhist 虔诚的传说，这些内容仅有部分源自佛教
origin, while many of them belong to the common property of Indian ascetic poetry." 传统，其中许多属于印度苦行诗歌的共同遗产。
The purpose with which the jatakas were composed is clear enough. Emulating and proliferating the canonical jatakas as one of the forms of teaching used by the Buddha, they were meant to supply engaging and instructive cases which adumbrated Buddhist values, either positively by the conduct of the Bodhisatta or the virtuous in them, or negatively by the machinations of the wicked, led by Devadatta. They undoubtedly could, and were, and are used in sermonizing - though the very fact that the number that could so be enlisted is few bears ample proof that the true purpose of these stories was buried under the mass of compositions that accumulated from various hands in the short space of a century or so. Soon quite apart from the didactic value of some of them for Buddhist sermonizing, which drew to the jataka collection the veneration Rev. B.Clough ^(13){ }^{13} found the Sinhalese paying it, it also afforded itself as an almost inexhaustible source of stories that kept the likes of those same people hearkening to them the livelong night, as Rev. Hardy ^(14){ }^{14} tells us. 本生经的创作意图相当明确。作为佛陀传法方式之一，这些故事效仿并扩充了经典本生经，旨在提供生动而富有教化意义的案例，以彰显佛教价值观——或通过菩萨及善人的正面行为，或通过提婆达多为首的恶人阴谋诡计来反衬。它们无疑能够且确实被用于布道宣讲，尽管能被直接引用的故事数量稀少这一事实充分证明：这些故事的真实目的已被堆积如山的创作所掩盖——这些作品由不同作者在短短百年间陆续写成。很快，除却部分本生故事对佛教宣教的说教价值（正是这种价值使得僧伽罗人对本生经集推崇备至，如 B.克劳夫牧师 ^(13){ }^{13} 所述），它还成为了近乎取之不竭的故事源泉，让那些听众彻夜聆听不倦，正如哈代牧师 ^(14){ }^{14} 所记述的那样。
The observation, reiterated by Winternitz, that much of these stories have nothing specifically Buddhist about them is evidence of the fact that they derive from other sources and have, as he calls it, been “Buddhistised” by making the best of the available characters the Bodhisatta - or if none is worthy of being approximated to him in goodness, understanding or shrewdness, by making him a spectator, a tree-sprite nearly thirty times, to a woods-deity just the once, as in the Phandana Jataka (No. 475) - and that too, only in the samodhana thereof. 温特尼茨反复强调的观点——这些故事大多并无明显的佛教特征——恰恰证明它们源自其他源头，并如他所言，通过将故事中最优秀的人物塑造为菩萨（若无人能在善良、智慧或机敏方面与之比肩，则让他充当旁观者，约三十次被设定为树神，仅有一次成为林神，如《潘达那本生经》第 475 例所示），且仅在其结语部分如此处理，从而被"佛教化"了。
Coupled with this difficulty some of these incorporated stories have of finding someone within them to identify with the Bodhisatta are others in which, carried away by the intrinsic drama of the plot, the Bodhisatta is made to say and do things un-becoming of a Bodhisatta, a being on the path of Buddhahood, besides being dis- 与这一难题相伴的是：某些被吸纳的故事难以找到合适角色与菩萨对应；另一些则因情节本身的戏剧性张力，导致菩萨言行有失其作为成佛之道修行者的身份——
crepant with the doctrinal portrayal. On two occasions he is a robber i.e in the Satapatta Jataka (No. 279) and the Kanavera Jataka, (No. 318) and, no doubt, practised his profession; in the Sumsumara (No. 208), also the Vanara (No. 342) as a monkey he roundly lies to a crocodile whose wife yearned for his heart, and in the Vanarinda (No. 57) he tricks the beast into closing his eyes by getting him to open his mouth, and so vaults to safety over his back. In the Makkata Jataka (No. 173), when a monkey, miserable with cold, seeks the Bodhisatta’s fire by pretending to be an ascetic, the latter callously drives him off with a firebrand - then proceeds to cultivate the Four Excellences until he attains to the Brahma heaven! In the Visavanta Jataka (No. 69), as a doctor he threatens to throw a snake into the fire if it does not suck back its poison from a victim, then shows that the threat was merely a bluff. In the Adiccupatthana (No. 175) he is instrumental in exposing the falsehood of a monkey and having him pelted with sticks and stones. In the Sigala Jataka (No. 152), as a lion he actually causes a jackal to burst his own heart and die. In the Pancavudha Jataka (No. 55) the Bodhisatta makes repeated onslaughts on an ogre with various weapons, seeking to kill him (even though he fails) and in the Vissasabhojana (No. 93) he causes a lion in love with a doe to die of poisoning. On two occasions at least the Bodhisatta himself kills; once (in the Bilara Jataka (No. 128)), as a king of rats, he tears the windpipe of a jackal (or cat); once, in the Kakkata Jataka (No. 266), as an elephant, he tramples to death a trusting crab who lets him go free on a plea from his wife. In No. 367, the Saliya Jataka, the Bodhisatta as a boy hurls a snake away from him, which falls on an old doctor and kills him, and then in the next jataka, the Tacasara (No. 368), tutors his friends on how to get away with the killing by pretending to be fearless and happy in mind. Eut the worst is when, in the Asatamanta (No. 61), to demonstrate the lustful nature of women, he diabolically encompasses the death of his own mother, and in the Sabbadatha (No. 241), provoking a jackal, he is responsible for the death of all the creatures in the jungle, making available so much meat that it was traditionally the first time men re- 这与教义描述相矛盾。有两次他作为强盗出现——即《萨塔帕塔本生经》（第 279 号）和《卡纳维拉本生经》（第 318 号），无疑是在从事其职业；在《苏姆苏马拉本生经》（第 208 号）和《瓦纳拉本生经》（第 342 号）中，作为猴子的他公然对一只鳄鱼撒谎——因鳄鱼妻子渴望得到他的心脏；而在《瓦纳林达本生经》（第 57 号）中，他诱骗野兽张嘴时闭眼，从而跃过其背部安全逃脱。在《玛卡塔本生经》（第 173 号）中，当一只冻得发抖的猴子伪装成苦行者向菩萨求火时，后者冷酷地用火把将其驱赶——随后继续修行四无量心直至升入梵天！《维萨万塔本生经》（第 69 号）里，作为医生的他威胁要将毒蛇投入火中，除非它从受害者体内吸回毒液，而后证明这威胁只是虚张声势。《阿迪库帕塔纳本生经》（第 175 号）中，他揭穿猴子的谎言并使其遭棍石击打。《西加拉本生经》（第 152 号）里，作为狮子的他竟导致豺狼心碎而亡。《潘卡武达本生经》（第... 55）菩萨（Bodhisatta）反复用各种武器攻击食人魔，试图杀死他（尽管失败了）；在《维萨萨波贾那本生》（第 93 号）中，他让一只爱上母鹿的狮子中毒身亡。至少有两次菩萨亲自杀戮：一次在《比拉罗本生》（第 128 号）中，作为鼠王，他咬断了豺狼（或猫）的气管；另一次在《卡卡塔本生》（第 266 号）中，作为大象，他踩死了一只信任他的螃蟹——这只螃蟹因他妻子的恳求而放走了他。在第 367 号《萨利亚本生》中，菩萨作为男孩将一条蛇甩开，蛇落在一名老医生身上致其死亡；随后在第 368 号《塔卡萨拉本生》中，他教导朋友们如何通过假装无所畏惧且心境愉悦来逃脱杀人罪责。但最恶劣的是在第 61 号《阿萨塔曼塔本生》中，为证明女性的淫荡本性，他残忍地导致亲生母亲死亡；而在第 241 号《萨巴达塔本生》中，他激怒一只豺狼，导致丛林所有生物死亡，产生的肉量之多，据传是人类首次——
sorted to drying and preserving meat. ^(15){ }^{15} 尝试晾晒保存肉类的起源。 ^(15){ }^{15}
These and such other stories as are - to use a phrase used by the onetime Bishop of Colombo over the stories of the ass in the lionskin and the talkative tortoise-ouden pros Dionyson (i.e. “of no relevance to Dionysus” i.e. religion) ^(16){ }^{16} and show very emphatically that a good part of the jatakas are not originally of Buddhistic fiction. The awkward morality of some, the irrelevance of others, the obvious effort to enlist yet others is proof enough that they or their motifs were already in existence when the contents of that great compendium that is the Jataka Book was being compiled. ^(17){ }^{17} If further evidence is needed, it is in the fact that very few of these jatakas have been, and could be used for the purpose for which they were obviously intended - as tales which, while playing on an unsophisticated audience’s love of listening to story, metaphorically illustrated a point of Buddhist morality which the preacher wished to explicate. 这些以及其他类似的故事——借用前科伦坡主教对披着狮子皮的驴子和多嘴乌龟故事的评语——"与狄俄尼索斯无关"（即与宗教无关） ^(16){ }^{16} ，它们非常有力地表明，相当一部分本生故事最初并非佛教虚构。某些故事牵强的道德说教、另一些故事与主题的脱节，以及明显为凑数而收录的篇章，都足以证明：当这部伟大的本生故事汇编成书时，这些故事或其母题早已存在。 ^(17){ }^{17} 若需进一步佐证，事实在于这些本生故事极少——也几乎不可能——实现其表面上的创作目的：即作为寓教于乐的道德寓言，在满足质朴听众听故事爱好的同时，隐喻性地阐释传教者想要说明的佛教道德观。
In the classical division of Buddhist literature, known as the Navanga one is designated Jatakam. As Rhys-Davids says, this cannot have included the Jataka Book now included in the canon, for the reason that it was not in existence at the time. The reference is there obviously to those earliest compositions which are called jataka and are found in the canonical works, two of the distinctive features of which, he finds, are the lack of a framework, and (worth special note) that in none of them is the Buddha identified in his previous birth with an animal; he is either a famous sage or teacher. Nor are these original jatakas included in the Jataka Book, or even others that were known to the Buddhists in the earliest period of their literature. ^(18){ }^{18} 在佛教文献的传统分类"九分教"中，有一类被称为"本生经"。正如里斯·戴维斯所言，这不可能包含现今收入三藏中的《本生经》文本，因为当时这部经典尚未编纂成型。这里显然指的是那些最早被称为"本生"的篇章——它们散见于各类经藏文献，其两大显著特征在于：一是缺乏叙事框架结构；二是（特别值得注意的是）在这些早期本生故事中，佛陀的前生从未以动物形象出现，而总是化身为著名圣贤或导师。这些原始本生故事既未被收入后来的《本生经》结集，甚至也不见于佛教文学萌芽时期僧众所熟知的其他本生文献。 ^(18){ }^{18}
Yet it would appear from this that the Buddha himself resorted to story as a mode of teaching, much as Christ used the parable and Aesop the fable. As mentioned before, the Saddharmapundarika, 然而由此可以看出，佛陀本人确实将故事作为一种教化方式，正如基督使用比喻、伊索运用寓言那般。如前所述，《妙法莲华经》...
an early Sanskrit Buddhist work refers to the fact that the Buddha used jatakas, along with sutra, gatha and legends for teaching. ^(19){ }^{19} At first these stories may not have been presented in the form of jatakas, that is, as past lives experiences of the Buddha himself, but later we find them in this form. 一部早期梵文佛教著作提到，佛陀曾用本生故事（jatakas）与经（sutra）、偈（gatha）及传说来教化众生。 ^(19){ }^{19} 起初这些故事可能并非以本生形式——即佛陀自身前世经历的叙事方式呈现，但后来我们看到的正是这种形态。
What they also witness, taking the paccuppannavatthu also into consideration, is that such stories were not narrated except in a relevant context, when the jataka proper would set in perspective, elucidate, evaluate or otherwise bear upon the circumstances in the paccuppannavatthu, to the realization or understanding of the hearers of the latter, and both paccuppannavatthu and jataka to the appreciation of such Buddhist audience. 若将现世因缘（paccuppannavatthu）纳入考量，这些文本还印证了：此类故事仅在相关语境中被讲述——当本生故事恰当地为现世因缘提供参照、阐释、评判或产生关联时，能使现世因缘的听闻者获得觉悟或理解，并使现世因缘与本生故事共同得到佛教信众的体认。
We have in the Culladhanuggaha Jataka (No. 374) good example of the use of a jataka within a jataka to bring home to a woman what her greed had caused her - both of which were for the benefit of a Brother who complained to the Master, whilst they were at Jetavana, that it was because of his wife of his unregenerate days that he had regretted taking to robes. The lead-up jataka involves human beings - an archer, his wife and a brigand chief and constitutes the plot of the Sinhalese folk drama, Maname while the inset fable, involving animals, adopts, like many others, an Aesopic fable. Also worthy of mention is that, when taken together with its paccuppannavatthu and its gatha, we have evidence of the earliest stages of the technique of escatulation (insetting story within story) that was to manifest itself in the literature of India soon - an outstanding example of which is the Pancatantra. 《小达那伽本生经》（第 374 号）为我们提供了一个绝佳范例，通过"本生中的本生"手法向一位妇人揭示其贪婪导致的恶果——这两个嵌套故事皆因一位比丘在祇园精舍向佛陀诉苦，称自己因未出家时的妻子而懊悔披上袈裟。外层本生以人类为主角——弓箭手、其妻与强盗首领，构成了锡兰民间戏剧《马那梅》的剧情框架；而内嵌的动物寓言则与诸多同类故事一样，沿用了伊索式寓言结构。值得注意的是，结合其现代因缘（paccuppannavatthu）与偈颂（gatha）来看，我们得以窥见"故事套嵌"技法的最初形态——这种即将在印度文学中大放异彩的叙事方式，其杰出代表便是《五卷书》。
Following this tradition monks and preachers who lived from a century or so after the Buddha and before the compilation of the Jataka Book proliferated this kind of stories, inventing new ones or adopting or adapting old ones of indigenous vintage or which had found their way to India, making them jatakas by making one or the other of the characters in them the Bodhisatta. 遵循这一传统，佛陀圆寂后约一个世纪至《本生经》编纂期间生活的僧侣与传道者们大量创作此类故事，他们或编创新篇，或吸纳改编本土古老传说及传入印度的异域故事，通过将其中某个角色设定为菩萨转世而将其转化为本生故事。
Myths and legends which antedate Buddhism are sure enough to be found in some portions of Brahmanical literature which date after the Vedas, but we have the assurance of Rhys-Davids that, similar though they are in some Buddhist stories “none of these has been traced either in Europe or in the Buddhist collection”. ^(20){ }^{20} Thus, a terminus post quem for the stories of the Jataka Book should be fixed with the appearance of the canonical jatakas, that is to say, a century or so after the Buddha. To reach beyond this for a greater antiquity for the jatakas upon such notions as of India being the land of fairy-tale or animal fable is to move into an area of speculation, abandoning the terra firma of evidence and scholarship. 早于佛教时代的神话传说确实可见于吠陀之后的部分婆罗门教文献中，但正如里斯·戴维斯所确证的，尽管某些佛教故事与之相似，"这些故事既未在欧洲发现，也未见于佛教典籍"。因此，《本生经》中故事的时间上限应定位于佛典本生故事出现的时期，即佛陀圆寂后约百年。若仅因印度被视为童话或动物寓言发源地等观念，就试图为本生故事追溯更久远的起源，实则是脱离确凿证据与学术根基的臆测领域。
It is generally agreed that the gatha which are included in every single jataka of the Jatakatthavannana - and one of them, the Kumbila (No. 224) has only the gatha - antedate considerably the prose text. It has accordingly been accepted that the gatha were canonical, while the prose was commentarial upon them. Or in other words, the gatha are older than the prose in which one now finds them set. The tradition preserved in Sri Lanka is to the effect that the original Jataka Book consisted only of the gatha. The greater antiquity of the gatha is borne out, according to RhysDavids, not only by the archaic forms and forced constructions in them, in contrast to the regularity and simplicity of the prose of the book, but also by the corrupt state in which some of these verses are found. ^(21){ }^{21} 学界普遍认为，《本生经》中每则故事所包含的偈颂——其中第 224 则《鳄鱼本生》甚至仅存偈颂——其形成年代远早于散文体文本。因此人们接受这样的观点：偈颂属于原始佛典，而散文体文本是对这些偈颂的注释性内容。换言之，如今所见包裹着偈颂的散文叙述，其出现时间晚于偈颂本身。斯里兰卡保存的佛教传统表明，最初的《本生经》仅由偈颂构成。根据里斯·戴维斯的研究，偈颂更古老的特性不仅体现于其古雅的表达方式和生硬的句法结构（与经文散文部分的规整简洁形成鲜明对比），还可见于某些偈颂文本的讹误状态。
There is no need to think that what we are faced with here is a sort of chicken-or-the-egg dilemma. For it is difficult to maintain that the gatha could or did exist without the stories; on the other hand, the stories could have existed in the prose before portions of them were rendered in verse. Why the Pali of the gatha is older is perhaps because, while the gatha, because of their poetry, were preserved in the Pali as they were found, the prose had been trans- 无需认为我们在此面临的是先有鸡还是先有蛋的困境。因为很难主张偈颂能够或确实脱离故事独立存在；另一方面，故事可能先以散文形式存在，之后部分内容才被改写为诗体。巴利语偈颂之所以更为古老，或许是因为这些诗体因其韵律特性得以保持原貌传承，而散文部分则经历了...
lated and maintained in Sinhala before they were recast once again into Pali by Buddhaghosa, as Childers thought, ^(22){ }^{22} or by one or more other scholars. 这些故事最初是以僧伽罗语编纂和保存的，后来才由觉音（如柴尔德斯所认为的）或其他一位乃至多位学者重新改写为巴利语。
Thus, though the gatha went into the canon to the exclusion of the prose, which was then viewed as commentarial, it must be the prose that is in all cases older. Indeed, as Rhys-Davids observes, ^(23){ }^{23} those jatakas which do not have verses in them at all - where the verses are found in the conclusions, are in fact among the oldest, if not the oldest, in the whole collection. This is not inconsistent with the fact that these gatha were admitted into the canon as one of the minor discourses of the fifteen such which constitute the Kuddhaka Nikaya, which itself is the last of the Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka and is generally agreed to be a later and a less reliable compilation than the other four Nikayas. 因此，尽管偈颂被纳入佛典而排除了散文部分——当时散文被视为注释性内容——但实际上散文部分在所有情况下都更为古老。正如里斯·戴维斯所指出的， ^(23){ }^{23} 那些完全没有偈颂的本生经（其偈颂仅见于结尾部分），即便不是整部结集中最古老的，也当属其中最古老的一批。这与以下事实并不矛盾：这些偈颂作为十五种小部经藏之一被收入《小部尼柯耶》，而《小部尼柯耶》本身是《经藏》中最后编定的尼柯耶，学界普遍认为其编纂时间晚于其他四部尼柯耶，可靠性也较低。
A jataka was mentioned earlier, the Kumbhila, which has only the verses; again H. Luders has shown that in two or three instances the commentarial prose has versions which do not wholly accord with the drift of the verses. This has been observed by Hertel and Charpentier, not to mention Winternitz. ^(24){ }^{24} All of which shows that the prose was subject to the vicissitudes of fortune to which the 前文提及的《鳄鱼本生》仅有偈颂版本；H.吕德斯进一步指出，在两三处案例中，注释性散文的版本与偈颂主旨并不完全吻合。这一现象已为赫特尔、夏庞蒂埃所注意，温特尼茨亦曾论及。 ^(24){ }^{24} 所有这些都表明散文部分经历了命运变迁，
canonical gatha were not. The former were liable to change, interpolation, even interdiction in the course of the tradition, not to mention the translation to Sinhala from the Pali when the work reached Sri Lanka, and from Sinhala to the Pali back again some time in the fifth century A.D. - in connection with which was associated the name of Buddhagosha. 规范的偈颂则不然。前者在传承过程中容易发生改动、增补甚至禁断，更不用说当这些作品传入斯里兰卡时从巴利语译为僧伽罗语，而后又在公元五世纪左右从僧伽罗语重新译回巴利语——这一过程与佛音（Buddhagosha）的名字相关联。
The gist of this is that the terminus post quem of the invention, adoption and adaptation of the jatakas of the Jataka Book, when taken together with the archaeological and other evidence, must have been the first half of the fourth century B.C., with stories being brought in at a rapid rate, not all of which went into the Jataka Book when it was compiled. 由此可知，结合考古及其他证据来看，《本生经》中本生故事的创作、采纳与改编的时间上限，必定是在公元前四世纪上半叶。当时故事以极快的速度被引入，但并非所有故事在编撰时都被收入《本生经》。
It must be in the course of this that the Council of Vesali was held. This is said to have been held “a hundred years” after the death of the Buddha - an approximate date which can be two or three decades later, both on account of the uncertainty of the year of the Buddha’s demise as well as the round number. The Dipavamsa (v. 32), several centuries later, but the only work which gives a recounting of what transpired at this Council, at which the monks “turned the religion upside down, broke up the original scriptures and made a new recension”, includes “a portion of the Jataka” as among the things they put aside and made others in their place. The activity would have continued, with several jatakas, newly invented as well as old, not finding a place in the great compendium but drifting loose to lodge themselves in various other Buddhist texts or works of art in various regions of India and elsewhere. 正是在这一时期召开了吠舍离结集。据称此次结集发生在佛陀涅槃"百年之后"——这个约数可能有两三十年的误差，既因佛陀入灭年份的不确定性，也因"百年"本身是个概数。数世纪后的《岛史》(第五章第 32 节)作为唯一记载此次结集情形的文献，提到僧众"颠覆教法，拆解原始经文并重编新本"，其中将"部分本生经"列为被搁置并另造新篇的内容。这种改编活动持续进行，许多新旧本生故事未被收入大型汇编，而是散落各地，陆续融入印度及其他地区各类佛教典籍与艺术作品之中。
As regards a terminus ante quem, we are in a more fortunate position. For the bas-reliefs on the railings of the Bharhut and Sanchi stupas depict several scenes from the jatakas, each of which is captioned in lettering that belongs to the third century B.C. A good many of these are identifiable, even when their titles are not the same as in the Jataka Book, but a number remain which may relate to jatakas that are not in the Jataka Book, or for that matter in the other surviving literature, but which may have been popular at the time. It is also significant that some of the scenes are those which 关于年代上限的问题，我们处于更为有利的境地。巴鲁特和桑奇佛塔围栏上的浮雕描绘了多个本生故事场景，每个场景都配有公元前三世纪的铭文说明。其中许多场景即使标题与《本生经》不同，仍可辨认出对应关系；但仍有部分场景可能关联现存文献（包括《本生经》）中未收录却在当时广为流传的本生故事。尤为值得注意的是，某些浮雕场景所表现的正是那些......
occur only in the prose - a fact which then shows that the prose itself went back to the third century B.C. 仅见于散文部分——这一事实表明散文本身可追溯至公元前三世纪
The earliest and most important of all the stupas is the stupa of Bharhut, situated about 120 miles south-west of Allahabad and discovered by General Sir Arthur Cunningham in 1873 and discussed by him with several illustrations in his The Stupa of Bharhut. The dating, on epigraphical and other grounds is to somewhere in the second half of the second century B.C., though there remained some who disputed this. “The jataka stories, which play such an imporant role in the decorative scheme of the Bharhut balustrade”, says Sir John Marshall, ^(25){ }^{25} “were, for the most part, as has long been recognized, nothing but old-time fables to which a new meaning had been given by the Buddhists”. The jatakas depicted however clearly include some Graecizing ones, showing that between the earliest canonical jatakas which appeared in the Nikayas and the date of the Bharhut stupa, a whole lot of jatakas had made their appearance, the motifs of which emulated Greek fables, as indeed other stories. For here we have the Kurunga Miga (No. 206) = Aesop: The Lion and the Mouse (C.206, H.256, P.150, Hs.155); the Sandhibheda (No. 349) = Aesop: The Lion and the Bear (C.200, H.247, P.147, Hs.152) and The Lion and the Bear (C.203, H.253, P.338); the Kukkuta (No. 383) = Aesop: The Dog and the Cock (C.180, H.225, P.252, Hs.268) and most interesting of all, the Nacca (No. 32), the jataka of the dancing peacock, though here called the Hamsa, of which the Greek parallel is not in a fable but in the anecdote of the marriage of Agariste is the Histories of Herodotus (vi. 129). 所有佛塔中最早且最重要的一座是巴尔胡特佛塔，它位于阿拉哈巴德西南约 120 英里处，由亚瑟·坎宁安爵士将军于 1873 年发现，并在其著作《巴尔胡特佛塔》中配以多幅插图进行了探讨。根据铭文和其他证据，其年代可追溯至公元前二世纪下半叶，尽管仍有部分学者对此存疑。约翰·马歇尔爵士指出："在巴尔胡特栏楯的装饰体系中占据重要地位的本生故事，长久以来已被公认大多是佛教徒赋予新意的古老寓言。"然而，所描绘的本生故事显然包含一些希腊化元素，这表明在尼柯耶中出现的最早经典本生故事与巴尔胡特佛塔建造年代之间，已有大量模仿希腊寓言及其他故事主题的本生故事问世。例如这里出现的《羚羊本生》（第 206 号）即对应伊索寓言《狮子与老鼠》（编号 C.206，H.256，P.150，Hs.155）；《破盟本生》（第... 349) = 伊索寓言：《狮子与熊》（C.200, H.247, P.147, Hs.152）及《狮子与熊》（C.203, H.253, P.338）；《鸡本生》（第 383 号）对应伊索寓言：《狗与公鸡》（C.180, H.225, P.252, Hs.268）。其中最引人入胜的是《孔雀舞本生》（第 32 号），尽管此处称其为《天鹅本生》，其希腊对应版本并非寓言，而是希罗多德《历史》（第六卷第 129 章）中阿伽里斯忒的婚姻轶事。
In the light of the evidence, then, it would appear that, though Jatakam constituted one of the nine anga of Buddhist teaching and certain jatakas were attributed to the Buddha himself in the 根据现有证据来看，尽管《本生经》构成了佛教教义的九分教之一，且某些本生故事被认为出自佛陀本人之口
Nikayas, in these he was always a human being. ^(26){ }^{26} Further, in none of these original jatakas was there a motif that resembled the motif of any Greek story, whether fable or any other. On the other hand, a proliferation of the jatakas took place in a single century between the middle of the third B.C. and the middle of the second B.C., and not only did this host of jatakas include many in which, not only other characters but the Bodhisatta himself was an animal, but also many whose motifs emulated, whether wholly or partially, Greek story. 在这些尼柯耶中，佛陀始终以人类形象示人。 ^(26){ }^{26} 此外，这些原始本生经中没有任何一个故事母题与希腊故事（无论是寓言还是其他类型）的母题相似。然而，在公元前三世纪中叶至公元前二世纪中叶这短短百年间，本生经数量激增。这大批新增的本生经不仅包含许多让菩萨化身为动物（其他角色亦多为动物）的故事，更出现了大量——无论是完全或部分地——模仿希腊故事母题的作品。
A century is a considerable period of time, whether it be in the present or in antiquity, and is quite adequate for all the many jatakas of the Jataka Book to have been invented or gathered and compiled, especially when they were not the work of a single person but a large group of learned monks dedicated to the task. “The Buddhist monks”, says Winternitz, ^(27){ }^{27} “were recruited from all classes; hence, there were many among them who were quite familiar with the popular tales and anecdotes of the workers, artisans and especially merchants; others, who knew well the old ballads and heroic songs of the warriors, and yet others, who had often heard the sacred legends and myths of the Brahmans and forest hermits”. 一个世纪是相当漫长的时光，无论当下还是远古，都足以让《本生经》中众多本生故事被创作、搜集并编纂成册——尤其当它们并非出自一人之手，而是由大批致力于此的博学僧侣共同完成时。温特尼茨指出："佛教僧侣来自各个阶层；因此他们当中既有熟知工匠、商贩等平民趣闻轶事的，也有精通武士古老民谣与英雄赞歌的，更不乏时常聆听婆罗门圣贤与林中隐士神圣传说的。"
This however is only half the matter, unless we appreciate the significance of the event that took place shortly before this century of the jatakas - the arrival of the huge army of Alexander from the West, not only soldiers, both Greek and of other nationalities, but a whole host of camp-followers, pouring into North-West India, where these selfsame jatakas were just then being composed and compiled, an unlimited wealth of story material for the avid monks. Nor must we fail to appreciate the likelihood that some of these 然而这仅仅是问题的一半，除非我们能够理解本生经世纪前夕那场重大事件的意义——亚历山大大帝率领庞大的西方军队（不仅包括希腊士兵，还有其他民族的战士）以及众多随军人员涌入印度西北部。而正是在这片土地上，本生经当时正处于编撰阶段，为那些求知若渴的僧侣们提供了取之不竭的故事素材。我们更不应忽视这样一种可能性：部分
immigrants themselves joined the order, attracted by this new doctrine of Buddhism, so consanguine to certain philosophical doctrines of Greece, aside from its own intrinsic appeal and the enthusiasm generated over it in this very period, and had themselves been party to the making of the jatakas ^(28){ }^{28}. All this cannot be better summed up than is done by Winternitz ^(29){ }^{29} when he wrote the words quoted earlier: 移民本身可能被佛教这一新教义所吸引（该教义与希腊某些哲学学说存在亲缘性，加之其内在魅力及当时引发的热潮），从而加入了僧团，并亲自参与了本生经的创作 ^(28){ }^{28} 。温特尼茨 ^(29){ }^{29} 早先引述的那段话，再精辟不过地总结了这一切。
“It was Buddhism which brought the Indians more than ever before into contact with other peoples; and it is not probable that it was only the Indians who brought their stories to those peoples every time; they, in their turn, must have received narratives from them too, especially from peoples who stood so high intellectually, as the Greeks, Persians and Semites. In all probability, the Greek artists, who came to India in great crowds after Alexander’s campaign and helped to build and ornament so many Buddhist monuments of art, also brought many Greek narratives and motifs to India. This is the more probable, as it is precisely the Jatakas which were in many cases pictorially represented on Buddhist monuments. For, as the literature, so, Indian and non-Indian art too, was enriched by the Jatakas. They belong to the oldest subjects that were pictorially represented in India, and to-day they are still favourite themes for sculpture and painting in all Buddhist countries”. 正是佛教让印度人比以往任何时候都更频繁地与其他民族接触；而每次都是印度人单方面向其他民族输出故事的说法显然不成立——他们必然也从对方那里获得了叙事素材，尤其是来自希腊人、波斯人和闪族人这些智力高度发达的民族。极有可能的是，那些在亚历山大东征后成群结队来到印度、参与建造装饰众多佛教艺术建筑的希腊艺术家们，也将大量希腊故事母题带入了印度。这种可能性尤为显著，因为本生故事恰恰是佛教艺术建筑中最常被描绘的题材。正如文学领域那样，印度与非印度的艺术创作也因本生故事而丰富。它们属于印度最早被图像化表现的古老主题，至今仍是所有佛教国家雕塑与绘画中最受欢迎的创作题材。
Only such a theory, chronologically foursquare and evidencewise 唯有这种在年代学上立论严谨、在证据链上
plausible, could account for the presence in these Indian jatakas story motifs that reflect such a number of Greek, and not only Greek, but of several other peoples, even judging from the quantum that is recognizable in the present state of our knowledge. Conversely, here is the evidence, even if still inadequate, of the impact of Greece, rich in mythology, fable and anecdote, upon the literature of India that we had been looking for but had so far eluded us, if only because of the consummate skill of those who rehandled what they took just as much as our own ignorance of how they had set about it. However, more than all else, the failure to trace the influence of Greek literature and thought on the Indian (and vice versa) has been the result of prejudice on the part of scholars, so well expressed in the Kiplingsian wish that “ne’er the twain shall meet”, or that, meeting, they should be thought to have made little or no impact on each other. 这些印度本生故事中出现反映希腊及其他多个民族特色的故事母题，从现有知识可辨识的数量来看，其存在是合理可信的。反过来看，即便证据仍不充分，这里确实呈现了我们长期寻觅却始终未能捕捉的迹象——那个神话、寓言与轶事丰富的希腊对印度文学产生的影响。之所以难以察觉，既因改编者们技艺高超地处理了借鉴内容，也因我们对其创作方式的无知。但更重要的原因在于，学者们怀有"东西永不相会"的吉卜林式偏见，或认为即便相遇也几乎互不影响，这种成见导致希腊文学思想对印度（及反之）的影响长期未被追溯。
CHAPTER III 第三章
THE AESOPIC FABLE GENRE AND ANTIQUITY 伊索寓言体裁与古代传统
Since the great majority of the jatakas which have what I call Graecizing motifs (motifs which emulate those of Greek story and have been used for discussion of the various issues to which this phenomenon has given rise), have been traced in the fables, it has been much to the neglect of myth and historical anecdote. 由于绝大多数含有我称之为希腊化母题（即模仿希腊故事并用于讨论这一现象引发的各类问题的母题）的本生故事都可在寓言中找到踪迹，导致神话与历史轶事长期被忽视。
In the matter of the fables themselves, there are those who would decide the direction of borrowing upon the question of who were prior with the fable as a genre, or to whom fable more naturally belonged, or again (and more sensibly) on the basis of the animals figuring in them. This latter consideration will be taken up in the next chapter. As regard the former, while of academic interest, they will not be of any significance in settling the matter one way or the other unless one can also show the priority of one country in respect of the relevant i.e. comparable fable motifs that have been discovered. Nor will it suffice if this is established in the case of a few sporadic examples; for they could then very well be explained away as “the stray waifs of literature” referred to by Prof. Cowell, or dismissed, as Joseph Jacobs does, as too few to bother about in the context of the host of fables found among both the Greeks and the Indians. 关于寓言本身，有些学者试图通过以下问题来判定借鉴方向：哪一方更早将寓言作为一种文体，或寓言更自然地归属于哪方文化，抑或（更为明智地）根据其中出现的动物形象来推断。后一种考量将在下一章展开讨论。至于前两种观点，尽管具有学术价值，但除非能证明某个国家在所发现的相关（即可比较的）寓言母题上具有优先性，否则对解决争议并无实质意义。即便零星几例得到证实也不足为据——这些案例很可能被当作考威尔教授所说的"文学流浪儿"而轻易解释，或如约瑟夫·雅各布斯所言，在希腊与印度皆存有大量寓言作品的背景下，因数量过少而不值深究。
The matter is not however as simple as that. My own study of the jatakas in the light of Greek fable, myth and historical anecdote have shown that the number with comparable motifs is considerably more than has been observed before, either because one or the other set of stories was not known to the reviewer or because the motifs, disguised as they are in the jatakas, were not spotted - and for that very reason. 然而事情并非如此简单。我本人根据希腊寓言、神话和历史轶事对《本生经》的研究表明，具有可比性主题的故事数量远超以往观察到的结果，这要么是因为评论者不熟悉其中一组故事，要么是因为这些主题在《本生经》中被巧妙伪装而未被发现——正是这个原因导致。
In this chapter. however, I will, as in the case of the jatakas, do little more than discuss the nature of one of the categories of story the fable which shares motifs with the jatakas, concluding with reference io a few that are palpably older in Greece than in India - that is, on the evidence that is forthcoming from the ancient sources. 不过在本章中，如同对待《本生经》一样，我将主要讨论其中一类故事——即与《本生经》共享主题的寓言——的本质特征，最后会提及几个明显在希腊比印度更古老的故事案例，这一结论基于古代文献所提供的证据。
So little is known about Aesop that some have been led to the opinion that no such person existed and that “Aesop” was no more than a name on which the several anonymous fables appearing in Greece from as far back as the eighth century B.C. were hung. Such a theory, however, defies not only the strong tradition that there was such a person but also the evidence of the historian, Herodotus (B.C. 482-425), ^("I "){ }^{\text {I }} who lived not more than a century and a half after the supposed date of Aesop and had spent some time in the island of Samos, where Aesop was said to have been a slave. 关于伊索的生平所知甚少，以至于有人认为这位人物根本不存在，"伊索"不过是公元前八世纪起在希腊流传的诸多匿名寓言所挂名的一个代号。然而这种理论不仅违背了确有其人的强大传统，也与历史学家希罗多德（公元前 482-425 年）的记载相矛盾——他生活的年代距推测的伊索时期不超过一个半世纪，且曾在萨摩斯岛居住过，而传说伊索正是该岛的奴隶。
Calling him “Aesop, the story-maker” (logopoios) so as to be unambiguous whom he meant, Herodotus speaks of him as though he was a person well known to his audience and requiring no further introduction. According to what he says, Aesop lived at the time Amasis was pharaoh of Egypt, i.e. the middle of the sixth century B.C.; he was a fellow-slave of Rhodopis, a beautiful Thracian woman, in the island of Samos, and served a master called Iadmon, the son of Hephaistopolis; the manner of his death involved the 希罗多德为明确所指，称其为"寓言创作者伊索"（logopoios），其叙述口吻仿佛这位人物对当时听众而言耳熟能详无需赘述。据其记载，伊索生活在埃及法老阿玛西斯时期（即公元前六世纪中叶），与色雷斯美女罗多庇斯同为萨摩斯岛奴隶，侍奉名为雅德蒙（赫菲斯托波利斯之子）的主人；他最终因德尔斐神谕事件遇害。
people of Delphi, and when, many years later, the Delphians, on the instructions of the oracle of Apollo there, broadcast a summons for someone to accept recompense for their deed, Iadmon, grandson of Aesop’s master, answered the call. 德尔斐的人民，多年后，德尔斐人根据阿波罗神谕的指示，公开征集愿意接受对其行为进行补偿的人选，伊索主人的孙子伊德蒙响应了这一召唤。
The tradition that Aesop was a slave is nowhere controverted. Rather, we find it confirmed by Aristotle in his work on The Constitution of the Samians, perhaps deriving his information from Eugeon of Samos, a writer who lived before the Peloponnesian War (B.C. 432-404) and wrote a chronicle called Horoi Samiôn. According to him, Aesop was emancipated by one Iadmon the Dumb. This Iadmon of Aristotle cannot be any other than Iadmon, the son of Hephaistopolis mentioned by Herodotus as Aesop’s master. 关于伊索曾是奴隶的传统说法从未受到质疑。相反，亚里士多德在其著作《萨摩斯政制》中证实了这一点，他可能引用了伯罗奔尼撒战争（公元前 432-404 年）前萨摩斯作家欧吉昂的记载，后者撰写了名为《萨摩斯纪年》的编年史。据欧吉昂所述，伊索被一位名为"哑巴伊德蒙"的人解放。亚里士多德提到的这位伊德蒙，无疑就是希罗多德笔下作为伊索主人的赫菲斯托波利斯之子伊德蒙。
The belief that Aesop was a Phrygian expressed in later writers has wide acceptance today as in the past. The first reference to such a thing is found in a mime of Herodas, ^(2){ }^{2} though the context in which he is so called is an improbable one. The idea may probably have gone back to Demetrius of Phaleron, who made a collection of the fables of Aesop in the fourth century B.C., ^(3){ }^{3} and was followed by other writers such as Phaedrus, freedman of the emperor Augustus, Dio Chrisostom and Lucian. ^(4){ }^{4} The earlier tradition implied the Aesop was a Thracian, a thing which Herodotus does not directly say but may suggest when he says that the woman Rhodopis, his fellow-slave, was a Thracian. Less popular is the notion that he was a Samian or a Lydian. Maximus Planudes’ derivation of the fabulist’s name “Aesop” from “Aethiopian” is at any rate etymologically unacceptable. 人们普遍认为伊索是弗里吉亚人，这一观点在后世作家笔下得到延续，古今皆然。最早提及此事的文献见于希罗达斯的拟剧 ^(2){ }^{2} ，尽管文中称其为弗里吉亚人的语境颇令人存疑。此说法或许可追溯至公元前四世纪编纂《伊索寓言集》的法勒鲁姆的德米特里 ^(3){ }^{3} ，后来奥古斯都皇帝的获释奴隶菲德鲁斯、金口狄奥及琉善等作家也沿袭此说 ^(4){ }^{4} 。更早的传统暗示伊索是色雷斯人——希罗多德虽未明言，但当他提及与伊索同为奴隶的罗多庇斯是色雷斯女子时，可能暗含此意。认为伊索是萨摩斯人或吕底亚人的观点则较为冷门。至于马克西穆斯·普拉努得斯将这位寓言家名字"Aesop"解释为"埃塞俄比亚人"的词源学推论，无论如何都是难以成立的。
The question then arises whether Aesop was a Greek or of nonGreek extraction. Phrygia and Thrace were both popular sources of slaves for the Greeks, and those who do not hold Aesop to be a 由此引出的问题是：伊索究竟属于希腊人还是异族血统？弗里吉亚与色雷斯都是希腊人获取奴隶的常见来源地，而那些不认同伊索为
Phrygian do not make him of any other nationality but a Thracian. On the other hand, if the tradition is of any worth that he came from Mesembria in Thrace, which is actually a Greek city there, he could well have been a Greek who had been reduced to slavery by the fortunes of war. In support of such a thing is the fact that, upon his being liberated in Samos, he appears to have been enrolled as a citizen - a thing quite unlikely were he not a Greek. For we hear that on one occasion at least he addressed the Assembly there. ^(5){ }^{5} 弗利吉亚人并未将他归为其他民族，而认定其为色雷斯人。另一方面，若关于他来自色雷斯梅森布里亚的传说可信——该地实为希腊殖民城市——那么他很可能是个因战乱沦为奴隶的希腊人。佐证这一观点的事实是：他在萨摩斯岛获释后，似乎被登记为公民——若他非希腊裔，此事几乎不可能发生。因为我们至少听闻他曾有一次在当地公民大会发表演说。 ^(5){ }^{5}
An ancient chronological reckoning recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea and also an inscription of the year 16 A.D. place Aesop’s death at Delphi in the year 564 B.C. Tradition describes him as an old man, but this is not much to go by in assessing his age; he may have been born at the end of the seventh century B.C. We do not 凯撒利亚的优西比乌所记载的古代年表以及公元 16 年的一则铭文，都将伊索的卒年定为公元前 564 年，地点在德尔斐。传统描述称他为老人，但这对于判断其具体年龄帮助不大；他可能出生于公元前七世纪末。我们无从得知
know when he composed his fables, though the likelihood is that he made them up whenever the need arose rather than as a sustained undertaking of a limited duration. Nor do we know whether he was already famous for his fables before he was liberated from slavery, nor, for that matter, when he was liberated from slavery. It was the emperor Julian’s opinion ^(6){ }^{6} that Aesop had used the fables to disguise the counsels which, as a slave, he could not express openly in society. 他何时创作了这些寓言，尽管更可能的情况是，他根据需要即兴编撰，而非将其作为一项限时完成的持续事业。我们也不清楚他在摆脱奴隶身份之前是否已因寓言闻名，甚至他何时获得自由亦无定论。皇帝尤利安曾提出见解 ^(6){ }^{6} ，认为伊索借助寓言来掩饰那些身为奴隶时无法公开向社会表达的谏言。
In his same work on The Constitution of the Samians Aristotle states that Aesop made a good impression on the Samians by telling them a fable. This must have been no other than the one which Aristotle says in his Rhetoric Aesop had used in pleading the case of a politician charged with the embezzlement of public funds - the fable of The Fox and the Hedgehog (H.36, P.427). This is historically plausible if he did so subsequent to his liberation from slavery - for clearly no slave would have had the privilege of addressing the Assembly. Of course, it is not impossible that, as in the case of many other fables, both relating to Aesop and to others, the circumstances were invented as a context for narrating this fable. But it appears Aristotle was relying on a sound tradition, if he derived it from Eugeon, himself a Samian. 亚里士多德在《萨摩斯人的政制》中同样提到，伊索通过讲述寓言给萨摩斯人留下了良好印象。这则寓言必定是他在《修辞学》中提及的、伊索为被控挪用公款的政客辩护时所用的《狐狸与刺猬》（编号 H.36，P.427）。若此事发生在他摆脱奴隶身份之后，则具有历史可信度——因为奴隶显然无权在公民大会上发言。当然，如同其他许多与伊索或他人相关的寓言一样，这些背景情节很可能是为配合寓言叙述而虚构的。但若亚里士多德的记载源自萨摩斯人欧吉昂的传承，这一传统似乎确有依据。
However Plutarch’s mention of Aesop as having been an honoured adviser and ambassador in the service of the Lydian king, Croesus, which is repeated in The Life of Aesop, should be no more than a literary invention like that which brought Solon into relationship with Croesus. Aesop, if he died in 564 B.C., died four years before Croesus ascended the throne of Lydia. It was this mission which alledgedly led to his death. Aristophanes’ refers to a story that Aesop was accused by the people of Delphi for the theft of a cup from the temple of Apollo. 然而，普鲁塔克将伊索描述为吕底亚国王克洛伊索斯麾下备受尊崇的顾问与使节，这一说法在《伊索传》中反复出现，但应当如同将梭伦与克洛伊索斯扯上关系的传说一样，纯属文学虚构。若伊索确于公元前 564 年离世，其逝世时间实则比克洛伊索斯登基还早四年。据传正是这次出使任务导致了伊索的死亡。阿里斯托芬曾提及一则故事，称德尔斐民众指控伊索盗取了阿波罗神庙中的圣杯。
Stories grew around Aesop involving him in situations in which he narrates fables to drive some point or other home. Sometimes the 围绕伊索衍生的故事常将他置于特定情境中，通过讲述寓言来阐明某些道理。有时这些
situation is created to suit an existing fable, often both situation and fable are invented together. It is not possible to discover which of these events are historically true just as much as there is no knowing which fables are Aesop’s own and which are not. On other occasions he figured as a fable character, or the fable was labelled Aesop’s or “Aesopic”. The popularity which Aesop acquired thus from the days of Aristophanes, some think rivalled even Homer’s; indeed, a play called Aesop was put on stage by the fourth century comedian Alexis, of which we have a fragment preserved in Athenaeus. Throughout antiquity and in Byzantine times, however, Aesop’s name was associated with also apophthegms and proverbs. This reputation which the fabulist had gained was further enhanced by the appearance, in Rome’s imperial period, of an anonymous Life of Aesop, which was put together from imaginative information gathered from various sources. Of this, as G.J.Van Dijk ^(8){ }^{8} calls it, “highly original and scabrous text”, three different versions exist, of which the rather abbreviated one ad usum delphim by Planudes became so popular that it saw translation into several European languages. 为适应一则现成的寓言而刻意营造情境，往往情境与寓言是同时虚构的。正如我们无法辨别哪些寓言真正出自伊索之手，同样也无从考证这些事件的历史真实性。有时他化身寓言角色登场，有时寓言被冠以"伊索"或"伊索式"的标签。自阿里斯托芬时代起，伊索获得的声名甚至被认为可与荷马比肩——公元前四世纪喜剧作家亚历克西斯确实创作过名为《伊索》的戏剧，其中片段保存在雅典尼乌斯的著作中。然而纵观古代与拜占庭时期，伊索之名亦常与箴言谚语相关联。这位寓言家声誉的进一步提升，源于罗马帝国时期出现的匿名作品《伊索传》，该书汇集了各种来源的想象性材料。正如范迪克所称，这部"极具原创性与惊世骇俗的文本"现存三种版本，其中普拉努得斯删编的洁本流传最广，被译为多种欧洲语言。
But the beginning of the long history of the Aesopic fable, generically so-called, is of even greater antiquity than Aesop himself, taking in the fable of The Hawk and the Nightingale (C.8, H.9, P.4, Hs.4), which Hesiod, Boeotian poet of the eight century B.C., who is thought to be a contemporary of Homer, uses in his Works and Days to illustrate powerfully the plight of the poor peasant in the clutches of the nobility of his day. Allusion to another fable, later to be included among the Aesopica is found in Solon (c. 640/ 635 to soon after 561//560561 / 560 B.C.) when he talks of some animal “walking in the footsteps of the fox” (alopēkos ichnesi bainei), thus bringing home to the Athenians the way in which they fell under the tyranny of Peisistratus - a fable which I suspect is not that of The Lion, the Fox and the Stag (C.358, H.243, P.336, B.93) whose motif is seen in the Putimansa Jataka (No. 437) but rather of The Lion and the Fox (C.196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147), of which we will have the opportunity to discuss more fully later on. 然而，被泛称为伊索寓言的漫长历史渊源，其发端甚至比伊索本人更为古老。这要追溯到《鹰与夜莺》（编号 C.8, H.9, P.4, Hs.4）这则寓言——公元前八世纪的彼奥提亚诗人赫西俄德（被认为与荷马同时代）在其《工作与时日》中，曾用这则寓言生动展现了当时贫苦农民受贵族压迫的困境。另一则后来被收入《伊索寓言集》的典故出现在梭伦（约公元前 640/635 至约 560 年）的言论中，当他提及某动物"循着狐狸的足迹行走"（希腊文 alopēkos ichnesi bainei）时，借此让雅典人深刻认识到他们如何陷入庇西特拉图暴政的统治——我怀疑这并非《狮子、狐狸与牡鹿》（编号 C.358, H.243, P.336, B.93）的故事（其母题见于《普提曼萨本生经》第 437 号），而更可能是《狮子与狐狸》（编号 C.196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147）的变体，关于后者我们后文将有更充分的讨论机会。
These earliest fables are without reference to Aesop, and the same is true of all the writers between Hesiod and Solon. Archilochus (alive c. 708 B.C.) knew the story of The Eagle and the Vixen (C.3, H.3, P.1, Hs.1), in which a vixen gets just revenge from an eagle for eating his cubs when the eagle’s nest, catching fire, fell to the ground with her nestlings - which is just the kind of revenge the heron of the Kuntani Jataka (No. 343) gets from the king’s children who had squeezed to death her young. He also reveals another, of The Fox and the Monkey, which, from its being referred to as “of sad burden” (achnumenè skutalē). I cannot think could be the fable in which the monkey, passing a number of tombstones, claims they are those of the freedmen and slaves of his ancestors, making the fox bid him lie away, since none of them would rise up to contradict him (C.39, H.43, P.14, Hs.14). Simonides of Amorgos (c. mid 7^("th ")7^{\text {th }} cent. B.C.) also makes no mention of Aesop when he refers to a fable of a heron, who, seeing a hawk eating an eel from the river Maeander, snatches it off him. There is likewise a skolion preserved by Athenaeus, which must surely be a very old one, which, punning on the word skolion itself ( == ‘a drinking song’ as well as ‘crooked’) says: 这些最早的寓言并未提及伊索，赫西俄德与梭伦之间的所有作家亦是如此。阿尔基洛科斯（约公元前 708 年在世）知晓《鹰与雌狐》的故事（编号 C.3, H.3, P.1, Hs.1）：雌狐因幼崽被鹰吞食而复仇，当鹰巢着火坠地时，雏鹰随之殒命——这与《鹳鸟本生》（第 343 号）中鹳鸟向掐死其幼雏的王子们实施的复仇如出一辙。他还提及另一则《狐狸与猴子》的寓言，因其被称为"承载悲怆的皮囊"，我难以认同这是那则猴子途经墓碑群时，声称它们是其祖先释放的奴隶之墓，引得狐狸讥讽"尽可胡诌，反正无人揭穿"的故事（编号 C.39, H.43, P.14, Hs.14）。阿莫尔戈斯的西摩尼得斯（约公元前七世纪中叶）在引用白鹭寓言时同样未提伊索：白鹭目睹鹰从迈安德河叼走鳗鱼，便从其喙中夺食。 雅典奈乌斯同样保存了一首酒歌，这必定是首非常古老的歌谣，它巧妙运用了"skolion"一词的双关含义（既指"饮酒歌"又指"弯曲的"）：
"The crab spoke thus, Holding the snake in his claw: "螃蟹钳住蛇时如此说道：
“As a friend you must be straight And think no crooked thoughts.” '为友须正直，心思莫曲折'"
This is the fable of The Snake and the Crab (C.70, H.346), in which a crab struck a friendship with a snake, then seeing the snake ever devious while he himself was forthright, clipped its neck with his claw when it was a sleep, then seeing it stretched out in death, exclaimed, “You should have been straight and sincere before; then you wouldn’t have paid this penalty”. (A crab, it will be seen, does the same to a treacherous crane, who was carrying him through the air in the Baka Jataka (No. 38) - clearly also inverting what the eagle did to the poor tortoise in the fable of The Tortoise and the Eagle (C.351, H.419, P.230, Hs.259). 这则《蛇与螃蟹》寓言（C.70，H.346）讲述螃蟹与蛇结交为友，当发现蛇始终狡诈而自己坦率时，便趁蛇熟睡时用螯钳断其颈。见蛇僵直毙命，螃蟹感叹道："你若早能正直真诚，便不必受此惩罚了"。（在《芦苇本生》（第 38 号）中，螃蟹同样如此对待背信的白鹭——当白鹭载其飞行时将其钳杀。这显然与《乌龟与鹰》（C.351，H.419，P.230，Hs.259）中鹰对可怜乌龟的作为形成鲜明对照。）
Theognis of Megara (fl. 544-541 B.C.) already knew the fable of the man who found a snake frozen and warmed it at his bosom, only to be stung to death no sooner it thawed out. This is the fable of The Farmer and the Snake (C.82, H.97, P.176, Hs.62), which is closely emulated in the Veluka Jataka (No. 43) with a compassionate hermit taking the place of the farmer. The lyric poet Stesichorus (c. 632/29-559/56 B.C.) used the fable of The Horse and the Stag (H.175, Aristot. Rhet. ii. 20) to warn the people of Himera about giving Phalaris a bodyguard, much as Solon had resorted to a fable to warn the Athenians of being foolish with Persistratus. Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) for his part gives as of Libyan origin the fable of The Eagle (H.4) who, shot by an arrow, laments the fact that it’s own feathers (used on it) were instrumental in it’s death ^(9){ }^{9} while he also has a passing reference to the man who reared a lion cub in his house in illustration of what Helen’s cunning at Troy was like to the Trojans. Most noteworthy, however, is the antiquity in Greece of the well-known fable of the Crow and the Fox (C.165, H.204, P.124, Hs.126) which the Jambu Khadaka Jataka (No. 294) emulates and the Anta (No. 295) inverts, for it is found depicted on a Corinthian vase belonging to the 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} century B.C. ^(10){ }^{10} 麦加拉的忒奥格尼斯（活跃于公元前 544-541 年）早已熟知那个农夫将冻僵的蛇揣入怀中温暖，却在蛇苏醒后反被其咬死的故事。这正是《农夫与蛇》（编号 C.82, H.97, P.176, Hs.62）的寓言原型，而在《维卢卡本生经》（第 43 号）中，这个寓言被近乎复刻——只不过农夫的角色换成了一位慈悲的隐士。抒情诗人斯特西克鲁斯（约公元前 632/29-559/56 年）曾用《马与鹿》（编号 H.175，亚里士多德《修辞学》卷二第 20 章）的寓言警示希梅拉民众不要为法拉里斯配备卫队，正如梭伦也曾借助寓言告诫雅典人不要对庇西特拉图犯下愚行。埃斯库罗斯（公元前 525-456 年）则称《鹰》（编号 H.4）的寓言源自利比亚——那只被箭射中的鹰哀叹夺走自己性命的竟是（用自己羽毛制成的）箭羽 ^(9){ }^{9} ；他还简略提及那个在家中养大幼狮的人，以此比喻海伦的狡诈对特洛伊人造成的危害。但最值得注意的是《乌鸦与狐狸》（编号 C.165, H.204, P.124, Hs.126）这个著名寓言在希腊的古老渊源，该故事在《阎浮果本生经》（第 294) 模仿了安塔（第 295 号）并进行了反转，因为这一场景被发现描绘在一个属于公元前 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} 世纪的科林斯陶瓶上 ^(10){ }^{10}
Sophocles’ Ajax has Menelaus and Teucer respectively making fable serve as innuendo in their sharp altercation over the burial of the hero, Ajax - though I have my doubts whether the tragedian was alluding to any already existing fables here. There is also mention of an epigram used by Sophocles against Euripides, which enlists the fable of the North Wind and the Sun in their contest to undress a wayfarer. ^(11){ }^{11} At the same time, several Greek proverbs and phrases, appearing both early and late show knowledge of other fables as having been common in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. 索福克勒斯的《埃阿斯》中，墨涅拉俄斯与透克罗斯就英雄埃阿斯的埋葬问题激烈争执时，分别用寓言作为暗讽——尽管我怀疑这位悲剧诗人此处是否在引用任何既有的寓言。另有记载显示索福克勒斯曾用一则讽刺短诗攻击欧里庇得斯，其中援引了北风与太阳比赛让旅人脱衣的寓言。 ^(11){ }^{11} 与此同时，若干早期与晚期出现的希腊谚语和短语表明，其他寓言在公元前六至五世纪的希腊已广为人知。
As old as Archilochus is the saying which presumes a fable - poll’ oid’ alōpēx all’ echinus hen mega: “the fox knows many things, the hedgehog one - but big”. ^(12){ }^{12} As old as Bachylides, lyric poet of Ceos ( f 1 . fifth cent. B.C.) is the proverb “Don’t follow the bear’s tracks if he’s there” - and so on. Proverbs were blown up into fables, and fables compressed into proverbs, often enough baffling the hearer as to which came first, the proverb or the fable, not just among the Greeks but among all primitive societies we know of which had enriched their language with both proverb and fable. 与阿尔基洛科斯同样古老的是一则寓言式的谚语——“狐狸知晓许多事，但刺猬只知一件大事”。 ^(12){ }^{12} 与凯奥斯的抒情诗人巴克基利德斯（约公元前五世纪）同样久远的，还有谚语“若熊在场，莫循其踪”——诸如此类。谚语常被扩展为寓言，寓言又常被浓缩为谚语，这往往令听者困惑：究竟是谚语在先，还是寓言在前？这种现象不仅存在于希腊人中，在我们所知的所有原始社会中皆是如此——这些社会都通过谚语和寓言丰富了自身的语言。
Though Herodotus knew of Aesop as a fabulist (logopoios), he himself does not associate the one fable he gives and which is afterwards included in the Aesopic compendia, with Aesop. This is the fable of The Piping Fisherman (C.24, H. 27=27= Hdt. i. 141), which Cyrus is said to have narrated to the Ionians and Aeolians when they wanted to join him after he had defeated them, not having done so when he invited them to do so earlier. However, two other fables were clearly attributed to Aesop in antiquity and in doing so they reveal the rhetorical context in which the Greek fable became most popular. The first of these, the one referred to by Aristotle in his Rhetoric, The Fox and the Hedgehog and in plea for the embezzler, is about a hedgehog who volunteered to pick the ticks off the hide of a fox who had fallen into a chasm, only to be told to let them be - they had drunk their fill of blood and were satiated; to remove them would be to invite another lot, who would start the bloodsucking all afresh! The second is the fable of The Eagle and the Dung Beetle (C.4, H.7), which Aesop is said to have narrated to the Delphians, this time in plea for his own life, telling them of how an eagle, earning the hostility of a dung-beetle, was prevented from laying her eggs anywhere in safety, not even in the lap of Zeus himself. 尽管希罗多德知晓伊索作为寓言家（logopoios）的身份，但他本人并未将所讲述的一则寓言归功于伊索——这则故事后来被收入伊索寓言集。这便是《吹笛的渔夫》（编号 C.24，H. 27=27= 希罗多德《历史》卷一第 141 节）的寓言：据说居鲁士在击败爱奥尼亚人与埃俄利亚人后，当他们战败才想投诚（而先前受邀时却未行动）之际，向他们讲述了这个故事。不过，另外两则寓言在古代被明确归于伊索名下，它们揭示了希腊寓言最盛行的修辞语境。其一是亚里士多德在《修辞学》中提及的《狐狸与刺猬》，用于为挪用公款者辩护：刺猬主动提出要为坠入深渊的狐狸清除身上的虱子，却被狐狸劝阻——这些虱子已吸饱鲜血，若驱离它们只会招来新一批吸血者从头开始！ 第二个是《鹰与蜣螂》的寓言（C.4，H.7），据说伊索曾向德尔斐人讲述这个故事，这次是为了恳求他们饶自己一命。他讲述一只鹰如何因得罪蜣螂而无法在任何安全的地方产卵，甚至连宙斯的膝头也不例外。
It must be his facile invention of fable as well as his ready resort to them rather than the claim to have originated the fable in Greece which won Aesop recognition as the father of the fable, with all fables, even those which preceded him, being indiscriminately designated Aesopic. But over and above this, as we shall see, there was also a form or mode distinctive of the fable which characterized it as Aesopic - though even this, it must be admitted, is so present in the earliest of Greek fables that some have been led to suppose ‘Aesopic’ to be a generic definition which created the man rather than vice-versa. 伊索被誉为寓言之父，并非因其宣称首创了希腊寓言，而是由于他擅长即兴创作寓言且频繁运用它们，以至于所有寓言——甚至那些早于他的作品——都被不加区分地冠以"伊索式"之名。但除此之外，正如我们将要看到的，还存在一种独特的寓言形式或模式，使其具有典型的伊索特征——尽管必须承认，这种特征在最早的希腊寓言中就已存在，以至于有人认为"伊索式"是一个创造了这位人物的类型学定义，而非相反。
When we come to Aristophanes, fable is inseparable from the name of Aesop, even when one invents a fable oneself, as when Philocleon in Aristophanes’ comedy Wasps (vs. 1401-1405) tried to stop the scolding of the woman, whose basket of bread he had upset, with the anecdote of Aesop and the bitch. Says the old man: 当我们谈到阿里斯托芬时，寓言总与伊索的名字密不可分，即便人们自己编造寓言时也是如此。就像阿里斯托芬喜剧《马蜂》中（第 1401-1405 行）的菲洛克勒翁，当他打翻了一位妇女的面包篮后，试图用伊索与母狗的故事来阻止她的责骂。这位老人说道：
"One evening, when Aesop was on his after-dinner stroll, An impudent drunken bitch barked at him; Whereupon he said, “Dog, o dog, If, for heaven’s sake, instead of that vile din you make, You find out where you can buy more grain, You’d seem to me to have more sense.” "某日黄昏，伊索饭后散步时，一只放肆的醉母狗朝他狂吠；于是他说：'狗啊，狗啊，看在老天份上，与其发出这般可厌的喧闹，不如去打听哪里能买到更多谷物，这样在我看来才更明智。'"
Aristophanes also attributes to Aesop by name the fable of the dungbeetle (kantharos), already referred to, who prevented the eagle from hatching her eggs with impunity, even in the lap of Zeus - the fable which Aesop is said to have narrated to the Delphians in his speech in defence of himself when charged with theft. ^(13){ }^{13} For, in reply to his daughter, who asks him what his purpose is to yoke a dung-beetle and ride him to the gods, Trygaios of the Peace (vs. 127-131) with a parody of that same fable, says: 阿里斯托芬还将蜣螂寓言明确归名于伊索——这个前文提及的寓言讲述蜣螂阻止鹰即使躲在宙斯膝上也休想安然孵卵，据说伊索在德尔斐人为自己辩护反对偷窃指控的演讲中就讲述过这个寓言。 ^(13){ }^{13} 因为在《和平》剧中（第 127-131 行），当女儿询问为何要套住蜣螂骑往神界时，特里盖奥斯用对这个寓言的戏仿回答道：
“In the fables of Aesop there is found A beetle who wings his way to the gods. He went thus long ago from anger with an eagle, Getting his revenge by rolling off her eggs.” "在伊索寓言中，记载着一只振翅飞向众神的甲虫。它因对鹰怀恨已久，便通过推落鹰蛋来实施报复。"
In the same play (vs. 1086) is possibly a reference to the fable of the mother crab who wanted her offspring to walk straight (The Crab and its Mother (C.151, H.187, P.322, Hs.319). The slave Xanthias’ reference to fighting over the donkey’s shadow (Wasps. vs. 190-191) is no doubt an allusion to the Aesopic fable. 同一剧本中（第 1086 行）可能暗指蟹妈妈教导幼蟹直行的寓言（《螃蟹与母蟹》，编号 C.151/H.187/P.322/Hs.319）。奴隶克桑提阿斯提及争夺驴影的桥段（《马蜂》第 190-191 行）无疑影射了这则伊索寓言。
Again, when Pisthetairos in Aristophanes’ Birds (vs. 471-475) tells the fable of the lark having had to bury his father in his own head because neither Earth nor Kronos (father of the king of gods, Zeus) had yet come into being, he attributes it to Aesop himself. And, once again, it is from Aesop that the same Pisthetairus cites the story of The Eagle and the Vixen (already referred to by the poet Archilochus), as one scholion on this passage in the Birds (vs. 127-129) observes. 同样地，当阿里斯托芬《鸟》剧中佩斯特泰罗斯（第 471-475 行）讲述云雀不得不将亡父葬于自己头顶的寓言——因为当时连大地与克罗诺斯（众神之王宙斯之父）都尚未诞生——他明确将其归为伊索所作。而该角色再次引用的《鹰与雌狐》故事（诗人阿基洛科斯早前已提及此典），正如《鸟》剧某注释本（第 127-129 行）所指出的，同样源自伊索寓言。
Says Rutherford, “These facts, I believe, justify us in seeing in Aristophanes the mouthpiece of a tendency to exalt Aesop into the high priest of Fable, which appears to have been gradually gathering strength, and to have reached a climax in the literary circles of Athens about the meeting-point of the fifth and fourth centuries before the Christian era.” ^(14){ }^{14} 卢瑟福指出："这些事实使我相信，我们有理由认为阿里斯托芬是当时一种思潮的代言人——这种将伊索推崇为寓言至高祭司的倾向似乎正逐渐壮大，并在公元前五世纪与四世纪之交的雅典文坛达到了顶峰。" ^(14){ }^{14}
This sort of thing is seen happening, for instance in Plato, who refers to the fable (to be well known later) based on the clue of nulla vestigia retrorsum between fox and lion, when he talks of the evidence of coinage going into Lacedaimon but no manifest trace of it’s coming back. Socrates would do this even with a fable he himself was for inventing when, in jail and chaffing his legs from which the fetters had just been removed, he observes: ^(15){ }^{15} 此类现象在柏拉图著作中亦有体现。当他谈及货币流入拉刻代蒙却无回流痕迹时，引用了后世广为流传的寓言线索——狐狸与狮子间"无路可退"的典故。即便是苏格拉底自己编造的寓言，他也会如此运用：在狱中刚卸下镣铐揉搓双腿时，他打趣道： ^(15){ }^{15}
“How singular is this thing called pleasure, and how curiously related to pain, which might be thought to be the opposite of it; for they never come to a man together; and yet he who pursues either of them is generally compelled to take the other. They are two, and yet they grow together out of one head or stem; and I cannot help thinking that if Aesop had noticed them, he would have made a fable about God trying to reconcile their strife, and when he could not, he fastened their heads together; and this is the reason why, when one comes the other follows, as I find in my own case when pleasure comes following after the pain in my leg, which was caused by the chain.” "这种被称为快乐的事物多么奇特，又与痛苦有着怎样奇妙的关联——人们或许以为二者截然相反；然而它们从不同时光临一人，追求其中任一者却往往被迫承受另一者。它们本为双生，却从同一根茎生长而出；我不禁想到，倘若伊索曾注意到这点，定会编撰一则寓言讲述神明试图调解它们的纷争，失败后便将它们的头颅捆缚在一起——这便解释了为何二者总相随而至，正如我此刻的体验：腿上的镣铐带来痛苦后，快乐便接踵而来。"
Elsewhere Plato gives three other fables, those of the Grasshoppers in Phaedrus, (295), of Contrivance and Poverty in the Symposium (203), the Art of Government in the Protagoras (320), - to which we may also perhaps add the judgement of the dead in the myth of the Gorgias (525), though he can hardly impute these to Aesop. But it appears that Socrates knew several others as of Aesop, for, being importuned in a dream when in jail to practice the arts, he says, ^(16){ }^{16} 柏拉图还在其他篇章中讲述过三则寓言：《斐德鲁篇》的蝉（295），《会饮篇》中机巧与贫乏的故事（203），《普罗泰戈拉篇》里的治国之术（320）——或许还可加上《高尔吉亚篇》神话中关于亡者审判的段落（525），尽管他未必将这些归为伊索所作。但显然苏格拉底还知晓其他归于伊索名下的寓言，因他在狱中受梦境敦促研习技艺时曾说： ^(16){ }^{16}
“I wrote first in honour of the god (Apollo) whose festival it was; and after addressing the god I reflected that a poet, if he was a true poet, ought to write fables, not stories of fact. And not being an inventor of fables myself, I chose for this reason such fables of Aesop as I had ready at hand and knew by heart and put into verse the first that presented themselves.” “我首先为庆典之神（阿波罗）写下颂词；向神明致敬后，我想到真正的诗人应当创作寓言，而非纪实故事。由于我本人不擅杜撰寓言，便选取了手边熟记的伊索寓言，将最先浮现的故事改写为诗行。”
Though in general fables were unattached and of no particular context, several were already, or soon to be localized, as for instance that of The Monkey and the Dolphin (C.305, H.363, P.73, Hs.75) which we shall treat in more detail later on. Two fables in Aristophanes find the Sybarites the butt of their witticism, perhaps because of their proverbial folly. In his Memorabilia Xenophon 尽管寓言通常独立成篇且无特定背景，但其中若干则早已或即将被赋予地域色彩，例如我们后文将详述的《猴子与海豚》（编号 C.305/H.363/P.73/Hs.75）。阿里斯托芬的两则寓言将锡巴里斯人作为嘲弄对象，这或许源于他们众所周知的愚行。色诺芬在《回忆苏格拉底》中......
knew the fable of The Sheep and the Dog (H.317, B.128) in which the sheep complains to his master of the favoured treatment the dog gets, who yields him nothing, only to be told by the dog that were it not for his protection of the sheep, they could hardly even graze in safety. Aristotle himself makes mention of two others besides The Fox and the Hedgehog, which he attributes to Aesop himself. One of these, like Aesop and the Dog in Aristophanes, brings the fabulist himself in as a participant i.e. Aesop at the Shipyard (H.19), the other, so succinctly put by the philosopher, the little fable of The Lions and the Hares, in which the lions commend the hares for their speech on equality, but show it lacks claws and teeth. 我知晓《绵羊与狗》（H.317，B.128）这则寓言：绵羊向主人抱怨狗受到优待却不事生产，狗却反诘道若无它的守护，绵羊连安心吃草都难。亚里士多德除提及《狐狸与刺猬》外，还提到另外两则他归为伊索所作的寓言。其中一则如阿里斯托芬笔下《伊索与狗》般，让寓言家本人登场——即《船厂的伊索》（H.19）；另一则被这位哲学家精炼概括为《狮子与野兔》的小故事：狮子赞赏野兔关于平等的演说，却指出其缺乏爪牙之利。
It would appear then that already a mass of Aesopic fables existed and were well known to the general public well before the fourth century B.C. came to a close. Several of these can also be presumed from the evidence of proverbs, idioms and expressions. It was a practice then not only to relate fables at opportune moments, as we find Philocleon in the Wasps ^(17){ }^{17} trying to tell of The Cat and the Mouse, to the anger and annoyance of his son, or the accused in court trying to put jurors such as himself in good humour with these, ^(18){ }^{18} but even to invent them. All these, whether inherited from the past or invented in aftertimes, were in general to be known after the man whose name was emphatically associated with this type of story, Aesop. 由此可见，在公元前四世纪结束之前，大量伊索寓言已然存在并为大众所熟知。其中不少故事还可从谚语、习语和惯用表达中推知。当时人们不仅会在适当时机讲述寓言——如我们在《马蜂》 ^(17){ }^{17} 中看到菲罗克 leon 试图讲述《猫和老鼠》的故事而惹恼其子，或是被告在法庭上用这类故事取悦像他这样的陪审员 ^(18){ }^{18} ——甚至还会即兴创作。无论是承袭自古老传统还是后世新编，这些故事最终都以与这类叙事紧密相连的人物之名流传于世，即伊索。
This practice of attributing teachings and ideas of followers to the founder of a branch of art, literature or philosophy is nothing unusual in Greek antiquity. We have parallels of this in the xoana or archaic figurines attributed to the mythical craftsman, Daedalus; all Pythagorean teachings and discoveries were assigned to the master himself; Socrates came to be the speaker of much that was Plato’s own thinking in the dialogues. (The same, I believe, could be said of the Buddha and Buddhist discourse). To this way of looking at things, the originator of a form of art or line of thought 将追随者的教义和思想归功于某一艺术、文学或哲学流派的创始人，这种做法在古希腊时期并不罕见。我们可以找到类似的例子：那些被归为神话工匠代达罗斯所作的古代木雕神像；所有毕达哥拉斯学派的教义和发现都被归于大师本人；在对话录中，苏格拉底成为了柏拉图个人思想的代言人。（我相信，佛陀与佛教 discourse 也存在同样情况）。按照这种思维方式，某种艺术形式或思想脉络的创始人
was more truly the author of its development as well, and it was little remarkable that the fruit of such was laid at the feet of the master. 更应被视为其发展的真正推动者，因此这些成果被归于大师门下也就不足为奇了。
Stories grew around Aesop involving him in situations in which he narrates fables to drive some point or other home. As mentioned before, sometimes the situation is created to suit an existing fable, often situation and fable are invented together. It is not possible to discover which of these events are historically true, just as much as there is no knowing which fables are his own - except perhaps that of The Fox and the Hedgehog, which is referred to by Aristotle in his Rhetoric, and that of The Eagle and the Dung Beetle he used in pleading for his life before the people of Delphi (though what the point he was trying to make by it is not self-evident here). 围绕伊索的故事层出不穷，这些故事让他置身于各种情境中，通过讲述寓言来阐明某些观点。如前所述，有时情境是为配合已有寓言而创设，更多时候情境与寓言是同步创作的。我们无从考证这些事件中有多少是史实，正如无法确认哪些寓言确系他本人所作——或许只有《狐狸与刺猬》例外（亚里士多德在《修辞学》中提及此篇），以及他在德尔斐民众面前为求生而引用的《鹰与蜣螂》（尽管此处他想论证的观点并不显而易见）。
One such for instance, is the fable of The Mule (C.128, H.157, B.62) in which Plutarch makes Aesop the narrator and the mule a Lydian, ^(19){ }^{19} which Rutherford, (on the principle mentioned by us of attributing to the master creations by his pupils), quoting the ancient proverb “of the father is the son’s” (tou patros to paidion) rather cruelly says he would ask Plutarch’s leave "to take this fable out of Aesop’s mouth “and drop it, like a fig, into his own”. ^(20){ }^{20} The works of Babrius and Phaedrus are sufficient evidence of the extent to which the term ‘Aesopic’ came to be extended and went on to include even some of the popular myths and historical anecdotes, which were obviously anachronistic as far as old Aesop himself was concerned. 例如，《骡子的寓言》（C.128，H.157，B.62）就是这样一个例子。普鲁塔克让伊索担任叙述者，而骡子则是一个吕底亚人。卢瑟福引用古谚"有其父必有其子"（tou patros to paidion），基于我们提到的将学生创作归功于导师的原则，相当刻薄地表示要请求普鲁塔克允许"从伊索口中取出这个寓言，像无花果一样丢进自己嘴里"。巴布里乌斯和费德鲁斯的作品充分证明了"伊索式"这一术语的扩展程度，甚至开始包含一些明显与老伊索本人时代不符的流行神话和历史轶事。
The incident which involves the death of Aesop, being itself relevant to the plot of a jataka, the Manicora (No. 194), will be dealt with again elsewhere. Suffice it for the present that the explanation for his visit to Delphi where this took place, cannot be accepted as a very convincing one if the display of his wisdom, which is what is given as such, was in the nature of the narration of fables. 涉及伊索之死的事件本身与《摩尼拘罗本生》（第 194 号）的情节相关，将在其他地方再次讨论。目前只需说明，如果他在德尔斐展示智慧（给出的解释如此）的性质是讲述寓言，那么对他前往该地的解释很难令人信服。
Fables by themselves are simple and discrete so as not to lend themselves to be strung together easily and without at least the help of a continuous frame story. Nor is there evidence in that antiquity in Greece of anything approximating Ovid’s Metamorphoses or the Indian Pancatantra and Hitopadesa whereby a concatenation of fables had been presented for the delectation of a stable audience. It is even quite unlikely that fables were then presented in verse, a thing which we find Socrates attempting to do in his last days in jail, and for which Babrius, Phaedrus and Avianus later became deservedly popular. If, as we saw, sporadic fables were cast into verse in their use in early Greek literature, it was because those particular literary works themselves were in verse and do not evidence the existence either of the independent fables in verse form or as being extracts from a continuous work put together from fables. 寓言本身简单而独立，难以轻易串联成篇，至少需要借助一个连贯的框架故事。古希腊时期也未见任何类似奥维德《变形记》或印度《五卷书》《益世嘉言》的作品——即通过寓言串联来取悦固定受众的创作形式。当时甚至不太可能以诗体呈现寓言，尽管我们知晓苏格拉底在狱中最后时日曾尝试此事，而巴布里乌斯、费德鲁斯与阿维亚努斯后来也因此广受赞誉。正如前文所见，早期希腊文学中偶有寓言被赋予诗体形式，实因那些特定文学作品本身采用诗体创作，既不能证明存在独立成篇的诗体寓言，也无法说明它们摘录自某部由寓言连缀而成的连续性作品。
Plutarch says Aesop went to Delphi as an envoy of Croesus, the fabulously rich Lydian king, on official business. This is, as said earlier, quite improbable and is no doubt an invention based on the fictitious relationship of Aesop and Croesus and Croesus’ own close association with the temple of Apollo in Delphi, to which Herodotus says he sent many valuable gifts, some items of which he himself saw. 普鲁塔克记载伊索曾作为吕底亚巨富国王克洛伊索斯的使节，因公务前往德尔斐。如前所述，这极不可能，无疑是基于伊索与克洛伊索斯的虚构关系以及克洛伊索斯本人与德尔斐阿波罗神庙的密切往来而编造的——据希罗多德所述，克洛伊索斯曾向该神庙进献诸多珍宝，其中部分贡品希罗多德曾亲眼得见。
Despite the unreliability of some of these details, there is no necessity to doubt the central points that Aesop did go to Delphi and that he died at the hands of the people there, which are vouched for us by both Herodotus and Aristophanes. What the offence was, the question of his guilt and the manner in which he was put to death stoning or being hurled down from a cliff - we cannot be certain about, except perhaps that a gold cup figured in the case. 尽管这些细节未必可靠，但伊索确实曾赴德尔斐并死于当地人之手这两个核心事实，我们无需质疑——希罗多德与阿里斯托芬的著作均可佐证。至于具体罪名、其是否确有罪责、以及处决方式（用石头砸死或从悬崖抛下），我们已无从确证，仅能推测此案或许涉及一只金杯。
One can be pretty sure that, if he did exist (as I think he did) Aesop was a popular and picturesque character who, though he used his childish mode of philosophic expression involving animals that talked, was at once recognized for the shrewdness of his insight and quick comprehension of human nature. At the same time he stood as the exponent of the common man’s wisdom as against the abstruse teachings of the Greek philosophers of his time and after, 我们可以相当确定，如果伊索确有其人（我认为他确实存在），他必定是个广受欢迎且形象鲜明的人物。尽管他采用孩童般稚拙的哲学表达方式——让动物开口说话，但人们立即就认识到他对人性敏锐的洞察力与迅捷的理解力。与此同时，他代表着普通民众的智慧，与当时及后世希腊哲学家们晦涩难懂的学说形成鲜明对比，
who for the most part, addressed the intelligentsia, and in some cases, like Heracleitus, openly spurned the masses as fools. It is probable that he was a deceptively shrewd orator, who talked to the people in a language they could understand and now and again fell back characteristically on his simple animal fables to get this point across in debate or pleading. 那些哲学家大多只面向知识阶层发言，有些人——比如赫拉克利特——甚至公开将大众蔑视为愚民。很可能伊索是位大智若愚的演说家，他用民众能理解的语言交谈，在辩论或劝诫时，总会适时回归他那些质朴的动物寓言，以此鲜明地传达自己的观点。
Aesop was always talked of as ‘old’ - he is never young. This is partly the literary portraiture of a man who spoke to others with his great empirical wisdom as a father or grandfather to children. It is also part of his portraiture that he was an exceptionally ugly and misshapen little man whose appearance, like that of Socrates and the philosopher’s clarity of thought, contrasted strikingly with his brilliant sallies of wit. ^(21){ }^{21} He is said to have made everyone laugh by his grotesque manner and stammering speech. But again this description may have been elicited from the somewhat quaint and amusing quality of the Aesopic fable - the aisopikon geloion of Aristophanes, with the stammer thrown in to add further colour to the characterization. 伊索总被称作"老"伊索——他从未年轻过。这部分源于文学形象的塑造：他以父亲或祖父般的身份，用丰富的生活智慧向人们讲述道理。其形象的另一特点是，他是个异常丑陋、身形畸形的小个子，外表——如同苏格拉底那般——与哲学家清晰的思想形成鲜明对比，却与他闪耀的机智妙语相映成趣。据说他那古怪的举止和口吃的谈吐总逗得众人发笑。但这种描述或许源自伊索寓言本身那种奇特而有趣的特性——即阿里斯托芬笔下"令人发笑的伊索式故事"，而口吃特征则为人物刻画增添了更多色彩。
How close this dramatic portrayal of Aesop came up to the actual man we can never know. Judging from the nature of the fable in which he revelled, it is a good portrait. But then, this is just what must have evoked the description we have of him in the first instance. Visual representation of the fabulist which preserves this characterization comes to us from a red-figure cup of c. 460 B.C. now in the Vatican. Here, in a circular field, Aesop, wrapped in a sheet from shoulders to feet, sits upon a rock with a gavel-like instrument in his hand, listening to a fox (or may be a dog), who faces him, also seated on its haunches upon a rock, and appears, by its uplifted right paw and its open mouth, to be lecturing him. Aesop’s head is many times too big for his body, and thus makes his depiction caricaturistic. He is bald in the front of his forward-sloping 我们永远无法得知这幅对伊索的戏剧性描绘与真实人物有多接近。从他所钟爱的寓言性质来看，这堪称一幅传神的肖像。但这也正是最初激发我们对其描述的原因所在。关于这位寓言家形象化的呈现，保存于公元前 460 年左右的一个红绘杯上，现藏于梵蒂冈。杯面圆形画面中，伊索身披长袍自肩及踝，手握木槌状器具端坐岩石之上，正聆听一只面对他的狐狸（或许是狗）——后者同样蹲坐岩上，抬起右爪张开嘴，似在对他训话。伊索的头部与身体比例严重失调，形成夸张的漫画效果。他前倾的额头光秃无发，
head, but the long hair round the pate hangs about his ears and shoulders. He has a moustache under a big protuberant nose, and stubble on the jaws of a thin face which terminate in small pointed beard. The scene cannot be that which Aristophanes evoked in the Wasps of Aesop reprimanding a noisy bitch on the road; these are both seated facing each other. So we must assume a purely abstract situation of the fabulist in animated conversation with a fox-one of the principal characters of the fables called after him. 头颅周围的长发垂落耳际与肩头。他蓄着浓密胡须，高耸的鼻梁下是一撮小胡子，瘦削面庞的下颌布满胡茬，最终收束成尖细的山羊胡。此场景绝非阿里斯托芬在《马蜂》中所描绘的伊索训斥路上狂吠母犬的情景——画中二者是相对而坐的姿态。因此我们只能设想这是寓言家与狐狸（以其命名的寓言故事中核心角色之一）进行生动对话的纯粹抽象场景。
Beast stories are part of the folk literature of people all over the world. Such stories had their origin among primitive peoples who lived in jungle surroundings and in close association with animals, hunting them as much as being hunted by them, and being conscious of no great difference between human beings and brute creation. To the mind of the savage thus there was not very much difference between the spirits of men and animals as there was not in the bodily needs, functions, instincts and behaviour between them. He saw them as composed of clans and tribes similar to his own and as capable of thought and speech like his kind, being born, living and dying like himself. 野兽故事是世界各民族民间文学的组成部分。这类故事起源于生活在丛林环境中的原始民族，他们与动物密切接触，既猎杀动物也被动物猎杀，并不认为人类与兽类存在本质差异。在原始人的观念中，人与动物的灵魂并无太大区别，正如两者在生理需求、机能、本能和行为上亦无二致。他们将动物视为与自身相似的氏族部落，认为动物能像人类一样思考言语，经历出生、生存与死亡的循环。
It is this primitive acceptance of other sorts of creatures as similar to his own and gave rise to the beast story which also lay at the base of totemism, the belief in animal-metamorphoses and in transmigration in earliest human societies. For the notion that the human spirit could equally well be at home in an animal body (a notion which in his understanding of it Aristotle found hard to accept, ^(32){ }^{32} with no thought of it being incongruous or degrading must suggest a degree of equality or even kinship as between man and beast. 正是这种对其他生物与自身相似的原始认同催生了动物故事，同时也构成了图腾崇拜、动物变形信仰以及早期人类社会灵魂转世观念的基础。因为人类灵魂同样可以栖居于动物躯体这一观念（亚里士多德在理解时难以接受的观点 ^(32){ }^{32} ），且丝毫不认为这种想法有何不妥或贬低人性，必然暗示着人与动物之间存在某种程度的平等甚至亲缘关系。
Beast stories continued to come up at a more developed stage of society in which farming and animal husbandry became popular sources of livelihood. At this level of social evolution, it is true man came into more continuous and close association with at least 在农业和畜牧业成为普遍谋生方式的更发达社会阶段，动物故事仍持续涌现。确实，在这个社会进化阶段，人类至少与某些动物建立了更持续而紧密的关联。
certain animals and birds. But by this time he was also conscious of his superiority to them, having learned to domesticate those that were of service to him, while also hunting down or warding off with greater confidence and success those who would not be domesticated, by the use of his most superior weapon - intelligence. In addition to wild beasts like the lion, the ape, the bear, the stag and even the crocodile, whom he feared or who feared him, there comes in a new range of animals whom he has tamed for his service (and indeed food) who relied on his conditional and perhaps temporary protection, the ox, the sheep, the ass, the dog, and so on, and likewise his stories reflect this intimate acquaintance with these several creatures, his observation and interaction with them, not to mention, of them themselves with each other. 某些动物和鸟类。但此时他已意识到自己凌驾于它们之上的优越性——通过驯化那些对人类有益的物种，同时更自信且高效地运用最强大的武器——智慧，来猎杀或驱逐那些无法被驯服的生灵。除了令他畏惧或畏惧他的狮子、猿猴、熊、鹿甚至鳄鱼等猛兽外，还出现了被他驯化为劳力（甚至食物）的新物种：依赖人类有条件或许短暂保护的牛、羊、驴、狗等。相应地，这些故事也反映出他与各类生灵的密切接触，既有对它们的观察与互动，更不乏它们彼此间的相处图景。
All beast stories are however not fables, and there can, and do exist a large number of fables that do not involve beasts. In the Aesopica are many which involve gods or men, and some in which not merely trees and natural objects but artefacts and even parts of creatures and things are the participants. Even so, the fact that the very large majority of the Aesopic fables are stories involving beasts, birds, fish shows that beast fable could not only have been the original but was also the most popular type of Aesopic fable. The two we have which can with any confidence be attributed to Aesop himself are certainly of this sort. 然而，并非所有动物故事都属寓言，确实存在大量不涉及动物的寓言。在《伊索寓言》中，许多故事以神或人为角色，还有些不仅让树木和自然物发声，甚至让人工制品及生物躯体的局部参与叙事。即便如此，伊索寓言中绝大多数故事仍以兽、鸟、鱼类为主角，这表明动物寓言不仅可能是最初形态，更是伊索寓言中最受欢迎的类型。现存两篇可确信出自伊索之手的作品，正属此类。
What then is it that differentiates the fable from the beast story in general? It is evidently something more than the narrative or the observation on the animal character found in it. It is rather the moral, teaching or comment on humanity itself that is implicit, either in the narrative or in the animal nature manifest in it, or both. And this is what is pin-pointed in the brief but effective definition of the fable given by the second century rhetorician, Aelius Theon in his Progymnasmata. Theon defines fable in the Aesopic mode as “a fictitious story depicting a truth” (logos pseudes eikonizōn aletheian). The story itself may be ever so brief and be pure narrative, or it may be a bit more expansive to help or create the necessary scenario for the dramatic occurrence or verbal rejoinder or repartee. Yet in either case, the story confines itself to a single 那么，究竟是什么将寓言与一般的动物故事区分开来呢？显然，这不仅仅是其中包含的叙事或对动物特性的观察。更关键的是隐含在叙事中或通过动物本性展现的——抑或两者兼具的——对人类自身的道德训诫、教诲或评论。这一点在公元二世纪修辞学家埃利乌斯·忒翁（Aelius Theon）于《初阶练习》（Progymnasmata）中给出的简短而精辟的寓言定义中得到精准概括。忒翁将伊索式寓言定义为"虚构却映射真理的故事"（logos pseudes eikonizōn aletheian）。这类故事可能极其简短且纯粹叙事，也可能稍加铺陈以营造必要场景，促成戏剧性事件或妙语交锋。但无论哪种情况，故事都始终聚焦于单一
episode (even when fragmented) which is of a historical nature against an indiscriminate Greek backdrop, unless there is need to be more specific of place or country. Such fables, whether involving beasts, birds, fish etc., if the fable is an animal fable, or gods, human beings, plants, natural phenomena, artefacts etc. if not strictly animal, are nearly always realistic, with little or nothing of the monstrous or fantastic that is found in fairytale, myth or marchen. If there is aught that is unrealistic, it is the feature that these nonhuman participants, while retaining their characteristically generic nature, also think, speak and behave like human beings. 一段（即便是碎片化的）具有历史性质的希腊背景故事，除非需要具体指明地点或国家。这类寓言，无论是涉及野兽、鸟类、鱼类等（若是动物寓言），或是神祇、人类、植物、自然现象、人造物等（若非严格意义上的动物寓言），几乎总是写实的，极少或完全没有童话、神话或民间故事中常见的奇幻或怪诞元素。若说有何不现实之处，那就是这些非人类角色在保持其物种特征的同时，却像人类一样思考、言谈和行事。
These characters of fable then are part of the fictitious element which make the story, and their very non-human quality serve to objectify and typicalize it for universal application. But at the same time the humanization of the speech and conduct of these non-human creatures and things help to spell out the ‘truth’ that is generally evaluative, not of these non-rational, non-moral participants themselves but of human character and human conduct. It is this dimension of fable that, for the most part, makes fable in the Aesopic mode. To go back to Theon’s definition - while the fictitious story is of animal, natural phenomenon or whatever, the truth depicted is essentially human-oriented: 这些寓言角色正是构成故事的虚构元素，其非人类的特质恰恰使故事客观化、典型化，从而具有普适性。但与此同时，这些非人类生物与事物的言行拟人化，又清晰阐明了某种具有普遍评判性的"真理"——这种真理评判的对象并非这些非理性、无道德可言的参与者本身，而是人类品格与人类行为。正是寓言的这一维度，在很大程度上造就了伊索式寓言的特质。回到忒翁的定义——虽然虚构故事的主角是动物、自然现象或其他非人存在，但所描绘的真理本质上始终以人类为中心：
In the light of such a definition or description many stories that have come to be included among the Aesopica would not truly be ‘Aesopic’, not having in them the implicit observation on human character or conduct that is required of them to make them truly so. Among this sort are the aetiological fables, which attempt to explain how this or that phenomenon came to be such as it is. To wit, one of the oldest, and attributed to Aesop himself, The Eagle and the Dung Beetle, which, though it may have a lesson in revenge, can be taken to also explain why eagles will not lay eggs where beetles are around. There is also the fable of Zeus and the Tortoise (C.125, H.154, P.106, Hs.108) which gives the fabulous circumstances which condemned the tortoise to carry his house upon his back wherever he went; or The Asses to Zeus (H.319) which seeks to explain why, when one ass urinates, another will add his own contribution to it. Two other aetiological fables explain why ants 根据这样的定义或描述，许多被归入《伊索寓言》的故事其实并不真正具有"伊索式"特质——它们缺乏对人性或行为的隐含观察，而这正是真正伊索寓言所必需的。这类作品中包括那些试图解释特定现象成因的起源寓言。例如最古老的、被归为伊索本人创作的《鹰与蜣螂》，虽然可能包含复仇的训诫，但也可以理解为解释为何鹰不在有甲虫出没的地方产卵。还有《宙斯与乌龟》（编号 C.125/H.154/P.106/Hs.108）这则寓言，用奇幻情节解释了乌龟为何终生背负甲壳行走；或是《驴子向宙斯请愿》（H.319）试图说明为何当一头驴排尿时，另一头驴总会跟着排泄。另外两则起源寓言则分别解释了蚂蚁为何
are giyen to theft (The Ant C.240, H.294, P.166, Hs.175) and why large men are unintelligent (Zeus and Men C.120, H.150, P.108, Hs.110). 天生爱偷窃（《蚂蚁》编号 C.240/H.294/P.166/Hs.175），以及为何身材高大者往往愚钝（《宙斯与人类》编号 C.120/H.150/P.108/Hs.110）。
Another sort of story which would not be fable in this narrow sense is that which involves a duel between two parties, as between The North Wind and the Sun (H.2), which was, as Athenaeus is evidence, referred to by Sophocles in an epigram addressed to Euripides. Sun and North Wind, as is known, strove in turn to strip a way farer of his clothes, with the Sun winning by using persuasion as against the force exerted by the North Wind. 另一种不属于狭义寓言的叙事类型，是双方对决的故事，例如《北风与太阳》（H.2）——根据雅典纳乌斯的记载，索福克勒斯曾在致欧里庇得斯的警句诗中提及这个典故。众所周知，太阳与北风轮流尝试剥去旅人的衣裳，最终太阳以温和的劝诱战胜了北风的蛮力。
All such stories may however be capable of having a moral or educative observation eked out of them. But where the fable is not fable in the truest sense, such a ‘moral’ is not self-evident; instead of being the whole point of the story, it could be something of an accidental nature. Yet all these fables too depict some truth, even when that truth is not strictly of a moral nature or an observation on human conduct; and then it is its fictitious nature, as against the scientific that retains for it the quality of fable. 不过这类故事仍可引申出道德训诫或教育意义。但当故事并非严格意义上的寓言时，其"寓意"便非不言自明；它可能只是故事的偶然属性，而非核心主旨。尽管如此，这些寓言仍揭示了某种真理，即便这种真理未必关乎道德准则或人类行为观察；正是其虚构性（与科学性相对）的特质，使其保留了寓言的本质属性。
Be that as it may, it was surely the moralistic dimension that fable was capable of, and often did manifest, which would have drawn Socrates’ own interest in the last days of his life into putting them into poetry (how many of them, and how good a poet he was, we shall never know) upon the insistent dream in which Apollo called upon him to “practise the arts” ^(23){ }^{23}. 尽管如此，寓言所蕴含且常彰显的道德教化维度，必然吸引了苏格拉底在生命最后时日将其谱写成诗（他究竟创作了多少篇，诗艺又达到何等境界，我们永远无从知晓）。这一切源于那个反复出现的梦境——阿波罗神谕令他"践行艺术"。
This “truth” that a fable reflected came to be presented as a moral at the head (then called a promuthion) or at the conclusion (epimuthion) when they came to be published in Christian times. Evidently what we have in this nature along with the fables is of inferior scholarship and often fail to sit four-square with the fables. As much blame must also be laid upon the blatant and often stupid effort on the part of their composers to influence readers to view these pagan fables from a Christian perspective. 当这些寓言在基督教时代结集出版时，其反映的"真理"开始以道德箴言的形式呈现，或置于篇首（当时称为 promuthion），或附于文末（epimuthion）。显然，我们现今所见的这类寓言附注学术价值有限，往往与寓言本体格格不入。这很大程度上要归咎于编纂者那些露骨而时常愚蠢的尝试——他们竭力引导读者从基督教视角来解读这些异教寓言。
The origin of such tags must antedate their Christianization for they seem to have a functional significance in rhetoric. They were not, as one might think, promptings for the dull-witted to appreciate the fables’ lessons, rather, they served as quick indices for speakers who wished to reinforce, illuminate or even alleviate their argumentation with an appropriate fable or two. 这类标签的起源必定早于其基督教化时期，因为它们似乎在修辞中具有功能性意义。它们并非如人们所想的那般，是为了让愚钝者领会寓言寓意而设的提示，而是为演讲者提供的快速索引——当演讲者希望用一两则恰当寓言来强化、阐明甚至缓和其论点时，便能即刻调用。
Literary historians have generally erred in looking for the origin of the fable, in the true sense of the word, in the narrative material out of which fables have been made. The history of such material, as was briefly shown, while it can lend itself to the evolution of the fable, will not transform itself into such until the special function and metaphorical orientation, which organizes and enlists that material as fable, had come into force. 文学史家们普遍存在一个误区：他们试图从构成寓言的叙事素材中，寻找严格意义上寓言的起源。正如前文简要所示，此类素材的历史虽能促成寓言的演变，但只有在特定的功能与隐喻导向——即将这些素材组织并征用为寓言的机制——生效之后，它们才会真正转化为寓言。
This particular purpose of the fable, i.e. the evaluation, criticism and direction of human conduct, is not possible except in a society that is culturally fairly advanced - in other words, a self-conscious, self-critical society, that, while being still rural enough to understand and appreciate the beast story, is sophisticated enough to remark the great distinction between man and beast, and hold up the society of beasts and their doings in detachment from his own as a curious mirror which both reflected and evaluated the behaviour of men. Thus, if we look for the origin of fable in naïve beast story or in epic, as some have done, we shall not easily find it, because stories of that kind, not intended to teach anything by implication but told and heard for their sheer story value are found in many parts of the world from time immemorial. The fact that the beast fable achieves its effect through a degree of caricature invests it with the quality of quaintness which, in the case of the Greek, Aristophanes, great humorist himself, so neatly expressed in the phrase aisopikon geleion, thus showing due deference to the especial quality of the Aesopic fable and the genius of its creator. 寓言这一特定目的——即对人类行为进行评价、批评和引导——唯有在文化相当发达的社会中才可能实现。换言之，这是一个具有自我意识与自我批判精神的社会：它既保留着足够的乡土气息来理解并欣赏动物故事，又具备足够的文明素养来觉察人兽之间的巨大差异，并能将动物世界及其行为与人类社会抽离对照，将其作为一面奇特的镜子，既映照又评判着人类行为。因此，若像某些学者那样试图从质朴的动物故事或史诗中寻找寓言的起源，我们将难有所获——因为这类单纯以故事性为目的、不蕴含教化意图的叙事，自远古以来便广泛存在于世界各地。 动物寓言通过某种程度的夸张手法达成其效果，这一事实赋予了它奇趣的特质。希腊伟大喜剧作家阿里斯托芬用"伊索式的诙谐"（aisopikon geleion）一词精妙地表达了这种特质，既彰显了对伊索寓言独特品质的敬意，也体现了对其创作者天才的认可。
What then, it may be asked, was the popular context of fable. True, it will be found that fable accommodates itself within all forms of literature; but as from the first its origin and function is to be sought in oratory. Fable provides an intriguing rhetorical mode in which a 那么，有人可能会问，寓言的大众语境究竟是什么。诚然，我们会发现寓言适应于所有文学形式；但从最初起，其起源与功能就应当从演说术中探寻。寓言提供了一种引人入胜的修辞模式，
point could be isolated, framed in a new and unique manner, with the participants in the issue re-presented by beasts, birds, plants - or even anonymous other human beings, to get the point home that the speaker desired in a witty, engaging and telling manner. As such it had an immediate appeal - for who does not like to hear a story if he did not think he himself was being trifled with, like Bdelucleon in the Wasps? 它能够将论点抽离出来，以新颖独特的方式呈现，通过野兽、飞禽、植物——甚至匿名的其他人类来重新演绎事件参与者，从而以机智、生动且有力的方式传达演说者期望的核心观点。正因如此，寓言具有直接的吸引力——毕竟谁不愿意听个故事呢？只要听者不觉得自己像《马蜂》中的布得吕克勒翁那样被人戏弄。
A good example of the effectiveness of the Aesopic fable in oratory is seen in a fable itself, which is simply referred to as The Orator Demades (C.96, H.117, Hs.63). Here Demades (fl. 350 319 B.C.) is made to use a fable upon an inattentive audience in order to revile them of that same love of Aesopic fables that makes them immediately pay heed to him. ^(24){ }^{24} Likewise there is that story that Stesichorus, finding that the people of Himera were intending to choose Phalaris as general and give him a bodyguard, used a fable, that of The Horse and the Stag (H.175) - to show them the folly of what they were going to do. But the best evidence of the origin and efficacy of fable in rhetoric are the two fables attributed to Aesop himself on good evidence, that of the fox and the hedgehog which he narrated in his speech for the embezzler in Samos, and the other, of the fox and the eagle which he told in the speech before the Delphians in his own defence. 伊索寓言在演说中效力的一个绝佳例证见于一则名为《演说家德马德斯》（C.96, H.117, Hs.63）的寓言本身。故事中德马德斯（活跃于公元前 350-319 年）面对心不在焉的听众讲述了一则寓言，以此谴责他们——正是这种对伊索寓言的热爱使他们立刻专注聆听。 ^(24){ }^{24} 同样还有斯特西克鲁斯的故事：当发现希梅拉民众打算推选法拉里斯为将军并配备卫队时，他通过《马与鹿》（H.175）这则寓言向人们揭示其决策的愚蠢。但最能证明寓言修辞起源与效力的，是两则确有依据归于伊索本人的寓言：其一是他在萨摩斯为贪污者辩护时讲述的《狐狸与刺猬》；另一则是他在德尔斐人为自己辩护时所述的《狐狸与鹰》。
A resourceful orator would have been able to invent fables on the spur of the moment. This must have been Aesop’s virtuosity. But in course of time and with the growing popularity of fable in rhetoric, repertoires appear to have been compiled for the assistance of 一位机智的演说家能够即兴创作寓言故事。这想必就是伊索的过人之处。但随着时间推移，随着寓言在修辞学中日益流行，为演说者编纂的寓言集开始出现，就像我们这个时代流行的谚语集、格言集和名言录那样。
speakers, like the collections of proverbs, apophthegms and quotable quotes that are popular in our own times. Such fable banks, presented briefly and in terse prose, supplied the consultant a range of motifs from which he could choose, rather than, like the versifications of a Babrius, Phaedrus or Avianus, or for that matter, the attempts of Socrates in jail on the behest of Apollo, sought to be works of literary excellence. 这些以简洁散文体呈现的寓言资料库，为使用者提供了可供选择的故事母题库，而非像巴布里乌斯、费德鲁斯或阿维亚努斯的诗体寓言，或是苏格拉底在阿波罗授意下于狱中尝试创作的作品那样，追求文学性的卓越成就。
As said earlier, when applied before the fable, as a promuthion, the moral would have served as a index for ready reference and the convenience of the writer or orator on the look out for a fable he could use. But since such promuthia were also expressions of the fables’ moral import, they were alternately added after some fables, thus, in the form of epimuthia, catching up their moral intention in place of serving as an index of sorts. But then one had only to raise or dip one’s eyes, whether it be for one purpose or the other. 如前所述，当道德训诫作为开场白应用于寓言之前时，它本可作为快速检索的索引，便于作者或演说者寻找适用的故事。但由于这类开场白同样承载着寓言的道德意涵，它们有时也会被添加在某些故事的结尾，以收场白的形式捕捉其道德意图，而非充当某种索引功能。不过无论出于何种目的，人们只需抬一抬眼或垂一垂眸便能领会。
In form the fable is a dramatic, if miniscule story, with a situation laid out by the narrative, which leads either to a striking outcome or otherwise a tart observation by a participant or observer, or as often, to a remark by one party, and a smart rejoinder by another. The situation is laid out quickly and in the simplest and most effective manner. One situation may lead to a counter situation in the manoeuvring for the position required for the dramatic happening, the verbal exchange or pointed comment at which the fable aims. Dialogue or observation, when it comes, is likewise brief and to the point, often terse and cutting. Indeed one may say that brevity and speed are the soul of fable. 寓言在形式上是一种戏剧性的、尽管微小的故事，通过叙述快速而简洁地铺陈情境，导向一个引人注目的结局，或是参与者、旁观者尖锐的点评，更常见的是由一方发表见解，另一方则以机敏的反驳回应。情境的构建迅捷而高效，一个情境可能引发另一个对立情境，为达成寓言所追求的戏剧性事件、言语交锋或犀利评论而展开策略性布局。对话或评述同样简短扼要，往往精炼而一针见血。可以说，简洁与迅捷正是寓言之魂。
Since fable is a form of popular or folk literature, it naturally reflects the ideas of ordinary people about the general conduct of life. It has little to do with the higher ideals of virtue and perfection reached for in the teachings of sages and philosophers. The advice given in the fable is mostly such as makes for a comfortable and successful social life rather than an ethically good one. It belongs more with practical wisdom, recommending loyalty, gratitude, industry, foresight, keeping to one’s limits and so on. Often enough the teaching is not moralistic at all but merely counsels 由于寓言属于通俗或民间文学形式，自然反映了普通人对生活常规行为的看法。它与圣贤哲人所追求的高尚美德和完美境界关系甚微。寓言给出的建议大多旨在获得舒适成功的社会生活，而非道德上的完善，更偏向实用智慧——推崇忠诚、感恩、勤勉、远见、恪守本分等品质。其训导往往根本不涉及道德说教，仅仅是基于对他人性格行为的观察，给出趋利避害的劝诫
advantage and profit based on the observation of other people’s character and behaviour, and sometimes even degenerates to advice that is quite immoral, e.g. obtaining revenge for a wrong suffered, getting on in life by subservience to the powers that be, profiting by others’ misfortunes and mistakes, turning a situation to one’s benefit or gain. More than once the same condition is shown to be now good, now bad; often enough might is shown to be right, and equally often, that the meek and the weak have their moments of usefulness or triumph. 有时甚至堕落为明显不道德的建言，例如为所受冤屈实施报复、通过谄媚权贵谋求前程、从他人的不幸与错误中渔利、将局势转化为个人利益等。同一处境常被表现为时而有利时而有害；强权即公理的场景屡见不鲜，而温顺弱者偶现用处或赢得胜利的案例亦同样频繁。
Thus it would appear that the Aesopic fable had its birth and popularity at a time when Greek society, conscious of some idea of the good life, was seeking patterns of behaviour that would advance this. It is no surprise then that soon the fable was to become a prominent instrument for the imparting of practical wisdom even when the good life came to be recognized as something other than the life of unscrupulous social and political success and material well-being. 由此可见，伊索寓言诞生并盛行于希腊社会时期，当时人们已意识到美好生活的理念，正寻求能促进这种生活的行为模式。因此，当美好生活逐渐被理解为超越不择手段的社会政治成功与物质富足时，寓言很快成为传授实践智慧的重要工具也就不足为奇了。
When Socrates decided to put Aesop into verse upon Apollo’s behest to practise the arts, he set about doing so without resort to any text. He relied on memory. This may not only be because these fables were ever so brief but also because their transmission was in and though an oral tradition; no collection seems to have existed in writing in his day, most certainly no collection in poetry. Yet it is evident that by this time a considerable number of Aesopic fables were in existence and popular among the people. The earliest collection of Aesopic fables we have record of is a work in prose by Demetrius of Phaleron, orator and antequarian scholar, late fourth century B.C., who was a close associate of Theophrastus (who was the successor to Aristotle in his school) and had been of considerable help to him. According to our source for this, Diogenes Laertius, it was a one-book scroll and was called the Aesopica. It is probable that by his time the fable had begun to be used as a progymnasma for the training of the young in rhetoric and was in full use as such by the time of Babrius, as evidenced by the Progymnasmata of Hermogenes, an earlier contemporary of Babrius. It was apparently for this reason that Nicostratus, who lived at the time of Hermogenes, 当苏格拉底奉阿波罗之命将伊索寓言改写成韵文以练习艺术时，他并未借助任何文本，仅凭记忆进行创作。这不仅因为那些寓言极为简短，更因其传承始终依托口述传统；在他那个时代似乎尚未出现书面汇编，更遑论诗体合集。但显然此时已有大量伊索寓言流传于世并广受欢迎。现存记载中最早的伊索寓言集是公元前四世纪末法勒伦的演说家兼古物学者德米特里所著的散文体作品，此人与亚里士多德学园继承者泰奥弗拉斯托斯过从甚密，并曾给予其重要帮助。据第欧根尼·拉尔修记载，这部名为《伊索传奇》的著作以单卷轴形式流传。很可能到德米特里时代，寓言已开始作为修辞训练的初级教材使用，至巴布里乌斯时期更被广泛运用——与巴布里乌斯同时代稍早的赫摩根尼在其《初级修辞练习》中便提供了明证。 显然正是由于这个原因，与赫尔墨吉尼斯同时代的尼科斯特拉图斯
compiled a whole decamuthia, ten books of fables, a work which Hermogenes mentions in his Concerning Forms. ^(25){ }^{25} Demetrius’ work seems to have been extant up to the tenth century. B.C. at least and served as the source of later writers such as Plutarch, Dio Chrisostom and Lucian, as well as Phaedrus and Babrius. No other collections were known till Phaedrus (a slave from Macedonia, who spent most of his life in Rome and was liberated there in the time of Caesar Augustus) ^(26){ }^{26} brought out his five books of Aesopic fables in Latin verse. These included many fables of which we have Greek versions, and others which, though not otherwise known, are doubtlessly of Greek origin, and a few which are very late and perhaps his own creations. Most of them are well told in simple and concise language made attractive by a liveliness and charm, though there are a few that are poor stuff ruined by unnecessary detail and explanation. 编纂了整套《十卷寓言集》，这部被赫尔墨吉尼斯在《论形式》中提及的作品。 ^(25){ }^{25} 德米特里的著作似乎至少存续至公元前十世纪，并成为普鲁塔克、狄奥·克里索斯托姆、卢西安以及费德鲁斯与巴布里乌斯等后世作家的素材来源。在费德鲁斯（这位来自马其顿的奴隶大半生居于罗马，并于凯撒·奥古斯都时期获释） ^(26){ }^{26} 以拉丁韵文形式出版五卷《伊索寓言》之前，未见其他寓言集存世。该集收录的寓言中，部分存有希腊版本对应篇章，另一些虽无其他传世记载但无疑源自希腊，尚有少量极晚近之作或为其个人创作。多数寓言以生动迷人的简洁语言精妙呈现，然亦有少数篇章因冗余细节与解说而流于平庸。
The primary source of Phaedrus’ first book of fables was a small prose compendium in Greek which he refers to as “Aesop” - thus believing these to be more genuinely of the fabulist than others from other sources or his own compositions, which he calls “Aesopic in kind but not Aesop’s”. And since the only ^(6){ }^{6} such collection we have reliable record of is the single-scroll book of Demetrius of Phaleron published towards the end of the fourth century, B.C., it may be this work that Phaedrus refers as his ‘Aesop’. 菲德鲁斯《寓言集》第一卷的主要素材来源，是一部简短的希腊语散文体纲要，他称之为"伊索寓言"——因而认为这些寓言比其他来源或他自创的"伊索式而非伊索所作"的寓言更具真实性。鉴于现存可靠记载中唯一符合这一特征的合集，是公元前四世纪末法拉伦的德米特里所编撰的单卷本，很可能正是这部作品被菲德鲁斯称作他的"伊索"。
Fables continued to appear sporadically but with increasing popularity in the works of Greek authors of the first and second centuries A.D. Many appear in Plutarch’s biographies and moral essays, some are found in the satirical sketches of Lucian. 公元一至二世纪期间，寓言在希腊作家作品中虽零星出现却日益流行。普鲁塔克的传记与道德论著中包含多则，琉善的讽刺小品中亦可见其踪迹。
The oldest extant Greek collection of known authorship is that of Valerius Babrius, the hellenized Roman who lived not later than the second century A.D. - perhaps even the first century, if it was to 现存最古老的署名希腊寓言集出自罗马裔希腊化作家巴布里乌斯之手，其生活年代不晚于公元二世纪——若其作品确系为尼禄之子所作，甚或可能早至公元一世纪。
his fables in verse that Quintilian refers in his Institutio Oratoria, recommending the use of Aesopic fables in the education of children as a prelude to the study of rhetoric. Babrius gives over one hundred and forty fables, some known to us only from him, but several derived from earlier collections of which no record has been preserved. The style he adopts is affected and his treatment artificial. The Greek he uses is the cosmopolitan Greek in use at the time. ^(27){ }^{27} 昆体良在《雄辩术原理》中提及他的寓言诗作，推荐将伊索寓言作为儿童学习修辞学的启蒙读物。巴布里乌斯收录了 140 余则寓言，其中部分仅见于他的记载，另有多则源自现已失传的早期寓言集。其文风矫揉造作，处理方式亦显刻意。所用希腊语为当时通行的泛希腊化语言。
Babrius’ example of putting Aesopic fable into verse was imitated by others, who themselves invented Aesopic fables and thus clouded the tradition. About 400 A.D. the Roman Avianus composed forty two fables in Latin verse with Babrius as his main source, expanding the original narratives with much descriptive detail. The result is disappointing; the terseness and simplicity of the fable suffers considerably from the numerous distracting details, its efficacy by the failure to make it speedily, smartly and sharply. Even so, commentaries upon them and quotations from them show that his versions remained popular as literature for a long time. 巴布里乌斯以诗体改写伊索寓言的做法被后人效仿，这些仿作者又自行编造伊索式寓言，使得传统脉络变得模糊不清。公元 400 年左右，罗马人阿维阿努斯以巴布里乌斯为主要素材来源，用拉丁文创作了 42 则寓言诗，通过大量细节描写扩充了原始叙事。这种处理令人失望——过多的枝节描写严重损害了寓言应有的简洁质朴特质，拖沓的叙述节奏也削弱了寓言应有的迅捷犀利效果。尽管如此，后世对其作品的评注与引述表明，这些改编版本作为文学作品曾长期流行。
The compilations of Phaedrus and Babrius mark a new epoch in the history of the fable. For, with them fables, which were so far put forward to be used piecemeal in the service of oratory or as secondary illustration in literature, were now presented as poetical works for continuous reading like the myths in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (which may have been their ultimate model) - though yet nothing like the engagement of fables found in the Indian Pancatantra and its imitations, insetting several within a frame-story of a more elaborate nature. 菲德鲁斯与巴布里乌斯的汇编标志着寓言文学史上的新纪元。因为通过他们的创作，那些曾被零散运用于演说或作为文学次要例证的寓言，如今开始以完整诗作的形式呈现——就像奥维德《变形记》中的神话那样可供连续阅读（《变形记》很可能是其终极范本），尽管尚未达到印度《五卷书》及其仿作中那种将多个寓言嵌套在精心设计的框架故事里的复杂程度。
In addition to these metrical versions of known authorship, there exist more comprehensive compendia in Greek prose, of which neither the authors nor dates are known. These are preserved in thirty manuscripts and contain between them as much as three hundred 除这些作者明确的韵文体版本外，还存在更全面的希腊散文体寓言总集，其作者与年代均已失考。这些作品保存在三十份手稿中，合计收录多达三百
and fifty fables. Some modern scholars believe these are all later than the ninth century, basing their judgement on certain linguistic and other considerations. But it could well be that they derived from a pre-Christian source containing perhaps some pieces from the fourth century B.C. compilation of Demetrius of Phaleron. 五十则寓言。部分现代学者基于语言学等特征判定它们均晚于九世纪。但很可能这些作品源自基督教时代之前的文献，其中或许还包含公元前四世纪法勒伦的德米特里所编寓言集的某些篇章。
CHAPTER IV 第四章
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANIMALS EXOTIC CREATURES IN THE AESOPIC FABLES 源自《伊索寓言》中异域动物的论证
Mention has already been made of the contention on behalf of India as the land of origin of the similar motifs found in Greek fables and the Buddhist jatakas on the ground that India was more the home of folk story than Greece. In support of this is the likelihood that Aesop had come to Samos from the east - even if it be Phrygia that is the furthest east that he can be pushed back to - though this is not very far east when considering India. 前文已提及关于印度作为希腊寓言与佛教本生故事中相似母题发源地的论点，其依据在于印度比希腊更堪称民间故事的故乡。支持这一观点的佐证是：伊索很可能来自东方并抵达萨摩斯——即便将其出生地追溯至最东端的弗里吉亚——但考虑到印度时，此地实则并不算真正的东方。
The reluctance on the part of Orientalists to concede the opposite has been largely due to the prejudice that, to do so would be to compromise the whole of the wealth of Indian story, and then also much else, to this “western civilization”. The truth however is that only comparatively few motifs (even if they be far more than had earlier been suspected) are in fact involved in this issue. Indeed, as has been mentioned before, the greater cause for wonder would have been the absence of any literary influence from Greece upon India than the presence of it, seeing the impact Greek art had upon India and appreciating the long and emphatic presence of the Greeks on Indian soil following Alexander. 东方学者不愿承认相反观点的原因，很大程度上源于一种偏见——他们认为这样做会令印度丰富的故事宝库（甚至更多文化遗产）向"西方文明"妥协。然而事实是，真正涉及这个问题的母题其实相对有限（即便其数量远超早期猜测）。正如前文所述，考虑到希腊艺术对印度的影响，以及亚历山大大帝之后希腊人在印度土地上长期而显著的存在，若说希腊文学对印度毫无影响，反倒比存在影响更令人惊讶。
But the trump in the hand of those who were for the Indian origin of such fables - and one that when played has invariably hitherto left those for the priority of Greece without answer is that Greece was hardly home to some of the animals who figure in these same Greek fables. 但支持这些寓言源自印度的一方握有王牌——每当他们打出这张牌，主张希腊优先论者便哑口无言——因为某些出现在这些希腊寓言中的动物，在希腊本土几乎难觅踪迹。
The contention of certain scholars who would not let the case go by default to India, however, is such that it does not award the decision in favour of Greece either. For a rival claim is now made for Babylonia - not just as the land of origin of the Greek fable but also as a land to which all or many of those controversial animals of Greek fable were not unfamiliar - and from very ancient times at 然而，某些学者不愿将这一论断轻易归于印度，其主张却也并未将裁决授予希腊。因为如今巴比伦也提出了竞争性主张——不仅作为希腊寓言的发源地，更是早在远古时期就对这些希腊寓言中颇具争议的动物形象毫不陌生（正如其"智慧之书"所印证）。现存楔形文字泥板文献中记载的若干谚语与寓言，不仅涉及动物主题，更比希腊版本早出现数个世纪，极可能影响了希腊寓言的起源。
that, as is evidenced in her “wisdom books”. For in what survives of these writings in cuneiform on clay tablets are several proverbs and fables which not only involve animals but also antedate the Greek by several centuries and could very well have influenced the origin of the fable in Greece. （注：此处保留原文分段标记"%%"，但根据中文排版习惯，两个"%%"间实际为同一段落内容的自然分隔。若需严格遵循原文分段格式，可将"%%"间内容拆分为独立段落，但中文语境下会显得文意割裂。建议根据实际出版需求调整分段处理。）
Babylonia is of greater proximity to Greece and also pretty well known to the Greeks long before there was Greek intercourse with India. The historian Herodotus would not have been the first nor the earliest to have visited the land, as he had not been the first nor the earliest by any means to visit Egypt. Communication of the literature and knowledge of this ancient land westwards to Greece was facilitated by passage up the Euphrates and via the many fine civilizations that flourished in Mesopotamia and the Near East, not the least in Phrygia, which lay athwart the route to Asiatic Greece and adjacent islands including Samos, from where popular tradition had it that Aesop himself had come. 巴比伦尼亚与希腊地理上更为接近，早在希腊与印度交往之前就为希腊人所熟知。历史学家希罗多德既非造访该地的第一人，也绝非最早到访者，正如他绝非最早踏足埃及的旅行者一般。这片古老土地的文学与知识向西传入希腊的路径，依托幼发拉底河航道及美索不达米亚与近东诸多灿烂文明得以畅通——尤其是横亘在通往亚洲希腊及萨摩斯等邻近岛屿通道上的弗里吉亚，民间传说认为伊索本人正是来自此地。
Indeed, as has already been mentioned, the theory has surfaced in recent times that the phenomenon of the similarity of story motifs as between Greece and India should give serious consideration to the possibility that India herself had been indebted to this more ancient literature of Babylonia, with obvious access overland or via the Persian Gulf. In the sixth century B.C., both India and Babylonia came under Persian rule, when, if anything, trade and travel between these two regions would have increased considerably. 诚然，正如前文所述，近期学界出现一种理论认为：对于希腊与印度故事母题相似性现象，应当认真考虑印度本土可能曾受惠于更为古老的巴比伦文学这一假说——毕竟两地可通过陆路或波斯湾便捷往来。公元前六世纪，印度与巴比伦同属波斯帝国统治时期，若说有何变化，便是这两大区域间的商贸与人员往来必然大幅增加。
This stance is succinctly expressed by S.A.Handford when he writes: ^(1){ }^{1} S.A.汉德福德对此立场有过精辟表述，其文曰： ^(1){ }^{1}
“A collection of Indian fables, which was formerly supposed to have been a model for Greek fables, is now known to contain nothing earlier than the fourth century, and most of it is probably of much later origin. Moreover, the parallelism between the Greek and the Indian fables is rarely close enough to suggest direct dependence.” "曾被视作希腊寓言范本的印度寓言集，现已证实其内容最早不过公元前四世纪，且大部分很可能形成于更晚时期。再者，希腊与印度寓言间的相似性极少达到能暗示直接承袭关系的程度。"
Notable among scholars who are for displacing India in favour of a Babylonian connection is B.E.Perry, who in his Babrius and Phaedrus writes: ^(2){ }^{2} 主张以巴比伦渊源取代印度渊源的学者中，B.E.佩里尤为突出，其在《巴布里乌斯与费德鲁斯》中写道： ^(2){ }^{2}
“In the entire Greek tradition there is not, so far as I can see, a single fable that can be said to come either directly or indirectly from an Indian source; but many fables or fablemotifs which make their first appearance in Greek or Near Eastern literature are found later in the Pancatantra and other Indian story-books, including the Buddhist Jatakas.” “据我所知，在整个希腊传统中，没有一个寓言能确定是直接或间接源自印度；但许多首次出现在希腊或近东文学中的寓言或寓言母题，后来都能在《五卷书》等印度故事集里找到，包括佛教本生故事。”
Such characters make fable by themselves or with others, so that the combinations and mutual interactions are seemingly unlimited. On the other hand, in the jatakas, inanimate objects and parts of creatures or things do not figure as characters, act of themselves or talk, while even trees and such, when they need to be articulate, have it done through some resident sprite - be it of air, sea, mountain or even kusa-grass. In marked contrast to this regard for realism in the jatakas is however the phenomenon of talking animals. 这些角色或独自或与他人共同构建寓言，使得组合与互动看似无穷无尽。另一方面，在本生经中，无生命物体及生物躯干部分从不作为独立角色行动或发声，即便是树木等需要表达时，也需借助栖息其中的精怪——无论是空气、海洋、山岳乃至拘舍草中的精灵代为发声。与之形成鲜明对比的是，本生经中却存在着会说话的动物这一超现实现象。
Talking animals are in the very nature of fable. Originating, as was said, in man’s association with animals in primitive society which remarked little difference between themselves, their basic needs and their behaviour in satisfying these, it was natural to impute to animals a psychology, intelligence and behavioural patterns as his own and imagined conversation with himself or each other in a comprehensible mode. This feature was still presumed when society evolved the degree of value-judgement and self-criticism that sharpens the ends of beast-story into beast-fable. 会说话的动物是寓言与生俱来的特质。正如前文所述，它源于原始社会中人与动物的密切关联——当时人类几乎察觉不到自身与动物在基本需求及满足需求行为上的差异，自然会将人类的心理、智慧和行为模式投射到动物身上，并想象它们以可理解的方式进行自我对话或相互交流。当社会进化到具备价值判断与自我批判能力，从而将动物故事升华为动物寓言时，这一特性仍被保留下来。
With rare exceptions (and these mostly in the later productions) fables of the Aesopic mode took the phenomenon of animals in conversation for granted, as if seeing nothing strange about it. It had become as much part of the folklore as the belief in metamorphosis and transmigration found among early societies, and it is hardly likely that the great fabulist Aesop himself apologized for this odd feature when he gave expression to his popular stories in his own day and age. The two well-authenticated fables we have as from him himself have no evidence of such. So also, Aristophanes’ yarn of Aesop and the bitch who barked at him, and the caricature on the red-figure cup of c. 460 B.C. now at the Vatican evidence the old man himself verbally engrossed with animals. But a fable or two in the collections come down to us from late hands show incipient discomfiture on the part of the narrator with this feature and are prefaced with such statements as: “Once, when animals spoke the same language…” when only animals, or animals of differing species were involved, or: “When animals spoke the same language as men…”, where the fable involved both animals and men, as though in apology for this unrealistic phenomenon. It is not likely that the opposite was the case - that these were formulaistic openings in fable-narration when fables first began to be narrated, which were soon to be dropped when the presupposition upon which fable was based had found acceptance with listeners. Such prefaces only drew uncalled-for attention to the feature, which straightaway impaired the illusion upon which fable was ficted. 除极少数例外（这些大多出现在后期作品中），伊索式寓言将动物交谈的现象视为理所当然，仿佛丝毫不觉其怪异。这种设定已成为民间传说的一部分，正如早期社会普遍相信变形与轮回一样。伟大的寓言家伊索本人在其时代讲述这些脍炙人口的故事时，也几乎不可能为这种奇特设定致歉。现存两则确凿出自他本人的寓言中，丝毫未见此类痕迹。同样，阿里斯托芬笔下伊索与朝他吠叫的母犬的轶事，以及现存梵蒂冈约公元前 460 年红绘杯上的讽刺画，都证实这位老人本人曾与动物进行过生动的言语交流。 但流传至今的寓言集中有一两则故事，通过后世编纂者的笔触，显露出叙述者对这种设定初现的尴尬。这些故事常以"从前，当动物们说着相同语言时……"作为开场白——当情节仅涉及动物或不同物种时；或是"当动物说着与人类相同的语言时……"——当故事同时包含人类与动物角色时。这般表述仿佛在为这种非现实现象致歉。相反的情况不太可能成立——即这些开场白是最初讲述寓言时的固定套语，后来随着听众接受了寓言的基本前提而被弃用。此类前言只会不必要地突显该特征，直接破坏寓言赖以构建的幻想基础。
A mythical basis for a society of beasts who thought and acted like human beings was readily available to the Greeks in the concept of 对于希腊人而言，构建一个像人类般思考行动的兽类社会，其神话基础唾手可得——
the Golden Age. The traditional description of this imaginary age with which life was thought to have begun on earth was capable of being modified in accordance with the nature of the material for which it was required to provide a backdrop. In general one of its characteristics was the friendship, based on kinship, between man and beast. This was accompanied by the detail, introduced by reincarnationist sects (beginning with the Orphics and rising to its principal feature in the teachings of Empedocles) of the avoidance of killing living creatures and the eating of flesh. Life as came to be lived thereafter (usually the result of a fall of man or the systematic deterioration of either the earth or the generations of men (or both) resulted in the loss of that state of primal innocence, which the teachers who exploited the feature in their world-view hoped to restore at least among their adherents. 黄金时代。这个想象中的时代被传统描述为地球上生命起始的时期，其描绘可根据所需背景材料的性质进行调整。总体而言，其特点之一是基于亲缘关系的人兽和睦共处。轮回教派（始于俄耳甫斯教派，至恩培多克勒学说达至顶峰）进一步补充了避免杀生与食肉的细节。此后的人类生活（通常因人类堕落或地球/人类世代系统性恶化所致）导致这种原始纯真状态的丧失——那些在世界观中运用此元素的导师们，期望至少能在追随者中重建这种境界。
But even in such concepts of the Golden Age animals were not thought to have been endowed with thought, speech and morally responsible conduct. What religion had idealized in it was no more than kinship and friendship between man and beast and beast and beast. This was what the depiction of Orpheus in art and literature, lyre in hand and surrounded by animals of all kinds who hearkened to his songs (or the gentle contents thereof) symbolized. The scenario of an age such as this in fable is however innocent of such sophistication and somewhat different. For, in the world of the beast fable, or for that matter, of beast story in general, the relationship between animals is neither the realistic one, in which some were in mortal fear of others or in mutual hostility, nor yet in the relationship idealized by sects like the Orphics, in which none threatened, killed or consumed another. Rather, the relationship projected upon these creatures, while keeping something of the realistic order as existed between them in nature, could at the same time manifest any aspect of behaviour or social intercourse as pertained between men and men in human society. When invested with the human attributes of reasoning, speech and considered action as well, though animals, they display all the thoughts, emotions and feelings of mankind and act in the same deliberate and rational manner as men in society. 然而，即便在黄金时代的构想中，动物也未被赋予思想、语言与道德行为能力。宗教所理想化的，不过是人与兽、兽与兽之间的亲缘与友谊。这正是艺术与文学中俄耳甫斯形象的象征——手持竖琴，被聆听其歌声（或温柔曲调）的百兽环绕。但寓言中对此类时代的描绘却毫无这般精妙，且略有不同。因为在动物寓言——或广义的动物故事——的世界里，动物之间的关系既非现实中某些动物对另一些怀有致命恐惧或彼此敌视的状态，亦非俄耳甫斯教派所理想化的互不威胁、杀戮或吞噬的关系。相反，投射于这些生灵之间的关系，在保留自然界原有现实秩序的同时，又能展现人类社会中人际交往与行为的方方面面。 当被赋予人类的理性、言语和深思熟虑的行为特征时，尽管身为动物，它们却展现出人类所有的思想、情感与情绪，并以人类社会成员那般审慎理性的方式行事。
All this is of course rendered dramatically plausible in the fable context, so that even when an appeal to the mythical Golden Age itself has to be made, we must suspect it as some form of apologetic for any incipient cynicism - and a clever one at that, which while giving a basis of reality to the fable, relegates it to so distant an epoch in time that it itself could be insulated from the application of reality standards. 这一切在寓言语境中自然被戏剧化地呈现得合情合理，以至于即便需要诉诸神话中的黄金时代本身，我们也必须怀疑这是对任何初现端倪的愤世嫉俗情绪所作的某种辩解——而且是一种巧妙的辩解，它在赋予寓言现实基础的同时，又将其推至如此遥远的时代，使其自身得以规避现实标准的检验。
Thus we find Babrius, in the prologue with which he introduces his book of fables, ^(3){ }^{3} making a plea for the phenomenon of speech and understanding among animals with the observation: 因此我们发现巴布里乌斯在其寓言集的序言中 ^(3){ }^{3} 为动物具备言语和理解能力的现象辩护时，提出了这样的观察：
“It was a race of just men who first lived on earth, O Branchus, my son, the race which men call Golden. After this there came, they say, another generation, the Silver. We are the third after them, the Iron Race. In the Golden Age all other living creatures had the power of speech and understood such words as we ourselves now use in speaking to each other”. “布兰科斯啊，我的孩子，最初居住在大地上的是一支公正的种族，世人称之为黄金时代。随后而来的是白银时代，而我们则是继之而起的第三种族——黑铁时代。在黄金时代，所有生灵皆能言语，通晓我们如今交谈所用的词句。”
The facility to suspend disbelief in moving to the world of fable, to transit from the real to the fabulous is now not made with the natural ease and smoothness of the unsophisticated among whom fable was as natural as the factual. When we come to Phaedrus it is only to find that debilitates the illusion which carries us through fable even more drastically. Apparently embarrassed by the feature of talking animals, he does worse than Babrius; he pleads he is no more than jesting (fictis iocari… fabulis). ^(4){ }^{4} 现代人已无法像质朴的古人那样，以浑然天成的从容姿态游走于现实与寓言之间——对古人而言，寓言与事实同样自然。当我们阅读菲德鲁斯时，发现他比巴布里乌斯更彻底地削弱了维系寓言幻境的魔力。显然因会说话的动物设定而困窘，他辩称自己不过是在戏谑（以虚构的故事开玩笑……）。
“The substance of which Aesop was the author, this I have put into finished senarian verse. Twofold is the benefit that accrues from my book; it raises laughter and it guides life with wise counsel. However, should anyone choose to ridicule it because trees speak, not just wild beasts, let him remember that I speak in jest of stories that are not true”. “伊索所著之精髓，我已将其化为工整的六音步诗行。拙作带来双重裨益：既能博君一笑，又能以智慧箴言指引人生。倘有人因树木开口——不止野兽——而欲加嘲弄，且请他记住，我所戏言的皆非真实故事。”
The humanization of animals by the imposition upon their natures of the qualities of men easily offers them as symbolic representations of character types found in human society. Thus, the animal world becomes the reflection of the human world and serves as the basis of reference between beast and man required of fable. In this context animal behavour is not treated as instinctual and amoral, but all their actions are rendered as deliberate as those of men, even if at the same time they conform to nature in retaining something of the basic character of their animal identity. Since however animals are in reality incapable of moral conduct - not to mention appreciating fable! - the evaluations must necessarily be of mankind, whom they symbolize. At the same time the use of animals in moralistic situations comparable to those in which human beings find themselves, be they in politics, social life or economic transactions, serves to crystalize and objectify both situation and evaluation for neat and effective application whenever a similar situation presents itself. An orator or writer may use them for the edification of his audience - but a man may turn them upon himself in comparable circumstances to draw consolation for himself from a realization of the universality of his experience. But the way fable sets about this in either usage is as in the nature of criticism by caricature, casting the episode in a quizzical form that evoked a subtle humour. 通过将人类特质强加于动物本性之上，使其人格化的过程，动物很自然成为人类社会中各类性格特征的象征性代表。因此，动物世界成为人类世界的镜像，为寓言所需的兽性与人性之间建立了参照基础。在此语境下，动物行为不被视为本能且非道德的存在，它们的所有举动都被赋予与人类同等的意志性——即便这些行为仍保留着其物种本质特征的天然印记。然而鉴于动物实际上并不具备道德行为能力（更遑论理解寓言），这些评价必然指向它们所象征的人类群体。与此同时，将动物置于与人类政治、社会生活或经济往来相似的道德情境中，既能使情境具象化，又能使价值判断客观化，从而在类似情境再现时，实现简洁而有效的寓言应用。 演说家或作家可借这些故事教化听众——但身处相似境遇之人亦可反求诸己，从对普遍人生经历的体悟中获得慰藉。不过寓言在这两种用途中均采用漫画式批判的手法，将事件置于诙谐形式之下，从而引发微妙幽默。
This last-mentioned quality does not however reduce fable to frivolity. To present it as such, as Phaedrus does, is to ignore the import of the lesson it holds, which made men like Socrates and the later rhetoricians of Greece appreciate its potential as a vehicle of moral and political instruction, and in India, as with literature of the nature of the Pancatantra and Hitopadesa, deem it a fit mode for the education of princes. What the humour of the fable provides, both by its participants and the situations they develop between themselves is a degree of pleasantry (dulce) which is both subtle and critical and thus relieve the teaching it holds (its element of the utile) from being dull and pontifical. 然而上述幽默特质并未使寓言沦为轻浮之作。如菲德鲁斯那般将其视作儿戏，实则是忽视了寓言蕴含的教化意义——正是这种意义令苏格拉底及后世希腊修辞学家认识到其作为道德政治教育载体的潜力，在印度，《五卷书》与《益世嘉言》这类作品更将其视为王公教育的适宜形式。寓言幽默之妙处，既在于参与者本身，也在于他们彼此间发展的情境，这种愉悦感（dulce）既精妙又具批判性，从而使其教化功能（utile 要素）免于沦为枯燥说教。
This unique quality of the fable, especially of the animal fable, is seen in its appeal, both to children as to the old, and it is not for no 寓言，尤其是动物寓言这种独特的魅力，既能吸引孩童也能打动长者
reason that, while he is also depicted as groteque and a stammerer in keeping with the eccentric nature of fable, Aesop was also depicted as old and wise, whose name was treated with regard and brought in line with those of the wisest men of the Greeks. ^(5){ }^{5} 正因如此，伊索虽被刻画为符合寓言怪诞特质的口吃丑角，同时也被塑造成睿智长者形象——其名号备受尊崇，与希腊最杰出的智者齐名。 ^(5){ }^{5}
Recognition of broad similarities of character between certain beasts and certain types of men was popular in ancient times as it is today. This correspondence of character was recognized in the simplistic concepts of metempsychosis as in the Laws of Manu ^(6){ }^{6} or in Plato’s Republic ^(7){ }^{7} and Phaedo ^(8){ }^{8}, humans manifesting such and such a character being said to find rebirth as creatures distinctive for that nature - or vice versa, as Gratiano saw Shylock as the rebirth of a wolf that had been caught and hanged for his depredations ^(9){ }^{9}. Those who are averse to the idea of transmigration of the souls of men into animal bodies have sometimes, therefore, gone to the extent of interpreting these rebirths as animals, found in the scriptures of certain religions as no more than rebirths as human beings with natures symbolized by these various animals - rebirth as a lion or ape meaning rebirth as a man with the character distinguished by a lion or an ape, and so on, an interpretation also proferred in the Laws of Plato. ^(10){ }^{10} Unlike the jatakas, however, which purport to have their basis in the doctrine of rebirth coupled with the Buddha’s ability to recollect the past births of himself (as the Bodhisatta) and others, the Aesopic fables have no similar pretensions. At best they can claim 古代与现今同样盛行着对某些兽类与特定人性之间广泛相似性的认知。这种性格对应关系在《摩奴法典》 ^(6){ }^{6} 中轮回转世的朴素观念里得到承认，亦见于柏拉图《理想国》 ^(7){ }^{7} 与《斐多篇》 ^(8){ }^{8} ——具有某种特质的人类被描述为会转世为彰显该特性的生物，反之亦然，正如葛莱西安诺视夏洛克为一匹因掠夺而被捕绞死的狼之转世 ^(9){ }^{9} 。那些反感人类灵魂转入动物躯壳之说者，有时甚至将某些宗教经典中记载的动物转世解释为：不过是转世为具有这些动物象征特性的人类——转世为狮或猿即意味着转世为具有狮性或猿性特征之人，此类解释在柏拉图法典中亦有呈现。 ^(10){ }^{10} 然而，与宣称基于轮回教义并辅以佛陀（作为菩萨）忆念自身及他人往世能力的本生经不同，伊索寓言并无类似诉求。充其量它们只能自称
to be extended similes originating in a folk philosophy, no more. Indeed, fables have given rise to similes as easily as similes have given rise to fables - a conscious exercise of making the one out of the other possibly having been part of the education in antiquity of Greek youth aspiring to a successful career in forensic or political fora. 是源自民间哲学的扩展比喻，仅此而已。事实上，寓言催生比喻正如比喻催生寓言——这种有意识地将二者相互转化的实践，很可能曾是古希腊渴望在法庭或政治论坛取得成功的青年所受教育的一部分。
This of course is not to suggest that fables, when they occurred in the jataka collection had had their origin any differently than the fables in Aesop - metempsychosis and anamnesis figure only in coopting them as jatakas - or rebirth stories of the Buddha. Thus, what we have in the jatakas is no factual exposition of Buddhist belief concerning the earlier lives of the Buddha but for the most part the use of an extant body of stories or story motifs suitably dressed and of course suitably inclined (as far as they could be) to project Buddhist viewpoint, Buddhist morality or Buddhist doctrine. Best proof of the alien origination of those that are of such sort is seen in the fact that many of them fall short in this - indeed even project a perverse picture of both the teaching and the Teacher. 当然，这并非暗示本生故事集中的寓言与伊索寓言有着不同的起源——轮回转世与记忆重现仅是将它们吸纳为本生故事或佛陀转世传说的手段。因此，本生故事中呈现的并非关于佛陀前世生活的真实佛教信仰阐述，而主要是对现有故事体系或故事母题的运用：这些内容经过适当修饰，并尽可能地被调整以体现佛教观点、佛教道德或佛教教义。此类故事外来起源的最佳证明在于，其中许多内容在这方面存在欠缺——甚至对教义与导师都呈现出扭曲的描绘。
But it is this very quality of the jatakas of metempsychosis and anamnesis which help them to accept the feature of talking animals, since these ‘births’ (notwithstanding their invariable backdrop of an India contemporary with the present-life scenario) pretend to belong to an unreckonable past. Even so, in one jataka, the Sigala (No. 113) a jackal startles a Brahmin when he addresses him in human voice, requesting him to smuggle him out of the city in his waist-cloth; the same surprise is found in the Phandana Jataka (No. 475) when a lion speaks to a cartwright. In the Parantapa Jataka (No. 416) the Bodhisatta comprehends the language of all animals, only because he had acquired a spell. Otherwise this phenomenon of animals making conversation with human beings, or even each other in the present life would indeed have caused surprise and disbelief. A singularly exceptional case of such in a paccuppannavatthu is however to be found in the Dalhadamma Jataka (No. 409). Here the Buddha, in the present life itself is spoken to by an elephant, the erstwhile royal mount of King Udena, now retired from service, destitute and forced to subsist on ketaka 然而，正是轮回转世与记忆回溯的本生故事特质，使其能够接纳动物开口说话的情节——因为这些"前世"（尽管总以与现世同时代的印度为背景）刻意归属于不可考据的往昔。即便如此，在《豺本生》（第 113 则）中，当豺以人声向婆罗门求助，请求将其藏于腰布带出城时，婆罗门仍大为惊骇；《陷阱本生》（第 475 则）里狮子对造车匠说话时，同样引发惊异。而《波罗提婆本生》（第 416 则）中，菩萨能通晓百兽之语，仅因习得咒术所致。若非如此，动物在现世与人类交谈甚至彼此对话的现象，确实会招致惊疑。不过在《达罗陀摩本生》（第 409 则）的现世因缘中，我们却见到一个特例：佛陀在现世亲闻优填王昔日的御象——如今退役潦倒、仅靠露兜树果维生的老象——向其诉说往事。
fruit (a plight very similar to that to which the ageing war-horse of the Aesopic fable, The Horse and the Miller (H.174b) was reduced and moaned) and could best be interpreted as a telepathic transmission - though I fear that in the general context of the jataka we have no good reason to do so. The contrast is remarkable in a jataka such as the Udapana-dusaka (No. 271) where the situation is identical in both paccuppannavatthu and jataka proper but unlike in the latter, where the Bodhisatta addresses and is replied to by the jackal concerned, no such thing takes place between the Buddha and the jackal of the former. 果实（这种困境与伊索寓言《马与磨坊主》(H.174b)中衰老战马的遭遇极为相似，那匹马也曾为此哀鸣），这或许可以解释为心灵感应——尽管我担心在本生经的整体语境中，我们并无充分理由作此推断。这种反差在《污井本生》(第 271 则)等故事中尤为显著：虽然"现世因缘"与"本生正传"中的情境完全相同，但在后者中，菩萨会与相关胡狼对话并得到回应，而佛陀与前段故事中的胡狼却无此类互动。
As in the animal fable, the animals of the jataka proper, like men, not only have a propensity for talking with men and each other, but for reasoning and even moral behaviour - upon which they are often enough commended or reprimanded by the Bodhisatta, either in the capacity of a deity, a human being or even another animal - if it is not himself that is the subject of the moral judgement or behavioural evaluation. 正如动物寓言所示，本生正传中的动物不仅像人类一样具备与人类及同类交谈的倾向，还拥有推理能力甚至道德行为——若非自身成为道德评判或行为评估的对象，菩萨常以天神、人类乃至其他动物的身份对这些动物进行嘉许或训诫。
Upon his coming into possession of the Sinhala Pansiya Panas Jataka Pota, the Rev. Spence Hardy had his ‘native pundit’ reckon the different kinds of beings as which the Buddha had taken birth and the number of times he had assumed each form. This is however discrepant with the account we find in J.G.Jones’ Tales and Teachings of the Buddha, together with references, and cannot be wholly due to the difference of the texts relied upon. Rhys-Davids reproduces Spence Hardy’s list, so that it seems to me that we should go by Jones. Leaving aside the large number of the Buddha’s incarnations as a divine being or sprite or as a human being in many and variant capacities ranging from king and courtier to low-caste man and robber, it is seen that he had had birth as the following creatures: Monkey (11), Lion (10), Parrot (9), Elephant (7), Pigeon (6), Bird (6), Stag (5), Golden Goose (5), Quail (5), Goose (4), Vulture (4), Horse (3), Bull (3), Crow (3), Peacock (3), Naga (3), Fish (3), Garuda King (2), Partridge (2), Woodpecker (2), Antelope (2), Ox (2), Jackal (2), Rat (2), Lizard (2), Buffalo (1), Dog (1), Pig (1), Iguana (1), Hare (1), Singila Bird (1), Golden Mallard (1), Brahmin Mallard (1), Cock (1), Fowl (1), Frog (1), Naga King 斯宾塞·哈迪牧师获得僧伽罗文《本生经》后，曾让其"本土学者"统计佛陀转世为各类众生的次数。然而该统计与 J.G.琼斯在《佛陀的故事与教义》中的记载存在出入，且附有参考文献，这种差异不能完全归因于所依据文本的不同。里斯·戴维斯沿用了哈迪的统计列表，但在我看来，我们应当以琼斯的记载为准。 暂且不论佛陀曾多次化身为神灵、精灵或人类（身份各异，从国王、朝臣到低种姓者乃至盗匪），我们可见他还曾转世为以下生灵：猴（11 次）、狮（10 次）、鹦鹉（9 次）、象（7 次）、鸽（6 次）、鸟（6 次）、鹿（5 次）、金雁（5 次）、鹌鹑（5 次）、雁（4 次）、秃鹫（4 次）、马（3 次）、公牛（3 次）、乌鸦（3 次）、孔雀（3 次）、那伽龙（3 次）、鱼（3 次）、金翅鸟王（2 次）、鹧鸪（2 次）、啄木鸟（2 次）、羚羊（2 次）、牛（2 次）、豺（2 次）、鼠（2 次）、蜥蜴（2 次）、水牛（1 次）、狗（1 次）、猪（1 次）、鬣蜥（1 次）、野兔（1 次）、辛吉拉鸟（1 次）、金凫（1 次）、婆罗门凫（1 次）、公鸡（1 次）、家禽（1 次）、青蛙（1 次）、那伽龙王
(1) and Fish (1). (It is not then correct to say, as has been said, that he was never born as a creature smaller than a snipe). ^(11){ }^{11} （1 次）和鱼（1 次）。（因此所谓"佛陀从未转世为比沙锥鸟更小的生物"之说并不准确）。 ^(11){ }^{11}
Among other animals in the jatakas are the Ass, the Mule, the Goat, the Wolf, the so-called Timirapingala monster-fish, the Crocodile, the Tortoise, the Otter, the Crab, the Crow, the Cuckoo, the Heron, Owl, Mynah-bird, Water-crow, Cat, Mouse, Ant and Mosquito. 本生经中出现的其他动物还包括驴、骡、山羊、狼、所谓帝弥罗频迦罗巨鱼、鳄鱼、龟、水獭、蟹、乌鸦、杜鹃、苍鹭、猫头鹰、八哥、水鸦、猫、老鼠、蚂蚁和蚊子。
It would be observed that, notwithstanding all these several kinds of creatures as which the Bodhisatta had taken birth, even reaching down to rat and frog, he was never once a crocodile - a birth the jatakas reserve for his hostile cousin. Devadatta, perhaps because of the total malignancy of the beast. As a snake the Bodhisatta assumes life as a royal Naga cobra, no common or garden reptile. Jones points out that animals held specially sacred in Hindu literature, the monkey and the elephant, are popular, with 11 and 7 births in each respectively, but though that he assumed life as a bull, ox and even buffalo, he was never once a cow, so specially regarded by the Hindus. ^(12){ }^{12} There is however nothing in these two animals that made them specifically popular with Hindus that did not also make them popular with Buddhists, or for that matter, other Indians. 值得注意的是，尽管菩萨曾转世为各类生物——甚至低至老鼠与青蛙——却从未化身为鳄鱼。本生经将这种凶残生物的转世机会留给了他的敌对表兄提婆达多，或许源于鳄鱼天性中的极端恶意。当菩萨转世为蛇时，必是那伽王蛇这等尊贵存在，绝非寻常爬虫。琼斯指出，印度教典籍中特别神圣的猴子与大象在转世故事中颇受青睐，分别有 11 次和 7 次转世记录。虽然菩萨也曾转世为公牛、阉牛乃至水牛，却从未成为被印度教徒特别尊崇的母牛。 ^(12){ }^{12} 实际上，这两种动物在印度教中备受推崇的特质，同样使其受到佛教徒及其他印度民众的喜爱。
This attitude to the female, Jones suggests is not inconsistent with the general attitude to women in the jatakas. There are those who are for denying any prejudice, pointing out that there are other categories of beings as which the Bodhsatta had not taken life. Some of these are male but defectives, but among them are beings of better worlds. The fact however is that quite apart from the awkwardness of the Bodhisatta assuming life in the female sex, with all that it entails, he is (as far the jatakas are concerned) consistent in 琼斯指出，这种对女性的态度与本生经中对待女性的普遍态度并无矛盾。有人试图否认任何偏见，指出菩萨未曾转世为其他几类生命形态。其中虽有男性却存在缺陷者，但也不乏来自更高境界的存在。然而事实在于，暂且不论菩萨转世为女性所带来的种种不便与牵绊，就本生经所载而言，他在这一选择上始终保持着一致性。
the sex in previous births with what he is in this, just as much as the other participants in general are, be they male or female, in the present life. We may best leave it at that. 前世与今生的性别关联，正如其他参与者无论男女在现世中的情形一般。我们或许就此点到为止最为妥当。
There are however one or two observations on the Bodhisatta’s animal incarnations, and indeed animal incarnations in general that need comment. 不过，关于菩萨的动物化身乃至一般意义上的动物化身，有一两点观察值得探讨。
The arrangement of the jatakas of the Jatakatthavannana, as already observed, is wholly on a literary basis, broadly on the number of gatha they incorporate and are commentarial upon, nor is an intelligible sequence observed within those having the same number of gatha, which might suggest a gradation of some sort, whether of life forms or spiritual attainments ranging from the lowly and the despicable of creatures to human incarnation and the status of a Buddha-to-be. Thus the jatakas are singularly unhelpful in tracing any hierarchy among animals, which places one species of animal above another, or for that matter, of one condition of human birth over another. And well this might be, for the quality of each such life is as important a consideration - perhaps more so than the condition of life itself. At best it would seem then that the choice of an animal character or human condition in a given jataka is determined, not by an evolutionary moralistic historicity but by purely dramatic considerations - which in this wise also then bespeaks of fable rather than factual happenings. 正如前文所述，《本生经》中本生故事的编排完全基于文学考量，大体上依据其所包含及注释的偈颂数量而定。即便在偈颂数量相同的故事组内，也未见可理解的递进顺序——这种顺序本可体现某种层级关系，无论是从卑微可鄙的动物形态逐步过渡到人类化身，还是最终达到候补佛陀的修行境界。因此，这些本生故事对于追溯动物界的等级制度（即某类动物高于另一类）或人类不同出生阶层的差异几乎毫无助益。这种安排或许有其道理，因为每种生命形态的内在品质才是更重要的考量——其意义可能远超生命形式本身。由此看来，特定本生故事中选择某种动物角色或人类境遇，似乎最多只是出于戏剧性效果而非道德进化史观——这种创作特征恰恰表明这些故事更接近寓言性质，而非真实事件记载。
What determined the succeeding incarnation of any creature appears to have been a vexed question in reincarnation religions. Herodotus (ii. 123) referred to as Egyptian a teaching that the soul of man at death transmigrated from one to another of all creatures of land, sea and air before assuming once again a human body, and that all this took 3000 years - but again with no hint of any ascending sequence of lives. All agree that the last life (lives) before liberation from the wheel of births, is as a human (Pindar, Pythagoras, Empedocles and Plato in Greek antiquity). The popular determinant - and this is found in Plato’s dialogues (Phaedo, Republic, Timaeus, Laws) as much as in the Laws of Manu - is that the succeeding incarnation, as much as what is to be suffered within it, has to do 决定任何生物下一世转世为何物的因素，似乎是轮回宗教中一个令人困扰的问题。希罗多德（《历史》卷二第 123 节）曾提及埃及的一种教义，认为人死后灵魂会在陆地、海洋和天空的所有生物之间依次轮回，直到再次投胎为人，整个过程需要三千年——但同样没有提及存在任何生命形态的上升序列。所有教派都认同，在脱离轮回获得解脱前的最后一世（或几世）必须投生为人（古希腊的品达、毕达哥拉斯、恩培多克勒和柏拉图均持此观点）。而普遍认可的判定标准——这既见于柏拉图的对话录（《斐多篇》《理想国》《蒂迈欧篇》《法律篇》），也体现在《摩奴法典》中——在于下一世的转世形态及其所要承受的苦难，都与
with the psychology and conduct of the preceding life (lives) and are self-sought (Gk. authaireta) no one else being responsible. But neither is human psychology so simplistic, nor the range of creature life so accommodative for such an automatic transmission. Besides, once the soul steps outside existence capable of deliberate choice and into animal incarnations, it is with no hope of return - except in the context perhaps of animals of fable, who are then typically humanized in their thought and behaviour. Otherwise, for a lion with a lion’s psychology and a lions habits, it would ever be lion. 与前生（或前几世）的心理和行为相关，且是自主选择（希腊语：authaireta），无人需为此负责。但人类心理并非如此简单，生物形态的多样性也无法如此轻易地实现这种自动转世。此外，一旦灵魂脱离能进行自主选择的存在状态，进入动物化身，便几乎无望回归——除非是在寓言动物的语境中，这类动物通常被赋予人类的思维和行为方式。否则，一只具备狮子心理和习性的狮子，将永远只是狮子。
Despite the popularity of the lion in the jatakas - the Bodhisatta is born as one 10 times over - the rarity of the tiger, so impressive a beast in the jungles of Northern India, is strange. The Buddha never took birth as one. It is a lion-skin (siha-camma), found also in the Aesopic fable of The Ass in the Lion-Skin which the owner first drapes on his Indian ass in the jataka, not a tiger-skin, which it enigmatically transforms itself into in the later Pancatantra. The leopard’s poor showing also deserves equal notice. The wolf, notorious predator in western lands and strongly present in the Aesopica, is a rare beast in the jataka. It occurs once in the jataka named after it, the Vaca (No 300); the only other occurrence is apparently in the Mahabodhi Jataka (No. 528), where the wolf appears remarkably with sheep (urabbha) also in their only occurrence in the jataka - and then too in the context popular among us from a Greek fable, The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing (H.376, P.451). That the motif of this Greek fable was still contained in the gatha of a larger jataka and not developed into an individual story is interesting evidence of the passage of Greek motifs from Aesop to the jataka. The role of the wolf is otherwise assumed by the lion in the jatakas in addition to its own; see for instance the Javasakuna Jataka (No. 308), which emulates Aesop’s The Wolf and the Heron (C.224, H.276, P.156, Hs.161) in which a bird relieves a ferocious animal of a bone stuck in his throat. 尽管狮子在本生经中颇受欢迎——菩萨曾十次转世为狮——但老虎的罕见却令人费解，这种在印度北部丛林中令人印象深刻的猛兽，佛陀却从未转世为虎。本生经中出现的是一张狮皮（siha-camma），而非虎皮，这一设定与伊索寓言《披着狮皮的驴》相呼应：故事主人最初将狮皮披在印度驴身上。耐人寻味的是，这张狮皮在后来的《五卷书》中却离奇地变成了虎皮。豹子的低调表现同样值得关注。狼作为西方臭名昭著的掠食者，在伊索寓言中频频登场，却在本生经中鲜少出现——仅在以其命名的《瓦卡本生》（第 300 号）中登场一次，另一次明确记载则见于《大菩提本生》（第... 528），其中狼与羊（urabbha）同时出现——这也是它们在《本生经》中唯一一次登场——且场景设定与一则希腊寓言《披着羊皮的狼》（H.376，P.451）如出一辙。这个希腊寓言的主题仍被包含在某个较大型本生故事的偈颂中，而未发展成独立故事，这为希腊母题从伊索到《本生经》的传播提供了有趣佐证。在《本生经》中，狮子的角色时常替代狼；例如《鹌鹑本生》（第 308 则）就模仿了伊索的《狼与鹭鸶》（C.224，H.276，P.156，Hs.161），讲述一只鸟为猛兽取出卡在喉咙里的骨头。
If the six monster fish of the commander Kalahatthi’s story in the Maha Sutasoma Jataka (No. 537) are no more than exaggerate whales, and the Naga King a hamadryad or cobra, all the real creatures as which the Buddha had taken birth in the jatakas, not to 倘若《大须陀须摩本生》（第 537 则）中将领迦拉哈提故事里的六条怪鱼不过是夸张化的鲸鱼，龙王实为树神眼镜蛇，那么佛陀在本生故事中所有转世为真实生物的化身——更不必说
mention those as which he had not, are indigenous of India. On the other hand, the argument that the same cannot be said of Greece or rather, of Greek acquaintance, is however not as good as it seems. For the most part, as was observed earlier, the animals and birds that figure in the Aesopic fables are farmyard or familiar to the Greek countryside, the fish belong to the surrounding seas, the lesser creatures and insects to the soil and the familiar vegetation. The rest, which are then the matter of the contention, are relatively few and figure, apart from the lion, the camel and the monkey, in just two or three fables each and are such as were either encountered by Greeks travelling in the neighbouring lands of Egypt, Libya and the Near East or reputed among them from the accounts of others. For all these creatures are of quite distinctive natures as to attract and retain curiosity of all who saw them. It is not unlikely that the lesser of them, like apes and peacocks were now and again reared as pets and fairly familiar among the general public by the time fables engaging them came to be narrated. 他指出那些并非印度本土的动物。另一方面，关于希腊或更准确地说希腊人所熟知的动物同样不能这样说的论点，其实并不像表面看起来那么有说服力。正如早先观察到的，伊索寓言中出现的大部分动物和鸟类都是农家庭院常见的，或是希腊乡村所熟悉的，鱼类来自周边海域，小型生物和昆虫则与土壤及常见植被相关。其余引发争议的动物相对较少——除了狮子、骆驼和猴子外，每种动物仅出现在两三个寓言中，它们要么是希腊人在埃及、利比亚和近东等邻邦游历时遇到的，要么是通过他人描述而闻名。因为这些生物都具有极其独特的特性，足以吸引并保持所有目击者的好奇心。像猿猴和孔雀这类较小型动物，很可能曾被当作宠物饲养，当涉及它们的寓言开始流传时，已为大众所熟知。
To go by the collection of Aesopic fables edited by Halm - which is considerable enough for our purpose - by far the commonest of animals found in them is the fox; next after fox would come the lion, while wolf, ass and dog are nearly equal in popularity. 根据哈尔姆编纂的《伊索寓言》集（该版本已足以满足我们的研究需求）统计，狐狸是其中出现频率最高的动物；紧随其后的是狮子，而狼、驴和狗的出现频次则近乎持平。
Less frequent but numerous enough are the occurrence, in this order, of Stag, Horse, Crow, Monkey, Snake, Eagle, Mouse, Frog, Cat, Goat and Jackdaw, with Cock, Bird, Sheep, Swallow, Camel, Ox, Cicada and Hare following. Other creatures encountered are, in around five fables, the Stork and the Dolphin, in four or so, the Cat, Partridge, Dove, Raven and Ant. Bear, Swan, Bat, Crab and Beetle occur about three times each. Just a fable or two take in the rest, among animals, the Mule, the Wild-ass, the Wild-boar, Leopard, Crocodile, Elephant, Hyena, Hedgehog, Mole and Tortoise; among birds, the Ostrich, Peacock, Swan, Goose, Crane, Cuckoo, Nightingale, Halcyon, Cormorant and Merger, Lark and Crestedlark and Sparrow; among smaller creatures, the Snail, Toad, Scorpion and Mouse; among fish, the Tunny, Sprat and Shrimp; among insects, Wasp, Bee, Gnat, Flea. 出现频率稍低但仍较为常见的动物依次为：鹿、马、乌鸦、猴子、蛇、鹰、老鼠、青蛙、猫、山羊和寒鸦；随后是公鸡、鸟类、绵羊、燕子、骆驼、牛、蝉和野兔。其他生物中，鹳与海豚各出现约五次，猫、鹧鸪、鸽子、渡鸦和蚂蚁各出现四次左右。熊、天鹅、蝙蝠、螃蟹和甲虫各出现约三次。仅在一两则寓言中露面的动物包括：骡子、野驴、野猪、豹子、鳄鱼、大象、鬣狗、刺猬、鼹鼠和陆龟；鸟类中的鸵鸟、孔雀、天鹅、鹅、鹤、杜鹃、夜莺、翠鸟、鸬鹚和秋沙鸭、云雀与凤头百灵及麻雀；小型生物中的蜗牛、蟾蜍、蝎子和家鼠；鱼类中的金枪鱼、西鲱和虾；以及昆虫类的黄蜂、蜜蜂、蚊蚋和跳蚤。
A great deal of the problem of the animals exotic to Greece would evaporate if we could date and identify the sources from which the Aesopic fables have come together. For the Greeks had for long been in contact with the lands of Anatolia and the Levant, not to mention North Africa, Egypt and Syria. With this in mind we may consider the Lion, Monkey, Camel, Leopard, Crocodile, Hyena, Peacock and Ostrich, whose presence in the fables could well give rise to the question at issue. 若能确定伊索寓言来源的年代与出处，那些对希腊而言异域的动物引发的问题大多将迎刃而解。毕竟希腊人长期与安纳托利亚、黎凡特地区保持联系，更不用说北非、埃及和叙利亚了。考虑到这一点，我们不妨审视狮子、猴子、骆驼、豹子、鳄鱼、鬣狗、孔雀和鸵鸟——这些动物在寓言中的出现，很可能引发出争议的核心问题。
One look at this list, and it would be evident that, even if we add to it the Elephant, which figures in two fables included in the Halm collection, it would still pertain more to Africa (in the north of which the Greeks had early colonies, and to which, as Libya Aeschylus ^(13){ }^{13} assigns at least one fable (as against none by anyone to India). 只需扫视这份清单便会发现，即便我们加入哈尔姆辑录中两则寓言里出现的大象，这些动物仍更倾向于非洲（希腊人早就在其北部建立了殖民地）。埃斯库罗斯 ^(13){ }^{13} 至少将一则寓言背景设定在利比亚（即北非），却无人将任何一则寓言背景置于印度。
The lion is sometimes famed in countries which, in historic times had no lions. Lions of some kind seem however to have been abundant in the region between the rivers Nestus and Achelous in Northern Greece, and Aristotle, who was brought up in the north, mentions them twice, adding that here they were as numerous as in Libya! There is record in mythology of Heracles having killed one in Nemea, and sculpture holds up the excellent specimens of rampant lions over the portal of the Mycenaean palace-complex, and of ravenous beasts overpowering bulls upon a pediment of the temple of Athena, which the Parthenon replaced, and on its Hecatompedon. Lions’ heads formed the frieze of the Doric Temple at Himera in Sicily (480 B.C.), forty of which are now in the Palermo Museum, and lions formed part of the frieze from the Acropolis at Xanthos and the hunt upon the so-called “Alexander sarcophagus”, while a noble specimen was set upon the tomb of the Greeks killed in the battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C. These, besides several other examples in sculpture and vase-painting from antiquity. Lion similes abound in Homer and the tragedians, especially Aeschylus, not to mention poets like Pindar, while several ancient Greek names are 狮子在某些历史时期并无狮群分布的国家也享有盛名。然而在希腊北部内斯托斯河与阿刻罗俄斯河之间的区域，曾栖息着数量可观的某种狮群。自幼生长于北方的亚里士多德曾两度提及此事，并补充说该地区的狮子数量堪比利比亚！神话中记载赫拉克勒斯曾在涅墨亚杀死一头狮子，而迈锡尼宫殿群门楣上昂首咆哮的雄狮雕塑、取代帕特农神庙的雅典娜神庙三角楣上制服公牛的猛兽浮雕，以及赫卡托姆佩顿殿的狮像，皆为卓越的艺术典范。西西里希梅拉的多立克神庙（公元前 480 年）曾以狮首装饰檐壁，其中四十尊现存于巴勒莫博物馆；桑索斯卫城檐壁的狮群浮雕与所谓"亚历山大石棺"上的狩猎场景亦包含狮形雕刻，而公元前 338 年喀罗尼亚战役阵亡希腊将士的墓前更矗立着一尊雄伟的狮像。此外，古代雕塑与瓶画中还有诸多其他狮形艺术遗存。 荷马与悲剧作家（尤其是埃斯库罗斯）的作品中充斥着狮子的比喻，品达等诗人更不必说，而许多古希腊名字
compounded from leo and leon for lion. All of which show a popular understanding and admiration of the beast from the earliest literature that should make the presence of the lion is Aesopic fable no cause for looking elsewhere. Herodotus tells of how the lions of Northern Greece attacked the camels of Xerxes’ army, going for them only and leaving the men and other animals alone - a thing which puzzled the historian. Norman Douglas in his Birds and Beasts of the Greek Anthology ^(14){ }^{14} writes: 也是由表示狮子的"leo"和"leon"复合而成。这些都表明，自最早的文学作品起，人们对这种猛兽就有着普遍的认知与崇拜，因此伊索寓言中出现狮子形象实属必然，无需另寻渊源。希罗多德曾记载北希腊的狮子如何袭击薛西斯军队的骆驼——专挑骆驼攻击，却对人员和其他牲畜置之不理——这一现象令这位历史学家颇感困惑。诺曼·道格拉斯在其著作《希腊诗选中的鸟兽志》 ^(14){ }^{14} 中写道：
“Aristotle and Xenophon both confirm the existence of the Macedonian lions (spoken of by Herodotus). There seems to be little doubt that they also existed in Greece at an early period, on Mount Olympus, Cithaeron and Parnassus; Pausanias gives some information on the subject and the Nemean lion’s den is pointed out to this day. A well-known scholar denies that lions were ever found in the Peloponnese; he regards the Nemean story as an importation. But if the beast inhabited Thessaly, there is no reason why it should not have spread southwards; indeed, I fail to see by what means it could have been kept out of the Morea. Dion Chrisostom speaks of it as extinct in Europe. Three hundred years later, at the tail end of antiquity, Themistius regrets Thessaly can furnish no more lions for beast-shows.” “亚里士多德和色诺芬都证实了马其顿狮子的存在（希罗多德曾提及）。早期希腊的奥林匹斯山、基塞龙山和帕纳索斯山似乎也确有狮子栖息，这一点几乎毋庸置疑；保萨尼阿斯对此有所记述，而涅墨亚狮穴的遗址至今仍可指认。一位知名学者否认伯罗奔尼撒半岛曾有狮子分布，认为涅墨亚传说系外来移植。但若此兽确曾栖居色萨利，则其向南扩散便不足为奇；事实上，我难以理解有何屏障能阻止其进入摩里亚半岛。狄昂·克里索斯托姆称其在欧洲已绝迹。三百年后的古典时代末期，忒弥斯提乌斯慨叹色萨利再无法为斗兽表演提供狮子。”
In this context, the setting of Lucian’s version of The Ass in the Lion-Skin in Cumae on the ground that the Cumaeans were ignorant of lions is gratuitous. Indeed, this observation would vitiate the whole exercise of the ass with the lion’s skin - and if it frightened anyone, should have been the very stranger there who had seen lions, not the Cumaeans who had not, and did not know anything about the beast. 在此背景下，卢西安将《披着狮皮的驴》的故事场景设定在库迈，并以库迈人不识狮子为由，实属牵强。事实上，这种设定会削弱整个驴披狮皮行为的讽刺效果——若真要吓唬人，该被吓到的应是那些见过狮子的外乡人，而非对猛兽一无所知的库迈居民。
The camel is clearly associated with the Arab, as is shown by this brief fable in Babrius (B.8). 骆驼与阿拉伯人的关联显而易见，正如巴布里乌斯（B.8）这则简短寓言所示。
"An Arab his camel full laden inquired If high road or low road he’d take; To which the camel with wit made retort “Why, is’t that the straight road’s debarred?” "一个阿拉伯人问满载货物的骆驼：'走大路还是小路？' 骆驼机敏地反问：'难道笔直的大路已禁止通行？'"
Though the fable is late in its appearance in Babrius, the camel was known by Aeschylus and Herodotus, who mention it without doubt or hesitation concerning their audience knowing of it. As far back as the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., there is evidence in art of Libyan tribes using camels, as did the Arabs of the Near East though the animal is notably absent in the art of ancient Egypt. No jataka mentions the camel, be it as an incarnation of the Buddha or otherwise, even though Central Asia, accessible through the mountain pass of the Pamirs, the Karakoram, knew the two-humped beast well enough. In any event, the camel of the Aesopica is the Arabian, not the Bactrian, and an animal that was quite large in size. ^(15){ }^{15} 尽管寓言在巴布里乌斯作品中出现较晚，但埃斯库罗斯和希罗多德早已熟知骆驼，他们提及这种动物时毫不迟疑，显然认定读者也了解它。早在公元前七至六世纪，艺术作品中就有利比亚部落使用骆驼的痕迹，近东的阿拉伯人同样如此——尽管古埃及艺术中明显缺失这种动物。本生经从未提及骆驼，无论是作为佛陀的化身还是其他形式，即便通过帕米尔山脉和喀喇昆仑山口相连的中亚地区对双峰驼极为熟悉。无论如何，《伊索寓言》中的骆驼属于阿拉伯单峰驼，而非巴克特里亚双峰驼，且体型相当庞大。 ^(15){ }^{15}
Likewise, two fables, The Murderer (H.48) and The Dogs and Crocodiles, given by Phaedrus, when they mention crocodiles, locate the stories on the banks of the Nile, not anywhere in India, so that we may think too that the crocodile who vied with the fox on the nobility of their respective births in The Fox and the Crocodile (H.37) was none other than an Egyptian crocodile, a creature which 同样，斐德鲁斯记载的两则寓言《杀人者》（H.48）与《狗与鳄鱼》提到鳄鱼时，都将故事背景设定在尼罗河畔而非印度任何地方。因此我们也可以认为，《狐狸与鳄鱼》（H.37）中与狐狸争论出身高贵的那条鳄鱼，正是埃及鳄鱼——这种生物
Herodotus ^(16){ }^{16} troubles to describe for his hearers, having seen them himself on his visit to Egypt, as no doubt had several Greeks who visited or traded at the entrept Naucratis in the Delta or belonged to the thousands who went on the infamous Egyptian expedition in 460 B.C. This is of course to reckon without the presence of crocodiles in other parts of Africa and the Near East, which were seen and known by the Greeks before they became acquainted with the crocodiles of India. 希罗多德不厌其烦地向听众描述这些场景，他本人曾在埃及游历期间亲眼目睹——毫无疑问，许多希腊人也在三角洲地区的贸易港诺克拉提斯往来经商时见过类似景象，更有数千人参与了公元前 460 年那次声名狼藉的埃及远征。当然，这种说法忽略了非洲其他地区和近东也存在鳄鱼的事实，希腊人在认识印度鳄鱼之前，早已见识过这些地区的鳄鱼。
Hyena, ostrich and leopard also bespeak Africa - though the fables which feature them could well be late. The two hyena fables, The Hyena and the Fox (H.405) and Hyenas (H.406), like the fable of The Ostrich (H.391) play on the ambiguity of their nature and may share the inspiration as well as authorship, while also being from someone who had experience of African wildlife, among which they both figure, as does the leopard. As for the elephant in the fable of The Lion, Prometheus and the Elephant (C.210, H.261, P.259, Hs.292), in which an elephant consoles a lion that was scared of cocks by showing his own fear of an even smaller creature, a gnat, there is nothing to suggest that the beast is Indian as against African or perhaps Near Eastern. Indeed it is possible to bring up the evidence of a fable involving an elephant and a gnat which is purely Babylonian, which Babrius reproduces in Greek, although replacing elephant with bull. ^(17){ }^{17} Undoubtedly a late borrowing, Babrius’ version, E.Ebeling observes, corresponds to the Babylonian fable, not only in substance but in wording down to matters of detail, so much so that one may speak of a paraphrase, if not a near translation. ^(18){ }^{18} 鬣狗、鸵鸟和豹子同样指向非洲——尽管以它们为主角的寓言可能年代较晚。两则关于鬣狗的寓言《鬣狗与狐狸》（H.405）和《鬣狗群》（H.406），如同《鸵鸟》（H.391）的寓言一般，都利用了这些动物天性中的矛盾性，很可能共享创作灵感与作者身份，同时也出自对非洲野生动物有亲身观察者之手——正如豹子形象的出现所暗示的那样。至于寓言《狮子、普罗米修斯与大象》（C.210, H.261, P.259, Hs.292）中的大象（该寓言讲述被公鸡吓到的狮子，因目睹大象惧怕更微小的蚊虫而获得安慰），并无任何证据表明这头巨兽特指印度象而非非洲象或近东象。事实上，我们甚至可以援引一则纯粹巴比伦渊源的寓言作为佐证：该故事同样涉及大象与蚊虫，后经巴布里乌斯以希腊文转述时，仅将大象替换为公牛。 ^(17){ }^{17} E.埃贝林指出，巴布里乌斯这个明显属于晚期借鉴的版本，不仅在内容上与巴比伦寓言完全对应，连遣词造句的细节都如出一辙，几乎可视为近似的翻译而非简单的改写。 ^(18){ }^{18}
A fable exists in the collections in which an elephant figures together with both camel and monkey, The Camel, the Elephant and 寓言集中收录了一则关于大象与骆驼、猴子共同登场的故事，《骆驼、大象与
the Monkey (C.145, H.183), which in their combination - if we take it seriously, may itself award the case to the Near East or Africa rather than India, but which is at the same time related to the fable of. The Lion, Prometheus and the Elephant (C.210, H:261, P.259, Hs.292) mentioned above by the detail of the elephant’s fear, huge as he is, of so small a creature as a gnat. The hope held out by the detail of the huge elephant’s fear of so small a creature as the gnat is not met in Indian story; on the other hand, I suspect a jataka, The Gutha-Pana (No. 227) in which a dung-beetle who challenges an elephant to battle and is suitably dealt with by the elephant is, if anything, an Indian rejoinder to this Aesopic fable. 猴子（C.145，H.183）这个组合——如果我们认真对待的话——可能本身就倾向于将故事源头归于近东或非洲而非印度，但同时它又与前述寓言《狮子、普罗米修斯和大象》（C.210，H:261，P.259，Hs.292）相关联，其中细节描写了体型庞大的大象竟会畏惧蚊子这般微小的生物。这种关于庞然大物畏惧微小生物的细节设定在印度故事中未见体现；另一方面，我怀疑《古塔-帕纳本生经》（第 227 号）中那只向大象挑战却被轻松解决的蜣螂，或许正是印度人对这则伊索寓言式的回应。
Of the exotic animals in the Aesopica I have left the monkey to take up last. It is perhaps the monkey’s own presence in the jatakas - the Buddha was born as one more times than as any other animal - as against the supposed non-existence of monkeys in Greece that the occurrence of the animal in a fair number of fables has given support to a theory of an Indian source for the comparable motifs we encounter in the Greek fables. 在伊索寓言中的异域动物里，我最后才谈及猴子。或许正是因为猴子频繁出现在本生经中——佛陀转世为猴子的次数超过其他任何动物——而希腊本土据说并无猴子，这种动物在大量寓言中的出现，为"希腊寓言中类似母题源自印度"的理论提供了依据。
It is a rare fable which needs to localize its setting in a particular place. One such, the fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin (C.305, H.363, P.73, Hs.75) needs to do this in the sea off Athens, which then requires to explain how a monkey came to be in Greek waters. This is done, and convincingly, with the observation that “it was a habit of sailors to take along with them Maltese lap-dogs and monkeys to while away the time during a voyage”. Otherwise there is nothing to imply that the fable is enacted in Greece rather than, as with the majority of the fables, anywhere at all. ^(19){ }^{19} 鲜有寓言需要将场景限定在特定地点。其中一则《猴子与海豚》的寓言（编号 C.305/H.363/P.73/Hs.75）必须设定在雅典附近海域，这就需要解释猴子如何出现在希腊水域。对此，寓言巧妙地解释道："水手们习惯携带马耳他犬和猴子在航程中消遣"，这个解释令人信服。除此之外，这则寓言与其他大多数寓言一样，并无任何细节表明故事必须发生在希腊而非其他任意地点。 ^(19){ }^{19}
The significant thing as between the monkey in Indian story and the monkey in the Aesopica is that the latter is tailless, and hence is often rendered ‘ape’ by translators. This is expressly the point upon which the fable of The Ape and the Fox (in Perotti’s Appendix) ^(20){ }^{20} 印度故事中的猴子与伊索寓言中的猴子之间最显著的区别在于后者没有尾巴，因此译者常将其译为“猿”。这一点在《猿与狐狸》（佩罗蒂附录中）的寓言里被明确提及。
plays, where a monkey asks a fox for part of his tail to decently cover his bare buttocks but is callously rebuffed by the fox. On the other hand it is the Indian monkey’s possession of a tail which helps convert the Aesopic fable of The Ape and the Fishermen (C.304, H 362, P.203, Hs.219), in which a ape/monkey, imitating fishermen at fishing with a net gets caught in its toils, to the fable of The Wedge-pulling Monkey of the Pancatantra (following which, the Hitopadesa) - an Aesopic fable, be it noted, which has bypassed the jataka collection to make its appearance in this later work, but which Benfey clearly identifies as inspired by the Aesopic fable. ^(21){ }^{21} This same consideration may have been partly responsible for the conversion of the dolphin in the Greek fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin to crocodile in the Sumsumara and Vanara Jataka. Had the monkey had a tail in the former, I am sure the dolphin would not have been misled to attempt saving him, thinking him to be a man. 在戏剧中，一只猴子请求狐狸分给它部分尾巴以体面地遮盖裸露的臀部，却遭到狐狸无情的拒绝。另一方面，正是印度猴子拥有尾巴这一特征，促使《伊索寓言》中《猿与渔夫》（编号 C.304/H362/P.203/Hs.219）的寓言发生转化——该故事讲述猿猴模仿渔夫撒网捕鱼反被渔网缠住，最终演变为《五卷书》（及后续的《益世嘉言》）中《拔楔子的猴子》的寓言。值得注意的是，这个伊索寓言绕过了本生经的收录体系，直接出现在这部晚期作品中，但本菲明确认为其灵感源自伊索寓言。 ^(21){ }^{21} 同样的考量可能部分导致了希腊寓言《猴子与海豚》中的海豚在《鳄鱼本生》和《猿猴本生》中被替换为鳄鱼。倘若原故事中的猴子长有尾巴，我相信海豚绝不会误以为它是人类而试图施救。
The monkey of Greek fable must then have come to be known by the Greeks and passed into their literature from other lands in closer proximity to Greece, which had this tailless species. Besides, it had been known in Greece as far back as the sixth century B.C., for we find one involved in a fable with a fox in Archilochus, while a clay group found in Abdera in Thrace (Aesop was said by some to have come from this region) showing a Negro-like man seated on the ground and holding a monkey against his left shoulder and head and dated to the fifth century B.C. may be no other than the great fabulist himself. As for the verse from Archilochus. 希腊寓言中的猴子必定是希腊人从邻近其他地区所知晓并传入其文学作品的，那些地区栖息着这种无尾猴种。此外，早在公元前六世纪希腊人便已知晓这种生物——我们在阿尔基洛科斯的寓言中发现一只猴子与狐狸的互动；同时在色雷斯阿布德拉出土的陶俑群（据传伊索便来自该地区）中，可见一个黑人模样的男子席地而坐，左肩与头部倚着一只猴子，该文物年代可追溯至公元前五世纪，很可能正是这位伟大寓言家本人的形象。至于阿尔基洛科斯的诗句：
“O monkey, having a backside like that…” "哦猴子，长着那样的臀部……"
which is parodied by Aristophanes in his Acharnians and is given in a skolion in loco, it may well bestow somewhat more antiquity to the Phaedrian fable of the monkey who begged the fox for part of his tail to cover his bare buttocks. The creature of the Aesopica is always a pithekos, better rendered as an ape or chimpanzee than indiscriminately as a monkey. For I find that the monkey with a tail is distinguished by Aristotle as kebas, linguistic alternatives for which are kēbos, kēpos and kēipos, all of which may etymologically derive from the Indian for monkey, kapi (cf. Pali: kapi). ^(22){ }^{22} 阿里斯托芬在《阿卡奈人》中对此进行了戏仿，并以宴饮歌的形式现场呈现，这或许能为菲德鲁斯寓言中那只向狐狸乞求分些尾巴来遮盖光秃臀部的猴子增添几分古老色彩。埃索匹卡中的生物始终是"pithekos"，更准确地应译为猿或黑猩猩，而非笼统地称作猴子。因为我发现亚里士多德将长尾猴称为"kebas"，其语言变体包括"kēbos"、"kēpos"和"kēipos"，这些词在词源上可能都源自印度语中表示猴子的"kapi"（参照巴利语：kapi）。 ^(22){ }^{22}
Matching this somatic difference of the ape or monkey in Greek story from his Indian counterpart is a psychological one as well. While emulative of men like the Indian monkey, who is even a bit of a rascal when it comes to this, the Greek is shown to be also stupid - a thing which, whatever he is, the monkey in Indian story is not. On the other hand, the latter is shown to be quite clever - and indeed a favoured animal too, since it is as a monkey that we saw the Bodhisatta took incarnation the most number of times. 与希腊故事中猿猴和印度同类在形体上的差异相对应的，还有心理层面的区别。虽然和印度猴子一样喜欢模仿人类——在这方面印度猴子甚至带点流氓习气——但希腊故事中的猿猴还被表现为愚蠢的形象，而这恰恰是印度故事里的猴子所不具备的特质，无论它被塑造成何种形象。另一方面，印度猴子被刻画得相当机灵——事实上也是备受青睐的动物，因为我们看到菩萨化身次数最多的形态正是猴子。
Two significant jatakas which exemplify the intelligence of the monkey in the Jatakatthavannana are the Sumsumara/Vanara, in which, as the Bodhisatta, he outwits a crocodile who wanted his heart for his wife to eat, and the Vanarinda (No. 57) in which he again outwits a crocodile to save his own life, by making him open his mouth, which would at the same time cause the beast to close his eyes, and then vaulting to safety over him. In contrast to the Sumsumara/Vanara, is the Greek fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin, which I take to be its original, the monkey’s lie only getting him into disaster. But the best proof of his stupidity is given to us 《本生经》中有两则重要故事展现了猴子的智慧：其一是《鳄鱼本生》（Sumsumara/Vanara），讲述菩萨转世的猴子智胜欲取其心肝供妻子食用的鳄鱼；其二是《猕猴本生》（第 57 则），猴子再度智胜鳄鱼自救——它诱使鳄鱼张嘴（此举会令鳄鱼同时闭眼），继而从其身上飞跃脱险。与《鳄鱼本生》形成鲜明对比的是希腊寓言《猴子与海豚》（我认为这是故事原型），其中猴子的谎言只会招致灾祸。而证明猴子愚笨的最有力例证
by no less an animal than the fox - the Greek equivalent for craftiness and intelligence. This is in the Aesopic fable of The Fox and the Monkey (C.38, H.44, P.81, Hs.83) in which a monkey, appointed king because of his skill in dancing, is led to a trap by a fox and shown some meat, in the process of going carelessly for which he gets caught in it - which, if it is the fable of ArchHochus’ reference clearly talks of the cunning fox (alopex kerdalee) with his ‘cunning mind’ (puknon echousa noon) in relation to the monkey he intends to beguile. ^(23){ }^{23} Two further allusions in Aristophanes, showing great familiarity with fable, at the same time underline the nature of the Aesopic fox. In the Wasps (vs. 1240) we learn: “It is not possible to play the fox (alopekizein) nor be friend to both side,” and again, in the Peace (vs. 1189) of 由狐狸这种动物——在希腊文化中象征狡诈与智慧——所演绎。这则故事出自伊索寓言《狐狸与猴子》(C.38, H.44, P.81, Hs.83)：一只因舞技高超被推举为王的猴子，被狐狸诱入陷阱。狐狸展示肉块引诱时，猴子不慎落入圈套——若这确为阿尔基洛科斯所指的寓言，显然描述的就是那只"狡黠狐狸"(alopex kerdalee)用"机巧心思"(puknon echousa noon)设计猴子的情节。 ^(23){ }^{23} 阿里斯托芬另有两处用典，既展现其对寓言的熟稔，又强化了伊索笔下狐狸的特质。在《马蜂》(第 1240 行)中："既不能狐媚行事(alopekizein)，亦难两面讨好"；《和平》(第 1189 行)则道：
being lions at home but in battle foxes." 在家如狮，临阵成狐。
Of alopekizein in the former, Rutherford says the word was probably coined by Aristophanes himself and “calls up a whole series of adventures in apologue, in which double-faced craft triumphs over innocence and strength”. ^(24){ }^{24} In another fable of the Aesopica of the same title, The Fox and the Monkey (C.39, H.43, P.14, Hs.14), the fox has the opportunity to belittle the monkey yet again when the monkey claims a number of graves to be those of the freedmen and slaves of his family. “Lie all you wish” replies the fox; “None of them will get up to contradict you!” 关于前文中的"alopekizein"一词，卢瑟福指出该词很可能是阿里斯托芬自创的，它"唤起了一系列寓言中的冒险故事，在这些故事里，两面三刀的狡诈总能战胜天真与力量"。 ^(24){ }^{24} 在同名伊索寓言《狐狸与猴子》（编号 C.39/H.43/P.14/Hs.14）中，当猴子声称某片墓地埋葬着其家族解放的奴隶时，狐狸再次获得机会奚落对方。"尽管撒谎吧，"狐狸答道，"反正他们谁也不会爬起来揭穿你！"
It will be seen in Chapter VIII that it is this cunning of the fox which makes him replace the monkey of the Sumsumara/Vanara, when the story makes a return to the west in a version from Russia, where the monkey had hardly any reputation for intelligence or craftiness. 第八章将会揭示：正是狐狸的这种狡黠特质，使得当故事以俄罗斯版本回归西方世界时，它取代了苏姆苏马拉/瓦纳拉故事中的猴子角色——因为在俄罗斯文化中，猴子几乎不以智慧或狡诈著称。
Sadly, however, this quality of the fox, amply substantiated in the Aesopic fables, is overlooked in a minor discussion started off by Otto Keller ^(25){ }^{25} in contending for the priority of India with respect to the animal fable on the basis of “the doctrine of logical sequence and conformity of the habits of animals as revealed in nature”. He observed that the jackal following the lion to feed on the remains of a kill was true to nature and would have prompted the fabulist to conceive of him as a minister of King Lion - and since in Indian politics the minister was expected to be cunning, the jackal in turn acquired this reputation. On the other hand, he thinks, this role of the fox in Greece would go unaccounted for, for he is not a very cunning animal. This, Keith observes, ^(26){ }^{26} ignores both the point that it is fancy, not fact, which creates the world of intelligent beasts as well as the possibility that the fable had its origin neither in India nor in Greece, but was a product of lands intermediate between these countries. Weber ^(27){ }^{27} went on to theorize that if this sort of association between jackal and lion came from there to Greece, it would have been adjusted with fox to suit the Greek scenario, while if it reached India from Greece afterward, the jackal would have been reinstated. 然而遗憾的是，奥托·凯勒在基于"逻辑顺序学说与动物自然习性一致性"论证印度动物寓言优先性时开启的次要讨论中，忽视了狐狸这一在伊索寓言中得到充分证实的特性。他指出，豺狼跟随狮子以食其猎物残骸符合自然规律，这促使寓言家将其构想为狮王的谋臣——由于在印度政治中大臣需具备狡诈特质，豺狼便因此获得了这种名声。另一方面，他认为希腊狐狸的这一角色则无从解释，因为它并非十分狡猾的动物。基思指出，这种观点既忽略了创造智慧兽群世界的是幻想而非事实，也忽视了寓言可能既非起源于印度也非希腊，而是源自两国之间过渡地带的可能性。 韦伯进一步提出理论：如果豺与狮的这种关联是从印度传到希腊的，那么为了适应希腊情境，豺会被替换为狐狸；而倘若这个关联是后来从希腊传入印度的，那么原本的豺形象就会被恢复。
What all these writers take for granted is that the fox’s association with the lion in Aesopic fable is limited to this. The fox is found associated with the lion in several Aesopic fables, true enough, but the relationship is not just one of service and servility of the fox to the lion - and even when it is so, it is the fox who is using the lion to his advantage. In one fable of The Fox and the Lion (H.39), upon their first encounter, the fox was afraid: but with familiarity he is emboldened to face the lion; in another (H.40), he goes up to him and insults him; in yet another (H.41), he tries to play the lion 这些学者都默认了一个前提：伊索寓言中狐狸与狮子的关联仅限于此。诚然，狐狸确实在多个伊索寓言里与狮子产生关联，但二者的关系绝非单纯的侍奉与臣服——即便存在这种关系，往往也是狐狸在利用狮子为自己谋利。在《狐狸与狮子》（H.39）这则寓言中，初次相遇时狐狸感到恐惧，但随着熟悉逐渐敢于直面狮子；在另一则（H.40）里，狐狸主动上前侮辱狮子；还有一则（H.41）则描写狐狸试图假扮狮子。
himself - though with drastic consequences. In The Lion, the Wolf and the Fox (C.205, H.255, P.258, Hs.269) the fox turns tables on the wolf by deceiving and indeed using the lion; in The Lion the Ass and the Fox, in trying to get the ass killed, he himself falls a prey; in The Lion, the Fox and the Stag (C.199, H.243, P:336) he however succeeds in getting the stag killed by deception, and thereafter, deceiving the lion, also gets the choicest part to eat - the heart. In the most well-known of these fables involving lion and fox, The Lion and the Fox (C:196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147), his proverbial shrewdness saves him from the fate of the other animals, when he reads aright the clue. of the one-way footprints. ^(28.){ }^{28 .} 他自己——尽管后果惨重。在《狮子、狼与狐狸》（C.205, H.255, P.258, Hs.269）中，狐狸通过欺骗并利用狮子反败为胜；在《狮子、驴与狐狸》里，他试图害死驴子，自己却沦为猎物；而在《狮子、狐狸与牡鹿》（C.199, H.243, P:336）中，他成功用诡计让牡鹿丧命，随后又欺骗狮子，吃到了最珍贵的部分——心脏。这些寓言中最著名的当属《狮子与狐狸》（C:196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147），当狐狸正确解读单向足迹的线索时，他那众所周知的机敏使他免于遭受其他动物的命运。 ^(28.){ }^{28 .}
To all this wealth of fable on the shrewdness, resourcefulness and ingenuity of the fox in the Aesopica, there is very little that can be. found in his Indian cousin, the jackal - except perhaps the single fellow who in the Sigala Jataka (No. 142) tested a Brahmin’s sleep by tugging at his walking-stick, or that other jackal, who was then the Bodhisatta himself, who in a jataka of the same name (No. 148), which inverts Aesop’s The Fox with the Distended Stomach (C.30, H.31, P.24, Hs.24) got himself out of a difficult situation by using his brains. Otherwise the Indian jackal is a lowly, idespicable creature, a corpse-eater as in the Mahasidava Jataka (No. 51) or the Anta Jataka (No. 295), a disgusting creature who pollutes the water he had drunk from (Udapana Dasaka Jataka (No. 271)) and one whose cry, in the Sihakotthuka Jataka (No. 188) is no better than an insult to the lion’s roar. 在伊索寓言中，狐狸以其机敏、足智多谋和创造力著称，而它的印度近亲豺却鲜有此类特质——或许只有《豺本生》（第 142 则）中那只拉扯婆罗门手杖以测试其是否熟睡的豺，或是同名本生故事（第 148 则）里身为菩萨转世的豺例外。后者反转了伊索寓言《胀腹之狐》（编号 C.30/H.31/P.24/Hs.24）的情节，凭借智慧摆脱困境。除此之外，印度豺总是被描绘成卑劣可憎的生物：如《大尸毗王本生》（第 51 则）和《安达本生》（第 295 则）中的食腐者，《水井本生》（第 271 则）里污染饮用水的肮脏存在，更在《狮吼本生》（第 188 则）中被描述为——其嚎叫与狮吼相比，不啻为一种侮辱。
In the Nacca Jataka (No. 20), a peacock, dancing in joy at being selected as husband by the daughter of the golden mallard, exposes his rear to the audience, resulting in his dismissal and disgrace. This realistic detail concerning the peacock’s dance very nearly made me myself concede the motif of the historical anecdote of the 在《那迦本生经》（第 20 号）中，一只孔雀因被金鸭之女选为夫婿而欢欣起舞，不慎向观众露出臀部，导致被逐出并蒙羞。这个关于孔雀舞蹈的真实细节，几乎让我自己都要承认这个历史轶事的主题
marriage of Agariste in the Herodotus’ Histories, which reflects it closely, even though the participants are now human beings, to India as against Greece. And this is what R.W.Macan does, notwithstanding other evidence to the contrary. The peacock is a common enough bird in India which is not found in Greece, ^(29){ }^{29} but there is evidence that the Greeks knew of the bird from lands closer by. The peacock appears to have been introduced to the mainland of Greece via the island of Samos, where it was the bird sacred to Hera. Myth has it that it was the many-eyed monster, Argos transformed, or that Hera adorned its tail with the eyes of Argos. The epiphany of the bird in Athens did not antedate Herodotus, as Macan found out, for the Indian fable to have prompted the Greek historical anecdote. On the other hand, the evidence makes it obvious that the source of the peacock in Greece is Persia, not India - and by its association with Hera of Samos and the myth of Argos, well before the days of Herodotus. This is confirmed, if anything, by the Greek word for ‘peacock’ i.e. taôs, since it is derived from the Persian tavus, even to the extent of retaining the aspirate on the ’ oo ’ from the foreign pronunciation. Add to this, we have a character in Aristophanes’ comedy, Acharnians ^(30){ }^{30} cry in response to the announcement of ambassadors from the king of Persia: 希罗多德《历史》中记载的阿伽里斯忒婚姻故事，尽管参与者已变为人类，却与印度版本极为相似，而非希腊本土。这正是 R.W.麦肯所持观点，尽管存在相反证据。孔雀在印度是常见鸟类，希腊本土却不见踪迹 ^(29){ }^{29} ，但有证据表明希腊人通过邻近地区知晓此鸟。孔雀似乎是通过萨摩斯岛传入希腊大陆的，该岛将其奉为赫拉圣鸟。神话传说中，它或是百眼巨人阿尔戈斯的化身，或是赫拉用阿尔戈斯之眼装饰了它的尾羽。正如麦肯所发现，雅典出现孔雀的年代并不早于希罗多德时期，因此印度寓言不可能是希腊历史轶事的源头。相反，证据清楚地表明希腊的孔雀源自波斯而非印度——且通过与萨摩斯的赫拉及阿尔戈斯神话的关联，其传入时间远早于希罗多德时代。 这一点可以通过希腊语中表示"孔雀"的单词 taôs 得到证实，因为该词源自波斯语 tavus，甚至保留了外来发音中't'的送气音。此外，阿里斯托芬的喜剧《阿卡奈人》中有一个角色，在听到波斯国王派来使节的通告时喊道：
“King of what? I hate ambassadors And I hate their strutting peacocks.” "什么国王？我讨厌使节
更讨厌他们趾高气扬的孔雀。"
Quite in contrast to the fine observation of the peacock’s dance in the Nacca Jataka is the clumsy reference to its voice as ‘pleasing’ 与《那迦本生经》中对孔雀舞蹈的精细描述形成鲜明对比的，是其中笨拙地将其鸣叫声形容为"悦耳"
For a fuller discussion of this jataka, refer Ch. XII. 关于这部本生经更详细的讨论，请参阅第十二章。
vs. 61-67: see also Birds vs. 102, 269, 885. It was known earlier to Eupolis - see apud Athenaeus 397e. Aristotle op.cit. 564a25-69 describes the bird, and in 488 b 24 its jealous and self-conceited nature. It is not unlikely that the bird came to Persia itself from India. See Warmington op.cit. p. 156. "Whether the magnificent peacock, which, having spread westwards from India through the Persians in ages gone by, was now bred extensively on Roman estates was still an article of com merce with India is uncertain, but it is to be noticed that Lucian, writing in the second century A.C. expresses the desire of a man for “Indian peacocks” (On animal imports under the Roman Empire, see his op.cit. pt. II ch. I Animals and Animals Products.) 见第 61-67 节：另可参考鸟类章节第 102、269、885 节。欧波利斯（Eupolis）更早提及此鸟——参见雅典奈乌斯《欢宴的智者》397e。亚里士多德在前引著作 564a25-69 中描述了这种鸟，并在 488b24 节提及其善妒自负的天性。这种鸟很可能是从印度传入波斯本土的。参见沃明顿前引书第 156 页。"华美的孔雀虽在远古时代经波斯人从印度向西传播，此时已在罗马庄园广泛饲养，但是否仍作为印度贸易商品尚不确定。值得注意的是，公元二世纪的琉善在作品中表达了人们对'印度孔雀'的渴求"（关于罗马帝国时期的动物进口，参见其前引著作第二部分第一章《动物与动物制品》）。
(rudam manunnam) - and this occurs in the gatha themselves - for it is anything but that; it is more like the braying of a donkey. And upon this is based a fable from Phaedrus The Peacock to Juno on his Voice (Ph. 3.18), which once again associates the bird with Hera (Juno) and the island of Samos, where tradition had it included in the reincarnations of the famous sage who carne from there, Pythagoras. ^(31){ }^{31} （rudam manunnam）——这个表述本身就出现在偈颂中——因为它绝非悦耳之音；更像驴子的嘶鸣。由此衍生出菲德鲁斯《孔雀向朱诺抱怨嗓音》（《寓言集》3.18）的寓言，再次将这种鸟与赫拉（朱诺）及萨摩斯岛联系起来。当地传说认为，来自该岛的著名智者毕达哥拉斯轮回转世时，也曾化身为这种鸟。 ^(31){ }^{31}
Sometimes there appear in the Greek fables, as also in the jatakas details of animal behaviour and qualities attributed to them that are palpably folk belief based on an element of observation, though sometimes purely imagined. For instance, we are told that the lion fears the crowing of cocks in the Aesopic The Ass, the Cock and the Lion’(H.323) and that the elephant fears pigs in The Camel, the Elephant and the Monkey (H.183); the beaver, we are told, when pursued bites off its own testicles (The Beaver (H.189)) or again, that the ape bears two young at a time, one of which gets suffocated by its embrace while the unloved one survives (the Ape’s Young (H.366) or that the hyena changes sex from time to time - which not only worries them themselves (Hyena (H.406)) but a fox whom one wanted for a lover (Hyena and Fox (H.405)). Fable is also invented from the alleged practice of bears, when hungry, of dipping their tails in the sea, and when crabs cling to them, fishing them out (The Hungry Bears in Perotti’s Appendix 22). For their part the jatakas tell of the elephant’s disgust with the smell of dung and the crocodile’s habit of shutting his eyes when he opens his mouth knowledge of which helped the Bodhisatta as a monkey in the Vanarinda Jataka save his life. This same habit of cold-blooded reptiles absorbing heat by opening their mouths and basking in the sun gets a lascivious monkey (this time no Bodhisatta!) into trouble with a tortoise in the Kacchapa Jataka (No. 273) - a jataka which Rouse was for obvious reasons to render in Latin in the Cowell 希腊寓言与《本生经》中时常出现关于动物习性的细节描写，这些被赋予动物的特质明显源于民间基于观察的信仰——尽管有时纯属虚构。例如在伊索寓言《驴、公鸡与狮子》（H.323）中，狮子畏惧公鸡啼鸣；在《骆驼、大象与猴子》（H.183）里，大象惧怕猪群；而《河狸》（H.189）讲述被追捕的河狸会咬断自己的睾丸；《猿猴幼崽》（H.366）则称母猿每次产两子，其中被溺爱的幼崽会因紧抱窒息，遭冷落的反而存活；《鬣狗》（H.406）提到鬣狗会周期性转变性别，不仅令其自身困扰，还让想与之交配的狐狸苦恼（《鬣狗与狐狸》H.405）。另有寓言杜撰熊饥饿时将尾巴浸入海中钓螃蟹的习性（佩罗蒂附录 22《饥饿的熊》）。 本生经则讲述了象厌恶粪便气味、鳄鱼张嘴必闭眼的习性——正是知晓后者，菩萨化身的猴子在《鹿本生》中得以逃生。冷血爬行动物这种张嘴晒太阳吸热的习性，却让一只好色猴子（这次可不是菩萨！）在《龟本生》（第 273 号）中与乌龟惹上麻烦——考威尔译本中，劳斯因显而易见的原因将该故事译成了拉丁文。
edition and was for the first time ever presented in English by Jones. ^(32){ }^{32} 该版本首次由琼斯以英文呈现。 ^(32){ }^{32}
An intriguing, if specious argument is used by Rhys-Davids to reinforce his hypothesis of an Indian origin for the comparable Greek fables via the Suvannahamsa Jataka (No. 136). A man dies and is reborn as a golden mallard (suvanna hamsa) and visits the house of his former wife and family. On each such occasion he drops them a feather of gold to sell and live in comfort. But the wife, fearing that he may stop coming, seizes him and plucks his feathers all at once - only to find that since they were taken against the mallard’s wishes, they cease to be gold. Here, Rhys-Davids thought, we have “a true myth born of a word puzzle, invented to explain an expression which had lost its meaning through the progress of linguistic growth”. The epithet “golden” (suvanna) applied to the mallard (hamsa) for its the beauty, he thinks, led to the idea of its yielding gold. ^(33){ }^{33}. And this, he implies, inspired the Greek fable of The Goose that laid Golden Eggs (C.287, H.343, P.87, Hs.89). This is evidently a bit far-fetched; it is more likely that the Indian story is merely varying the natural product expected of a bird, eggs, to the rather unusual one, its feathers - prompted perhaps by the linguistic of the bird’s mythic nomenclature. 里斯-戴维斯运用了一个看似合理实则牵强的论点，通过《金天鹅本生经》（第 136 号）来强化其关于印度起源的假说——即类似希腊寓言源于印度。故事讲述一名男子死后转世为金色野鸭（金天鹅），探访前妻与家人的住所。每次造访时，他都会掉落一根金羽毛供他们变卖以维持优渥生活。但妻子因担心他不再来访，突然抓住他并一次性拔光所有羽毛——却发现这些违背野鸭意愿夺取的羽毛全都失去了黄金属性。里斯-戴维斯认为，此处呈现的是"由文字游戏诞生的真实神话，其创作目的是解释某个因语言演变而丧失原义的表达"。他推断，形容野鸭（天鹅）美丽所用的"金色"（suvanna）修饰词，逐渐衍生出能产出黄金的构想。 ^(33){ }^{33} 。 他暗示，这启发了希腊关于下金蛋的鹅的寓言（编号 C.287, H.343, P.87, Hs.89）。这种关联显然有些牵强；更可能的情况是，印度故事只是将鸟类自然的产物——蛋，替换成了相当不寻常的羽毛——或许是由于这种鸟类神话名称的语言学特点所促成的。
The jatakas are not as prolific as are the Aesopica in aetiological fables concerning animals, which tell why an animal is such and such, or why it behaves so and so. A detail is mentioned in the Kaka Jataka (No. 140), companion of the Kapi (No. 404), which tells why crows have no fat, thus giving the lie to a chaplain who would have them killed in their numbers out of revenge for one of them who in mischief had defecated on him; but this is not the point of the story - it is only subsidiary to it. The Sasa Jataka (No. 316) for its part merely exploits animal fable for explaining an alien phenomenon - the hare-like image on the moon, while the Nalapana (No. 20) tells of how a variety of bamboo lost it knots. On the other 本生经在解释动物特性的起源寓言方面，不如伊索寓言那样丰富多样，后者会讲述动物为何具有某些特征或表现出特定行为。《乌鸦本生》（第 140 号）作为《猿猴本生》（第 404 号）的姊妹篇，提到一个细节解释乌鸦为何没有脂肪，从而揭穿了某位祭司的谎言——这位祭司曾因一只乌鸦恶作剧地在他身上排便而企图大规模报复性捕杀乌鸦；但这并非故事的主旨，只是附带说明而已。《兔本生》（第 316 号）则单纯利用动物寓言来解释外来现象——月亮上的兔子形象，而《竹笋本生》（第 20 号）讲述某种竹子如何失去了它的竹节。另一方面...
hand there are several Aesopic fables concerning animals and birds which are of an aetiological nature of the creatures themselves though of course the explanations still remain only mythically so. One of these, The Eagle and the Beetle (H.7), which tells why eagles will not lay their eggs when beetles are around, is, as we saw, a fable attributed to Aesop himself with good authority. The fable Asses Petition Zeus (H.319) seeks to explain why asses, when they see the urine of one of them, add their own to it; Zeus had told them they would be free of their travails only when they succeed in making a river with their urine - meaning, of course, never. Brief, but perhaps best of these is the fable of Zeus and the Tortoise (H.154), in which Zeus invited all the creatures to his wedding. All came, except the tortoise; and when asked why he did not turn up, he replied, “I love my house; my house is best;” - a reply which so angered Zeus that he made the tortoise carry his house wherever he went. The jataka parallel of this fable however (as we saw) destroys this aetiological inclination by making a mud hole the tortoise’s lodging, which he claims to have loved so dearly. This is the Kacchapa Jataka (No. 178), in which we have the Indian tortoise, injured in his shell by the implement of a potter’s son (the Bodhisatta), who was digging for clay in the river bank which the tortoise had refused to quit from excessive love of home, lamenting the fact as he expired. Kites, says another of the aetiological Aesopica, The Kites (C.136, H.170, P.396, Hs.315), once had as much of a singing voice as nature had given swans; but hearing the neighing of horses, they yearned for a voice similar to their’s and in trying to acquire this, ended knowing neither how to neigh nor recalling how to sing. 另一方面，有几则伊索寓言涉及动物和鸟类，这些故事虽以生物本身的起源为题材，但解释方式显然仍停留在神话层面。其中《鹰与甲虫》（H.7）——讲述为何甲虫在场时鹰不产卵——如我们所见，是被权威认定为伊索本人创作的寓言。《驴子向宙斯请愿》（H.319）试图解释为何驴子见到同类尿液时会追加自己的尿液：宙斯曾告知它们，唯有当尿液汇成河流时才能摆脱劳役——当然这意味永无可能。这些寓言中最简短精妙的当属《宙斯与乌龟》（H.154）：宙斯邀请所有动物参加婚礼，唯独乌龟缺席。被问及缘由时，它答道："吾爱吾宅，吾宅至佳。"这番回答激怒宙斯，遂罚乌龟终生背负宅邸而行。不过本生经中对应的故事（如我们所见）通过将乌龟住所设定为泥潭——它声称至爱此穴——消解了这种溯源倾向。 这是《龟本生》（第 178 则），讲述一只印度乌龟因过度恋家不愿离开河岸，被正在挖黏土的陶匠之子（菩萨）的工具伤及龟壳，临终时哀叹不已。另一则解释性伊索寓言《鸢》（C.136，H.170，P.396，Hs.315）提到：鸢原本拥有与天鹅一样的天赐歌喉，但听到马嘶后渴望获得类似的嗓音，结果既学不会嘶鸣，也忘了如何歌唱。
The basis of the aetiological construction may sometimes reveal a wide-ranging perception of animal life that could often surprise us. For instance, the fable of the monkey’s affection for one of its young, which results in her squeezing it to death, can only have grown from the observation of female monkeys carrying their babies around for three or four days after they have died. Similarly, the fables of the hyenas may have grown from the fact that the females are indistinguishable from the males, having penis-like appendages like the latter. As for the bear’s strange practice of hauling crabs from the sea with their tails, it can only have owed itself to the fortuitous 这种因果构建的基础有时会展现出对动物生活广泛而令人惊奇的观察。例如，关于母猴因过度疼爱幼崽而将其挤压致死的故事，显然源自对雌猴在幼崽死亡后仍会携带尸体三四天的行为观察。同样，关于鬣狗的寓言可能源于雌雄难辨的现象——雌性拥有与雄性相似的阴茎状附属器官。至于熊用尾巴从海中拖拽螃蟹的奇特行为，要么源于螃蟹品种"arktos"（意为"熊"，即熊蟹）的偶然命名，要么就是有人曾目睹过熊对螃蟹的嗜好？
naming of a variety of crabs as arktos (‘bear’ i.e. the cancer arctus) - or had someone observed their fondness for crabs? （注：译文根据学术语境调整了句式结构，将"cancer arctus"保留为专业术语"熊蟹"，并采用问句形式还原原文的推测语气。段落末尾破折号处理为更符合中文阅读习惯的分句结构。）
Accordingly, there may be a jataka, as for instance the Gangeyya (No. 205) or the Udapana Dusaka (No. 271) which bases itself on the true or alleged quality of an animal or bird, resulting from observation or folklore. The Gangeyya rests upon the ugliness of the tortoise, the Udapana Dusaka on the jackal’s habit of polluting the water from which he has just drunk. The Nacca, we saw, exploited both the handsomeness of the peacock as well as its indecent habit of turning its posterior to its audience when dancing; the Vanara/ Sumsumara play on the crocodile’s practice of drowning its victims before eating them; the Gijjha (No. 164) and Gijjha (No. 399) on the vulture’s keen sight and the Giggha (No. 427) and Migalopa (No. 381) on their high-flying; the frown on the owl’s face in the Uluka (No. 270), the undigested articles in a fish’s belly, as in the Macch-uddana (No. 288) and so on. But these again are not so prolific as among the Aesopica, which make fable out of a whole range of animal peculiarities, physical, psychological or behavioural as the case may be. Of the physical, we have the blindness of the baby mole who said he could see, the ugliness of the ape who thought her young was the handsomest, the skin of the crocodile who claimed to belong to a family of wrestling fame or the frog who claimed to practice medicine, the size and ear-flapping of the elephant who feared the flea, or the tortoise’s inability to fly, or the heron’s long beak with which it extracted the bone from the wolf’s throat, the mule’s mixed parentage, the crab’s sideways walk, and so on. Of the psychological, we have the Aesopic ape’s love of its young (which she will not let go even when dead), the dolphin’s friendship with humans, the monkey’s imitiativeness, the fox’s craftiness, the lion’s right to a lion’s share. When it is behavioural, there is the camel’s ungainly walk, Nile dogs running as they drank (for fear of crocodiles); the donkeys habit of urinating upon the sight of anohter’s urine, and so on. The notion that swans had a beautiful voice, and coupled with it, that they only sang before they died (The Swan and his Owner (C.174, H.216, P.233, Hs.247) is however purely imaginative. The swan’s voice, a honk, is as unpleasant as the heehaw of the peacock, both birds being accredited pleasant voices in 因此，某些本生故事——例如《冈吉亚本生》（第 205 号）或《乌达帕纳·杜萨卡本生》（第 271 号）——可能基于对动物或鸟类真实或传说的特性观察。前者以乌龟的丑陋为题材，后者则取材于豺狼饮后污染水源的习性。我们注意到，《纳卡本生》既利用了孔雀的华美外表，也涉及了它跳舞时向观众展示臀部的粗鄙行为；《瓦纳拉/苏姆苏马拉本生》演绎了鳄鱼吞食猎物前先将其溺毙的习性；《吉贾本生》（第 164 号与第 399 号）着眼于秃鹫的敏锐视力，而《吉加本生》（第 427 号）与《米加洛帕本生》（第 381 号）则描绘了它们高空翱翔的特性；《乌鲁卡本生》（第 270 号）刻画了猫头鹰面部的愁容；《马楚达纳本生》（第 288 号）等故事则提及鱼类腹中未消化的物品。不过这些题材的丰富程度仍不及《伊索寓言》——后者根据动物生理、心理或行为上的种种特性，创作了大量寓言故事。 在身体特征方面，有自称能看见的鼹鼠幼崽的盲目，自认为后代最俊美的母猿的丑陋，声称出身摔跤世家的鳄鱼的表皮或自诩行医的青蛙的外皮，畏惧跳蚤的大象的体型与扇耳，乌龟无法飞翔的缺陷，鹳鸟用以从狼喉取骨的长喙，骡子的混血身世，螃蟹的横行之姿等等。心理特质方面，则有伊索寓言中母猿对幼崽的挚爱（即便幼崽死去也不愿放手），海豚与人类的友谊，猴子的模仿天性，狐狸的狡诈，以及狮子对最大份额的天然权利。行为习性方面，可见骆驼笨拙的步态，尼罗河犬边饮水边奔逃（因惧怕鳄鱼）；驴子见到同类尿液便随之排泄的习性等等。至于天鹅拥有美妙歌喉且临死前才会歌唱的观念（《天鹅与其主人》C.174，H.216，P.233，Hs.247），则纯属想象。 天鹅的鸣叫声如孔雀的嘶鸣般刺耳，这两种鸟类本都被认为拥有悦耳的嗓音
the contexts, the former in the Greek, the latter in the Indian, in keeping with their physical beauty. 在希腊故事中，前者与后者的印度故事相呼应，皆与其形体之美相得益彰。
Notwithstanding the enlistment of several exotic animals in the Greek fable, we hardly come across mythical creatures of unnatural configuration - even though a whole range of them figure in Greek and Near Eastern mythology and art, chimeras, three-headed dogs, griffins, sphinxes and the like - nor animals of unnatural size or potentiality. A number of such however occur in the jatakas, among animals the (six-tusked) Chaddanta elephants of the Chaddanta Jataka (No. 514) and the flying horse of the Valahassa (No. 196), among birds the Garuda/Garula passim, among reptiles their inveterate foe, the flesh-eating Naga of poisonous breath and deadly glance (Bhuridatta Jataka (No. 543)), among fish the immense monster Timirapingala, and among insects, the spider big as a chariot wheel in Kalahatti’s stories of the Maha-Sutasoma Jataka (No. 537), not to mention the giant crab of the Kakkata Jataka (No. 266). 尽管希腊寓言中引入了若干异域动物，我们却几乎见不到形态超自然的奇幻生物——尽管希腊与近东神话艺术中充斥着大量此类形象，如喀迈拉、三头犬、狮鹫、斯芬克斯等——亦或是体型或能力超常的动物。然而此类生物在佛本生故事中却屡见不鲜：动物界有六牙象王本生（第 514 号）中的六牙象、云马本生（第 196 号）中的天马；鸟类有遍及各处的金翅鸟；爬行类则有它们的天敌——吐息含毒、目光致命的食肉龙王（护国龙王本生，第 543 号）；鱼类中有巨怪提米拉宾加拉；昆虫类更出现如车轮般巨大的蜘蛛（见于大须陀须摩本生中卡拉哈提的故事，第 537 号），至于螃蟹本生（第 266 号）中的巨蟹更是不在话下。
At the same times there is little or nothing that can be drawn on animals and animal-life from the several unidentified jatakas on the rails of the Bharhut and Sanchi stupas which has not already been found in those that have been identified from the collection. What these do suggest, however, is that a whole range of animal fables, even coming within the class of jatakas, did exist in India, which had not found their way into the Jatakatthavannana. As mentioned before, nearly half of such relief sculptures from the topics mentioned above could not be associated with any of the jatakas (even allowing for difference in name) when Rhys-Davids wrote his Buddhist India; the position remains unimproved even after the efforts of Sir Arthur Cunningham and other early oriental scholars and archaeologists. A toilet tray from Sirkap, which I have been able to examine in the private collection of Franco Micieli de Biase, one-time ambassador for Italy in Sri Lanka, appears to me to depict a scene from one of the popular Aesopic fables not found in the Jataka Book. This shows an eagle-like bird eating off a flat plate, while, watching him, on the opposite side is a small horselike animal; between them sit a man, chin on hand in contempla- 与此同时，从巴鲁特和桑奇佛塔围栏上几则未辨识本生经中，几乎无法提取出任何关于动物与动物生活的独特内容——这些内容在已确认的经集中均已出现。然而，这些浮雕确实暗示着印度曾存在大量动物寓言，甚至属于本生经类别，却未被收录于《本生经注》。如前所述，当里斯·戴维斯撰写《佛教印度》时，近半数上述主题的浮雕作品无法与任何本生经（即使考虑名称差异）相关联；即便在阿瑟·坎宁安爵士等早期东方学者与考古学家努力后，这一状况仍未改善。我曾有幸在弗朗科·米切利·德比亚斯（曾任意大利驻斯里兰卡大使）的私人收藏中检视过一件来自锡尔卡普的化妆盘，其图案似乎描绘了《本生经》未收录的某则伊索寓言流行场景。 画面展现一只鹰状大鸟正从平盘中啄食，对面则立着一匹小马驹般的动物凝神观望；二者之间坐着一位托腮沉思的男子
tion of the scene - which, allowing for the poor worksmanship, may suggest the Aesopic fable of The Fox and the Crane (H34)(\mathrm{H} 34), the observer being either Aesop himself, or, if already Indianized, the Bodhisatta - a fable which has not, even to the extent of The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, made it appearance even in the gatha of the jatakas. ^(34){ }^{34} ——尽管工艺粗糙，这场景很可能暗示着伊索寓言《狐狸与鹤》 (H34)(\mathrm{H} 34) ，而观察者要么是伊索本人，若已印度化则为菩萨转世者。该寓言甚至未像《披着羊皮的狼》那样，在佛本生故事偈颂中留下痕迹 ^(34){ }^{34}
The evidence that has been cursorily surveyed here is indicative of what great a wealth of animal-fable and story-motif from Greece must have poured into India, a land already rich with its own, with the arrival and sojourn of the Greeks with and after Alexander. It is our good fortune that a fair quantum of these are contained in the extant literary works, led by the Jatakatthavannana. What the rest, with the exception of the meagre archaeological pieces surviving, would have held is, considering the present state of the evidence, anybody’s guess. 此番粗略考察足以表明：随着亚历山大时期希腊人的到来与驻留，何等丰富的希腊动物寓言与故事母题必然涌入了这片本就孕育着自身传统的印度大地。现存以《本生经注》为首的文献保存了相当数量的此类文本，实属幸事。至于其余内容——除零星幸存的考古残片外——以现有证据观之，恐怕只能留待臆测了
CHAPTER V 第五章
THE PASSAGE TO INDIA COMPARABLE MOTIFS AND THE QUESTION OF BORROWING 通往印度之路：相似母题与借鉴问题
It would matter little to our discussion whether fable first evolved with the Indians or the Greeks, or whether it was more in character with the genius of one people than the other. What is relevant is with which people the particular stories which share common motifs first appeared - a question which reduces us to the available evidence, first of the opportunity for such ‘borrowing’, and secondly of examples taken individually or as a group. It is a confusion of the former with the latter which presumably made Keith suppose that Benfey, who was so strongly of the view that the Greeks were the earlier with their stories that he would not antedate the Pancatantra to anything beyond the second century A.D., had “complicated the issue” and created “a dualism which was difficult to defend” by holding at the same time that fairy tales were normally Indian in origin.’ 寓言最初是源于印度人还是希腊人，或是更符合某一民族的特性，对我们的讨论影响甚微。关键在于这些具有共同母题的具体故事最初出现在哪个民族——这个问题使我们不得不依赖现有证据，首先是这种"借鉴"的可能性，其次是单独或整体考察的实例。正是将前者与后者混为一谈，才使得基思认为本菲"使问题复杂化"并制造了"难以辩护的二元论"——因为本菲一方面坚信希腊人的故事更早出现（甚至不愿将《五卷书》的年代定在公元二世纪之前），另一方面却认为童话通常源自印度。
Evidence of fables which share motifs with the Greek are not to be found in India earlier than in the Jataka Book. Likewise, as pointed out, the canonical jatakas (with the exception of the Nandivisala story which is otherwise accountable) do not depict the Bodhisatta as an animal. Both these features are found in the stories of the Jataka Book, several of which reflect their Greek counterparts so strikingly in motifs, participants, moral and even detail that, together with their sheer number any hypothesis short of a ‘borrowing’ has to be put out of the question. 与希腊寓言共享母题的故事在印度最早见于《本生经》。同样值得注意的是，除可另作解释的难提毗沙罗故事外，正统本生经并未将菩萨描绘为动物形象。而这两种特征恰恰都出现在《本生经》的故事集中——其中多个故事在母题、角色、寓意乃至细节上都与希腊对应故事惊人相似，加之其数量庞大，任何否认"借鉴"关系的假说都难以成立。
The popular argument made on behalf of India as the source of these common motifs is that, though fables manifesting them are not evident in the canonical jatakas, they have surfaced, and abundantly along with a mass of other stories, allegedly indigenous, in 为论证印度是这些共同母题发源地的主流观点认为：尽管体现这些母题的故事未见于正统本生经，但它们已大量涌现于号称本土传统的其他故事群中。
an Indian work and in a distinctly Indian garb with (where animals are concerned) distinctly indigenous animals. The assumption is that the mass of these stories had existed well before they were collected into the Jatakatthavannana as folk stories of a people with a flair for fairy tale, and that if the motifs of these manifested themselves elsewhere in the world, they had got there subsequently from the land of India. 这是一部印度作品，披着鲜明的印度外衣（涉及动物时）采用地道的本土动物。假设这些故事在被编入《本生经》之前，早已作为民间故事存在于一个擅长童话的民族中；倘若这些故事母题在世界其他地区显现，那也是后来从印度这片土地传播过去的。
There were three possible opportunities for Indian stories to have made their way to Greece before Alexander’s invasion of the north. The first of these has been loosely flaunted by India-advocates, observing that the Greeks would have had the opportunity of meeting Indians in Persia in the sixth century B.C., when the Ionian cities on the coast of Asia Minor and a large region of Northern India came under the rule of the Great King. As evidence of the likelihood of such a thing is cited the story which appears in Herodotus, of the Persian Intaphernes, the motif of which then also manfests itself in the Ucchanga Jataka (No. 67). Certain scholars, notably R.W.Macan ^(2){ }^{2} thought the story of the marriage of Agariste in Herodotus was an adoption, with human characters, of the story of the dancing peacock of the Nacca Jataka - though Macan himself failed to find evidence of its arrival in Greece even by a knowledge of the bird before, or even in, Herodotus. W.R.Halliday ^(3){ }^{3} of the same opinion that even some of the earliest fables had come to Greece from the east, suggests an Anatolian centre for their dispersal. For instance, the fable of The Ape and the Fox in Archilochus, he says, could hardly have been invented by people to whom monkeys were unfamiliar - though one may wonder then how it could also have been appreciated by those same people, not to mention the poet himself. 在亚历山大入侵北印度之前，印度故事传入希腊存在三种可能的途径。第一种途径被印度文化推崇者广泛宣扬，他们指出公元前六世纪希腊人就有机会在波斯遇见印度人——当时小亚细亚沿岸的爱奥尼亚城邦与北印度大片区域同属波斯帝国的统治。希罗多德记载的波斯贵族因塔弗尼斯故事被引为佐证，该故事母题亦见于《鹧鸪本生经》（第 67 号）。部分学者如 R.W.Macan ^(2){ }^{2} 认为，希罗多德所载阿伽里斯忒婚嫁故事实为《孔雀舞本生经》的拟人化改编，尽管 Macan 本人未能找到该故事在希罗多德时代之前或同期传入希腊的证据，甚至未能证实当时希腊人知晓孔雀这种鸟类。持相同观点的 W.R.Halliday ^(3){ }^{3} 进一步提出，部分最古老的寓言故事正是通过安纳托利亚这一传播中心自东方传入希腊。 例如，他说阿尔基洛科斯笔下的《猿与狐狸》这则寓言，几乎不可能是由对猴子一无所知的人所创作的——尽管人们或许会疑惑，这样的故事又如何能被那些同样不熟悉猴子的人所欣赏，更不用说诗人自己了。
Suidas records that Eugeon of Samos, who lived before the Peloponnesian Wan, had said Aesop came for Messembria in Thrace. 苏达斯记载，生活在伯罗奔尼撒战争之前的萨摩斯人欧吉恩曾说过，伊索来自色雷斯的墨森布里亚。 ^(2){ }^{2} op.clt, p. 119. ^(2){ }^{2} op.clt, 第 119 页。
'Indo-European Falk-Tales and Greek Legends, Cambridge (1973) p. 46. 《印欧民间故事与希腊传说》，剑桥（1973 年）第 46 页。
This must have been in his lost work, the Horoi Samiôn. Presumably relying on this same source Aristotle in his Constitution of the Samians, also calls Aesop a Thracian. B.E.Perry ^(4){ }^{4}, who points out that the name Aisopos occurs in a contemporary inscription from Sigeum in the Troad, thinks the evidence is good and uninfluenced by any motive other than recording the fact. The notice that upon his being freed from slavery Aesop was able to address the Assembly in Samos has helped some like Rutherford to the opinion that he was “one of the large class of Greeks whom the fortunes of war expatriated and forced to serve men of the same language with themselves.” ^(5){ }^{5} 这必定出自他失传的著作《萨摩斯人纪年》。亚里士多德在《萨摩斯政制》中同样称伊索为色雷斯人，想必也援引了同一史料来源。B.E.佩里 ^(4){ }^{4} 指出"伊索波斯"之名曾出现在特洛阿德地区西格昂的同时代铭文中，认为该证据真实可信，纯粹是事实记载，未受其他动机影响。关于伊索获释后能在萨摩斯公民大会演说的记载，使卢瑟福等学者认为他属于"因战争流落异邦、被迫为同语族效力的希腊人群体" ^(5){ }^{5} 。
On the other hand, his presence in the island of Samos and the implications of his comparison to the Phrygian Marsyas has favoured the notion of him as a Phrygian. This observation probably originated or came through Demetrus of Phalerum in the fourth century B.C. The name is probably Phrygian, says E.J.Thomas, ^(6){ }^{6} drawing attention to the name of a river of Phrygia and Mysia and also to that of a Trojan during the seige of Troy. The legendary association of Aesop with Croesus, king of Lydia, is also then more easily come by. But what he would serve emphatically if he was a Phrygian - and perhaps even more emphatically if he was also a fictitious personality rather than a historical one (as some have suggested from the weakness of the evidence on him) is that he could be made to account for the transmission, if not of fable itself, then those animals in Greek fable which were not endemic of Greece itself the monkey, the camel, the elephant, the crocodile and so on - though I wonder whether you could have the one without the other. 另一方面，他出现在萨摩斯岛的事实，以及他与弗里吉亚的玛尔叙阿斯相提并论所引发的联想，强化了他作为弗里吉亚人的观点。这一观察很可能源于或经由公元前四世纪的法勒鲁姆的德米特里所提出。E.J.托马斯指出，这个名字很可能是弗里吉亚的， ^(6){ }^{6} 他提请人们注意弗里吉亚和密细亚的一条河流的名字，以及特洛伊围城期间一个特洛伊人的名字。伊索与吕底亚国王克罗伊斯之间的传奇关联也因此更容易被理解。但如果他确实是个弗里吉亚人——甚至更强调地说，如果他只是个虚构人物而非历史人物（正如一些人基于关于他的证据薄弱所推测的那样）——那么他就能被用来解释那些并非希腊本土动物的寓言传播，比如猴子、骆驼、大象、鳄鱼等等，尽管我怀疑是否能把寓言本身与其动物角色分开来看待。
Speculation might go even further and make Aesop, like Pythagoras (who was himself from Samos about the same time and who taught 推测或许还能更进一步，将伊索与大约同时期同样来自萨摩斯岛并教授...的毕达哥拉斯相提并论
the doctrine of reincarnation basic in Indian thought), a man who had made his way to Samos from India, sojourning for some time in Phrygia, which then gave him the reputation of being a Phrygian. （基于印度思想中轮回转世的基本教义）一位从印度来到萨摩斯的男子，曾在弗里吉亚逗留过一段时间，因此获得了弗里吉亚人的身份标签。
The weakness of such speculation is that it is wholly speculative and based on little more than that there was a man called Aesop, with whom the Greek fable’s origin was linked and that he may have come to Samos from Phrygia - which, even if acceded, does not necessarily also concede that he came there from India - especially now that a Babylonian origin has been strongly mooted for the origin of the Greek fable. What the evidence of antiquity that we do have here says is that Aesop was a Phrygian, if he was not a Thracian - and for want of anything that takes us beyond this, I like to hold on to it with the same resignation as with the evidence that makes Thales of Miletus, the first Greek philosopher, a Phoenician, or Pythagoras of Samos, who taught reincarnation and number metaphysics, a Greek. The onus of proving this otherwise is with those who moot the idea. 这种推测的薄弱之处在于其完全基于臆想——仅因希腊寓言起源与一位名为伊索的人物相关联，且此人可能从弗里吉亚来到萨摩斯（即便承认这点，也未必能推导出他来自印度），特别是当前学界已强烈主张希腊寓言起源于巴比伦。现有古代文献证据仅表明：伊索若非色雷斯人，便是弗里吉亚人。正如我们接受米利都的第一位希腊哲学家泰勒斯被记载为腓尼基人，或传授轮回转世与数字形而上学的萨摩斯人毕达哥拉斯被认定为希腊人那样，在缺乏更确凿证据的情况下，我倾向于同样坦然地采信这一记载。提出异见者自当承担举证之责。
Had the motifs with parallels in Greek and Indian fable been four or five, the theory would not have been unreasonable that the Greeks picked them up casually from Indians whom they met in Persia or other parts of the Persian empire when both these peoples, the Greeks and the Indians, were under Persian rule in the sixth and early fifth centuries B.C. Mythistory refers to an invasion of Northern India by the Greek god Dionysus, with the semblance of a cult of the Oriental Dionysus reminiscent of the worship of Krishna, as is to be found in the Bacchae of Euripides; like Aesop, Dionysus was himself said to have come from Thrace, and again Phrygia; his name, Bacchus, is Lydian. There was mention of pockets of Greek settlers in India, as in Nysa, who were believed to have come there with this an invasion of India of this god with his Sileni, of which myths exist, and evidence was said to have been seen by Apollonius of Tyana, according to Philostratus, who reports of the sage’s visit to that land, relying on one Damis. ^(7){ }^{7} 倘若希腊与印度寓言中相似的母题仅有四五个，那么认为希腊人是在波斯或波斯帝国其他地区偶遇印度人时随手借鉴的理论便不足为奇——毕竟公元前六世纪至前五世纪初，这两个民族都处于波斯统治之下。神话历史记载了希腊酒神狄俄尼索斯入侵北印度的传说，其东方酒神崇拜的形态令人联想到对克里希纳的信仰，正如欧里庇得斯《酒神的伴侣》所呈现；与伊索相似，据说狄俄尼索斯本人也来自色雷斯，另有说法称其源自佛里吉亚；其别名巴克斯则源于吕底亚语。文献提及印度境内存在希腊移民聚居地（如尼萨城），据信他们是随这位带着西勒诺斯随从入侵印度的神祇而来——关于此事既有神话流传，据斐洛斯特拉托斯记载，推罗的阿波罗尼乌斯曾依据达米斯的记录，宣称这位智者游历该地时目睹过相关证据。 ^(7){ }^{7}
This evidence then, even it accepted a such, would be quite meagre in support of the degree of probability our case calls for when the number of parallel motifs we need to consider far exceeds the dozen or so that Jacobs had originally discovered. Conversely, the motif of the Ucchanga, like that of the other similar jatakas with Greek parallels, could well have owed itself to the historian Herodotus, especially since we have nothing to show of its having been a Persian story in the first instance, even if its characters are Persian and the episode allegedly a Persian happening. The cities of Asia Minor and the Greek islands hard by, it is true, came under Persian rule, which they tried to shake off with the so-called ‘Ionian Revolt’, but again Greek contact with Indians in the administrative centres of the Persian empire could only have been of a casual nature and in circumstances that would hardly have led to any great degree of cultural exchanges. 即便接受这一证据，其支持力度也相当薄弱，难以满足我们案例所需的概率要求——毕竟需要考虑的平行母题数量远超雅各布斯最初发现的十余个。反之，乌昌伽母题与其他存在希腊对应版本的佛本生故事一样，很可能源自历史学家希罗多德的记载，尤其考虑到我们并无证据表明它最初是波斯故事，尽管其角色属波斯背景且事件据称发生于波斯。诚然，小亚细亚诸城与邻近的希腊诸岛曾处于波斯统治之下，并试图通过所谓的"爱奥尼亚起义"摆脱控制，但希腊人与印度人在波斯帝国行政中心的接触充其量只是偶然性质，在那种情境下几乎不可能促成深层次的文化交流。
The one historical occasion when there was a mass encounter of Greeks with Indians before Alexander, and one in which, in different circumstances would have lent support to the rival possibility of a Greek borrowing from Indians, is the appearance of a sizable Indian contingent with the army of Xerxes (leaving aside Darius’ futile attempt of 490 B.C) upon the very mainland of Greece. The event, contemporary with the generally acknowledged date of the demise of the Buddha (i.e. 483 B.C.) and the Council of Rajagaha which followed, preceded the appearance of all but the oldest of the Aesopic fables in Greece; it even antedates the extant literary reference to one or two of the Greek myths and historical anecdotes which we find reflected in the jatakas. Thus it would have provided those who would have it so (notwithstanding the absence of worthwhile evidence, once again) a second occasion for claiming the likelihood of a transmission of Indian story motifs to the Greeks en masse - this time in the mainland of Greece itself. Instead, however it only serves to establish the very opposite - that these Indian jatakas with comparable motifs simply could not have influenced the Greek tradition on this occasion and consequently also leaves themselves open for a later dating and the opposite likelihood. For, as is well known, this encounter of Indians with Greeks 在亚历山大之前，希腊人与印度人曾有过一次大规模接触的历史时刻——倘若情境不同，本可为"希腊人借鉴印度"这一对立观点提供佐证——那便是薛西斯大军中出现的庞大印度兵团登陆希腊本土的事件（撇开公元前 490 年大流士那次徒劳的远征不谈）。这一事件与佛教公认的佛陀涅槃年份（即公元前 483 年）及随后举行的王舍城结集处于同一时期，早于希腊出现除最古老伊索寓言外的所有寓言；甚至早于现存文献中提及的某些希腊神话与历史轶事——而这些内容我们恰恰在佛本生故事中发现了对应版本。因此，对于那些执此观点的人（尽管再次缺乏有力证据）而言，这起事件本可成为第二个宣称印度故事母题大规模传入希腊的契机——这次是直接发生在希腊本土之上。 然而，这恰恰证明了相反的情况——这些具有相似主题的印度本生故事在此情形下根本不可能影响希腊传统，因而也使得它们自身可能属于更晚的创作时期，甚至存在反向传播的可能性。因为众所周知，印度人与希腊人的这次接触
in Greece as contingents of the great army of Xerxes was as brief as their sojourn was hostile, with the only Indians left on Greek soil following the Persian withdrawal being dead Indians! There was absolutely no opportunity for sustained peaceful commerce or cultural intercourse between them as involved exchanges of learning or the swapping of stories. The date is also two centuries before the jatakas were composed - so that we have once again to fall back on a supposition of the existence of Indian fables before the jataka collection - of which the evidence is hardly forthcoming. 仅仅是作为薛西斯大军中的分队短暂停留，且双方关系充满敌意，波斯军队撤离后留在希腊土地上的印度人全都成了亡魂！他们之间完全没有机会进行持续的和平商贸或文化交流，更谈不上学问传授或故事交换。这一时间点比本生故事集的编纂还要早两个世纪——因此我们不得不再次假设在本生故事集之前就存在印度寓言，但目前几乎找不到相关证据。
It is the third occasion when Greeks and Indians met - and then in number and over a considerable period of time - that provides the opportunity and climate for the social and cultural congress of these two peoples which could have resulted in the cross-fertilization of their thought and literature such as would have accounted for the phenomenon that interests us here, of a proliferation of stories with comparable motifs. This is Alexander’s invasion of Indian 327 325 B.C. and the settlement of the large numbers of Greeks in Northern India. This provides both location and a convincing terminus post quem, not only for the appearance of a host of Graecizing stories in India but, among them, a crop of fable-like jatakas involving animal characters that strongly resemble the fables of Greece called after Aesop. 这是希腊人与印度人第三次相遇的契机——当时人数众多且持续了相当长的时间——为这两个民族的社会文化交流提供了机遇和环境，这种交流可能导致他们的思想和文学相互交融，从而产生大量具有相似母题的故事，这正是我们在此关注的现象。具体而言，这指的是公元前 327 至 325 年亚历山大大帝入侵印度，以及随后大批希腊人在北印度定居的历史事件。这一事件不仅为大量希腊化故事在印度的出现提供了地理依据和可信的时间起点（terminus post quem），其中更涌现出一批以动物角色为主角、寓言性质浓厚的本生经故事，这些故事与希腊以伊索命名的寓言有着惊人的相似性。
Alexander’s victory over the Persians at the Battle of Hydaspes opened his way to India. He was himself not to remain there long and died in Babylon on his return to Greece. However, as it is history now, Greek rule persisted in these regions for near 25 years thereafter with Seleucus I penetrating as for as the river Jumna before he relinquished India in 302 B.C. to the Mauryan king Chandragupta. Even in this relatively brief period the Greeks seem to have made an impressive impact or the Indians. Megasthenes was accepted as a resident in Chandragupta’s court in Patna and King Asoka sent embassies to the Hellenistic kings, while the repetition of his inscriptions in Greek shows that the Greeks continued to be a influential community under the Mauryans before they assumed rule once again, and for a century or so (second century 亚历山大在希达斯佩斯河战役中战胜波斯人，为他打开了通往印度的道路。他本人在印度停留时间不长，返回希腊途中逝于巴比伦。然而历史表明，希腊统治此后在这些地区延续了近 25 年，塞琉古一世甚至推进至朱木拿河流域，直至公元前 302 年将印度让予孔雀王朝国王旃陀罗笈多。即便在这段相对短暂的时期，希腊人似乎已对印度人产生了深远影响。麦加斯梯尼被接纳为华氏城旃陀罗笈多宫廷的常驻使节，阿育王曾向希腊化诸王派遣使团，而其诏谕的希腊文复本更表明：在希腊人重新建立统治之前约一个世纪（公元前 2 世纪），他们始终是孔雀王朝治下具有影响力的社群。
B.C.) under the Greek dynasties from Bactria. It was in this crucial period during which, as their termini have been determined, the several birth-stories of the Jatakatthavannana, and perhaps others that did not make their way into this compendium, were composed. This was also the period in which the new doctrine preached by the Buddha Gautama had begun to flourish in the selfsame regions, and it is not at all unlikely - and I reiterate - that, among the several who were attracted to it at the time and donned robes, were Greeks recently settled in India and familiar with the myths and fables of their native literature. ^(8){ }^{8} Monks such as these, if responsible for the authorship of some of the jatakas, would naturally have drawn from the large number of Aesopic fables popular in the Greek world they had left behind, which had recently been compiled by rhetoricians like Demetrius and Nicostratus for one purpose or another. A few of the more zealous of these foreigners or their successors appear to have made their way thence to Sri Lanka, where we are told, King Pandukabhaya, in planning his new city of Anuradhapura, set aside a quarter for their residence. ^(9){ }^{9} Whether these were simply visitors for commercial purposes or whether there were monks among them we do not know; but the same chronicle, the Mahavamsa evidences the strong presence of Greek monks in this region of India during the second spell of Greek rule there, that of the Bactrian kings, and records the fact that, even allowing for the gross exaggeration, a considerable delegation of such from the Greek city of Alasanda (probably that which was founded by the Macedonian kings in Paropamisadae near Kabul) and led by a Greek (Yona) prelate 公元前）巴克特里亚的希腊王朝统治时期。正是在这一关键阶段——其时间范围已被确定——《本生经》中的多个转世故事，以及或许未能收入该汇编的其他故事，被创作出来。这也是佛陀乔达摩所宣扬的新教义开始在这些相同地区蓬勃发展的时期，我再次重申，当时被其吸引并披上僧袍的众多人中，极有可能包括新近定居印度、熟悉本土文学神话寓言的希腊人。 ^(8){ }^{8} 若此类僧侣参与了某些本生故事的创作，自然会从他们离开的希腊世界广为流传的大量伊索寓言中汲取素材——这些寓言不久前刚被德米特里和尼科斯特拉托斯等修辞学家出于各种目的编纂成集。其中一些更为热忱的外来者或其继承者似乎还曾前往斯里兰卡，据记载，潘杜卡巴亚国王在规划新都阿努拉德普勒时，专门为他们划定了居住区。 ^(9){ }^{9} 我们无从知晓这些人仅是出于商业目的到访，还是其中包含僧侣；但同一部编年史《大史》证实，在希腊人第二次统治该印度地区（即巴克特里亚国王时期）期间，希腊僧侣在此地影响深远，并记载了这样一个事实：即便考虑到其中存在严重夸大，仍有一支由希腊城市阿拉桑达（可能是马其顿国王在喀布尔附近帕罗帕米萨代所建）派出、由希腊（耶槃那）高僧率领的庞大代表团
Mahavamsa x. 90. 《大史》第十章第 90 节
named Mahadhammarakkhita attended the inauguration of work on the Great Thupa (Ruwanwelisaya). ^(10){ }^{10} 名为摩诃达摩罗吉多的僧人，参加了大塔（鲁万维利萨亚）的奠基仪式。 ^(10){ }^{10}
The passage of Alexander’s army through other lands, not the least, Persia and Babylonia, and the induction of troops and camp-followers from these places would have swept a wealth of stories from these places as well into India, there to be transmuted to Indian Buddhist versions and find their way into the Jatakatthavannana. What story-motifs were derived from these lands is not as readily recognizable as those of Greece, though among these could well be counted the judgement of Solomon in the case of the disputed child, perhaps also the Potiphar and Intapherness story motifs - that is, should they not have lent themselves to India through their Greek utilizations. 亚历山大大军途经波斯、巴比伦尼亚等地的行军过程，以及从这些地区征召士兵与随军人员，必然也将大量当地故事裹挟至印度。这些故事在印度被转化为佛教版本，最终汇入《本生经》的叙事体系。相较于希腊故事母题，这些地区传入的故事源头较难辨识——但所罗门王智断争婴案可能位列其中，波提乏与因塔菲尼斯的故事母题或许亦在其列，前提是它们确实曾通过希腊化的传播渠道进入印度。
Alexander’s expedition to India followed upon his conquest of the rest of the great Persian empire of Darius. Having achieved the liberation of the Greek cities of Asia with the Battle of Granicus and broken the might of Persia at the Battle of Issus, the next year he had conquered Phoenicia, Palestine and Egypt. Then in 331 B.C. he marched on Babylonia, and at the Battle of Gaugamella, completed his destruction of Persian suzerainty and occupied Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana. His sweep into India by the south-eastern slopes of the Hindu Kush range met with little opposition, though it took him as much as three years for the conquest of Bactria and Sogdiana (Russian Turkestan). In North-western India the only formidable opposition he had was from the king of the Pauravas, Porus, which the Battle of Hydaspes soon crushed. Thereafter he overran the Punjab, on his way back returning via the delta of the Indus and Gedrosia. The bulk of his army was Macedonian and Greek, but included soldiers drawn from these various other nations, most of them belonging to civilizations older than the Greek and as rich in art and story. It was partly his partiality to these peoples and his concept of a mixed army which occasioned the great mutiny of his troops in 324 B.C. 亚历山大远征印度是在他征服大流士统治下的波斯帝国其余地区之后进行的。在格拉尼库斯河战役中解放了亚洲的希腊城邦，并在伊苏斯战役中击溃波斯势力后，次年他征服了腓尼基、巴勒斯坦和埃及。公元前 331 年，他进军巴比伦尼亚，在高加米拉战役中彻底摧毁了波斯的宗主权，占领了巴比伦、苏萨、波斯波利斯和埃克巴塔那。他沿着兴都库什山脉东南坡进入印度时几乎未遇抵抗，尽管征服巴克特里亚和索格狄亚那（俄属突厥斯坦）耗费了他整整三年时间。在印度西北部，他遭遇的唯一顽强抵抗来自波鲁斯国王领导的保拉瓦人，但海达斯佩斯河战役很快粉碎了这一抵抗。此后他横扫旁遮普，在回师途中取道印度河三角洲与格德罗西亚。其军队主力由马其顿人和希腊人组成，但也吸纳了来自其他各民族的士兵，其中多数属于比希腊更古老的文明，其艺术与传说同样丰富多彩。 部分原因在于他对这些民族的偏爱以及混合军队的理念，这导致了公元前 324 年军队的大规模哗变。
India had remained little known to the peoples of the Mediterranean until the explorations of the Greek Scylax down the Kabul and Indus rivers and the extention of Darius’ empire to the Indus ^(11){ }^{11}, and even then it evidently remained a strange and wondrous land, till the conquest of Alexander brought more reliable information at least as far as the river Hyphasis (Beas), and some idea too about the Ganges valley and Sri Lanka. Nearchus, friend of Alexander and commander of his fleet, explored the coast from the Indus to the Tigris and his account of India, written in 312 B.C. was used by Strabo and by Arrian for his Indike. Within this short period the Greeks, with their penchant for inquiry, would have gained direct acquaintance with the regions up to the Jumna to which Seleucus I is said to have advanced, and much other information about the regions south and east, though having acquiesed to the status of emigrant settlers and with the difficulty of communication with the mother land, they appear to have merged their interests with the new lands into which they had come. 在希腊探险家斯基拉克沿喀布尔河与印度河探索、大流士帝国疆域扩展至印度河之前，地中海诸民族对印度几乎一无所知。即便在那时，印度显然仍是一片陌生而神奇的土地，直到亚历山大的征服带来了更可靠的信息——至少远至希发西斯河（比亚斯河），并对恒河流域和斯里兰卡有所了解。亚历山大的挚友、舰队统帅尼阿库斯探索了从印度河到底格里斯河的海岸线，其公元前 312 年撰写的印度见闻录被斯特拉波和阿里安用于《印度志》。在这短暂时期内，热衷探索的希腊人本应直接熟悉直至塞琉古一世所至的亚穆纳河地区，并获取更多关于南部和东部地区的信息。然而作为移民定居者，他们默许了现状，加之与故土联系困难，似乎已将自身利益与新家园融为一体。
The cultural traffic was thus evidently one-way, i.e. from the West to India, showing that the syncrasis of cultures at this time took place in India. There is no considerable trace of the reverse influence of Indian art, literature or thought upon Greece until much later. Archaeological remains of Indo-Greek cities, notably at Sirkap and Ay-Khanum in Central Asia, the impact of Greek and GraecoRoman art upon the art of Buddhist India (Gandhara) of the succeeding centuries and the numsmatic evidence from the increasing discoveries of coins and coin-hoards give ample testimony to the commitment of the Greeks in the regions which they first came to be intimate with following Alexander. Greek versions of the edicts of King Dharmasoka (264-227 B.C.) discovered in 1959 and 1964 in the region of Kandahar is proof of the existence even in his time of a cultured and influential Greek speaking community in Northern India, ^(12){ }^{12} with the implication of how much more so this must have been under Greek rule itself. Dharmasoka maintained close 由此可见，文化传播显然是单向的，即从西方流向印度，这表明当时的文化融合发生在印度。直到很久以后，印度艺术、文学或思想对希腊的反向影响才出现显著痕迹。印希城市的考古遗迹（尤以中亚的锡尔卡普和阿伊哈努姆为著）、希腊与希腊罗马艺术对后续几个世纪佛教印度（犍陀罗）艺术的影响，以及日益增多的钱币与钱币窖藏发现所提供的钱币学证据，都充分证明了希腊人在亚历山大东征后最初接触的这些地区所投入的力度。1959 年和 1964 年在坎大哈地区发现的达摩索卡王（公元前 264-227 年）诏书的希腊文译本，证明了即使在他那个时代，北印度也存在一个受过教育且颇具影响力的希腊语社群， ^(12){ }^{12} 这暗示着在希腊人直接统治时期该群体的规模必然更为可观。达摩索卡保持着密切
relations with the Greeks, sending embassies to the Hellenistic kings. Then in the second century B.C. North-West India was re-occupied by the Graeco-Bactrian rulers, until the rise of the Parthian Empire cut India from Greece and invaders from Central Asia obliterated the Greek cities of the Indus valley. Greek influence in art and literature remained in India up to the second century A.D. at least, to judge from its drama and sculpture - though possibly in both, with an overlay of Roman. But by then the Buddhist birth stories of our concern here, had been composed and compiled and their depictions on and at the stupas of Bharhut and Sanchi completed. 与希腊人保持联系，向希腊化诸王派遣使团。到了公元前二世纪，西北印度再次被希腊-巴克特里亚统治者占领，直到帕提亚帝国崛起切断了印度与希腊的联系，来自中亚的入侵者摧毁了印度河流域的希腊城市。至少在公元二世纪之前，希腊对印度艺术和文学的影响依然存在——从戏剧和雕塑中可以判断，尽管这两者可能都掺杂了罗马元素。但到那时，我们这里所关注的佛教本生故事已经创作并编纂完成，它们在巴尔胡特和桑奇佛塔上及周围的浮雕也已完成。
Already, as I have shown, writers and commentators of the past generation had drawn attention to a few of the jatakas as sharing motifs with certain fables of Aesop and with other Greek myths and historical anecdotes. For the sake of comprehensiveness I shall include these already detected cases as well in the catalogue of jatakas I give below with their comparable Greek stories. 正如我已指出的，上一代的作家和评论家们早已注意到部分本生故事与伊索寓言及其他希腊神话、历史轶事存在共同母题。为求全面，在下方列出的本生故事及其对应希腊故事的目录中，我将一并收录这些已被发现的案例。
Nalapana Jataka (No. 20), also Tayodhamma Jataka (No. 58) has the clue of one-way foot-prints (Müller’s nulla vestigia retrorsum) warning a monkey of danger (an ogre) lurking in the waters of a pool. 《那罗波那本生经》（第 20 号），又称《达尤达摩本生经》（第 58 号），通过单向足迹的线索（缪勒所称"无返程足迹"）警示猴子池水中潜伏着危险（食人魔）。
This same is found in Aesop’s fable The Lion and the Fox (C.196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147), in which a fox saves himself from a lion who pretends to be ill and dying, by seeing foot-prints of other animals going into his cave but none coming out. The oldest occurence of this is in the myth of Hercules and Cacus. 这一情节同样出现在伊索寓言《狮子与狐狸》（编号 C.196、H.246、P.142、Hs.147）中：狐狸通过观察只有动物进入狮子洞穴的足迹却无返回足迹，识破装病垂死狮子的诡计而自救。该母题最古老的记载可见于赫拉克勒斯与卡库斯的神话。
In the Devadhamma Jataka (No. 6) the hero saves himself thereafter by solving a riddle asked by an ogre. “What is truly god like?” who killed all who failed, a practice which harks us back to the Sphinx in the Oedipus myth. Drinking without being seized by a monster lurking in the water is also the crucial element of the Greek 《天法本生经》（第 6 号）中，主人公通过解答食人魔提出的谜题"何为真正神性？"而自救——这个会杀死所有失败者的设定，令人联想到俄狄浦斯神话中的斯芬克斯。从潜伏水怪的威胁下成功饮水的情节，同样是希腊......
Dogs and Crocodiles (Ph.i.25), an aetiological fable which tells why dogs drink from the Nile on the run. (Vijaya’s adventure with Kuvanna in the foundation myth of Sri Lanka, while reminiscent of this, is however more so of Odysseus’ encounter with Circe.) In the Vanarinda Jataka (No. 57) it is a monkey who defeats the jaws of the crocodile; having to leap over the latter, he gets him to close his eyes by making him open his mouth. 《狗与鳄鱼》（《本生经》卷一第 25 则）是一则解释性寓言，讲述狗为何要边跑边喝尼罗河水。（斯里兰卡建国神话中维贾亚与库万娜的冒险故事虽与此相似，却更接近奥德修斯与喀耳刻的相遇。）在《猕猴本生》（第 57 则）中，战胜鳄鱼巨口的是一只猴子；它必须跳过鳄鱼，于是通过诱使鳄鱼张嘴来让其闭眼。
Bhojajaniya Jataka (No. 23). A noble steed (in the Ajanna Jataka (No. 24), yoked to another noble steed, helps a cavalryman vanquish and capture six kings, but is injured and being replaced by a hack to capture the seventh, when he requests that he be re-armed to complete the task for fear of it being botched, succeeds and dies. These two jatakas invert the motif of the Aesopic The Soldier and the Horse (C.142, H.178, P.320) where an old war horse, which after battle had been put to menial work carrying heavy loads and fed on chaff, is re-armed and keeps falling and reprimands his master for having used him as a donkey and now wanting him to be a war-horse once again. Compare the war-elephant, old and reduced to transporting cow-dung of the Dalhadhamana Jataka (No. 409). The elephant in both the jataka proper and its paccuppannavatthu (which is more or less the same) is restored to its pristine dignity. 《波阇迦尼耶本生》（第 23 则）。一匹骏马（在《阿阇那本生》第 24 则中与另一匹骏马同轭）协助骑兵击败并俘获六位国王，却因负伤被劣马替换去擒获第七位国王。此时它请求重新披挂上阵以免任务失败，最终成功完成任务后死去。这两则本生故事反转了伊索寓言《士兵与战马》（编号 C.142/H.178/P.320）的母题——在那则寓言中，一匹战后被贬去驮运重物、仅以糠秕为食的老战马，当重新披挂铠甲时不断跌倒，并斥责主人先前把它当驴使唤，如今却要它再当战马。可对照《达拉陀摩那本生》（第 409 则）中那头年老沦落为运输牛粪的战象。无论在本生故事主体还是其现代因缘（二者大体相同）中，这头大象都恢复了昔日尊严。
Munika Jataka (No. 30) and the Saluka Jataka (No. 286). A hardworking young ox, fed on grass and straw, envies a pig which is being fattened on rice. His elder brother explains that it is for death that the pig is being thus indulged. Later, when the young ox sees the pig slaughtered and cooked, he is reconciled to his humble fare as a thousand times better than the food of death. 《慕尼卡本生经》（第 30 号）与《萨卢卡本生经》（第 286 号）。一头只吃草料的勤劳小牛，羡慕着被稻米喂肥的猪。它的兄长解释道：这般优待猪只为了送它赴死。后来当小牛目睹猪被宰杀烹煮，便甘于自己的粗淡饮食，明白这比催命的美食强过千倍。
Rhys-Davids refers to a fable of Aesop (The Ox and the Calf in James’ Aesop No. 150) in connection with this jataka, in which a calf laughs at a draught-ox for bearing his drudgery patiently. The ox says nothing. Soon afterwards there is a feast and the ox gets a holiday while the calf is led to be sacrificed. (For this fable see C.92, H.113, P.300, B.37, Avian. 36). Compare however Aesop’s fable of The Wild Ass (C.264, H.321, P.183, Hs.194), who congratulates a tame one on his sleek body and enjoyment of rich fodder, but later, seeing him carrying burdens and his driver beating 里斯·戴维斯提及与此本生故事相关的伊索寓言（詹姆斯版《伊索寓言》第 150 则《公牛与牛犊》）：牛犊嘲笑耕牛逆来顺受，耕牛默不作声。不久宴席备妥，耕牛获得休憩，而牛犊却被牵去献祭。（该寓言见于 C.92/H.113/P.300/B.37/阿维亚努斯 36）。不过可对比伊索寓言《野驴》（C.264/H.321/P.183/Hs.194）：野驴起初羡慕家驴毛色光亮且享用精饲料，后来却看见它负重前行，还遭赶驴人鞭打
him with a stick, says he no longer congratulates him, for he now sees that it is not without great suffering that he has his good living. Compare also The Sheep and the Pig (C.94, H.115, P.85, Hs.87) where a pig is caught for slaughter and the sheep make comment on it. 他用棍子打他，说不再祝贺他了，因为他现在明白，要过上好日子并非没有巨大的痛苦。另可比较《绵羊与猪》（C.94, H.115, P.85, Hs.87）的故事：一头猪被抓去宰杀时，绵羊对此发表了评论。
Nacca Jataka (No. 32) The golden mallard, king of the birds, grants his daughter the choice of a husband. She chooses the peacock - who is so elated that he dances, and in doing so exposes his rear. The mallard is so angered by this that he rejects the peacock and gives his daughter to another mallard. 《孔雀本生经》（第 32 号） 金翅鸟王允许女儿自选夫婿。她选中了孔雀——孔雀得意忘形跳起舞来，结果露出了屁股。金翅鸟王勃然大怒，拒绝将女儿许配给孔雀，转而许配给了另一只金翅鸟。
A strikingly similar story, but with human participants, is the historical anecdote given by Herodotus (vi. 129) of how Megacles came to marry Agariste, the daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon. This parallel will be subjected to a detailed study in chapter XII. 一个惊人相似但人物换成人类的故事，是希罗多德（第六卷第 129 节）记载的历史轶事：麦加克勒斯如何娶到西锡安僭主克利斯提尼的女儿阿伽里斯忒。这个对应案例将在第十二章进行详细研究。
Sammodamana Jataka (No. 33) Quails caught by net by a fowler are advised to act unitedly and fly off, net and all, then alighting on a thorn brake, disentangle themselves. They do so successfully until wrangling breaks out when one accidentally treds on the feet of another; thereupon the fowler catches them all. In the Rukkhadhamma Jataka (No. 74) tree deities are advised not to occupy lone trees in open spaces but those in clusters. Some disobey in their greed for offerings; but when a tempest blows, their trees are flattened to the ground. “United forest-like should kinsfolk stand,” says a wise deity, “The storm overthrows the solitary tree”. 《和睦本生经》（第 33 则）讲述鹌鹑被猎人以网捕获后，听从建议团结一致带着整张网飞离，降落在荆棘丛中后成功挣脱。它们屡试不爽，直到有只鹌鹑不慎踩到同伴脚趾引发争执，猎人便趁机将它们一网打尽。《树法本生经》（第 74 则）中，树神们被告诫勿栖身于旷野孤树，而应选择丛林中的树木。有些树神因贪图供品违抗告诫，暴风雨来袭时，他们的树木便被连根拔起。"亲族当如密林般团结"，一位智者树神说道，"风暴只会摧折孤立之木"。
This idea of “united we stand, divided we fall”, especially when illustrated through trees, recalls Aesop’s The Children of the Farmer (C.86, H.103, P.53, Hs.53) in which a farmer, whose sons used to quarrel, give them an object lesson by getting them first to try and break faggots as a bundle, and when they fail, break them one by one. As for the image of the birds caught in a net, Aesop has it though with a different lesson, in a fable of a stork caught in a farmer’s net along with cranes. See The Farmer and the Stork (B. 13). 这种"合则存，分则亡"的理念——尤其是通过树木意象来阐释时——令人联想到伊索寓言《农夫的孩子们》（编号 C.86/H.103/P.53/Hs.53）：农夫让争吵不休的儿子们先尝试折断成捆的柴枝，失败后再逐一折断，以此施教。至于鸟陷罗网的意象，伊索在《农夫与鹤》（编号 B.13）中亦有呈现，不过寓意不同：故事讲述一只鹳鸟与鹤群同陷农夫的罗网。
Veluka Jataka (No. 43) A hermit picks up a young poisonous viper and nurtures it in the joint of a bamboo, in spite of his being warned by his teacher that “a viper can never be trusted”. One day, however, this viper, angered by hunger, stings his benefactor and kills him. 维鲁卡本生（第 43 号）一位隐士不顾老师"毒蛇永不可信"的警告，将一条幼年毒蛇捡回并养在竹节中。然而某日，这条因饥饿而暴怒的毒蛇竟咬死了它的恩人。
Compare with this Aesop’s The Farmer and the Snake (C.82, H.97, P.176, Hs.62) in which a farmer, finding a snake stiff from freezing, takes pity on it and warms it at his bosom. But with the warmth there returns also the congenital viciousness of the snake, who stings the farmer and kills him. “I got what I deserved,” says the man as he dies, “for showing pity for an evil creature”. See also The Hen and the Swallow (C.286, H.342, P.192, Hs.206) where a swallow warns a hen found hatching a snake’s eggs, of the danger of being the first victim. “Even the kindest treatment cannot tame a savage nature”. 对比伊索寓言《农夫与蛇》（编号 C.82/H.97/P.176/Hs.62）：农夫发现冻僵的蛇，心生怜悯将其揣入怀中取暖。但随着体温恢复，蛇的天生恶性复苏，咬死了农夫。"我活该"，垂死的农夫说，"竟对邪恶生灵施以怜悯"。另见《母鸡与燕子》（编号 C.286/H.342/P.192/Hs.206）：燕子警告正在孵蛇蛋的母鸡，将成为第一个受害者。"再仁慈的对待也无法驯化野蛮天性"。
Makasa Jataka (No. 44) A mosquito settles on the head of a bald man and stings him. The man’s son, intent on killing the mosquito, hits it with an axe, cleaving the father’s head. In the Rohini Jataka (No. 45) it is mother, daughter, flies and a pestle respectively. Phaedrus (v. 3) tells the fable of The Bald Man and the Fly, from which perhaps the Makasa got the bald man and the Rohini the flies. Note that the latter not only strives to differ from the former but is much the same as its own paccuppannavatthu or present-life story. 《蚊本生经》（第 44 号）一只蚊子落在秃头男子头上叮咬他。男子之子为杀死蚊子，用斧头劈砍，却劈开了父亲的头颅。在《罗睺罗本生经》（第 45 号）中，角色分别替换为母亲、女儿、苍蝇和杵。斐德鲁斯（第五卷第三则）记载了《秃子与苍蝇》的寓言，或许《蚊本生经》中的秃头男子与《罗睺罗本生经》中的苍蝇皆源于此。值得注意的是后者不仅刻意与前作保持差异，其情节与自身的"现世因缘"（paccuppannavatthu）也几乎如出一辙。
Ucchanga Jataka (No. 67) A woman’s husband, son and brother are wrongfully arrested for robbery. The king agrees to release one of them and asks the woman to make her choice. She chooses her brother, saying the former two are replaceable, but not a brother. The king is impressed and releases all three. 《优禅伽本生经》（第 67 号）一名女子的丈夫、儿子和兄弟被诬陷抢劫而遭逮捕。国王同意释放其中一人，让女子作出选择。她选择了兄弟，解释说丈夫和儿子尚可替代，而兄弟不可复得。国王为之动容，将三人全部释放。
Compare Antigone upon her defiance of the law against burying her brother in Sophocles’ tragedy, the Antigone (vs. 909-912). She says a husband or a son could be got, if one were lost, but not a brother. The same argument is put forward by Intaphernes’ wife in Herodotus (iii. 118-120). The king is impressed and grants her the life of her eldest son as well. 试比较索福克勒斯悲剧《安提戈涅》中，安提戈涅违抗禁令埋葬兄长时的场景（第 909-912 行）。她声称失去丈夫或儿子尚可再得，但兄弟却无法复生。希罗多德《历史》（卷三 118-120 节）记载的因塔斐涅斯之妻亦提出相同论点，国王为之动容，遂额外赦免其长子性命。
Mahasupina Jataka (No. 77) (I) In the seventh of the sixteen dreams that a king dreamed, he saw a man weaving a rope, while a hungry she-jackal, lying under his bench and without his knowledge, kept eating what he wove. The interpretation, given by the Buddha/Bodhisatta of this is that a day will come when women will become lustful and profligate and plunder the hard earnings of their husbands. 《大梦本生经》（第 77 号）（一）某国王十六个梦境中的第七梦：他看见有人正在编织绳索，一只饥饿的雌豺潜伏在编织者凳下，趁其不备不断啃食所编之物。佛陀/菩萨对此的阐释是：未来将出现女性纵欲放荡、肆意挥霍丈夫血汗钱财的时代。
In the Club-house (lesche) of the Cnidians in Delphi, which was painted by the famed artist, Polygnotus of Thasos (fl. 475-447 B.C.), was a detail which depicted Ocnus weaving a rope, while a she-donkey stood beside him eating whatever he wove. This Oknus was an industrious man with an extravagant wife. The paintings depicted scenes from Hades and are described by the traveller, Pausanias in bk. xx of his description of Greece. 在德尔斐的克尼多斯人会堂（lesche）——该建筑装饰着著名画家塔索斯的波利格诺托斯（活跃于公元前 475-447 年）的壁画——有一处细节描绘奥克努斯编织绳索时，身旁站立的母驴不断吞食其编织物。这位奥克努斯是勤勉之人，却有个挥霍无度的妻子。这些描绘冥界场景的壁画，由旅行家保萨尼阿斯在《希腊志》第 xx 卷中详述。
Mahasupina Jataka (No. 77) (2) In his eighth dream the jataka king saw a big pitcher full to the brim and standing in the middle of a number of empty ones. People kept carrying water in pipkins and pouring into the full pitcher, which overflowed; But they continued doing so. 大隧道本生经（第 77 则）(2) 在本生王的第八个梦境中，他看到一只盛满水的大瓮矗立于众多空瓮中央。人们不断用小陶罐运水倒入这只已满的瓮中，导致水溢流而出；但他们仍持续着这一行为。
This vision is immediately reminiscent of the punishment, in Greek mythology, of those who, according to Pausanias (x. 31) despised the rites of Eleusis and were depicted doing a similar thing in no less a place than that same famous painting of Hades by Polygnotus. For it showed a great jar, an old man and some women, a young one under a rock and an old one beside the old man. Most of them were carrying water, the old woman in a broken pot, and pouring it into the jar. [Notable of this jataka is the fact that, while the paccuppannavatthu and jataka proper are similar to the extent that the one simply refers the hearer (or reader) to the other for the details, it is the paccuppannavatthu rather than the jataka proper which gives the story in its fulness.] 这一幻象立刻令人联想到希腊神话中——根据保萨尼阿斯（x.31）记载——那些蔑视厄琉息斯秘仪者所受的惩罚，他们被描绘在波吕格诺托斯那幅著名的冥界壁画中从事着类似行为。画中呈现了一只巨瓮、一位老者和若干妇女，岩石下有位年轻女子，老者身旁则站着位老妪。他们大多在运水，老妇人用破罐取水，然后将水倾入瓮中。[值得注意的是，在本生经中，虽然现世因缘与本生故事本身相似到只需相互参照细节的程度，但完整叙述这个故事的其实是现世因缘部分，而非本生故事主体。]
Illisa Jataka (No. 78). The Treasurer Illisa is so stingy that, to cure him of this vice, Sakkra takes his form and in his absence distributes his wealth. When Illisa shows up at his home, he is repudiated as an imposter by his servants as well as his own wife. Sakkra even frustrates his identification of himself by a bump on his head by 《伊梨萨本生经》（第 78 号）。司库伊梨萨吝啬成性，为矫正其恶习，帝释天化身为其形貌，趁其不在时散尽家财。当伊梨萨返家时，竟被仆役与结发妻子斥为冒名者。帝释天甚至通过在自己头上复现其肿块的方式
developing one on his own! Hisa is afterwards enlightened on why and by whom he had been impersonated, and decides to be more liberal henceforth. 彻底粉碎了他自证身份的可能！伊梨萨最终知晓了被冒充的缘由与主使者，从此决心乐善好施。
The plot is obviously influenced by the Greek myth of Amphitryon and Alcmena in which Zeus impersonates the hero in his absence and sleeps with Alcmena. The version used by the Roman dramatist Plautus (251-184 B.C.) in his comedy puts Amphitryon in the same plight as Illisa on account of the god’s impersonation. Here the physical proof of identity, which gets duplicated, is a golden bowl. 该情节明显受到希腊神话中安菲特律翁与阿尔克墨涅传说的影响——宙斯趁英雄外出时化身其形与阿尔克墨涅同寝。罗马剧作家普劳图斯（公元前 251-184 年）在其喜剧中采用的版本，因神灵的冒充使安菲特律翁陷入与伊梨萨相同的窘境。剧中作为身份凭证却被复制的物证，是一只金碗。
Vissasabhojana Jataka (No. 93) A lion so frightens a herdsman’s cows that they yield little milk. So he anoints a doe that the lion loved, with poison mixed with sugar. The lion, licking her, dies illustrating the fact that even the king of beasts can come to grief due to the passion of love. 《维萨食本生经》（第 93 号）狮子惊扰牧人牛群致产奶锐减。牧人遂将毒药混入糖浆，涂抹于狮子钟爱的母鹿身上。狮子舔舐后毒发身亡，印证了即便百兽之王也会因情欲招致灾祸。
Something similar happens to the same kind of beast, a lion, and through the same passion, love, in the Aesopic fable of The Lion and the Farmer (C.198, H.249, P.140, Hs!145). The farmer, whose daughter the lion wishes to marry, requires the beast to extract his teeth and pare his claws, saying these frightened the girl. When the lion does so and presents himself, the farmer treats him with contempt and drives him off with a beating. 类似的情节也发生在同一种野兽——狮子身上，同样因爱欲驱使，见于伊索寓言《狮子与农夫》（编号 C.198/H.249/P.140/Hs!145）。农夫要求想娶其女儿的狮子拔掉牙齿、修剪利爪，称这些特征会吓到姑娘。当狮子照做后前来求亲时，农夫却轻蔑相待，将其痛打驱逐。
Akalaravi Jataka (No. 119) Some scholars find a cock in a cemetery and bring it to their lodgings to put them up at dawn to study. But because it was bred among the dead, it keeps no time but crows both night and day, disturbing both their study and their sleep. So they wring its neck. 《阿卡拉拉维本生经》（第 119 则）几位学者在墓地发现一只公鸡，便带回住所指望它黎明报晓以便研习。但这只生长在死者堆里的公鸡毫无时间观念，昼夜不停地啼叫，既干扰他们学习又影响睡眠。最终他们拧断了它的脖子。
A cock similarly comes to a bad end because of its crowing in Aesop’s The Robbers and the Cock (C.158, H.195, P.122, Hs.124). Robbers burgling a house find nothing in it except a cock. So they take it away and are about to sacrifice it when it pleads for mercy, saying it served men by rousing them before day-break. “All the more reason for killing you,” say the robbers, “for by your waking them up before dawn, you stop us robbing them”. So saying they kill it. As for people resenting a cock’s crowing betimes and therefore killing it, see also The Mistress and her Maids (C.82, H.110, 在伊索寓言《强盗与公鸡》（C.158, H.195, P.122, Hs.124）中，一只公鸡同样因啼叫而招致厄运。强盗们闯入一户人家，除了一只公鸡外一无所获。他们带走公鸡准备宰杀时，公鸡哀求道自己每天拂晓前打鸣唤醒人类是在效劳于人。"这更该杀你了，"强盗们说，"你天没亮就叫醒他们，害得我们没法偷盗。"说罢便杀了它。关于人们因嫌公鸡报晓而杀之的类似情节，另见《女主人与女仆》（C.82, H.110,
P.55, Hs.55) As in the jataka, here it is those who are roused who are annoyed by the cock’s crowing; the former Aesopic fable is a clear case of inversion apropos this detail. P.55, Hs.55）。与本生经故事相同的是，此处被唤醒者因鸡鸣而恼怒；而前述伊索寓言在这个细节上显然构成了情节反转。
Suvannahamsa Jataka (No. 136). A man dies and is reborn as a golden mallard and visits the house of his erstwhile wife and family. On each such occasion he gives them a feather of gold to sell and live in comfort. But the wife, fearing he may stop coming, finally seizes him and plucks his feathers all at once. But since they are taken against the bird’s wish, they cease to be gold. 《金天鹅本生》（第 136 则）。某人死后转世为金天鹅，常去探访前妻与子女。每次拜访都会留下一根金羽毛供他们变卖度日。但妻子唯恐天鹅不再来访，最终抓住它一次性拔光了所有羽毛。由于违背了天鹅的意愿，这些羽毛全都失去了黄金的质地。
Greed similar to this is what makes the devotee of Hermes kill the goose that the god gifted him, which laid a golden egg each day in Aesop’s well-known fable, The Gold-bearing Goose (C.287, H.343, P.87, Hs.89). He could not wait for the wealth to come to him little by little, so he killed the bird, thinking its insides were of solid gold - only to find them flesh and blood. 这种贪婪与伊索著名寓言《产金蛋的鹅》（编号 C.287/H.343/P.87/Hs.89）中赫尔墨斯信徒的行为如出一辙——这位信徒因无法忍受逐日积累财富的缓慢过程，杀死了每天产一枚金蛋的神赐之鹅，妄想其腹中藏有纯金，结果只掏出血肉之躯。
Babbu Jataka (No. 137) A mouse, falling in love with a stonecutter, brings him a coin from a hidden hoard every day. He in return gives her a piece of meat. But soon four cats, one after the other catch her and she buys her life at the price of a share of that meat. Learning of this, the stone-cutter makes her a crypt of crystal, safe inside which she defies the cats, who leap at her, burst their chests and die. In the Sigala Jataka (No. 152) lions suffer the same fate when they leap at a jackal in a cave of crystal to kill him for having insulted their sister by his advances. The mouse who fell in love with the stone-cutter was in a former birth a human being, the wife of a rich merchant. 《巴布本生经》（第 137 则） 一只爱上石匠的老鼠每日从秘密宝库中偷取钱币相赠，石匠则回赠肉块。不久四只猫相继捉住老鼠，它每次都用部分肉块赎命。石匠得知后为它打造水晶洞窟庇护所，老鼠在洞内挑衅群猫，扑咬的猫群皆因撞击水晶而胸裂身亡。《豺本生经》（第 152 则）中，狮子们因豺狼追求其姐妹而受辱，在扑向水晶洞窟内的豺狼时也遭遇同样命运。那只爱上石匠的老鼠前世原是富商之妻。
In Aesop’s fable, The Cat and Aphrodite (C.76, H.88, P.50, Hs.50) it is a cat who falls in love with a youth and is metamorphosed into a maiden (by the goddess of Love). She becomes his wife; but when she suddenly sees a mouse, she forgets who she is and goes after it. As for the inaccessible animal behind a crystal, who destroys those who jump at her (or him), it may be an inversion of the detail of the fable of the dog who jumped at his own reflection in the (crystal-like) water to get what he thought was a bigger piece of meat it was carrying, and thus killed himself. See Aesop’s popular fable of /’ ''g with the Piece of Meat (C.185, H.233, P.133, Hs. 136). 在伊索寓言《猫与阿芙罗狄忒》（编号 C.76, H.88, P.50, Hs.50）中，一只猫爱上青年，被爱神化为人形少女。她成为青年妻子，却在突然看见老鼠时忘记身份追逐而去。至于水晶屏障后那只触不可及、会杀死扑向者的动物，可能是对另一则寓言情节的倒置——那条狗为夺取水中倒影看似更大的肉块，扑向（水晶般）水面而丧命。参见伊索著名寓言《叼着肉的狗》（编号 C.185, H.233, P.133, Hs.136）。
Godha Jataka (No. 138) A hermit develops a craving for lizard flesh. A lizard, who used to visit him, suspects this and avoids him. The hermit throws a mallet at him but only hits the tip of his tail. Whereupon the lizard asks him what such as he had to do with the garb of a hermit. 《蜥蜴本生》（第 138 则）一位隐士对蜥蜴肉产生贪欲。常来造访的蜥蜴察觉后避而不见。隐士掷出木槌，仅击中其尾尖。蜥蜴遂质问：你这般行径，与隐士装束有何相干？
A man hitting at a reptile with a weapon and missing appears as the incident of Aesop’s The Farmer and the Snake (C.81, H.96, P.51, Hs .51 ), where a farmer throws an axe at a snake that had killed his child. The axe misses and chips the rock in which the snake had his hole. After this the man tries to make peace with the snake. The nature of the retort in the jataka however derives from a different sort of Aesopic fable, for example The Ass and the Wolf (C.281, H.334, P.187, Hs.198), in which a wolf, requested by an ass to extract a thorn in his hoof before he ate him, peers at it and has his face kicked in and declares that he deserved it - for what had he, who was really a butcher, to do with playing doctor. Or see the fable of The Kid and the Wolf (C.107, H.134, P.97, Hs.99) in which a wolf, about to eat a young goat, is persuaded to play the flute for it to dance a while before dying. The music brings the dogs to the scene and saves the kid; whereupon the wolf asks himself what business he had playing flautist when he was in fact a butcher. 一人挥动武器击打爬行动物却失手的情节，出现在伊索寓言《农夫与蛇》（C.81, H.96, P.51, Hs.51）中：农夫向咬死其子的蛇投掷斧头，斧头偏离目标劈碎了蛇栖身的岩石。此后农夫试图与蛇和解。但本生经中反驳的本质源自另一类伊索寓言，例如《驴与狼》（C.281, H.334, P.187, Hs.198）——狼应驴子要求在吃掉它前为其拔除蹄中荆棘，俯身查看时被踢中面部，狼自嘲活该，毕竟身为屠夫却要冒充医生。又如《小羊与狼》（C.107, H.134, P.97, Hs.99）中，狼被小羊说服在享用前吹笛伴舞，笛声引来猎犬救下羊羔，狼遂自问：明明是个屠夫，何必装什么笛手。
Kaka Jataka (No. 140) A crow befouls the head of the king’s chaplain and he conceives a hatred for all crows. A palace slavegirl, to punish a goat which kept eating the rice she put out to dry, hits him with a torch and sets his fleece ablaze. The goat, running into the barn and rolling in the hay, not only sets fire to the barn but the elephant-stables as well, causing burns to the elephants. When the Brahmin is asked for a cure for these burns, he recommends crows-fat. Immediately crows are killed in numbers - until one of them explains things to the king. (Nearly the same story is told and of monkeys in the Kapi Jataka (No. 404). 卡卡本生经（第 140 号） 一只乌鸦玷污了国王祭司长的头顶，使他憎恨所有乌鸦。宫中一名婢女为惩罚不断偷吃她晾晒稻米的山羊，用火把击打羊身，点燃了它的羊毛。山羊冲进谷仓并在干草堆中翻滚，不仅引燃了谷仓，还波及象厩，导致大象被烧伤。当婆罗门被问及治疗烧伤之法时，他推荐使用乌鸦脂肪。乌鸦随即遭到大量捕杀——直到其中一只向国王阐明真相。（与卡皮本生经（第 404 号）中猴子的故事几乎如出一辙）。
This jataka is constituted of the motifs of two distinct Aesopic fables. The manner in which the fire ensues looks to The Man and the Fox (C.58, H.61, P.283), in which a man, furious with a fox for the damage he caused him, ties tow to his tail and sets it alight. The fox however runs into his captor’s corn-fields and sets them abiaze. As for the mode in which the Brahmin took his revenge from the 该本生故事融合了两个截然不同的伊索寓言母题。火灾发生的方式源自《人与狐狸》（C.58，H.61，P.283）：某人因狐狸造成的损失勃然大怒，将麻絮绑在狐狸尾巴上并点燃。然而狐狸逃进其仇人的玉米地，引发大火。至于婆罗门实施报复的方式，则
crows/monkeys, see Aesop’s The Lion, the Wolf and the Fox (C.205, H.255, P.258, Hs.269). All the animals visit a sick lion, except the fox. The wolf uses this to malign the fox to the lion - but the fox, coming late, overhears him. The fox says he was late because, unlike the others, he had gone to find a remedy for the lion’s illness. Upon being asked what it is, he says doctors had prescribed the application of the skin of a wolf, while it was still warm after flaying. Immediately the wolf is dead. (Doctors prescribe a broth of goat’s lung for an ass who falls and injures himself on the advice of a goat to dodge work in the fable of The Goat and the Ass (C.16, H.16, P.279), giving a slightly different twist to the plot. For what happens to the goat happens to be accidental rather than perpetrated by someone out for revenge.) 乌鸦/猴子，参见伊索寓言《狮子、狼与狐狸》（编号 C.205、H.255、P.258、Hs.269）。所有动物都去探望生病的狮子，唯独狐狸缺席。狼借此在狮子面前诋毁狐狸——但迟到的狐狸恰好偷听到对话。狐狸解释自己迟到是因为专程去寻找治疗狮子疾病的药方，与其他动物不同。当被问及药方时，他说医生建议用刚剥下还带着余温的狼皮敷贴。狼当场毙命。（在《山羊与驴》寓言中（编号 C.16、H.16、P.279），医生给摔伤的驴开了一剂山羊肺熬的汤药——这源于山羊为逃避劳作给驴出的馊主意，为情节增添了微妙变化。因为山羊的遭遇纯属意外，并非蓄意报复所致。）
Virocana Jataka (No. 143). See also the Jambuka Jataka (No. 335). A jackal became the servant of a lion (in the former jataka, serving as his scout) and received a share of the prey whenever the lion killed. Growing fat on the food he thus received, he wanted to kill elephants himself. So, despite the lion’s warning that jackals were not sprung from the stock that killed elephants (here see the Viraka Jataka (No. 204)) he made a leap at one, only to be trampled to death. 毗卢遮那本生经（第 143 号）。另见瞻部迦本生经（第 335 号）。豺狼成为狮子的仆从（在前者故事中担任侦察兵），每当狮子猎杀时都能分得猎物。因饱食而日渐肥硕的豺狼竟妄想独自猎杀大象。尽管狮子警告说豺狼并非能猎象的族类（参见维拉卡本生经第 204 号），它仍扑向大象，结果被踩踏致死。
In Aesop’s The Fox and the Lion (H41, Aphth. 20), it is the jackal’s cousin, the fox, who likewise tries to play hunter. In all these stories, Indian and Greek, the presumption that brings disaster is the consequence of pride. 在伊索寓言《狐狸与狮子》（H41，阿弗托尼乌斯版第 20 则）中，豺狼的表亲狐狸同样试图扮演猎手角色。这些印度与希腊故事共同揭示：招致灾祸的狂妄皆因傲慢而生。
Nanguttara Jataka (No. 144). Hunters kill and eat the ox that a votary had decided to sacrifice to the god of fire, when he went to fetch salt; only the tail and hide were left. Thereupon the man reviles the deity, asking him how he would look after his votary, if he could not look after what was his own. With that he throws to the god the leavings, bidding him fare on them. 南拘陀罗本生经（第 144 号）。当献祭者去取盐时，猎人宰杀并分食了他准备献给火神的祭牛，仅余牛尾与牛皮。此人遂诘问神明：若连己物尚不能守护，何以庇佑信徒？言毕便将残骸掷向神像，命其以此为食。
Compare with this the Aesopic The Farmer who lost his Mattock (H.21, B.2). When this farmer, who had lost his mattock, was taking his slaves to the temple to swear their innocence before the god, he hears a crier announcing a reward for anyone who could give information concerning certain property lost from that very temple. 与此相比，可参考伊索寓言《丢失锄头的农夫》（H.21，B.2）。这位丢失锄头的农夫正带着奴隶们前往神庙，准备在神前宣誓他们的清白时，突然听见传令官宣布：凡能提供线索协助找回该神庙遗失财物者，将获得赏金。
Thereupon the fellow asks how the god can know about others when he does not even know about who it was who stole his own property - and was indeed even know offering money to a man who could be of help to him in the matter! As for the offer of rejects to the god, a parallel may be found in the story of the votary of Hercules, who, promising the half of anything he should find to the god, and finding a wallet full of almonds and dates, made him an offering of the shells of the almonds and the seeds of the dates, saying he was giving him his share of both the outsides and insides of what he had found. See also Aesop’s The Wayfarer and Hermes (C.260, H.315, P.178, Hs.188) and compare the fable of the fortune-teller who went about telling others of their impending misfortunes, but could not foresee the burglary he himself was to suffer (C.233, H.286, P.161, Hs.170). 于是那人质问神明，连自己财物被盗者是谁都不知道，又怎能知晓他人之事——甚至还向可能在此事上帮得上忙的人悬赏！至于向神明供奉残渣的行为，可参照赫拉克勒斯信徒的故事：此人承诺将所获之物的一半献给神明，结果发现一个装满杏仁和椰枣的钱包，便将杏仁壳和椰枣核作为供品，声称这是将所获之物的外皮与内核均分给神明。另见伊索寓言《旅人与赫尔墨斯》（编号 C.260/H.315/P.178/Hs.188），并与占卜者的寓言相对照：此人四处预言他人灾祸，却未能预见自己将遭窃盗之灾（编号 C.233/H.286/P.161/Hs.170）。
Kaka Jataka (No. 146) Crows try to empty the sea in order to save the wife of one of them, who had fallen in and drowned. Their effort is in vain, so they console themselves with the belief that it was because of her beauty and her voice that the sea desired her. When they keep extolling these, they are shooed off by a bogey sent from the sea. (On the squirrel who tries to empty the sea with his tail to rescue her young who has got swept into it, see Spence Hardy Manual of Buddhism p. 100-101, also 98-99. 《乌鸦本生经》（第 146 则）群鸦试图舀干海水以拯救其中一只溺亡的雌鸦。徒劳无功后，它们自我安慰道，正是因她的美貌与歌喉，大海才执意将她夺走。当它们持续赞美这些特质时，却被海中派出的怪物驱散。（关于松鼠为救幼崽用尾巴舀干海水的类似故事，参见斯宾塞·哈迪《佛教手册》第 100-101 页及 98-99 页）
Aesop has a tale similar to this in The Hungry Dogs (C.176, H.218). Here it is the waters of a river that the dog drink, and the purpose, to get at some hides put to soak. They burst themselves in the effort. 伊索寓言《饥饿的狗》（编号 C.176，H.218）与此相似。故事中群狗为获取浸泡的兽皮而狂饮河水，最终在努力中撑破肚皮。
Sigala Jataka (No. 148) A jackal, finding the carcass of an elephant, ate his way into it from the rear and used it both for his food and his lodging. But when the sun dried the hide, the aperture shrank and he found himself incarcerated in it. Later, however, a downpour of rain moistened the skin and he was able to squeeze his way out - though not without losing all his hair. For the same story, see the Panc-Uposatha Jataka (No. 490). 《豺本生经》（第 148 则）豺发现大象尸体，从后部啃食进入，将其作为食物与住所。但阳光晒干象皮后，入口收缩导致它被困其中。后因暴雨浸湿象皮，它才得以脱身——却失去了全身毛发。相同故事亦见于《五斋戒本生经》（第 490 则）。
An all-too-obvious comparison is offered by the Aesopic The Fox with the Distended Stomach (C.30, H.31, P.24, Hs.24). A halfstarved fox, seeing food left in the hollow of a tree by some 伊索寓言中《肚子鼓胀的狐狸》（编号 C.30/H.31/P.24/Hs.24）提供了一个极为贴切的类比：一只饥肠辘辘的狐狸看见树洞里残留着其他
shepherds, ate it and could not get out. Another fox, seeing his plight, advised him to remain there till he got lean again. Here the aperture remains the same; it is the animal who expands and contracts. The jataka inverts this, making the jackal, our fox’s cousin, remain the same while it is the aperture which shrinks and expands. As for the former’s feature of slimming to save one’s life, the creature made to adopt this in the jatakas is a bird, a quail: see the Vattaka Jataka. (No. 158) 牧羊人吃了它，却无法脱身。另一只狐狸见状，建议它留在原地直到重新瘦下来。这里的洞口大小不变；变化的是动物自身的胖瘦。本生故事则反转了这一设定，让胡狼——我们狐狸的表亲——保持体型不变，而洞口却会收缩扩张。至于前者通过瘦身保命的特征，在本生故事中采用这一策略的是一只鸟——鹌鹑：参见《鹌鹑本生》（第 158 则）。
Alinacitta Jataka (No. 156) An elephant, who had trodden on a splinter of wood, went up to some carpenters working in the woods, who pulled it out for him. In gratitude for this our elephant served them by uprooting trees, hauling logs and doing other such tasks. Phaedrus gives the story of The Lion and the Shepherd (Ph. 563) in which a lion, treading on a thorn, has it extracted by a shepherd and how it showed its gratitude when the shepherd was thrown to wild beasts on a false charge. In Ph. 563a the man is identified as Androcles. In the same jataka is the observation that no noble animal will shed dung or stale in water. Cowell compares this with Hesiod Works and Days 753: “Don’t urinate in springs nor in the mouths of streams which flow to the sea”. In the Udapana-dusaka Jataka (No. 271) a jackal fouls a well after drinking from it and claims this is a law with jackals. There is hardly a difference between the present life story and past life story - except that in the latter the Bodhisatta talks to the jackal and it is able to reply, justifying its action. 《阿梨那吉达本生经》（第 156 号）记载：一头大象踩到木刺，便向林中干活的木匠求助，木匠为其拔除了木刺。感恩的大象通过拔树、拖运木材等方式回报他们。费德鲁斯在《狮子与牧羊人》（费德鲁斯 563 则）中讲述了类似故事：狮子因踩到荆棘被牧羊人救治，后当牧羊人遭诬陷被投入兽群时，狮子报恩相助。费德鲁斯 563a 则将该牧羊人明确为安德罗克勒斯。同部本生经还指出：高贵动物从不在水中排泄。考威尔将此与赫西俄德《工作与时日》第 753 行"勿在泉源或入海河口便溺"相比较。《乌达帕那-杜萨卡本生经》（第 271 号）中，豺狼饮毕即污染水井，并声称此乃豺狼天性。今生故事与前世故事几无差异——唯后者中菩萨能与豺狼对话，而豺狼竟能诡辩其行径。
Suhanu Jataka (No. 158) A king has a horse with a brutish nature, which he uses to injure horses brought to him for sale by horsedealers, and thereafter bids cheaply for them. The horse-dealers, on a suggestion, bring another like this animal. But no sooner they met than they stood licking each other. 苏哈努本生经（第 158 号）一位国王豢养一匹性情暴烈的马，专门用来伤害马贩们带来贩卖的马匹，借此压低收购价格。马贩们采纳建议，又带来一匹同样凶悍的马。不料两马相遇时，竟互相舔舐站立不动。
A similar story of ‘birds of a feather’ and involving a like kind of animal is to be found in Aesop’s Buying an Ass (C.263, H.320, P.237, Hs.200). A man, intending to buy an ass, takes one on trial and puts him among his own. It however turns its back on all others and goes and stands beside the laziest and likewise greediest of the lot. So the man returns it, saying he can do without further trial. 伊索寓言《买驴》（编号 C.263/H.320/P.237/Hs.200）记载着类似"物以类聚"的故事：某人试买驴时将其放入自家驴群，这驴却疏远其他驴子，径直站到最懒惰贪婪的驴子身旁。买主见状立即退还，声称无需再试。
Kacchapa Jataka (No. 178). A tortoise inhabiting a lake connected to a river, refuses to swim into the river when a drought sets in, which would dry up the lake. Later it is forced to dig itself into the mud and says this is where it was born, it grew up and where its parents had had their home. Soon a potter’s son, digging for clay, injures its shell and it dies, lamenting as it does so, “Here am I dying, all because I was too fond of my home to leave it.” This story is very similar in moral and involves the selfsame creature, the tortoise, as the Aesopic fable of The Tortoise and Zeus (C.125, H.154, P.106, Hs.108). All the animals, save the tortoise, turn up for Zeus’ wedding feast. Afterwards, when Zeus asked why it had not come, it replies, “I like my home; home is best”. Whereupon Zeus, in anger, condemned it to carry its home wherever it went. 《龟本生》（第 178 则）。一只栖息在与河流相连的湖泊中的乌龟，在旱灾来临时拒绝游入河流，尽管湖泊即将干涸。后来它被迫钻进泥中，声称这里既是出生之地，也是成长之所，更是父母安居之处。不久陶匠之子挖取黏土时击碎它的甲壳，临终之际它哀叹道："我今丧命，全因恋家不肯离去。"此则寓言在寓意与主角（乌龟）上，与伊索寓言《乌龟与宙斯》（编号 C.125/H.154/P.106/Hs.108）高度相似：众兽皆赴宙斯婚宴，唯乌龟缺席。事后宙斯质问缘由，龟答："吾爱吾宅，家最安乐"。宙斯震怒，判其永世背负家园而行。
Giridanta Jataka (No. 184). A horse who limped was found to be perfect physically. It was however discovered that his trainer was lame. That was why the horse too limped. 《跛足师本生》（第 184 则）。一匹跛足之马经查验身躯完好，后发觉其驯马师乃瘸腿之人，故马亦效仿其跛行。
This could very well be a reversal of the idea which made fable in Aesop’s The Crab and its Mother (C.151, H.187, P.322, Hs.319). Here a mother-crab tells her son not to walk sideways (and rub its sides on the wet rock); to which the son replies, “Alright, since you want to teach me, walk straight yourself. I will watch and emulate you.” Both fable and jataka involve, not just an eccentricity, but one in the manner of walking, and secondly a question of emulation. 这很可能是对伊索寓言《螃蟹与母蟹》（编号 C.151, H.187, P.322, Hs.319）中寓意的反转。故事中母蟹告诫小蟹不要横着走路（以免身体两侧摩擦潮湿的岩石），小蟹却回应道："好啊，既然您要教导我，那请您自己先直着走。我会看着并模仿您。"两个故事不仅都涉及行为怪癖——且都是关于行走方式的怪癖，其次还都关乎模仿的问题。
Sihakotthuka Jataka (No. 188). A lion begot a cub by a she-jackal. It was like him in every respect, but his voice was like his mother’s. One day when all the other cubs were gamboling and roaring, this cub too tried to roar, but all that came out of him was a yowl. On hearing this the lions grew silent, whereupon his sire advised him never again to attempt to roar, lest he betray himself as much a jackal. (In the Daddara Jataka (No. 172) the cry which silences the lions is of a jackal itself.) 狮吼本生（第 188 号）。一头雄狮与雌豺诞下幼崽。小兽形貌酷似其父，却继承了母亲的嗓音。某日当其他幼狮嬉戏咆哮时，这只幼崽也试图吼叫，却只发出豺的尖啸。狮群闻声顿时静默，其父遂告诫它永远别再尝试咆哮，以免暴露自己豺的血统。（在达达罗本生（第 172 号）中，令狮群噤声的正是豺本身的嚎叫。）
The creature of mixed parentage who has cause to be ashamed of one of them in the Greek is the mule. For in The Mule (C.128, H.157) we have a young one who, full of oats, gambols, shouting 希腊故事中因血统不纯而羞耻的混种生物是骡子。在《骡子》（编号 C.128, H.157）里，一匹吃饱燕麦的小骡欢腾跳跃，高声
out that his father is a swift-footed horse and that he is every bit like him. But suddenly he stops and hangs his head in shame - for he remembers that his mother was but an ass. (Note that in the Cullavagga (i.18.3) is a story turning on a similar point. A hen has a chick by a crow, which when it would cry like a cock, cawed like a crow - and vice-versa. This may in turn compare with the Aesop fable of The Kites (C.136, H.170, P.396, Hs.315). Kites once had musical voices, but envying the neighing of horses, they did their best to emulate them. In the end they neither knew how to neigh nor remembered how to sing.) 他发现自己父亲是匹快马，而自己完全继承了父亲的矫健。但突然他停下脚步羞愧地低下头——因为他想起母亲不过是头驴子。（注：《小品》i.18.3 中记载了类似主题的故事：母鸡与乌鸦所生的小鸟，当它想学公鸡打鸣时却发出乌鸦的叫声，反之亦然。这又可与伊索寓言《鸢鸟》（编号 C.136/H.170/P.396/Hs.315）相参照：鸢鸟原本拥有悦耳鸣声，因嫉妒马嘶而竭力模仿，最终既学不会嘶鸣，也忘了如何歌唱。）
Sihacamma Jataka (No. 189). Voice and identity come up in this story too. A merchant hawked goods, carrying them upon the back of an ass. Wherever he stopped, he was in the habit of draping a lion-skin on the animal’s back and turning it out into people’s fields to graze. Watchmen, thinking it was in fact a lion, kept their distance. But one day the villagers armed themselves and attacked it, whereupon the frightened animal brayed. Then, discovering he was only an ass, they belaboured it to death. 《狮皮本生》（第 189 则）。这个故事同样探讨声音与身份的关系。商人用驴驮货叫卖，每到一处便给驴披上狮皮，放它到田间吃草。看守人以为是真狮子，都不敢靠近。某日村民持械围攻时，受惊的驴子发出嘶叫。众人发现它只是头驴后，便将其乱棍打死。
The Aesopica has two versions of this, The Ass in the Lion-Skin (C.267, H.336, P.188, Hs.199) and The Ass and the Lion-Skin. In the first the ass, putting on a lion-skin, goes about frightening all the beasts but fails to frighten a fox, who had heard it bray. In the second the ass frightens both men and animals, until a puff of wind blows the lion-skin off its back; whereupon everyone runs up and beats it with cudgels. 《伊索寓言》中有两个版本的故事：《披着狮皮的驴》（编号 C.267/H.336/P.188/Hs.199）和《驴与狮皮》。第一个故事里，驴子披上狮皮吓唬百兽，却因嘶叫声被狐狸识破；第二个故事中，驴子一度吓退人类与动物，直到一阵风掀开狮皮，众人便冲上来用棍棒痛打它。
Ruhaka Jataka (No. 191). A man takes a horse with fine trappings for a ride and people look with admiration as he passes by. His wife tells him it is not the beauty of the horse they admire but the trapping. The man is persuaded to put them on himself and go prancing down the street and so becomes a laughing-stock of everyone. 《卢哈卡本生经》（第 191 号）。一人骑着装饰华丽的马出行，路人纷纷投以艳羡目光。其妻指出人们赞叹的实为马饰而非马匹。此人听信后将马饰披挂在自己身上招摇过市，遂沦为笑柄。
In much the same way a camel makes an absurdity of himself in The Ape and the Camel of Aesop (C.306, H.365, P.83, Hs.85) when he tries to dance before an assembly of animals which had just admired the performance of an ape. The camel appeared so ridiculous that they sent him off with a thrashing. 类似的情节出现在《伊索寓言》的《猿与骆驼》（编号 C.306/H.365/P.83/Hs.85）中：骆驼目睹群兽赞赏猿猴的舞姿后，竟也当众起舞，其笨拙姿态惹得众兽以鞭笞将它赶走。
Manicora Jataka (No. 194). The husband of a beautiful woman is falsely incriminated by the king, who desires her, by having a jewelled crest dropped surreptitiously into the man’s waggon and then discovered by his guards. The man is taken for execution but is miraculously exchanged in position with the king, who is beheaded instead. 《玛尼科罗本生经》（第 194 则）。一位美妇人的丈夫被觊觎她的国王诬陷——国王派人将宝石头饰偷偷放入男子的牛车，再由卫兵"发现"赃物。男子被押赴刑场时，奇迹般与国王调换位置，最终国王被斩首。
The parallel in this case is with a detail in the life of Aesop himself. According to Aristophanes (Wasps 1446-1449) Aesop was charged by the Delphians with having stolen a gold cup from the temple of Apollo. The scholiast on this states that the cup was planted in Aesop’s baggage by the Delphians themselves, as in the Bible story of Benjamin and Joseph (Gen. 44.1.12). From Herodotus (ii. 135) it would appear that Aesop was killed by them, and wrongfully, and that the god required them to make recompense for the murder. The last-minute substitution of the king for the innocent man in the jataka is reminiscent of the stag for Iphigenia in the Greek myth of the Trojan cycle. Cp. also Genesis 22.1.13). 这个案例与伊索本人生平的一个细节相呼应。据阿里斯托芬（《马蜂》1446-1449 行）记载，德尔斐人指控伊索从阿波罗神庙窃取金杯。该段注释表明，金杯实为德尔斐人自行放入伊索行囊，如同《圣经》中便雅悯与约瑟的故事（《创世记》44:1-12）。希罗多德（《历史》卷二 135 节）暗示伊索是被他们冤杀，后来神谕要求德尔斐人为谋杀作出赔偿。本生经中无辜者与国王临刑调换的情节，令人联想到希腊特洛伊传说中伊菲革涅亚被母鹿替代的典故。另可对照《创世记》22:1-13。
Valahassa Jataka (No. 196). Female goblins dwelling in a town in Lanka used to lure ship-wrecked men to consort with them, saying their husbands had gone to sea a long time back and may have perished. Later they would bind them with magic chains and imprison them in a house of torment. Five hundred traders cast ashore consort with them, but in the night the female goblins leave their men to feast upon their earlier captives. The chief of the traders suspects who these women are and calls his fellows to escape. Half of them refuse to leave, the rest obey. The Bodhisatta appears as a flying horse and transports them from the island. 《瓦拉哈萨本生经》（第 196 则）。兰卡城中居住的女夜叉常诱骗遭遇海难的男子与其交欢，谎称她们的丈夫出海已久恐已遇难。随后便用魔法锁链将这些人捆缚，囚禁于酷刑之屋。五百名遇难商人受其蛊惑，夜间女夜叉却离弃新欢，去吞食先前囚禁的俘虏。商队首领察觉这些女子真面目，召集同伴逃离。半数商人不愿离去，余者听从指引。菩萨化身为天马，载众人飞离此岛。
Elements from the adventures of Odysseus may be detected in this jataka, all imposed on one single island - of ship-wrecked sailors in a strange island rescued by an astute leader, of Sirens who lure ship-wrecked sailors and destroy them with sex, of Cyclopean cannibalism, of Lotus-eater-like refusal to abandon the pleasures even with the prospect of death, of Circean magic, and add to all this a Pegasus-like flying horse with the carrying capacity exceeding even that of the Trojan Horse. (Other elements from the same epic are to be found in the Vijaya legend, the foundation myth of Sri Lanka). As for the women without husbands who invite a band of seafarers 在这则本生经中，可以辨识出奥德修斯冒险故事的诸多元素，它们都被浓缩在一座孤岛上——遭遇海难的水手被机智的领袖从陌生岛屿救出；用美色诱惑遇难水手并使其沉沦的海妖塞壬；独眼巨人的食人行径；如同食莲者般即便面临死亡威胁也不愿放弃享乐；还有喀耳刻式的魔法。更添一匹飞马珀伽索斯，其运载能力甚至超越了特洛伊木马。（同一史诗中的其他元素可见于斯里兰卡建国神话《毗阇耶传奇》）。至于那些邀请航海者前来的无夫之妇
to live with them, we may have here something of the Lemnian women, islanders who had killed their husbands, who invited Jason and his Argonauts to be their consorts, Hypsipyle, their queen, taking Jason for herself. (See Homer’s Odyssey passim and Apollonius’ Argonautika i. 607-912. (I cannot but agree with Chalmers that the attempt to trace in the wanderings of Mittavindaka in the Losaka Jataka (No. 41) the germ of part of the wanderings of Ulysses/ Odysseus made by the Bishop of Colombo in the Ceylon R.A.S Journal of 1884, is rather far-fetched.) 与他们共同生活时，我们或许能联想到莱姆诺斯岛女性的故事——这些岛民杀害了自己的丈夫后，邀请伊阿宋和他的阿尔戈英雄们成为新伴侣，女王许普西皮勒则独占伊阿宋。（参见荷马《奥德赛》各处及阿波罗尼俄斯《阿尔戈英雄纪》卷一第 607-912 行。（我不得不赞同查默斯的观点：1884 年锡兰皇家亚洲学会期刊中，科伦坡主教试图将《卢娑迦本生经》（第 41 号）中弥多频陀迦的漂泊解读为奥德修斯部分冒险旅程的雏形，这种联系实在牵强。）
Viraka Jataka (No. 204). A crow who comes to serve a marshcrow in return for food, tries to emulate him out of pride. He dives into the water for fish, gets entangled in the weeds and perishes. We have a parallel for this in Aesop’s fables in The Eagle, the Jackdaw and the Shepherd (C.5, H.8, P.2, Hs.2). A jackdaw, seeing an eagle swoop down, seize a lamb and carry it off, tries to do the same with a ram. But his claws get entangled in the ram’s fleece and he is captured by the shepherd, who clips his wings and gives him to his children to play. When they ask the shepherd what bird it is, he replies, “I know he is a jackdaw, but he tries to pass off as an eagle”. 《维拉卡本生》（第 204 则）。一只乌鸦为换取食物前来侍奉泽鸦，却因骄傲试图模仿后者。它潜入水中捕鱼，结果被水草缠住而丧命。伊索寓言中《鹰、寒鸦与牧羊人》（编号 C.5/H.8/P.2/Hs.2）有类似故事：寒鸦见鹰俯冲抓走羊羔，便试图对公羊如法炮制，结果爪子被羊毛缠住，被牧羊人逮住剪去翅膀交给孩子们玩耍。当孩子们询问这是何种鸟时，牧羊人答道："我知道这是寒鸦，可它偏要冒充雄鹰。"
Gangeyya Jataka (No. 205) Two fishes dispute as to which of them is the more beautiful and request a tortoise to be the judge. The tortoise declares that both of them are good-looking but that he himself is more beautiful than them both. 《甘吉亚本生》（第 205 则）两条鱼争论谁更美丽，请乌龟担任裁判。乌龟判定二者皆美，但自己比它们更胜一筹。
Compare Aesop’s The Ape and Zeus (B.56, H.364). Zeus held a beauty contest for babies and all the animals brought their young. On that occasion a mother-ape, who had also entered her offspring, observed, “Zeus know who will win the prize, but to me my babe is prettier than them all”. 对照伊索寓言《猿猴与宙斯》（编号 B.56/H.364）：宙斯举办婴孩选美大赛，众兽皆携幼崽参赛。一只携子参赛的母猿见状说道："宙斯自然知晓谁能夺魁，但在我眼中，自家孩儿才是最俊俏的。"
Kurunga-Miga Jataka (No. 206) A stag, a tortoise and a woodpecker became friends. When the stag was caught in a leather noose, the tortoise gnawed at it while the woodpecker delayed the hunter’s return by providing him bad omens. When the man did return and found the noose cut, he collected the tortoise and put it into his bag. At this point the stag revealed himself and led the hunter off, thereafter doubled back and, with his horns, ripped open the bag and released the tortoise. 《库伦加-米伽本生经》（第 206 号） 一只牡鹿、乌龟和啄木鸟结为好友。当牡鹿被皮绳套住时，乌龟负责啃咬绳索，啄木鸟则通过制造凶兆来拖延猎人归程。猎人返回发现绳套被咬断后，将乌龟捉住装入行囊。此时牡鹿现身引开猎人，随即折返用鹿角划破行囊，救出了乌龟。
In this connection, see the Aesopic fable of The Lion and the Mouse (C.206, H.256, P.150, Hs.155), where a lion frees a mouse he had caught and the mouse in return gnaws the trap and frees the lion, who had been caught in it. Two or three animals forming a bond of friendship is fairly common as the basis of Aeospic fable-plots. 关于此主题，可参照伊索寓言《狮子与老鼠》（编号 C.206/H.256/P.150/Hs.155）：狮子放走了捉住的老鼠，后来狮子落入陷阱时，老鼠啃断绳索报恩。两三种动物缔结友谊作为寓言情节基础的模式，在伊索寓言中相当常见。
Sumsumara Jataka (No. 208) and Vanara Jataka (No. 342). A crocodile, whose wife desired to eat the heart of a monkey, gets the monkey on his back with an offer to carry him across to the further bank of the river, where (so he said) there were good and plentiful fruits to eat. But in midstream he tries to drown the monkey. The monkey escapes by lying to him that he had left his heart behind on a tree and asks the crocodile to take him back to fetch it - and thus escapes. 苏姆苏玛拉本生经（第 208 号）与瓦纳拉本生经（第 342 号）。一条鳄鱼的妻子渴望吃到猴子的心脏，鳄鱼便以载猴子渡河到对岸为由将其骗上背部——谎称彼岸有丰美果实可食。但在河中央时，鳄鱼企图淹死猴子。猴子谎称自己的心脏还留在树上，哄骗鳄鱼带它回去取心，因而得以逃脱。
This is palpably an inversion of Aesop’s fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin (C.305, H.363, P.73, Hs.75), in which a dolphin, mistaking a monkey, who was drowning, for a man, was carrying him ashore on his back when he caught the monkey lying. So he tipped him into the water and left him to drown. 这显然是对伊索寓言《猴子与海豚》（编号 C.305/H.363/P.73/Hs.75）的剧情反转。原故事中，海豚误将落水的猴子当作人类，背其上岸时识破谎言，遂将猴子掀入水中任其溺亡。
Kacchapa Jataka (No. 215) Two wild geese befriend a tortoise and invite it to their home. They make it bite on a stick they held between them by their beaks and transport it through the air. When children below admire the sight, the tortoise opens its mouth to reply and thus falls to its death. 卡查帕本生经（第 215 号）两只野鹅与乌龟结交，邀请它去家中做客。它们让乌龟咬住一根由鹅喙衔着的木棍，携其飞行。当下方孩童赞叹此景时，乌龟开口应答，因而松口坠亡。
In Aesop’s fable The Tortoise and the Eagle (C.35, H.419, P.230, Hs.259) the tortoise asks the eagle to teach it to fly. The eagle takes it to a great height and drops it on the rocks, killing it. The detail of a creature aloft opening its mouth and so falling appears in inversion in the Greek fable of The Crow and the Fox, what falls being not itself but something it held in its beak (see the JambuKhaddaka Jataka (No. 294) below) whereas it is not utilized in the jataka which corresponds to it, the Anta (No. 295). The detail of a flightless creature being transported through the air reappears in the Baka Jataka (No. 38), where a crab is taken on the back of a crane from one pond to another - but in inversion of detail, it is 在伊索寓言《乌龟与鹰》（编号 C.35/H.419/P.230/Hs.259）中，乌龟请求鹰教它飞翔。鹰将其带至高空抛下，使其坠岩而亡。关于生物在空中张口导致坠落的情节，在希腊寓言《乌鸦与狐狸》中以相反形式出现——坠落的并非自身而是其喙中所衔之物（参见下文《阎浮果本生》第 294 则），而与之对应的《安达本生》（第 295 则）却未运用此细节。关于无翼生物被空中运输的细节重现于《鹤本生》（第 38 则）：螃蟹被鹤背负着往返池塘间——但细节发生反转，被杀的
rather the bird and after flight who is killed. ^(13){ }^{13} This in turn reflects a detail in Aesop’s The Snake and the Crane (C.290, H.346), of a crab clipping the neck of a snake and killing it for failing to be straight, as it becomes with its death. (Re the mode of transportation of the jataka tortoise, see also the Kunala Jataka (No. 536) with now a bird.) 反而是飞行后的鸟类。 ^(13){ }^{13} 这又映射了伊索《蛇与鹤》（编号 C.290/H.346）中的细节：螃蟹钳断蛇颈并杀死不守承诺的蛇（蛇死时身躯才得以伸直）。（关于本生经中乌龟的运输方式，另可参考现今以鸟类为载体的《妙声鸟本生》第 536 则。）
Cula-Nandiya Jataka (No. 222) Two monkeys, brothers, are devoted to their mother, who is disabled. A hunter is about to shoot her, when the brothers offer themselves to his arrows, one after another. The man however kills the mother also. But when he goes home he finds his own two sons have been killed by a thunderbolt, and also his wife. 小那提亚本生经（第 222 号）两只猴子兄弟悉心照料它们残疾的母亲。当猎人准备射杀母猴时，兄弟俩相继挺身而出替母受箭。然而猎人最终还是杀害了母亲。归家后，他发现自己的两个儿子被雷电劈死，妻子也遭逢不测。
When the independent details of two sons devoted to a disabled mother and who are killed as a consequence are collated, they hint at the story of Cleobis and Biton in Herodotus (i. 31) - though here the mysterious manner of death is transferred to the hunter’s sons while they themselves are killed by the hunter. For in the historical anecdote of Cleobis and Biton, they are said to have drawn their mother in a cart themselves to Hera’s temple when the oxen were found failing, and in consequence of their mother’s prayer for a blessing from heaven for such dutiful sons, they were both found dead in their sleep. What we have in the jataka is a case of transposition with rehandling of the motif by the introduction of the hunter and the element of wickedness. 将两个孝顺残疾母亲却因此丧命的儿子这一独立情节进行比对时，会令人联想到希罗多德《历史》（卷一第 31 章）中克勒奥比斯与比同的故事——不过在本生经中，神秘的死亡方式被转移到猎人之子身上，而兄弟俩则是被猎人所杀。因为在克勒奥比斯与比同的历史轶闻中，当牛车无法行进时，他们亲自拉着载有母亲的马车前往赫拉神庙，由于母亲向天祈求赐福给如此孝顺的儿子，结果发现兄弟二人在睡梦中安详离世。本生经对这个母题进行了重构移植，通过引入猎人和邪恶元素进行了再创作。
Kosiya Jataka (No. 226). An owl, surrounded by crows in a bamboo thicket, ventures out before dark and falls a victim to them and is pecked to death. 《拘尸耶本生》（第 226 则）。一只猫头鹰在竹林中遭乌鸦包围，天黑前冒险飞出，成为乌鸦们的猎物，被啄食致死。
It is a bat in what appears to be the corresponding Greek fable warning against action out of season. But here the bat is the adviser. A bird in a cage sang only at night. When the bat asked her 在对应的希腊寓言中，角色换成了蝙蝠，用以告诫人们不合时宜的行动。但此处蝙蝠扮演劝诫者。笼中鸟只在夜间歌唱，蝙蝠询问其缘由
why she did so, she said it was because singing at day time was what caused her to be captured. The bat advises her that there is no use of taking precautions now; she should have been careful before getting caught. See The Bird and the Bat (C.75, H.85, P.48, Hs.48). 鸟儿解释是因白昼鸣叫导致被擒。蝙蝠劝诫道：如今防范已无意义，当初被捉前就该谨慎。参见《鸟与蝙蝠》（C.75，H.85，P.48，Hs.48）。
Gutha-Pana Jataka (No. 227). A dung-beetle, drunk on some spilt liquor, alighted on a lump of moist dung, which yielded under his weight. He thought the world could not bear him, he was so heavy. Then, seeing an elephant run away in disgust at the smell of the dung, he presumed it was out of fear of him. So he challenged him to a fight. Thereupon the elephant, defecating and urinating upon the beetle, killed him and went his way. 《粪金龟本生》（第 227 则）。一只粪金龟啜饮泼洒的酒浆而醉，落在湿润粪块上，粪块因它的重量下陷。它误以为世界无法承受其重，遂自觉力大无穷。后见大象因粪臭厌恶逃离，竟以为对方畏惧自己，便向大象挑战。大象当即排便排尿将其淹毙，扬长而去。
This jataka is remarkable in appearing to be a rejoinder to a fable of Aesop titled The Lion, Prometheus and the Elephant (C.210, H.261, P.259, Hs.292) where a lion, fleeing in unreasonable fear of the crow of a cock, meets an elephant who keeps wagging his ears incessantly. When the lion asks him why he does so, the elephant shows him a gnat and says that, if it were to get into his ear, it would be all up with him. The lion is reconciled to his own fear, observing that a cock is after all a much bigger creature than a gnat. For a dung beetle in association with moist dung, see the Aesopic fable of The Two Beetles (C.149, H.185), and for a creature whose conceit, grown from a delusion, see The Wolf and his Shadow (H.280, P.260). A wolf, wandering in a lonely place at sun-set, saw his enlarged shadow and thought why such a big fellow as himself should not make himself king of the beasts. But for all his presumption, a lion caught and ate him up. 这则本生故事引人注目之处在于，它似乎是对伊索寓言《狮子、普罗米修斯与大象》（编号 C.210/H.261/P.259/Hs.292）的回应。该寓言讲述一只狮子因毫无道理地惧怕公鸡啼鸣而逃跑时，遇到不断摇晃耳朵的大象。狮子询问缘由，大象展示了一只蚊虫并解释道：若蚊虫钻入耳中，自己便性命休矣。狮子由此释怀了自己的恐惧，毕竟公鸡比蚊虫体型大得多。关于与潮湿粪土为伴的蜣螂，可参阅伊索寓言《两只甲虫》（编号 C.149/H.185）；至于因幻觉而膨胀自负的生物，则见于《狼与它的影子》（编号 H.280/P.260）——日落时分，独行的狼看见自己被拉长的影子，竟妄想凭此庞大身躯当百兽之王，最终却被狮子捕食。
Mula-Pariyaya Jataka (No. 245) Students, wanting to ridicule their master, tap at a jujube tree under which he is seated and say, “A worthless tree.” Thereupon their master puts to them a riddle, “Time consumes all, even time as well. Who is it consumes the allconsumer? tell”. They fail to answer and crave his pardon. 根本行缘起（第 245 则） 诸弟子欲嘲弄其师，轻叩师所坐枣树言道："此乃无用之树。"师遂出谜诘问："时劫能蚀万物，亦能自蚀。孰为蚀尽能蚀者？汝等当知。"众不能答，乃求师宽恕。
This jataka is obviously put together from two Aesopic fables, one, The Wayfarers and the Plane Tree (C.257, H.313) and the other, Concerning Relaxation and Tension (Ph. iii.14). In the former, two wayfarers seated in the shade of a plane tree in the heat of 这则本生故事显然融合了两则伊索寓言：其一是《旅人与梧桐树》（C.257, H.313），其二是《论张弛之道》（Ph. iii.14）。在前者中，两个旅人于酷暑时分坐在梧桐树荫下
midday, accuse that very tree of being worthless; in the other, Aesop, laughed at by a man for playing with children, poses a riddle with an unstrung bow - which the man fails to answer. Punning on the Greek for ‘bow’ (which also meant ‘life’, Aesop was implying by its unstrung condition the need for relaxation - which, like the jataka’s students, the man failed to answer. (As for the jataka, the answer had been Kalaghaso, he who, by destroying the thirst for existence, so lives as not to be born again. See n. 1 ad.loc. in Cowell.) 正午时分，指责那棵树毫无价值；另一个故事中，伊索因与孩童嬉戏遭人嘲笑，便以松弦之弓设谜——那人未能解答。希腊语中"弓"（toxon）与"生命"（bios）谐音，伊索借松弦之态暗喻休憩之必要——正如本生经中弟子未能参透的谜题。（至于本生经的答案，实为"迦罗伽索"，即断除生存渴爱、证得无生之人。参见考威尔译本同页注 1。）
Uluka Jataka (No. 270). Birds, desiring a king, selected the owl. But when the proclamation was being made, a crow objected, asking if this was how it looked when being consecrated king, what would he look like when angry? From that day on, owls and crows have been at enmity with each other. 《猫头鹰本生经》（第 270 号）。众鸟渴望拥立一位国王，便推选猫头鹰为王。但当宣布仪式进行时，乌鸦提出异议，质问说：它受封为王时已是这般狰狞模样，若发起怒来又该何等可怖？自那日起，猫头鹰与乌鸦便结下了世仇。
Compare the Aesopic fable of The Frogs and the Sun (C.127, H.77, P.314). Frogs rejoice at the wedding of the Sun along with all the other animals, when one of them rebukes his fellows, saying that if a single sun is enough to dry all the mud-pools, how much worse would it be if he married and begot a son like himself! (Note that a threat or fear of intensification of a baleful condition is also the basis of the Udapana Jataka (No. 271) and the Kokalika Jataka (No. 331)). 可对比伊索寓言《青蛙与太阳》（编号 C.127/H.77/P.314）：当太阳举行婚礼时，青蛙与其他动物一同欢庆，其中一只青蛙却告诫同伴说——仅一个太阳就足以晒干所有泥塘，若它婚后生出同样耀眼的子嗣，我们的处境该多么可怕！（值得注意的是，对恶劣状况加剧的威胁或恐惧，同样是《水井本生经》（第 271 号）与《杜鹃本生经》（第 331 号）的核心主题）
Lola Jataka (No. 274) A crow befriends a pigeon, who has a basket hung up for him in a kitchen. So the cook hangs up one for the crow too. One day the crow, making an excuse of indigestion, does not go out foraging with the pigeon, but when the cook’s back is turned, alights on a dish of fish for which he had all along craved. But the cook, hearing the click of his claws, catches him, plucks his feathers, smears his body with spices and hurls him into the basket, looking quite absurd. 罗罗本生经（第 274 号）一只乌鸦与鸽子结为好友，厨房里为鸽子悬挂着一个食篮。于是厨师也为乌鸦挂了一个。某日乌鸦借口消化不良，未随鸽子外出觅食，趁厨师转身之际，扑向它觊觎已久的一盘鱼。不料厨师听见它爪子的声响，将其捉住，拔光羽毛，用香料涂抹其身，扔回篮中，模样甚是滑稽。
The Aesopic fable which compares with this is The Man and his Dog (C.178, H.62, P.328, Hs.283). A man was making ready to entertain a friend when his dog invited another dog to dinner on the sly. But the interloper was so thrilled with the prospect of food that he began wagging his tail. The cook spotted it, caught the dog by his leg and threw him out. The well-known Aesopic fable of the 与此对应的伊索寓言是《主人与狗》（编号 C.178/H.62/P.328/Hs.283）。某人正设宴待客时，他的狗偷偷邀请另一只狗赴宴。但这位不速之客因期待美食而兴奋得摇起尾巴。厨师发现后，抓住狗腿将其扔出门外。著名的伊索寓言
country mouse invited by a city mouse to enjoy the rich food he himself ate, but who soon enough preferred his own poor sustenarice when he saw the hazard with which the city mouse got his, has in invertion a plot of similar circumstances; see The Country Mouse and the City Mouse (C.243, H.297, P.352, B.108). 《城里老鼠与乡下老鼠》讲述了类似情节的逆转：城里老鼠邀请乡下老鼠共享其丰盛食物，但当乡下老鼠目睹城里老鼠获取食物的风险后，很快便宁愿回归自己贫瘠的生活。详见该则寓言（编号 C.243/H.297/P.352/B.108）。
Romaka Jataka (No. 277) and Godha Jataka (Nos. 325 and 138). A sham ascetic is visited by a flock of pigeons, as they used to visit his predecessor. Conceiving a taste for pigeon flesh, one day he throws his staff at them. But he misses and says “Get away! I’ve missed you”. To which the pigeons reply, “You have missed us, yes, but you shall not miss the four hells!” (The Godha involves a lizard; see also the Kurunga Jataka (No. 21) where it is an antelope.) 罗摩迦本生（第 277 号）与蜥蜴本生（第 325 号及第 138 号）。一群鸽子如常造访假修行者，正如它们曾造访其前任。某日修行者对鸽肉起了贪念，竟朝鸽群掷出法杖。未击中时他喊道："滚吧！我失手了"。鸽群回应道："你虽失手于我们，却必难逃四大地狱！"（蜥蜴本生中主角为蜥蜴；另见羚羊本生第 21 号中类似情节）
The hitting at some creature and then trying to avoid the consequences, but failing has a clear prototype in the Aesopic fable of The Goat and the Goatherd (H.17, P.280, Bab. 3, Perot. Ap.24). A goatherd, having thrown a stone, breaks the horn of a goat, then pleads with the animal not to betray him to the master. To which the goat replies, “Foolish herdsman, even if I keep quiet, my (broken) horn will cry out the deed.” 这种袭击生灵后又企图逃避果报却失败的情节，在伊索寓言《山羊与牧羊人》（H.17，P.280，巴比伦版第 3 卷，佩罗特版第 24 则）中有明确原型。牧羊人掷石击断山羊角后，央求山羊勿向主人告发。山羊答道："愚蠢的牧人，纵使我缄默，这断角亦将昭示你的恶行。"
Manisukara Jataka (No. 285). Boars, seeing a prowling lion reflected in the crystal cave they inhabited, attempted to smear it by rubbing mud on it. But their brisk brushing only made the surface shine even more. A hermit told them that nothing could take the brilliance off the crystal; they had better go and live elsewhere. See Aesop’s The Ethiopian (C.11, H.13, Aphth. 6). A man bought an Ethiopian slave, and thinking he was black from neglect by his former owner, set to scrubbing and washing him. But what he succeeded in doing was no more than make himself sick with the effort. 摩尼须迦罗本生（第 285 则）。野猪群看见一头逡巡的狮子倒映在它们栖居的水晶洞窟中，试图用泥浆涂抹消除倒影。但它们急促的擦拭反而让水晶表面更加光亮。一位隐士告诉它们，没有什么能夺走水晶的光辉，它们最好迁往他处居住。参见伊索寓言《埃塞俄比亚人》（C.11，H.13，Aphth.6）：某人买了个埃塞俄比亚奴隶，以为其肤色黝黑是因前任主人疏于照料所致，便使劲擦洗他，结果徒劳无功，反把自己累病了。
Macch-Uddana Jataka (No. 288). A younger brother, intending to cheat his elder brother of a parcel of money, makes a parcel of gravel just like it and, on board a ship, kicks the money overboard as if by accident (himself mistaking it for the gravel). The parcel is swallowed by a fish, which is subsequently caught by a fisherman and sold to the elder brother. When his wife cuts the fish open, the 鱼腹本生（第 288 则）。弟弟为骗取兄长的一包钱财，用砾石做了个相似的包裹。乘船时，他佯装失足将钱袋踢入水中（实则自己误将钱袋当作砾石包）。钱袋被一条鱼吞食，这条鱼后来被渔夫捕获并卖给了兄长。当兄长的妻子剖开鱼腹时，
parcel of money is found and restored to him. 那包钱财失而复得。
The story appears to have been built up of two historical anecdotes, both from Herodotus - that of Arion (i.21), in which the poet, travelling on board a ship, is plundered of his money, while he himself is made to leap into the sea and is rescued by a dolphin - and that of Polycrates of Samos (iii 40-45), in which the tyrant, advised to throw away what he values most to break his run of good fortune, throws his ring into the sea and has it come back to him in the belly of a fish, caught and presented to him. (Compare Kalidasa’s play Sakuntala for a similar happening with a ring). 这个故事似乎由两个历史轶事构成，均出自希罗多德的记载——其一是阿里昂的传说（《历史》卷一第 21 节），讲述这位诗人在船上遭劫钱财，被迫跳海后被海豚救起；其二是萨摩斯僭主波吕克拉底的轶事（卷三 40-45 节），这位暴君听信谏言，为破除好运将最珍爱的戒指抛入海中，结果渔夫献上的鱼腹中竟复得此戒。（类似戒指失而复得的情节可对照迦梨陀娑戏剧《沙恭达罗》）。
Jambu-Khadaka Jataka (No. 294) and the Anta Jataka (No. 295). A jackal praises a crow who is eating fruit on a jambu tree. The crow in return praises the jackal and shakes down fruit for him too. A tree-sprite, seeing a carrion crow and a corpse-eating jackal thus praise each other, takes on a fearful aspect and shoos them off. In the Anta is a clear case of inversion; it is the jackal who is praised by the crow when he is eating the corpse of a bull, and who invites it to fly down from the tree on which it is perched and eat with him. In the Aesopic version of The Crow and the Fox (C.165, H.204, P.124, Hs.126) the fox sees the crow eating a piece of meat upon a tree and begins to praise it and say it is fit to be a king, if only it had a voice as well. To show that it did, the crow caws, letting the meat fall to the ground. The fox snatches it up and says the crow does have everything, if it had brains as well. The transaction is of an involuntary nature and brings into play the fox’s proverbial cunning in exploiting the stupidity of other creatures, whereas in the jataka it is the susceptibility to praise of two creatures who are of similar disgusting natures. 《瞻部果本生经》（第 294 号）与《尸体本生经》（第 295 号）。豺狼赞美正在瞻部树上啄食果实的乌鸦，乌鸦投桃报李，也称赞豺狼并摇落果实与之分享。树神目睹食腐乌鸦与食尸豺狼相互吹捧，便现出恐怖相将它们驱离。《尸体本生经》存在明显的角色反转：当豺狼啃食公牛尸体时，乌鸦对其大加赞美，并邀请它从栖息的树上飞下来共食。在伊索寓言《乌鸦与狐狸》（编号 C.165/H.204/P.124/Hs.126）版本中，狐狸看见乌鸦叼着肉块停在树上，便极力奉承说它若能发声便配得上王位。为证明自己有此能力，乌鸦开口鸣叫导致肉块坠地。狐狸攫取肉块后讥讽道：若乌鸦再有头脑，便当真无所不能了。这个交易具有非自愿性，展现了狐狸利用他者愚钝的典型狡诈；而本生故事则凸显了两种本性同样卑劣的生物对谄媚的易感性。
Vaka Jataka (No. 300). A hungry wolf (a very rare instance of the wolf in the jatakas) decides to make a virtue of his lack of food by observing a sabbath fast, when he sees a wild goat. So, putting aside his resolution, he leaps at it. But the goat keeps jumping about so that he cannot catch it. Finally he gives up, consoling himself with the observation that he had not broken his fast after all. 《狼本生》（第 300 则）。一只饥饿的狼（本生故事中极为罕见的狼形象）决定以守斋戒来彰显自己缺粮的美德，这时它看见一只野山羊。于是它抛开决心扑向山羊，但山羊不断跳跃使它无法得手。最终狼放弃追捕，并自我安慰道毕竟自己没有破戒。
Compare the well-known Greek fable The Fox and the Grapes (C.32, H.33, P.15, Hs.15). A hungry fox tries to get at a cluster of grapes hanging from a vine trained to a tree, fails and declares that they are bitter. See also the Aesopic The Wolf and the Goat (H.270) which may have lent the characters of wolf and goat to the Vaka. 对照著名的希腊寓言《狐狸与葡萄》（编号 C.32/H.33/P.15/Hs.15）：饥饿的狐狸试图够到藤蔓上悬挂的葡萄串，失败后宣称葡萄是酸的。另可参考伊索寓言《狼与山羊》（H.270），该故事可能为《狼本生》提供了狼与山羊的角色原型。
Javasakuna Jataka (No. 308) A lion had a bone stuck in his throat. A woodpecker volunteered to knock the bone out, which it did and then asked for a boon. To which the lion inquired whether it was not goodwill enough that he let the bird thrust its head into his maw and withdraw it unscathed. 《啄木鸟本生》（第 308 则）狮子喉咙卡了骨头。啄木鸟自告奋勇取出骨头，成功后请求赏赐。狮子反问道：允许鸟儿把头伸进自己血盆大口又能安然无恙地缩回去，这份善意难道还不够吗？
The Greek of this is the popular Aesopic fable, The Wolf and the Heron (C.224, H.276, P.156, H.s161), identical with the jataka even to the ferocious animal’s caustic comment. A wolf, who had swallowed a bone, asked a heron to extract it, promising a gift. The heron put his head down the wolf’s throat and pulled it out, then asked for his reward. To which the wolf asked whether it was not enough that it had put its head into a wolf’s mouth and taken it out unscathed that it should ask for a reward as well. (The ungrateful lion in the jataka was Devadatta, the woodpecker the Bodhisatta. Being woodpecker he taps the bone out, then also the prop he had used to prevent the lion closing his jaws on him. It is to do this instead of drawing the bone out like the Aesopic heron that he makes the lion lie on his side - this too consequent on the change of bird.) 这段希腊故事是广为人知的伊索寓言《狼与鹭鸶》（编号 C.224, H.276, P.156, H.s161），与本生经中的情节完全一致，甚至连猛兽的刻薄评论都如出一辙。一只吞下骨头的狼请求鹭鸶帮它取出骨头，并承诺给予报酬。鹭鸶将头伸进狼的喉咙取出骨头后索要酬劳。狼反问道：能把脑袋伸进狼嘴又安然无恙地抽出来，难道这还不够吗？（本生经中忘恩负义的狮子是提婆达多，啄木鸟则是菩萨转世。作为啄木鸟，它先是啄出骨头，接着又取走用来防止狮子合拢双颚的支撑物——正是为了完成这个动作而非像伊索寓言里的鹭鸶那样直接拔出骨头，它才让狮子侧身躺着——这也是由于鸟类角色变更而产生的细节差异。）
Pucimanda Jataka (No 311). A robber hid his loot at the foot of a nimb tree. The (deity of the) nimb tree, fearing it might be destroyed if the robber was caught near it and its branch used as a stake to impale him, frightened the man away. Truly enough the king’s men had the intention of doing so or of hanging him from the tree. Only, they could not find him there. 普西曼达本生经（第 311 号）。一名盗贼将赃物藏在一棵尼姆树下。尼姆树神（树灵）担心若盗贼在附近被捕，人们会砍下树枝作为木桩将其刺死，从而毁坏树木，便吓走了此人。果然国王的士兵们正打算如此行事，或将他吊死在树上。只是他们没能在那里找到他。
This is rather a weak story in comparison with the Aesopic fable which I suspect it invents, The Robber and the Mulberry Tree (C.214, H.264, P.152, Hs.157). A robber killed a man on the highway and fled. When some people met him and asked him how his hands came to be stained, he replied that he had just then climbed a mulberry tree. While he was speaking to them, his pursuers caught up with him and impaled him on the mulberry tree. Said the mul- 与我认为它借鉴的伊索寓言《盗贼与桑树》（编号 C.214，H.264，P.152，Hs.157）相比，这个故事显得相当平淡。一名盗贼在公路上杀人后逃逸。当路人询问他手上为何有血迹时，他谎称刚爬过桑树。正说话间，追兵赶到将他钉死在桑树上。桑树开口道：
berry, “I don’t mind helping to put you to death. You committed murder and tried to wipe the blood off on me.” 我不介意助你赴死。你犯下谋杀罪，还想把血污抹在我身上。
Kuntani Jataka (No. 343). A heron lived with a king as his messenger. One day the king’s sons, in her absence, squeezed her offspring to death. The heron took her chance for revenge when the boys came to see a fierce tiger chained in the palace. She carried them up one by one and deposited them at the feet of the beast, who killed them. 《鹳鸟本生》（第 343 则）。一只鹳鸟作为信使与国王同住。某日鹳鸟外出时，王子们将其雏鸟挤死。后来王子们入宫观看铁链锁住的猛虎时，鹳鸟伺机报复——她将孩子们逐个叼起抛至猛虎爪下，致其殒命。
See Aesop’s The Eagle and the Vixen (C.3, H.5, P.1, Hs.1). An eagle and vixen became friends. The eagle made her nest upon a tree, the vixen had her cubs at the foot of it. One day the eagle snatched the vixen’s cubs and made a meal of them. Soon however the eagle’s nest caught fire when she carried some burning sacrificial meat to it, and when her fledglings fell from it, the vixen had her revenge, running up and eating them. 参见伊索寓言《鹰与雌狐》（编号 C.3/H.5/P.1/Hs.1）。鹰与雌狐结为好友，鹰在树上筑巢，雌狐在树下育崽。某日鹰攫走狐崽饱餐一顿。未几鹰衔回祭祀余火引燃巢穴，雏鹰坠落时，雌狐奔上前吞食幼鸟，终得复仇。
Sandhibheda Jataka (No. 349) and Vannaroha Jataka (No. 361). Two big animals are friends. In the first the jackal sets them at variance, and when they have killed each other, eats their flesh. In the second, they talk it out with each other and the jackal’s designs fail. 《破盟本生》（第 349 则）与《变色本生》（第 361 则）。两巨兽本是挚友。前者中豺狼挑拨离间，待其两败俱亡后啖其血肉；后者中二兽坦诚相谈，遂使豺狼奸计落空。
Compare Aesop’s fables The Lion and the Bear (C.200, H.247, P.147, Hs.152) and The Lion and the Bear (C.203, H.253, P.338). In the first of these the two beast fight over a fawn that they had killed and when they lie unconscious, a fox steals their prey. In the second the two animals fighting see vultures await their deaths to eat their flesh and straightaway end their quarrel. 对照伊索寓言《狮子与熊》（编号 C.200/H.247/P.147/Hs.152）及《狮子与熊》（编号 C.203/H.253/P.338）。首则讲述二兽为争夺猎杀的幼鹿相斗昏迷，狐狸趁机窃走猎物；次则中争斗的二兽见秃鹫盘旋待其毙命以食腐肉，遂即刻息争言和。
Culladhanuggaha Jataka (No. 374). A jackal drops a piece of meat to grab a fish, which had leaped ashore. The fish jumps back, while a bird carries off the meat. So the jackal loses both meat and fish. 《库拉达努迦哈本生经》（第 374 号）。一只豺狼为抓住跃上岸的鱼而丢下嘴里的肉。结果鱼跳回水中，肉也被鸟儿叼走，豺狼最终鱼与肉皆失。
A lion about to devour a sleeping hare in Aesop’s fable of The Lion and the Hare (C.204, H.254, P.158, Hs.153) sees a deer go by; so, leaving the hare he chases after the deer. The hare, awakened by the noise, makes his escape and the lion fails to catch the deer as well. So he loses both hare and deer. 《伊索寓言》中《狮子与野兔》（编号 C.204/H.254/P.158/Hs.153）记载：狮子正欲吞食熟睡的野兔时，忽见一只鹿经过，便弃兔追鹿。被响动惊醒的野兔趁机逃脱，而狮子也未能追上鹿，最终兔鹿两空。
Migalopa Jataka (No. 381) and Gijjha Jataka (No. 427). A young vulture, accustomed to high flying, is warned by his father that if he soars too high, he will meet his death, struck down by the furious winds up there. He disregards his father’s warning and, rising very high, is struck by a dreadful blast and disintegrates. 《米伽罗帕本生经》（第 381 号）与《吉贾本生经》（第 427 号）。习惯高空翱翔的幼年秃鹫受到父亲警告：若飞得太高，将被上层狂暴的气流击毙。它无视告诫执意高飞，终被可怕的气流击中而粉身碎骨。
Here we have in fable form a motif taken from the Greek myth - the myth of Icarus and Daedalus. When father and son were making their escape from Crete on wings made by Daedalus out of birdfeathers and bee-wax, he warned his son against flying too high lest the heat of the sun should melt the wax of his wings. Icarus did not heed his father’s warning; his wings melted and he fell to his death. (See Hyginus Fables 40; Robert Graves Greek Myths (Pelican) vol. I, sec. 92e). 这里我们以寓言形式呈现了一个源自希腊神话的主题——伊卡洛斯与代达罗斯的传说。当父子俩用代达罗斯以鸟羽和蜂蜡制成的翅膀逃离克里特岛时，父亲警告儿子不要飞得太高，以免太阳的热力融化他翅膀上的蜂蜡。伊卡洛斯未听从父亲的警告，结果翅膀融化，坠海而亡。（参见许癸努斯《寓言集》第 40 则；罗伯特·格雷夫斯《希腊神话》（鹈鹕版）第一卷 92e 节）
Kukkuta Jataka (No. 383). A she-cat had eaten up all the cocks in a roost, except one. To get at him she went up to the tree in which he roosted, and flattering him, volunteered to be his wife if he would come down to her. The cock, not deceived, said it was wrong for two-footed to marry four-footed creatures. When she persevered, the cock told her off with her killings. ^(14){ }^{14} Refer also that other Kukkuta Jataka (No. 448) in which the participants are a falcon and a cock. 《鸡本生》（第 383 则）。一只母猫吃光了鸡舍里所有的公鸡，仅余一只。为诱捕它，母猫爬上公鸡栖息的树，谄媚地表示若公鸡肯下树，便愿嫁其为妻。公鸡未被蒙骗，回答说两足动物与四足动物通婚有悖天理。当母猫继续纠缠时，公鸡便历数其杀戮恶行予以斥责。 ^(14){ }^{14} 另可参阅另一则《鸡本生》（第 448 则），其中角色为猎鹰与公鸡。
In the Aesopic The Dog and the Cock (C.180, H.225, P.252, Hs.268) a dog and a cock become friends, the cock roosting on a tree and the dog sleeping at its roots. A vixen, attracted by the crowing of the cock, invites him to come down to her so that she may embrace the possessor of such a voice. The cock asks her to get the porter to open the door for him. When she looks for the porter, she finds it is the dog, who jumps at her and tears her to pieces. 在伊索寓言《狗与公鸡》（编号 C.180, H.225, P.252, Hs.268）中，狗与公鸡成为朋友——公鸡栖息在树上，狗则睡在树根处。一只雌狐被公鸡的啼鸣吸引，邀请它下来相会，声称要拥抱拥有如此美妙嗓音的主人。公鸡让雌狐先叫看门人为它开门。当雌狐寻找看门人时，发现竟是那条狗，狗扑向她并将其撕成碎片。
Dabbhapuppha Jataka (No. 400). Two otters quarreled over the division of a fish they had landed, and called a jackal to make an equitable division. The jackal gave the head to one and the tail to the other, and claiming the middle for himself for his services as arbiter, ran off with it. 《达婆花本生经》（第 400 号）。两只水獭为如何分配捕获的鱼而争吵，便请豺来主持公道。豺将鱼头分给一只，鱼尾分给另一只，并以仲裁服务为由将鱼身据为己有，叼着中段逃跑了。
More than one fable designated Aesopic involves a division of prey in which an unfairness is perpetrated, for example The Lion and the Wild Ass (C.207, H.258, P.339) and The Lion, the Ass and the Fox (C.209, H.260, P.149, Hs.154). In the former the lion takes all three lots in a division between himself and the wild ass, the first as king of the beasts, the second as partner, and the third by sheer intimidation. In the second fable the ass, asked to divide, divides equally and is killed by the lion. When the fox is asked to divide, he leaves the lion the lion’s-share, keeping for himself just a bit and when asked by the lion who it was who taught him such division, the fox’s answer is, “What happened to the ass”. (The Cowell edition refers to an Aesopic fable, The Monkey and the Cats as a parallel of the above jataka, but I have not been able to trace it in the publications of Aesopic fables that I have used.) 不止一则被归为伊索寓言的故事涉及猎物分配中的不公行为，例如《狮子与野驴》（编号 C.207、H.258、P.339）和《狮子、驴与狐狸》（编号 C.209、H.260、P.149、Hs.154）。在前者中，狮子在与野驴分配时独占三份：第一份以百兽之王的身份，第二份以合作伙伴的名义，第三份则纯粹通过恐吓获得。第二个寓言中，被要求分配猎物的驴子选择均分，结果被狮子杀死。当狐狸被要求分配时，它将最大份额留给狮子，自己只留一点点。狮子问是谁教会它这样分配时，狐狸回答："驴子的下场就是答案"。（考威尔版本提到伊索寓言《猴子与猫》与上述本生故事类似，但在我所用的伊索寓言出版物中未能查找到该篇。）
Dhumakari Jataka (No. 413). A goatherd kept a flock of goats in a pen in the forest and tended them. But when some deer of a golden hue joined them, he disregarded his goats and gave all his attention to the deer. But when autumn came, the deer left him. As for his own goats, they had meanwhile died of hunger. So he lost both deer and goats, and himself died of sorrow. 《杜玛卡利本生经》（第 413 号）。一位牧羊人在森林的围栏里养了一群山羊并照料它们。但当几只金色毛发的鹿加入羊群后，他不再关心自己的山羊，把全部注意力都给了鹿。然而秋季来临时，鹿群离开了他。而他的山羊此时已饿死殆尽。于是他既失去了鹿也失去了羊，自己也因悲伤而死。
Except for the conclusion, this jataka runs closely parallel with Aesop’s The Goatherd and the Wild Goats (C.17, H.12, P.6, Hs.6). Here a goatherd’s flock is joined by some wild goats, to whom the man heaps fodder generously, while giving his own animals only enough to subsist. As soon as the weather clears, however, the wild goats take to their heels. When he accuses them of ingratitude, their reply is that the same would happen to them, should there be other new-comers. The Babrius version (B.45) is however the same as the jataka; the goatherd does not feed his own goats and so they die. Nor do the wild goats rebuke him; they simply flee. 除结局外，这个本生故事与伊索寓言《牧羊人与野山羊》（编号 C.17/H.12/P.6/Hs.6）高度相似。故事中牧羊人的羊群混入了野山羊，牧人慷慨地给野山羊投喂饲料，却只给自己的羊维持生存的最低口粮。然而天气转晴后，野山羊立即逃之夭夭。当牧人指责它们忘恩负义时，野山羊回应说：若有新来者加入，它们也会遭到同样对待。巴比里乌斯版本（B.45）则与本生经完全一致：牧羊人没有喂养自己的山羊导致其死亡，野山羊也未谴责牧人，只是单纯地逃离。
Dipi Jataka (No. 426). A panther, intent on killing a she-goat and looking for provocation to do so, accuses her of having trod on his tail. She says they met face to face, whereas his tail was behind him. The panther replies that his tail was everywhere. The shegoat then says she came through the air. He replies that by doing so 《帝毗本生经》（第 426 号）。一只豹子蓄意杀害母山羊并寻找借口，指控她踩到了自己的尾巴。母山羊辩解说他们当时是迎面相遇，而豹子的尾巴却在身后。豹子回应说自己的尾巴无处不在。母山羊便改口称自己是从空中飞来的。豹子又反咬一口
she scared off the deer and spoilt his meal. The she-goat then pleads directly, but the panther kills her. 说她吓跑了鹿群，毁了自己的美餐。母山羊最终直接哀求，但仍被豹子杀死。
Similar provocation is sought, but by a wolf from a lamb in Aesop’s fable, The Wolf and the Lamb (C.221, H.274, P.155, Hs.160). The wolf accuses the lamb first of having muddied the water of the stream from which both of them had come to drink, then, of having insulted his father. To the lamb’s replies he says: “You are good at finding excuses; all the same I am going to eat you”; and he does so. In Aesop’s The Cat and the Cock (C.12, H.14, P.16, Hs.16) the cat accuses the cock of being a nuisance with his crowing, then of committing incest, before he starts to kill and eat him up. 类似的寻衅情节也出现在伊索寓言《狼与小羊》（编号 C.221/H.274/P.155/Hs.160）中：狼先后指控小羊弄浑了它们共饮的溪水、辱骂过自己的父亲。面对小羊的辩解，狼宣称"你倒是很会找借口，但我照样要吃掉你"，随即扑食了小羊。在伊索寓言《猫与公鸡》（编号 C.12/H.14/P.16/Hs.16）中，猫先是指责公鸡打鸣扰民，又诬陷其乱伦，最终将公鸡撕咬吞食。
Putimansa Jataka (No. 437). A jackal, unable to get at a wise shegoat, bids his wife conduct her to him, saying that he is dead and needs to be lamented over and buried. The she-goat comes along but sees the jackal lift his head, and flees. The she-jackal tries to lure her a second time, saying that the jackal recovered at the sight of her, and would she come and chat with him? She agrees to do so - but with some friends, hounds! This scares the pair of jackals away. 普提曼萨本生经（第 437 号）。一只豺狼无法接近聪明的母山羊，便让妻子将其引至身边，谎称自己已死需要哀悼和安葬。母山羊前来吊唁时发现豺狼抬头窥视，立即逃走。雌豺再次诱骗说豺狼因见到她而康复，邀其前来叙谈。母山羊答应赴约——但带着一群朋友：猎犬！吓得这对豺狼落荒而逃。
See Aesop’s The Lion, the Fox and the Stag (C.358, H.243, P.336, B.95). A fox lured a stag to a sick lion, saying that he was dying and intended making the stag king of the beasts. The lion was too hasty with his leap and only tore the stag’s ear. The fox thereupon persuaded the stag to come again; but unlike the goat in the jataka, which obviously inverts the detail, the stag did so and became a victim of the lion. 参见伊索寓言《狮子、狐狸与牡鹿》（C.358, H.243, P.336, B.95）。狐狸将牡鹿诱至病狮处，声称狮子临终欲立其为百兽之王。狮子扑击过急只撕下鹿耳。狐狸继而劝诱牡鹿再次前往；与本生经中反转情节的母山羊不同，牡鹿重蹈覆辙终成狮口猎物。
Kukkuta Jataka (No. 448). A falcon killed all the chicks of a hen except one, which hid in a bamboo grove. The falcon, plotting to catch it, invited it to be friends and feed together. To which the chick replied that there never could be friendship between them. The falcon promised not to sin again - but to no avail. 《鸡本生》（第 448 则）。一只猎鹰杀光了母鸡的所有雏鸡，唯有一只躲进了竹林幸存。猎鹰图谋捕捉它，便假意邀请结为朋友共同觅食。雏鸡回应道两者之间绝无友谊可言。猎鹰承诺永不再犯——但终是徒劳。
See the Aesop fable The Snake and the Farmer which is cited above in association with the Godha Jataka (No. 137). Both farmer and snake realize that there can be no friendship between them after what they had done to each other. 参见上文与《蜥蜴本生》（第 137 则）相关联的伊索寓言《农夫与蛇》。在相互伤害之后，农夫与蛇都意识到他们之间不可能存在友谊。
Ghata Jataka (No. 454). A king has a daughter, of whom it is foretold that if she begets a son, he will destroy both the country and his lineage. Her two brothers, to prevent her having a child, locks her up in a round tower and places guards over her. But she does have a baby, by a secret lover - in fact quite a number thereafter who kill her two brothers. (See also the Mahavamsa story of Ummadacitta (Ch.IX)). 《陶罐本生》（第 454 则）。国王有位被预言"若产子将亡国灭族"的公主。她的两位兄长将她囚禁于圆塔并派兵看守，以防其生育。但她仍与秘密情人诞下婴孩——事实上后来这群子嗣杀死了她的两位兄长。（另见《大史》第九章乌摩陀吉塔的故事）
Here we have the motif of the birth of Perseus. An oracle declares that if King Acrisius’ daughter, Danae, has a son, he will kill his grandfather. She is locked up in a brazen tower and guards placed over her. But Zeus comes to her as a shower of gold and she conceives. As in the jataka, the oracle finds fulfilment (Hyginus Fables 63). 这里出现了珀尔修斯诞生的母题。神谕宣告，如果阿克里西俄斯国王的女儿达那厄生下儿子，这个孩子将会弑杀外祖父。于是她被囚禁在铜塔中严加看守。但宙斯化作金雨与她相会，使她受孕。正如本生经所述，神谕最终应验（希吉努斯《寓言集》第 63 则）。
Maha Paduma Jataka (No. 472). A king’s new consort is inflamed by passion for her step-son and in the king’s absence wants him to make love to her. When he repudiates her, she has him falsely incriminated as having attempted to rape her. The king believes her and has the young prince condemned to death and cast down the ‘thieves’ cliff’. He is miraculously saved and becomes a hermit. The king learns the truth and the queen herself is hurled down the cliff. See also the Bandhanamokkha Jataka (No. 120). 《大莲华本生》（第 472 则）。国王的新王妃对继子产生炽热情欲，趁国王不在时要求与他交欢。遭到拒绝后，她诬告王子企图施暴。国王听信谗言，判处年轻王子死刑，将其推下"盗贼崖"。王子奇迹生还后成为隐士。国王得知真相后，王后自己被推下悬崖。另见《缚解脱本生》（第 120 则）。
The plot of this jataka bases itself on the Greek myth of Hippolytus. Here, Phaedra, the wife of King Theseus of Athens, falls in love with his son by his former wife, Hippolytus. When rejected by him, she falsely incriminates him and Theseus destroys him, using a curse. The religious life of Prince Paduma of the jataka reflects the singular piety of this Greek youth. In Euripides’ extant tragedy, the Hippolytus there is also a reconciliation of father and son - though too late. The Greek story ends in tragedy therefore (see Hyginus Fables 47). As for the ‘thieves’ cliff’ (corapata), some such punishment may have been prevalent in India; but it also reflects the hurling of condemned criminals into a barathron and the kaiadas in Sparta. Compare the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in the Bible (Gen. 39) Joseph was not however related to Potiphar’s wife in the way we have it in the Greek myth and the Indian jataka. 本则本生故事的情节基于希腊神话中的希波吕托斯传说。雅典国王忒修斯的妻子菲德拉爱上了他与前妻所生之子希波吕托斯。遭其拒绝后，菲德拉诬陷希波吕托斯，忒修斯便用诅咒杀死了他。本生故事中帕度玛王子的宗教生活，正体现了这位希腊青年独特的虔诚。在欧里庇得斯现存的悲剧《希波吕托斯》中，也有父子和解的情节——尽管为时已晚。因此希腊故事以悲剧收场（参见许癸努斯《寓言集》第 47 篇）。至于"盗贼崖"（corapata），印度可能曾盛行此类刑罚；但它也反映了将罪犯投入巴拉特隆深渊的处决方式，以及斯巴达的卡伊阿达斯深渊。可对照《圣经》中约瑟与波提乏之妻的故事（《创世记》39 章），不过约瑟与波提乏之妻的关系，不同于希腊神话和印度本生故事中的设定。
Javana Hamsa Jataka (No. 476). Two geese, one after anohter, try to fly with the sun; they feel as if their joints are on fire and are rescued by a swift goose. This goose is so swift that he traverses the whole world from end to end before the sun has moved to the middle of the sky. He also picks up arrows shot in the four directions and lays them at the feet of the archers so fast that he is himself invisible. 阇婆那天鹅本生（第 476 号）。两只天鹅先后尝试与太阳竞飞，感到关节如被烈火灼烧，幸得一只迅捷天鹅相救。此天鹅疾速非凡，能在日未中天之际便从世界一端飞至另一端。它还能同时接住射向四方的箭矢，快得连身影都不可见，并将箭矢置于射手脚下。
The performances here are rather reminiscent of Phaethon’s effort with the sun (Hyginus Fables 152A, 154) and very nearly, in the case of the two geese, its result. See also the Aesopic fable of the archery contest between Zeus and Apollo (C.187, H.151, B.68), where Apollo shoots an arrow into the Garden of the Hesperides, whereupon Zeus, covering the distance with a single step, is left without space into which to shoot. I wonder whether the parallelisms here appear rather far-fetched. Not so in the next, however. 这些描述令人联想到法厄同驾驭太阳车的传说（希吉努斯寓言 152A、154），尤其是那两只天鹅的遭遇与其结局几乎如出一辙。另可参照伊索寓言中宙斯与阿波罗的射箭比赛（C.187，H.151，B.68）：阿波罗将箭射入赫斯珀里得斯花园后，宙斯一步跨越天地，竟无空间可供射箭。不知这些相似之处是否显得牵强？但下一个例证则不然。
Takkariya Jataka (No. 481). Among other stories in this jataka is one of a goat, whom some thieves wanted to kill and eat, but had to set free because they had forgotten the cleaver. But the goat, frisking about in the ecstasy of his freedom, happened to kick a knife left in the bamboo grove, where they were, by bambooworkers. The thieves, hearing the sound, found it and used it to kill the goat. 《塔卡利亚本生经》（第 481 号）。该本生经中记载了一则山羊的故事：盗贼们欲宰杀山羊分食，却因遗忘屠刀而将其放生。重获自由的山羊欢腾雀跃，无意间踢到了竹林里竹匠遗留的刀具。盗贼闻声寻得此刀，终将山羊宰杀。
Zenobius (Prov. Cent. 1.27: so Suidas) gives the expression “Like the goat and the knife”, explaining it with a story similar to this. The Corinthians were holding a sacrifice when some of the servants hid the knife. But the goat itself revealed it accidentally with his feet and thus was the cause of his own death. 泽诺比乌斯（《箴言集》1.27 章，苏达斯亦引述）记载了"如山羊与屠刀"的典故，其所述故事与此相似。科林斯人举行祭祀时，侍从藏起了屠刀。山羊却意外用蹄子踢出刀具，最终导致自身被宰杀。
Mahabodhi Jataka (No. 528) Stanzas (at sec. 24) cited as an illustration in this jataka: 《大菩提本生经》（第 528 号）第 24 节引用的偈颂作为例证：
A wolf disguised as ram of old, Drew unsuspecting nigh the fold The panic-stricken flock it slew, Then scampered off to pastures new. ^(15){ }^{15} 昔有恶狼扮公羊，悄然临近羊圈旁。惊惶羊群遭屠戮，得逞遁向新草场。 ^(15){ }^{15}
See Aesop’s fable The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing (H.376, P.451). A wolf disguised as a sheep in order to get plenty of food, is led into the fold unknowingly by the shepherd. But when the shepherd feels hungry and kills one of the sheep for a meal, it happens to be our wolf. The jataka inverts the result, making the wolf succeed and loses the irony. 参见伊索寓言《披着羊皮的狼》（编号 H.376，P.451）。一只狼伪装成绵羊想获取充足食物，却被牧羊人无意中带进了羊圈。当牧羊人饥饿时宰杀其中一只羊充饥，恰好选中了这只狼。本生故事反转了结局，让狼成功得逞，从而消解了反讽意味。
Sonaka Jataka (529) (a) A prince, upon being made king, forgets his childhood friend, who now for forty years remained an ascetic. So, to find him, the king broadcasts a stanza, expecting that the one who can cap it will be none other than his friend. The ascetic learns of it from a boy, caps it with a refrain and is discovered. (b) Stanzas (at sec. 255) give as a parable the following: A crow, alighting on the carcass of an elephant, is borne down the river, eating the flesh from it and drinking water from the river. He is so intent on this that he is carried far out to sea, and when he tries to fly back, falls into the water and becomes the victim of crocodiles and fish. 《苏那卡本生经》（第 529 则）（a）一位王子登基为王后，忘却了儿时好友。这位友人四十年来始终苦修。为寻访故人，国王四处传诵一首诗偈，断言能接续诗句者必是其友。苦行者从孩童处听闻此事，以叠句相和，终被相认。（b）经文第 255 节以寓言形式讲述：乌鸦停驻于顺流漂下的象尸上，一面啄食腐肉，一面啜饮河水。它如此专注以致被带入远海，当试图飞返时坠入水中，沦为鳄鱼与鱼群的口中餐。
‘A’ is weakly reminiscent of Oedipus’ answering of the Sphinx’s riddle, of which the Devadhamma Jataka (No. 6) may have been aware. But it also recalls somewhat more positively Minos’ search for Daedalus (of which the next and last jataka I cite, had knowledge - though the literary modus used here varies from the practical used by Minos. On the other hand ’ bb ', the image of the crow riding the elephant carcase down the river parallels that of the viper floating down-river upon a bundle of thistles in Aesop’s fable The Viper and the Fox (H.145, B.173), seeing which a fox exclaims, “A skipper right worthy of his craft!” - for the crow of the jataka symbolized the life of sensual pleasure. “A”的情节隐约让人联想到俄狄浦斯解答斯芬克斯之谜的典故，《天法本生经》（第 6 号）可能对此有所借鉴。但更明显地，它让人想起米诺斯寻找代达罗斯的故事（我接下来要引用的最后一个本生故事也知晓这个典故——尽管此处采用的文学手法与米诺斯使用的实际方法有所不同）。另一方面，“ bb ”中乌鸦乘着大象尸体顺流而下的画面，与伊索寓言《毒蛇与狐狸》（编号 H.145，B.173）里毒蛇漂浮在蓟草捆上顺流而下的场景如出一辙——狐狸见状惊呼：“真是船配其主啊！”因本生故事中的乌鸦象征着沉溺感官享乐的生活。
Maha Ummagga Jataka (No. 546) The twelfth prasna of the nineteen which Mahosadha solved is called ‘The Gem’ and involved the threading of a gem of which the hole spiralled or zig-zagged eight times. He accomplished this with the aid of ants, whom he induced into the hole with the aid of honey. The ants dragged the thread through with them on their passing from one end to the other. 《大隧道本生经》（第 546 号） 摩诃苏达解决的十九个难题中的第十二问名为“宝石之谜”，需要将孔道呈八重螺旋或锯齿状弯曲的宝石穿线。他借助蚂蚁完成了这个任务：用蜂蜜引诱蚂蚁进入孔道，当蚂蚁从一端爬向另一端时，顺势将丝线拖曳而过。
A very similar feat was performed in the identical manner by Daedalus. He threaded a spiral snail-shell, which King Minos was carrying around, hoping to trace him; and he did this using ants and honey. (See Apollod. Ep. 12-15; Zen. Cent. iv. 92. 12-15. The evidence on this goes back beyond Sophocles’ lost play, the Camicians. It must be mentioned that the fifth of these prasna which Mahosadha solved, called ‘The Son’ reflects the judgement of Solomon in Kings 3. 12-28 of the Bible. The tunnel which Mahosadha built (umagga =ud-magga=u d-m a g g a ) in the same jataka is in a way a kind of labyrinth, for which in Greece Daedalus was famed. Refer also on Daedalus, the Migalopa Jataka (No. 381) above. 代达洛斯以完全相同的方式完成了一项非常相似的壮举。他利用蚂蚁和蜂蜜，将米诺斯王随身携带的螺旋蜗牛壳穿线而过——这位国王本指望借此追踪到他。（参见阿波罗多洛斯《书库》补遗 12-15 章；芝诺比乌斯《箴言集》第四卷 92 章 12-15 节。相关记载可追溯至索福克勒斯失传的剧作《卡米科伊人》。必须指出的是，摩诃苏陀所解答的第五个难题"亲子案"，正对应着《圣经·列王纪上》3 章 12-28 节所罗门王的审判。而摩诃苏陀在同一本生故事中修建的地下通道（umagga =ud-magga=u d-m a g g a ），某种程度上正是一种迷宫——这种建筑在希腊正是代达洛斯的成名之作。关于代达洛斯，亦可参考前文《鹿角本生》（第 381 号）。
CHAPTER VI 第六章
RECALLING AND RECYCLING GREEK MOTIFS IN INDIAN CLOTHING 印度外衣下的希腊母题：记忆与重构
It would be noticed that the fable-type animal jatakas of the Jataka Book are relatively brief and belong with the first volumes, diminishing in number as the stories lengthen out and involve more verses than the one, two or three we find in the early stories. Their plots are simple and the texts show capability of being condensed - as if they really have been expanded in the telling, whether by the narrative elaboration, the introduction connecting them to the Buddha as the Bodhisatta or the interpolation of verses and so on. 我们会注意到，《本生经》中寓言类型的动物本生故事相对简短，主要集中在前几卷。随着故事篇幅的延长，诗句数量也由最初的一两节增至多节，这类故事的数量便逐渐减少。这些故事情节简单，文本显示出可被压缩的特质——仿佛它们确实在传述过程中被扩展过，无论是通过叙事铺陈、将故事与作为菩萨的佛陀相关联的引言，还是诗句的插入等等。
It appears that it was in the condensed - or speaking metaphorically, in their dehydrated form - that the Aesopica were preserved, as by Demetrius, and it is in this form that the anonymous manuscripts of the Aesopica that have come to us keep them. We cannot even conjecture what Socrates’ ideas on the matter of putting the fables he knew into verse were, when he set about it in prison, but it is obvious that, realizing that brevity and terseness were the soul of fable, both Babrius and Phaedrus, even when rendering the Aesopic fables they present in verse, did not expand them overly. It is his failure to appreciate these qualities of good fable which is the prime fault of Avianus in his concern to make substantial literature out of them. The degree of elaboration of these tight summaries was left to the orator or writer who was to use them, and he would have done so according to the occasion, keeping them long enough to make effective point, and short enough not to digress and distract attention from the seriousness of the matters they were being coopted to illustrate - a thing which could very easily happen. 看来，伊索寓言正是以这种浓缩的——或形象地说，脱水后的形式——被保存下来的，如德米特里所做的那样；而流传至今的匿名伊索寓言手抄本也保持着这种形态。我们甚至无从推测苏格拉底在狱中着手将所知寓言改写成韵文时的具体构想，但显而易见的是，无论是巴布里乌斯还是费德鲁斯，即便在以诗体呈现伊索寓言时，都深谙简洁凝练乃寓言精髓之理，未曾过度铺陈。阿维阿努斯的主要缺陷，正是未能领悟优秀寓言的特质，反而试图将其扩充为鸿篇巨制。这些精炼摘要的铺陈程度，全凭使用它们的演说家或作家根据具体场合来把握：既要保持足够长度以有效传达主旨，又需足够简短以避免偏离主题，或削弱它们被援引来说明严肃事项时的注意力——这种偏差极易发生。
This use would no doubt have been in prose and like the figures of speech and other literary devices used in the art of rhetorike, subservient to the main cause. On the other hand, poetic renderings of the fables went after literary effect for themselves and in their own 这种用法无疑是以散文形式呈现，如同修辞艺术中运用的比喻和其他文学手法，皆服务于主旨。另一方面，寓言的诗歌化演绎则追求独立的文学效果，自成一体。
right, so that the temptation was there of elaboration, in the course of which their striking power was dulled. 确实，诱惑在于精心雕琢，但在此过程中，它们的冲击力却被削弱了。
It is to the skill of the jataka authors who adopted fable, whether from Indian folklore itself, or from exotic sources, that despite the dressing of these to a greater of lesser degree, they were able to render them in a dramatic and efficient manner. Thus, the point being made was rarely blunted or missed its mark, even though these stories were the work of diverse hands, as is seen by the internal evidence of the stories themselves, the repetitions, the narrative style, the phraseology (- though we may not press too far the use of the Pali, if as the tradition goes, the Jatakatthavannana we have is not more than a re-translation to Pali of a Sinhala version of the original, of the literary qualities of which hardly anything is known). On the other hand, notwithstanding the transmutations the Aesopic fables have undergone at the hands of these consummate jataka authors, the motifs of the originals are unmistakable, if one knows the range of the Aesopica as well as one does the jataka. The changes effected both in the motifs themselves and the material which dresses them are so natural and obvious in the Indian metaphor as to suggest, not a translation but a ingestion of the original stories and a regurgitation of them as wholly Indian stories - a function that has taken place so naturally and smoothly that one cannot but admire their ingenuity, imagination and narrative brilliance, rehandling the motifs even to the extent of pulling them inside out, replacing the participants with new ones, setting the story against the background of a contemporary India. 这要归功于本生经作者的叙事技巧——无论这些寓言是源自印度民间传说，还是异域传统——他们总能以戏剧性且高效的方式呈现故事。即便这些故事出自不同创作者之手（从故事内部的重复叙事、叙述风格和惯用表达可窥见端倪），其核心寓意也鲜有减损或偏离靶心（不过我们不宜过度强调巴利语版本的特质，因为根据传统说法，现存的《本生经注》很可能只是对僧伽罗语原版文学的巴利语重译，而我们对那个原版的文学品质几乎一无所知）。另一方面，尽管伊索寓言在这些技艺精湛的本生经作者手中经历了种种变形，但只要熟悉伊索寓言集与本生经的叙事范畴，仍能清晰辨识出原始故事母题的痕迹。 这些变化既体现在母题本身，也展现在其承载的素材之中，在印度化的隐喻中显得如此自然且显而易见——这并非简单的翻译，而是对原故事的消化吸收，继而将其作为纯粹的印度故事重新吐纳。这一转化过程进行得如此自然流畅，令人不得不赞叹其匠心独运、想象瑰丽与叙事才华。他们甚至将母题彻底重构，替换故事角色，将情节置于当代印度的背景之下，达到了内外翻转的程度。
We are not here interested in the paccuppannavatthu, the story of the present, which unlike the jataka proper or story of his past birth, which is always narrated by the Buddha, is presented by the author as a commentary to a stanza or stanzas represented by a relevant fragment; the setting here is most often Jetavana, less often the Bamboo Grove (Veluvana) - though other places find mention. It is in the jatakas proper, the stories of the past that are supposedly narrated by the Buddha himself, in which the adaptations mostly occur of the stories of our concern. The way this is done may be reviewed under a few heads. 我们在此并不关注"现世故事"（paccuppannavatthu），这类故事与佛陀亲述的本生故事（讲述其前世经历）不同，它是由作者作为对某个诗节或相关片段所作的注释而呈现；其背景设定最常见于祇树给孤独园（Jetavana），较少出现在竹林精舍（Veluvana）——尽管其他地点也有提及。真正发生故事改编的，正是那些被认为由佛陀亲口讲述的过去世本生故事。这种改编方式可以从几个方面来考察。
In general it may be mentioned that, while in the paccuppannavatthu the political, social and cultural life of the land and region thereof in which the Buddha lived and taught must necessarily be constant, what is strange is that, if these jatakas are to be taken as true, the world in those several ages in which he took birth as the Bodhisatta remains hardly different from that of his life as the Buddha. Taking them in general Spence Hardy observes: ^(1){ }^{1} 总体而言可以指出，虽然"现世故事"必然恒常反映佛陀生活与传道地区的政治、社会及文化生活，但奇怪的是——若这些本生故事确有其事——那么佛陀作为菩萨转生的诸多时代，其世界面貌与他成佛后的时代几乎毫无差异。斯宾塞·哈迪（Spence Hardy）整体考察后指出： ^(1){ }^{1}
"There can be no doubt that the conditions of the world in the ages of which we are speaking, were very different to anything that is presented in our day. Now if Buddha lived in these distant ages and had a perfect insight into their circumstances, as he tells us he had, how is it that we have no intimation whatever, in any of his numerous references to the past, that the world was so different, in these respects, to what it is now? We have exaggerations of present forms of existence; a thousand arms given to Mara, and a height higher than the moon to Rahu; but of the innumerable creatures that there lived, and are now found in a fossil state, he says not a word. According to his discourses, there were at that time, the same kind of trees, of reptiles, of fishes, of birds, and of beasts, as in his own day. He was himself, as we learn from the Jataka Wannana, an elephant, a lion, a horse, a bull qquad\qquad"" 毫无疑问，我们所谈论的那些时代的世界状况，与当今呈现的任何景象都截然不同。倘若佛陀真如他所宣称的那般，曾生活在那遥远的年代并对其境况了如指掌，为何在他浩如烟海的往世论述中，竟丝毫未提及当时世界与现今在这些方面的巨大差异？我们所见只有对现存生命形态的夸张描绘——赋予魔罗千臂，令罗睺高逾明月；但对于那些曾存活于世、如今仅存化石的无数生灵，他却只字未提。依据其说法，彼时存在的树木、爬虫、鱼类、鸟类与兽类，皆与他所处时代别无二致。据《本生鬘》记载，他自身亦曾转世为象、狮、马、牛等形态。
The point is well made if the Buddha himself was the author of the several jataka stories, as he purports to be, and if the implication is that they were literally true recollections, not that they were merely metaphorical, as for instance parable, and indeed fable. But if this were not the case, we must add the past life itself as well as the reminiscence thereof stated or implicit in the jatakas to the formalistic “When Brahmadatta was ruling in Benares”, meaning no more than “Once upon a time”, and with that, the entire story as belonging to the dimension of fable. Then, and then only could we accommodate beings and happenings which are palpably fantastic, including such as the thousand arms of Mara, the height of Rahu, the fabulous lengths of the sea-monsters ^(2){ }^{2} of the jataka not to mention 若佛陀本人确为多部本生故事的作者（如其自称），且这些故事暗示着它们是真实的回忆，而非仅具隐喻性质的寓言或虚构故事，那么这一观点便成立。但若非如此，我们就必须将前世本身以及本生故事中明示或暗示的回忆，与形式化的"当梵授王统治波罗奈时"（其意不过"很久以前"）一并归入虚构故事的范畴。唯有如此，我们才能容纳那些明显荒诞的存在与事件——包括魔罗的千臂、罗睺的身高、本生故事中提及的海怪 ^(2){ }^{2} 的离奇长度等——而不致产生矛盾。
that she-goat’s kick in the Losaka Jataka which threw Mittavindaka from the island of ogres to the dry moat of Benares. But the jataka expects to be treated more seriously than fairy tale. Consequently what is of greater importance to us is the restriction of this localization from that greater antiquity to the time of the Buddha, and in place, to contemporary India and the regions in which we find them set, since this must necessarily modify the details of any exotic story, with which the adapters or their audience were unfamiliar. We are in lands overshadowed by the Himalayas and watered by the Gangas, in cities like Benares, Kosala, Mithila and Takkasila, ruled by monarchs with council and court, and in environs of villages, fields and forests inhabited by folk whose occupations, religion and social life differed considerably from those of the Aesopic scenario. The setting of the curious Greek fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin cannot now be sea off coast of Sunion in Attica - it is the placid waters of the river Ganges; the drama of the prospective bridegroom who loses his bride because of an unseemly dance is not enacted in Cleisthenes’ palace in Sicyon, but, as the Nacca Jataka, on a slab of stone at the foothills of the Himalayas. Similarly, the ass who dons the lion-skin and frightens all and sundry does not do so in Cumae, nor is the goat whose friskiness exposes the missing chopper in Corinth - both incidents take place, in the Sihacamma and the Takkariya respectively, in the countryside of rural India. 在《卢舍卡本生经》中，那只母山羊的一踢将弥多频陀迦从食人魔岛踹到了贝拿勒斯的干涸护城河。但本生故事期待比童话更严肃的对待。因此对我们更为重要的是，这种地域性限制从更古老的时期缩小至佛陀时代，在地理上则限定于当代印度及其故事发生的区域——这种限定必然要调整任何异域故事的细节，毕竟改编者或其听众对那些异域元素并不熟悉。我们身处喜马拉雅山荫庇之地、恒河滋润之土，在贝拿勒斯、憍萨罗、弥提罗与呾叉始罗等城邦，见证着君主与廷臣共治的王朝，穿梭于村庄、田野与森林构成的乡野，这里人们的生活方式、宗教信仰与社会形态，与伊索寓言所描绘的图景有着显著差异。 这则关于猴子与海豚的奇特希腊寓言场景，如今已非阿提卡苏尼翁海岸外的海域——而是恒河平静的水面；那位因失态舞蹈而痛失新娘的新郎戏剧，并非发生在西锡安克利斯提尼的宫殿，而是以《那伽本生》的形式，在喜马拉雅山麓的石板上演绎。同样，披着狮皮吓唬众人的驴子不在库迈，那只因欢跳暴露丢失砍刀的羔羊也不在科林斯——这两则轶事分别载于《狮皮本生》与《盗贼本生》，发生在印度乡野的田园之中。
To go further, Richard Fick’s comprehensive and careful examination of the references in the Jatatthavannana to the social conditions prevalent in the several past-life stories, including the verses, not only reveal an India, but an India of the time when the Buddha lived, and that too even when the conditions when he was Bodhisatta over and over again - no matter its always being India, could have been vastly divergent. In Hofrath Buhler’s opinion ^(3){ }^{3} they uniformly reflect an India that is older than the third or fourth century - but even granting that subtle differences were manifest - not of any past age of the universe but of the one which approximates to the back-drop of the paccuppannavatthu. 更进一步说，理查德·菲克对《本生经注》中多则前世故事（包括偈颂）所反映社会状况的全面细致考察，不仅揭示了一个印度，更展现了佛陀在世时的印度图景——甚至当菩萨无数次转世时，尽管背景始终是印度，社会状况可能已天差地别。根据霍夫拉特·布勒的观点 ^(3){ }^{3} ，这些记载一致反映了早于三四世纪的古印度风貌——即便承认存在细微差异——它们呈现的并非宇宙洪荒的往昔，而是最接近"当下因缘"背景的时代。
I had said that emphasis in the jataka shifts from farm land and animal-husbandry in the Aesopic, together with their respective predators (including also the lion) which prey upon those animals, to the village and the jungle in India. Oxen, asses sheep, poultry, wolves and foxes decline or vanish; their places are taken by monkeys, lions, elephants and stags, peacocks, mallards and parrots, though some remain common to both scenarios. It is in the replacement of the participants of the Greek fable by others more familiar to the rural experience of Northern India that is the most evident form of localization. But such change is often enough accompanied by a rehandlling of the motif or a change of one or more details, which results in the metamorphosis from Greek to Indian. 我曾指出，本生故事的重心从伊索寓言中的农田畜牧及其捕食者（包括狮子）转向了印度的村庄与丛林。耕牛、驴子、绵羊、家禽、豺狼与狐狸逐渐减少或消失；取而代之的是猴子、狮子、大象与雄鹿，孔雀、野鸭与鹦鹉，不过仍有部分动物在两种场景中共同存在。最明显的本土化形式，就是将希腊寓言中的参与者替换为北印度乡村经验中更为熟悉的角色。但这类转变往往伴随着对母题的重新处理或细节的更改，从而实现了从希腊到印度的蜕变。
Among the jatakas are however quite a number which retain the participants - and I include human beings among them - of the original fable. The Bhojajaniya (No. 23) for instance has the same noble war-horse, rejected from military service and humiliated; in the Virocana (No. 143) lion and jackal take the place of lion and fox, where the latter in both cases try to emulate the former with disastrous consequences; in the Kacchapa (No. 178) it is a tortoise whose so great love of home, like his counterpart in the Aesopic, comes to suffer by it. No. 294, the Kaka Jataka, and its companion, the Anta (No. 295) both retain fox (or jackal) and crow in two versions of this commonest of the Aesopic fables; human beings are the participants of the Maha Paduma (No. 472), as they are in the original Greek myth of Hippolytus and Phaedra, here too a queen who fails to seduce her step-son; in the Takkariya the animal whose frisking reveals the cleaver that causes his death is the same goat as in the Greek fable that comes to us form Zenobius as having taken place at a sacrifice in Cornith. 然而，本生经中仍有相当数量的故事保留了原始寓言的参与者——我将其包括人类在内。例如《宝马本生》（第 23 则）中同样出现了那匹被军队拒收而蒙羞的尊贵战马；《维罗遮那本生》（第 143 则）里狮子和豺狼取代了狮子和狐狸的角色，两者中后者都试图效仿前者而招致灾难性后果；《龟本生》（第 178 则）中的乌龟如同伊索寓言里那位同类，因过度恋家而遭受苦难。第 294 则《乌鸦本生》及其姊妹篇《安达本生》（第 295 则）均以狐狸（或豺狼）与乌鸦为主角，呈现了这个最常见伊索寓言的两种版本；《大莲华本生》（第 472 则）的参与者是人类，正如希腊原版希波吕托斯与准德拉神话中，同样有位试图勾引继子未遂的王后；《盗贼本生》中因欢跳而暴露致命屠刀的山羊，与经由泽诺比乌斯流传至今的希腊寓言里那只在科林斯祭祀场合出现的山羊如出一辙。
Where change is seen in these, as also in some in which one or more characters are replaced, they can be slight - a change in sex or profession among humans, as the farmer who rears a snake who stings him to death in Aesop becoming a hermit in the Veluka Jataka (No. 43), or the people whom the crowing of a cock angers, so that they kill the bird, changing from robbers or house-maids in the Greek fables to students in the Akalaravi Jataka (No. 119). The bald 在这些故事中出现的改动，包括替换一个或多个角色的情况，往往十分细微——可能是人类角色的性别或职业变化。例如伊索寓言中那位饲养毒蛇反被咬死的农夫，在《苇芦本生经》（第 43 号）里变成了隐士；又或是希腊寓言中因公鸡打鸣而愤怒杀鸟的盗贼或女仆，在《阿迦罗罗毗本生经》（第 119 号）里则变成了学生。至于那个
man who slaps his head to kill a fly in the Aesopic The Bald Man and the Fly remains in the Makasa (No. 44) a bald man, but in its companion version, the Rohini (No. 45), he becomes a woman. But the fly now comes back; he had been a mosquito in the Rohini as a variant. 在伊索寓言《秃子和苍蝇》中拍打脑袋驱蝇的秃顶男子，在《蚊蚋本生经》（第 44 号）里仍保留秃顶形象，但在其姊妹篇《卢醯尼本生经》（第 45 号）中却变成了女性。值得注意的是，原本在《卢醯尼》变体故事里作为蚊子的昆虫，现在又变回了苍蝇。
There are other jatakas, which, like these, change but one participant, whether slightly or more drastically, among which may be counted the Godha (No. 138), in which the farmer and a snake at which he hits and misses in the original motif found in the Greek The Farmer and the Snake (C.81, H.96, P.51, Hs.51) become hermit and lizard, the Kacchapa (No. 215) in which the bird which carries the tortoise up in the air (now two of them) is not an eagle as in Aesop’s The Tortoise and the Eagle but wild geese; in the ‘Gem prasna’ of the Maha Ummagga Jataka (No. 546) what was a spiral shell through which Daedalus passed a thread with the use of an ant in the ancient Greek myth becomes a gem of eight bends threaded by the young Mahosadha. 另有若干本生故事与此类似，仅对单一角色进行或细微或彻底的置换。例如《蜥蜴本生》（第 138 则）中，希腊故事《农夫与蛇》（分类编号 C.81/H.96/P.51/Hs.51）原型的农夫与失手击打的蛇，被替换为隐士与蜥蜴；《龟本生》（第 215 则）里，将陆龟携至空中的飞禽（现为双龟）并非伊索寓言《龟与鹰》中的鹰，而是野雁；在《大隧道本生》（第 546 则）"宝石谜题"段落中，古希腊神话里代达罗斯借助蚂蚁穿线的螺旋贝壳，被少年大善见以八曲宝石穿线的情节所替代。
Notable among the jatakas which replace both or all the participants, as the case may be, can be reckoned the partially aetiological Nalapana Jataka (No. 20) with monkey taking the place of the fox and an ogre the place of the lion, from whom he escaped by the clue of the one-way footprints in the Greek The Lion and the Fox (C.196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147); crows and the wife of one of them, to recover whom they try to empty the sea in the Kaka Jataka (No. 146) take the roles of the hungry dogs of the Aesopic The Hungry Dogs (C.176, H.218) who do the same to get at some skins soaking at the bottom of river; tortoise and fish figure in the beauty contest in the Gangeyya (No. 205) in place of the ape and Zeus of Aesop’s The Ape and Zeus (H.364, B.56) though here the beauty is claimed by the tortoise for himself, not his child. For lion, bear and fox of the Greek fable of The Lion and the Bear ( C.200, H247, P147, Hs.152) the Sandhibheda Jataka (No. 349) has lion, bull and jackal; for lion, boar and vultures in The Lion and the Boar (H.253, C.203, P.338) the Vannaroha Jataka (No. 361) works with lion, tiger and jackal; jackal, piece of meat and a fish in the Culladhanuggha (No. 374) replace lion, hare and deer in Aesop’s The Lion and the Hare ( C.204, H.254, P.158, Hs.153). 在那些替换了部分或全部参与者的本生故事中，值得注意的包括具有部分起源解释性质的《那罗波那本生》（第 20 号）——其中猴子取代了狐狸的角色，食人魔替代了狮子；这与希腊寓言《狮子与狐狸》（编号 C.196 等）中通过单向足迹线索逃脱的情节相呼应；《乌鸦本生》（第 146 号）中乌鸦与其配偶试图舀干海水的情节，对应伊索《饥饿的狗》（编号 C.176 等）中饿狗为获取河底浸泡的兽皮而做的同样尝试；《甘吉亚本生》（第 205 号）里龟鱼选美大赛替代了伊索《猿与宙斯》（编号 H.364 等）中猿猴向宙斯申诉的情节，不过此处乌龟是为自己而非后代主张美貌。《分裂本生》（第 349 号）以狮子、公牛和豺狼重构了希腊寓言《狮子与熊》（编号 C.200 等）中狮、熊、狐的角力；《染色本生》（第 361 号）则用狮子、老虎和豺狼演绎了《狮子与野猪》（编号 H.253 等）中狮、猪与秃鹫的对抗；《小弓术师本生》（未编号完）中豺狼、肉块与鱼的组合... 374）在伊索寓言《狮子与野兔》（编号 C.204、H.254、P.158、Hs.153）中，将狮子、野兔和鹿替换为印度本土常见的动物。
These examples will suffice to show how a change of characters to animals familiar in the Indian landscape or otherwise, may by itself or along with a modification of motif or change or interchange of detail or even lesson, bring about a seemingly fresh story as good as the original one. 这些例子足以说明，通过将角色替换为印度地区熟悉的动物，或单独采用这一手法，或结合母题调整、细节改动/互换乃至寓意变更，就能催生出一个与原著同样精彩的、看似全新的故事。
Motifs sometimes compare very closely, so as to make the parallels obvious and these are those which have been readily detected by earlier scholars. A few such instances are those of the Sihacamma Jataka with The Ass in the Lion Skin, the Nakka Jataka with the marriage of Agariste in Herodotus; the Munika (No. 30) and its duplicate, the Saluka (No. 286) look to the Aesopic The Pig and the OxO x (H.113, C.92, P.300, B.37, Av.36), in which one animal is favoured while another is put to hard work - only to find that the former is for slaughter; the Viraka (No. 204) in which a crow tries to emulate a marsh crow and dive into the water to catch fish, only to be entangled in the weeds and perish, which recalls for us the exploit of the jackdaw, who tried to emulate the eagle and carry off a lamb in the Greek of The Eagle, Jackdaw and the Shepherd (H.8, C.5, P.2, Hs.2); the Javasakuna Jataka (No. 308) which is no other than an Indian version of The Wolf and the Heron (H.274, C.224, P.156, Hs.161), both involving dangerous animals with bones stuck in their throats, of which a bird relieves them; ^(4){ }^{4} the Dipi Jataka (No. 426) in which a panther finds absurd excuses to kill a shegoat, and when these are countered, kills her nevertheless - which is just the thing we find with the wolf in the fable of The Wolf and the Lamb (H.274, C.221, P.155, Hs.160) or the cat in The Cat and the Cock (H.14, C.12, P.16, Hs.16) in Aesop. 某些故事母题极为相似，使得其对应关系一目了然，这些正是早期学者们轻易辨识出的案例。例如：狮皮本生与《披着狮皮的驴》的对应；那迦本生与希罗多德笔下阿伽里斯忒婚事的呼应；穆尼卡本生（第 30 号）及其翻版萨卢卡本生（第 286 号）显然借鉴了伊索寓言《猪与 OxO x 》（编号 H.113/C.92/P.300/B.37/Av.36）——其中一动物受优待而另一动物被迫劳役，最终发现前者实为屠宰对象；维拉卡本生（第 204 号）中乌鸦效仿泽鸦潜水捕鱼反被水草缠溺，令人想起希腊寓言《鹰、寒鸦与牧人》（H.8/C.5/P.2/Hs.2）里效仿鹰抓羊羔的寒鸦；爪哇萨库纳本生（第 308 号）根本就是印度版的《狼与鹭》（H.274/C.224/P.156/Hs.161），两者都讲述猛兽喉咙卡骨被鸟类解救的情节； ^(4){ }^{4} 以及第比本生（第... 426）一只豹子为杀害母山羊编造荒谬借口，当这些借口被驳倒后仍执意行凶——这与《伊索寓言》中《狼与小羊》（H.274，C.221，P.155，Hs.160）里狼的行径如出一辙，亦或是《猫与公鸡》（H.14，C.12，P.16，Hs.16）中猫的所作所为。
It is beyond any possibility of coincidence when a criminal is involved with a tree, which fears his implication of it in his crime. In 当罪犯与树木产生关联，而树木唯恐被他牵连进罪行时，这种情节绝无可能是巧合。在
the Greek The Robber and the Mulberry Tree (H.264, C.214, P.152, Hs.157) they catch him and use a mulberry stake to impale him, which the tree does not mind; in the jataka, the Pucimanda, the end is varied to make the nimb tree escape being used to do likewise. Typical of the jataka, the tree deity speaks for the tree. The same phenomenon is found in the Rukkhadhamma Jataka (No. 74) where tree deities are advised by a wise one to occupy trees that are in a cluster; those who do not, have their trees flattened - the moral being “United forest like, should kinsfolk stand”, recalling distinctly the Aesopic fable of The Children of the Farmer (H.103, C.86, P.53, Hs.53). In the Suhanu Jataka (No. 158) a vicious horse which harmed others shows friendship to another of the same nature, thus reflecting in motif and animal i.e. asses - the Aesopic Buying an Ass (H.320, C.263, P.237, Hs.200). 希腊故事《强盗与桑树》（编号 H.264、C.214、P.152、Hs.157）中，强盗被抓获后用桑木桩刺穿身体，而桑树对此毫不在意；在本生经《普奇曼达》中，结局被改编为尼姆树成功逃脱了被用作刑具的命运。本生经的典型特征是树神会为树木发声。这一现象同样出现在《树法本生经》（第 74 则）中：一位智者建议树神们寄居在成簇的树木上，未听从建议者的树木则被夷为平地——其寓意"亲族当如连理林，同气连枝共扶持"，明显呼应了伊索寓言《农夫的孩子们》（编号 H.103、C.86、P.53、Hs.53）。在《苏哈努本生经》（第 158 则）里，一匹伤害他人的恶马却对同类表现出友善，其情节模式与动物角色（驴子）均折射出伊索寓言《买驴记》（编号 H.320、C.263、P.237、Hs.200）的影子。
Sometimes it can happen that the details of one Aesopic fable is shared between two jatakas. In the way of participants the Makasa (No. 44) takes the bald man, while its companion, the Rohini (No. 45) takes the fly, from the fable of The Bald Man and the Fly (Ph.v. 3), though in these Indian stories, as observed before, it is someone else who hits at the insect, whereas in the Greek, it is the man himself - which is thus able to give a psychologically better comment to the episode. Correspondingly parts of two different motifs from the Greek may be used to constitute a new motif in a jataka, as when the crab, a creature like the tortoise with absolutely no ability to fly, is carried upon the back of a heron in the Baka Jataka (No. 38) and then, like the crab who clipped the neck of a snake in the Aesopic The Snake and the Crab (H.348) clips the bird’s neck - thus inverting what happened to the flightless creature in the Greek. 有时会出现这样的情况：一则伊索寓言中的细节被两个本生故事所共享。以参与者为例，《马卡萨本生》（第 44 号）取材自《秃头人与苍蝇》（Ph.v.3）中的秃头人，而其姊妹篇《罗希尼本生》（第 45 号）则选取了同一则寓言中的苍蝇——不过在这些印度故事中，正如前文所述，拍打昆虫的是他人而非秃头人本人，希腊版本中则是当事人自己动手，这使得后者能对情节作出更具心理深度的评述。相应地，两个不同的希腊母题片段也可能被组合成本生故事中的新母题，例如《白鹭本生》（第 38 号）中，螃蟹这种与龟类同样完全不会飞的生物被白鹭驮在背上，随后它如同伊索寓言《蛇与螃蟹》（H.348）里钳住蛇颈的螃蟹那样钳住了鸟颈——由此反转了希腊故事中无翼生物的遭遇。
In the Gutha-Pana Jataka (No. 227) the dung beetle’s association with new dung may look to the fable of The Two Dung-Beetles (H.185, C.149), its grandiose delusion, to The Wolf and his Shadow (H.280, P.260), while what it suffers from the elephant’s rear may be, as I said earlier, through inversion, the jataka author’s humorous rejoinder to the elephant’s humiliation in the Greek fable of The Lion, Prometheus and the Elephant (H.261, C.210, P.259, Hs.292). 在《古塔-帕那本生经》（第 227 号）中，粪金龟与新粪便的关联可能借鉴了《两只粪金龟》（H.185，C.149）的寓言，其妄自尊大的幻觉则源自《狼与它的影子》（H.280，P.260），而它遭受大象后部攻击的情节——正如我先前所言——很可能是本生经作者通过情节倒置，对希腊寓言《狮子、普罗米修斯与大象》（H.261，C.210，P.259，Hs.292）中大象受辱场景作出的幽默回应。
In the Kaka Jataka (No. 140) and its double, involving monkeys, the Kapi Jataka (No. 404), two motifs from the Greek fables come together, one to explain how the elephants got burnt, needing treatment for the burns, the other, telling how the king’s chaplain was able to use this to get his revenge from the crows, or monkeys, as the case may be, for defecating on him. The fables concerned are respectively The Man and the Fox (H.61, C.58, P.283) in which a man ties burning tow to a fox’s tail, which results in the fox setting fire to his crop, and The Lion, the Wolf and the Fox (H.255, C.205, P. 258 , Hs. 269), in which a fox, catching the wolf maligning him to the sick lion, gives a cure for the lion’s ailment which involves a wolf’s skin. In another fable, The Goat and the Ass (H.18, C.16, P.279), doctors prescribe a broth of goat’s liver for an ass who falls and injures himself on the advice of the goat. It may be this goat who suggested a goat for fox as the cause of the fire in the jataka, which results in injury to the king’s elephants. Use of two Greek motifs for one jataka is again found in the Mulapariya Jataka (No. 245), which takes in the fable of The Wayfarers and the Plane Tree (H.313, C.257) for the ridicule of a tree as useless, and the fable of Concerning Relaxation and Tension (Ph.iii.4), involving a pun on the word ‘bow’ possible only in Greek, for the riddle the master puts on the students who were for annoying him, as did Aesop on the man who laughed at him for playing with children. 在《迦迦本生经》（第 140 号）及其姊妹篇《猴王本生经》（第 404 号）中，两个源自希腊寓言的情节相互交织：其一是解释大象如何被烧伤而需要治疗，其二是讲述国王的祭司如何借此向在他身上排便的乌鸦（或猴子）复仇。相关寓言分别是《人与狐狸》（H.61，C.58，P.283）——讲述人将燃烧的麻屑绑在狐狸尾巴上，导致狐狸引燃庄稼；以及《狮子、狼与狐狸》（H.255，C.205，P.258，Hs.269）——狐狸发现狼向病狮诋毁自己，便开出需用狼皮治病的药方。另一则寓言《山羊与驴》（H.18，C.16，P.279）中，医生为听从山羊建议而摔伤的驴开出山羊肝熬制的汤药。本生经中可能是这只山羊提议用山羊替代狐狸作为火灾的元凶，致使国王的大象受伤。这种将两个希腊母题融于一个本生故事的手法，亦见于《根本分别本生经》（第... 245），其中收录了《旅人与梧桐树》（H.313，C.257）的寓言，用以嘲讽一棵树的无用；以及《论松与紧》（Ph.iii.4）的寓言，其中涉及一个仅希腊语中才有的关于“弓”一词的双关语，用于师傅对那些烦扰他的学生提出的谜题，就像伊索对待那个嘲笑他与孩童玩耍的人一样。
Among other innovations effected in the adoption of a motif besides change of participant, transfer of a detail or the moral, is the reversal of outcome, as we find in the Kosiya Jataka (No. 226) as against its prototype The Bird and the Bat (H.85, C.75, P.48, Hs.48) or even the Gutha-Pana mentioned a while ago. Popular also is the technique of inversion, which is best seen in the Anta Jataka (No. 295) when compared with the preceding Jambu Khadaka, which reflected the Aesopic Crow and the Fox. For in the Anta, it is a jackal below who is enjoying the food, and it is the crow above who praises him to get a share of it, not the other way round. In the Bojajaniya (No. 23) a war-horse, first replaced by another but afterwards restored to his erstwhile dignity, succeeds in his role before he dies, whereas the war-horse, who is his Aesopic equivalent has lost his form and cannot perform as he did. In the Giridanta 在采用故事母题时，除了改变参与者、转移细节或寓意外，另一种创新手法是结局反转。正如我们在《拘舍雅本生经》（第 226 号）与其原型《鸟与蝙蝠》（H.85，C.75，P.48，Hs.48）的对比中所见，甚至前文提及的《古塔-帕纳》也是如此。倒置手法也颇为流行，这在《安塔本生经》（第 295 号）与反映伊索寓言《乌鸦与狐狸》的前作《阎浮果》对比中尤为明显。因为在《安塔》中，是下方的豺狼享用美食，上方的乌鸦为分一杯羹而谄媚讨好，角色完全颠倒。在《宝马本生经》（第 23 号）中，一匹战马先被替代后又重获昔日荣耀，临终前成功履行了职责；而与之对应的伊索寓言中的战马却已形销骨立，无法再现当年英姿。至于《吉哩檀多》......
(No. 184) it is found that a horse limps because his master limps; in the corresponding fable of The Crab and its Mother (H.187, C.151, P.322, Hs.319) a young crab, told by his mother to walk straight, sarcastically asks her to demonstrate for him to emulate. Phaethon in the Greek myth, drives the chariot of the Sun in a mad career; in the Javasakuna the Bodhisatta as a goose, flies in competition with the sun. （第 184 则）故事中，一匹马因主人跛足而跟着跛行；在对应的寓言《螃蟹与母蟹》（H.187，C.151，P.322，Hs.319）里，小螃蟹被母亲要求直着走时，反讽地请母亲先示范供其效仿。希腊神话中的法厄同驾驶太阳车疯狂驰骋；而《鹅本生》中，菩萨化身为天鹅与太阳竞飞。
A case of intensification is seen in the Vaka Jataka (No. 300), where a wolf, substituting for the fox of The Fox and the Grapes (H.33, C.32, P.15, Hs.15) keeps leaping at a wild goat, which, unlike the bunch of grapes, does not remain stationary but itself keeps jumping about. Exaggeration, so typical of Indian story, is found passim in the jatakas, a case being the Javasakuna just mentioned. 强化叙事的案例见于《狼本生》（第 300 则）——故事中取代《狐狸与葡萄》（H.33，C.32，P.15，Hs.15）里狐狸的狼不断扑向野山羊，与静止的葡萄串不同，山羊始终跳跃移动。印度故事特有的夸张手法在本生经中随处可见，前文提及的《鹅本生》即为一例。
There at two interesting examples of motifs from Greek fable which are still retained in the gatha and not developed into jatakas. One of these is in the Mahabodhi Jataka (No. 528) - the fable of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, otherwise The Shepherd and the Wolf (H.376, P.451). In that gatha the wolf apparently succeeds by his disguise, for the story is being used to explain how charlatans have their way with the innocent. (I give H.T.Francis’ translation from the Cowell ed.) 这里有两个来自希腊寓言的趣味母题仍保留在偈颂中，而未发展成本生故事。其一是《大觉本生》（第 528 则）中"披着羊皮的狼"的寓言，又名《牧人与狼》（H.376，P.451）。该偈颂中狼凭借伪装显然获得了成功，因故事正被用以解释江湖骗子如何欺骗天真之人。（我采用考威尔版中 H.T.弗朗西斯的译文）
Thus monks and brahmins often use A cloak, the credulous to abuse. Some on bare ground all dirty lie, Some fast, some squat in agony, Some may not drink, some eat by rule, As saint each poses, wicked fool. 比丘婆罗门常如是，伪披袈裟欺愚痴：或卧尘垢污秽地，或苦修禁食自持，或蹲踞作苦行状，或节饮或限食时，佯装圣者实愚痴。
But in the Greek fable his disguise only lands the wolf in trouble; the shepherd kills him for a sheep. 但在希腊寓言中，狼的伪装却使它陷入困境——牧人误将其当作绵羊杀死。
In the next jataka, the Sonaka (No. 529) with its lesson ‘Buddhistised’, is the sight of a crow riding down-river upon the carcass of an elephant, recalling for us the image in the Aesopic The Viper and the Fox (H.145, B.173) of a viper floating down- 随后的《索那卡本生》（第 529 则）将寓言"佛教化"以阐明教义：乌鸦乘着顺流而下的象尸，令人联想到伊索寓言《蝮蛇与狐狸》（H.145，B.173）中顺水漂流的蝮蛇意象。
river coiled upon a bundle of thistles, which makes a fox observe “A skipper right worthy of his craft!” 一条蛇盘绕在蓟草丛上，引得狐狸讥讽道："好一位配得上这手艺的船长！"
An Aesopic fable, no less popular than the one of the wolf in sheep’s clothing but which has by-passed the Jatakatthavannana, later to appear upon an objet d’art and bring the literature of our discussion into association with the Graeco-Buddhist art of Gandhara, is the fable of The Fox and the Crane (H.34) which appears upon a blackish-blue schist cosmetic tray from Sirkap in a private collection. A red-figure painting on a cup dated to 460 B.C. and now in the Vatican shows a caricatured Aesop and a fox in animated conversation, while another, fragmented, shows a similarly caricatured old man, but by himself, who may again be the fabulist. 与"披着羊皮的狼"同样脍炙人口却未收录于《本生经》的伊索寓言《狐狸与鹤》（H.34），后来出现在艺术品上，将我们讨论的文学作品与犍陀罗的希腊-佛教艺术联系起来。这件藏于私人收藏的深蓝片岩化妆盘出土于锡尔卡普，盘面绘有此寓言故事。梵蒂冈博物馆藏有一件公元前 460 年的红绘杯，其上漫画风格的伊索正与狐狸生动交谈；另一件残片上则单独描绘着同款漫画风格的老人形象，很可能仍是这位寓言大师。
Several Greek fables, myths and other stories which had not got drawn into the Jatakatthavannana or into other literary works in India would have passed into oblivion with the passage of time. Among the carvings upon the railings of the Bharhut and Sanchi stupas are a number of scenes with captions but also a number without any caption. A little more than half of these had been identified, to the knowledge of Rhys-Davids at the time of his writing his Buddhist India, but the rest remained unidentified, though the stories they illustrate may have been popular in the community at the time. How many of these included stories with Greek motifs, we cannot therefore know. Of those that are identifiable one such is at least the Kurunga-miga (No. 206), which tells of one creature reciprocating the help he received from another, as we find in the Aesopic fable of The Serpent and the Eagle (H.120), in which a farmer frees an eagle from the toils of a serpent and is in return saved by the eagle from drinking a cup into which the serpent, in anger, had squirted his poison. Compare also The Farmer and the Eagle (C.79, H.92, P.296), The Dove and the Ant (C.242, H.296, P.235, Hs.176) or the well-known Lion and the Mouse (H.256, C.206, P.150, Hs.155). It must be this last which supplied the Kurunga-miga with its detail of a small creature (the tortoise) setting free a big one from a hunter’s net by gnawing its mesh. The relief on the Bharhut stupa however shows the second part of the story - where the deer frees the tortoise from the hunter’s sack by 若干希腊寓言、神话及其他未被纳入《本生经》或印度其他文学作品的故事，本会随时间流逝而湮没无闻。在巴尔胡特和桑奇佛塔的围栏雕刻中，既有带题注的场景，也有无任何说明的画面。据里斯·戴维斯撰写《佛教印度》时的统计，其中略超半数已被辨识，其余虽可能在当时民间广为流传，却仍身份未明。我们自然无从知晓这些未辨明的故事里有多少蕴含希腊母题。在可确认的案例中，至少《羚羊本生》（第 206 则）属此列——它讲述生物间相互报恩的故事，与伊索寓言《蛇与鹰》（H.120）如出一辙：农夫从蛇的缠绕中解救鹰，后因鹰阻止而免于饮下盛有蛇怒喷毒液的杯子。 另可参照《农夫与鹰》(C.79, H.92, P.296)、《鸽子与蚂蚁》(C.242, H.296, P.235, Hs.176)或著名的《狮子与老鼠》(H.256, C.206, P.150, Hs.155)。其中最后一则必定为《鹿本生》提供了细节原型——小生物（乌龟）通过咬破网眼将大生物从猎网中解救。而巴尔胡特佛塔的浮雕展现的则是故事后半段——公鹿用角挑破猎人的麻袋救出乌龟
ripping it open with his horns, while the wood-pecker delays the hunter’s return by giving him bad omens. 同时啄木鸟通过制造凶兆来拖延猎人归程。
Another jataka depicted at the stupa of Bharhut, the Kukkuta (No. 383) is that in which a she-cat tries to kill and eat a cock who is up a tree, by inviting him come down and be her husband - a thing which we find a vixen doing in Aesop’s The Dog and the Cock (H.225, C.180, P.252, Hs.268). The cock of the jataka simply turns the she-cat off, saying there is no marriage between four-footed and two-footed, and then accusing him of having killed his relatives, whereas the cock of the Greek fable directs the vixen to a dog lying asleep beneath the tree, who straightaway tears her to pieces - a prospect which the jataka author would not have relished in the case of his jataka cock, who incidentally is none other than the Bodhisatta - though, as we have seen, there are enough instances of unbuddhsitic action or reaction by the Bodhisatta in other jatakas. (In both cases, be it noted, the wooed is a cock up a tree, in both the wooer is a female with diabolical intent.) 在巴尔胡特佛塔上描绘的另一则本生故事《鸡本生》（第 383 号）中，一只母猫企图诱骗树上的公鸡下来当她的丈夫，实则想杀害并吃掉他——这个情节与伊索寓言《狗和公鸡》（编号 H.225, C.180, P.252, Hs.268）中雌狐的行为如出一辙。本生故事里的公鸡直接拒绝了母猫，声称四足动物与两足动物不能通婚，并指责她杀害了自己的亲属；而希腊寓言中的公鸡则指引雌狐去树下找酣睡的狗，狗立刻将雌狐撕成碎片——这种结局恐怕不会被本生故事的作者所乐见，毕竟故事里的公鸡正是菩萨转世（尽管我们在其他本生故事中已看到足够多菩萨不符合佛教教义的言行）。（值得注意的是，两个故事中，被求爱的对象都是树上的公鸡，求爱者都是心怀鬼胎的雌性动物。）
We have also in the Bharhut reliefs the Sandibheda Jataka (No. 349), in which two friendly animals, a lion and a bull, are set at variance by a third, a jackal, for his own benefit, eating their flesh when they have killed each other. As in this jataka, it is a fox, the jackal’s cousin, who benefits from the conflict of the two big animals, a lion and a boar, in the Aesopic The Lion and the Bear (H.247, C.200, P.147, Hs.152), though it is their prey he seizes when they lie unconscious. In the inverse of this jataka, the Vannaroha (No. 361) the animal, a lion and a tiger, talk it out and the jackal’s designs are thwarted - a parallel of the Aesopic The Lion and the Bear (H.253, C.203, P.338), in which these big animals, fighting, see vultures waiting to eat them when they are dead, and end their quarrel. 在巴鲁特浮雕中，我们还看到《分裂友谊本生》（第 349 号），故事里原本友好的狮子和公牛被一只豺狼挑拨离间，最终互相残杀，而豺狼则坐享其成地啃食它们的尸体。与此相似，在伊索寓言《狮子与熊》（编号 H.247/C.200/P.147/Hs.152）中，两只大型动物——狮子与野猪争斗时，受益者是豺狼的近亲狐狸，不过狐狸是在它们昏迷时夺走了猎物。这个本生故事的逆向版本《攀天本生》（第 361 号）中，狮子与老虎通过沟通化解矛盾，挫败了豺狼的阴谋——这与伊索寓言《狮子与熊》（编号 H.253/C.203/P.338）形成呼应：当这两只猛兽发现秃鹫正等着啄食它们的尸体时，便停止了争斗。
Sometimes the title inscribed in the stupa for a particular jataka may differ from that which is found in the Jatakatthavannana, but the identification of those that were possible could not have been difficult. Such is the Nacca Jataka, which has as its scene an elated peacock, tail-feathers fanned out, dancing before the fair gosling 有时佛塔上铭刻的特定本生故事标题会与《本生经注》中的记载存在差异，但对于可考的故事而言，辨识工作并不困难。例如《舞蹈本生》的场景，描绘了一只孔雀展开尾羽，在美丽的雏鹅面前欢欣起舞。
in emulation of Hippocleides, the son of Tisander, in Herodotus ^(5){ }^{5} anecdote of the marriage of Agariste. 效仿希罗多德笔下提桑德之子希波克莱德斯的故事，即阿伽里斯忒婚事的轶闻。
Notable among the motifs of Greek fable that by-passed the jataka to surface even afterwards in the Pancatanatra is that of 'The Wedge-pulling Monkey", which, as Benfey had already seen, reflected the idea of “monkey see, monkey do” in the Aesopic fable of The Monkey and the Fishermen in which a monkey, trying to emulate fishermen gets caught in the toils of their net. ^(5){ }^{5} There is also - as are most of the stories of the Pancatantra by themselves, if not in comparison with the jatakas - the exceedingly weak story of the mouse who was changed to a maiden, but rejected sun, cloud, wind and mountain as a husband in preference for a mouse and begged to be changed back to one to marry it - a travesty of the Aesopic fable of The Cat and Aphrodite (H.88, C.76, P.50, Hs.50), in which a cat falls in love with a youth, is metamorphoed by Aphrodite into a maiden and marries the young man, but upon seeing a mouse, forgets herself and goes in pursuit of it, making Aphrodite so angry that she changes her back to a cat. The barest reminiscence of this had appeared in the jataka. This is in the Babbu Jataka (No. 137), where a mouse, who had in a former life been a woman, falls in love with a stone-cutter. The rest of the story deviates considerably. 希腊寓言中未见于本生经却在之后《五卷书》中出现的典型母题是"拔楔子的猴子"。正如本菲早已指出的，这反映了伊索寓言《猴子与渔夫》中"有样学样"的理念——猴子模仿渔夫收网，结果自己被渔网缠住。 ^(5){ }^{5} 此外（若不与本生经比较，单就《五卷书》自身故事而言）还有个极其拙劣的故事：老鼠变成少女后，拒绝以太阳、云朵、狂风和山岳为夫，偏要选择老鼠，并乞求变回鼠身与之成婚——这显然是对伊索寓言《猫与阿芙罗狄忒》（H.88，C.76，P.50，Hs.50）的拙劣模仿：猫爱上青年，被爱神化为少女与之成婚，但见到老鼠就忘形追逐，惹怒爱神将其变回猫形。本生经中对此仅有最模糊的影射，见于《巴布本生》（第... 137）讲述一只前世为女子的老鼠爱上石匠的故事，其余情节则大相径庭。
Among the fables called after Aesop is one which tells of an old man carrying a bundle of wood, who lays it down and calls upon Death. Death suddenly appears and asks him why he summoned him, whereupon the old man says, “Only to ask you to lift this bundle and place it on my back”. The motif of this fable appears nowhere in the jataka; but I cannot help seeing it as the basis of the stanza in the story of “Gold’s Gloom” in the second book of the Pancatantra with poverty substituted for old age, which Arther W.Ryder ^(6){ }^{6} renders in English as follows: 在归入伊索名下的寓言中，有一则讲述背负柴捆的老者放下重担召唤死神。死神骤然现身询问召唤缘由，老者答道："只为请你将这捆柴抬起放回我背上"。此寓言母题未见于任何本生经故事，但我不得不认为它是《五卷书》第二卷"黄金之晦"故事中诗节的基础——只不过将老者替换为贫者。亚瑟·W·赖德 ^(6){ }^{6} 的英译如下：
A beggar to the graveyard hied 乞丐匆匆至坟场
And there “Friend corpse, arise,” he cried: 高呼"亡友请起床"
“One moment lift my heavy weight Of poverty; for I of late Grow weary, and desire instead Your comfort; you are good and dead.” The corpse was silent. He was sure. T’was better to dead than poor. “请暂卸我贫苦之重担；近来我已疲惫不堪，渴求你的慰藉；你既善良又已长眠。”尸首沉默无言。他心知肚明：宁赴黄泉，不堕贫寒。
The idea of requesting a corpse to carry one’s load for him, with the corpse preferring rather to be dead figures in a scene from the Frogs of Aristophanes. 向尸首求其代负行囊，而尸首宁死不愿的桥段，可见于阿里斯托芬《蛙》中的一幕。
In one case at least, the story of “Flop-Ear and Dusty” in the Pancatantra, the author, reputedly one Vishnusharman, shows he knew more of an Aesopic fable, The Lion, the Fox and the Stag (H.243, C.358, P.336, B.95) than the corresponding jataka, the Putimansa (No. 437). For where the jataka stops at the point where the goat in it is to be led a second time within the reach of the jackal, Putimansa, by his wife, Veni, the Pancatantra not only has the victim killed, but includes the striking detail of the jackal then stealing the heart (and ears) and when the lion looked for the heart, claiming that so stupid an animal as to have been fooled a second time could hardly have had a heart. For this is not only found in the Greek story, but the identification of the heart with the seat of intelligence is evidently strongly Greek. We note also that, unlike the Putimansa Jataka, which had two jackals and a goat, the Pancatantra had nearly the identical animals as participants in this drama as in the Greek fable - a lion, a jackal (for Aesopic fox, as usual), and an ass. 至少有一个例子可以证明，《五卷书》中"耷耳与尘灰"故事的作者——据传名为毗湿奴笈多——对伊索寓言《狮子、狐狸与牡鹿》（编号 H.243/C.358/P.336/B.95）的了解程度超过了对应的本生经故事《普提曼萨本生》（第 437 则）。在本生经故事中，当山羊第二次被妻子维尼诱入胡狼捕食范围时便戛然而止；而《五卷书》不仅让猎物丧命，还包含胡狼偷走心脏（与耳朵）的惊人细节——当狮子寻找心脏时，胡狼辩称如此愚蠢到两次受骗的动物根本不可能长心。这个情节不仅与希腊故事吻合，而且将心脏视为智慧中枢的观念显然具有鲜明的希腊特征。我们还注意到，与《普提曼萨本生》采用两只胡狼和一只山羊的设定不同，《五卷书》的参与者几乎与希腊寓言完全一致——狮子、胡狼（照例替代伊索寓言中的狐狸）和驴子。
On the other hand, we are taken even beyond the Pancatantra, to the Kathasaritsagara, before the dolphin, who figured with the monkey in the Aesopic fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin, and was rendered as a crocodile in the Sumsumara and Vanara Jataka reverts to a dolphin (or porpoise) once again, allowing us the con- 另一方面，我们的探索甚至超越了《五卷书》，直达《故事海》。在《猴与海豚》这则伊索寓言中，原本以鳄鱼形象出现在《苏姆苏马拉本生》和《瓦纳拉本生》里的角色，如今又回归了海豚（或鼠海豚）的原型，这使我们得以——
clusion perhaps that the original Greek versions were not yet lost even after the jatakas of the Jatakattavannana and the Pancatantra had exploited them. Indeed, an occasional motif appears to have made it appearance in art and literature even when it did not find its way into these early works. One of these reflects one of the most notable of Greek stories - that of the ruse of Wooden Horse of Troy. This not only manifests itself in that fascinating frieze from Gandhara but inspires the device of the wooden elephant of Ujjani used by King Candapajjota to capture Prince Udena, which we find narrated by Somadeva in the Kathasaritsagara, perhaps having derived it from the Brhatkatha of Gunadhya. Details from the Odysseus-Circe episode of the same Greek epic, which had not appeared in the Valahassa Jataka or anywhere else, make their appearance in the foundation myth of Sri Lanka, the adventure of Prince Vijaya with the witch, Kuvanna, intermixed with reminiscences from the Jason saga. 或许可以得出这样的结论：即使在《本生经》和《五卷书》充分利用了这些希腊故事母题之后，原始的希腊版本仍未失传。事实上，某些母题虽未见于这些早期作品，却仍不时在艺术与文学中显现。其中一个母题反映了最著名的希腊故事之一——特洛伊木马计。这不仅体现在犍陀罗那幅引人入胜的浮雕上，更启发了乌阇衍那国王旃陀罗波阇多用以俘获乌达那王子的木象计谋，这个故事由苏摩提婆在《故事海》中记载，可能源自德富的《大故事》。同一部希腊史诗中奥德修斯与喀耳刻的插曲细节——这些细节从未出现在《六马本生》或其他任何地方——却出现在斯里兰卡的建国神话中，即维阇耶王子与女巫库万娜的冒险经历，其间还混杂着伊阿宋传奇的回忆片段。
This island, which, by the same myth of Vijaya, records the kinship of himself and his followers with the peoples of North-western India, appears to have maintained close connections with each other in the centuries following, so much so that, apart from the tradition recording three visits of the Buddha to the place, the Emperor Asoka is reputed to have delegated his own son and daughter to Sri Lanka when sending missionaries to several parts of the known world. ^(7){ }^{7} Not surprisingly the chronicle Mahavamsa, in the earliest period of the island’s history, incorporates motifs from two other Greek myths, that of Danae and that of Andromeda, in the anecdotes of Ummadacitta and Viharadevi. Part of the former myth had already figured in the Ghata Jataka (No. 454) in which we meet a princess, of whom it is predicted that if a son is born to her, he will 根据维贾耶的同一神话记载，这座岛屿的居民与印度西北部民族存在亲缘关系。在随后的几个世纪里，两地似乎始终保持着密切联系——除却佛陀曾三次莅临该地的传说外，阿育王在向已知世界派遣使团时，据说还特意派遣自己的儿女前往斯里兰卡。 ^(7){ }^{7} 因此《大史》编年史在记述该岛早期历史时，将希腊神话中达娜厄和安德罗米达的母题融入乌姆玛达西塔与维哈拉黛维的轶闻，也就不足为奇了。前一个神话的部分情节早已出现在《陶罐本生》（第 454 号）中，其中预言某位公主若产下子嗣，其子必将......
destroy his lineage. She is therefore locked up in a tower to prevent men getting to her - but nevertheless has a child. The motif of the second half of this myth from the Perseus saga had not been exploited in this story - that which tells of the princess being floated out to sea, her landing in a distant shore and being found by the king there, who makes her his queen, and of the son born to her fulfilling the destiny of recovering his ancestral kingdom. This now appears - with concessions to historicity, but as the consequence of an episode reminiscent of another adventure of the Perseus saga, the flooding of a kingdom by the sea, which results in the king having to sacrifice his daughter to assuage the wrath of the sea goddesses - in the anecdote of Viharadevi, daughter of King Kelanitissa and mother-to-be of the paladin of Buddhism in the island, Prince Dutthagamani. Striking among the details of the twe motifs is the curious apartment in which the princess was protected from men, the name of the princess in the Ghata Jataka (i.e. Devagabba - even when it was a man who impregnated her) which recalls the appearance of Zeus to Danae, and not the least, the uniqueness of the vessel in which in the Mahavamsa Viharadevi, not Ummadacitta was floated out to sea - for it is now not a larnax (Greek storage-box), itself a curious thing in which to float a princess, but in a more curious one, a golden pot (Pali: sovahanukkhaliya) such as was the golden depas once ridden upon the sea by the Greek hero, Heracles. ^(8){ }^{8} 毁灭他的血脉。因此她被关进高塔，以防男性接近——然而她仍诞下一子。这个源自珀尔修斯传说的神话后半段主题——讲述公主被放逐海上，漂流至遥远海岸，被当地国王发现并立为王后，她所生之子最终实现夺回先祖王国的宿命——在这个故事中并未得到运用。如今它以一种向历史性妥协的方式出现，但作为另一段冒险的余波：这让人想起珀尔修斯传说中王国被海水淹没的情节，导致国王不得不献祭女儿以平息海神之怒——正如凯兰尼蒂萨王之女维哈拉黛维的轶事所示，她正是岛上佛教护法英雄杜图伽摩尼王子未来的母亲。 在这些故事母题的细节中，最引人注目的是公主被隔离在奇特居室里以防范男性的情节，《瓮本生经》中公主的名字（即提婆伽巴——即便使她受孕的是男性）令人联想到宙斯降临达娜厄的故事，尤其特别的是《大史》中维哈拉提毗（而非温摩达吉塔）被放入容器漂流出海的独特描写——此时所用的已非希腊式储物箱（用这种容器承载公主本就离奇），而是一个更为奇异的金瓮（巴利语：sovahanukkhaliya），恰如希腊英雄赫拉克勒斯曾驾驭着漂洋过海的金杯。 ^(8){ }^{8}
Notwithstanding the name of the princess in the Indian versions of the princess in the tower, the detail of a god coming down to her, consequent to which she conceives is not found in the Indian and Sri Lankan versions; her seducer is a mortal. It is therefore exhilarating to find that the detail had not faded out altogether when a 尽管印度版"高塔公主"故事中保留了公主的名字，但天神降临致其受孕的情节细节在印度和斯里兰卡版本中均未出现——引诱她的始终是凡人。因此令人振奋的是，当这个母题
story of similar import but with a god replacing the mortal had been told in Tashkurgan, the old fort in the mountain trough of Sarikkol which leads from the upper Oxus (Amu Darya) to Yarkand - a story, which had permeated to the Silk Route from Taksila in Northern India, if not along the Silk Route from the west. For there can be no doubt that it is the motif of the same Greek myth of Danae that the recent Chinese archaeological expedition on the Silk Route heard at this place. ^(9){ }^{9} It was narrated that at some time in antiquity a soldier, detailed to escort a Chinese princess to Persia as a bride for the king, but encountering a war, guarded her in a stone tower. Afterwards, when he went to fetch her down he found that she was pregnant. The explanation, quite like Danae’s, was that a god had come down to her from above. The son born to her later became a renownd hero. 一则寓意相似的故事曾在塔什库尔干流传，只不过故事中的凡人被天神所取代。这座古老的堡垒位于萨雷阔勒岭的山谷中，是从上阿姆河（阿姆达里亚）通往叶尔羌的必经之路——这则故事若非沿着丝绸之路自西方传来，便是从北印度的塔克西拉渗透至丝路沿线。因为毫无疑问，近期中国考古队在丝路此段听闻的，正是希腊神话达娜厄母题的变体。 ^(9){ }^{9} 相传古时某位士兵奉命护送一位中国公主远嫁波斯国王，途中遭遇战乱，便将公主安置于石塔中守护。后来当他前去接公主下塔时，发现公主已怀有身孕。与达娜厄的故事如出一辙，公主解释说是天神自天而降临幸于她。她所生的儿子后来成为闻名遐迩的英雄。
Writing in connection with the historicity of the stories of Panduvasudeva, Abhaya and Pandukabhaya, D.T.Devendra ^(10){ }^{10} thinks that though the kernel of their stories originate with the Mahabharata, the account in the Mahavamsa shows that they have been considerably transformed by drawing on and imitating legends in the jatakas as well as stories current in Ceylon such as 在探讨潘杜瓦苏德瓦、阿巴亚和潘杜卡巴亚故事的历史真实性时，D.T.德文德拉认为，虽然这些故事的核心源自《摩诃婆罗多》，但《大史》中的记载表明，它们通过借鉴模仿本生经中的传说以及锡兰当地流传的故事，已经发生了相当大的变形。
that of Vijaya and Kuvanna. ^(11){ }^{11} He adds that as a result of all this it may be argued that these three were actual rulers of Ceylon to whom these stories got attached in later times. “But it is more likely that, as the earlier form of the legend in the Dipavamsa reveals, there was no genuine historical tradition in Ceylon about the times prior to the reign of Divanampiya Tissa, ^(12){ }^{12} and these legends were utilized to make up a list of kings to fill the gap of 230 years between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Devanampiya Tissa.” 维贾耶与库万纳的故事。他补充道，基于这一切，或许可以认为这三人曾是锡兰的实际统治者，这些故事是在后世附会到他们身上的。“但更可能的是，正如《岛史》中早期传说形态所揭示的，关于提婆南毗耶·帝沙统治之前的时期，锡兰并不存在真实的历史传统，这些传说被用来填补佛陀涅槃与提婆南毗耶·帝沙即位之间 230 年的王统空白。”
INTRODUCTION 引言
PART II 第二部分
As mentioned at the beginning of this review, a number of jatakas had been already identified by Western scholars sharing motifs with fables, myths and anecdotes from Greece before I brought these together and showed that there were still some that had gone unnoticed, whether from a poorer acquaintance of the jatakas or of the Greek stories, or both - or again, from a failure of observation due to the rehandling of the motifs or the transformation of story details. For instance, Rev. Spence Hardy only gave them a passing glance, his concern being otherwise; Benfey was unacquainted with the Jataka Book when he undertook his study of the Pancatantra, while Rhys-Davids stopped short with the translation (and passing comments on the Greek parallels) of only the first forty jatakas. The largest number of parallels so far spotted had been by Joseph Jacobs, to which were added parallels identified by the “Guild of Translators” working under Professor Cowell and by, of course, A.B.Keith. 正如本评述开篇所述，在我将这些本生故事汇集整理并指出仍存在未被发现的相似母题之前，已有西方学者识别出若干与希腊寓言、神话及轶事共享主题的本生故事——这些遗漏或源于对本生故事或希腊故事了解不足，或两者兼有，亦或由于母题重构或故事细节变形导致的观察疏失。例如斯宾塞·哈迪牧师仅匆匆一瞥，因其关注点本不在此；本菲在研究《五卷书》时尚未接触《本生经》，而里斯·戴维斯仅完成前四十篇本生故事的译注（附带提及希腊类似故事）便戛然而止。迄今发现最多平行文本的当属约瑟夫·雅各布斯，此外还有考威尔教授领导的"译者行会"所辨识的案例，自然也包括 A.B.基思的贡献。
In the chapters that follow I will look more closely at some of the jatakas and their Greek parallels with a view to establishing the observations made by me in the first part of this work. In Chapter VII I will make a cursory review of a few of the yet unrecognized Aesopizing jatakas, together with their fable parallels, revealing the basic similarity of the underlying motifs. Consequent upon these, and in the two chapters (VIII and IX) which follow, I will treat two such parallels in much greater detail. The first of these is the adventure of the monkey and the water-beast in which I will show how a jataka motif, though on first sight so divergent, would under scrutiny reveal the Greek motif against which it is played, but, in its development thereafter, reverting to some of the details of the original motif. I will use the second, The Ass in the Lionskin, to show the vicissitudes such a motif can undergo, here, with the changes of a single detail in the episode, Curiously the observing 在接下来的章节中，我将更仔细地考察一些本生故事及其希腊对应版本，以验证我在本书第一部分提出的观点。第七章将简要评述几个尚未被识别的伊索式本生故事及其寓言对应版本，揭示它们内在主题的基本相似性。基于这些发现，随后的第八章和第九章将更详细地探讨两个这样的对应案例。第一个是猴子与水兽的冒险故事，我将展示一个乍看截然不同的本生主题如何在细究下显露出它所对应的希腊主题，但在后续发展中却又回归到原始主题的某些细节。第二个案例《披着狮皮的驴》则用来展示这类主题可能经历的变迁——在这里，仅仅因为故事中一个细节的改变，就产生了奇妙的变化。
fox of Aesop’s fable becomes, in the corresponding jataka, no less a person than the Bodhisatta himself. Three fable motifs from the Greek, which appear in exceptional from from the narrative of the jatakas, will be reviewed in the subsequent chapter, Chapter X, two of which are still retained in verse of the gatha in the Jataka Book, and the other, the one which I suspect is linked to an Aesopic fable but appears in a minature sculpture from Gandhara of about four centuries later. In Chapter XI a comparison will be effected of motifs of a cluster of jatakas and of the corresponding Greek myths which have suggested them. This should not only reveal the fact of adoption, but thereby also the positive priority in dating of the Greek over the Indian, belonging as these myths do, to an antiquity that sometimes predates Homer himself (eighth Century B.C.) and involve sagas relating to the Mycenaean and indeed even Minoan ages. Here I will also briefly look at the Trojan Horse Frieze from Gandhara, both for the association of itself and some of the details of the epic to which it belongs, Homer’s Odyssey, with the Valahassa Jataka and through this, with the Indian story of the capture of Prince Udena by King Candapajjota of Mithila, which traces back to Gunadhya. 伊索寓言中的狐狸，在相应的本生故事中，竟化身为菩萨本人。源自希腊的三个寓言母题，以独特形式出现在本生经叙事中，将在后续第十章详述。其中两个仍保留于《本生经》的偈颂诗节中，另一个——我怀疑与伊索寓言存在关联——则出现在约四世纪后的犍陀罗微型雕塑上。第十一章将对一组本生故事母题与启发它们的希腊对应神话进行对比研究。这不仅将揭示文化借鉴的事实，更能由此确证希腊神话的年代学优先性——这些神话所属的古老传统，有时甚至早于荷马本人（公元前八世纪），涉及迈锡尼乃至米诺斯时代的传奇史诗。 在此我将简要探讨犍陀罗地区的特洛伊木马浮雕，既因其本身与《瓦拉哈萨本生经》的关联，也因其所属史诗《荷马史诗·奥德赛》中的某些细节与米提拉国王旃陀波阇多俘虏乌德那王子的印度故事（可追溯至牛增仙人）存在联系。
Chapter XII will take up the jatakas which reflects motifs from Greek historical anecdotes, remarkably all of which are discoverable in Herodotus, and even as such antedate the middle of the fourth century B.C. I will conclude this chapter, and the study as a whole with a discussion of a Greek historical anecdote involving the sage Solon, the allusion in which has been wrongly referred to an Aesopic fable which has an interesting parallel in the jatakas, but which, as I said before, I rather think refers to a more popular fable involving instead what Müller named the element of nulla vestigia retrorsum. The result is that I have to do without the fascinating parallel of the jataka Buddha having used the selfsame Aesopic fable as Solon to illustrate a point, and instead be satisfied if they were both struck by just a detail from another. 第十二章将研究那些反映希腊历史轶事主题的本生故事——值得注意的是，这些主题均可在希罗多德的著作中找到踪迹，且其年代甚至早于公元前四世纪中叶。本章及全书将以一则涉及智者梭伦的希腊历史轶事作结：其中被误认为伊索寓言的典故，实则在本生故事中存在耐人寻味的对应版本；但如前所述，我认为它更可能指向另一则流行寓言——即缪勒所称"无路可退"母题。这导致我不得不放弃"佛陀与梭伦运用相同伊索寓言阐明观点"这一迷人对应，转而满足于他们可能只是共同借鉴了另一故事中的某个细节。
Taking into consideration all these instances from the jatakas in the light of chronology and historical opportunity, it would then be clear that what we have here is the evidence that had earlier caused sur- 结合年代学与历史机遇来考量本生经中的所有例证，便可清晰地认识到：我们眼前所呈现的，正是当初引发惊异的证据——
prise by its absence - the ample impact of Greek literature upon the Indian, following the close intercourse between Greeks and Indians in India resulting from Alexander’s invasion and the Greek settlements in Northern India thereafter. Whether this impact was reciprocal, and strains of Indian thought were carried back to Greece, there to influence contemporary Greek religion, philosophy and literature is not within the scope of this study, though well worth closer inquiry. The extant evidence however does not hold out the likelihood of finding much in Greece that can without doubt be traced back to Indian origins, nor is there hope of evidence of this nature turning up until and unless new material is forthcoming. On the other hand, and notwithstanding our own contention of the high improbability of India being the source of any or all of the parallel story motifs we have dealt with in this book, we cannot preclude the possibility that the central doctrines and teachings of certain Greek philosophers, and religious cults developed upon Indian teachings which had made their way to Ionia or were heard of in the lands of Asia Minor and further east. Notable among these are certain ideas present in the teachings notably of Heracleitus, Pythagoras and Empedocles, and in the cult of the Oriental Dionysius. But inquiry into these is beyond the scope of this study, and in any case bereft of any substantial evidence to make anything more of it than has already been attempted by scholars of the past. 希腊文学对印度文学的深远影响，因其缺失而引人注目——这种影响源于亚历山大大帝入侵后希腊人与印度人在印度的密切交往，以及随后希腊人在北印度建立的定居点。至于这种影响是否具有双向性，印度思想的某些脉络是否曾回流至希腊，进而影响当时希腊的宗教、哲学与文学，虽值得深入探究，却不在本研究范畴之内。现有证据既无法确证希腊存在大量可明确追溯至印度起源的内容，也难觅此类证据的踪迹——除非有新材料的出现。另一方面，尽管我们坚持认为本书所探讨的平行故事母题极不可能源自印度，但也不能排除某些希腊哲学家的核心教义与学说，以及基于印度教义发展起来的宗教崇拜，可能源自已传入爱奥尼亚地区，或在小亚细亚及更东方地域有所传闻的印度思想。 其中尤为值得注意的是赫拉克利特、毕达哥拉斯和恩培多克勒学说中蕴含的某些思想，以及东方狄俄尼索斯崇拜中的理念。但探究这些内容已超出本研究范畴，况且缺乏实质性证据，难以超越前人学者已取得的成果。
CHAPTER VII 第七章
LIKE HORSE, LIKE ASS SOME LESSER-KNOWN PARALLELS 如马似驴：鲜为人知的平行故事
The jatakas discussed in this chapter are some of those which, though yet not significantly recognized as deriving their motifs from Greek fables, are such as are beyond gainsaying the fact, notwithstanding the slight rehandling of the motifs or changes in participants or details. A number of other such parallels can be found in the catalogue in Chapter V that merit similar comparison but for lack of space. 本章讨论的本生故事虽尚未被充分认定为源自希腊寓言，但其核心母题——纵使经过细微改编或角色细节调整——与希腊故事的渊源已无可辩驳。第五章目录中还可发现更多值得比照的平行案例，唯因篇幅所限未及详述。
The Akalaravi Jataka (No. 119) is said, like the majority of other jatakas, to have been narrated by the Buddha when at Jetavana and is over a Brother who used to be noisy and out of season in doing things. “Brethren”, said the Master, “as now, so in past times, this brother was noisy out of season, and for his unseasonable conduct was strangled” - and launched on this brief reminiscence of that past life. It is to the effect that some scholars, finding a cock in a cemetery (our Brother in that former birth) brought him to their lodgings to replace a cock which put them up for their studies at dawn. But, as this bird had been bred in a cemetery, it had no knowledge of times and seasons and used to crow indiscriminately - at midnight as well as at daybreak. As this disrupted their studies, the students got hold of the cock and wrung his neck. 《阿卡拉拉维本生经》（第 119 号）与大多数其他本生故事一样，据说是佛陀在祇园精舍时讲述的，内容关于一位比丘行事总是喧闹且不合时宜。世尊说道："诸比丘，此比丘如今生一般，往昔亦常于不合时宜之时喧哗，因其不合时宜之举而遭扼杀。"——随即简要追述了这段前世因缘。故事讲述几位学者在坟场发现一只公鸡（即这位比丘的前世），将其带回住所替代原先报晓的雄鸡。然此鸡生长于坟场，不辨时辰，昼夜不分地随意啼鸣——或在午夜，或在黎明。因啼声扰其学业，学子们遂捉住此鸡，扭断了它的脖子。
This jataka obviously emulates the Aesopic fable of The Robbers and the Cock (H.195, C.158, P.122, Hs.124), where too a cock is killed for his crowing, which, though not untimely for others, endangers some robbers in the pursuit of their occupation. Robbers, we are told, were burgling a house where they found nothing but a cock. So they took it away and were about to sacrifice it, when it pleaded for mercy on the ground that it served men by putting them up before dawn. Whereupon the robbers cried that this was all the more reason for killing it, for by waking people up betimes, it was 这则本生故事显然模仿了伊索寓言《强盗与公鸡》（编号 H.195/C.158/P.122/Hs.124）——故事中公鸡也因啼鸣被杀，虽然它的报晓对他人而言并非不合时宜，却妨碍了强盗们的夜间勾当。据载，强盗们闯入一户人家，除了一只公鸡外一无所获。他们掳走公鸡准备宰杀时，公鸡以"每日破晓前唤醒人类"为由求饶。强盗们闻言反而高喊这更该杀，因为正是它早早唤醒人们
stopping themselves from their burgling. And with that, they killed the bird. 才阻碍了他们的盗窃勾当。说罢便杀死了这只鸟。
Equally resentful of a cock’s crowing at dawn are the maids of workaholic mistress in Aesop’s The Mistress and her Maids (H.110, C.82, P.55, Hs.55), as a consequence of which they kill the bird only to put themselves in even greater distress when their mistress, now with no inkling whatever of the time, wakes them up even earlier. 同样憎恶黎明鸡鸣的还有伊索寓言《女主人与女仆》（编号 H.110/C.82/P.55/Hs.55）中那位工作狂女主人的仆役们，她们杀死报晓公鸡后反而陷入更糟境地——失去时间概念的女主人从此更早地唤她们起床劳作。
The jataka and the first of the Aesopica evidently follow the detail of the consequence of the unseasonable crowing of a cock. For, in both cases it interferes with the work of a group of people, who end up killing the bird. On the other hand, the second fable has the group of workers annoyed with it for the opposite reason - getting them up for work betimes. This gives us both a compliance with, as well as a reversal of the detail in the jataka that we have. The first cock the scholars had, we are told, crowed at the right time - and they appreciated it. For the substitute to crow at strange times, the clescription is added that it had been bred in a cemetery and hence it had no knowledge of time and season - a bit far-fetched, though (it may be added) not bad in story. 本生经与伊索寓言的首篇显然都遵循了公鸡在不合时宜时刻啼鸣所引发后果的细节。在这两个故事中，啼鸣都干扰了一群人的工作，最终导致这只鸟被杀。另一方面，第二则寓言中那群工人对公鸡感到恼火的原因恰恰相反——它过早地唤醒他们去工作。这既与本生经中的细节相吻合，又形成了一种反转。据记载，学者们最初拥有的公鸡会在恰当时间啼鸣——他们对此表示赞赏。而作为替代品的公鸡在奇怪时刻啼叫，故事补充解释说它是在墓地长大的，因此对时间和季节一无所知——虽然有些牵强（可以补充说），但在故事中倒也不失为一个好设定。
There are other noteworthy features in the fables and the jatakas, aside from the cocks and their crowing that is resented. One of these is the group distressed by it a propos their work, students in the jataka for robbers and maids in the respective Greek fables and the killing of the bird for this reason. 除了遭人嫌恶的公鸡及其啼鸣外，这些寓言和本生经还有其他值得注意的特征。其中之一便是因其工作受到干扰而苦恼的群体：本生经中是盗贼的学生，希腊寓言中则是女仆们，以及由此导致的杀鸟行为。
Again, the morals of both Greek fables, supplied by way of epimuthia by late hands, though not obviously Christian like some of the other epimuthia, are evidently also not quite to the mark. Where that of the former should have been to the effect that “what is of service to some can be a positive disservice to others”, and of the latter, that “the removal of the cause of a distress may sometimes only aggravate that distress”, what we have is, of the former, that “those things are most inimical to the villainous which are of benefit to the good”, and of the latter, that “the scheming of most 此外，希腊寓言中由后世添加的训诫（epimuthia），虽不像其他某些训诫那样明显带有基督教色彩，却也显然不够切题。前者本应传达"对某些人有益之物，可能对他人恰恰有害"的寓意，后者则应体现"消除痛苦的根源有时反而会加剧痛苦"的道理；然而我们实际看到的却是：前者表述为"对善者有益之物，恰是恶徒最大的敌害"，后者则写成"多数阴谋者……"
men become the cause of trouble to themselves”. The jataka, for it’s part rests its moral squarely with the cock and it’s out-of-time vociferation, the story being a reprimand to a monk who was (a) noisy and (b) out of time in doing things. "人常自寻烦恼"。就本生故事而言，其寓意完全落在公鸡及其不合时宜的啼鸣上，这个故事是对一位（a）喧闹且（b）行事不合时宜的比丘的训诫。
2. The Rukkhadhamma Jataka (No. 74) is said to have been narrated by the Buddha at Jetavana concerning a quarrel which had once arisen between the Koliya and the Sakya clans over the sharing of the water of the river Rohini for cultivation; or as another version in the paccuppannavatthu of the Kunala Jataka (No. 536), of which this paccuppannavatthu is a summary, gives it, one woman labourer’s misappropriation of the head-pad of another. On this occasion the Master is said to have declared that kins folk should live together in concord and amity; for when they are at one, enemies find no opportunity. “Not to speak of human beings,” he said, “even sense-lacking trees ought to stand together”. So saying, he gave them a lesson from the trees (rukkhadhamma) to the effect that 2. 《树法本生经》（第 74 号）据传是佛陀在祇园精舍讲述的，内容涉及拘利族与释迦族曾因分配卢醯尼河水用于灌溉而引发的争执；或如《鸠那罗本生经》（第 536 号）现代因缘篇所述——该篇实为此事的概要记载——争端源于一名女工盗用另一名女工的头顶垫布。此时，世尊开示亲族应当和睦共处："当亲族团结时，敌人便无机可乘。莫说人类，"他说道，"即便是无知觉的树木也应当共生共荣。"说罢，他以树木共生之法（rukkhadhamma）为喻阐明：
United, forest-like, should kinsfolk stand; 亲族当如密林共连理；
The storm overthrows the solitary tree. 风暴只摧孤立之木。
At the death of the first king Vessavana, the new king Vessavana bade all tree-deities choose the abodes they best liked. The Bodhisatta, himself a tree-deity in that life, thereupon advised his kinsfolk to shun trees that stood on open ground and occupy abodes all round the tree which he himself had chosen in the Sal-forest. The wise did so. But the foolish, in their greed for the richest offerings and the greatest worship, departed to the haunts of men and took up residence in certain giant trees which grew by themselves in open places. Now, it so happened that on a certain day a mighty tempest swept over the country. Then naught availed the solitary trees that they were huge and rooted deep in the earth; their branches snapped and they were themselves uprooted and hurled to the ground by the tempest. But when the storm burst upon the Sal-forest of interlacing trees, its fury was in vain; attack where it would, not a tree could it overthrow. 第一任毗沙门王去世时，新继任的毗沙门王敕令所有树神自行选择心仪的居所。菩萨此生身为树神，便劝诫同族避开旷野孤树，聚居在他所选娑罗林中的神树周围。智者依言而行。愚者却因贪图丰厚供品与盛大祭祀，径自迁往人类聚集之地，栖身于旷野中巍然独立的参天巨木。某日忽有飓风席卷国土，那些根深干壮的孤树纵使奋力抵抗，终究枝干断裂，被狂风连根拔起轰然倒地。而当风暴袭向枝干交错的娑罗林时，其肆虐全然徒劳——任它如何冲击，竟无一株树木倾覆。
The moral lesson of “united we stand, divided we fall” imparted by the jataka here is itself sufficient to refer one’s mind to the Greek fable of which this is the parallel - that of Aesop’s farmer, whose sons used to be at strife with one another all the time. Realizing that only an object lesson would teach them to change their ways, he bade them bring him a bundle of sticks, and when they complied, he asked them to snap it in two. When they failed, he offered them the sticks one by one - whereupon they broke them easily. Said the farmer, “So will it be with you, my sons. As long as you live in agreement, one with another, no enemy can defeat you. But if you quarrel with each other, you will become easy victims”. 本则本生经所传达的"团结则存，分裂则亡"的道德训诫，本身就足以让人联想到与之对应的希腊寓言——伊索笔下那位农夫的故事。农夫的儿子们终日争吵不休，他明白唯有直观示范才能让他们改过。于是命他们取来一捆木棍，待其取来后，要求他们将整捆折断。当儿子们无法做到时，农夫便逐根递予木棍，他们轻易就折断了。农夫说道："孩子们，你们也是如此。只要团结一致，敌人就无法击败你们；倘若彼此争斗，便会轻易被人征服。"
A closer look at the Rukkhadhamma Jataka will, however, show that the similarity between itself and the Greek fable is not confined to the moral lesson, which they severally impart. For, even when sticks in the latter are rendered as trees in the former, it will be found that the imagery remains one of wood, when so many other alternatives were available to impart the lesson. 然而细究《树法本生经》便会发现，它与希腊寓言的相似之处不仅限于二者分别传达的训诫。即便后者使用木棍而前者改用树木作为喻体，在众多可选择的意象中，两者仍不约而同地采用了木质意象来阐明道理。
It had already been observed that the jatakas are singularly chary of animating trees and the like, unlike the Greek fables, so that where such inanimate things (the Buddha himself refers to them as “sense-lacking”😃 are participant, the usual practice is to invest them with a deity. In this particular jataka, however, it would be seen that the author has given significance to this especial feature itself by identifying the tree-deities themselves with the children of the farmer, and the farmer himself with the Bodhisatta, who is born as the wise tree-deity and warns his kinsfolk of the danger of disunity and isolation. Even more brilliant on this author’s part is (taking tree-deities too as such) the superimposition of the human characters found in the Greek fable, who are recipients of the lesson from wood, upon the wood of that object-lesson itself, i.e. the trees. But then it would further be observed that the story so created serves as a lesson in turn (even if now a verbally expressed one) for the Buddha himself in the paccuppannavatthu of the jataka to instruct his quarreling kinsmen, the Koliyas and the Sakyas, in just the same way that Aesop’s farmer got his message across to his kin, the sons who were constantly at loggerheads with each other. 人们早已注意到，与希腊寓言不同，本生经对树木等无生命物的拟人化处理极为谨慎。当这些无生命物（佛陀本人称它们为"无觉之物"）参与故事时，通常的做法是赋予它们神灵属性。然而在这个特定的本生故事中，作者通过将树神与农夫子女等同，将农夫本人与转世为智慧树神的菩萨等同，使这一特殊设定本身具有了深刻意义——这位树神菩萨告诫亲族分裂与孤立之险。更精妙的是，作者（同样将树神视为人类）将希腊寓言中接受木头教诲的人类角色，叠加到作为警示物象的树木本体之上。 但随后我们会进一步注意到，这个被创造出来的故事反过来（即使现在是以口头表达的形式）成为佛陀本人在本生经的"现世因缘"中教导争吵的族人——拘利族与释迦族——的训诫，其方式与伊索笔下那位农夫向彼此不断争执的儿子们传达教诲如出一辙。
3. If we exclude the feature of investing the trees in this little story with tree-deities, the nature of localization that the j at a ka author has adopted here is minimal (the trees are Sal) and not in any degree fundamental to the plot of the story. If these trivia are brushed aside, the jataka could have been recounted as a Greek fable as easily as the one from which it derives its motif, The Farmer and his Sons. ^(1){ }^{1} 3. 如果我们忽略这个小故事中赋予树木以树神的特征，本生经作者在此采用的本地化手法是极简的（这些树是娑罗树），且对故事主线毫无本质影响。倘若撇开这些细枝末节，这个本生故事完全可以像其母题来源《农夫与儿子们》那样，被当作一则希腊寓言来讲述。 ^(1){ }^{1}
On the other hand the Suhanu Jataka (No. 158) will be found to bring in a certain amount of elaboration which centres on the royal practice of purchasing horses from horse-dealers which smacks of India - though I suspect the reputation of Alexander’s recalcitrant horse, Bucephalus, among the Indo-Greeks may have had something to do with the conception of the insubordinate nature of the animal Mahasona here. ^(2){ }^{2} 另一方面，《苏哈努本生经》（第 158 号）引入了一定程度的细节描写，聚焦于王室从马贩处购马的习俗——这颇具印度特色。不过我怀疑，亚历山大的桀骜战马布塞法洛斯在印度-希腊人中的声名，或许与经中这匹名为摩诃索纳的烈马难以驯服的特质设定有所关联。 ^(2){ }^{2}
The Suhanu Jataka, like the Rukkhadamma, is said to have been narrated by the Buddha at Jetavana, but over two individuals rather than two groups of people, and over the matter of their flagrant friendship, not their hostility. For, contrary to the general expectation that these two hot-tempered natures, when they encountered each other, would immediately break out in a quarrel, they ran into each others arms, stroking and caressing each other’s hands and feet and back. When the Buddha was told of this by their surprised fellow-monks, the Buddha declared, “This, Brothers, is not the only time these men, who are ill-tempered, vicious and angry with others, have shown themselves cordial, friendly and sympathetic to each other. It happened in just this same way in olden days;” and with this declaration he went on to tell them the past-life story, the Suhanu. 《须诃奴本生经》与《树法本生经》一样，据说是佛陀在祇园精舍讲述的，但针对的是两个人而非两群人，且讲述的是他们公然示好的行为，而非敌对关系。因为出乎众人意料的是，这两个暴躁之人相遇时非但没有立即争吵，反而相拥入怀，互相抚摸对方的手足与脊背。当惊诧的同修们将此事禀告佛陀时，佛陀开示道："诸比丘，这两个性情乖戾、凶暴易怒之人彼此展现亲切友善之态，并非今生独有。往昔岁月中亦复如是。"言毕，佛陀便为他们讲述了须诃奴的宿世因缘。
Once, when Brahmadatta was ruling in Benares, the Bodhisatta was his courtier and adviser and when horses were purchased by the king from horse-dealers, he used to fix a fair price for them and pay the dealers off accordingly. The king, however, being of a covetous nature, was displeased with this and had the Bodhisatta replaced. Then at the next horse-deal he had his new minister release Mahasona, a brute of a horse that he owned, upon the animals that the dealers had brought for sale, and then acquired the injured animals at a reduced price. The dealers complained to the Bodhisatta about this; whereupon he advised them to bring along with them next time a similarly savage horse which they possessed, called Suhanu. They did accordingly, and when the king had Mahasona let loose upon their horses again, they in turn released Suhanu on Mahasona. But no sooner these two met than they stood still beside each other and began licking each other all over. Then when the king inquired of the Bodhisatta how it was that two such rogue horses, vicious to all others, were so friendly to each other, he replied, “The reason is that they are not dissimilar but like in nature and character.” And thereupon he gave the king a brief lecture on excessive covetousness and the spoiling of other men’s goods; then, fixing a value on the horses, he made him pay the dealers the proper price. 从前，波罗痆斯城由梵授王统治时，菩萨曾担任他的朝臣与谋士。每当国王向马贩购马，菩萨总会定下公道价格，依价付清款项。然而贪婪成性的国王对此心怀不满，便撤换了菩萨。待到下次购马时，他命新任大臣放出自己豢养的凶马摩诃苏那，任其冲撞马贩带来的待售马匹，再以低价收购伤马。马贩们向菩萨诉苦，菩萨便教他们下次带来自家饲养的烈马苏哈奴。马贩依计而行，当国王再次放出摩诃苏那冲击马群时，他们便放出苏哈奴对抗。谁知两马相遇后竟并肩而立，开始互相舔舐全身。 当国王询问菩萨为何这两匹对其他马匹都凶恶的劣马彼此却如此友好时，菩萨答道："原因在于它们并非相异，而是性情品格相似。"随即他向国王简要开示了过度贪婪与侵占他人财物之过，并估定马匹价值，令国王向马贩支付了合理价钱。
If one were to make the slight change from horses to asses and the vice from one of viciousness to one of laziness, it would immediately be seen that the Suhanu Jataka has a parallel in the Aesopic fable, Buying an Ass (H.320, C.263, P.237, Hs.200), which goes as follows: 若将故事中的马匹稍加改动变为驴子，将凶恶的品性改为懒惰习性，便会立即发现《苏哈努本生经》与伊索寓言《买驴记》（编号 H.320/C.263/P.237/Hs.200）存在对应关系，该寓言内容如下：
A man, intending to buy an ass, took one on trial. He led him to his stall and put him among his own asses. But the creature turned away from all the others and went and stood by the laziest and the greedies. of the lot. And he would not do any work. So the man put a lead on him and took him back to his owner. And when the owner inquired how it was that he managed to try him out in so short a time, the man replied, “I can do without a trial. I know the kind of fellow he is by the one he chose to be his companion.” 有个人想买头驴，便先牵了一头回家试用。他把驴带到畜栏，让它和自己养的驴待在一起。但这头驴对其他同伴不理不睬，径直走到最懒惰最贪吃的那头驴旁边站着。而且它死活不肯干活。于是买主给它套上缰绳，把它送还卖主。卖主问为何这么快就试好了，买主答道："根本不用试。看它挑什么样的伙伴，我就知道它是什么货色。"
The context here too, it would be observed, is a business transaction - buying an animal that happens to be only very little different from a horse. The ingenuity of the jataka author is however to be seen partly in the way in which he has inverted the significance of the birds-of-a-feather psychology to the transaction, using it to neutralize the aggressive Mahasona, and partly in the way in which he. has inset the motif as the mechanism of a wider plot. For you would see that the friendship that the new animal brought from outside shows to the one at home does not serve to cancel himself out of the transaction but rather to subdue the latter, the one at home, and further this transaction. 值得注意的是，此处的语境同样是一桩商业交易——购买一匹与普通马匹差异极微的动物。然而本生经作者的巧思体现在两方面：其一是他将"物以类聚"心理对交易的影响进行了反转，借此化解了摩诃苏那的攻击性；其二则是他将这个母题巧妙嵌套为更宏大情节的推进机制。因为你会发现，新动物从外界带来的"同类相认"行为非但没有使其退出交易，反而驯化了原本的家养动物，进而促成了这笔交易。
This latter observation of mine will show that, while it may be found that certain jataka authors, like the Greek and Roman fable-poets such as Babrius, Phaedrus and Avianus, on occasion merely expanded in (prose) commentary the essential motif with a degree of elaboration and dramatization, not to mention variation, a number of jatakas exist which used it as the subsidiary, if not central plotelement, in the context of a more or less complex and altogether original story. 我的后一项观察表明：虽然某些本生经作者（如希腊罗马的寓言诗人巴布里乌斯、费德鲁斯和阿维阿努斯）偶尔会通过（散文体）评注对核心母题进行一定程度的细化、戏剧化乃至变奏式扩展，但现存诸多本生经中，该母题即便不是核心情节要素，也是作为次要元素被运用在复杂度各异且极具原创性的整体叙事框架中的。
As mentioned earlier, in no less than three hundred and ninety four of the past lives recounted by the Buddha in the Jatakattavannana he is said to have come to life as this or that being or animal “when Brahmadatta was ruling in Benares”. This formalistic opening, which, if treated like the “once upon a time” of English fairy tale, gives the jatakas their fictitious character, still purports a historicity - pseudo, it may be - when taken with the belief in rebirth that belongs with Buddhism. This allows for the degree of imaginative invention and fantasy that they need for evoking interest while also imparting morality. 如前所述，在《本生经注》记载的佛陀三百九十四则前世故事中，开篇总以程式化语句宣称"当梵授王统治波罗奈国时"他转世为某种生灵。这种若同英语童话"很久很久以前"般的形式化开场，虽赋予本生故事虚构特性，却因佛教轮回信仰的加持而暗含某种伪历史意蕴——正是这种虚实交融的特质，既容许充分的想象创造与奇幻色彩来激发兴趣，又能承载道德教化功能。
In contrast, as already observed, the paccuppannavatthu, the story of the present life, in which the Buddha himself is said to have narrated this or that jataka, but which is itself narrated by the respective commentator, is not to be taken as anything but factual. And so is it taken by naïve Buddhist audiences, and indeed even by the less critical of Buddhist scholarship. For, neither are the 与之形成鲜明对比的是，正如前文所述，作为"现在事缘"的今生故事——即佛陀亲述某则本生故事、而由注释者转述的框架叙事——则被完全视为事实记载。天真的佛教信众乃至部分缺乏批判精神的佛教学者皆作如是观。毕竟这些...
circumstances of these latter unrealistic and fanciful (within means) nor are the participants improbable (again within means) like the humanized animals and birds, not to mention monsters and supernatural participants of the imaginative atitavatthu or story of the past. Rather, they purport to belong to palpable events, occasions and circumstances of the Buddha’s own day and his own life as the Buddha. 这些后者的情境虽不切实际且充满幻想（在合理范围内），但参与者并非不可能存在（同样在合理范围内），不像那些拟人化的动物和鸟类，更不用说那些充满想象力的往世故事（atitavatthu）中的怪物和超自然存在。相反，它们声称属于佛陀时代及其作为佛陀的一生中可感知的事件、场合和情境。
Notwithstanding this, it was noted that there is insurmountable evidence which indicates that the paccuppannavatthu of the jataka stories are as much fiction as are the atitavatthu, so much so that we may consider such openings in them as “This story was told by the Master while at Jetavana” as much formalistic as the rule of Brahmadatta in Benares in the days of yore, with which the so many atitavatthu commence. 尽管如此，有不可辩驳的证据表明，本生故事中的现世因缘（paccuppannavatthu）与往世故事一样纯属虚构，以至于我们可以将其中诸如"世尊在祇园精舍时讲述此故事"的开场白视为与众多往世故事开篇"往昔波罗奈国梵授王时代"同样程式化的表达。
Not the least part of this evidence is the occurrence of Greek motifs in the paccupparnavatthu as well. Then this is, as in our Suhanu Jataka just discussed, little more than an unimaginative reflection of the motif of the jataka proper, sufficient to provide opportunity for the Buddha to launch on the relevant story of the past. On other occasions it becomes evident that it is not the paccuppannavatthu that has given birth to the jataka but, vice-versa, that the inclination of the jataka story has inspired the creation of a situation in which it could be narrated fairly meaningfully. But in many cases, as observed, the present life situation merely reflects the past life, so that one is not the effect of the other rather than a repetition of it in different circumstances and with different characters, the Buddha’s purpose being achieved by giving an anecdote, which is at the same time both objective in its isolation, while also being rendered (with the samodhana’s identification) subjective of those for whom it is meant. 希腊故事母题在本生经中的出现同样构成了重要佐证。正如我们刚刚讨论的《苏哈努本生》所示，这些现世故事往往只是对本生故事核心母题缺乏想象力的映射，其存在意义仅在于为佛陀讲述前世因缘提供契机。但更多时候，事实恰恰相反——并非现世故事催生了本生故事，而是本生故事的叙事倾向激发了现世情境的构建，使故事得以在富有意义的情境中被讲述。不过正如前文所述，多数情况下现世情境仅仅是对前世因缘的复现，两者并非因果关系，而是在不同时空与角色配置下的重复演绎。佛陀通过这种双重视角的叙事达成教化目的：既保持故事作为独立寓言的客观性，又通过"结集"的指认机制，使听法者获得主观层面的体悟。
4. It would surprise me if anyone familiar with the jatakas fails to appreciate, and without difficulty that the Vaka Jataka (No. 300) was the Indian counterpart of perhaps the most familiar of Aesop’s fables along with The Crow and the Fox, (C.165, H.207, P.124, H.126), that is, The Fox and the Grapes (H.33, C.32, 4. 若有人熟悉本生经却未能轻易领会《鹳鸟本生》（第 300 则）实为印度版伊索寓言中最家喻户晓的故事之一——与《乌鸦与狐狸》（C.165, H.207, P.124, H.126）齐名——即《狐狸与葡萄》（H.33, C.32），我反倒会感到诧异。
P.15, Hs.15a). The Vaka replaces fox by wolf, and bunch of grapes by a wildgoat - situations probably prompted to our jataka author here by another of Aesop’s fables, The Wolf and the Goat (H.270), in which a wolf, seeing a goat upon a crag and unable to get at him, advises him to come down from there lest he should accidentally fall, and instead enjoy the meadows and clear streams that there were around himself. 第 15 页，Hs.15a）。《瓦卡本生经》将狐狸替换为狼，将一串葡萄换作野山羊——这种情节转变很可能是受到伊索寓言《狼与山羊》（H.270）的启发：狼看见山羊立于峭壁之上无法接近，便劝其下来以免失足坠落，不如享受自己周围丰美的草场与清澈的溪流。
The story of the Vaka is as follows: A wolf, marooned on a rock by the rising waters of a river (localized by the Ganges), had no way of procuring food and nothing to do either. So he decided to make a sabbath fast out of it. The Bodhisatta, born as Sakka in that life, observed the hypocrisy of the wolf, and with the intention of plaguing him, took the shape of a wild goat, then standing hard by, let the wolf see him. “I’ll keep sabbath another day”, thought the wolf as he spied him, then got up and leapt at the wild goat. But the goat kept jumping about so that the he could not get at him. When the wolf realized the futility of his efforts, he gave up and went to lie down again, thinking to himself, “Well, after all, my sabbath has not been broken!” Thereupon Sakka, returning to his own form and hovering in the air, rebuked the creature, saying, “What have such as you, unstable as you are, to do with keeping sabbaths?” 瓦卡的故事如下：一只狼因恒河涨水被困在岩石上，既无法觅食也无事可做，便决定借此机会进行斋戒。那一世转生为帝释天的菩萨识破了狼的虚伪，为惩戒它便化作一只野山羊，故意站在附近让狼看见。狼瞥见山羊时心想"改日再守斋戒"，随即跃起扑向山羊。但山羊不断跳跃闪避，使狼无法得逞。当狼意识到徒劳无功时，便放弃捕猎重新躺下，暗自思忖："反正我的斋戒也没破戒！"帝释天随即恢复本相凌空而立，呵斥道："像你这样心志不坚之辈，守什么斋戒？"
While the bunch of grapes remained static when the fox kept jumping at it in Aesop’s fable of The Fox and the Grapes and the animal could not get at it simply because it was out of his reach, the wild goat, whom this larger edition of the fox, the wolf of the Vaka, jumps at in the jataka, himself keeps jumping about, thus positively frustrating the wolf. Here we have a variation of detail which is at the same time an intensification of it. The wild goat, unlike the cluster of grapes eludes the leaping creature, not by being stationary and yet out of reach, but remaining within reach but itself leaping about, thereby tantalizing the wolf far worse then the grapes the fox of Aesop. 在伊索寓言《狐狸与葡萄》中，当狐狸不断跳起抓取静止的葡萄串却始终够不着时，葡萄的静止状态使得动物无法得手；而在本生经故事里，作为狐狸放大版的瓦卡狼扑向野山羊时，野山羊却不断跳跃移动，从而主动挫败了狼的企图。这里我们看到细节的变奏，同时亦是情节的强化——与静止却遥不可及的葡萄不同，野山羊始终保持在狼的触及范围内，却通过自身跳跃来闪避，这种动态周旋比伊索笔下狐狸面对的葡萄更令狼焦躁难耐。
On the other hand, it is inversion that is adopted in the further detail of the self-consoling observation the frustrated wolf makes to himself when he fails. For where the fox of the Greek fable recon- 另一方面，在受挫的狼自我安慰的细节处理上，本生经采用了反转手法。希腊寓言中的狐狸在失败时
ciled himself by finding something to condemn the grapes he could not get, the wolf found something to commend himself- he had not broken his sabbath fast! As for the mischievous intention of Sakka in tantalizing the wolf in the latter by metamorphosing himself into a wild goat, I find it an exhilarating inspiration but more in keeping with the nature of an Aesopic Hermes or Aphrodite than of a Bodhisatta. But that perhaps is why the Bodhisatta is made to do so in the capacity of the god Sakka. 狐狸吃不到葡萄便说葡萄酸来安慰自己，而狼却找到了自我夸耀的理由——它没有破坏自己的斋戒！至于帝释天在后者中化身为野山羊来戏弄狼的恶作剧意图，我觉得这虽是个令人振奋的灵感，但更符合伊索寓言中赫尔墨斯或阿芙罗狄忒的做派，而非菩萨的行事风格。不过，或许正因为如此，菩萨才要以帝释天的身份来如此行事。
This is the Vaka or Wolf Jataka, a rare instance in the jatakas of the occurrence of a wolf, in contrast to the numerous appearances of the beast in the Greek fables. The wolf is both predatory and greedy and would resort to devious and even contemptible ways to get his prey, whereas the lion is forthright and overpowering in his approach. The jackal, who would have done here for the wolf, as the fox in Aesop where grapes were concerned, is however too small a creature to go for a wild goat - and in any case a carrion-eater rather than a predator. The qualities of the wolf, which suit him to the Indian jataka are seen in the Greek fable referred to earlier, The Wolf and the Goat. As for the choice of wild goat in the Vaka in place of the bunch of grape, it could not have been any better, seeing that while a goat, it was also agile and sure-footed on craggy heights 这是《狼本生经》，在本生故事中狼的出现实属罕见，与希腊寓言中该野兽的频繁登场形成鲜明对比。狼既贪婪又具掠夺性，会采取狡诈甚至卑劣的手段获取猎物，而狮子则行事直率且以压倒性力量取胜。豺狼本可在此替代狼的角色——就像伊索寓言中面对葡萄的狐狸——但豺体型太小难以猎取野山羊，况且它本质上是食腐动物而非掠食者。狼的特性使其契合印度本生故事，这点在前述希腊寓言《狼与山羊》中亦有体现。至于《狼本生经》选用野山羊替代葡萄串的设定，实在是精妙之选——山羊不仅具备山羊属性，更能以敏捷身姿在嶙峋峭壁上稳健行走。
5. Jacobs rightly identified the Kaka Jataka (No. 146) as imi tative of an Aesopic motif - no doubt The Hungry Dogs (H.218, C.176) since in both their respective creatures foolishly try to empty an expanse of water by drinking it up to get at someone or something that lay at the bottom of it. There is, however, another jataka which involves crows and water, the Viraka (No. 204), which appears to have gone unnoticed as the equivalent of yet another popular story of Aesop - that of the jackdaw who tried to emulate an eagle (with disastrous consequences), The Eagle, the Jackdaw and the Shepherd (H.8, C.5, P.2, Hs.2). 5. 雅各布斯正确地将《迦迦本生经》（第 146 号）识别为对伊索寓言主题的模仿——无疑是《饥饿的狗群》（H.218，C.176），因为在这两个故事中，各自的生物都愚蠢地试图通过喝干大片水域来获取沉在水底的人或物。然而，还有另一个涉及乌鸦与水的本生故事《毗罗迦本生》（第 204 号），它似乎未被注意到与伊索另一个流行故事相对应——即试图效仿老鹰（结果酿成灾难）的寒鸦故事，《老鹰、寒鸦与牧羊人》（H.8，C.5，P.2，Hs.2）。
In the Greek fable, it may be recalled, a jackdaw, observing an eagle drop down and carry off a lamb in his talons, tried to do the same or even better himself, swooping down on a ram. But all that 在希腊寓言中，可以回想这样一个故事：一只寒鸦目睹老鹰俯冲用利爪抓走羔羊后，试图模仿甚至超越这个壮举，便扑向一只公羊。但最终...
happened was that his claws got entangled in the animal’s fleece and he was captured by the shepherd. There is an epilogue to this, which presents the lesson with a touch of humour. The shepherd, we are told, clipped the foolish bird’s wings and took him to his children to play with. When they asked him what bird it was, the shepherd replied, “I know he is a jackdaw, but he tries to pass off as an eagle!” 事情是这样的：它的爪子被羊毛缠住，结果被牧羊人逮住了。故事还有个幽默的尾声来点明寓意。据说牧羊人剪掉了这只笨鸟的翅膀，把它带给孩子们玩耍。孩子们问这是什么鸟时，牧羊人回答："我知道它是只寒鸦，可它偏要冒充老鹰！"
Now look at the Viraka Jataka. Scarcity of food had forced a crow to leave his habitat with his wife and take up residence beside a pool in which a marsh-crow did his fishing. Soon he became the marsh-crow’s servant, and he and his wife lived on the surplus of the marsh-crow’s catch. After a time, however, pride came into his heart and he began to ask himself what difference there was between himself and a marsh-crow - were they not alike in everything? So he decided he would do his own fishing and, despite the marsh-crow’s warning that he was not of the tribe born to go into water, he dived into the pool. But he could not make his way through the weeds and come out again - he got entangled in them and perished with (- once again the author shows a sense of humour) only the tip of his beak showing above the water! And when the crow’s wife asked the marsh-crow (actually the Bodhisatta in that birth) where her mate had gone, he replied (I give Rouse’s translation): 现在来看看《维拉卡本生经》。食物短缺迫使一只乌鸦带着妻子离开栖息地，在沼泽乌鸦捕鱼的池塘边安了家。很快他就成了沼泽乌鸦的仆从，夫妻俩靠沼泽乌鸦捕获的残羹过活。然而过了一段时间，骄傲之心在他心中滋长，他开始自问与沼泽乌鸦有何区别——他们难道不是处处相似吗？于是他决定自己捕鱼，不顾沼泽乌鸦警告他并非天生入水的族类，一头扎进池塘。但他无法穿过水草重新浮出——他被缠住丧了命（作者再次展现了幽默感），只有喙尖露在水面上！当乌鸦妻子询问沼泽乌鸦（实为那一世的菩萨）她的伴侣去向时，对方回答道（我引用劳斯的译文）：
“He was not born to dive beneath the wave But what he could not do he needs must try; So the poor bird has found a watery grave, Entangled in the weeds, and left to die.” "他本非潜浪出生的族类，
却偏要尝试力所不能及；
可怜这鸟儿终葬身水底，
缠于杂草间，徒留喙尖示寂。"
For marsh-crow and crow, substitute eagle and jackdaw, for fish substitute lamb, and for the weeds of the pool substitute the fleece of the ram, and we have (except for the inconsequential details of the fate of the foolish birds and the way their presumptuousness is punished) an exact repetition, in a watery context, of what had taken place on land in the Greek fable. 将沼泽鸦与乌鸦替换为鹰与寒鸦，将鱼替换为羔羊，将池中杂草替换为公羊的羊毛，我们便得到（除了那些愚鸟的命运及它们傲慢受罚的无关紧要细节外）希腊寓言中陆地场景在水域背景下的精确复现。
In Babrius (Fable 137, which is his version of the Aesopic fable, and according to Crusius’ conjecture of the gist of certain missing 在巴布里乌斯（寓言 137，即他对伊索寓言的改写版本，根据克鲁西乌斯对某些缺失要旨的推测）
verses thereof) the jackdaw was caught and tormented by boys; whereupon it is he himself who brings home the truth to himself, saying" I pay a penalty for my folly. Why did I, who am only a jackdaw try to imitate eagles?" （出自其诗句）寒鸦被孩童捉住并折磨；于是它自己醒悟了真相，说道："我为自己的愚蠢付出了代价。我不过是只寒鸦，为何要模仿雄鹰呢？"
A companion of the Viraka is the Jambuka Jataka (No. 335), in which a jackal, despite being warned by the lion, tries to emulate him and kill an elephant, only to be trampled to death. In the Greek of this, The Fox and the Lion (H.41, Aphth. 20) the role of the jackal was played by his western cousin, the fox, who tried to become hunter instead of scout, and ended up by becoming the prey. What is of further interest is that, as in the former pair of stories, it is pride that is the cause of the presumptuous animals’ misfortune, Greek and Indian. 维拉卡的同伴是《瞻波迦本生经》（第 335 号），其中一只豺狼尽管受到狮子的警告，仍试图效仿它去猎杀大象，结果反被踩死。在希腊版本的《狐狸与狮子》（H.41，阿夫托尼乌斯 20）中，豺狼的角色由其西方表亲狐狸扮演，它试图从侦察者变成猎手，最终却沦为猎物。更值得注意的是，与前两则故事一样，正是傲慢导致了这些狂妄动物的不幸结局——无论是希腊还是印度的故事皆如此。
6. In the Greek fable of the jackdaw who would be an eagle, the jackdaw does not die by his stunt; the shepherd takes him home to his children and tells them about him. It is in some such similar way that there concludes a different Indian jataka story, which I have no doubt owes its conception to another Greek fable. In this jataka the Bodhisatta, born as a potter’s son, picks up a tortoise (injured by himself accidentally but due to the tortoise’s own folly) and gives his fellow villagers a lesson from it. This is the second of the Kacchapa Jatakas, (No. 178); the first is already one of the best known for imitating an Aesopic fable motif - the jataka in which a tortoise is carried through the air by swans, who interestingly in the Southern recension of the Pancatantra return to the eagles of the Greek original, The Tortoise and the Eagle. 6. 在希腊寓言《妄想成为鹰的寒鸦》中，寒鸦并未因其鲁莽行为丧命，牧羊人将它带回家给孩子们看，并讲述了这个故事。与之相似的是另一个印度本生故事的结局——我毫不怀疑这个故事的构思源自另一则希腊寓言。在这个本生故事中，转世为陶匠之子的菩萨捡到一只乌龟（因乌龟自身的愚蠢而意外被菩萨所伤），并以此给村民们上了一课。此为《龟本生》（第 178 号）中的第二个故事；第一个故事因模仿伊索寓言母题而广为人知——即乌龟被天鹅带着飞行的故事，值得注意的是，在《五卷书》的南方版本中，天鹅又回归为希腊原版《乌龟与鹰》中的鹰。
In this second Kacchapa, a tortoise, inhabiting a lake joined to a river, refused to swim into the river when a drought set in, which was bound to isolate the lake and dry it out. All the other fishes and tortoises migrated to the river in time, but he said, “Here was I born, here have I grown up and here is my parents’ home; leave it I cannot”. Then in the hot season all the water dried up. He thereupon dug a hole and buried himself just in that very place where the Bodhisatta, as a potter’s son, used to come for clay. And when the Bodhisatta came there for that purpose and began digging, all 在这第二个《龟本生》故事中，一只栖息于与河流相连湖泊的乌龟，当旱季来临必将使湖泊隔绝并干涸时，拒绝游入河中。其他鱼龟都及时迁徙到了河里，他却说："我生于此，长于此，此处乃父母之家，我绝不能离开"。酷暑时节湖水尽涸，他就在菩萨转世为陶匠之子常来取黏土的地方掘洞自埋。当菩萨前来挖土时，
unawares he struck the tortoise with his implement and cracked his shell, turning him out upon the earth like a lump of clay. Then in agony the creature thought - “Here I am dying, all because I was too fond of my home to leave it!” And with that his life left him. 无意间用工具击中了龟甲，使其甲壳开裂，如泥块般滚落在地。垂死的乌龟痛苦地想道："我命将绝，皆因恋家不肯离去！"随即气绝身亡。
It is at this juncture that we have an epilogue to this little story, which resembles to some extent that of the Greek fable compared by me immediately ahead of this - that of the jackdaw who tried to emulate the eagle. For, we are told that the Bodhisatta then picked up the tortoise, and gathering all the villagers around him, told them of the tragedy that had taken place, finally warning them not to be like that creature, clinging to the senses and worldly possessions. 正是在此刻，这个小故事迎来了尾声——某种程度上它与我前文所比照的希腊寓言（那只试图效仿老鹰的寒鸦）颇为相似。因为经文中提到，菩萨随即拾起乌龟，召集所有村民围聚身旁，向他们讲述这场悲剧的始末，最后告诫众人莫要像这生灵般执着于感官享乐与世俗财物。
It is not however in its use of the epilogue that the Kacchapa compares with its own Greek parallel and prototype but in its chief participant, the tortoise, its excessive love of home, and (of course with slight modification) the tragic consequences of this love. The relevant Aesopic fable is that of Zeus and the Tortoise (H154, C.125, P.106, Hs.108) which goes: 然而《龟本生》与希腊原型故事的相似之处并不在于尾声的运用，而在于核心角色乌龟本身、它对家园的过度眷恋，以及（当然需稍加调整）这种眷恋引发的悲剧后果。相关的伊索寓言是《宙斯与乌龟》（编号 H154/C.125/P.106/Hs.108），其内容如下：
When Zeus was celebrating his wedding, he invited all the animals (home) to a feast. Only the tortoise stayed away; and Zeus could not think why. So, on the following day he asked him the reason why he alone was absent. To which the tortoise replied, “I like my home. My home is the best for me.” The reply so angered Zeus that he made him carry his home on his back wherever he went. 当宙斯庆祝婚礼时，他邀请了所有动物赴宴。唯独乌龟没有出席；宙斯百思不得其解。次日他询问乌龟缺席的原因，乌龟答道："我爱我的家。对我来说家就是最好的。"这个回答激怒了宙斯，于是他罚乌龟永远背着家行走。
Here we have a perfect aetiological fable, explaining with a touch of tragic humour how the tortoise came by his shell (and perhaps also why he wears such a lugubrious look when carrying it about). Not only the identity of the creature but his weakness for his home and his explanation for his refusal to abandon it (almost to the very words) establish the relationship of the motif of the fable here to that which is encountered in the jataka. But in the case of the jataka, the author’s attempt at variation has been at the expense of the curious phenomenon which distinguishes the creature - his carrying (and as though with much effort and punishment) his home 这则完美的起源寓言以略带悲剧色彩的幽默，解释了乌龟如何获得它的甲壳（或许也说明了为何它背负甲壳时总是愁眉苦脸）。不仅生物特征完全吻合，就连它对家园的眷恋以及拒绝离家的理由（几乎字字对应），都表明这个寓言母题与本生经中的故事存在关联。但在本生经版本中，作者为追求变化，牺牲了这个生物最显著的特征——它费力而痛苦地背负家园行走的奇特现象。
upon his back. What he has done thereby is demolished the aetiological quality of the original fable, for he has made the tortoise, shell and all, the resident, and the bed of clay his home. That it was his shell that in digging the Bodhisatta injured may, if anything, concede the jataka author’s awareness of the involvement of the shell in the prototype fable. As the jataka stands now, our creature could well have been something else; besides, the tortoise’s lodging himself in an earth-nest is, if anything, exceptional - which is perhaps why the jataka author makes him strengthen it by adding that it was also his parents’ home. 驮在背上。他这样做破坏了原寓言的解释性特质，因为他让乌龟——连同整个龟壳——成为居住者，而黏土窝成了它的家。如果说作者还保留了什么原型的痕迹，那或许就是在挖掘时菩萨伤到的是龟壳这一点，这勉强能表明本生经作者意识到原型寓言中龟壳的存在。就目前本生经的叙述而言，这个生物完全可以是别的什么；此外，乌龟住在地洞里的设定本身就非比寻常——或许正因如此，本生经作者特意补充说这曾是其父母的家，以此强化这个设定的合理性。
7. The Bodhisatta of this Kacchapa Jataka, when he, as a potter’s son, is the cause of injury to the tortoise, does so unintentionally. There are other instances in the jatakas, as we have seen, when he cannot altogether claim innocence of injury and even death. Research into the characterization of the Bodhisatta within the jatakas proper of the Jatakatthavanna, the Buddha between the paccuppannavatthu thereof, the Bodhisatta of the former with the Buddha of the latter, and finally, of both with the concept of the Master as is adumbrated in the discourses should provide interesting sidelights on the nature and conception of these so-called BirthStories of the Buddha. ^(3){ }^{3} As observed, however, several jatakas exist in which the conduct of no character lets the Bodhisatta be identified with him without fear of compromising his moral integrity, so that the linkage purported by the samodhana between that past life and this as the Buddha is (as already mentioned) satisfied by the device - a dramatically weak one though it be - of making the Bodhisatta an observer, or simply the narrator of it. 7. 本生经《龟本生》中的菩萨，当他作为陶匠之子导致乌龟受伤时，其行为实属无心之失。正如我们所见，本生经中还有其他案例显示，他无法完全宣称自己在伤害乃至致死事件中全然无辜。若对《本生经注》中菩萨形象的特质进行研究——包括佛陀在现世故事中的定位、前世菩萨与后世佛陀的关联，以及两者与经藏中所勾勒的"世尊"概念的对照——必将为这些所谓佛陀本生故事的本质与理念提供耐人寻味的侧写。 ^(3){ }^{3} 然而值得注意的是，部分本生故事中没有任何角色的行为能让菩萨与之对应而不损其道德纯粹性。因此，（如前所述）这些前世与佛陀现世之间的关联，仅通过让菩萨成为事件旁观者或单纯叙述者这种（虽显戏剧性薄弱）手法，便满足了"联结偈"所要建立的因果联系。
Of the first of this sort is the Gangeyya Jataka (No. 205), which is also a brief story involving a tortoise, though its Aesopic prototype concerns a monkey (or ape) and her baby. The Gangeyya, leaving out its gatha, is a short one and can be reproduced as it is in Rouse’s translation. 这类故事的首例是《甘吉耶本生经》（第 205 号），它也是一个关于乌龟的简短故事，尽管其伊索寓言原型涉及一只猴子（或猿）和她的幼崽。除去偈颂部分，《甘吉耶》篇幅很短，可完全按照劳斯译本呈现如下：
Once upon a time, when Brahmadatta was ruling in Benares, the Bodhisatta came to life as a tree-sprite on the banks of the Ganges. At the place where the Ganges met the Jumna two fish came together, one from the Ganges and the other from the Jumna. “I am beautiful!” said one of them, “and so are you” - and so they fell to quarreling about their beauty. Not far from the Ganges they saw a tortoise lying on the bank. “That fellow shall decide whether we are beautiful!” said they, and they went up to him. “Which of us is beautiful, friend tortoise?” they asked, “the Ganges fish or the Jumna fish?” To which the tortoise made reply, “The Ganges fish is beautiful, beautiful too is the Jumna fish; but I am more beautiful than both of you!” 往昔，梵授王统治波罗奈时，菩萨转生为恒河岸边的树神。在恒河与阎牟那河交汇处，两条鱼相遇了，一条来自恒河，另一条来自阎牟那河。"我多美啊！"其中一条说道，"你也是"——于是它们就谁更美丽争执起来。距恒河不远处，它们看见一只乌龟躺在岸边。"让那家伙来评判我们谁美吧！"说着它们游了过去。"龟友啊，我们谁更美？"它们问道，"是恒河鱼还是阎牟那鱼？"乌龟回答道："恒河鱼美，阎牟那鱼也美；但我比你们俩都更美！"
It would be seen that one of the fishes declared, “I am beautiful, and so are you” (aham sobhami, tvam sobhasti), and unless the other denied they were such, or that he was beautiful while the speaker was not, there should have been no quarrel - but we are told they quarrelled. Again, when they went up to the tortoise, the question they were minded to ask is whether they (both of them) were beautiful or not; and the reply, one way or the other, should not have ensued in a quarrel inter se; only, if at all, between them and the tortoise. What they did ask the tortoise, however, raises an issue between the two of them - “Which of us is beautiful” - implying the other is not, or not as beautiful. Strangely, the same thing is found in the paccuppannavatthu, with the only difference being that the participants are all monks, two younger Brothers as the fish, and an Elder as the tortoise. (Here we have yet another example of a jataka merely being a repeat of the paccuppannavatthu episode - or should we put it the other way round?) 可见其中一条鱼宣称"我美，你也美"（aham sobhami, tvam sobhasti），除非另一条否认彼此美丽，或自称美丽而指对方丑陋，本不该引发争执——但故事却描述它们争吵起来。当它们向乌龟求问时，本应咨询的是"我们（二者）是否都美丽"，无论得到肯定或否定答复，都不该在二鱼之间产生龃龉，顶多与乌龟发生分歧。然而它们实际询问乌龟的问题——"我们谁更美"——却隐含对另一方的贬低，这直接挑起了二鱼间的矛盾。耐人寻味的是，同样的情节出现在《现世因缘》中，唯一区别是参与者皆为比丘：两位年轻僧人扮演鱼的角色，长老则充当乌龟。（这又是个例证，显示本生经可能只是对《现世因缘》故事的复述——抑或我们该反过来说？）
However, as I expected, the version in the Sinhala Pansiya Panas Jataka Potha has one of the fish claiming beauty for himself and denying it to the other, which is as it should have been. So, either the author of the Pali had tried to straddle both the opposition between the two fish as well as that between them and the tortoise in their respective claims to being the handsomer and fallen between two stools, doing so, or the story has at some stage suffered a degree of corruption. 然而，正如我所料，僧伽罗文《本生鬘》版本中确实存在一条鱼自诩美丽而否定另一条的描述，这正符合故事应有之态。因此，要么是巴利文本作者试图同时兼顾两条鱼之间以及它们与乌龟之间关于谁更英俊的对立主张，结果弄巧成拙；要么就是这个故事在某个传承阶段出现了文本讹误。
In the jatakas so far compared with their Greek parallels in this chapter, and indeed others to follow, (not to mention the several not treated here,) the creatures or things participating are largely approximated to those in their corresponding Aesopic fables, even when their motifs allowed for a latitude in the choice of substitutes. Thus, in the Akalaravi Jataka we have a crowing cock and set of human beings who were distressed by his crowing as in Greek fable it imitated; in the Rukkhadhamma trees take the place of sticks, and tree-deities that of the farmer’s sons with the Bodhisatta in the role of the philosophic farmer; the Vaka has a tantalized wolf in place of the proverbial fox, in the Suhanu it is horses for asses, in the Viraka birds (crow and marsh-crow) for the birds (eagle and jackdaw) of the Greek; in the Kaccapa tortoise and Bodhisatta stand in for tortoise and Zeus - and so on. Now, in the jataka to follow, it will be seen that in both the Indian and the Greek, the man is a goatherd, the flock is of goats, and the animals who join it and then leave are deer and wild-goats respectively. No matter which way one may argue the borrowing, this correspondence - so far not remarked by other scholars, must figure as the most significant evidence of a borrowing as against any theory of coincidence or parallel inspiration. 在本章及后续章节中与希腊寓言进行对比的本生经故事（更不用说那些未在此讨论的），参与其中的生物或事物大多与其对应的伊索寓言相似，即使这些故事母题允许在选择替代物时存在一定灵活性。例如，在《阿迦罗罗毗本生》中，我们见到一只啼叫的公鸡和一群被其啼声困扰的人类，这与它所模仿的希腊寓言如出一辙；《卢卡达摩本生》中以树木替代棍棒，树神取代农夫之子，而菩萨则扮演那位哲人农夫的角色；《瓦卡本生》用受嘲弄的狼代替谚语中的狐狸，《苏哈努本生》以马代驴，《维拉卡本生》则用鸟类（乌鸦与泽鸦）对应希腊寓言中的禽类（鹰与寒鸦）；《卡查帕本生》中乌龟与菩萨分别替代了原故事里的乌龟与宙斯——诸如此类。而在接下来要讨论的本生经中，我们会发现印度与希腊版本里都出现了牧羊人（实为牧山羊者）、山羊群，以及先后加入又离开的鹿与野山羊。 无论从何种角度论证这种借鉴关系，这一对应性——迄今未被其他学者注意到——必须被视为最具决定性的借鉴证据，足以反驳任何巧合论或平行灵感说。
Here in the Gangeyya, however, something different is met - the participants are drastically changed. What is retained, instead, is the characteristic quality of the protagonist of the original Aesopic fable, upon which the motif pivots - his striking ugliness. In the Gangeyya it is a tortoise; in Aesop it was an ape’s baby. The Aesopic fable is identified as that of The Ape and Zeus (H.364, B.56) and is in its circumstances not unlike the fable of Zeus and the Tortoise taken up shortly before; then it was the wedding celebration of Zeus, now it is a beauty contest judged by him. Indeed, I am tempted to think that it is the tortoise of the latter Greek fable that has crawled into the mind of the Gangeyya Jataka’s author to offer him as counterpart of the ape of the former Greek fable, which inspired his own conception. 然而在《冈基耶本生经》中，我们遇到了截然不同的情形——参与者被彻底替换。唯一保留的是原版伊索寓言主角的核心特质，即其惊人的丑陋外貌，这正是该母题的关键所在。冈基耶版本中是乌龟，伊索版本中则是猿猴的幼崽。这则伊索寓言被认定为《猿猴与宙斯》（编号 H.364，B.56），其情境与前文刚讨论过的《宙斯与乌龟》颇为相似：前者的背景是宙斯的婚庆，后者则是宙斯主持的选美比赛。我甚至倾向于认为，正是后一则希腊寓言中的乌龟形象爬进了《冈基耶本生经》作者的脑海，为他提供了与前则希腊寓言中猿猴相对应的角色，从而激发了他的创作构思。
The fable of The Ape and Zeus tells how once Zeus set prizes at a baby-show for all the animals and examined every entry critically. 《猿猴与宙斯》这则寓言讲述宙斯为所有动物举办婴儿选美大赛并严格评审每个参赛者的故事。
Among others there also came a she-ape, who claimed to be the mother of a handsome child, bearing at her breast a naked snubnosed pug. At the sight of him the gods burst out laughing. But the mother ape replied, “Zeus knows who will get the prize, but in my eyes he is the handsomest of the lot!” 众神之中还来了一只母猿，她自称是一个俊美孩子的母亲，怀里抱着只塌鼻梁的哈巴狗崽。诸神一见便哄堂大笑。但母猿答道："宙斯知道谁能得奖，可在我眼里他就是这群里最俊的！"
True enough that the mother-ape’s claim for her baby evokes a touch of sympathy, along with the humour that the jataka’s tortoise can never win for himself; if there is conceitedness, it is softened by mother-love and the fact that the ape does not make the claim for herself, unlike the tortoise. But, for all that, the motif identifies itself in either case by the fact of an ugly creature claiming (or in the Greek, claiming for his offspring) to be the handsomer in a contest where obviously it is others who are vying for victory while he is himself positively ugly. 诚然，母猿对幼崽的夸赞确实能唤起几分同情——就像本生经里那只永远赢不了比赛的乌龟引发的幽默；即便存在自负，也被母爱柔化了，何况母猿不像乌龟那样为自己夸耀。但无论如何，这个母题的核心在于：丑陋生物（或在希腊版本中是为后代）宣称自己在选美竞赛中更胜一筹，而实际上显然其他参赛者才是在角逐胜利，它自身则分明丑陋不堪。
Obviously the Buddha cannot identify himself as the Bodhisatta with either of the two fishes, who vied with each other on the score of beauty in the jataka or with the tortoise in it, who made the ridiculous claim in that context. So he is a tree-sprite, who, like the tree-sprite in the Jambu-Khadaka and Anta Jataka, which improvise on Aesop’s The Crow and the Fox, or the tree-sprite of the Kaka Jataka, which imitates The Hungry Dogs, merely observed the affair without himself significantly involving himself it. But in the next jataka that I take up, the Dhumakari (No. 413) the Buddha is not even such a passive observer; he is in that past life Vidhurapandita, king’s chaplain and counsellor, who merely narrates of Dhumakari (“Smokey”) and his goats as a story to the king, Dhananjaya. 显然，佛陀不可能像本生故事中那两条以美貌相争的鱼，或是那只在情境中提出荒谬主张的乌龟那样，将自己等同于菩萨。因此他化身为树神——如同《阎浮果本生》和《安达本生》（这两则故事改编自伊索寓言《乌鸦与狐狸》）中的树神，或是模仿《饿狗》的《乌鸦本生》里的树神一般，仅作为旁观者而未真正介入事件。但在我接下来要探讨的《杜玛卡利本生》（第 413 号）中，佛陀连这种被动观察者的身份都不具备；他在前世是国王的祭司兼谋臣维杜拉班智达，仅作为讲述者向国王达南迦雅叙述了关于"烟熏者"杜玛卡利及其山羊的故事。
8. According to the paccuppannavatthu of the Dhumakari the Buddha came up with this jataka while at Jetavana concerning the folly of the king of Kosala in showing partiality to newly acquired supporters and neglecting his old warriors. For the result had been that he suffered defeat at the hands of rebels in a disturbed frontier; the old warriors thought the new would do the fighting and the new thought the old would do so. What is remarkable of the jataka itself is that the Buddha does not launch directly into 8. 根据《杜摩迦利本生》的现世因缘，佛陀在祇园精舍讲述这个本生故事，旨在揭示憍萨罗国王偏袒新近归附者而冷落旧部将的愚行。其恶果便是这位国王在动荡边境被叛军击败——旧部将以为新归附者会出战，而新归附者又指望旧部将应敌。这个本生故事的独特之处在于，佛陀并未直接开始叙述
the story of the goatherd Dhumakari Instead he describes the situation in which the king of Kosala was as no different from that of a king in one of his own past lives, i.e. Dhananjaya of the Kurus of the race of Yudhitthila, whose councellor, Vidhurapandita he had been and, just as now the king of Kosala was consulting himself i.e. the Buddha on it, had responded with the story of the herdsman, Dhumakari. 牧羊人杜摩迦利的故事，而是首先指出憍萨罗国王的处境与其前世作为尤帝提拉族俱卢国王达那阇耶时如出一辙。当时身为国王谋臣的维杜拉智者（即佛陀前世），正如现在憍萨罗国王咨询佛陀本人那样，以牧羊人杜摩迦利的故事作为回应。
This wasteful repetition of the context of the paccuppannavatthu in the atitavatthu as well before getting on to the story (which, for its part is itself repetitious in motif, if not in participants, and adds no new insights to the situation that is reviewed) is merely for the benefit of providing someone in the jataka with whom the Buddha can be identified without embarrassment in the samodhana. For, as can be judged from the story that the Bodhisatta, as Vidhurapandita, tells king Dhananjaya, neither the goatherd nor any of his goats nor deer is suitable to have been identified with him. And yet identification with someone in that past life was necessary to explain this account as a recovery of memory by the Buddha and make it a jataka. The result is that the story of Dhumakari is left in the cold as no more than a fable, narrated in the way of a fable - which is what it is, and indeed what it was in the source from which I have no doubt it came. It is as follows: 在进入故事之前（故事本身若非参与者重复，则在主题上也是重复的，且对所回顾的情境未增添新见解），这种对当下事件背景在过往事件中浪费性的重复，仅仅是为了在《本生经》中提供一个能与佛陀在结语中毫无尴尬地对应的人物。因为，正如菩萨作为维杜拉智者向达那阇耶王讲述的故事所表明的，无论是牧羊人、他的任何一只山羊还是鹿，都不适合被认定为佛陀的过去身。然而，为了将此叙述解释为佛陀记忆的复苏并使其成为一则本生故事，与前世某个人物的对应又是必要的。结果就是，杜玛卡里的故事被冷落为一个纯粹的寓言，以寓言的方式被讲述——它本就是如此，也无疑源自其出处时便是如此。故事如下：
In the days of old, a brahmin goatherd by the name of Dhumakari took a large flock of goats and making a pen in the forest, kept them there. He had a smoking fire and lived on milk and such things and looked after his goats. But then, seeing some deer of golden hue who had come, he took a liking for them, and neglecting his goats, he paid regard due to them to the deer. In the autumn the deer moved away to the Himalaya; his goats were dead and the deer had disappeared, so in his grief he became jaundiced and died. He paid respect to newcomers and perished, having grief and misery a hundred times more than you (i.e. King Dhananjaya). 古时候，有个名叫杜摩迦利的婆罗门牧羊人带着大群山羊，在森林里围起栅栏放牧。他燃着熏烟的火堆，靠羊奶等物维生，悉心照料羊群。后来见到一群毛色金黄的野鹿经过，便心生喜爱，竟疏于照管山羊，转而对野鹿殷勤备至。入秋后野鹿迁往喜马拉雅山，他的山羊尽数死亡，野鹿也杳无踪迹，他因此忧伤成疾，患黄疸而死。这个对新来者献殷勤的人，最终遭受的悲苦比你（指达那阇耶国王）还要惨痛百倍。
The six stanzas, of which this is but the commentary, tells the story in full, thus making the Dhumakari Jataka repetitious here as well. But they give a detail left out in the prose commentary, which explains why the deer sought the brahmin’s smoky fire - they were pestered by gnats and the rains were on. No sooner the gnats were gone and the autumn clear of rain than the deer left for the mountain heights and river springs. 六首偈颂（此处仅为注释）完整叙述了这个故事，使得《杜摩迦利本生》在此处也显得重复。但偈颂补充了散文注释遗漏的细节：野鹿之所以亲近婆罗门的烟熏火堆，是因为正逢雨季，它们不堪蚊蚋滋扰。待蚊虫消散、秋晴无雨时，鹿群便立即奔赴高山溪泉而去。
Except in its conclusion, which leaves the goats and the goatherd dead, the Aesopic fable of The Goatherd and the Wild Goats (H.12, C.17, P.6, Hs.6) runs very close to this jataka and is no doubt the one on which the jataka writer based his own story. For here a goatherd’s goats are joined by some wild goats, whom he drives into a cave along with his goats. He keeps them during a spell of foul weather, heaping fodder before the newcomers but giving his own animals only enough to subsist. But as soon as the weather clears and he takes them out to pasture, the wild goats take to their heels. And when he accuses them of ingratitude, they reply that the same thing as happened to the old flock would happen to them too (if they remained with him), should there be newcomers again. 除了结局中牧羊人和山羊都死去的情节外，伊索寓言《牧羊人与野山羊》（编号 H.12/C.17/P.6/Hs.6）与本生经故事高度相似，无疑是本生经作者创作时所依据的蓝本。故事讲述牧羊人的羊群中混入了几只野山羊，他将野山羊与自家山羊一同赶入山洞。恶劣天气持续期间，他给新来的野山羊堆满草料，却只给自家山羊勉强果腹的口粮。待天气放晴，牧羊人带羊群外出放牧时，野山羊全都逃之夭夭。当牧羊人指责它们忘恩负义时，野山羊回应道：若将来再有新来者，它们也会遭遇与原有羊群相同的待遇（倘若继续留在此处）。
Aside from the unnecessary excessiveness of having both his goats and Dhumakari die, the former of hunger and the latter of sorrow, the attempt to vary the detail of wild goats in the Greek fable by replacing them with golden deer leads to a change in the reason which makes them join the flock of goats. In the Greek the wildgoats join with the domestic out of natural attraction and the goatherd merely tries to capitalize on this situation by heaping fodder on the newcomers and winning them over permanently; in the jataka gnats and the bad weather itself bring the herd of golden deer to join the herd of goats. Good as Dhumakari’s smoky fire may have been again both these, wild goats are preferable to deer when mixing with goats - no matter how golden they be. 除了让他的山羊和杜玛卡里双双死去——前者死于饥饿，后者死于悲伤——这种不必要的过度渲染外，希腊寓言中通过用金鹿替代野山羊来改变细节的尝试，导致它们加入山羊群的原因发生了变化。在希腊版本中，野山羊出于天性被家养山羊吸引，牧羊人只是试图通过给新来者大量饲料并永久赢得它们来利用这种情况；而在本生经中，蚊虫和恶劣天气本身促使金鹿群加入了山羊群。尽管杜玛卡里的烟雾火堆可能再次对两者都有效，但与山羊混群时，野山羊仍比金鹿更合适——无论它们多么金光闪闪。
It is not unlikely that a version appeared in Greece in which, as long as the wild-goats were indulged, the goatherd’s own goats were neglected and to the point of death; nor did the newcomers rebuke 希腊很可能存在这样一个版本：只要野山羊受到纵容，牧羊人自己的山羊就会被忽视直至死亡；新来的野山羊也没有责备
the goatherd; they simply fled. For such a version is found in Babrius’ fable compendium. ^(4){ }^{4} 牧羊人，它们只是逃走了。因为在巴布里乌斯的寓言汇编中就能找到这样的版本。 ^(4){ }^{4}
9. The Gutha-Pana Jataka, is numbered 227 in the Jatatthavannana and translates ‘The Dung-Beetle Birth’. It is, according to the paccuppannavatthu thereof, narrated by the Buddha at Jetavana about a monk who assaulted and then defecated upon the face of a lout, who was in the habit of humiliating young men and novices who came to collect the ticket-meals at a particular village. By and by the incident reached the ears of the Brotherhood. One day one of them was saying to another at the Hall of Truth, “Friend, I hear Brother So-and-so shat upon the face of that loafer and left him”, when it happened that the Buddha overheard him and wished to know about what it was they were talking. Then, upon learning of the affair, the Master observed, “Brethren, this is not the first time that this Brother attacked the man with his ordure; he did this thing before” - and went on to narrate the story of the past as follows: 9. 《古塔-帕那本生经》在《本生经注》中编号为 227，译为"蜣螂转世"。根据其现世因缘，佛陀在祇园精舍讲述此故事，关于一位比丘殴打并在一名恶徒脸上排便之事。该恶徒惯于羞辱前来某村庄领取票餐的年轻男子和沙弥。此事逐渐传至僧团耳中。一日，有位比丘在真理堂对另一人说："道友，听说某位比丘在那无赖脸上排便后离去"，恰被佛陀听闻。世尊询问所议何事，了解原委后开示："诸比丘，此比丘以秽物攻击此人非首次；往昔亦曾如是行事"——遂讲述过去因缘如下：
Once upon a time those citizens of the kingdoms of Anga and Magadha, who were journeying from one country to the other, used to sojourn in a house on the route between the two kingdoms. There they consumed liquor and ate fish, and early in the morning yoked their carts and departed. At the time of their arrival, a certain Dung-Beetle, attracted by the odour of excreta, came to the place where they had drunk, and saw some liquor spilt upon the ground, and in thirst drank it an eturned to his lump of excreta intoxicated. When he climbe upon it, the moist excreta gave way a little. “The world can lot bear my weight!” he bawled out. At the very moment a maddened 从前，那些往来于鸯伽国和摩揭陀国之间的旅人，常在两国的中途驿站歇脚。他们在那里饮酒啖鱼，清晨便套车启程。某日，一只蜣螂被秽物气息吸引，来到他们饮酒之处，见地上泼洒着酒液，口渴之下饮尽，醉醺醺地回到粪堆旁。当它爬上粪堆时，湿软的粪块微微下陷。"这世间都承不住我的重量！"它高声叫嚷。恰在此时，一头狂象
Elephant came to the spot and smelling the excreta went away in disgust. The Beetle observed this and thought, “That animal is scared of me; look how he flees! I must fight with him!” So he challenged him in the first stanza: 来到此处，嗅到粪味便厌恶地走开。蜣螂见状暗想："那巨兽定是怕我，瞧它逃得多快！我必要与它决斗！"于是它念出首偈挑战：
"Well matched! For we are heroes both: here let us issue try. "旗鼓相当！你我皆英雄：何不在此见高低。
Come back, come back, friend Elephant! Why would you fear and fly? 回来吧，回来吧，象兄！为何惊惶逃遁？"
Let Magadha and Anga see how great’s our bravery!" 让摩揭陀和鸯伽见证我们的勇武！
The Elephant listened and heard the voice; he turned back to the Beetle and said the second stanza by way of rebuke: 大象听闻此声，便转身对甲虫说出第二偈作为训诫：
With foot or tusks or trunk to kill you I refuse; 我拒绝用足、牙或鼻取你性命；
Since dung’s your love, its dung that I will use. ^(5){ }^{5} 既然你钟爱粪土，便以粪土相赠。 ^(5){ }^{5}
And so, dropping a great piece of dung upon him, and making water, he killed him then and there and scampered into the forest trumpeting. 于是，它拉了一大坨粪便砸在那人身上，又撒了泡尿，当场就把他弄死了，然后欢快地叫着冲进了森林。
When the discourse was ended, the Buddha identified the Birth: 当说法结束时，佛陀点明了本生因缘：
“In those days the lout was the dung-beetle, the Brother was the elephant, and I was the tree-sprite who saw it all from that clump of trees.” "那时那个粗人是屎壳郎，比丘是大象，而我则是从树丛中目睹这一切的树精。"
The Gutha-Pana imitates in the broad two Aesopic fable motifs, though within these two themselves there are detectable reminiscences of details from other fables as well. The first of these motifs tells of a puny or weaker creature, who from some 《古塔-帕纳》虽在整体上模仿了两个伊索寓言的主题，但在这两个主题中仍可辨识出其他寓言的细节痕迹。第一个主题讲述了一个弱小生物，
experience entertains delusions of grandeur, challenges a really bigger or stronger creature and is made short work of. The second of the motifs is in fact a partial inversion of the first; for here the puny or weaker creature comes by this grandiose delusion, not from something he mistakes regarding himself, but of the bigger or superior creature - for instance (as we have it in the Gutha-Pana) he sees an elephant fleeing from his presence, though due to some other reason, and fools himself that he is running away from him and so, going in pursuit of him, he challenges him to a fight - only to be made short work of. 经验使人产生妄自尊大的错觉，向真正更庞大或更强壮的生物发起挑战，结果迅速被解决。第二个母题实际上是对第一个的部分反转；在这里，弱小或较弱的生物之所以产生这种妄自尊大的错觉，并非源于对自身的误判，而是因为那个更庞大或更优越的生物——例如（如我们在《古塔-帕纳》中看到的），他看到一头大象从自己面前逃跑，尽管是由于其他原因，却愚蠢地认为大象是在躲避他，于是追赶上去，向大象发起挑战——结果迅速被解决。
The first of these we find in Aesop’s The Wolf and the Lion (H.280, P.260). A wolf, roaming in a desolate place at sunset, sees his elongated shadow and asks why he should fear the lion when he is himself so huge - will he not himself easily be king of all the beasts? But as the wolf was talking in this way, a powerful lion seized him and devoured him. The idea of a dung beetle and soft dung is however to be found in a different fable of Aesop, The Two DungBeetles (H.185, C.149). 第一个母题我们可以在伊索的《狼与狮子》（H.280，P.260）中找到。一只狼在日落时分徘徊在荒凉之地，看到自己拉长的影子，心想自己如此巨大为何还要惧怕狮子——难道他不该轻易成为百兽之王吗？但就在狼这样自言自语时，一头强壮的狮子抓住并吞噬了他。然而，关于蜣螂和软粪的想法出现在伊索的另一则寓言《两只蜣螂》（H.185，C.149）中。
The second motif of which the Gutha-Pana Jataka is constituted has three elements. A big and formidable animal flees from some trivial thing which he fears or for which he has an aversion. The lesser creature misapprehends this as out of fear of himself and foolishly pursues and challenges that animal. Inevitably he is mauled or otherwise killed out of hand. 构成《古塔-帕那本生经》的第二个母题包含三个要素：一只庞大凶猛的动物因畏惧或厌恶某种微不足道的事物而逃窜；弱小的生物误以为对方是惧怕自己，愚蠢地追击并挑衅该猛兽；最终不可避免地遭到撕碎或当场毙命。
The relevant Aesopic fable is that of The Ass and the Lio H.323b), which is a variant of The Ass, the Cock and the Lion (3.323). A lion attacks an ass feeding in the company of a cock. The cock crows and the lion (for they say lions fear the crowing of cocks) turns tail and flees. The ass, thinking it is him the lion feared, gives chase. But when they are some distance out, the lion turns round and kills the ass and eats him. Both the foregoing Aesopic motifs are brought together in the jataka by pinning them on the selfsame dung-beetle, his delusions of grandeur and indeed Dutch courage, being inspired by the heady liquor he had consumed. The poetic justice with which the dung-beetle is disposed of by the elephant 与此对应的伊索寓言是《驴与狮》（H.323b），该故事为《驴、公鸡与狮子》（3.323）的变体。狮子袭击正与公鸡同食的驴时，公鸡突然啼鸣（据说狮子畏惧鸡鸣声），狮子遂转身逃窜。驴误以为狮子惧怕自己，便展开追击。待远离鸡群后，狮子转身咬死驴并饱餐一顿。上述两个伊索母题在本生经中通过同一只蜣螂得到融合——这只甲虫因饮用烈酒而陷入妄自尊大的幻觉，实则只是虚张声势。而大象处置蜣螂时展现的诗意公正
speaks eloquently for the wit and imagination of the author of this jataka. 生动体现了本生经作者的智慧与想象力。
10. More sequential than superimposed are the two Greek fable motifs that go to create the Nangutta Jutaka (No. 144), professed to have been narrated by the Buddha in illustration of the futility of sacrifice to the gods for the protection of oneself. Here the Bodhisatta, as a young brahmin tended his birth-fire in a forest. One day, minded to sacrifice an ox to the god of Fire, he went back to his native village to fetch salt, leaving the animal tied in the forest. But when he got back he found the ox killed and eaten by a band of hunters and nothing left of it but its tail and hide and shanks. Whereupon, exclaiming how a god who could not protect his own could be depended upon to look after his worshipper, he offers him the robbers’ leavings, throwing them into the fire, then puts the fire out and abandons such worship to become a recluse. 10. 相较于叠加式结构，希腊寓言的两个母题在《难伽陀本生经》（第 144 号）中更呈现为序列式组合。据传佛陀讲述此故事，旨在阐明祈求神灵庇佑而献祭的徒劳。故事中，菩萨转世为年轻婆罗门，在森林中守护出生圣火。某日，他决意向火神献祭公牛，遂返回村庄取盐，将牛拴于林中。待其归来时，发现猎人团伙已宰食此牛，仅余尾、皮与胫骨。菩萨遂慨叹道：连自身都难保的神明，焉能庇佑信徒？便将盗匪的残羹冷炙投入火中献祭，继而熄灭火堆，弃绝此类崇拜，遁入山林修行。
This motif of a god whose help is sought by a man over a robbery, only to hear that the god himself had been robbed and been powerless to thwart it is found in the Aesopic The Farmer who lost his Mattock (H.91, B.2) - the slight difference being that the jataka makes the thing the god could not protect for himself the very thing the man was going to sacrifice to him, whereas, in the Greek they are different property. A farmer, this fable says, was taking his servants to town to have them swear their innocence before the god over a theft of his mattock, when he heard a crier offering a reward to anyone who could give information concerning certain property robbed from that very god’s temple. Thereupon the farmer asks how the god can know about others when he did not know who stole his own property and was even offering a reward to a man to give him information about the burglary. 这一情节讲述一个人因遭窃而向神明求助，却得知神明自身也被盗且无力阻止，见于伊索寓言《丢失锄头的农夫》（H.91，B.2）——细微差别在于本生经中神明无法自保之物恰是此人准备向其献祭的物品，而希腊版本中两者是不同财物。寓言叙述一位农夫正带着仆人们进城，要他们在神明面前宣誓自己未偷锄头，忽闻传令官悬赏征集该神明庙宇失窃物品的线索。农夫当即质问：神明连自家财物被何人所盗都不知晓，甚至悬赏求人提供盗窃信息，又如何能知晓他人之事？
What the angry brahmin fire-worshipper rebukes the god with i.e. the leavings after the best has been consumed, has its prompting in another Aesopic fable, The Wayfarer and Hermes (H.315, C.260, P.178, Hs.188), though here it is told over a find, not a loss. A votary of Hermes (so like our votary of the god of Fire), setting out on a journey vows the half of everything he finds to Hermes, god of treasure and chance finds, then coming upon a wallet full of al- 愤怒的婆罗门火神信徒对神祇的斥责——即享用精华后的残渣——其灵感源自另一则伊索寓言《旅人与赫尔墨斯》（编号 H.315，C.260，P.178，Hs.188），尽管此处讲述的是发现而非遗失。一位赫尔墨斯的信徒（与我们故事中的火神信徒极为相似）在启程时立誓将所获财宝的一半献给这位掌管珍宝与机缘的神明，随后发现了一个装满杏……
monds and dates, he offers to the god the shells of the almonds and the sceds if the dates, observing that he was sacrificing to the god his share of both the insides and the outsides of what he found. 他将杏仁壳和枣核献给神明，声称自己是在向神明献祭所获之物的内外两部分。
Similar to the god who cannot protect what is his own but is assumed able to look after or recover those of others is the Aesopic fable of the fortune-teller who, while predicting the fortunes of others, has his own house burgled, upon which a man, seeing him run home, observes, “You fellow, you say you can foreknow the troubles of others - but your own you cannot predict!” This is fable called The Seer (C.233, H.286, P.161, Hs.170). 正如那位无法守护己物、却被认为能照料或寻回他人之物的神明一般，伊索寓言中也有个算命先生的故事：他正为他人占卜命运时，自家却遭了贼。有人见他往家跑，便说道："你这家伙，口口声声能预知他人祸福——却连自家的事都算不准！"这则寓言名为《预言家》（编号 C.233/H.286/P.161/Hs.170）。
11. Here we found the features of two fable-motifs brought together in a single jataka, the Nangutta, by making a god lose something of his own and a votary give the god the left-overs. In another jataka, the Mula Pariyaya (No. 245) however, the two constituent Graecizing motifs are found discrete in the two parts thereof. 11. 我们发现《南古塔本生经》将两个寓言母题融合为一：既让神明遗失自身之物，又使信徒以残羹供奉神明。而在另一部《根本分别本生经》（第 245 号）中，这两个希腊化母题则分别体现在故事的两个部分里。
In this jataka students, seeing their master (the Bodhisatta) seated beneath a jujube tree and desiring to revile him, tap upon the tree with their fingers and say “A worthless tree!” - hinting of course at their master. Thereupon he poses them a riddle, but none is able to answer - after which he rebukes them, and they admit his wisdom and crave his pardon. 这部本生经讲述学生们见导师（菩萨）坐在枣树下，欲加羞辱，便以指叩树道"此乃无用之木"——实为影射其师。导师遂出谜诘问，众人皆不能答，继而遭其训斥，终认其智而乞恕。
Small as is this jataka, the comments on the worthlessness of a tree looks back to the Aeospic fable of The Wayfarers and the Plane Tree (H.313, C.257), while the riddle the master poses to his impudent students recalls the fable Concerning Relaxation and Tension (Ph. iii. 14) which is found only as late as in Phaedrus but is narrated of the fabulist Aesop himself. 这部短小的本生经中，对树木价值的贬损令人联想到伊索寓言《旅人与梧桐树》（H.313，C.257）；而导师向无礼学生提出的谜题，则呼应了仅见于菲德鲁斯集的《论张弛之道》（Ph. iii. 14）——该寓言正是以说书人伊索本人为主角。
In The Wayfarers and the Plane Tree, two wayfarers, reclining in the shade of plane tree in the heat of noon observe to each other how worthless the plane is, that it is a tree which is of no service to 在《旅人与梧桐树》中，两名旅人于正午酷热时分斜倚在梧桐树荫下，彼此议论着这棵梧桐树多么无用，认为它是棵毫无价值的树
mankind and bears no fruit. Whereupon the plane tree replies: " O you ingrates, is it even while you enjoy my blessings that you call me useless and without benefit?" The jujube tree is, as Rouse observes ^(6){ }^{6}, quite beautiful in appearance, but contrasted with the coconut as regards usefulness. But, as observed of the jataka, trees are not humanized and in any case the students remark on the tree was directed against their master. However, the point worth noting is the similarity of the observation, their’s and the Greek wayfarers’, on a tree that is of no evident use to men. 人类却不结果实。”于是梧桐树回应道：“啊，你们这些忘恩负义之徒，难道在享受我的恩惠时，还要称我无用无益吗？”正如劳斯所指出的 ^(6){ }^{6} ，枣树的外表相当美丽，但在实用性方面却与椰子树形成鲜明对比。不过，正如本生经中所观察到的，树木并未被拟人化，无论如何，学生们对树木的评论都是针对他们的老师。然而，值得注意的是，他们与希腊旅人对一棵对人类显然无用的树木的评价有着相似之处。
In the Indian story however, the rejoinder comes, not from the tree, as well it should not, since the remark is bounced off it to the Bodhisatta - and again (as observed) since trees are treated as insensate and inarticulate in the jatakas. So it comes, as necessarily it must, form the Bodhisatta. And when it does, it comes both in the form of a riddle and with the Bodhisatta in the same capacity as the fabulist, Aesop, with it. Aesop, says Phaedrus, narrating the fable, was laughed at by a man for playing with children, whereupon he posed him with a riddle of an unstrung bow, the meaning of which the man was, like the Bodhisatta’s students with regard to the verbal riddle he had posed them, unable to comprehend. Punning on the Greek for ‘bow’ (bios) which also meant, differently accented, ‘life’, Aesop was implying by its unstrung (i.e relaxed) condition everyone’s need for relaxation. 然而在印度故事中，回应并非来自树木——这本该如此，因为那番话是反弹给菩萨的（正如前文所述，本生经中树木被视为无知无觉的存在）。因此回应必然来自菩萨。当回应出现时，既以谜语形式呈现，菩萨也如同寓言家伊索一般承担着说教者的角色。费德鲁斯记载，当伊索讲述寓言时，曾因与孩童嬉戏遭人嘲笑，他随即以松开的弓弦设谜，那人如同菩萨弟子面对语言谜题般无法参透。希腊语中"弓"（bios）与重音不同的"生命"同形，伊索借松弛的弓弦暗喻世人皆需适时放松。
This pun on the word bios appears to have been a popular one in Greece. The philosopher Heracleitus, to whom the bow was also symbolic of the equipoised tension of opposites in the cosmos, plays on the word once again when he wants to show the contradictory nature of things, stating that “the bow is called life but its work is death”. In Sophocles’ tragedy, Philoctetes, the play on the word occurs throughout, when the great bowman, Philoctetes, crippled by a snake-bite, pleads that his life is inseparable from his bow “You take my bow, you take my life”. Aesop’s riddle is thus both 希腊语中"bios"（生命/弓）的双关用法似乎颇为流行。哲学家赫拉克利特——对他而言弓也象征着宇宙中对立力量的平衡张力——当需要展现事物的矛盾本质时再次运用了这个双关语，声称"弓被称作生命，但其功用却是死亡"。在索福克勒斯的悲剧《菲罗克忒忒斯》中，这个文字游戏贯穿全剧：伟大的弓箭手菲罗克忒忒斯因蛇毒致残，他哀叹道"夺我弓者即夺我命"。因此，伊索的谜语既是对
an answer to the matter of his playing with children as well as shames the man who ridiculed him for it, whereas the Bodhisatta’s in the Mula Pariyaya merely belittles the knowledge of his pupils, which had made them assume they were all-knowing and made them so haughty as to consider him, their teacher, as useless as the jujube. ^(7){ }^{7} 他与孩童嬉戏之事的解答，也羞辱了嘲笑他的那个人；而《根本法门经》中菩萨的举动仅仅是为了贬低弟子们的学识——正是这种学识让他们自以为全知全能，傲慢到将授业恩师视若枣核般无用。 ^(7){ }^{7}
12. The last of the jatakas emulating Greek fable motifs which I bring up here - actually a pair of them - I shall deal with in some detail to show how they engage these motifs in their plots. These jatakas are the Kaka (No. 140) and Kapi (No. 404), i.e the ‘Crow Birth’ and ‘Monkey Birth’ respectively. Like the majority of such jatakas, they are both brief, the Kaka a bit longer than the Kapi, even if having a brief stanza to the seven couplets of the Kapi. The two jatakas are not only close parallels of each other but appear to be from one and the same hand, with portions less worked upon and dramatized in the one being looked after in the other. Thus, the perverse decision of the crow to befoul the head of the king’s chaplain in the Kaka Jataka is prefaced with a dialogue between this crow and another - which is quite absent in the case of the offending monkey of the Kapi Jataka. The Kapi Jataka, in its turn, dramatizes the announcement of the remedy for the burns caused to the elephants, while the Kaka keeps this down and instead, goes into an elaborate narration, more than twice the length of that of the Kapi, on how the elephants came to be burnt in the first place. The account of this in the Kapi Jataka is terse and economical. 12. 最后我要讨论的两则借鉴希腊寓言母本的本生经——实则是一对姊妹篇——我将详细阐述它们如何将这些母题融入情节。这两则本生经分别是《乌鸦本生》（第 140 号）与《猴王本生》（第 404 号）。与多数同类本生经相似，二者篇幅皆短，《乌鸦本生》虽比《猴王本生》略长，但其仅有简短偈颂，而后者则有七对诗偈。两则本生经不仅情节高度对应，且似出自同一手笔——其中一则未充分展开的戏剧化段落，在另一则中得到了补全。例如《乌鸦本生》中乌鸦执意玷污国王祭司头颅的乖张决定，前置了它与另一只乌鸦的对话；而《猴王本生》里冒犯的猴子却无此铺垫。反观《猴王本生》，它浓墨重彩地演绎了治疗大象烧伤之法的宣告场景；《乌鸦本生》则略过此节，转而以两倍于前者的篇幅，详尽叙述象群最初如何遭遇火焚的来龙去脉。 《猕猴本生经》对此事的记载简洁而精炼。
The Kaka Jataka is said to have been narrated by the Master while at Jetavana about “a sagacious councillor” - a point which will be adverted to later on. The jataka itself is as follows: ^(8){ }^{8} 《乌鸦本生经》据说是世尊在祇园精舍讲述的，内容关于"一位睿智的参事"——这一点后文将会提及。该本生故事如下： ^(8){ }^{8}
Once upon a time when Brahmadatta was reigning in Benares the Bodhisatta came to birth as a crow. One day the King’s chaplain went out of the city to the river, bathed there, and having perfumed 往昔波罗奈国由梵授王统治时，菩萨转生为乌鸦。一日，国王的祭司出城至河边沐浴，熏香
himself, decked himself with garlands, donned his best clothes and came back to the city. On the archway of the city gate there sat two crows; and one of them said to his mate, “I mean to foul this brahmin’s head”. “Oh, don’t do any such thing”, said the other, “for this brahmin is a great man, and it is a bad thing to incur the hatred of the great. If you anger him, he may destroy the whole of our species.” “I really must”, said the first. “Very well, you are sure to be found out”, said the other, and flew quickly away. Just when the brahmin was under the battlements, down dropped the fifth upon him as if the crow was dropping a festoon. Forthwith, the irate brahmin conceived a hatred against all crows. 后，戴上花环，身着华服返城。城门拱顶栖着两只乌鸦，其中一只对伴侣说："我定要在这婆罗门头上排便。""切勿如此，"另一只劝道，"这婆罗门乃显贵，触怒权贵祸患无穷。你若激怒他，恐将招致灭族之灾。""我非做不可，"前者坚持。"既如此，你必自食其果，"后者言罢迅疾飞离。正当婆罗门行至城垛下，乌鸦如投花环般将秽物精准降于其首。盛怒之下，婆罗门遂对天下乌鸦心生憎恶。
Now at this time it chanced that a slave girl in charge of a granary spread out the rice in the sun at the granary door and was sitting there watching it when she fell asleep. Just then, up came a shaggy goat and began to eat the rice until the girl got up and chased it away. Twice or three times the goat came back, as soon as she fell asleep, and ate the rice. So when she had driven the creature away for the third time, she thought to herself that the repeated visits of the goat would consume half her stock of rice and that she should take steps to scare the animal away once and for all and thus save herself from so great a loss. So, taking a lighted torch and sitting down, she pretended to fall asleep as usual. And when the goat was eating, she suddenly sprang up and hit its shaggy back with her torch. Immediately the shaggy hide was all ablaze, and to ease his pain the goat rushed into a hay-shed near the elephant-stables and rolled in the hay. So the shed caught fire, and the flames spread to the stables. As the stables caught fire, the elephants began to suffer, and a number of them were badly burnt and beyond the skill of the elephant-doctors to cure. When this was reported to the King, he asked the chaplain whether he knew what would cure the elephants. “Certainly, Sir, I do,” replied the chaplain, and being pressed to explain, said his nostrum was crows’ fat. Then the King ordered crows to be killed and their fat taken. And straightaway there was a huge slaughter of crows - but never was any fat found 那时恰巧有个管粮仓的婢女，正把稻谷摊在仓门口晒着，自己坐在一旁看守，不觉打起盹来。这时突然来了一只蓬毛山羊，开始偷吃稻谷，直到婢女惊醒将它赶跑。山羊趁她睡着又回来偷吃了两三次。第三次赶走山羊后，婢女心想这畜生反复来偷吃，怕是要糟蹋掉半仓粮食，得想个法子彻底吓退它，免得遭受这么大损失。于是她拿着点燃的火把坐下，假装像往常一样打盹。等山羊又来偷吃时，她突然跳起来，将火把砸向它蓬松的背脊。霎时间羊毛燃起熊熊火焰，山羊疼得乱窜，冲进象厩附近的干草棚里打滚。草棚立刻着火，火势蔓延到象厩。象厩起火后，群象遭殃，许多大象被严重烧伤，连象医也束手无策。 当国王得知此事，便询问祭司是否知晓医治大象的方法。"当然知道，陛下，"祭司答道。在追问之下，他声称自己的秘方是乌鸦脂肪。国王立即下令捕杀乌鸦取脂。霎时间乌鸦遭到大规模屠杀——却始终未能发现任何脂肪。
on them. And so they went on killing till dead crows lay in heaps everywhere; and great was the fear among all crows. 屠杀持续进行，死鸦堆积如山；乌鸦族群陷入巨大恐慌。
As would be seen, the Bodhisatta is no participant in the drama up to this point; he is not even - as well he could have been - the crow who advise the prankster against defecting on the chaplain. If he comes in at this stage of the story, then, it is merely to enlist it as a Buddhist one and associate it with the Buddha through his special power of birth-recollection. For, the jataka goes on to say that, when crows were being killed en masse in this way and fear came upon all crows, the Bodhisatta, as head of eighty thousand crows, took it upon himself to free his kinsfolk from their dread. So, reviewing the Ten Perfection’s and selecting therefrom Kindness (metta) as his guide, he flew to the King’s palace, entered his chamber and addressed him, saying that kings should investigate matters fully before acting, and then only do that which is salutary; in prescribing crows’ fat the chaplain was prompted by revenge : 0 lie; for crows have no fat. And when the King asked him how it was that crows did not have fat, the Bodhisatta repeated the stanza, the commentary of which is this particular jataka itself: 由此可见，菩萨直至此刻都未参与这场戏剧；他甚至未曾化身为那只劝阻恶作剧者背叛祭司的乌鸦——这本是他能力所及之事。若他在故事这一阶段介入，仅仅是为了将其纳入佛教体系，并通过他特有的宿命通力与佛陀产生关联。因为本生经继续讲述道：当乌鸦被如此大规模屠杀、恐惧笼罩所有乌鸦时，菩萨作为八万乌鸦的首领，主动承担起解救同族脱离恐惧的责任。于是他检视十波罗蜜，择取其中的"慈心"（metta）为指引，飞抵王宫，进入国王内室进言道：君王行事前应详查实情，只做有益之事；祭司提出乌鸦脂配方实为复仇驱使——此乃谎言，因乌鸦本无脂肪。当国王询问乌鸦为何无脂肪时，菩萨复诵偈颂，而这部本生经本身正是此偈颂的注释：
“In endless fear, with mankind all their foes, Their life is lived; and so no fat have crows.” "终日惶惶惧，举世皆仇敌；乌鸦无脂膘，缘由即在此。"
The plot of the Kapi Jataka is no different - only here monkeys take the place of crows, and the Bodhisatta, now king of a troop of five hundred monkeys (whom he had moved out of danger in good time) admonishes his fellows, not the King, the effect of his moralizing being. 《猕猴本生》的情节如出一辙——只不过此处猕猴取代了乌鸦的角色，而菩萨现为五百猴群之王（他早已及时将猴群迁离险境），训诫的对象是其同类而非国王，其道德教化的效果在于：
“Let not the wise man dwell among his foe; A night, two nights so near will bring him woe”. "智者勿居敌群中，一夕两夕祸必生。"
The two motifs, which go to build the ‘situation’ from which the moralizing is done in these jatakas, are clear enough. The one tells of how a person, to punish an animal which is causing loss or damage to that person, does something to the animal, which in turn does him/her greater loss or damage. The other tells of a creature who does an injury to another, which he cannot avenge; so our victim 构成这两个本生故事道德训诫"情境"的核心母题已十分明晰。其一讲述某人为了惩罚对其造成损失的动物，采取行动反招致更大灾祸；其二则描述某个生物伤害他人后无力报复，于是我们的受害者......
gets his own back on him through someone else, to whom he lies about the offender. 通过他人之手报复对方，并向此人编造关于冒犯者的谎言。
The first of these motifs is clearly that found in the Aesopic fable The Man and the Fox (H.61, C.58, P.283). This fable is as follows: 这些母题中第一个显然可见于伊索寓言《人与狐狸》（H.61，C.58，P.283）。该寓言内容如下：
A fox had angered a farmer by the damage that it did. So when he caught it, he thought he would make it pay dearly. So he tied some tow soaked in oil on the fox’s tail and set fire to it. But some god made the fox go into the captor’s corn-fields, which were ready for reaping, and all he could do was run after it, lamenting the loss of his harvest. 一只狐狸因破坏行为激怒了农夫。当农夫抓住它时，决定让它付出沉重代价。他将浸油的麻絮绑在狐狸尾巴上并点燃。但某位神明驱使狐狸冲进农夫待收割的麦田，农夫只能追着它跑，为损失的收成哀叹不已。
The Greek farmer’s action and its reaction seem genuine enough. Rutherford ^(9){ }^{9} draws attention to a reference in Ovid to the effect that a practice in the Games of Ceres (the goddess of corn) had its origin when a fox set fire to a crop as a result of a boy tying a torch to its tail. Nearly a millenium earlier, Samson (Judges 15) had done the same thing to destroy the crops of the Philistines; catching three hundred foxes, he tied them tail to tail with a firebrand in between, and let them loose into the standing corn, burning it up with much else. 希腊农夫的行为及其后果显得相当真实。卢瑟福 ^(9){ }^{9} 指出奥维德曾提及：克瑞斯（谷物女神）节庆中的某个仪式，其起源正是一个男孩将火把绑在狐狸尾巴上导致庄稼起火。更早近千年前，参孙（《士师记》15 章）也曾用同样方法摧毁非利士人的庄稼：他捉住三百只狐狸，将尾巴两两相绑并插入火把，放它们冲进待割的庄稼地，连带烧毁了许多其他东西。
The second of the motifs refers us to Aesop’s The Lion, the Wolf and the Fox (H.255, C.205, P.258, Hs.269). 第二个母题指向伊索寓言《狮子、狼与狐狸》（编号 H.255, C.205, P.258, Hs.269）。
An old lion lay sick in a cave, and all the animals came to visit their king, except the fox. The worf seized this opportunity to speak ill of the fox in the lion’s hearing, saying he had no respect for their lord and master, and that was why he had not even visited him. The fox himself arrived just in time to hear the last part of what the wolf was saying. The lion roared threateningly at him, but the fox begged leave to make his defence. “Which of the animals here assembled”, he asked, "has rendered you as great a service as I? I have travelled everywhere seeking from doctors a remedy for you ailment - and I 年迈的狮子卧病洞穴，百兽皆来朝觐君王，唯狐狸缺席。狼趁机在狮子耳边诋毁狐狸，称其藐视主上威严，故不屑前来探视。狐狸恰于此刻抵达，听闻狼的谗言尾声。狮子怒目咆哮，狐狸恳请陈情自辩："在场群兽"，它质问道，"有谁如我般献上大礼？我遍访名医为您寻治病良方——终有所获"。
have found one." The lion demanded to know then and there what the cure was. “You must skin a wolf alive”, replied the fox, “and put the hide on yourself while it is still warm”. In a moment the wolf was dead. “One should not provoke the master to ill feelings”, said the fox with a laugh, “but encourage his better feelings”. "速速道来！"狮子喝问。"需活剥狼皮"，狐狸应答，"趁热覆于尊体"。狼顷刻毙命。"莫撩主上嗔怒"，狐狸笑言，"当引其向善"。
The motif of the first Aesopic fable here came in handy to explain how there came to be a need of a nostrum - by the action of the granary-maid and the shaggy goat the king’s elephants had got burnt. The motif of our second fable holds out the manner in which the chaplain was able to get his revenge by having the king order the killing of crows. 第一则伊索寓言的主题在此被巧妙运用，用以解释为何需要特效药——由于粮仓女仆和长毛山羊的行为，国王的大象被烧死了。而我们第二则寓言的主题则展现了牧师如何通过让国王下令捕杀乌鸦来实施报复。
Notwithstanding the change of participants, circumstances and details, all the elements of the chaplain’s revenge are to be found in this second motif, as are all the elements of the affair of the gra-nary-maid and the goat to be found in the first. There is a party who is humiliated or injured by someone, from whom he is unable to take revenge; there is the powerful person requiring a cure for an ailment, which he himself (or someone else) has suffered; the humiliated or injured party, to obtain revenge, thereupon prescribes an extract from the body of his enemy; immediately the offending party or enemy is set upon and killed and the offended gets his revenge through his shrewd lie. 尽管参与者、情境和细节有所变化，但牧师报复行动的所有要素都能在这第二则主题中找到，正如粮仓女仆与山羊事件的所有要素都体现在第一则主题中。故事中总有一方遭受他人羞辱或伤害，却无力直接报复；总有一位权贵需要治疗某种病症（这病症或是他本人或他人所患）；受辱或受伤的一方为实施报复，便开出需要从仇敌身上提取的药方；冒犯者或仇敌随即遭到捕杀，受辱者通过巧妙的谎言完成了复仇。
It is the nature of the nostrum recommended for the ailment - an extract form the body of the enemy, be it crow-fat, monkey-fat or wolf-skin that is the hall-mark of this particular motif. Thus, an interesting narration of this motif, with a goat in place as in the jataka, is identifiable in the Aesopic fable of The Goat and the Ass (H.18, C.16, P.279). Here, a veterinary doctor prescribes broth made from goat’s lung for an ass, which the goat, jealous of the quantity of food the ass was receiving from his master, malignantly advised to fall into a pit and injure himself and thus earn a rest from toil. So the master killed the goat to cure the ass! 这种疗方推荐的本质在于提取敌人身体的成分——无论是乌鸦脂肪、猴子脂肪还是狼皮——正是这一特定母题的标志。因此，在伊索寓言《山羊与驴》（H.18，C.16，P.279）中可辨识出与本生经中山羊角色相同的趣味叙述：一位兽医为驴子开具了山羊肺熬制的汤药，而那只因嫉妒主人给予驴子大量食物怀恨在心的山羊，竟恶毒地怂恿驴子跳入坑中自伤以逃避劳役。最终主人宰杀了山羊来医治驴子！
It may actually be this Aesopic variant which influenced the author of the Pancatantra in his own redaction of the Kapi Jataka (i.e ‘The Unforgiving Monkey’), for there too the victim’s flesh is sought, not as a bogus remedy of a diabolical inspiration but as a salve prescribed by a standard work on veterinary science for burns to horses - there the burnt animals are horses, not elephants). ^(10){ }^{10} The monkeys give no provocation to anybody to deliberately get at them; like goat’s lung in Aesop, monkey-fat just happened to be the prescribed remedy. 很可能是这个伊索寓言版本影响了《五卷书》作者对《猕猴本生》（即"不宽恕的猴子"）的改编——在那里受害者被索要的肉体组织，并非作为魔鬼启示的虚假疗法，而是兽医典籍中记载的治疗马匹烧伤的标准药膏（此处被烧伤的动物是马而非大象）。 ^(10){ }^{10} 猴子们并未主动招惹任何人；就像伊索寓言中的山羊肺脏那样，猴脂恰好就是药方指定的治疗材料。
What connects the two separate incidents of the Kaka and Kapi that of the granary-maid and that of the chaplain, are the elephants and their burns. The former tells how the elephants came to get burnt, the latter how the chaplain made use of these burns to get his revenge from the crows - or monkeys, as the case may be. 将《乌鸦本生》与《猕猴本生》这两个独立事件——粮仓女仆事件与祭司事件——联系起来的，正是大象及其烧伤。前者讲述大象如何被烧伤，后者则描述祭司如何利用这些烧伤向乌鸦（或视情况而言的猴子）实施报复。
It would however have been noticed that the two motifs used are not successive, but that one is cleverly inset in the other to explain a detail in that other. This latter motif, which is thus the main one, falls apart in two and, as it were, brackets the subsidiary motif. Here we have evidence in the jataka of the origination of that highly complex technique of escatalation that we encounter afterwards in the Pancatantra, the Katha literature and the Hitopadesa in India, with one or more stories emboxed in a frame-story, or a number of them set one inside the other in the manner of Russian dolls. 然而我们应当注意到，这两个母题并非简单并列，而是将一个巧妙地嵌套在另一个之中，用以解释主体故事的细节。作为核心的后者母题自身分裂为二，如同括号般将次要母题包裹其间。本生经在此展现了印度文学中那种高度复杂的嵌套叙事技法的雏形——这种技法后来在《五卷书》、故事文学及《益世嘉言》中臻于成熟，表现为框架故事内嵌一个或多个子故事，或如俄罗斯套娃般层层相嵌的叙事结构。
The moral of the Kapi Jataka, addressed to his fellow monkeys by the Bodhisatta, is that the wise should not dwell where dwell their foes: the ultimate lesson of the Kaka, on the other hand, is that kings should act circumspectly, examining and knowing a matter completely before they do so - and then only do what is salutary. But the Kaka, like the more popular Nalapana Jataka, has also an aetiological dimension in common with a number of Greek fables 《猕猴本生》中菩萨对猴群的训诫在于：智者不应与仇敌比邻而居；而《乌鸦本生》的根本教谕则是：君王行事须审慎周全，唯有彻底洞察事理后方可行动——且只应施行有益之举。但《乌鸦本生》与更广为人知的《那罗波奈本生》相似，还与诸多希腊寓言共享着对事物起源的解说维度。
Bk. iv. 911 - Considered Actions. Sce A.W.Ryder transl., Jaico Books ed. Bombay - Culcutta (1949) p. 390-391. In this story the raider is made a greedy ram, and the offended are the king’s cooks. 第四卷 911 - 深思熟虑之举。参见 A.W.莱德译本，贾科图书版，孟买-加尔各答（1949 年）第 390-391 页。此故事中劫掠者被塑造成贪婪的公羊，而受冒犯者则是御厨。
of the Aesopic mode, for example, the Zeus and the Tortoise we saw above. For the Kaka purports to explain why crows have no fat - which, in a way, ties it up to the reason which gives the Kapi Jataka its moral, i.e. that dwelling with those who are one’s foes is not good for one’s health; the wise would not do so, lest they lose, not only their fat but their lives as well. This is what Devadatta (as a rival monkey-leader, who would not lead his retinue to safety) learnt to his cost and theirs. 以伊索式寓言为例，如前文所述的宙斯与乌龟。乌鸦故事旨在解释为何乌鸦体内无脂肪——某种程度上这与《猕猴本生》的寓意相通，即与敌为邻有害健康；智者不蹈此覆辙，以免不仅失脂膏，更丧性命。提婆达多（作为敌对猴群首领，未能带领部属脱险）便付出了惨痛代价，使其徒众同受其害。
CHAPTER VIII 第八章
TWO LYING MONKEYS CONVERSION, INVERSION AND LOCALIZATION 两猴诳语：故事形态的转换、倒置与本土化
Although he recognized the presence of several Greek fable motifs in the stories of the Pancatantra, as observed before, Theodor Benfey had not the benefit of knowing the Buddhist source which he suspected lay behind this work. Rhys-Davids, for his part, had translated and observed the parallelisms with Greek motifs of only forty of the jatakas, then using the fable compilation of Planudes, a monk of Constantinople of the first half of the fourteenth century, and two supplementary collections, all totaling 231 , which he found edited by T.U.Schneider in 1812, and which he does not trace back to a date beyond that of Babrius, except in the instance of early fables which appeared in classical Greek literature. However, as I had occasion to remark earlier, even when the number of fables discovered through other manuscripts came to be more than double that, several jatakas with motifs comparable to motifs in them appear to have gone undetected for the reason that they were not easily apprehended due either to the consummate rehandling of the motifs themselves or the transformations of details or the change of participants - if not indeed all these. (This is of course beside the possibility that the whole range of stories on either side had not been known or otherwise taken into cognizance by the respective scholars.) 尽管如前所述，西奥多·本菲已意识到《五卷书》故事中存在若干希腊寓言母题，但他未能接触到其怀疑潜藏在该作品背后的佛教源头。而里斯·戴维斯仅翻译并比对了四十则本生经与希腊母题的对应关系，其所用素材来自十四世纪上半叶君士坦丁堡修士普拉努得斯编纂的寓言集及两部补编，共计 231 则——这些材料由 T.U.施耐德于 1812 年编辑出版，除却那些早见于古希腊文学的寓言外，他未能将其溯源至巴布里乌斯时代之前。但正如我曾指出的，即便后来通过其他手稿发现的寓言数量翻倍，仍有若干具有相似母题的本生经未被察觉，究其原因，若非母题本身的精妙重构、细节嬗变或角色更替所致，便是这些因素共同作用使得它们难以被辨识。 （当然，这并不排除双方学者可能尚未知晓或未充分考虑过对方流传的整个故事体系。）
In this chapter I will discuss one such jataka (and its Greek fable counterpart) to show how the rehandling of both motif and detail, not to mention characters, have succeeded in disguising the basic motif derived from the Greek original. The jataka concerned is the Vanara Jataka, (of which the Sumsumara Jataka is a somewhat more expanded version,) and the corresponding Greek fable, The Monkey and the Dolphin. (C.305, H.363, P.73, Hs.75). 本章我将通过分析一个本生经故事（及其对应的希腊寓言），来展示两者如何通过对情节母题、细节乃至角色的重构，成功掩盖了源自希腊原型的核心母题。所讨论的是《猕猴本生》（其扩展版本为《鳄鱼本生》），对应的希腊寓言则是《猴子与海豚》（编号 C.305/H.363/P.73/Hs.75）。
In the order in which the two jatakas appear, the Sumsumara precedes the Vanara; the former is No. 208 and the latter No. 342. One might therefore be led to suppose that the Vanara is a condensed version of the Sumsumara. The order of the jatakas of the Jatakatthavannana is however determined by the number of gatha upon which it is commentarial (- the Sumsumara is upon two, the Vanara upon three), so that when one takes this along with the fact that the Vanara still has all the ingredients necessary for the motif, plus also the brevity and terseness of a basic fable, (which, like the Aesopica leave the individual narrator to elaborate upon it if he likes, in the way he likes) it cannot but take preference over the Sumsumara as the Indian prototype. 按照两部本生经出现的顺序，《鳄鱼本生》先于《猿猴本生》——前者编号 208，后者编号 342。因此人们可能会认为《猿猴本生》是《鳄鱼本生》的浓缩版本。然而《本生经注》的排序依据的是注释所对应的偈颂数量（《鳄鱼本生》对应两首，《猿猴本生》对应三首）。考虑到《猿猴本生》不仅完整保留了该故事母题的所有要素，还具有基础寓言特有的简洁凝练（如同《伊索寓言》般，留给讲述者自由发挥的空间），它作为印度原型的地位必然优于《鳄鱼本生》。
It is for this reason and for the reason also that it approximates to the simplicity and extent of the comparable version of the Aesopic fable, The Monkey and the Dolphin, that I shall use the Vanara for the present discussion, adverting to the Sumsumara and the other versions of the story, the Pancatantra’s ‘The Monkey and the Crocodile’ ^(1){ }^{1}, the Kathasaritsagara’s similar account and the Markata Jataka of the Mahavastu (ii. 246 f.) as and when I need to make a point involving some quality or detail in them that bears on the Vanara or the corresponding Greek fable. 正是基于这一原因，同时也因为它与伊索寓言《猴子与海豚》的简洁性和广泛传播性相近似，我将在本次讨论中采用《瓦纳拉本生经》作为主要文本。在需要论证涉及《瓦纳拉》或相应希腊寓言某些特质或细节时，我会适时参照《苏姆苏马拉本生经》及其他故事版本——包括《五卷书》中的"猴子与鳄鱼" ^(1){ }^{1} 、《故事海》中的相似记载，以及《大事·猕猴本生》（第二卷 246 页及后续）的相关内容。
The Vanara, we are given to understand by the paccuppannavatthu thereof, was narrated by the Buddha when he was resident in the Bamboo Grove, while the Sumsumara is attributed to him during his residence at Jetavana. Though the former is called the ‘Monkey Jataka’ and the latter the ‘Crocodile Jataka’, both are apparently narrated of that same past life when the proverbial Brahmadatta was ruling in the proverbial Benares and the Bodhisatta was born as a monkey in the Himalayas - the provocation for the narration on both occasions being the Buddha’s hearing of attempts made by his persistent enemy, Devadatta to kill him. What the Master said on that occasion in the Bamboo Grove (using the English translation 根据《本生经》所述，《猕猴本生》是佛陀驻锡竹林精舍时所讲，而《鳄鱼本生》则归于他在祇园精舍时期的说法。虽然前者被称为"猴本生"，后者为"鳄本生"，但两者显然讲述的是同一前世——当传说中的梵授王统治着传说中的波罗奈国时，菩萨转生为喜马拉雅山中的一只猕猴。两次说法的缘起，都是佛陀听闻宿敌提婆达多屡次企图杀害他。世尊在竹林精舍时所言（采用英译本）
Once upon a time, when Brahmadatta reigned in Benares, the Bodhisatta came to life as a young monkey in the Himalaya region. And when fully grown he lived on the banks of the Ganges. Now a certain female crocodile in the Ganges conceived a longing for the flesh of the Bodhisatta’s heart, and told it to her husband. He thought, “I will kill the Bodhisatta by plunging him in the water and will take his heart’s flesh and give it to my wife”. So he said to the Bodhisatta, “Come, my friend, we will go and eat wild fruit on a certain island”. 从前，波罗奈城由梵授王统治时，菩萨转世为喜马拉雅山区的一只幼猴。成年后，他居住在恒河岸边。当时恒河里有条雌鳄对菩萨的心脏产生了贪念，便将此念头告诉了丈夫。雄鳄暗想："我要把他拖入水中淹死，挖出心脏给妻子吃。"于是对菩萨说道："来吧朋友，我带你去岛上吃野果。"
“How shall I get there?” he said. "我该怎么过去呢？"猴子问道。
“I will put you on my back and bring you there”, answered the crocodile. "你骑在我背上，我驮你过去。"鳄鱼回答。
Innocent of the crocodile’s purpose he jumped on his back and sat there. The crocodile, after swimming a little way, began to dive. Then the monkey said, “Why, Sir, do you plunge me into the water?” 不知鳄鱼险恶用心的猴子跳上其背。鳄鱼游出一段后突然下潜。猴子急忙喊道："先生为何要把我沉入水中？"
“I am going to kill you”, said the crocodile, “and give your heart’s flesh to my wife”. “我要杀了你，”鳄鱼说道，“把你心脏的肉献给我的妻子。”
“Foolish fellow”, said he, “do you suppose my heart is inside me?” “愚蠢的家伙，”它说，“你以为我的心长在身体里吗？”
“Then where have you put it?” “那你把它放在哪儿了？”
“Do you not see it hanging there on yonder fig-tree?” “难道你没看见它就挂在那边的无花果树上吗？”
“I see it”, said the crocodile. “But will you give it me?” “我看见了，”鳄鱼说，“但你会把它给我吗？”
“Yes, I will”, said the monkey. “是的，我会的，”猴子回答。
Then the crocodile - so foolish was he - took him and swam to the foot of the fig-trees on the river bank. The Bodhisatta, 于是那条愚蠢的鳄鱼驮着他游向河岸的无花果树。菩萨
springing from the crocodile’s back, perched on the fig-tree and repeated the stanzas: 从鳄鱼背上一跃而起，栖在无花果树上，反复吟诵偈颂：
Have I from water, fish, to dry land passed Only to fall into thy power at last? Of breadfruit and rose apples I am sick And rather figs than yonder mangoes pick. He that to great occasion fails to rise 'Neath foeman’s feet in sorrow prostrate lies: One prompt a crisis in his fate to know Needs never dread oppression from his foe 难道我逃离水中鱼群登上旱地，终究还是落入你的掌控？我已厌倦面包果与玫瑰苹果，宁选无花果也不摘远处芒果。错失良机者终将匍匐敌前，命运关头能明辨之人，永不必畏惧对手的压迫
Thus did the Bodhisatta in these four stanzas tell how to succeed in worldly affairs, and forthwith disappeared in the thicket of trees. 菩萨便以这四偈讲述世间事业成功之道，随即隐入丛林深处。
The Master, having brought his lesson to an end, identified the Birth: “At that time Devadatta was the Crocodile, and I myself was the monkey.” 世尊结束开示后点明本缘："那时提婆达多是鳄鱼，而我正是那只猴子。"
No reason is given in the Vanara why the crocodile’s mate desired the heart of the monkey; it may be from simple greed or a pregnancy desire. The Sumsumara supplies that it was from the sight of the Bodhisatta’s great size; the Pancatantra says it was from a notion that his heart was sweet, resulting from the monkey’s diet of (here) rose-apple. The Markata makes the desire only a ruse of the female crocodile to have the monkey killed on account of her jealousy of her husband’s close friendship with him (- at first she suspected he was consorting with another mistress - which, in the Pancatantra, brings the two ideas together and suggests that the mistress was the monkey, who was a female!) Not surprisingly, in the Markata it is the female crocodile who prompts the crocodile with the ruse with which to inveigle the monkey, a land creature, into the water - making the narrator here, with characteristic disdain of women, exclaim: 《瓦纳拉本生经》中未解释鳄鱼伴侣为何渴望得到猴心，可能源于单纯的贪婪或孕期渴望。《苏姆苏马拉本生经》称是因目睹菩萨化身的巨猴体型；《五卷书》则归因于猴子以玫瑰苹果为食，令鳄鱼产生其心脏甘美的臆想。《马尔卡塔本生经》将这种渴望诠释为雌鳄的诡计——因嫉妒丈夫与猴子的亲密友谊而欲除之（起初她怀疑丈夫另结新欢，而《五卷书》将两种动机结合，暗示情敌正是这只雌猴！）。不出所料，《马尔卡塔本生经》中正是雌鳄教唆丈夫用计诱骗陆生猴子入水——讲述者在此以典型的女性蔑视口吻感叹道：
“Nobles have a hundred wiles, the brahmins two hundred. "贵族诡计百般，婆罗门两百有余。
The wiles of kings are a thousand; those of women without number.” 帝王心术千重，妇人狡诈无穷。"
This is not the only variation the original story in India undergoes. The Markata proceeds to a description of how the monkey was to ride the crocodile, which quite destroys the grand image that naturally comes to mind from the Vanara and Sumsumara, of a monkey squatting upright upon or seated upright astraddle the swimming water-beast. For the Markata has the monkey lying prone upon the crocodile’s back, gripping his head. But when in the water, the crocodile, for all his grip, shakes the monkey off into the water, whereas both versions of the Jatakatthavannana suggest a slow submerging of the crocodile, with time enough for the monkey’s puzzlement and alarm, time enough for him to question the crocodile as to his behaviour, and without also the need for the crocodile to get him on his back again. 这并非印度原版故事中唯一的变体。《猴鳄本生》继续描述了猴子如何骑在鳄鱼背上，这一描述彻底颠覆了《猴鳄本生经》中自然浮现的宏伟画面——猴子直身蹲坐或跨坐在游动的水兽背上。因为该版本让猴子俯卧在鳄鱼背部，紧紧抓住鳄鱼头部。但当入水后，尽管猴子紧抓不放，鳄鱼仍将其甩落水中；而两种版本的《本生经注》都暗示鳄鱼是缓慢下沉的，给予猴子足够的时间感到困惑与惊慌，让他有余裕质问鳄鱼的异常行为，且无需鳄鱼再次将其驮回背上。
Again, in the Vanara the monkey points to something on the figtree, which the crocodile claims to see and takes to be the monkey’s heart. The Sumsumara identifies this as a cluster of figs hanging from the tree. The Markata has nothing to show - in any event the crocodile here could not have been fooled by figs, since it was by feeding him with figs that the monkey struck up that near-fatal friendship with him - so that the crocodile takes him at his word, with no demonstration of anything like a heart hanging upon the tree. The Pancatantra, which makes the tree and fruit rose-apple instead of fig, varies the detail also by speaking of the sought-after heart as lying in a hole in that tree, and thus quite out of sight. 同样，在《瓦纳拉》故事中，猴子指着无花果树上的某物，鳄鱼声称看见并误以为是猴子的心脏。《苏姆苏马拉》版本将其明确描述为树上垂落的无花果串。而《马尔卡塔》版本中猴子根本未展示任何实物——毕竟此处的鳄鱼不可能被无花果欺骗，因为猴子正是通过喂食无花果才与它建立起那段险些致命的情谊——因此鳄鱼直接采信了猴子的话，无需任何类似心脏悬挂树上的演示。《五卷书》将树木及其果实改为玫瑰苹果而非无花果，并通过描述被寻找的心脏藏于树洞中这一细节实现变体，使目标物完全处于视线之外。
Most important for the monkey’s lie is why he came to leave his heart behind. The Vanara implies it is something anyone should have known, that monkey’s did not carry their hearts with them; naturally he calls the crocodile “foolish fellow” and the crocodile for his parts accepts it. For the Sumsumara even such a stupid creature as the crocodile needs a reason to accept this peculiar phenomenon of monkeys (as against other animals) and so has our monkey adding: 猴子谎言最关键之处在于其离弃心脏的理由。《瓦纳拉》暗示这是常识：猴子本就不随身携带心脏；他自然称鳄鱼为"蠢货"，而鳄鱼也坦然接受。在《苏姆苏马拉》版本中，即便是鳄鱼这般愚钝的生物也需要合理解释才能接受猴子（与其他动物不同）这种奇特生理现象，因此让猴子补充道：
If reason there needs to be, this is good elaboration and bases itself on a distinctive characteristic of monkeys as against other creatures; the crocodile would accept it as plausible. The Markata, on the other hand, wants to be innovative and clever at the same time, so it comes up with the explanation on the part of the monkey that would indeed have surprised the crocodile and even raised his suspicion! For it looks as, not something either characteristic or habitual of monkeys in general but done by our monkey alone - and for this particular occasion. The monkey tells the crocodile that he left his coveted heart on the fig-tree so that he could lighten himself for the crocodile’s benefit. In the Pancatantra the monkey does not deny he brought his heart along - no, only that he has a second heart, which is the one sweetened by eating rose-apples, and unfortunately it was not this that he was just then wearing! 若需理由，这番说辞可谓精妙，且基于猴子有别于其他生物的显著特性；鳄鱼会认为其言之成理。而马克拉塔猴却想同时展现创新与机敏，于是编造出这番连鳄鱼都会惊讶甚至起疑的解释！因为这看似并非猴类共性或习性，而是我们这只猴子专为此刻独创的行为。猴子告诉鳄鱼，自己将垂涎已久的心脏留在无花果树上，以便减轻体重成全鳄鱼。在《五卷书》中，猴子并未否认携带心脏同行——只是声称自己拥有第二颗被玫瑰苹果滋养的甜心，可惜此刻佩戴的并非此物！
So much for the significant differences which the story developed in India once the anonymous author of the jataka of the Jatakatthavannana had formulated it out of the motif which, as I suspect, owed itself to a fable attributed to Aesop. Now I give my own literal translation of this latter from the Greek. ^(3){ }^{3} 以上便是《本生经》故事在印度发展过程中呈现出的显著差异——这些差异源于《本生经疏》无名作者对某个主题的演绎。据我推测，该主题本身可能借鉴了伊索寓言。接下来我将呈现这个希腊故事的直译版本。 ^(3){ }^{3}
It was a practice among sailors to take on board ship Maltese lap-dogs and monkeys to while away their time during a voyage. So a certain sailor took with him a monkey. When they were off Cape Sunion on the coast of Attica, there arose a violent storm. The ship capsized and everyone had to jump overboard and swim, including the monkey. However, a dolphin, seeing him and thinking him to be a man, took him on his back and carried him towards land. On reaching Piraeus, the port of the Athenians, the dolphin asked the monkey whether he was an Athenian by birth. When the monkey said he was, adding that his parents happened to be well known in the city, the dolphin inquired of him whether he knew Piraeus too. The monkey, thinking that the dolphin was inquiring about a man, replied that he was a good friend and comrade of his. This big bluff so irked the dolphin that he toppled the monkey into the water 水手们常会在船上饲养马耳他小犬和猴子，以消磨航程中的时光。某位水手便带了只猴子同行。当船航行至阿提卡海岸的苏尼翁角附近时，突遇猛烈风暴。船只倾覆，众人纷纷跳海逃生，猴子也不例外。有只海豚看见它，误以为是人类，便驮着它游向陆地。抵达雅典人的港口比雷埃夫斯时，海豚问猴子是否生于雅典。猴子声称确实如此，还补充说父母在城里颇有名望。海豚又问它是否认识比雷埃夫斯。猴子以为对方在打听某个人，便回答说那是自己的挚友伙伴。这番弥天大谎惹恼了海豚，它当即把猴子掀入水中。
Like the fascinating fable of The Foxes at the River Maeander (H.30, C.29), this fable of the monkey and the dolphin is located in an identified geographical setting - that stretch of the coast of Attica between Cape Sunion and the port of Athens, though of course such precise localization is only incidental and could be, within limits, changed without affecting the motif. One such limitation could be the participants. For instance, a crocodile, though possible in the sea ^(4)^{4}, is not likely in the sea off the coast of Attica. The same would indeed be true of the monkey, which is why the fable is at pains to explain the circumstances by which a monkey came to be there. Indeed, it is the very unfamiliarity of dolphins in Greek waters with monkeys that is the raison d’etre of our dolphin’s misunderstanding. And even when he casts the monkey off into the sea, it is not because of his discovery of his mistake but because the rescuee’s blatant lie disgusted him. 如同《迈安德河边的狐狸》（H.30，C.29）这个引人入胜的寓言一样，这个关于猴子和海豚的寓言也设定在一个明确的地理环境中——即阿提卡海岸从苏尼翁角到雅典港之间的那段海域。当然，如此精确的地理定位只是偶然的，在某种程度上可以更改而不会影响故事主题。其中一个限制因素可能是参与者。例如，鳄鱼虽然可能出现在海中 ^(4)^{4} ，但在阿提卡海岸附近的海域却不太可能出现。猴子也是如此，这就是为什么寓言要费心解释猴子出现在那里的原因。事实上，正是希腊水域的海豚对猴子的陌生，才导致了我们这只海豚的误解。即使当它将猴子抛入海中时，也不是因为它发现了自己的错误，而是因为被救者的无耻谎言让它感到厌恶。
Corresponding to this, we find effort being taken in the jataka to explain the circumstances in which a monkey, a land animal, came to be riding a crocodile in the middle of water. The fact is that, like the monkey in the Greek fable, the Bodhisatta as monkey too was being transported through water to land upon the back of a water-creature - that further shore where grew luscious fruits aplenty. 与此相对应，我们发现本生经中着力解释了一只陆生动物猴子为何会骑在鳄鱼背上身处水中央。事实上，正如希腊寓言中的猴子那样，菩萨化身的猴子也是通过水生生物的背脊渡水登岸——那片长满丰美果实的彼岸。
The chief factor which links the monkey of the Indian jataka to the Greek fable is of course the fact of his being a monkey. Nor is this any casual monkey, but one who rides the water on a water-beast. Not only so, but one who, in the course of that ride, whacks a thumping lie - one which, in the case of the fable’s monkey, loses him his life, but in the case of the jataka monkey (- and here is inversion) wins him his. 将印度本生经中的猴子与希腊寓言联系起来的关键因素，自然是其猴子的身份。这并非普通的猴子，而是一只骑在水兽背上渡水的猴子。不仅如此，在渡水过程中它还撒了个弥天大谎——这个谎言让寓言中的猴子丧了命，却让本生经中的猴子（此处出现情节反转）保住了性命。
Monkeys in Aesopic fable, as observed before, are always tailless apes rather than the long-tailed monkeys met in the jataka. This fact, as we saw, was illustrated by the fable in which a monkey asks for a piece of tail from a fox to cover his naked buttocks ^(5){ }^{5}. These monkeys (or apes) came from the Near East and were reared in Greece and Rome as pets, neither land having monkeys as indigenous creatures even in that antiquity. Nor is the monkey of these fables - as pointed out earlier, a creature known for intelligence or cunning; he is ugly, imitative, clumsy and stupid. So that he is, in another fable, made a fool of by the creature who is the one instead reputed for the qualities of intelligence and cunning - the fox. ^(6){ }^{6} It is not out of character, then, that the monkey who went along with the dolphin’s mistake is caught out in his bluff. On the other hand, the monkey was perhaps the most favoured of animals in Buddhist India (with the exception of the elephant, that is), so much so that it is, as we saw, as a monkey that the Bodhisatta had taken birth the most number of times in the jatakas. And among the animal’s virtues (though he is a rascal at times) intelligence counted as one, as for example, in the well-known Nalapana Jataka, and again, in the companion to our Vanara and the Sumsumara, the Vanarinda Jataka, in which the Bodhisatta, as a monkey, once again outwits a crocodile. Thus, the retention of the monkey of the Aesopic fable by our jataka writer is happily consistent with the creature’s fortunes in the respective stories. 正如先前所述，伊索寓言中的猴子总是无尾猿，而非本生经里常见的长尾猴。我们曾通过一则寓言印证过这一事实：猴子向狐狸讨要一截尾巴来遮盖光秃的臀部 ^(5){ }^{5} 。这些猴子（或称猿类）源自近东地区，被希腊和罗马人当作宠物饲养——即便在那远古时代，这两片土地上也并无原生的猴类。正如前文指出，这些寓言中的猴子并非以智慧或狡黠著称的生物；它们丑陋、善仿、笨拙且愚蠢。因此在另一则寓言中，它被真正以聪慧狡诈闻名的生物——狐狸——戏耍得团团转 ^(6){ }^{6} 。如此看来，那只顺承海豚误解而最终被拆穿谎言的猴子，其行为倒也符合本性。反观佛教盛行的印度，猴子（除大象外）或许是最受青睐的动物，乃至我们发现菩萨在本生经中化身猴子的次数最为频繁。 在这些动物的美德中（尽管它有时是个捣蛋鬼），智慧被视作重要特质，比如著名的《奈拉帕那本生经》中，以及与我们《瓦纳拉与苏姆苏马拉本生经》相呼应的《瓦纳林达本生经》里，菩萨化身为猴子再次智胜鳄鱼。因此，本生经作者保留伊索寓言中猴子的角色，与这些故事中该生物的命运巧妙地保持了一致。
To turn to the water-creature - our Greek fable is about a dolphin from choice, not from the incompatibility of a crocodile in the waters of the Aegean. Crocodiles were not found in Greece in historic times, and though Herodotus takes it upon himself to describe the beast for the benefit of those who may not have been clear about its appearance and nature, it must have been well known to all those Greeks who had visited Egypt following the establishment of the emporium, Naucratis, by the Milesians in the Delta ^(7){ }^{7}. Two of the 再来看水生生物——我们的希腊寓言选择以海豚为主角，并非因为鳄鱼与爱琴海水域不相容。历史上希腊本土并不存在鳄鱼，尽管希罗多德曾为不清楚其外形习性的人详细描述过这种生物。但对于那些在米利都人于尼罗河三角洲建立贸易站诺克拉提斯后到访过埃及的希腊人而言，鳄鱼必定是众所周知的。其中两则......
three or four Greek fables of Aesopic mode involving crocodiles have their setting by the Nile. India too appears to have recognized in the crocodile the two qualities of mercilessness and greed, mixed with a degree of stupidity - which is why it recommends itself as incarnations of Devadatta but never as of the Bodhisatta. But whoever our jataka author was of the Vanara, like the rest he display a good knowledge of animal behaviour when he discloses how the crocodile here intended to kill the monkey - for crocodiles generally do so by dragging their victims underwater and drowning them. 三四个以尼罗河为背景的伊索式希腊寓言涉及鳄鱼。印度似乎也认同鳄鱼兼具无情与贪婪的特质，并掺杂着几分愚蠢——正因如此，它常被描绘为提婆达多的化身，却从未成为菩萨的转世。但无论我们这位《本生经》中猿猴故事的作者是谁，和其他作者一样，他对动物行为有着深刻认知：当描述鳄鱼企图杀害猴子时——因为鳄鱼通常会将猎物拖入水中溺毙——其刻画显得尤为真实。
This same intimate knowledge of animal behaviour provides the basis of the fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin. For, the Greeks, a sea-faring people who ran across dolphins in their sea-voyages, registered the friendship these fishes showed towards human beings. The best story of this is of course that narrated by the historian Herodotus of the dithyrambic poet, Arion, to the effect that when forced to leap off the ship in which he was travelling by the crew, he was carried ashore to Taenarum by a dolphin. The type on the coins of the city of Tarentum, the city in South Italy from which Arion had then put out to sea, also shows its founder, Taras, astride a dolphin. Vase-paintings, statuettes and other objets d’art exist which show men riding dolphins, or women astride sea-monsters the latter imitated in series of plaques found in Gandhara. ^(8){ }^{8} 对动物行为的同样深入了解，构成了《猴子与海豚》这则寓言的基础。对于航海民族希腊人而言，他们在远航途中常与海豚相遇，并记录下这种鱼类对人类展现的友善。最著名的故事当属历史学家希罗多德记载的赞美诗人阿里昂的传说：当船员逼迫他跳海时，一只海豚将他驮上了泰纳隆海岸。阿里昂当年出海的南意大利城市塔兰托，其钱币图案也描绘了城市建立者塔拉斯骑乘海豚的形象。现存的花瓶彩绘、小雕像等艺术品中，可见人类骑乘海豚或女性驾驭海怪的场景，后者在犍陀罗地区出土的一系列饰板上亦有仿制。 ^(8){ }^{8}
Dolphin becomes crocodile when we move from the sea in the Greek story to river (Ganges) in the Indian - though, as we see in the Markata Jataka, which reverts to sea, the converse need not be true, since, as remarked, a variety of salt-water crocodiles exist which are found far out in the sea as much as a mile. (The Markata’s change to sea is, however, not from a wish to get closer to the Greek fable - of which its author would perhaps have been quite ignorant - but out of a wish to be different.) 当希腊故事中的场景从海洋转移到印度恒河时，海豚就变成了鳄鱼——不过正如我们在《猕猴本生经》中看到的（该故事场景又回归海洋），这种转换并非必然，因为如前所述，确实存在多种咸水鳄鱼，它们甚至能在远离海岸一英里的海域生活。（然而《猕猴本生经》将场景改为海洋，并非为了更贴近希腊寓言——其作者可能对此一无所知——而是出于求异的创作意图。）
The third feature - the lie that the riding land-animal (the monkey in both Greek and Indian stories) tells his mount, which results in the latter changing his immediate intention, is the one that clinches the motifs of the Greek and the Indian stories, one with the other. But it is also just here that the inversion within the plot is effected! 第三个特征——骑乘的陆地动物（希腊与印度故事中均为猴子）对坐骑说的谎言导致后者改变即刻意图——正是将希腊与印度故事母题紧密联结的关键要素。但恰恰在此处，情节内部发生了戏剧性的反转！
The dolphin was for saving his monkey, but because of the lie, drowns him; the crocodile was for drowning his monkey, but because of the lie, saves himself. Both water-beasts ended by putting their respective monkeys back to where they had picked them from - thanks, or no thanks as the case may be - to their respective lies. The dolphin was disgusted, the crocodile deceived. 海豚本要救他的猴子，却因谎言将其溺毙；鳄鱼本要溺毙他的猴子，却因谎言自救。两只水兽最终都将各自的猴子送回了原处——无论是否该感谢——都归因于他们各自的谎言。海豚感到厌恶，鳄鱼则被欺骗。
Here then in this jataka we have an instance of one of the most popular modes by which a story is recast to create a fresh story - the subtle inversion of a detail in the plot, if not the whole plot itself. 由此可见，在这个本生故事中，我们看到了最流行的故事重构方式之一——即便不是整个情节的颠覆，至少也是对情节细节的精妙反转，以此创造出一个全新的故事。
It was also seen that where none of the participants of a story so created could be identified with the Bodhisatta on account of an unbecoming character trait, purpose or action, the Buddha in the jataka or its samodhana, or in both, claimed to have been a casual observer of that episode, often as a tree-deity or water-sprite or even human being. As we know, this sort of thing happens usually when the story has been coopted into the jatakas from some other source, whether for its sheer story value or because it carries a lesson which is only Buddhist in a negative sense, if not by a degree of straining. Another such quality however condones the admission of the Bodhisatta as a participant. This is when the story could be made to reflect some particular other excellence that may be foisted on him as such - perspicacity, quick-wittedness, ingenuity, bravado and the like, though they might will be of dubious merit and out of character with the Buddha himself. 人们还注意到，当某个故事中所有角色都因品行不端、动机不良或行为失当而无法与菩萨转世相关联时，佛陀就会在本生经或其结颂部分（或两者兼有）宣称自己曾是该事件的旁观者——通常以树神、水精甚至凡人之姿现身。众所周知，这种情况往往发生在故事从其他来源吸收进本生经时，无论因其纯粹的故事价值，还是因其蕴含的教训（即便需要牵强附会才能与佛教教义产生消极关联）。但另一种特质却能宽宥菩萨作为参与者加入故事——当情节能强行赋予菩萨某些特殊优点时：诸如明察秋毫、机敏过人、足智多谋、英勇无畏等品质，尽管这些特质可能经不起推敲，且与佛陀本性相悖。
The Vanara, growing out of fable, is of this sort; it can only reflect, as the summing up says, the Bodhisatta’s capability in wordly affairs, for he obviously does so with a lie that, if it be pardonable in a purely political context where a person’s life was at stake, cannot, far from the admiration the story solicits for it, find general 从寓言中诞生的瓦纳拉猴便是此类；正如总结所言，它只能反映菩萨在世俗事务中的能力，因为他显然是通过谎言来实现的——这种谎言若在关乎人命的纯粹政治情境中尚可原谅，却远非故事所希冀获得赞赏的那种，更无法在佛教戒律范畴内获得普遍
acceptance in the category of Buddhist precept - the sort of lie (musâ) that, while it won the monkey of the jataka his safety from drowning by the crocodile, deservedly lost that with the dolphin of Aesop! 认可。这种谎言（梵语 musâ）虽让本生故事中的猴子免于鳄鱼之口而获救，却理所当然地失去了与伊索寓言中海豚共处的机会！
Thus the Vanara, along with its companion, the Sumsumara, belongs with the class of risque jataka, which use motifs brought in by their authors out of love of them for their sheer story interest, but necessitating a rather broad treatment of the excellence of the Bodhisatta to involve that sort of political wisdom which is more at home with the fables of Aesop or the Pancatantra and Hitopadesa than the character of a future Buddha. For these two jatakas explain how the Bodhisatta, as monkey, saved himself from the machinations of an enemy, not by any quality that is commendable in terms of the dharma, but by sheer deception. If we are to condone it, it is because the Bodhisatta’s life was at stake; if we are to appreciate it, it is for the cleverness of the trick with which the Bodhisatta outwitted Devadatta. As the Vanara concludes: 因此，猿猴本生与其姊妹篇鳄鱼本生同属一类带有世俗色彩的故事。作者出于对故事趣味性的纯粹热爱而引入这些母题，却不得不对菩萨的卓越品质进行相当宽泛的处理——这种处理所涉及的政治智慧，更接近伊索寓言、《五卷书》与《益世嘉言》的特质，而非未来佛陀应有的品格。因为这两个本生故事讲述的是：菩萨化身为猴时，并非通过佛法所推崇的德行，而是纯粹依靠欺骗手段，从敌人的阴谋中自救。若要宽恕这种行为，只因菩萨性命攸关；若要欣赏这种行为，也只是赞叹菩萨用以智胜提婆达多的巧妙计谋。正如《猿猴本生》结尾所言：
“Thus did the Bodhisatta in these four stanzas tell how to succeed in worldly affairs, and forthwith disappeared in the thicket of trees.” "菩萨便以这四偈讲述世间事业成功之道，随即隐入密林深处。"
So in the Markata: 《猴王本生》中亦云：
One should not disclose one’s secret purpose before one’s task is done. Clever people get to know of it, like the monkey on the sea. 未竟之事莫泄密，智者可窥其中机，恰似海上猴王计。
Correspondingly, the condition in which the Bodhisatta leaves the enemy who thought to kill him out of wanting his heart for his wife falls short of that in which the Buddha usually left those who came to do him harm and stands in contrast to such self-sacrificing as is evidenced in jatakas like the Sivi (No. 499) or the Sasa (No. 316). 相应地，菩萨因妻子想要其心脏而放过意图杀害他的敌人这一情节，与佛陀通常宽恕那些前来加害之人的境界尚有差距，也与《尸毗王本生》（第 499 则）或《兔本生》（第 316 则）等故事所展现的自我牺牲精神形成对比。
Without doubt some of those who relayed stories of the sort concerning the Buddha were not all too happy with such characterization of the Bodhisatta as we find in the Vanara. There 毫无疑问，部分传播此类佛陀故事的人，对于《猴王本生》中菩萨形象的刻画并不完全满意。
is evidence of this discomfort in the Cariya Pitaka’s summary of the comparable jataka, in which the Bodhisatta, once again a monkey, outwits Devadatta, once again a crocodile, and this time too by deception, (promising to leap into his mouth, if he would open it - which then made him shut his eyes and thereby facilitated the Bodhsatta’s escape). This is the Vanarinda, mentioned earlier. But for all the discomfiture of the writer, I cannot see how he could have had the Buddha declare afterwards: 这种不适感在《所行藏经》对类似本生故事的概述中有所体现：菩萨再次化身为猴，通过欺骗手段（承诺若鳄鱼张大嘴就跳入其口中——此举诱使鳄鱼闭眼从而让菩萨得以逃脱）智胜了同样转世为鳄鱼的提婆达多。这正是前文提及的《猴王本生》。尽管作者心存芥蒂，但我无法理解他如何能让佛陀事后宣称：
“I did not tell him a lie. I did as I said. For me there is nothing equal to the truth; this is my perfection of truth”. "我未曾欺骗他。我践行了诺言。于我而言，真理至高无上；此即我的真实波罗蜜。"
This anomalous characterization of the Bodhisatta, both in respect of self-consistency as the Bodhisatta of the jatakas and consistency with the Buddha he was on his way to become - not to mention the dhamma he was to preach, is, as observed, the result of incorporating stories for their sheer story value and needs therefore be accepted only as such. ^(9){ }^{9} 菩萨这一反常形象塑造，既不符合本生经中菩萨的一贯特质，也与佛陀成道前的修行历程相悖——更遑论与他日后所宣说的佛法教义相矛盾。正如前文所述，这种矛盾源于编撰者为追求故事性而采录民间传说，因此我们仅需将其视为文学创作即可。 ^(9){ }^{9}
The ironic upshot of admitting this sort of story into the fold is to be seen from another jataka (the Makkata (No. 173)) in which, when a monkey, chattering and rattling his teeth with the cold, tries to gain some warmth from the fire which the Bodhisatta (there an ascetic) had lit, by disguising himself as an anchorite, the Bodhisatta is angered and drives him off with a fire-brand - then, blithely goes on to cultivate the Four Excellences until he attains the Brahma heaven! In the jataka after the next, the Adiccupatthana (No. 175) the Bodhisatta causes the same to be done to another, a monkey in search of food, by his pupils, pelting him with sticks and clods after which all of them proceeded to attain the Brahma heaven! 收录此类故事导致的荒诞后果，在另一则本生经（《猕猴本生》第 173 则）中可见一斑：当一只冻得牙齿打颤的猕猴假扮苦行者，试图靠近菩萨（此时为苦修者）生起的火堆取暖时，菩萨竟怒举火棍驱赶它——随后却怡然自得地修习四梵住，最终升入梵天！而在隔篇的《阿底修帕塔那本生》（第 175 则）中，菩萨更指使弟子们对觅食的猕猴投掷棍棒土块，事后众人竟也都证得梵天果位！
In the Vanara/Sumsumara we have as good an example as any to justify Benfey’s suspicion of a Buddhist source for some of the stories of the Pancatantra. In its turn the Pancatantra passed the story, along with others, to Somadeva’s Kathasaritsagara, the 在《猴与鳄》故事中，我们找到了一个绝佳例证，足以印证本菲关于《五卷书》部分故事源自佛教经典的猜想。而《五卷书》又将这个故事连同其他故事一起，传入了苏摩提婆的《故事海》之中。
Kathasaritsagara for its part diffusing it to western lands via the Kalila wa-Dimna. Apart from the Markata Jataka of the Mahavastu, these latter redaction’s are free of the story’s Buddhist context, however weak that may have been in the original jatakas as well. The Pancatantra tries to re-enlist it as a moral-story, true enough, but again, like the jatakas themselves, has been enticed more by its dramatic quality than by any moralistic inclination that it held out. So, together with the Mahavastu and the Pancatantra, the later versions set out to develop the romantic dimensions with which the narrative is fraught - the friendship that takes place between the monkey and the water-creature, the suspicion and jealousy of the latter’s wife, the desire for the monkey’s heart as only a ruse to end her mate’s dalliance with the monkey, the nature of the enticement used to get the monkey on the water-creatures back, the ride and the confession which alerted the monkey to the danger, the lie itself which won the monkey his safety. 《故事海》通过《卡里来和笛木乃》将其传播至西方。除《大事》中的《猴本生》外，这些后期改编版本均剥离了故事的佛教背景——尽管在原初本生故事中这种宗教色彩可能本就薄弱。《五卷书》确实试图将其重新纳入道德寓言体系，但与本生故事本身一样，它更多是被故事的戏剧性而非道德教化倾向所吸引。因此，与《大事》《五卷书》一脉相承，后世版本着力拓展了故事蕴含的浪漫维度：猴与水兽缔结的友谊、水兽之妻的猜忌与妒恨、索取猴心不过是终止丈夫与猴交往的计谋、诱使猴骑上水兽背部的伎俩、让猴察觉危险的乘骑与坦白、以及最终使猴脱险的谎言本身。
The two original jataka versions, the Vanara and even the somewhat expanded Sumsumara, are of course innocent of these elaborations. There was no friendly relationship between monkey and crocodile before the latter offered to take the monkey upon the water, be it to pastures new or to treat him at his home. Nor was the crocodile’s wife wanting the monkey’s heart merely as a ruse to encompass the monkey’s death out of jealousy or chagrin - she simply greeded for it - if anything (and going by the Sumsumara) because our monkey was strong, sturdy and big. 两个原始本生故事版本——瓦纳拉本生甚至略微扩展的苏姆苏马拉本生——自然都没有这些复杂情节。在鳄鱼提出驮猴子渡水之前（无论是去新牧场还是邀请猴子做客），猴鳄之间根本不存在友好关系。鳄鱼妻子索要猴心也并非出于嫉妒或怨恨而设计杀害猴子的诡计——她纯粹是贪婪地想要（若硬要解释，根据苏姆苏马拉版本的说法）因为我们这只猴子强壮魁梧。
Of course the female crocodile’s desire for the heart of the monkey could easily be rendered as a pregnancy desire (dohada) as in the Vanarinda Jataka, where also we have a crocodile who wants a monkey’s heart to give his wife. Prof. Bloomfield will be found to have brought the Vanara and Sumsumara under this category, with N.M.Penzer ^(10){ }^{10} observing that the best of these dohada stories can be treated under the first of the six types recognized by Bloomfield as it deals with the intended harm to a third party caused by the 当然，雌鳄对猴心的渴望很容易被解读为妊娠渴望（dohada），正如《瓦纳林达本生》中也有鳄鱼想取猴心献给妻子的情节。布鲁姆菲尔德教授将瓦纳拉与苏姆苏马拉归为此类，N·M·彭泽 ^(10){ }^{10} 指出这些 dohada 故事中最精彩的案例可归入布鲁姆菲尔德划分的六种类型之首，因其涉及
dohada of the female, which her husband, usually reluctantly, attempts to gratify. 雌性因 dohada 而产生的欲念——通常由其丈夫勉力满足——导致对第三方蓄意伤害的情节。
The fact remains that, despite this proximity to dohada, the author(s) of the Vanara and the Sumsumara have not rendered the female crocodile’s desire as a dohada. If anything, the narrators of the story who follow them also avoid the temptation of making it a pregnancy desire of the she-crocodile and instead develop consistently the element of crocodilean greed, or coupling it with her 事实依然是，尽管与"孕期渴望"（dohada）概念如此接近，《瓦纳拉本生》和《苏姆苏马拉本生》的作者并未将雌鳄的欲望表述为 dohada。更值得注意的是，后续故事的讲述者也都避免将其塑造成雌鳄的妊娠渴望，而始终围绕鳄鱼的贪婪本性展开叙事，或将其与
worry and pining, as a medicament - variants which we should appreciate. ^(11){ }^{11} 忧思渴慕之情相结合作为药引——这些精妙的变体值得我们玩味。 ^(11){ }^{11}
The more notable feature that the later renditions is found playing upon is the manner in which there arose the friendship, (as mentioned before, there was none in the original jataka stories) between the water-creature and the monkey. I call this notable because it surprisingly reverts us to an etymological consideration which clinches this Indian story of The Monkey and the Crocodile even more conclusively with what we hypothesized so far as its Greek inspiration - the Aesopic fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin. 后世版本更显著的改编在于水族与猴子建立友谊的方式（如前所述，原始本生故事中本无此情节）。我称之为显著特征，是因为它惊人地将我们带回到词源学层面的思考——这种处理不仅印证了我们此前关于印度《猴与鳄》故事受希腊启发的假说，更确凿地将其与伊索寓言《猴与海豚》的渊源紧密联结。
In the Pancatantra the monkey had from his rose-apple tree deliberately dropped rose-apples to the crocodile in the water below, bidding him be his guest and eat the nectar-sweet fruit. This led the monkey’s wife to desire, not just the fruit for herself, but the heart of the monkey brought up on such fruit, thinking how sweet that heart should be, if rose-apples were as sweet as her spouse had found them. In the Kalila wa-Dimna, however, the fruit concerned (we are told) fell accidently from the monkey’s hand into the water, the ‘plop’ of which so please the monkey that he continued dropping others into the water, while the tortoise (here the water-creature is now a tortoise (ghailam), mistook the monkey’s doing as a solicitation to friendship - and friends they became. 在《五卷书》中，猴子故意从它的玫瑰苹果树上将果实扔给水中的鳄鱼，邀请它作为客人品尝这蜜般甘甜的果实。这导致猴子的妻子不仅想独占果实，更渴望得到以这种果实为食的猴子的心脏——她思忖着，既然玫瑰苹果如丈夫所言这般甜美，那猴心该是何等美味。然而在《卡里拉与迪姆纳》版本中，（据记载）果实是从猴子手中意外落入水中的，那"扑通"的落水声让猴子乐此不疲地继续投掷，而乌龟（此处水生动物变成了乌龟 ghailam）误将猴子的行为视为交友的邀约，于是它们结为了朋友。
This is palpably a variation for the sake of variation, both with respect to the sound as well as the creature concerned, from what is found in the source of the Kalila wa-Dimna, i.e. the Kathasaritsagara. For in the Kathasaritsagara, though the first 这显然是为了追求情节变化而作的改编，无论是落水声效还是水生生物的种类，都与《卡里拉与迪姆纳》的源头《故事海》有所不同。因为在《故事海》中，虽然第一个
GREEK STORY MOTIFS IN THE JATAKAS 本生经中的希腊故事母题
fruit (udumbara here) fell accidently off the monkey’s hand, as in the Kalila wa-Dimna version, it was rather the sweetness of the fruit that pleased, not the ‘plop’ of its falling - and the creature whom it pleased was, not the monkey who dropped it but the watercreature who ate it. What in turn pleased the monkey in this latter work into dropping more fruit thereafter was the melodious sound uttered by the water-creature upon feasting upon them! 果实（此处指优昙婆罗花）从猴子手中意外掉落，如同《卡里拉与迪姆纳》版本所述，真正令人愉悦的是果实的甜美，而非其坠落的"扑通"声——而真正感到愉悦的生物，并非掉落果实的猴子，而是享用果实的水中生物。在这部作品中，促使猴子随后投下更多果实的，正是水中生物享用果实时所发出的悦耳声音！
As was mentioned earlier, it is true crocodiles can be found in the sea, their popular domains including the ocean off India. But then it is equally true that crocodiles are incapable of uttering a melodious sound as would please anybody, let alone our monkey. So Tawney translating, of necessity renders the water-creature a porpoise. For the Sanskrit sisumara, like the Pali sumsumara, is indiscriminately a water-monster, meaning originally “child-killer”, and is capable of being understood as a crocodile as well as a fish of the nature of a shark, porpoise or dolphin. And remarkably, if crocodiles can be met in the sea, a species of dolphins identified as Delphinus Gangeticus was known in the waters of the Ganges. ^(12){ }^{12} If the jataka author of this story derived from the Aesopic compendium inclined to crocodile in the meaning of sumsumara, it is well in accordance with the element of cruelty with which he had invested his motif, which was not quite present in the Greek fable - unless, that is, it was not the other way round, i.e. that the choice of interpreting 如前所述，鳄鱼确实存在于海洋中，其常见栖息地包括印度近海。但同样真实的是，鳄鱼无法发出能取悦任何人的悦耳声音，更不用说取悦我们的猴子了。因此陶尼在翻译时不得不将水生物译为鼠海豚。因为梵语中的 sisumara 与巴利语 sumsumara 一样，都可泛指水怪，原意为"杀婴者"，既可理解为鳄鱼，也可理解为具有鲨鱼、鼠海豚或海豚特性的鱼类。值得注意的是，如果说海洋中能遇见鳄鱼，那么恒河水域中确实存在一种被称为恒河豚（Delphinus Gangeticus）的海豚物种。 ^(12){ }^{12} 倘若本故事的《本生经》作者在借鉴伊索寓言汇编时倾向于将 sumsumara 理解为鳄鱼，这与他在故事母题中注入的残忍元素完全吻合——这种元素在希腊寓言中并不明显，除非情况恰恰相反，即选择将
sisumara to mean crocodile, in order both for better localization of the story as well as in the wish to be innovative, inspired the author to the cruelty of the water-creature’s wish, wherefore he wanted to drown and kill the monkey. 将"sisumara"译为鳄鱼，既是为了让故事更贴近本土文化，也体现了作者追求创新的意图。这种处理手法生动展现了水生生物的残忍本性——它竟企图淹死猴子。
Despite the fact that cruety is not generally associated with a porpoise or dolphin - it might be infinitely better with a shark Somadeva’s undoubted return to the conception of a dolphin in the ambiguity of the word sisumara makes both the main participants of the story (monkey as well as water-creature) in the Indian now the very same as in the original Greek fable, The Monkey and the Dolphin! 尽管海豚或鼠海豚通常与残忍无关（若换成鲨鱼则合理得多），但苏摩提婆通过"sisumara"一词的双关语义，无疑回归了海豚的原始设定。这使得印度版本故事中的两位主角（猴子与水生生物）与希腊原版寓言《猴子与海豚》完全一致！
Considering the lie as well as the drowning (or attempt thereof) of the monkey, we have also the main elements of the motif as well preserved. What the jataka author in India made of these and the rest belongs to his individual genius - which, as with other such adaptations of motifs from Greece and elsewhere for the jatakas, to say the least, has been generally admirable. 纵观猴子的谎言及其溺水（或溺水未遂）的情节，该母题的核心元素都得到了完整保留。至于这位印度本生经作者如何加工这些素材及其他内容，则完全展现了他个人的非凡才华——就像其他源自希腊等地的母题在本生经中的改编案例那样，这种创作力至少可以说是令人叹服的。
But must this return to dolphin in the Kathasaritsagara necessarily imply that the Aesopic fable, in its original form with dolphin, still floated around in India when this work was compiled? Or are we to simply point to it as evidence of the easy transition from dolphin to crocodile that had taken place in the original localization of the Aesopic fable as an Indian one, and was still innate in the ambiguity of the Pali/Sanskrit for the water-creature involved, to which Somadeva had, unwittingly, and in a desire to be himself novel in this detail, returned? 但《故事海》中这个回归海豚的情节，是否必然意味着在作品编纂时，伊索寓言原始版本中关于海豚的故事仍在印度流传？或者我们只需将其视为一个例证——说明伊索寓言本土化为印度故事时，从海豚到鳄鱼的转换本就轻而易举，而巴利语/梵语中水生生物称谓的模糊性仍潜藏其中，索玛德瓦在追求细节新颖时，无意间又回归了这种原始表述？
I am inclined to the latter view, considering the lateness of the Kathasaritsagara version - and this substitution of porpoise/dolphin for crocodile, which it certainly is not emulating from its otherwise obvious source, the Pancatantra. For, the Pancatantra intends a crocodile, both by the flavour of its story and the prompting of the jatakas - and crocodile it is. 考虑到《故事海》版本的晚近性——以及其中用鼠海豚/海豚替代鳄鱼的设定（这显然不是模仿其明显源头《五卷书》的做法），我倾向于后一种观点。因为《五卷书》通过故事基调与本生经的暗示，明确指向鳄鱼——它就是鳄鱼无疑。
Going by Benfey’s suspicion that where comparable Greek and Indian stories are concerned, India was the borrower, he would surely 若遵循本菲的推测——在希腊与印度相似故事的比较中，印度往往是借鉴方——他必定会
have surmised this to be the case with our monkey tale as well - this too without the advantage of knowing of the Jatathavamana. For he appears to think so in the case of the PancatantralHitopadesa story of the wedge-pulling monkey, of which he righty takes the Aesopic fable of the monkey who tried to fish with a net like the fishermen he had observed, and nearly got himself drowned. ^(13){ }^{13} 我也推测我们的猴故事同样如此——尽管当时并不知道《本生经》的存在。因为他似乎认为《五卷书》/《益世嘉言》中那个拔楔子的猴子故事也是如此，他正确地将其与伊索寓言中那只模仿渔夫用网捕鱼却差点淹死的猴子相提并论。
But had he in fact known the Buddhist source of the Pancatantra stories, and also recognized the parallel we have struck here, there is not the least doubt but that Benfey would have been confirmed in his theory of the priority of the Greek over the Indian here. For, the Indian counterpart of the story of the meddlesome monkey, unlike the story of the monkey who rode the crocodile, appears in the Pancatantra without the evidence of having first appeared in any form in the jatakas. So that, if we presume that the Greek version of this - that is, The Monkey and the Fishermen, was in that compendium supposed to have been made by Demetrius of Phalerum about the end of the fourth century B.C. (and which, as we belicved, could have made its way to India following Alexander, and so account for the host of Graecizing fable motifs in the jatakas), the Indian story is palpably later by more than a century and could not have inspired the Greek, but vice-versa. For the earliest date of the Pancatantra, if it were also to have been composed subsequent to the Jatakathavamana - and this is also Hertel’s belief - is some time during the second century B.C. 倘若他确实知晓《五卷书》故事的佛教源头，并认可我们在此提出的对应关系，那么毫无疑问，本菲会更坚定其关于希腊故事优先于印度故事的理论。因为与"骑鳄鱼的猴子"故事不同，"多管闲事的猴子"这个印度版本虽见于《五卷书》，却没有任何证据表明它曾以任何形式出现在本生经中。因此，如果我们假设这个故事的希腊版本——即《猴子与渔夫》——确实存在于公元前四世纪末法勒鲁姆的德米特里所编的寓言集中（正如我们所推测的，该版本可能随亚历山大的东征传入印度，从而解释了本生经中大量希腊化寓言母题的存在），那么印度版本显然晚出了一个多世纪，绝无可能启发希腊版本，事实恰恰相反。因为即便《五卷书》的成书时间晚于《本生经》（这也是赫特尔的观点），其最早年代也不过是公元前二世纪某时。
To reiterate what was said earlier on, then - the theory that these were Indian folk tales that had existed orally and thus manifested themselves as Aesopic fables, while also finding their way back to India or otherwise appearing in the jatakas somewhat afterwards is not established - if establishable - and so is of no account; the onus of doing so still remains with the advocates of this notion. 重申前文所述——关于这些故事最初是印度民间传说、以口头形式存在，后来表现为伊索寓言，同时又在稍晚时期回流至印度或出现在本生经中的理论，既未被证实（即便有可能证实），也无关紧要；这一观点的支持者仍需承担举证责任。
The story of our concern here is subsequently encountered in several other lands, in the East from the Pancatantra and the 我们在此关注的故事后来也在其他多个地区出现，东方版本可见于《五卷书》和
Kathasaritsagara and in the West, chiefly through the Arabic Kalila wa-Dimna, even if with changes in the water-creature and some minor detail or other, always retaining the monkey and distinctive elements of the motif, which makes it immediately identifiable. Penzer ^(14){ }^{14} mentions a Swahili version in which the water-beast is a shark (perhaps in recognition of the dolphin, but also the malevolence needed for the story) who wants the monkey’s heart to cure his sultan, and a Japanese, in which it is a jellyfish after the monkey’s liver for the Queen of the Sea. 《Kathasaritsagara》在西方主要通过阿拉伯语的《Kalila wa-Dimna》传播，尽管水生生物的形象和一些次要细节有所变化，但始终保留了猴子和该母题的特征元素，使其能够被立即识别。Penzer ^(14){ }^{14} 提到一个斯瓦希里语版本中，水生生物是一条鲨鱼（可能是对海豚的认知，但也符合故事所需的恶意），它想要猴子的心来治愈它的苏丹；还有一个日本版本中，水生生物是一只水母，它想要猴子的肝脏献给海之女王。
There is however one version, a Russian, which is worth recounting for the reason that in it, for the first time, it is the monkey who is replaced. Rouse, translator of the Sumsumara Jataka for the Cowell edition had heard it from one Nestor Schnurman, who had heard it from his nurse (about 1860), and gives it as a footnote to this particular jataka. ^(15){ }^{15} 不过有一个俄文版本值得一提，因为在这个版本中，首次出现了猴子被替换的情节。为考威尔版《苏姆苏马拉本生经》担任译者的劳斯，从一位名叫内斯特·施努尔曼的人那里听闻了这个故事（约 1860 年），施努尔曼则是从他的保姆那里听来的。劳斯将这个版本作为该本生经的脚注加以记录。 ^(15){ }^{15}
Once upon a time the king of the fishes was wanting in wisdom. His advisers told him that once he could get the heart of a fox, he would become wise. So he sent a deputation, consisting of the great magnates of the sea, whales and others. “Our king wants your advice on some state affairs”. The fox, flattered, consented. A whale took him on his back. On the way the waves beat upon him; at last he asked what they really wanted. They said what their king wanted was to eat his heart, by which he hoped to become cleverer. He said, “Why didn’t you tell me that before? I would gladly sacrifice my life for such a worthy object. But we foxes always leave our hearts at home. Take me back and I’ll fetch it. Otherwise I’m sure your king will be angry”. So they took him back. As soon as he got near the shore, he leaped on land and cried," Ah you fools! Have you heard of an animal not carrying his heart with him", and ran off. The fish had to return empty. 从前，鱼王缺乏智慧。他的谋臣们告诉他，只要得到狐狸的心，就能变得睿智。于是鱼王派遣了一支由海洋权贵——鲸鱼等组成的使团。"我们国王想就国事征求您的建议。"狐狸受宠若惊地答应了。一头鲸鱼驮着他出发。途中海浪不断拍打着他，狐狸终于询问真实来意。使团坦言国王想吃掉他的心，以此获得智慧。狐狸说："为何不早说？我甘愿为如此崇高的目标献出生命。但我们狐狸总把心留在巢穴里。送我回去取来便是，否则你们的国王定会震怒。"使团只得载他返航。刚靠近岸边，狐狸便跃上陆地喊道："蠢货！你们可曾听说有动物不把心带在身上的？"说罢逃之夭夭。鱼群只得空手而归。
Even if the story here follows the Indian rather than the Greek version of it, there is the interesting point in it that the substitution of fox for monkey is influenced by the European notions of the two animals. While India is appreciative of the monkey, it does not, as I discussed earlier, rate the counterpart of Reynard the Fox, i.e. the jackal, with much intelligence; it is, rather, gluttonous and rapacious, as in the Buddhist jatakas, and afterwards “vain and ineffectually ambitious” in the Pancatantra. On the other hand, while the West considered the fox the paragon of craftiness, (as mentioned before) the monkey’s rating in this was low. 即便此处故事遵循的是印度版本而非希腊版本，其中仍有一个耐人寻味的细节：狐狸替代猴子的情节实则受到欧洲对这两种动物认知的影响。正如我先前所述，印度文化虽推崇猴子，却并未将狐狸的对应物——豺——视为高智商象征；在佛教本生故事中，豺被刻画为贪食掠夺的形象，而后在《五卷书》中更成为"虚荣且野心勃勃却徒劳无功"的代表。反观西方，（如前所述）将狐狸视为狡诈的典范，而对猴子在这方面的评价则颇为低下。
Thus, in this Russian version, where it is for obtaining wisdom that the land-creature’s heart is being sought after, monkey is replaced by fox. As we saw in the Greek fable of The Fox and the Monkey, the monkey was proved to be too stupid to be king - and by no less a creature than the fox himself. In the other fables of Aesop involving both monkey and fox, for example the one in which the monkey asks the fox for part of his long bushy tail to cover his nakedness, or the one, also called The Fox and the Monkey, in which a fox snubs a monkey who boasts of his ancestry, it is the fox who comes out superior, and the monkey who is worsted. ^(16){ }^{16} 因此，在这个俄罗斯版本中，为获取智慧而追寻陆地生物心脏的情节里，猴子被替换成了狐狸。正如我们在希腊寓言《狐狸与猴子》中所见，猴子被证明过于愚蠢而不配称王——而揭露这一点的正是狐狸本尊。在伊索其他同时涉及狐狸与猴子的寓言中，比如猴子向狐狸索要一截蓬松长尾来遮盖裸体的故事，或是同样名为《狐狸与猴子》的寓言中狐狸奚落炫耀家世的猴子，胜出的总是狐狸，落败的总是猴子。 ^(16){ }^{16}
In exchanging monkey for fox, however, the Russian version of our fable has spoilt altogether the quaintly dramatic image of the original Indian version, of our unsuspecting human-like monkey riding the placid waters of the Ganges upon the back of the cruising crocodile, an image which seems to have been dear to contemporary art as well, to judge from the several representations in objets d’art from Gandhara of women coursing the waves of the ocean upon the 然而俄罗斯版本将猴子替换为狐狸的做法，彻底破坏了印度原版中那个离奇戏剧性的画面：我们那位毫无戒心、类人的猴子乘着游弋的鳄鱼，平静地漂浮在恒河水面上。这个意象似乎也深受当时艺术界的喜爱，从犍陀罗出土的艺术品中可见多幅描绘女性驾驭各种海怪
backs of various sea-monsters. ^(17){ }^{17} 背脊破浪前行的作品便是明证。 ^(17){ }^{17}
The imagery of these miniature art works owes something to a fantasy upon the Andromeda theme. But again, I cannot help thinking that both these conceptions - of women who ride sea-monsters in Indian art, and our monkey riding crocodile in Indian literature get their fundamental inspiration, via our Aesopic fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin, from such Greek stories involving dolphins as that of Taras and Arion, both linked with Tarentum, and the motif of a human riding a dolphin which appeared as a popular type in the coins of that city and afterwards repeatedly in paintings and statuary. ^(15){ }^{15} Herodotus tells us that there was in the temple at Taenarum in his day a small bronze figure of a man on a dolphin, dedicated by Arion, which may be the same that Pausanias saw there and which may have been the earliest of these. Associated with these, interestingly, is the lid of a gold and silver pyxis found near Tarentum and belonging to the late 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} century B.C. one of the numerous such depiction on works of art, which shows a near naked woman riding a sea-dragon - the sort of composition that must have inspired the similar works from Gandhara. ^(19){ }^{19} 这些微型艺术作品的意象部分源自对安德洛墨达主题的幻想。但我仍不禁认为，印度艺术中驾驭海怪的女性形象与印度文学中猴子骑鳄鱼的构想，其根本灵感都通过《猴子与海豚》这则伊索寓言，源自涉及海豚的希腊故事——如与塔兰托相关的塔拉斯和阿里翁传说，以及人类骑乘海豚的母题。该母题曾作为流行图案出现在塔兰托钱币上，后又反复出现于绘画与雕塑中。 ^(15){ }^{15} 希罗多德曾提及，他那个时代的泰纳隆神庙中供奉着阿里翁献祭的小型青铜人骑海豚像，保萨尼阿斯后来可能也见过此像，这或许是同类题材中最早的作品。耐人寻味的是，在塔兰托附近发现的一件公元前 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} 世纪末的金银首饰盒盖与之相关——这件众多艺术品中的典型例证，描绘了一位近乎赤裸的女性骑乘海龙的场景，此类构图想必启发了犍陀罗地区的相似作品。 ^(19){ }^{19}
What appears to me the most exciting of archaeological finds associated with the jataka, however, is one which shows the monkey 然而，在我看来与《本生经》相关最令人振奋的考古发现，是那只猴子的
17 See ch. XII 1. 39, and H.Buchthal The Western Aspects of andhara Sculpture London (1945) figs 5.6.7; for two others, see Marshal op.cit. pl. xv. fig. 17 and Madeleine Hallade The Gomdhara Siyle and the Evolution of Buddhist Art. transl. Diana Imber, London (1968) p. 19. p. 25. One of these groups of figures from the West depicts not only the sea monster, a crocodile-faced dragon, which the woman rides side-saddle, but beneath them, a dolphin. These surely imitate the many depictions of women, identified (and copiously illustrated in Roscher’s Lexicon s.v. Nereiden) as Nereids riding both seamonsters and dolphins upon vases and friezes from the west. which leaves no doubt of the origin of the depictions upon such cosmetic trays called Sirkap trays from the site of the Indo-Greek city from which the majority of them have been unearthed. The ambiguity remain that the woman may be none other than Andromedia, now mounted on the very sea-monster to which her father Cepheus sacrificed her to assuage the anger of the sea-nymphs. who thesefore inundated his land. 17 参见第十二章第 1 节第 39 条，以及 H.布赫塔尔《安达罗雕塑中的西方元素》（伦敦，1945 年）图版 5、6、7；另两例见马歇尔前引书图版 XV 图 17，及玛德琳·阿拉德《犍陀罗风格与佛教艺术的演变》（戴安娜·英伯译，伦敦，1968 年）第 19 页、第 25 页。这些来自西方的群像不仅刻画了女性侧骑的鳄首龙形海怪，其下方还有海豚形象。这显然模仿了西方陶瓶与浮雕上常见的场景——被认定为涅瑞伊得斯（罗舍尔词典"涅瑞伊得斯"词条有大量图例）的女性同时骑乘海怪与海豚。此类被称作"锡尔卡普托盘"的化妆盘出土于印度-希腊城市遗址（多数实物皆源于此），其图像渊源已确凿无疑。唯存疑处在于：画中女子或为安德罗墨达——其父刻甫斯为平息海仙女之怒（她们因此淹没其国土）将她献祭给海怪，此刻她正骑乘着这头海怪。
himself upon a crocodile brought up at Mantai, the entrepot of ancient Sri Lanka. My attention was drawn to this by Dr. Osmund Bopearachchi of the Archelogies d’ Orient et l’Occident, Paris, some time after I had completed the foregoing discussion. It is upon a potsherd dated to the second - fourth century A.D. and shows our monkey crouched upon the back of the crocodile, whose upturned snout might suggest he is talking over his shoulder to the monkey riding upon him. The several round knobs that stud the empty space above them, along with three Brahmi characters, may suggest the fruit involved in the story - unless, that is, they are not mere decorative fillings. The frame of this scene together with its proportion, suggests that there may have been eleven other scenes round the shoulder of the red clay sprinkler to which it belonged, though, unless the rest of it turns up, no one can tell whether they were scenes from the same jataka or others (which is more likely). ^(20){ }^{20} 他骑在一条鳄鱼背上，这条鳄鱼是在古斯里兰卡贸易重镇曼泰被养大的。巴黎东方与西方考古研究所的奥斯蒙德·博佩拉奇博士在我完成前述讨论后不久引起了我的注意。这个场景绘制在一块公元 2 至 4 世纪的陶片上，描绘了我们的猴子蜷伏在鳄鱼背上——鳄鱼仰起的吻部似乎正扭头与背上的猴子交谈。空白处散布的几颗圆形突起物与三个婆罗米文字符，或许暗示着故事中涉及的果实——除非它们仅仅是装饰性填充。该场景的边框与比例表明，它原本所属的红陶洒水器肩部可能环绕着另外十一幅场景。不过除非其余部分重现于世，否则无人知晓它们是否出自同一本生经故事（更可能是不同故事）。 ^(20){ }^{20}
If then the origin of the motif of our story of the monkey and the crocodile is, as I suspect, the Aesopic fable of The Monkey and the Dolphin, the presence of this scene upon the potsherd form Mantai is endearing artistic evidence of the course of the motif form Greece to Sri Lanka, independent of its passage here through the literature, and also reflects the mobility of such story motifs from distant Greece in the West to our own part of the world.John Carswell takes this sprinkler to have been a North Indian import and refers (p. 203) to a preliminary report on the implications of this sherd to the origin of the Kalila wa-Dimna fables by J.Raby in “Between Sogdia and the Marduks: A Note on the Earliest Illustrations to Kalila wa Dimna” Oriental Arts vol. XXX 4 (1988) p. 393-394, and fig. 21. A window screen from the Mukteswar temple in Eastern Ganga, Bhubaneswar belonging to the 9^("th ")9^{\text {th }} century likewise depicts two scenes from this ever popular story - and undoubtedly many more would have appeared in Buddhist art from time to time. 如果关于猴子与鳄鱼故事的母题起源——如我所推测——确实源自伊索寓言《猴子与海豚》，那么曼泰陶片上出现的这一场景，便是该母题从希腊传至斯里兰卡路线最动人的艺术实证。这一传播路径独立于文献记载之外，同时也反映出此类故事母题从遥远的西方希腊向东方世界流动的活跃性。约翰·卡斯韦尔认为这件喷水器是北印度舶来品，并在第 203 页引用了 J·雷比于 1988 年发表在《东方艺术》第 30 卷第 4 期的论文《介于索格狄亚那与马尔杜克之间：卡里莱与迪姆纳寓言起源陶片初探》（第 393-394 页，图 21）中关于该陶片对《卡里莱与迪姆纳》寓言起源意义的初步报告。同样，布巴内斯瓦尔东部恒河地区 10 世纪穆克泰斯瓦尔神庙的一扇窗屏上，也雕刻着这个经久不衰故事的两个场景——毋庸置疑，佛教艺术中必定还曾反复出现过更多此类画面。
CHAPTER IX 第九章
THE ASS IN THE LION-SKIN ADVENTURES OF A GREEK FABLE IN INDIA 披着狮皮的驴：一则希腊寓言在印度的奇幻漂流
Among the first of the jatakas to have been observed to reflect closely fables from Greece is the Sihacamma (No. 189). This tells of the ass who donned a lion-skin and frightened all and sundry until fortuitous circumstances revealed him for what he really was. This could well have been one of the jatakas which caused Revd. Spence Hardy, when he heard it read off the Sinhala version of the Jatakatthavannana, the Pansiya Panas Jataka Pota as far back as 1855, to observe that “not a few of the fables that pass under the name of Aesop are here to be found”. It is certainly among the dozen or so remarked by Jacobs in 1889 and one of the three translated and briefly commented upon for its parallel of the Greek fable by Rhys-Davids in his single volume of translations containing the first forty jatakas together with the Nidanakatha. 最早被发现与希腊寓言高度相似的《本生经》故事之一是《狮皮本生》（第 189 则）。这则故事讲述了一头驴披上狮皮吓唬众人，直到偶然的际遇揭露了它的真实身份。早在 1855 年，当斯宾塞·哈迪牧师听闻僧伽罗语版《本生经注释》（即《潘西雅·潘纳斯本生经》）中诵读这则故事时，就曾指出"不少以伊索之名流传的寓言都能在此找到"，此故事很可能是促成他这一观察的例证之一。该故事确属雅各布斯 1889 年提及的十余则相似故事之列，也是戴维斯夫人在其译著（收录前四十则本生经及《因缘总序》）中选译并附简短希腊寓言对照评注的三则故事之一。
This fable of The Ass in the Lion-skin (C.67, H.336, P.188, Hs. 199) is undoubtedly one of literature’s most popular fables and widely known among young and old alike. Its source has however remained the Greek of Aesop, even when the story spread to other countries of the world, as did a number of such, for examples, The Crow and the Fox, (C.165, H.2041, P.124, Hs.126), The Fox and the Grapes (C.32, H.33, P.15, Hs.15), The Fox with the Distended Stomach (C.30, H.31, P.24, Hs.24) or the wolf who had a heron or crane remove the bone stuck in his throat - The Wolf and the Heron (C.224, H.276, P.156, Hs.161). Its appearance in the birth-stories of the Buddha is, however, less well known, and discussion of the interesting translations it had undergone after its transportation to India, and even before that, in Greece itself, has not proceeded beyond a few cursory comments by scholars and critics. 这则《披着狮皮的驴》（编号 C.67, H.336, P.188, Hs.199）的寓言无疑是文学史上最受欢迎的寓言之一，无论老少都耳熟能详。然而其源头始终被认定为伊索的希腊版本——即便当故事传播至世界各地时亦如此，诸如《乌鸦与狐狸》（C.165, H.2041, P.124, Hs.126）、《狐狸与葡萄》（C.32, H.33, P.15, Hs.15）、《腹胀的狐狸》（C.30, H.31, P.24, Hs.24）或让苍鹭为其取出卡喉骨头的狼——《狼与苍鹭》（C.224, H.276, P.156, Hs.161）等故事皆属此列。但该寓言在佛陀本生故事中的出现却鲜为人知，而关于它传入印度后——甚至早在希腊本土时期——所经历的趣味译变，学界仅有些许浮光掠影的评论，尚未展开深入探讨。
Leaving a more comprehensive study of this and other jatakas to others, I shall restrict myself here to some broad observations on the parallelism of this fable of the ass as between the Aesopic and the jataka versions, and, following upon this, show that the changes in detail that it underwent in the Indian classics thereafter, in their own particular way, flowed from and developed upon the original Aesopic versions. For, even if the ass persists throughout all such changes, all the other details will be seen to have taken on variations, the skin undergoing a degree of localization, the betraying bray turning from one of frightening to one of fear and then passion, while the most fascinating transformation comes over none other than the observant fox in Aesop, who did little more in Greece than remain unfooled. For, in the Buddhist jataka, this observer that is the fox becomes none other than the Bodhisatta himself! But this is not the end; in subsequent adaptations thereof, he is to turn into a farmer covered in a gray blanket, who, as if in poetic justice, fools the ass in turn into thinking him another ass and thus brings an end to his own dissembling. 关于这则及其他本生故事的更全面研究，我将留待他人完成。在此仅就驴子寓言在伊索版本与本生故事中的平行关系提出若干宏观观察，并进一步阐明：该故事在印度经典中经历的细节演变，虽以独特方式呈现，实则皆源自并发展于最初的伊索版本。纵使驴子形象贯穿所有改编始终，其余细节皆可见变异——驴皮经历了一定程度的本土化改造，那声暴露身份的嘶鸣从令人惊惧转为显露恐惧继而演变为激情宣泄，而最引人入胜的蜕变却降临在伊索寓言里那位仅以冷眼旁观著称的狐狸身上。在佛教本生故事中，这位观察者狐狸竟直接化身为菩萨本生！然演变未止于此：后续改编中，他又转变为身披灰毯的农夫，仿佛诗意正义般反将驴子愚弄，使其误认同类，终令其伪装伎俩彻底败露。
As was mentioned before in this book, the earliest collection of Aesopic fables there is record of is the work in prose of the orator and antiquarian scholar of the fourth century B.C., Demetrius of Phaleron, which, according to Diogenes Laertius ^(1){ }^{1}, consisted of one book roll and was called the Aesopica. Apparently this was extant up to at least the tenth century and had already been the source for later writers like Plutarch, Dio Chrisostom, Lucian and Themistius, as also for Babrius and Phaedrus, while fragments of a prose collection of Greek fables preserved in the Rylands Papyrus No. 493 may also be part of this work of Demetrius. The so-called Augustana, which is the oldest and also largest surviving collection of prose fables ascribed to Aesop and supplied three later editions of ‘Aesop’s fables’ is now thought to have derived a substantial part of its fables from the same work. ^(2){ }^{2} 如前文所述，现存最早的伊索寓言集记载可追溯至公元前四世纪演说家兼古文物学者德米特里厄斯（法勒隆的）的散文体著作。据第欧根尼·拉尔修记载，该作品以单卷轴形式存世，名为《伊索寓言集》。这部作品显然至少存续至十世纪，并已成为普鲁塔克、狄奥·克里索斯托姆、卢奇安、忒弥斯提乌斯等后世作家，以及巴布里乌斯与菲德鲁斯的创作源泉。现藏于瑞兰德 493 号纸莎草纸中保存的希腊寓言散文集残篇，很可能也属于德米特里厄斯的这部作品。而被认为承袭了该作品大量寓言的所谓《奥古斯塔纳》——现存最古老且篇幅最长的散文体伊索寓言集——后来衍生出三个版本的《伊索寓言》修订本。
These collections include two distinct versions of the fable of the ass in the lion skin. The first of these, which is in the Augustana (also known as Recension 1) appears to be the older and more authentic version of the fable and is, as far as the way in which the ass was betrayed for what he truly was, paralleled in the Sihacamma Jataka and all the Indian versions of the fable. Here the fortuitous event which revealed the ass for what he was was his untimely and unthinking bray. ^(3){ }^{3} 这些故事集收录了两个不同版本的"披着狮皮的驴"寓言。第一个版本见于《奥古斯塔纳集》（又称第一修订本），它似乎是更古老且更真实的版本。就驴子如何因暴露真实身份而被识破的情节而言，该版本与《狮皮本生经》及所有印度版寓言如出一辙。在这个版本中，导致驴子原形毕露的偶然事件，是它不合时宜且不假思索的嘶鸣声。 ^(3){ }^{3}
"An ass, putting a lion-skin on himself, went around causing fear among the animals. Then, seeing a fox, he tried to frighten him as well. But he - for he had happened to hear the ass braying - said to him, “Be assured that I too would have been scared, if only I had not heard your bray”. "有头驴子披上狮皮四处游走，吓得百兽惊惶。后来它遇见狐狸，又想故技重施。但这只狐狸——因曾偶然听过驴叫——便对它说：'放心吧，要不是听过你嘶叫，我肯定也会被吓跑的'。"
Here all the participants are animals and the ass’s sole motive in donning the lion-skin is to pass off as a lion, which he was not, and have the satisfaction of seeing other animals scared of him. At the same time the only punishment he suffers is the humiliation of discovery - and this by the fox, the personification of shrewdness and cunning in the repertoire of animals in the Greek fables, and likewise the only one who outwitted the lion himself by these same qualities in the equally popular fable of the one-way foot-prints, The Lion and the Fox (C.196, H.246, P.142, Hs.147). The second version, The Ass and the Lion-skin (C.279, H.333, P.358, Hs.93) brings the incident out of the jungle and into the fields, and those whom the ass frightens are now men and flocks (kai phugc men çn anthropôn, phugéde poimniôn), though there is still no implication that the ass’s impersonation of a lion was with the intention of eating the grain of the fields with impunity. It is no surprise, however, when this intention finds expression in an alternate version of the 此处所有角色皆为动物，驴子披上狮皮的唯一动机就是冒充本非其类的狮子，并陶醉于其他动物对其畏惧的模样。它所受的唯一惩罚便是被揭穿的羞辱——而揭发者正是狐狸，这个在希腊寓言动物群像中象征着精明与狡黠的角色，同样也是在那则脍炙人口的单向脚印寓言《狮子与狐狸》（编号 C.196/H.246/P.142/Hs.147）中凭借相同特质智胜狮子的唯一存在。第二个版本《驴子与狮皮》（编号 C.279/H.333/P.358/Hs.93）将事件场景从丛林移至田野，被驴子惊吓的对象变成了人类与羊群（人们四散奔逃，牧群惊惶逃窜），但仍未暗示驴子假扮狮子是为了肆无忌惮地偷食田里谷物。不过当这个动机在另一个版本中明确表达时，倒也毫不令人意外。
fable given by Chambry ^(4){ }^{4}. To this the Indian recensions may also owe their detail, found in all of them, of the chastisement of the ass unto death, which is not there in the older version of the fable in Aesop. Though this is ultimately effected by bow and arrows when the terse and tidy fable degenerates into story in India, the jataka shows that it had taken over only the cudgelling found in the Greek. 尚布里给出的寓言 ^(4){ }^{4} 。印度各版本可能也借鉴了这一细节——在所有版本中都出现的将驴子鞭打至死的情节，而这在伊索寓言更早的版本中并不存在。虽然在印度，当简洁规整的寓言退化为故事时，最终是用弓箭完成了这一惩罚，但本生经显示它只吸收了希腊版本中用棍棒殴打的情节。
The most significant distinction between the two Greek versions is of course the manner in which the ass was exposed. Where it was the ass’s braying in the older, we now have a puff of wind which strips the lion-skin off his back and reveals him for what he really was - a wretched ass. 两个希腊版本最显著的区别当然是驴子暴露身份的方式。在较早版本中是驴子的嘶叫，而在新版本中，一阵风掀掉了它背上的狮子皮，暴露出它真实的身份——一头可怜的驴子。
“An ass, putting on himself a lion-skin, was taken by everyone to be a lion. There was flight among men, there was flight among the flocks. But when the skin was lifted off him by a puff of wind and the ass was exposed, everyone ran at him and thrashed him with sticks and cudgels.” "有头驴子披上狮皮，被所有人当成了狮子。人们四散奔逃，畜群惊惶乱窜。但当一阵风掀开它身上的皮，暴露出驴子的真容时，所有人都冲过来用棍棒狠狠揍它。"
Here it is a puff of wind; the bray figures nowhere in it. Nor is there the third party, someone who assumes the role of the fox in the other and older version of the fable. However, it was inevitable that with time the two versions should undergo conflation in Greece itself, in which some of the chief elements of both should figure. This is found in the fable as told by Lucian, and afterwards by Babrius. 这里只是一阵风；驴子的形象在其中毫无踪影。也不存在第三方角色——即那个在更古老版本寓言中扮演狐狸的人物。然而随着时间的推移，这两个版本在希腊本土不可避免地发生了融合，双方的主要元素都得以保留。这种融合形态见于卢奇安讲述的寓言，其后又出现在巴布里乌斯的版本中。
Before the establishment of the manuscript tradition which makes it probable that the Augutana fables of Class I and its derivates traced back to the Aesop of Demetrius, scholars dealing with the fable of The Ass in the Lion-Skin took Lucian’s narration of it in the Piscator 32 as the earliest account of it the West. Rhys-Davids ^(5){ }^{5} and Max Müller ^(6){ }^{6}, following Benfey, thought that the reference in Plato’s Cratylus 411a showed that the fable was already known 在确定第一类奥古斯塔纳寓言及其衍生作品可追溯至德米特里乌斯版《伊索寓言》的手稿传统形成之前，研究《披着狮皮的驴》这则寓言的学者们，通常将卢奇安在《渔夫》第 32 节中的叙述视为西方最早的相关记载。里斯·戴维斯 ^(5){ }^{5} 和马克斯·穆勒 ^(6){ }^{6} 追随本费的观点，认为柏拉图《克拉底鲁篇》411a 节的提及表明这则寓言在当时已广为人知
among the Greeks by the time of the philosopher, and Rhys-Davids that it had already given rise to a proverb, much as its version in Lucian did afterwards. The context in Plato, however, suggests that the allusion of this proverb is rather to Hercules’ assumption of the lion-skin (of the Nemean lion, that is, and which we find the god Dionysus emulating in Aristophanes’ Frogs), than of the ass’s. Socrates in the Cratylus context goes on to add that he (Socrates) must “not be faint of heart” but must undertake the task before him with the courage which presumably went with the assumption of the said lion-skin. ^(7){ }^{7} Nor are the two references in Horace’s Satires (in i.6.22 and ii.1.64) any the less ambignous as regards the fable. 在哲学家时代，希腊人已熟知这则寓言，正如里斯-戴维斯所言，它当时已衍生出一句谚语，与后来卢奇安版本的情形颇为相似。然而柏拉图文本的语境暗示，这句谚语的隐喻更可能指向赫拉克勒斯披上狮皮（即涅墨亚狮之皮，我们在阿里斯托芬《蛙》中看到酒神狄俄尼索斯也曾效仿此举），而非披上驴皮。苏格拉底在《克拉底鲁篇》中继续补充道，他（苏格拉底）必须"不可胆怯"，而要以披戴狮皮者应有的勇气面对眼前的任务。 ^(7){ }^{7} 至于贺拉斯《讽刺诗集》中的两处提及（卷一第六首 22 行与卷二第一首 64 行），对于这则寓言同样未能给出明确解读。
The fable as it appears in Lucian is in an unembellished and terse form reminiscent of the fables found in the manuscript collections, deriving, as is supposed, from Demetrius, who surely served them in that form, with promuthia for ready consultation or epimuthia for expounding their moral, for orators like himself with which to garnish their speeches. 卢奇安笔下的这则寓言以质朴简练的形式呈现，令人联想到源自德米特里（据推测）的手抄本寓言集——这位演说家必定是以此种形式汇编寓言，附上前言以便随时查阅，或添加结语阐明寓意，供如他这般的演说家修饰讲辞之用。
Talking to Dame Philosophy about the humbugs who masquerade under her name (the Mahabodhi Jataka (No. 528) falls back on the simile of wolves in sheep’s clothing) Lucian says: 与哲学女神谈论那些假借她之名行骗的伪君子时（《摩诃菩提本生经》第 528 则采用了披着羊皮的狼这一比喻），琉善写道：
“Apes daring to pass off as heroes, emulators of the ass at Cumae, who put on a lion-skin and thought himself a lion, terrifying the ignorant natives with ear-splitting brays - until a stranger, who had seen a great deal of both lion and ass, showed him what was what with a sound beating.” "猿猴胆敢冒充英雄，效仿库迈的驴子披上狮皮就自以为成了狮子，用刺耳的嘶鸣吓唬无知的乡民——直到有位见识过真狮子和驴子的外乡人，用一顿痛打让它现了原形。"
The cudgelling our ass receives derives from the puff-of-wind version, but it is now not administered by the people in general but by a ‘stranger’ (xenos) who fails to be fooled and who obviously has taken over the role of the fox in the bray version. Besides, the detection of the ass is, as in the bray version, effected (and by the stranger) from the bray itself, though there is an innovation here in 这头驴子挨的棍棒源自"一阵风"版本，但如今施暴者不再是普通民众，而是一位"外乡人"（xenos）。这位未被蒙骗的外来者显然取代了"驴鸣"版本中狐狸的角色。此外，与"驴鸣"版本相同，驴子的败露（由外乡人促成）正是因其嘶鸣声，不过此处创新性地......
Lucian (which may be all his own) in that it is not simply by the utterance (which in fact served to frighten the Cumaeans) but by the quality of that utterance, which the stranger, with his experiences of lions, was able to distinguish as not being the roar of a lion at all, despite the fact that it was uttered “harshly and frighteningly” (mala trachu kai kataplektikon). What the Cumaeans were ignorant of (Kumaious … agnoountas) was not the appearance of a lion for otherwise the whole point of the ass’s disguise would have been lost - but the actual quality of a lion’s roar. 卢奇安（这可能完全是他自己的创作）的独特之处在于，辨识的关键并非单纯依靠叫声（这声音实际上吓坏了库迈人），而是叫声的特质。那位熟悉狮子的外乡人能够分辨出，尽管这声音"粗粝骇人"(mala trachu kai kataplektikon)，却根本不是狮子的咆哮。库迈人所不了解的(Kumaious … agnoountas)并非狮子的外貌——否则驴子的伪装就失去了意义——而是狮子吼声的真实特质。
As for the selection of the Cumaeans for the role of the victims of the ass’s caper, it must be from their limited experience of lions in contrast to the stranger, as the fable implies, and not from any general folly that is proverbial of some peoples. If it were the latter, agnoountas would have been a strange word to express it. 至于选择库迈人作为驴子恶作剧的受害者，必定如寓言所暗示的，是由于他们与那位外乡人相比缺乏对狮子的认知经验，而非因为某些民族众所周知的愚昧。若是后者，用 agnoountas 这个词来表达就显得不合常理了。
Attempt at localization of a fable need not by itself imply that the version is not original; it could argue for the opposite. There is the Greek fable of the foxes at the river Maeander (Foxes: C.29, H.30) which, considering the location of the island of Samos where he was a slave, could very well have been narrated by Aesop himself. There is also the fable of the monkey and the dolphin, which was discussed in the preceding chapter, which was enacted off the coast of Attica, and of the goat and the cleaver, given by Zenobius, which is set in Corinth and may have had its basis in an actual incident. ^(8){ }^{8} 对寓言进行本土化尝试本身并不意味该版本非原创；相反，这可能恰恰证明其原创性。希腊关于迈安德河畔狐狸的寓言（狐狸篇 C.29，H.30）考虑到伊索曾为奴隶的萨摩斯岛地理位置，很可能是伊索本人讲述的。还有前文讨论过的猴子与海豚的寓言，其场景设定在阿提卡海岸；以及芝诺比乌斯记载的山羊与屠刀的故事，背景设在科林斯，可能源于真实事件。 ^(8){ }^{8}
The need to identify a community who could not distinguish the true roar of a lion from an ass’s crude imitation of it was essential for Lucian’s innovative version of the old Aesopic fable. It is not unlikely, however, that a proverb onos para Kumaious (“ass among the Cumaeans” ^(") "){ }^{\text {) }} ), originating from an altogether different story involving an ass boasting to be what he was not was told among the Cumaeans and that it was Lucian, or his source at one or more removes, who had run our Aesopic fable of the ass in the lion-skin 卢西安要创新改编这则古老的伊索寓言，关键在于找到一群分不清真狮吼与驴子拙劣模仿的群体。但"库迈的驴子"（ ^(") "){ }^{\text {) }} ）这句谚语很可能源自另一个完全不同的故事——关于驴子冒充他物的传说在库迈人中流传，而卢西安或其辗转获取的素材来源，将我们这则披着狮皮的驴的伊索寓言与之融合。
into this other context so as to give us a localization of the old fable in Cumae. That there existed the Aesopic fable free from this localization even after the time of Lucian is borne out by Babrius, when he narrates its puff-of-wind version. 将这一古老寓言移植到库迈的语境中，使其本土化。即便在卢西安时代之后，脱离这种地域限制的伊索寓言依然存在，巴布里乌斯讲述的"狂风版本"便印证了这一点。
Babrius, in his compilation of Aesopic fables in Greek verse a generation or so after Lucian, found the wind the cause of the ass’s debacle as against the bray (even in its unique treatment) in Lucian. At the same time, however, he accords with Lucian in anthropizing the fox, though substituting a nondescript ‘someone’ (tis) for Lucian’s ‘stranger’ expert in lions. His story is of this nature: 卢西安之后约一代人的时间，巴布里乌斯用希腊韵文编纂伊索寓言集时，将驴子的灾难归因于狂风而非驴鸣（即便在卢西安的独特处理中也是如此）。不过与此同时，他与卢西安同样将狐狸拟人化，只是用模糊的"某人"（tis）替代了卢西安笔下精通狮子的"异乡人"专家。他的故事是这样的：
"An ass, having spread a lion-skin around his flanks, fancied himself to be fearful to all men. As he leaped and capered, everybody hurried to get out of his way and all the shepherds turned to flight. But when the wind began to blow, the lion-skin fell off his back and he was discovered to be an ass. Then someone said to him as he beat him with a club, “You were born an ass; don’t try to impersonate a lion.” "有头驴子把狮皮披在腰间，就幻想自己能吓倒所有人。当它蹦跳嬉戏时，人人都慌忙避让，牧羊人也纷纷逃窜。但狂风骤起时，狮皮从它背上滑落，露出了驴子的真面目。这时有人用棍棒抽打它说道：'你生来是驴，就别妄想冒充狮子。'"
Benfey’s estimate that the earliest date at which a knowledge of the fables of Aesop could have reached India was the second century B.C. needed revision in the light of the manifestation of the motifs of several of them in the jatakas, which antedated the Pancatantra of his concern. His observation of a Greek source for these Aesopising Indian fables however remains undisturbed because of the corresponding acknowledgement of a possible earlier collection of Aesopic fables in Greece, which could well have been the source of this prolific borrowing - the collection attributed to Demetrius by Diogenes Laertius and their popular presence in Greece upon which Demetrius drew. This date of the presence of these fables in India with Alexander’s soldiers and camp followers, not to mention those who settled the respective regions of northern India following the invasion, allow handsomely for the adaptation of the motifs of some of these fables to Indian story, especially if we acknowledge the likelihood that they need not have passed into Indian folklore first to be Indianized but that the adaptation was a conscious effort of Greeks themselves who had become Indianized 本菲认为伊索寓言传入印度最早可能是在公元前二世纪，这一论断需要根据本生经中出现的多个相关母题进行修正——这些母题早于他关注的《五卷书》时代。不过，他关于这些印度化伊索寓言源自希腊的观察依然成立，因为希腊确实可能存在更早的伊索寓言集（第欧根尼·拉尔修记载的德米特里汇编本），这些在希腊广为流传的寓言正是德米特里编纂时的素材来源。考虑到亚历山大的士兵及随军人员（更不用说那些在入侵后定居印度北部各地区的希腊人）将这些寓言带入印度的时间，我们完全有理由相信其中部分寓言的母题被改编进了印度故事——特别是当我们意识到，这些改编未必需要先进入印度民间传说才被印度化，而很可能是那些已经印度化的希腊人有意识进行的文化调适。
the so-called Indo-Greeks, or indeed Indians who had acquired a knowledge of Greek literature, or both. This in itself will explain why evidence of such stories with Graecizing motifs are both absent before the Greeks in India, and thereafter burst into the literature and art of the land in such a prolific outcrop. 所谓的印度-希腊人，或确切地说那些掌握了希腊文学知识的印度人，或两者兼而有之。这本身就解释了为何在希腊人抵达印度之前，这类带有希腊化母题的故事证据完全缺失，而此后却在该国的文学艺术中如雨后春笋般大量涌现。
In this recounting of parallel stories in Indian and Greek literature, Keith (as we saw), contributing to the opinion that at least in certain cases “we have … to deal with ideas which would naturally develop in men’s minds independently”, went on to add 在叙述印度与希腊文学中这些平行故事时，基思（正如我们所见）支持这样一种观点：至少在特定情况下"我们面对的是人类心智自然独立发展的思想"。他进一步补充道：
“Nor does there seem any conclusive grounds for holding that the tale of the ass in the lion skin is older in either country. In the version in Greece the ass itself assumes the lion’s skin and its betrayal by the wind blowing it away; the Indian versions are more prosaic, the ass is given a skin by its owner to allow it to steal corn and betrays itself by its cry.” ^(10){ }^{10} "目前似乎也没有确凿证据表明'披着狮皮的驴'这个寓言在哪个国家更古老。希腊版本中，驴子自己披上狮皮，因风吹走伪装而暴露；印度版本则更为平实——主人给驴子披上皮毛以便偷吃谷物，最终因鸣叫而自我暴露。" ^(10){ }^{10}
The other parallels which gave rise to Keith’s observation here of an independent origin of story-motifs and literary concepts in Greece and India are those of a sister’s preference for a brother over husband in Sophocles’ Antigone vs. 909-918 and the rejection of a suitor for his immodest dance in Herodotus vi. 129, with their respective reflections in the Ucchanga Jataka and the Nacca Jataka, both of which will be discussed in some detail in Chapter XI. 促使基思得出希腊与印度故事母题及文学概念独立起源这一观点的其他相似案例包括：索福克勒斯《安提戈涅》第 909-918 行中妹妹对兄长而非丈夫的偏爱，以及希罗多德《历史》第六卷第 129 章中因求爱者舞蹈失仪而遭拒的情节——这两个母题分别对应《鹧鸪本生》与《舞蹈本生》的记载，我们将在第十一章对此进行详细讨论。
R.W.Macan ^(11){ }^{11} rejected the possibility that the latter story issued form Herodotus and was carried to India in the days of Alexander on the grounds that “the (Indian) fable wears on its face and front the more primitive stamp”, whereas "the Herodotan is transpar- R.W.麦肯 ^(11){ }^{11} 否定了后一故事源自希罗多德并由亚历山大时代传入印度的可能性，其理由是"（印度）寓言从表至里都带有更原始的印记"，而"希罗多德版本则明显......
ently imaginative, poetical, pragmatic". It is on some such distinction that Keith now seeks to dissociate the Greek and Indian stories from each other and to salve the Greek ass from kinship with the Indian ass. The Greek fable is free from human participation, he implies, whereas the Indian is less primitive, more sophisticated both in the disguising of the ass and the purpose of this. Likewise Rhys-Davids ^(12){ }^{12} felt (though with some reservations) that the introduction of the human element took the jataka of the ass in the lionskin out of the class of fables in the most exact sense of the word, and with that, moved on to narrate and discuss the Kacchapa Jataka, the story of the talkative tortoise, as “a story containing a proper fable, where animals speak and act like men”. "充满想象力、诗意且实用"。正是基于这种区分，基思试图将希腊与印度的故事彼此割裂，并将希腊驴与印度驴的亲属关系撇清。他暗示希腊寓言中人类并不参与其中，而印度故事则更为复杂——既体现在驴子的伪装方式上，也体现在其目的性上。同样，里斯·戴维斯（尽管有所保留）认为，人类元素的引入使得《狮皮驴本生》脱离了最严格意义上的寓言范畴，并由此转向叙述和讨论《乌龟本生》——那个多嘴乌龟的故事被他称为"包含标准寓言特征的故事，其中动物像人类一样说话行事"。
Such a criterion, however it may look in this case, is controversial, and as far as I am aware, no one has established the primitivity of fable upon the matter of human participation or non-participation in it. As was observed earlier, it could very well be that stories in which little or no distinction was made between men and beasts, when beasts were taken to speak and act like men, could be of the more primitive order than those in which the interaction was restricted to beasts. In the case of our fable, however, the negative role of the jataka ass seems to imply he could not do such a thing by himself. Besides, the assumption has the support of chronology. For, as we push back to what may have been the earlier form of the fable in Greece, it is more and more animal, not only the ass in his lion-skin but the creatures whom he scares (they are ta aloga zôa) and even the observer, who alone remained undeceived, the fox. Whereas, in its progressive development, in Greece and on through India, the human element gains a more and more prominent place, not in the ass himself (he alone persists in his animal form, underscoring the identity of the motif as between Greece and India) but in those whom he succeeded in frightening, and more especially, in the singular observer of the affair, who had been a fox in Aesop. 然而，这样的评判标准——无论它在本案例中显得多么合理——始终存在争议。据我所知，尚未有学者能根据人类是否参与寓言这一要素，来确证寓言的原始性。正如前文所述，那些模糊人兽界限（当野兽被赋予人类般的言行时）的故事，很可能比那些互动仅限于兽类的故事更具原始特征。但就我们讨论的这则本生经寓言而言，驴子的负面角色暗示它无法独立完成此类行为。此外，这一假设还得到了年代学佐证：当我们追溯该寓言在希腊可能存在的早期形态时，会发现其角色愈发趋向兽类——不仅包括披着狮皮的驴，被它恐吓的动物（即τα ἄλογα ζῷα/无理性生物），甚至唯一未被蒙骗的旁观者狐狸亦是如此。 在希腊及随后传入印度的渐进发展过程中，人性元素占据了越来越突出的地位——这种特质并非体现在驴子本身（唯有它始终保持着动物形态，以此强调希腊与印度故事母题的同一性），而是显现在那些被它吓到的人身上，尤其体现在那个独特的旁观者身上。这个角色在伊索寓言里原本是只狐狸。
Keith ^(13){ }^{13} was however quite wrong in thinking that, in the Greek fable of The Ass in the Lion Skin, the discovery of the ass happened only by the puff of wind. He was apparently unaware of the 然而，基思 ^(13){ }^{13} 在认为希腊寓言《披着狮皮的驴》中驴子仅因一阵风就被发现这一点上完全错了。他显然忽略了
existence of the alternate and perhaps older and even original version of the fable in Greece, in which, as in all the Indian versions, it is the bray of the ass that gives him away. 希腊存在另一个版本——可能更古老甚至是最初版本的寓言，其中与所有印度版本一样，正是驴子的叫声暴露了它。
In what form the Aesopic fables got to India when they did is hard to surmise - whether as the raw and terse epitomizations (perhaps of Demetrius himself) or in more or less elaborated compendia of some known or unknown compilers, or simply in the oral transmission of anonymous soldiers, traders and settlers who made their way to India in the wake of Alexander’s incursion, each one having an idea of but a few of them, and no one all of them. 伊索寓言究竟以何种形式传入印度，实难揣测——或许是以德米特里本人所作那种原始简练的梗概形式，或是经由某些已知或未知编纂者或多或少加工过的汇编本，又或许只是通过追随亚历山大入侵足迹来到印度的无名士兵、商贾与移民的口头传播，每人仅知晓其中零星数则，无人能尽述全貌。
What is obvious, however, is that when the parallel versions of the Greek fable of The Ass in the Lion-Skin are encountered by us in India, first in the jatakas and thereafter in the Pancatantra, the Kathasaritsagara and the Hitopadesa, they appear to derive from a Greek recension that had already run the two original Aesopic versions together, so that when the ass is betrayed by his bray, he is also assaulted and killed, while the role of the fox, now humanized, as in Lucian and Babrius, is also retained, only to undergo most fascinating transformations. At the same time the renderings are now not only in a highly literary and artistic form but thoroughly localized as part of this elaboration. 然而显而易见的是，当我们在印度先后遇见《狮子皮裹身的驴》这则希腊寓言的不同版本——先是本生经，继而五卷书、故事海与益世嘉言——它们似乎都源自某个已将两个原始伊索版本融合的希腊修订本。因此当驴子因嘶叫暴露身份时，不仅遭到攻击致死，其中狐狸的角色（如卢奇安与巴布里乌斯笔下那般拟人化）也被保留，只是经历了最为精妙的嬗变。与此同时，这些译本不仅呈现出高度文学化与艺术化的形态，更通过这番精心雕琢彻底实现了本土化。
Inset, in the jatakas, between a paccuppannavatthu or “story of the past” and a samodhana or identification of the characters of that past life with those of the Buddha’s own ‘present life’, which constitutes the framework, these fables are generally as independent of each other as one past life of the Buddha can be of another. In the subsequent non-Buddhist works, however, they appear in a highly complex escatulation, in which stories are inset in other stories. This system of frame-stories and emboxed stories could have their embryology ultimately in the promuthia and epinuthia associated with the Aesopic fables, which in Greece either served the rhetorician to select a suitable fable-illustration or pinpointed the moral of the story. For in reverse, they could easily prompt the creation of an artistic situation for the narration of the fable, much as the Greek orators and writers for whose use they were provided in Greece had them when they looked for an illustrative fable. 在《本生经》中，这些寓言故事被嵌入"过去世故事"（paccuppannavatthu）与"结语"（samodhana）之间——后者将前世角色与佛陀"今生"人物相对应，构成叙事框架。这些故事彼此独立，犹如佛陀不同前世互不相干。然而在后世的非佛教作品中，它们呈现出高度复杂的嵌套结构，形成故事套故事的形态。这种框架叙事与嵌套故事的体系，其雏形或许可追溯至与伊索寓言相关的开场白（promuthia）与结语（epinuthia）——在希腊，这些元素既帮助修辞学家选择合适的寓言例证，又点明故事寓意。反之，它们也极易催生适合讲述寓言的艺术情境，正如希腊演说家与作家们使用这些现成素材来寻找例证性寓言时的情形。
The Sihacamma Jataka, which is India’s earliest rendition of the Aesopic fable of The Ass in the Lion Skin and Benfey’s Buddhist source from which the story made its way to the Pancatantra, and thence to the Kathasaritsagara of Somadeva and Narayana’s Hitopadesa, is one of a number of birth-stories the Buddha is said to narrated concerning the Older Brother, Kokalika, identified as a disciple of Devadatta, and about whom more is said in the Takkariya Jataka (No. 481) and elsewhere. It is a companion of the preceding jataka, the Sihakotthuka Jataka (No. 188) and through it the Daddara (No. 172), which are related also to some Aesopic fables through the same factor of voice in identity. ^(14){ }^{14} 《狮皮本生经》是印度对伊索寓言《披着狮皮的驴》最早的演绎版本，也是本费所考证的佛教故事源头——该故事由此传入《五卷书》，继而进入苏摩提婆的《故事海》和那罗衍的《益世嘉言》。这部本生故事讲述佛陀曾多次提及的兄长憍赏弥（被认定为提婆达多的弟子），关于其更多事迹见于《陶师本生经》（第 481 号）等文本。它与前一篇《狮吼本生经》（第 188 号）及更早的《达达拉本生经》（第 172 号）构成系列，这些故事都通过"声音暴露身份"的核心情节与某些伊索寓言形成关联。 ^(14){ }^{14}
As in the Sihakotthuka, to which the Sihacamma looks back for its circumstances, and which in turn looks back to the Daddara, Kokalika is said to have obtruded in a situation where his betters were involved in preaching or intoning, and ended in confusion, much to his embarassment and the disgust of the Brethren. The Master, being told of this, observed: 正如《狮吼本生经》的情节承接自《达达拉本生经》那样，《狮皮本生经》也延续了前作设定：据说憍赏弥曾强行介入尊者们讲经诵偈的场合，最终丑态百出，既令自己难堪，又使僧众生厌。佛陀闻知此事后开示道：
“Not this once only has Kokalika been shown up for what he was worth by means of his voice; the very same thing happened before”… "憍赏弥因嗓音暴露本性之事，非独今世，往昔亦然……"
and went on to narrate the jataka of the ass whose bray betrayed him for what he truly was and not the lion he was made to appear. 接着讲述了那头驴子的本生故事，它的嘶叫暴露了真实身份，而非被装扮成的狮子模样。
The incident, which took place, as in numerous other jatakas, “when Brahmadatta was ruling in Benares”, is however not localized in any particular village or district. A merchant, who had an ass to carry for him, was in the habit of draping a lion-skin on his back and turning him loose in the rice and barley fields. Watchmen, who saw the beast, took him for a lion and kept their distance. But one day, when the merchant did the same thing, the watchmen ran home and gave the alarm. Whereupon the villagers armed themselves and hurried to the field, shouting and blowing their conches and beating drums. The ass was frightened out of his wits and gave a hee-haw. The Bodhisatta, who was a peasant’s son in that life and witnessed what happened, at this point recited the first stanza: 这则发生在"波罗奈国由梵授王统治时期"的轶事——如同众多其他本生故事一样——并未具体指明某个村庄或地区。一位商人有头驮货的驴子，习惯给它披上狮皮，放它去稻田麦地里吃庄稼。看守人见到这头猛兽，误以为是狮子而不敢靠近。但某日商人故技重施时，看守们跑回家拉响警报。村民们立即武装起来冲向田地，呐喊着吹响海螺、擂起战鼓。驴子吓得魂飞魄散，发出"咿呀"的叫声。彼时身为农家子的菩萨目睹此事，当即诵出第一偈：
“This is not a lion’s roaring "此非狮子吼声震
Nor a tiger’s nor a panther’s. 亦非虎豹啸山林"
Dressed in a lion’s skin, 'Tis a wretched ass that roars” 披着狮子皮的可怜驴子，竟敢在此吼叫
As soon as the villagers found it was only an ass, they set upon him with cudgels and broke his bones and went away, taking the lion’s skin with them. When the merchant found the ass had come to grief, he recited the second stanza: 村民们一发现这不过是头驴子，便用棍棒痛打它，打断其骨头后扬长而去，还带走了那张狮子皮。商人见驴子遭此横祸，便诵出第二段偈颂：
"Long might the ass, Draped in his lion’s skin, Have fed upon the barley green, Had he not brayed. "若这驴子不曾嘶鸣，本可披着狮皮长久啃食青翠大麦"
And as the merchant uttered these words the ass expired. 商人话音未落，驴子便气绝身亡。
The realistic detail of the use of conches and drums in addition to shouting in ‘beats’ to flush out or scare off tigers and leopards can only belong with India, where such exercises are familiar even in recent times. Rhys-Davids however goes further and thinks that the fable could not have originated in any country in which lions were not common - of course meaning thereby Greece. Even as between Greece and India, the presence of the lion (or lion-skin) need not necessarily imply Indian origin for the fable. From earliest 除了通过"拍打"喊叫来驱赶或吓跑老虎和豹子外，使用海螺和鼓的现实细节只能属于印度，这种操作在近代仍很常见。然而里斯·戴维斯更进一步认为，这个寓言不可能起源于狮子不常见的国家——当然这里指的是希腊。即使在希腊和印度之间，狮子（或狮皮）的存在也不一定意味着寓言起源于印度。从最早
times Greeks knew of the physical appearance and reputation of the lion among animals, as we have already seen from both their art and their literature from the very earliest times not to mention the fact that there is evidence of lions having been present in parts of Greece ^(15){ }^{15}. As for Rhys-Davids’ “reasonable explanation” for the ass being dressed in the lion-skin, which he finds in the jataka but not in the Aesopic fable, I think the ass’s wish to appear a lion is good enough in fable and more in character with the animal fable than as the action of a merchant, of which the ass was wholly innocent. Indeed, it was this very human element which gave the ass his lion-skin in this jataka which Rhys-Davids was to find soon afterwards a factor which would exclude a story from “the class of fables in the most exact sense of the word.” 正如我们从希腊最早的艺术和文学作品中已看到的那样，希腊人很早就了解狮子在动物界的形貌与威名，更不用说有证据表明狮子曾存在于希腊某些地区 ^(15){ }^{15} 。至于里斯·戴维斯对驴子披狮皮这一情节提出的"合理解释"——他在本生经而非伊索寓言中发现此情节——我认为驴子渴望伪装成狮子的动机在寓言中已足够合理，且比作为商人的行为（驴子对此完全无辜）更符合动物寓言的特质。事实上，正是这个过于人性化的元素让本生经中的驴子获得了狮皮，而里斯·戴维斯随后便发现，这种元素会使故事被排除在"最严格意义上的寓言类别"之外。
Both the aforementioned Augustana and the Accursiana (known a Recension III), which follows the Augustana closely in respect of our fable in Greek, except in its epimuthion, set the event in a jungle environment; the victims of the ass’s masquerade are all animals, and so is the individual who is not fooled by it (i.e the fox). The ass is, except for the bray he emited in an unguarded moment, voiceless - though one would not have been surprised if he had replied to the fox’s quip or reflected upon the outcome to himself in human language. 上述提及的奥古斯塔纳版本和紧随其后（在希腊寓言部分除结语外）与之高度相似的阿库尔西亚纳版本（即修订本 III），都将事件背景设定在丛林环境中；被驴子伪装所欺骗的全是动物，而识破其伪装的个体（即狐狸）同样也是动物。这头驴除了在疏忽时发出嘶鸣外，始终沉默不语——尽管若它用人语回应狐狸的嘲弄或暗自思量结局，人们也不会感到惊讶。
Already, by the second version in Aesop (which appears in Accursiana IIIg) the incident has moved to a rural setting and those who flee the ass in the lion-skin are, as mentioned before, men and flocks, and in the variant to this version, he uses his disguise not just to imagine himself a lion or frighten the other animals but more purposefully, to despoil the farmers of the fruit of their labour (tous tôn georgôn elumaineto ponous). He is quite clearly a tame ass then, as against the possibility of a wild-ass in the original fable. 到了伊索寓言第二版（见于阿库尔西亚纳 IIIg 版本），事件已转移到乡村场景。如前所述，被披着狮皮的驴子吓跑的，是人类与羊群。在这个版本的变体中，驴子利用伪装不仅幻想自己是狮子或恐吓其他动物，更怀有明确目的——要掠夺农民辛勤劳作的成果（tous tôn georgôn elumaineto ponous）。此时它显然是头驯养的驴，与原始寓言中可能存在的野驴形象形成对比。
In Babrius a human being, an unspecified ‘someone’ takes the role of the fox as well, though, since it was the wind that lay bare the ass, he is reduced to the role of moralizer only, unlike the more 在巴布里乌斯的版本中，一个未具名的"某人"同样扮演了狐狸的角色。但由于揭露驴子本性的是风，这个角色仅被简化为道德说教者，与更为.....
positive role of the fox in the older Aesopic version (in which he finds out the ass by his bray). On the other hand, the latter role is maintained by Lucian in the ‘stranger’ he has in place of the fox. The ruralization of the story in the Indian jataka, the humanization of all its participants except the ass, and the cudgelling (or whatever) of the beast to death (which shows the running into each other of the two Aesopic prototypes of the fable) collectively evidence the fact that the fable, when it got to India, got there in a coalesced form in which the most important detail, the detection of the ass by his bray, had been retained in preference to that of the puff of wind. The humanization is further advanced with the introduction, in the hands of the author of the Sihacamma Jataka, of an owner for the ass, a merchant, who, in the Pancatantra and the works which followed it, becomes a laundryman - no doubt as variation and because laundrymen were in India more popularly associated with the use of asses for their transport than traders (who used carts). Together with this, what the ass had done out of a purely psychological yearning to be feared by others in the Aesopic fable, now becomes the diabolical ruse of his human master. 在较早的伊索版本中，狐狸扮演着积极角色（正是它通过驴的嘶鸣发现了伪装者）。而琉善在作品中用"陌生人"替代狐狸时，仍保留了这一角色功能。印度本生故事对该寓言的乡土化改造中，除驴子外所有角色都被拟人化，且驴子最终被乱棍打死（或类似结局），这清晰地显示出两个伊索寓言原型在流传过程中的相互交融。当这则寓言传入印度时，最重要的细节——通过嘶鸣识破驴子伪装——被优先保留下来，取代了原本"风吹露馅"的情节。在《狮皮本生》作者的笔下，拟人化程度更进一步：为驴子增设了主人角色（商人）。而在《五卷书》及后续作品中，这个主人又演变为洗衣工——这种变异显然源于印度文化中洗衣工比商人（通常使用牛车）更常与驮运货物的驴子产生关联。 与此同时，这头驴子在伊索寓言中出于纯粹的心理渴望——想让别人害怕自己——而做出的行为，在印度版本中却变成了它的人类主人精心设计的邪恶诡计。
This new motive was, of course, already germinal in the Greek version given by Chambry, where, though the ass donned the lionskin with the wish to be taken for a lion (epithumei leôn einai dokein), he used the resultant fear among those who took him to be such to despoil the fruit of the farmers’ toil. 这一新动机其实在尚布里所传希腊版本中已初现端倪：尽管驴子披上狮皮是希望被当作狮子（epithumei leôn einai dokein），但它确实利用了人们因此产生的恐惧，窃取了农民们辛苦劳作的果实。
Whoever it was that the ass received as master in India, the fact remains that, as Rhys-Davids says, this human element detracted somewhat from the purely animal fable. On the other hand, the non-violent role of the fox (as against the stranger in Lucian, who took it upon himself to belabour the ass) suits the Buddhist story, where the peasant’s son (the Bodhisatta) merely verbalizes the discovery of the ass by his bray enough to help put the presumptious and brash Kokalika in his place. 无论这头驴在印度被赋予了怎样的主人，正如里斯·戴维斯所言，人类角色的加入确实在一定程度上削弱了纯粹动物寓言的特质。不过另一方面，狐狸的非暴力角色（与卢西安笔下那个主动鞭打驴子的陌生人形成对比）更符合佛教故事的气质——农夫之子（菩萨转世）仅通过揭露驴子的嘶叫声就戳穿了科卡利卡的狂妄嘴脸，使其原形毕露。
Rhys-Davids is right that the identification of the peasant’s son with the Bodhisatta is the only part of the story which is essentially Buddhistic and that here it is of little importance (to the plot of the story). The reason for this unimportance is that the ass brays in the 莱斯·戴维斯正确地指出，农夫之子与菩萨的关联是故事中唯一本质上属于佛教的元素，且对情节发展影响甚微。这种无关紧要性源于驴的嘶鸣被
hearing of all and not just the Bodhisatta, and all recognized that it was an ass, whereas the Bodhisatta’s counterpart in the Aesopic fable, the fox, heard the bray all by himself and was thus privileged to a knowledge which, in a different way, was available to the stranger in Lucian, but which the other spectators had not. The jataka version could very well have dispensed with the role the Bodhisatta plays without affecting the plot; this is not possible with the fox in Aesop or the stranger in Lucian. It’s persistence in the jataka keeps a detail of the original Greek fable, as in the tis of Babrius, but also conveniently serves to, as Winternitz would put it, “Buddhistize” this secular story. 所有人听见，而非仅菩萨一人。众人都辨认出那是头驴，而伊索寓言中与菩萨对应的角色——狐狸，则是独自听闻嘶鸣，因而获得了某种特殊认知。这种认知方式与琉善作品中陌生人的知情途径虽不同，但其他旁观者同样未能知晓。本生经版本即使完全删去菩萨的角色也不会影响情节推进，但伊索寓言中的狐狸或琉善笔下的陌生人若缺席则故事无法成立。菩萨角色在本生经中的保留，既沿袭了巴比里乌斯版本希腊寓言的原初细节，又恰如温特尼茨所言，实现了对这个世俗故事的"佛教化"改造。
Of academic interest also is what occasioned the ass’s betraying bray - for the psychology behind it is what also occasions the fable’s moral. That which was in Aesop pure inadvertance (and the fox would have heard the ass bray when already covered with the lionskin) becomes in Lucian a deliberate attempt to frighten, with the cause of discovery not simply the cry but the quality of it. In the Sihacamma Jataka the villagers attack the ass even when they take him for a lion; perhaps they did not expect much more than to drive him off. But when he hee-hawed in fear and they found he was after all a wretched ass, they set upon him, free from trepidation. 同样具有学术价值的是驴子暴露身份的嘶鸣——其背后的心理机制正是寓言道德教化的契机。在伊索笔下纯属无心之失（狐狸本已披上狮皮，理应听到驴叫），到了卢奇安笔下却成了蓄意恐吓，导致败露的不仅是叫声本身，更是其特质。在《狮皮本生经》中，村民即便误认驴为狮子仍发起攻击；或许他们本意不过想驱赶它。但当驴子因恐惧而嘶鸣，村民发现终究是头劣等驴子时，便毫无惧意地群起攻之。
In the Pancatantra - and the Hitopadesa follows this - the ass’s self-betraying bray takes positive sexual overtones. In the Pancatantra this bray is occasioned by the sound of a she-ass braying; in the Hitopadesa (with dramatic irony worked out to the full) the ass himself mistakes a cultivator covered in his cloak for a sheass. In contradistinction, as Benfey ^(16){ }^{16} himself observed, it is for another ass (einen andern Asel) that the ass in the story of the Kathasaritsagara mistakes the cultivator - in which case his call is one of camaraderie than of desire. 在《五卷书》——以及效仿它的《益世嘉言》中——驴子自我暴露的嘶鸣带有明确的性暗示。《五卷书》中这声嘶鸣是由母驴的叫声引发的；而在《益世嘉言》里（将戏剧性反讽发挥到极致），驴子自己误将披着斗篷的农夫认作母驴。与之形成鲜明对比的是，正如本费伊本人所指出的，在《故事海》的版本中，驴子是把农夫错认为另一头公驴（einen andern Asel）——此时它的叫声体现的是同伴情谊而非求偶欲望。
Despite the fact that the Pancatantra’s author could have come by the Aesopic fable of The Ass in the Lion-Skin independently of 尽管《五卷书》作者可能不依赖任何印度文学来源就独立获得了《披着狮皮的驴》这则伊索寓言，
any Indian literary source, Benfey seems right in thinking that he owed his story material to a Buddhist collection, more likely than not our jataka compendium. Apart from the slight changes in detail, which could very well have been his own, the only new one that is introduced is that mentioned above - the sound of the sheass’s bray to account for the ass’s own ill-fated cry. Otherwise, the merchant of the jataka has become a laundryman in the Pancatantra, and the lion-skin is now a tiger-skin. 但本费伊认为其故事素材源自佛教故事集——极可能就是我们的本生经汇编——这一观点似乎是对的。除了那些很可能是他自行添加的细节微调外，唯一新增的元素就是前文提到的母驴叫声，用以解释驴子自己那声招致厄运的嘶鸣。除此之外，本生经中的商人被《五卷书》改编成了洗衣工，而狮皮也换成了虎皮。
This story is narrated in the Pancatanatra by the monkey of our preceding chapter to the crocodile there who desired his heart which forms the frame story of the fourth book (“Loss of Gains”) and by way of explanation of the stanza which the monkey had, immediately before that, recited as a proverb to be drawn from the preceding emboxed story of King Joy and Secretary Splendour, viz: 这个故事在《五卷书》中由我们前一章的猴子讲述给鳄鱼听，鳄鱼想要猴子的心脏，这构成了第四卷《得而复失》的框架故事。猴子在此之前刚将一首偈颂作为谚语吟诵出来，这则谚语源自嵌套的前一个故事——关于欢乐王与辉煌大臣的寓言，即：
However skilful in disguise, However frightful to the eyes, Although in tiger-skin arranged, The ass was killed because he brayed. 纵使伪装技艺高超，
纵使外貌骇人如妖，
身披虎皮精心装扮，
驴子终因嘶叫命丧。
“How was that?” asks the crocodile; whereupon the monkey launches upon the story: ^(17){ }^{17} "这是怎么回事？"鳄鱼问道；于是猴子开始讲述： ^(17){ }^{17}
There was once a laundryman named Clean-Cloth in a certain town. He had a single ass who had grown feeble due to lack of fodder. 某座城镇曾有位名叫净布的洗衣工。他养了一头驴子，由于缺乏草料而日渐消瘦。
As the laundryman wandered in the forest, he saw a dead tiger and thought, “Ah, this is my lucky day. I will put this tiger-skin on the ass and let him loose in the barley fields at night. For the farmers will think him a tiger and will not drive him out”. 洗衣工在森林里游荡时，看见一只死老虎，心想："啊，今天真是走运。我要把这虎皮披在驴身上，晚上放它去大麦田里。农夫们会以为它是老虎，不敢驱赶它。"
When this was done, the ass ate the barley to his heart’s content. And at dawn the laundryman took him back to the barn. 计划实施后，驴子尽情享用着大麦。天亮时分，洗衣工又把它牵回牲口棚。
So, as time passed, the ass grew plump. He could hardly squeeze into his stall. 日复一日，驴子吃得膘肥体壮，几乎挤不进自己的畜栏了。
But one day the ass heard the bray of a she-ass in the distance. At the mere sound he himself began to bray. Then the farmers perceived that it was an ass in disguise, and killed him with blows from clubs and stones and arrows. 但某天驴子听见远处传来母驴的嘶鸣，忍不住也跟着叫唤起来。农夫们这才发现是伪装的驴子，便用棍棒、石块和箭矢将它活活打死了。
Lacote’s studies of the existing antecedants of the great compendium of stories, in Prakrit verse, called the Brhatkatha and attributed to Gunadhya (c. 3^("rd ")3^{\text {rd }} century A.D.) have made it practically certain that that work contained no version of the Pancatantra ^(18){ }^{18}. He had good reason, however, for thinking that a version of it was drawn into the expanded recast of the Brhatkatha made at an uncertain date, apparently in North-West India, perhaps in Kashmir. This compilation, together with its Pancatantra material, he believed, was written in verse in the Paisaki dialect like the original of Gunadhya. It is from this work that Somadeva’s Kathasaritsagara, together with Ksemendra’s Brahatkathamanjari derive, both of them in Sanskrit verse and composed in Kashmir around the eleventh century A.D. As for the Hitopadesa, Winternitz ^(19){ }^{19} considered it a recast of the Pancatantra, while others thought it practically independent. 拉科特对现存故事集前身的研究表明，这部用普拉克里特语韵文写成的《广故事集》（相传为公元 1 世纪左右功德富所作）几乎可以肯定不包含任何版本的《五卷书》。然而他有充分理由认为，《广故事集》在西北印度（可能是克什米尔地区）某个不确定年代进行扩充改编时，曾吸纳过某个版本的《五卷书》。他相信这部汇编作品连同其中的《五卷书》素材，与功德富原著一样都是用佩萨奇方言韵文写成。11 世纪左右在克什米尔地区用梵语韵文创作的《故事海》（月天著）与《大故事花簇》（安主著）皆源于此本。至于《益世嘉言》，温特尼茨认为它是《五卷书》的改编本，而其他学者则认为它基本是独立作品。
Both views are possibly extreme. Three-quarters of the Hitopadesa text are based on the Pancatantra, while the remaining tales are either original or drawn form sources unknown to us. This fact is admitted by its supposed author, Narayana, when he says in the introduction of his work that the four books of the Hitopadesa have been extracted from the Pancatantra as well as from “other books”. It has already been proved by Edgerton, ^(20){ }^{20} following Hertel, ^(21){ }^{21} that it belongs to the north-eastern part of India (Bengal) and that Narayana, whose patron was Dhavalacandra must have lived between 800 A.D. and 1373 A.D. 这两种观点可能都过于极端。《益世嘉言》四分之三的内容基于《五卷书》，其余故事或是原创，或是取材于我们未知的来源。该书假托的作者那罗衍那在序言中承认了这一事实，称《益世嘉言》的四卷内容既摘录自《五卷书》，也取自"其他典籍"。埃杰顿 ^(20){ }^{20} 继赫特尔 ^(21){ }^{21} 之后已证实，该作品属于印度东北部（孟加拉地区），而受达瓦拉旃陀罗庇护的那罗衍那，其生活年代必定介于公元 800 年至 1373 年之间。
That the Kathasaritsagara and the Hitopadesa draw on the Pancatantra for their story of the ass in the lion-skin is quite evident, despite the exaggerations and slight variations of detail. Quite apart from the fact that from the jatakas onward the ass has a master, whose doing it was to cover the animal in the skin, these later works like to tell us that he did so because the ass was feeble from lack of food; in the decadent version of the Hitopadesa the ass is on the point of death. Conversely, the suggestion is developed that the ass had grown randy from the fine fodder he had enjoyed through the ruse, when he, in the Pancatantra, heard the call of a female, in the Hitopadesa at least of the other two, thought he saw one - and gave vent to his own fatal cry. 《故事海》与《益世嘉言》中关于披着狮皮的驴的故事显然借鉴了《五卷书》，尽管在细节上有所夸张和细微变化。且不说自本生经以降，这头驴便有了主人——正是此人将兽皮披在驴身上——这些后期作品还喜欢告诉我们，主人之所以这么做是因为驴子因缺乏食物而虚弱；在《益世嘉言》的颓废版本中，这头驴甚至濒临死亡。相反地，这些作品还发展出一个情节：当驴子（在《五卷书》中）听到雌性叫声时，或（至少在其他两部作品中）自以为看见同类时，竟因先前靠诡计享受的精良饲料而变得亢奋，最终发出那声致命的嘶鸣。
In the Tantrakyayika version of the Pancatantra, of which the only manuscript known comes from Kashmir, the skin, which in the advent of the Aesopic fable from Greece to India, was a lion’s and appeared so in the jataka, giving the jataka its very name, Sihacamma becomes the skin of a panther. There, as in some of the later Hindu versions, the story appears as the first emboxed story of Book III and is not transferred to Book IV as in the manuscripts, called by Kosegarten “Textus Simplicior” for want of a label, and the Purnabhadra text. In the text used by Benfey the skin has changed with the locality into the skin of a tiger, more familiar further south. It is tiger also in the Hitopadesa. 在《五卷书》的坦特拉克亚伊卡版本中——目前已知的唯一手稿来自克什米尔——那张兽皮（在伊索寓言从希腊传入印度时原本是狮皮，且在《本生经》中以狮皮形象出现，使得该故事得名"狮皮本生"）被替换成了豹皮。与部分后期印度教版本相同，该故事作为第三卷的首个嵌套故事出现，而未被转移至第四卷——科塞加滕因缺乏标签而称之为"简明文本"的手稿及《普尔纳跋陀罗文本》皆如此编排。在本菲所使用的文本中，兽皮随地域变迁改为南方更为常见的老虎皮。《益世嘉言》中亦作虎皮。
Leopard/panther (dvipi) or tiger (vyaghra), these variations look back for their inspiration to the first stanza uttered by the Bodhisatta 无论是豹/黑豹（dvipi）还是虎（vyaghra），这些变体都可追溯至菩萨所说的第一偈
in the Sihacamma Jataka and links these latter recensions of the fable in India with its earliest appearance there ^(22){ }^{22}. The change from lion to panther (or leopard) and tiger is a localization in a land and region whose villages faced, and still face, the depredations of these beasts, some even turned man-eaters. The lion-skin, with which the story first appears in India with the jataka, on the other hand, links it firmly with the fable in Greece. Little wonder, then, that right from the appearance of the Bodhisatta’s stanza in the jataka, India has shown an impatience to substitute for it the skin of the animal more familiar in the rural Inidan scene. 在《狮皮本生经》中，这些印度寓言的后世版本与其最初出现时的形态形成了关联。从狮子改为黑豹（或花豹）与老虎的转变，体现了故事在特定地域的本土化——那里的村庄过去乃至现在都遭受着这些猛兽的侵扰，有些甚至成为食人兽。而本生经中首次在印度出现时采用的狮皮元素，却使该故事与希腊寓言保持着牢固联系。难怪自从菩萨偈颂出现在本生经中，印度就表现出用乡村更常见的兽皮替代狮皮的迫切倾向。
As observed earlier, the villagers’ attempt to drive off what they thought was lion there, with shouting, conches and drums, draws from the real exercise of a ‘beat’ familiar against marauding beasts in Northern India’s tiger and leopard country. The Pancatantra even tells us how the laundryman, Suddhapata had come by his tiger-skin; he had found the carcases of a dead tiger in the forest. The Chinese Avadana version, on the other hand, obviously derives directly from the Buddhist story and retains the skin as of a lion ^(23){ }^{23}. 如前所述，村民们试图通过喊叫、海螺号和鼓声驱赶他们误认的狮子，这取材自印度北部虎豹出没地区真实的"围猎"驱兽习俗。《五卷书》甚至详述了洗衣工苏达帕塔如何获得虎皮：他在森林里发现了死虎的残骸。而中国的《譬喻经》版本显然直接源自佛教故事，仍保留着狮皮的设定。
Observe finally what happens to the ass’s bray of the Greek fable and the fox who heard it there. For here, in India, the bray succeeds in transforming the fox (already humanized in Greece in the stranger (xenos) in Lucian and the “someone” (tis) in Babrius, into no less a person than the Bodhisatta himself in the jataka, and ultimately, in the Kathasaritsagara and the Hitopadesa, into a cultivator whom the ass, masquerading as a tiger, is himself duped into thinking is another ass. On the other hand, the non-participant role the fox in Aesop had maintained is also maintained, for obvious ^("a "){ }^{\text {a }} 最后观察希腊寓言中驴的嘶鸣及其听众狐狸在印度版本中的演变。在这里，驴鸣竟成功地将狐狸（在希腊琉善笔下已被拟人化为异乡人[xenos]，在巴布里乌斯笔下化为"某人"[tis]）转化为本生经中的菩萨本身，最终在《故事海》与《益世嘉言》中更化作农夫——而那头假扮老虎的驴，反倒被自己愚弄，误将农夫认作同类。另一方面，埃索寓言里狐狸作为旁观者的角色定位，同样因佛教 ^("a "){ }^{\text {a }}
Buddhistic reasons, by the Bodhisatta, who steps into it. It is the villagers who assault the ass, when he is assaulted, unlike the man in Babrius’ account. And when they do so, note that it is with cudgels (atthini banjantâ pothetva) as in the puff-of-wind verşion in Aesop (rhopalois te kai xulois), even though these Indian villagers had come armed to drive away what they thought was a dangerous beast. It is the Pancatantra which so inappropriately adds arrows to clubs and stones to kill the poor ass. 教义考量而被菩萨承袭。当驴遭遇攻击时，出手的是村民而非巴布里乌斯版本中的男子。值得注意的是，村民使用的棍棒（atthini banjantâ pothetva）与埃索寓言中风神版（rhopalois te kai xulois）如出一辙，尽管这些印度村民本为驱赶猛兽而全副武装。《五卷书》不合时宜地添加了弓箭与石块，使这头可怜的驴死得更惨。
Using several versions of the Pancatantra and other collections of stories which seem to have drawn on the Pancatantra, Edgerton made an attempt to reconstruct what may have been the original Pancatantra ^(24){ }^{24}. This laborious undertaking, based on previous studies (especially of Hertel) and on an examination of linguistic correspondence, resulted in his publication of what seemed to him the single literary archetype. His aim, naturally, was the very opposite of tracing the development of the story in the subsequent rehandlings, the material for which, of course, is more to be found in the discrepancies and idiosyncracies of each retelling than in their common elements. 埃杰顿借助《五卷书》的多个版本以及其他似乎借鉴了《五卷书》的故事集，试图重构可能存在的原始《五卷书》版本。这项艰巨的工作基于前人的研究（特别是赫特尔）以及对语言对应关系的考察，最终形成了他所认定的单一文学原型出版物。他的目标自然与追溯故事在后续改编中的发展截然相反——这类研究材料更多存在于每次重述的差异与特质中，而非它们的共同元素。
Edgerton’s researches led him to accept the detail of a watchman in (grey) cloak, who is mistaken by the ass for a female of the species, to be the cause of the ass’s bray, not just the hearing of the bray of a female. Here Edgerton follows the account of the Kathasaritsagara and also the Hitopadesa, but one that, due to its internal contradictions, cannot have been the original version of the Pancatantra but a clumsy elaboration prompted by other factors in the development of the story so far. It seeks to make the sound of a she-ass’s cry in the Pancatantra versions the actual sight of a she-ass and, introducing an element of irony into the narrative, makes her not a real she-ass but someone whom the ass mistakes for a she-ass, just as much as the villagers themselves were fooled by the ass, willingly or otherwise, into thinking him a lion or whatever. And who better is there to double for that role than the ob- 埃杰顿的研究使他认同这样一个细节：披着（灰色）斗篷的看守人被驴误认为同类雌性，这成为驴子嘶鸣的原因，而不仅仅是听到雌驴的嘶鸣声。在此埃杰顿沿用了《故事海》与《益世嘉言》的叙述，但由于其内在矛盾性，这个版本不可能是《五卷书》的原初形态，而是故事发展过程中受其他因素催生的拙劣演绎。该版本试图将《五卷书》诸本中雌驴的嘶鸣声具象化为真实的雌驴形象，并通过引入反讽叙事元素，使这个"雌驴"并非真实存在，而是如同村民自愿或非自愿地将驴误认为狮子或其他生物那样，被驴错认的对象。而最适合扮演这一替身角色的——
server, who began as a fox in Aesop, became a stranger in Lucian and the Bodhisatta (as a young farmer) in the jataka, and now appears in the same role as cultivator in these works? In fact, he plays even a third role (that of the villagers), for he also combines in himself the nemesis of our ass. 在伊索寓言中最初是狐狸的角色，到了卢西安笔下变成了陌生人，在本生经中又化身为青年农夫（菩萨），如今在这些作品中又以耕作者的身份登场？实际上他甚至承担了第三个角色（村民群体），因为他同时兼具了我们这头驴的复仇者身份。
Already there is awkwardness in the account even before we come to the Hitopadesa, where the exaggeration is quite overdone. For example, in the Kathasaritsagara the cultivator is armed with a bow when he begins to slink away in a crouch upon seeing what he took to be a panther in the fields. 在我们谈及《益世嘉言》之前，叙述就已显得牵强，其中的夸张手法更是过犹不及。例如在《故事海》中，当耕作者误将田间之物认作黑豹时，他竟手持弓箭蜷缩着身子潜行逃离。
Either, why the bow then, unless he had taken the animal who was out there in the fields to be a ferocious beast, or in the alternative, if he took the bow in expectation of such a beast, why did he slink away when he saw it? There is also the further absurdity of the killing of the ass with a bow, when it is a cudgelling that was more appropriate for such a creature. The suggestion is that the cultivator quite by chance happened to have a bow with him, which, to say the least, is rather lame. In the Hitopadesa, not only does the cultivator deliberately arm himself with a bow but even lies in wait for what he takes to be tiger, when the ass mistakes him for a she-ass. The discovery that it was just a poor ass only and not a tiger helps the cultivator to kill the easier a beast whom he had in any case intended to destroy - thus detracting seriously from the significance of the ass’s ill-fated cry. 要么，他为何要带弓，除非他认为田间那头牲畜是猛兽；要么，若他带弓是为防备猛兽，为何见到时又偷偷溜走？更荒谬的是用弓箭击杀驴子——对付这种牲畜本该用棍棒才对。这暗示农夫碰巧随身带了弓，至少这种解释相当牵强。在《益世嘉言》中，农夫不仅刻意携带弓箭，甚至埋伏等待他误认为的老虎，而驴子却将他错当成母驴。当发现不过是头可怜的驴而非老虎时，农夫更轻易地杀死了这头本就打算除掉的牲畜——这极大削弱了驴子那声不幸嘶鸣的意义。
Far from rejecting this elaboration as late and spurious as far as his attempt went to discover the nature of the story in the original U_(r)U_{r} Pancatantra (as he calls it), and thus accepting the simpler form of it which approximates it to the jataka and the fable in Aesop, Edgerton draws around this detail more secondary elaboration than is found in each recension of the Pancatantra severally, and in the Hitopadesa, implying thereby that these later works were selective rather than expansive. I give below, and in his own spelling, his reconstruction of what the original Pancatantra would have said ^(25){ }^{25} : 埃杰顿并未将这种精心雕琢视为后期伪作而加以排斥，相反地，他在探寻原始《五卷书》（他如此称呼）故事本质的尝试中，接受了更接近本生故事和伊索寓言的简朴形式。围绕这一细节，他所作的二次加工甚至超过了《五卷书》各修订本及《益世嘉言》中的内容，由此暗示这些后期作品更具选择性而非扩展性。以下按他本人的拼写方式，呈现其对原始《五卷书》所述内容的复原 ^(25){ }^{25} ：
A certain washerman had an ass who was worn out with the vexation of exceeding great burdens (in carrying clothes). And the washerman, thinking to revive him, covered him with a panther’s skin and turned him loose by night in grain that belonged to others. And he ate the grain as much as he pleased, and no one (approacht him or) drove him away (from the grain), because they thot him a panther. Now (once upon a time) a certain (husbandman, a) watchman of the grain, saw him, and thot: “(That is) a panther: (I am lost!)” and he (bent over and) wrapt his body in his (gray) cloak, and, with uplifted bow in his hand began to slink away (very cautiously). And seeing him (from a distance) the ass, whose frame had grown fat (and who had recovered his strength), took him for a she-ass; and (since his life was doomed to end) he (put on full speed and) started in pursuit. (But the man ran faster than ever. And the ass thot: “Perhaps she may mistake me for what I am not, because she sees my body covered with the panther’s skin. So I will take on my true nature for her and charm her heart with a bray.” So thinking he began to bray. (And) hearing this the watchman of the grain knew (by the sound) that it was an ass, and (turned around and) killed him with an arrow. 有个洗衣工养了头驴子，因长期驮运沉重衣物而疲惫不堪。洗衣工为了让驴子恢复元气，便给它披上豹皮，趁夜放到别人家的庄稼地里。驴子尽情啃食谷物，无人（靠近或）驱赶它，因为大家都以为那是头豹子。某日，有个看守庄稼的农夫瞧见它，心想："（那是）豹子！（我命休矣！）"便蜷缩身子裹进灰斗篷里，手持拉满的弓，蹑手蹑脚地后退。远处那头因饱食谷物而膘肥体壮的驴子，却把农夫误认为母驴；（因命数已尽）它（全速）追赶起来。（但农夫跑得更快了。驴子琢磨："许是这身豹皮让她认错了，我不妨现出本相，用叫声打动她。"这么想着，它便嘶鸣起来。 （听到这声音）守谷人便知是头驴子，（转身）一箭射杀了它。
Here the ass’s bray is neither involuntary nor does it betray him against his will; it is deliberately uttered to undisguise himself of the disguise of the skin and show himself to be what he truly was. It is even intended to charm the she-ass! His undoing was just that someone for whom the disguise was actually meant was also disillusioned at the same time. If anything, this evidence shows that the story had advanced still further in the various recensions of the Pancatantra. I cannot think that this (and not the simple form of the story) was the original Pancatantra version and that the recensions excespted from it. For this is not the way fable progresses from the complex to the simple, but the other way round. And this appears to have been true of our fable of the ass in the lion-skin as well, even though, in the middle or that progression, it also jumped continents. 此处驴鸣既非无意之举，也非违背本意的自我暴露；它是蓄意发出的，为的是撕去兽皮伪装，显露真实身份。这声嘶鸣甚至企图吸引母驴！导致它败露的关键在于：那个本该被伪装蒙蔽的对象，此刻也识破了骗局。若要说有何启示，这个例证表明《五卷书》不同传本中的故事已发展得更为复杂。我难以认同这个版本（而非简单版本）才是《五卷书》原貌，其他传本皆由此删减而来。因为寓言演变规律本就是从简到繁，而非相反。我们讨论的"披狮皮之驴"寓言似乎也遵循此理，尽管在传播过程中还曾跨越大陆。
This is evident from the difficulties that would arise for Edgerton from his defence of this reconstruction of the story, which appears in the introduction to his more recent publication of the translation ^(26){ }^{26}. 这一点从埃杰顿为其故事重构辩护时所遭遇的困境即可看出，该辩护见于其新近译著导言 ^(26){ }^{26} 。
The story represents for him one of the very few examples of borrowing between Greece and India and in this particular case he has little doubt that its origin was in India. The role of the ass he finds purely determined by its lechery - “in Indian stories the ass is standardly regarded as a type of lechery” - whereas “no Greek version has the lechery-motif (which, to be sure is missing also in the Pali Jataka.” “In the ‘Aesopic’ fables in Greek and Latin”, he adds, “the skin is always a lion’s, as in the Pali,” and attributes this to “a Greek borrowing from this Indic source, or one related to the Pali form.” 在他看来，这个故事是希腊与印度之间极少数文化交流的例证之一，就这个具体案例而言，他毫不怀疑其起源地在印度。他认为驴子的角色完全由其好色本性决定——"在印度故事中，驴子通常被视为好色的典型"——而"希腊版本均未出现好色母题（值得注意的是，巴利文《本生经》中也缺失这一母题）"。他补充道："在希腊和拉丁文的'伊索式'寓言中，外皮始终是狮子的，与巴利文版本相同"，并将此归因于"希腊对此印度来源的借鉴，或某个与巴利文形式相关的版本"。
The ass may stand for lechery in India and that may be why he lent himself to such a development of the story ultimately; but that is not all he stands for, nor the most obvious thing he stands for. Edgerton is, however, quite correct in seeing the jataka as the linkup with the fable in Greece, even though he thought - and wrongly - that it was only in one very late version of the Greek Aesopic fables that the ass was recognized by his bray. What he refers to is that of the Augustana, no doubt before scholarship had strongly supported its relationship to the Aesopica of Demetrius. Already in Lucian, whom he considers contemporary with the Pancatantra in India, the fable figures within an obviously innovative treatment and still retains for itself the bray as the clue to the ass’s identity. 在印度，驴子可能象征着淫欲，这或许就是它最终能促成故事如此发展的原因；但它所代表的远不止于此，也并非最显而易见的含义。然而，埃杰顿将本生经视为与希腊寓言连接的纽带，这一观点相当正确——尽管他错误地认为，只有在希腊伊索寓言一个非常晚期的版本中，驴子才因其嘶鸣声被认出。他所指的是奥古斯塔纳版本，当时学术界尚未有力证实其与德米特里乌斯《伊索寓言集》的关联。早在卢奇安的作品中——他认为卢奇安与印度的《五卷书》处于同一时代——这则寓言就呈现出明显的创新处理方式，却依然保留了以嘶鸣声作为辨识驴子身份的关键线索。
The greatest difficulty still remains that, on Edgerton’s interpretation of the history of the ass’s story, the jatakas cannot antedate the Pancatantra, even though he himself dates the Pancatantra to the second century B.C. If they did, the Pali version of jataka 189 (the Sihacamma) could not be taken, as he does, to derive from the Pancatantra (his original) as do the versions of the Kathasarisagara and the Hitopadesa. And yet the jataka does relate more easily to the Greek versions, as Edgerton himself concedes. 最大的困难依然在于，根据埃杰顿对驴子故事历史的解读，即便他将《五卷书》的年代定为公元前二世纪，本生经也不可能早于《五卷书》。若本生经更早出现，就如他所认为的那样，巴利文版第 189 则本生故事《狮皮》（Sihacamma）便不可能像《故事海》和《益世嘉言》的版本那样源自《五卷书》（他的原始版本）。然而埃杰顿本人也承认，这则本生故事确实与希腊版本存在更明显的关联。
CHAPTER X 第十章
THE ELUSIVE WOLF THREE UNFLEDGED AESOPIZING JATAKAS 难以捉摸的狼：三则未成熟的伊索式本生故事
Among the many jatakas which emulate motifs from the fables of Aesop are a number which take their’s from the more popular of these, which, as Revd. Spence Hardy was aware, were known even among schoolboys in his native Britain. They should certainly be among the dozen or so than Jacobs afterwards brought together. 在众多模仿伊索寓言主题的本生故事中，有数则取材自其中更为流行的故事——正如哈代牧师所知，这些故事在他的故乡英国甚至为学童所熟知。它们理应属于雅各布斯后来汇编的十余则经典之列。
However, a notable absentee in this group, and yet one that has given rise to an idiom more popular even than the fable itself, is that of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The motif is of a savage predatory beast (here a wolf) who put on the appearance of an innocent creature (here a sheep) by donning the skin of one of these, and in this disguise, was able to come right into the flock to wreak his devilry. 然而，这一类型中有一个引人注目的缺席者——它催生的谚语甚至比寓言本身更为流行——那就是"披着羊皮的狼"。这个母题讲述一头凶残的掠食野兽（此处为狼）通过披上温顺动物（此处为羊）的外皮伪装自己，借此混入羊群实施暴行。
The Greek version of this, which is in the form of the Aesopic fable, comes to us form Nikephoros Basilakis, who gives it in his Progymnasmata. It is the Poimēn kai Lukos i.e The Shepherd and the Wolf (H.376, P.451). The motif here, and the motif of another Greek fable are remarkable in the context of the Indian jatakas in that they are to be found in the gatha of two longer and more complex jatakas, the Mahabodhi (No. 528) and the Sonaka (No. 529) respectively, instead of having given rise to independent jatakas or at least stories in their own right within more complex jatakas. 该母题的希腊版本以伊索寓言形式流传，见于尼基弗鲁斯·巴西拉基斯的《初阶修辞练习》，即《牧羊人与狼》（编号 H.376，P.451）。值得注意的是，这个母题与另一则希腊寓言母题在印度本生经中的呈现方式颇为特殊：它们分别以偈颂形式存在于两个更复杂的长篇本生经——《大觉本生》（第 528 则）和《苏那迦本生》（第 529 则）中，而非形成独立的本生故事或至少在复杂本生经中自成篇章。
The second of these motifs that I refer to is that of a vicious creature who is observed drifting down a river upon a curious vessel, the combination of the two provoking a sharp remark from the observer. The Greek fable here is that of The Viper and the Fox (H.145, B.173), which is, in contrast to the fable of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, hardly known, and thus not surprisingly the parallel has gone altogether unremarked. 我所提及的第二个母题，是关于一只凶残生物乘着奇特船只顺流而下，二者组合引得观察者发出尖锐评论。对应的希腊寓言是《蝰蛇与狐狸》（编号 H.145，B.173），与"披着羊皮的狼"的寓言不同，这则故事鲜为人知，因此其相似性完全未被注意到也就不足为奇了。
As for the third motif which will be discussed in this chapter, it is not to be found in any form or even allusion in the Jatakatthavannana, though from its depiction in its respective objet d’art, I cannot but suspect it had been formulated as a jataka at some time in those early centuries that saw the literary compilation, but did not receive inclusion in the compendium. This is the motif of the well-known Aesopic fable of The Fox and the Crane (H.34, C.326), and though just a single identifiable instance, may serve as evidence of the existence of Greek fables and Indian stories based upon such fables outside the Jatakatthavannana, some of which would have made their appearance in other compendia or works of art, while much would have faded into oblivion from failure to do so. Even of those that did find representation in other works, whether literary or artistic, only a few survive, the rest being lost through the ravages of times and the vicissitudes of fortune. 本章将讨论的第三个主题，在《本生经》中找不到任何形式甚至影射的痕迹。不过从其相关艺术品中的描绘来看，我不得不怀疑这个主题曾在早期编纂文献的几个世纪里被构成本生故事，只是未被收入这部总集中。这就是著名的伊索寓言《狐狸与鹤》（H.34，C.326）的主题。虽然仅此一个可辨识的例证，却足以证明在《本生经》之外存在着希腊寓言及基于此类寓言的印度故事。其中部分可能出现在其他总集或艺术作品中，而更多则因未能流传而湮没无闻。即便那些确实在其他作品（无论是文学还是艺术）中留下痕迹的，如今也仅有少数幸存，其余都随时间侵蚀与命运变迁而散佚了。
The Aesopic fable of The Shepherd and the Wolf is as follows: 伊索寓言《牧羊人与狼》的内容如下：
A wolf once decided to change his appearance by a ruse and thus get himself a plentiful supply of food. So he put on a sheep’s skin and began to graze with the flock, deceiving the shepherd by his ruse. But when it became night, the beast was shut in the fold with the rest of the flock and the gate placed across the exit, so that the enclosure utterly frustrated his escape. But when the shepherd himself wanted food, it was the wolf he happened to slaughter with his knife. 有只狼曾想用诡计改变外貌，好获得充足食物。它披上羊皮混入羊群吃草，用这伎俩骗过了牧羊人。但夜幕降临后，这头野兽与其他羊一起被关进羊圈，栅门堵住了出口，围栏彻底断了它的退路。而当牧羊人想吃肉时，恰巧用刀宰杀的正是这头狼。
The fable motif, if it originated with these characters, wolf and sheep, must surely have done so in a bucolic community that practised shepherding and was familiar with these beasts and the relationship that existed between them, which necessitated the wolf’s resort to his ruse. Likewise, the motif, if not the idiom to which it gave rise, would have spread fast and easily among a people given to shepherding, who knew the depredations of wolves. It is with these characters that the motif is met, when it is met, in the best of contexts. 若这则寓言母题确以狼与羊为主角诞生，那必定出自一个从事牧羊的田园社群——他们熟悉这两种动物及其对立关系，这才使狼不得不施展诡计。同理，即便不考虑由此衍生的习语，这个母题也会在饱受狼患的牧羊民族中迅速传播。当这个母题在最恰当的语境中出现时，总与这些角色相伴相生。
On the other hand, as we saw, the jatakas of India do not appear to have evolved to any considerable extent among bucolic folk; sheep and wolves are hardly mentioned, their role being taken by goats and lions and in contexts which suggest rather domestic animalhusbandry in villages hemmed in by forests than with the grazing of flocks in pasture-lands. 另一方面，正如我们所看到的，印度的本生故事似乎并未在乡村民众中发展出多少变体；绵羊与野狼鲜少被提及，它们的角色由山羊和狮子取代，且相关情节更暗示着被森林环绕的村落中家畜饲养的场景，而非牧场上的放牧活动。
Thus, even if it does not appear in the form of a developed jataka story, it comes as a pleasant surprise when we do encounter the motif of this popular Aesopic fable of the wolf in sheep’s clothing in the pages of the Jataka Book, and not as part of the prose commentary but in the verse formulations or gatha. For you will find it as a simile or comparison in the Mahabodhi Jataka, which the Bodhisatta (born in that life as Bodhi, a mendicant) applies to the five heretical councellors of the king of Benares in the sermon which he gives him after he had escaped their ruses and repudiated their false doctrines, using as his foil a monkey-skin. For, having worsted them by the logic of his arguments and shown them up to be the rascals they were, by way of illustration of the nature of charlatans and humbugs who resort to the habit and practices of holy men to dupe the pious, he adds: 因此，即便这个主题没有以完整本生故事的形式呈现，当我们在《本生经》书页中邂逅这则家喻户晓的伊索寓言"披着羊皮的狼"时——不是作为散文注释的组成部分，而是以偈颂形式出现——仍不失为一种惊喜。你会在《大菩提本生》中发现它被用作比喻：菩萨（此生托生为游方行者菩提）在摆脱贝拿勒斯国王五位异端大臣的诡计并驳斥其邪说后，借由一张猴皮作为道具，向国王布道时以此喻指那些大臣。当菩萨以逻辑论证击败他们，揭露其恶棍本质后，为说明那些借托圣者行止来欺骗虔信者的江湖骗子本质，他补充道：
which H.T. Francis ^(1){ }^{1} translates as follows: H.T. Francis 将其译为：
A wolf disguised as ram of old Drew unsuspected nigh the fold. 昔有恶狼扮作羊，悄然潜近牧群旁。
The panic-stricken flock it slew, Then scampered off to pastures new. 惊惶羊群遭屠戮，得逞遁向新草场。
Thus monks and brahmins often use A cloak, the credulous to abuse. 僧侣婆罗多伪善，常披外衣欺愚氓。
Some on bare ground all dirty lie, Some fast, some squat in agony. 有人赤身卧污地，有人蜷缩苦呻吟。
Some may not drink, some eat by rule, As saint each poses, wicked fool. 有人禁饮守斋戒，伪作圣徒实愚行。
This use of the imagery of the wolf who donned sheep’s clothing to describe the nature of bogus religious men here who by their dress, demeanor and doings deceive the people to enrich themselves, is strikingly paralleled both in the wolf disguised as well as the sort of people to whom it is applied in the words of Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount ^(2){ }^{2}. For there he warns men: 此处借用"披着羊皮的狼"的意象来描绘那些通过服饰、举止和行为蒙骗民众以自肥的伪宗教人士，与耶稣基督在《登山宝训》 ^(2){ }^{2} 中所警示的情形惊人地相似——他告诫世人要警惕：
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” "你们要防备假先知。他们到你们这里来，外面披着羊皮，里面却是残暴的狼。"
There is no need to think that Christ’s comparison of false prophets to wolves disguised as sheep here has in any way been prompted by the Mahabodhi Jataka. On the other hand, like the author of the Mahabodhi stanzas, his imagery could have traced back to the Aesopic fable, or at least a popular idiom arising from it, which easily evoked that imagery. 无需认为基督将假先知比作披着羊皮的狼这一比喻在某种程度上受到了《大菩提本生经》的启发。另一方面，与《大菩提偈》的作者类似，他的意象可能源自伊索寓言，或至少是源于该寓言的流行习语，这种习语很容易唤起此类意象。
The author of the jataka stanzas apparently knew what a sheep and a wolf looked like, whence his use of urabbha for the former and vaka for the latter, and thus represents the characters of the incident just as they are found in the Greek fable, even if these animals are not the readiest to come to the Indian mind in the context of the localized scene. Thus the urani slaughtered by the wolf along with the goats and she-goats (ajiyam ajan ca) must be taken as sheep, as was urabbha, the animal whom the wolf impersonated by putting on its skin. If the compiler of the stanzas here was himself an IndoGreek - and this is not unlikely - he may even have been quite familiar with the creatures of the Aesopic fable, even if the goats are added towards localizing the motif. (As we shall see, the wolf (vaka) himself becomes, under localization in a Sri Lanka, so unfamiliar with wolves, quite another sort of predatory beast.) 本生经偈颂的作者显然知晓绵羊与狼的外形特征，因此用"urabbha"指代前者，以"vaka"称呼后者，即便这些动物在印度本土情境中并非最易联想到的形象，其角色塑造仍与希腊寓言如出一辙。由此可推断，被狼与山羊母羊（ajiyam ajan ca）一同猎杀的"urani"应如"urabbha"般同属绵羊——正是狼披着其毛皮伪装的那种动物。倘若此偈颂编纂者本身便是印度-希腊人（这种可能性不低），他或许对伊索寓言中的生物相当熟悉，尽管添加山羊元素是为使母题本土化。（后文将提及，在缺乏狼类认知的斯里兰卡本土化过程中，狼（vaka）自身会演变成另一种掠食猛兽。）
In the Aesopic fables in Halm the wolf is among the four most popular beasts, occurring around 28 times to the fox’s 40 , the lion’s 34 and the ass’s 32 , with several of these having to do with sheep, flocks and shepherds, whereas it occurs only twice in the jatakas i.e. in the Vaka Jataka (No. 300) with a wild goat in a motif that itself emulates, but at the same time intensifies, the motif of another Greek fable, The Fox and the Grapes (C.32, H.33, P.15, Hs.15a), and this instance that we are now discussing. 在哈尔姆的《伊索寓言》中，狼位列四大热门动物之一，出现约 28 次，仅次于狐狸的 40 次、狮子的 34 次和驴的 32 次，其中多次涉及羊群与牧羊人主题；而它在本生经中仅出现两次——其一是《野山羊本生》（第 300 号）中与野山羊的互动，该情节既模仿又强化了另一则希腊寓言《狐狸与葡萄》（编号 C.32/H.33/P.15/Hs.15a）的母题；其二便是我们正在讨论的这个案例。
Unlike the author of the stanzas in the Mahabodhi, the commentator on the Jatakatthavannana ad loc appears not to have known the prototype Aesopic fable and of how the wolf could be said to be, by the former, itself urabbharupena. So, either from a lack of knowledge of what an urabbha looked like (which is rather unlikely) or what a wolf, vaka, looked like (which is not impossible), he thinks that the prominent difference which the wolf had to conceal so as to be accepted into the fold of his victims, the sheep, was his overlong tail! So this he makes him hide by tucking it between his thighs. Otherwise (our commentator may have thought) this animal (or this particular animal, by a freak of nature) looked much like an urabbha and could pass muster when he approached them (and the goats that were with them) in this manner. For, he writes, explaining: 与《大菩提》偈颂的作者不同，《本生经》此处的注释者似乎并不知晓伊索寓言的原型，也不理解为何前者会将狼描述为"urabbharupena"（具有羊形）。因此，要么是由于不清楚 urabbha（羊）的外形（这不太可能），要么是不认识 vaka（狼）的模样（这倒并非不可能），这位注释者认为：狼为了混入受害群体羊群中必须隐藏的最显著特征，竟是它过长的尾巴！于是他让狼将尾巴夹在两腿之间来隐藏。或许我们的注释者认为，除此之外，这只动物（或这只因自然变异而特殊的动物）看起来与羊非常相似，当它以这种方式接近羊群（及与之同行的山羊）时就能蒙混过关。因为他在注释中解释道：
“O King, there was once a wolf, who had the appearance "大王，昔有一狼，形似
of a sheep; only, his tail was long. (So) he put it between his thighs and approached a flock unsuspected.” 绵羊，唯其尾甚长。（遂）夹尾股间，潜近羊群而不为所察。"
The result is that the Sinhala commentator in the Jataka Atuwa Getapadaya, and following him, the narrator of the Sinhala Pansiya Panas Jataka Pota construes the animal designated by vaka in Pali as a yuga diviya, a creature not only different in appearance but of an altogether different species, a leopard instead of a wolf. Correspondingly, the urabbha is now construed as a goat, not a sheep. Correspondingly also, the need now is no longer for the predator to have a fluffy coat, but a more smoothed-down one! 其结果是，《本生经》阿图瓦·格塔帕达亚的僧伽罗语注释者，以及紧随其后的《潘西亚·帕纳斯本生故事集》的僧伽罗语叙述者，将巴利语中称为"vaka"的动物解释为"yuga diviya"——这种生物不仅外貌迥异，更是完全不同的物种，用豹取代了狼。相应地，"urabbha"现在被解释为山羊而非绵羊。同样地，捕食者所需的也不再是蓬松的皮毛，而是更为顺滑的毛皮！
Thus, we are told by the latter writer that the yuga diviya, in order to achieve this effect of appearing goat-like (far from donning a sheep - or goat-skin) dipped himself in water filthied by hogs - the filthiness of the water being of course a sneer at the villian for the degradation to which he had succumbed to achieve his nefarious purpose. 因此，后一位作者告诉我们，为了达到形似山羊的效果（远非披上绵羊或山羊皮），"yuga diviya"将自己浸泡在被猪玷污的水中——水的污秽自然是对这个恶棍的嘲讽，暗示他为达成邪恶目的而堕落到如此卑劣的地步。
Thus, our wolf in sheep’s clothing of the popular Aesopic fable has become, through the substitution of animals familiar to the local scene for both wolf and sheep, a yuga diviya in goat’s clothing - or, to be more precise, a goat not in dress but in dressing. And all this apparently follows from the accident of misconstruing the idea tersely compressed in the word urabbharupena of the original Pali, which had meant to suggest all of the detail in the prototype Aesopic motif, that the wolf had taken the form (rupa) of a sheep (urabbha) by donning the skin of a sheep (Gk: doran… peribeblēmenos). 于是，我们熟知的伊索寓言中"披着羊皮的狼"，通过将狼和羊替换为当地常见的动物，变成了"披着山羊皮的鬣狗"——更准确地说，是一只没有穿"衣服"而是裹着"外皮"的山羊。这一切显然源于对巴利语原文 urabbharupena 一词的误读，这个词本意是要完整呈现原型伊索母题中的细节：狼通过披上羊皮（希腊语：doran… peribeblēmenos）获得了羊（urabbha）的外形（rupa）。
The surprise of course is that an ass, in the Sihacamma Jataka, was already known to have appeared as a lion by putting on a lion-skin. So that it should have prompted our commentators, both Pali and Sinhala, as to how the animal here that did not look like an urabbha took on the urabbharupa. But perhaps what discouraged such a supposition was the unlikelihood of a man doing the same for a predator such as a wolf, as the trader/washerman had done for the ass - though there is no reason to think that a jataka animal could not have done some such thing by himself for himself. 令人惊讶的是，在《狮皮本生经》中，早已有驴子披上狮皮假扮狮子的先例。这本应提醒我们的注释者——无论是巴利语还是僧伽罗语版本——思考此处这只不像 urabbha（羊）的动物如何获得 urabbharupa（羊形）。但或许阻碍这种推测的原因在于：人类不太可能像商人/洗衣工对待驴子那样，为狼这样的掠食者做同样的事——尽管没有理由认为本生经中的动物不能自己为自己做类似的事。
The other possibility - and the more likely one perhaps - is that the commentators, not being familiar with the sort of animal designated by the Pali vako, and half-taking urabbha as a goat, had gone on to conceiving the predatory beast as a leopard, the beast which, (along with the tiger in North India), was the more familiar threat to livestock in India (and Sri Lanka). As mentioned earlier, the wolf is a very rare occurrence in the jatakas. 另一种可能性——或许更有可能的是——注释者们不熟悉巴利语"vako"所指的动物，且将"urabbha"半理解为山羊，进而将这种掠食野兽构想为豹子。在印度（及斯里兰卡），豹子（与北印度的老虎一起）才是对牲畜更常见的威胁。如前所述，狼在本生经中是非常罕见的存在。
A significant difference between the jataka motif and the corresponding Aesopic fable is that the former implies that the wolf got away with his ruse, whereas in the latter, as would be seen, he comes to grief because of it - the shepherd, feeling hungry, grabs a sheep and slaughters it for dinner, and it happens to be our deceitful wolf, no less. Following which we have the epimuthion of the fable saying “Even so has assuming a character that is not his own brought about the death of a man; such play-acting can get one into serious trouble”. 本生故事母题与对应伊索寓言的一个显著差异在于：前者暗示狼的诡计得逞了，而后者（我们将看到）狼却因此遭殃——牧人感到饥饿时抓了一只羊宰杀作晚餐，恰巧就是我们那只奸诈的狼。随后寓言以训诫作结："伪装非己本性的角色终致一人丧命；如此演戏可能招致大祸"。
This is good fable, both by way of plot as well as lesson. The ironical twist by which the wolf comes to grief himself, and by the very ruse with which he was plotting the destruction of others, makes it so. But similarly the Mahabodhi simile too could have been developed independently as good jataka, if only to illustrate the perversity of a man in his previous incarnation, which he had repeated in this one as well, giving the Buddha occasion to draw a parallel. The context in which the stanzas were narrated, i.e. of false monks and brahmins, could easily have lent the material for the story of the present such as one finds in the Nacca Jataka, the jataka of the dancing peacock. Of very simple form, for instance, is the jataka of the jackal who in this life and the past does no more than pollute the water from which he had drunk, the Udapanadusaka Jataka (No. 271). 这则寓言构思巧妙，寓意深刻。狼用计谋害人却反遭其害的讽刺转折，正是其精妙所在。同样，摩诃菩提的譬喻本也可独立发展为优秀的本生故事——单是为了展现某人在前世今生重复相同的偏执行为，就足以让佛陀借此建立因果关联。那些偈颂所述的背景（关于伪比丘和婆罗门）很容易衍生出类似《孔雀舞本生》那样的现世故事。例如《水污豺本生》（第 271 号）形式极为简单，讲述的豺今生与前世都只是在饮过水后污染水源。
As between the Greek fable and the motif of the relevant stanzas of the Mahabodhi Jataka, what we have is promise of a jataka with inversion, the wolf getting away with murder, not being murdered himself. At the same time commentary and Sinhala versions show the process of localization resulting from lack of familiarity, here 希腊寓言与《大菩提本生经》相关诗节的主题之间，我们看到的是本生故事承诺的倒置——狼犯下谋杀却逍遥法外，而非自身遭害。与此同时，注释文献与僧伽罗版本显示出因对原始主题参与者本质的陌生感而导致的本地化过程。
with the nature of the participants of the original motif. All in all the evidence bespeaks an original awareness of the Greek fable on the one hand, and a motif not yet properly exploited as a jataka on the other. 总体而言，这些证据一方面表明对希腊寓言的原始认知，另一方面则显示该主题尚未被充分开发为本生故事。
The same, I feel is true of the parable in the Sonaka Jataka (No. 529), in which a crow is floated down-river and far into the sea upon the carcass of an elephant, upon which it is feeding, only to itself end up as food for others, thus illustrating the fate of those who, unmindful, indulge their lusts. The gatha are translated by Francis ^(3){ }^{3} as follows: 我认为《苏那卡本生经》（第 529 号）中的寓言同样如此：乌鸦一边啄食河中的象尸，一边随尸体漂流入海，最终自身沦为其他生物的食物，以此警示那些放纵欲望而不自知者的命运。弗朗西斯将该偈颂翻译如下：
Who greedily on pleasure bent their worldly lusts would sate, 贪欲无度纵情欢愉者，终将沦为自身欲望的祭品。
Work wickedness awhile, to be reborn in worldly state. 作恶一时，转生尘世享荣华。
But they who leave desire behind through life all fearless go, 离欲之人无畏行此生，
And reaching concentration pure are ne’er reborn to woe. 得至净定永离苦轮回。
Here tell I thee a parable; Arindama, give heed, 且听我为汝说譬喻，阿林达摩，当谛听。
Some that are wise through parable my meaning best may read. 智者自能借寓言领悟我意。
See! borne along on Ganges’ flooded tide a carcase vast, A foolish crow thought to himself as it was floating past, 看！恒河泛滥的洪流载着一具庞大浮尸漂过，一只愚鸦暗自思忖：
“Oh what a carriage I have found and goodly store of food, Here will I stay both night and day, enjoying blissful mood.” "啊！我寻得如此车驾与丰盛美食，当昼夜栖居于此，尽享极乐之趣。"
So eats he flesh of elephant and drinks from Ganges’ stream And budging not sees grove and shrine pass by him in a dream. 它啖象肉饮恒河水，纹丝不动，恍若梦中见林园庙宇从身旁掠过。
Thus heedless and on carrion vile so all intent was he, 他如此专注而忘我，只顾啄食腐肉，
The Ganges swept him headlong to the perils of the sea. 恒河急流将他冲入险恶的海洋深处。
But when with food exhausted he, poor bird, essayed a flight, 当这可怜鸟儿耗尽气力试图飞离，
Nor east nor west nor south nor north was any land in sight. 却见四方茫茫，不见寸土可栖。
Far out at sea, so weak was he, long ere he reached the shore, 远在海上，他力竭精疲，未抵岸便已不支，
Midst countless perils of the deep, he fell to rise no more. 深海险境无数，他沉沦不起永眠于此。
For crocodiles and monster fish, where our poor flutterer lay, 鳄鱼与巨怪游弋，可怜扑腾者葬身之地，
Came ravening all around and quick devoured their quivering prey. 群兽环伺争抢，战栗猎物顷刻被撕食殆尽。
So thou and all that greedily pleasures of sense pursue Are deemed as wise as was the crow, till ye all lusts eschew. 你与所有贪恋感官之乐者，
皆如乌鸦般自诩聪慧，直至摒弃一切欲念。
My parable proclaims the Truth. To it, O king, give heed, Thy fame for good or ill will grow according to they deed. 我的寓言宣示真理。国王啊，请留心谛听，你的声誉将随你的行为而增减。
The image we have here easily calls to mind, for those who know it, the brief fable in the Aesopic collection, of The Viper and the Fox (H.145), which is as follows: 眼前这幅画面，让熟悉伊索寓言的人立刻联想到《蝮蛇与狐狸》(H.145)这则简短寓言，其内容如下：
"A viper was being carried down a stream upon a bundle of thistles, when a fox, standing by, saw him and observed, “A skipper right worth of his skiff!” 一条毒蛇正乘着一簇蓟草顺流而下，岸边的狐狸见状说道："这船夫和他的小船可真是绝配！"
Undoubtedly the jataka parable has made more out of this picture of a hateful creature riding down-river upon a craft which relates to him in some special way; but there is no gainsaying that the terse and brief fable makes its own point, being, as its epimuthion says, addressable “to a rascal involved in villainous undertakings”. That the remark comes from no less a creature than a fox brings to it a touch of irony as well. 毫无疑问，本生譬喻将这个可憎生物乘着与其有特殊关联的筏子顺流而下的画面发挥得更为淋漓尽致；但不可否认的是，这则简洁的寓言本身已足够发人深省——正如其结偈所言，它针对的是"深陷邪恶勾当的无赖之徒"。而这句话出自一只狐狸之口，更平添了几分讽刺意味。
On the other hand, the jataka rounds up the image into a fuller fable and one which carries with it rich Buddhistic moralizing, even though it still remains in verse formulation and has not been rendered as a jataka in its own right. For the crow, riding his craft, the elephant’s carcase, and feeding upon it as a man indulging his lusts, is carried too far out into the sea of physical satiation and too weighted down with carrion comfort that he is unable to escape to shore from the perils of the deep. Which makes King Arindama reflect: ^(4){ }^{4} 另一方面，尽管仍以偈颂形式呈现且未被单独列为本生故事，这个寓言通过本生故事的演绎将意象扩展为更完整的寓言，承载着丰富的佛教教化意义。那只乌鸦乘着它的筏子——即大象的尸体，并像纵欲之人般大快朵颐，最终被肉体满足的汪洋冲得太远，又被腐肉带来的安逸压得太沉，以致无法从深海险境中逃回岸边。这令阿林达摩王不禁感慨：
“Tomorrow one may die, who knows? I’ll be ordained today; "明日或许命终，谁知？我今即当出家；
Lest, like the foolish crow, I fall 'neath passion’s baneful sway” 莫如愚痴乌鸦，终为贪欲所辖"
Coming to the third of our Greek motifs from Aesopic fables not reflected in the Jatakatthavannana as jatakas but which are otherwise evidenced, I take up that small round stone tray associated with Gandharan civilization and belonging to a class of such which are generally thought to have held cosmetics and therefore called cosmetic or toilet trays. These trays are flattish plaques with upturned rim, with diameters 31//231 / 2 to 61//261 / 2 inches and thickness of 1//21 / 2 inch or less, and divided horizontally into two sections, the upper section larger than the lower (which again may be divided vertically into two or more segments). The lower subdivisions of the exegue held the cosmetic or cosmetics, while the upper was worked into a scene, clearly Hellenistic, with, as Buchthal insists, a distinct Roman flavour ^(5){ }^{5}. The majority of these small objets d’art came form Stratum II in Sirkap and are datable to the last century B.C. and the first century A.D., though the undoubtedly best piece, which shows a standing male figure pulling a kneeling female by her hand and is, 谈到第三个希腊母题——源自伊索寓言却未以本生故事形式出现在《本生经》中，但通过其他方式得以证实的案例——我要提及那件与犍陀罗文明相关的小型圆形石盘。这类器物通常被认为用于盛放化妆品，故被称为妆奁盘或梳妆盘。这些浅盘呈扁平状，边缘上翻，直径约 0 至 1 英寸，厚度不超过 2 英寸，水平分为上下两部分：上部较大，下部较小（下部可能再垂直分割为两格或多格）。下部分区用于存放化妆品，而上部则雕刻着明显具有希腊化风格的场景——正如布赫塔尔强调的那样，还带有鲜明的罗马韵味 3。这些小巧的艺术品大多出土于西尔卡普遗址的第二地层，年代可追溯至公元前一世纪至公元一世纪。其中最精美的一件无疑描绘了这样的场景：一名站立男子正拽着跪地女子的手，
as Buchthal calls it, “a rather immobilized version of the Roman formula of the myth of Apollo and Daphne”, comes from the GraccoBactrian city (Stratum IV) ^(6){ }^{6} and is datable, according to Sir John Marshall, to as early as the second century B.C. ^(7){ }^{7} 正如布赫塔尔所称，这是"阿波罗与达芙妮神话罗马程式中一种相当凝固化的版本"，出土于希腊-巴克特里亚城市（第四地层） ^(6){ }^{6} 。根据约翰·马歇尔爵士的考证，其年代可追溯至公元前二世纪 ^(7){ }^{7} 。
The majority of these trays are of schist; a few are of steatite and other workable stone. The subjects depicted are a geometric or floral design or some chimerical sea-monster, often ridden by a woman, naked or clothed in Greek manner, drinking or dancing scenes or couples in romantic association. 这些托盘大多由片岩制成，少数采用滑石及其他易加工石材。雕刻主题包括几何纹样或花卉图案、各种奇幻海怪（常有身着希腊式服饰或裸体的女性骑乘其上）、饮酒舞蹈场景，以及缠绵悱恻的恋人形象。
Remarkable in the light of all this is the fragment of a Sirkap tray of black schist 3//83 / 8 of an inch thick and 3.8 inches in diameter, which as mentioned before is in the possession of Franco Micieli de Biase, one-time Italian ambassador in Sri Lanka, which, in its upper two-thirds depicts a scene which I have had no hesitation in identifying as an Indianized version of the Aesopic fable of The Fox and the Crane (H.34). For it shows a bearded man seated on a low seat, with on his right a bird and on his left an animal. The low seat causes the Greek himation which the man is wearing to undulate deeply between his legs. His slightly bent head and chin resiing on right hand, the elbow of which is planted on his knee, give him the appearance of being in deep thought. The wig-like treatment of his hair and his prominent eyes are peculiar characteristics of nascent Gandharan sculpture during the Saka period, to which this tray too may belong. What is difficult to comprehend is the nature of the long pliant object which he holds in his left hand, with its upper portion crossing his left shoulder and dipping towards the head of the animal on his left like a huge peacock feather. 尤为引人注目的是一块黑色片岩制成的西尔卡普托盘残片，厚度 0.25 英寸，直径 3.8 英寸，现为前意大利驻斯里兰卡大使弗朗科·米切利·德比亚斯所藏。该残片的上部三分之二区域描绘的场景，我毫不犹豫地认定为伊索寓言《狐狸与鹤》（H.34）的印度化版本——画面中蓄须男子盘坐矮凳，右侧立禽鸟，左侧卧走兽。低矮的坐姿使得男子身披的希腊式长袍在双腿间形成深邃褶皱。他微微低首，右手托腮，肘部支于膝上，显出沉思之态。其发髻如假发般的处理方式与突出的双眼，正是塞迦时期犍陀罗雕塑萌芽阶段的典型特征，此托盘或亦属该时期。难以理解的是他左手所持的细长柔韧物体——上部越过左肩垂落，如同巨大孔雀翎毛般指向左侧动物的头部。
The bird is comparatively big, has a short stout tail and a long beak that bends somewhat in the middle. It stands on moderately long 这只鸟体型相对较大，尾巴短粗，喙部修长且中部略显弯曲。它站立在
legs, which are erect and hold the body at an elevation so as to make it use the full length of its long neck and beak to reach the ground to feed on whatever it is feeding upon - a posture which must indeed be taken into consideration in determining what the artist may have meant the bird to be. There is indication of a platter, even if this is not very distinguishable from the proportions of the picture. 中等长度的直立双腿上，身体保持一定高度，以便充分利用其长颈和长喙触及地面觅食——这种姿态对于判断艺术家试图表现的鸟类品种至关重要。画面中隐约可见一个托盘，尽管从比例上难以清晰辨识。
There is a similar ambiguity, resulting from the size of the field and the difficulty of the material, about the nature of the animal on the left of the man, which is seated on its haunches and looking directly at the bird feeding beyond the man’s knees. For, to all appearances he is horse-like, though in his size and posture he is more canine than equine. A triangular area of damage just above the animal’s head may have removed a pair of longish ears that he had than the tip of the wand-like object the man is holding, and which dips towards that animal’s head. 由于画面尺寸限制和材质损毁，左侧人像旁的动物形象同样存在辨识困难：它蹲坐后肢，目光越过人物膝盖直视正在进食的鸟类。虽然外形酷似马匹，但其体型与姿态更接近犬科动物。动物头部上方三角形破损区域可能原本有一对长耳，其长度甚至超过了人物手中棒状物体的顶端——那根正指向该动物头部的细长物件。
The excellence of the composition in terms of the semicircular field within which it is held, the thoughtful attitude of the man, the concentration of the feeding bird and the quiet expectancy of the watching animal infuse the scene with drama, notwithstanding the coarseness of the sculpture which leaves the identity of the creatures in some doubt and deprives the work of the finish it deserved. 构图的精妙之处在于：人物被框定在半圆形场域中，男子呈现沉思姿态，觅食的飞鸟全神贯注，静候观望的走兽充满期待——这些元素为场景注入了戏剧张力。尽管雕塑的粗粝质感使得生物身份难以确证，也令作品失去了应有的精加工效果，却无损其整体表现力。
Considering the Greek garb of the man and the appearance of the bird, the first thought to come to mind is that we have here Zeus and his bird, the eagle in some fabulous situation. Zeus, as we have seen, figures in many and varied animal fables as to make this quite feasible. However, while this turn to fable for an interpretation of the scene is in the right direction, there is no more chance of finding a fable which fits it, with the man and bird construed as Zeus and his bird, the eagle, than there is in mythology. For there is need to account for the animal too. 鉴于男子身着希腊服饰及飞鸟的外形特征，观者首先联想到的或许是宙斯与其神鹰在某个神话场景中的形象。正如我们所见，宙斯确实频繁出现在各类动物寓言中，这种解读颇具可能性。然而，虽然转向寓言来诠释场景的思路正确，但若将男子与飞鸟分别对应为宙斯和神鹰，我们在此处找到契合寓言的概率，并不比在神话体系中寻获更高——因为还需合理解释走兽的存在。
If however we allow for the crudity of the representations and take the bird and animal as crane and fox respectively (leaving aside for the moment the man), the relationship and postures of the two become immediately meaningful, recalling for us that ever-so- 然而，若我们暂且忽略人物形象，将鸟与兽分别视为鹤与狐狸（暂且搁置人物形象），两者之间的关系与姿态便立刻显得意味深长，令人不禁联想到那个亘古流传的——
popular Aesopic fable, The Fox and the Crane, the Greek of which, as found in Plutarch’s use of it, ^(8){ }^{8} translates as follows: 一则广为人知的伊索寓言《狐狸与鹤》，其希腊文版本见于普鲁塔克的引用， ^(8){ }^{8} 译文如下：
“Those who cause such problems are in no wise more suitable for partnership than were the crane and the fox in Aesop. For, of these two the fox, pouring some soup into a stone platter, annoyed the crane, who became a victim of his laughter. For the soup in the platter, being liquid, escaped its slender beak. Afterwards the crane in turn invited the fox to supper and put before him a jar with a thin long neck, so that he could not insert his snout into it with ease and enjoy its contents. His failure brought the fox a fitting rejoinder (to what he himself had done).” 那些制造此类麻烦的人，与伊索寓言中的鹤和狐狸相比，同样不适合结为伙伴。狐狸曾将汤倒入石盘戏弄鹤，看着汤水从鹤细长的喙边流走而窃笑不已。后来鹤回请狐狸赴宴时，特意准备了细颈长瓶，让狐狸无法顺利伸嘴享用。这番以其人之道还治其人之身的报复，可谓恰如其分。
There is still need to account for the bearded man. The fable is not one of the sort in which an animal needs to lodge a complaint with Zeus. After all, the fox had himself done a nasty thing, the like of which he himself received. So the next possibility is that the artist depicted Aesop himself observing the fabulous happening attributed to him. 关于那位蓄须男子的身份仍有待解释。这则寓言并非动物需向宙斯申诉的那类故事。毕竟狐狸自己也做了件卑劣之事，最终自食其果。因此另一种可能是：艺术家描绘的正是伊索本人——这位被赋予诸多神奇传说的作者正在旁观自己笔下的寓言场景。
We had seen a red-figure painting in a cup dated to 460 B.C. and now in the Vatican depicting Aesop in conversation with a fox. Aesop was, to the Gandharan artist, Greek, and in the general tradition, always old. There is however yet another possibility and a more likely one, even if also a more exciting one. For it could well be that our seated figure is no less than the Bodhisatta himself who, as an ascetic or deity of some kind (usually a tree-deity) observed the encounter of crane and fox, as in the case of several other jatakas which have adopted their motifs from the Aesopic fables of Greece, but in themselves had no character even remotely worthy of being identified with him in the samodhana thereof. The bird itself may have been changed, as the fox is to a jackal in the process of localization, though even so it should have remained a bird with a long bill or neck - or both. 我们曾见过一件公元前 460 年的红绘杯画，现藏于梵蒂冈，描绘了伊索与狐狸对话的场景。对犍陀罗艺术家而言，伊索是希腊人，按照传统总被表现为老者形象。然而还存在另一种可能性——更有可能且更引人入胜的推测：这位端坐的人物或许正是菩萨本生。他作为苦行者或某类神灵（通常是树神）目睹了鹤与狐狸的相遇，如同其他几个本生故事那样——这些故事借用了希腊伊索寓言的母题，但其原有角色本无任何特质值得在故事结集中与菩萨相提并论。鸟类形象可能已被替换，就像狐狸在本土化过程中变成了豺狼，即便如此，它理应保留长喙或长颈的特征——或二者兼具。
If this is so, then not only does this Sirkap tray make good the absence of this so popular Aesopic fable in the literary jatakas of the Jatakatthavannana, but in doing so, joins a number of others such as the Sihacamma, the Kaka, the Gangeyya, the Kacchapa and the Jambu Khadaka and Anta in which the Bodhisatta stands outside the happenings as an observer, usually a tree- or water-sprite. A situation is easy to developed in the human context to serve as the paccuppannavatthu in which the Buddha may have been reputed to have narrated it with effect. Plutarch, in narrating the original fable, shows how ample that opportunity could be. ^(9){ }^{9} 若果真如此，那么这件西尔卡普托盘不仅弥补了《本生经注》文学性本生故事中缺失的这则广为人知的伊索寓言式故事，还与其他诸如《狮皮本生》《乌鸦本生》《恒河本生》《龟本生》《阎浮果本生》及《边境本生》等形成呼应——在这些故事中，菩萨多以树神或水神的超然姿态作为事件旁观者出现。这种情境极易被改编成佛陀讲法时引用的现世因缘故事，普鲁塔克在讲述原版寓言时，已充分展现了这种改编的可能性。 ^(9){ }^{9}
CHAPTER XI 第十一章
FLYING CRAFTSMAN ÃND FLYING HORSE MOTIFS FROM GREEK MYTHOLOGY 源自希腊神话的飞行工匠与飞马母题
So far we have reviewed only the parallelisms which obtained between the jatakas and the Greek fables, generally categorized as Aesopic. When these were few, there were, as we saw, as many who had contended that the borrowing was by Greece from India, as the opposite, and in both groups were distinguished names in the fields of classical and oriental scholarship. For long the debate seemed inconclusive, moreso since no comprehensive comparative study was essayed, and conjecture went either by prejudice, surmise or the casual observation of one or two parallels or details in them, often enough without familiarity with the jatakas or fables in their more considerable numbers - which from my own review I think would have awarded the originality of most of these motifs to Greece. I have shown the reasoning both by a treatment of some aspects in the form and content of the Aesopica and the jatakas in general, and by a somewhat more in-depth study of a few. I will now take up some parallels which the jatakas share with Greek mythology, the consequence of which must hold out a more formidable challenge to those who were for taking India to be the source, at least as between Greece and India, of such motifs. For the Greek myths reach back to a greater antiquity than do the jatakas on the one hand, and the Greek fables themselves on the other, i.e. to the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. at the very least - and this too, disregarding their context in the heroic age on the ground that no age makes its own myths, but a later, which, usually decadent, glorified and romanticized that bygone epoch. 迄今为止，我们仅探讨了本生经与通常归类为伊索寓言的希腊寓言之间的相似性。当这些相似案例尚少时，正如我们所看到的，主张希腊借鉴印度与主张印度借鉴希腊的学者数量相当，双方阵营中都不乏古典学与东方学领域的知名学者。长期以来这场争论似乎难有定论，尤其因缺乏全面系统的比较研究，各方观点或出于偏见臆断，或仅基于对零星相似情节细节的偶然观察——往往对本生经或寓言更庞杂的文本体系并不熟悉。而通过我的研究，我认为这些母题绝大多数应源自希腊。我通过两种方式论证了这一观点：其一是从整体上分析伊索寓言与本生经在形式与内容上的某些特征；其二是对部分案例进行了更为深入的专题研究。 现在我将探讨本生经与希腊神话之间的一些相似之处，这些相似点必然会对那些认为印度是此类故事母题起源（至少就希腊与印度之间而言）的学者构成更严峻的挑战。因为希腊神话一方面比本生经更为古老，另一方面也比希腊寓言本身更早——至少可追溯至公元前八至七世纪。即便不考虑它们在英雄时代背景中的呈现（毕竟任何时代都不会创造自身的神话，而是由后世——通常是衰落的时代——对往昔岁月进行美化和浪漫化加工），这一时间跨度也足以说明问题。
Evidence of some of this is revealed in the works of Homer and Hesiod, which, if one does not attribute the creation of these cycles of myths to these same poets, relegate their antiquity to even ear- 荷马与赫西俄德的作品中便可见部分佐证。若人们不将这些神话体系的创作归功于这两位诗人，其古老渊源可追溯至更为久远的年代——
lier centuries. So that, if one does not hypothize their origin, even so, to some Indian source, and thus beg the question, there is nothing in them to indicate that (with a few exceptions) they were not of indigenous Greek origin either. 几个世纪以来。因此，如果不假设其起源——即便假设其源自印度，从而回避问题——其中也并无迹象表明（除少数例外）它们不是源自希腊本土。
Already in the classical age these myths were old and dealt with or alluded to over and over again in literature and art with a conf:dence that bespoke wide and intimate public knowledge of them, often enough in variant version and shifting detail. On the other hand, no one has succeeded in showing that the corresponding motifs were present in Indian literature antedating the jatakas, which themselves, as shown earlier, could not be pushed back beyond the third century B.C. that is except the canonical jatakas, in which we find no motifs paralleling Greek. 早在古典时期，这些神话就已年代久远，并在文学艺术中被反复处理或暗示，其熟稔程度表明公众对它们有着广泛而深入的了解，且往往存在不同版本与细节变化。另一方面，尚未有人能证明相应母题存在于早于本生经的印度文献中——而如先前所示，本生经本身最早只能追溯至公元前三世纪。当然，圣典本生经除外，但其中并未发现与希腊相似的母题。
Greek mythology is a considerable body of stories involving gods, heroes, the origin of the cosmos, mankind and natural phenomena, and numerous rites and rituals observed in religion. They are prescientific and imaginative, are of anonymous authorship and have had their origin in mythopoeic thinking, which at the same time surmised all happenings in nature, all men’s conscious and subconscious fears and forebodings, to have been the product of, or influenced by praeterhuman powers. Much of this has come down from a “mythopoeic age”, before the beginning of rational thought and logical inquiry. However some myths have had their creation in historic times, though springing from a similar impulse. These intermixed with the rest, while yet others of greater antiquity may have faded out in their distinctive oral tradition or mythos in which they were couched and handed down in tradition as part of a people’s folklore. 希腊神话是由大量故事构成的体系，涉及诸神、英雄、宇宙起源、人类与自然现象，以及宗教中遵循的众多仪式。这些故事具有前科学性与想象力，作者佚名，源于神话思维——这种思维将自然界一切现象、人类意识与潜意识中的恐惧与预感，都归因于超自然力量的创造或影响。其中许多内容源自"神话创作时代"，早于理性思维与逻辑探究的出现。不过部分神话虽产生于历史时期，却发轫于相似的创作冲动。它们与更古老的神话相互交融，而另一些年代久远的神话可能已在独特的口述传统中逐渐湮没——这些神话原本以特定叙事形式代代相传，构成民族民间传说的组成部分。
For all their antiquity, no myiis came down in tradition ossified and unvaried. The nature of their transmission saw to that. Instead, they were malleable and fickle, resulting in their spawning variant versions with diversity of detail and emphasis, so much so that a trivial item in one version may constitute the core of another. Nor does a new version supercede the older versions; they coexist with it. Detail undergoes as much variation as plot and characters, 尽管这些神话年代久远，但没有一个传说在传承过程中是僵化不变的。其传播的本质决定了这一点。相反，它们具有可塑性和多变性，由此衍生出细节与重点各异的版本——某个版本中的细枝末节，很可能构成另一版本的核心内容。新版本也从不取代旧版本，而是与之共存。细节的变异程度不亚于情节与人物的演变，
though all throughout the basic myth is clearly identifiable. A general tendency is however manifest in Greek mythology. Whereas archaic myths were built round dynasties and feats of great heroes, the myths of a more regulated society involved the complexity of family relationships and even relationships between individual and state or individual and society, as is evidenced in the tragic dramas of Athens. 但基本神话脉络始终清晰可辨。不过希腊神话呈现出一种总体趋势：远古神话以王朝更迭和英雄伟业为核心，而更为制度化的社会所产生的神话，则涉及复杂的家族关系，乃至个人与国家、个人与社会的关系，雅典悲剧便是明证。
The purveyors of mythology before the dramatists had been the poets. But with the coming of compilers and critics in post-classical times, their influence as such waned in Greece. For in the Hellenistic and early imperial period of Rome scholars set about collecting myths, among other things, to explain allusions in classical texts. Notable among these is a compendium of mythological elucidations on the epics of Homer. Some works, such as Eratosthenes’ collection of star-myths or Ovid’s concatenation of metamorphosis myths restricted themselves to a single theme. Apollodorus, in his Bibliotheca arranged mythological material on a family basis. It is from these compilers and sporadic references in other literary works that much of our knowledge of the Greek myths derives. Our indebtedness to the collection of Hyginus in Latin, popularly known as the Fabulae, is not second to any other source on this score. 在戏剧家之前，神话的传播者是诗人。但随着后古典时代编纂者与评论家的出现，诗人在希腊的影响力逐渐式微。因为在希腊化时期和罗马帝国初期，学者们开始系统搜集神话传说，除其他目的外，主要是为了阐释古典文本中的典故。其中尤为著名的是对荷马史诗进行神话诠释的汇编著作。部分作品如埃拉托斯特尼的星辰神话集或奥维德的变形神话系列，则专注于单一主题。阿波罗多洛斯在其《书库》中采用家族谱系的方式整理神话素材。我们现今所知的希腊神话，大多源自这些编纂者的著作与其他文学作品中的零星记载。就这方面而言，拉丁文作家许癸努斯编纂的《传说集》——通称为《寓言》——对我们的贡献不亚于任何其他文献来源。
Myths proper involved stories of the gods, their birth, their relationship to one another, their victory over rivals or monsters, their amorous involvements, their distinctive powers, the origin of their shrines and the rites and ritual thereof. Some of them are of an aetiological nature; they seek to explain the manifestation, existence or distinctive nature of strange or puzzling phenomena, not the least of these the astral bodies and their configurations and movements. Myths also included legends or sagas, accounts of heroes who were believed to have actually existed in pre-historic antiquity and been involved in quasi-historical episodes such as wars and daring adventures. A great number of myths are more truly folk-tales involving exploits of gods and heroes against natural and supernatural beings. Among these can be fables and stories of giants, ogres, demons and witches, fantastic human beings and monstrous creatures. 严格意义上的神话涉及诸神的故事，包括他们的诞生、彼此间的关系、战胜对手或怪物的功绩、风流韵事、独特神力，以及神庙起源与相关仪式。其中部分具有解释性功能——旨在阐明奇异或费解现象（尤其是星体及其运行轨迹）的显现、存在或本质特征。神话还涵盖英雄传说，这些被认为真实存在于史前时代的英雄们，曾参与诸如战争与冒险等半历史性事件。更多神话实属民间故事范畴，讲述神祇与英雄对抗自然与超自然存在的壮举，包括巨人、食人魔、恶魔、女巫等奇幻生灵的寓言与传说。
Greek mythology probably took its origin with the primitive forms of worship which existed in ancient Crete from about 3000 B.C. In the course of time these stories were added to with legends involving anthropomorphic gods, strange monsters or natural objects, and some of these made their way into the corpus of Greek myth. The principal Greek myths are associated with the centres of Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations which predate Greek history. The legends of Minos, Pasiphae, Daedalus and the Minotaur belong with Knossos in Crete, but link with the Mycenaean through the exploits of Theseus. The legends of Perseus and Atreus are associated with Mycenae itself, those of Hercules and Oedipus, with Tiryns and Thebes of that same antiquity, popularly called the Heroic Age. The Iliad and Odyssey, though compiled by Homer in about the eight century B.C. focus on events surrounding the Trojan War (c. 1200 B.C.), but allude to activities of the gods that predate these times or include earlier myths such as of the Theban cycle, the voyage of Jason and his Argonauts to fetch the Golden Fleece, not to mention the numerous exploits of Heracles. Hesiod, a contemporary of Homer, relays for us myths of the birth of the Cosmos, the gods and their doings, the creation of mankind and the ages of human existence, the origin of man’s travails, his toils and tribulations, the source of sacrificial practice etc. The so-called Homeric Hymns add to these also fragments from the works of the cyclic poets, surviving poems of the lyricists (especially Pindar), the tragedians and the comedians, Hellenistic poets and scholars, writers of the Roman Empire, for example Plutarch, Pausanias, the satirist Lucian. To them must necessarily be added information from illustrations in sculpture, vase-painting and murals, not to mention coins, medallions and seals. ^(1){ }^{1} 希腊神话的起源或许可追溯至公元前 3000 年左右古代克里特岛存在的原始崇拜形式。随着时间的推移，这些故事逐渐融入了拟人化神灵、奇异怪物或自然物体的传说，其中部分内容最终被纳入希腊神话体系。主要的希腊神话与早于希腊历史的米诺斯文明和迈锡尼文明中心密切相关。米诺斯、帕西法厄、代达罗斯和米诺陶洛斯的传说属于克里特岛的克诺索斯，但通过忒修斯的功绩与迈锡尼产生关联。珀尔修斯和阿特柔斯的传说则直接关联迈锡尼城，而赫拉克勒斯和俄狄浦斯的传说则与同时代的梯林斯和底比斯相连——这个时期被普遍称为英雄时代。尽管《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》由荷马约在公元前 8 世纪编纂，但其核心事件围绕特洛伊战争（约公元前 1200 年）展开，同时提及了更早时期诸神的活动，或融入了诸如底比斯史诗系列、伊阿宋与阿尔戈英雄夺取金羊毛的远航等早期神话，更不用说赫拉克勒斯数不胜数的英雄事迹。 与荷马同时代的赫西俄德为我们传递了宇宙诞生、诸神及其事迹、人类创造与生存时代、人类苦难起源、劳作与磨难、祭祀习俗源起等神话。所谓荷马颂诗还补充了史诗循环诗人的作品片段、留存下来的抒情诗人（尤其是品达）诗作、悲剧与喜剧作家作品、希腊化时期的诗人与学者著作，以及罗马帝国作家如普鲁塔克、保萨尼亚斯、讽刺作家琉善的著述。此外还必须加上雕塑、瓶画与壁画中的图像资料，更不用说钱币、徽章与印章上的信息。 ^(1){ }^{1}
It is remarkable that three of the myths subject to review here as having parallels in the jatakas follow closely upon one another in the Epitome of Apollodorus ^(2){ }^{2} and in Diodorus’ Library of History, ^(3){ }^{3} 值得注意的是，此处作为与本生经存在对应关系而加以审视的三个神话，在阿波罗多洛斯的《书库》 ^(2){ }^{2} 与狄奥多罗斯的《历史丛书》 ^(3){ }^{3} 中紧密相连。
suggesting a similar sequence in earlier works which may have served these writers as their sources. These myths concern (i) the flight and fall of Icarus, (ii) Minos’ search for Daedalus (Icarus’ father) and (iii) the fate of Hippolytus (the son of the Attic hero, Theseus (who slew the Minotaur in the labyrinth built by Daedalus) and of Phaedra, Minos’ daughter. 暗示早期作品中可能存在类似的叙事序列，这些作品可能成为后世作家的素材来源。这些神话涉及：(i) 伊卡洛斯的飞行与坠落，(ii) 米诺斯追寻代达罗斯（伊卡洛斯之父），以及(iii) 希波吕托斯的命运——这位阿提卡英雄忒修斯（曾在代达罗斯建造的迷宫中斩杀米诺陶诺斯）与米诺斯之女菲德拉所生之子的结局。
This might give grounds for supposing that literary works of the nature of these had found their way to India following Alexander and the settlement of a Greek population there. But what we have here is a natural sequence in Greek mythology which does not need literary arrangement to associate them with each other artificially, and so could have flowed from one to the other in oral narrative though I see no reason why such works, also including the Histories of Herodotus, could not have arrived in India as much as did the oral tradition. 这或许可以成为推测此类文学作品随着亚历山大大帝东征及希腊人定居而传入印度的依据。但此处呈现的实为希腊神话中自然连贯的叙事序列，无需通过文学编排人为建立关联，完全可能在口头叙述中自然流转。不过我认为，包括希罗多德《历史》在内的此类作品，与口述传统一样完全有可能传入印度。
Curiously, I find these motifs of the Cretan saga involving the hero Theseus matched in Sri Lanka by motifs which obviously derive form the saga of another hero, Perseus. ^(4){ }^{4} These themselves could 耐人寻味的是，我发现这些涉及英雄忒修斯的克里特传说母题，在斯里兰卡竟与明显源自另一位英雄珀尔修斯传说的母题相呼应。 ^(4){ }^{4} 这些母题本身可能
have made their way to the island via Northern India, since at least one of them, the motif of the princess in the tower is present also in a jataka. 这些故事很可能是通过北印度传入该岛的，因为其中至少有一个主题——高塔中的公主——也出现在本生经中。
Along with these are two or three other motifs from mythology that should be of interest to us in the present review, since singly and collectively they reveal a striking similarity that substantiates the theory of adoption, while the antiquity of the Greek upholds our theory of the direction of the transmission. 除此之外，还有两三个来自神话的主题值得我们在此次评述中关注。它们单独或共同展现出惊人的相似性，为文化借鉴理论提供了佐证，而希腊版本的古老性则支持了我们关于传播方向的理论。
1. The Flight of Icarus and the Migalopa Jataka 1. 伊卡洛斯之翼与弥伽罗波本生经
The motif found in the flight and fall of Icarus, the son of Daedalus is reflected in the Migalopa Jataka (No. 381). It involves a being who takes to the air in flight, is warned by his father not to fly too high as it will endanger his life, is carried away by youthful impetuosity to do so and disobeys his father, flies above the limit and is afflicted by the danger up there of which his father warned him, and is destroyed. 代达罗斯之子伊卡洛斯飞行坠落的故事主题，在弥伽罗波本生经（第 381 号）中得到了呼应。故事讲述一个生灵展翅翱翔时，父亲警告他飞得太高会危及生命；他因年轻气盛而违抗父命，超越飞行极限后，果然遭遇父亲警告过的空中险境而殒命。
Hyginus, in his recounting of the Greek myths in his Fabulae, tells us of the fall of Icarus in his account of Pasiphae. ^(5){ }^{5} Daedalus helped Pasiphae, wife of King Minos of Crete, to gratify her passion for the white bull which Poseidon had sent Minos and with which the god had made her fall in love as a punishment for Minos’ failure to sacrifice the animal to him. Minos therefore imprisoned Daedalus; but Pasiphae had the craftsman set free. Hyginus, continuing, says: 希吉努斯在其《传说集》中讲述希腊神话时，在关于帕西法厄的篇章里记载了伊卡洛斯的坠落。 ^(5){ }^{5} 代达罗斯曾帮助克里特国王米诺斯的妻子帕西法厄满足她对白公牛的情欲——这头公牛是波塞冬送给米诺斯的礼物，而这位神祇故意让王后爱上它，作为对米诺斯未将公牛献祭给他的惩罚。米诺斯因此囚禁了代达罗斯，但帕西法厄暗中释放了这位巧匠。希吉努斯继续写道：
“Therefore Daedalus made wings for himself and his son, fitted them and flew away from there. Icarus flying too high fell into the sea when the wax (of his wings) heated up. It was from this that the sea was called Icarean.” "于是代达罗斯为自己和儿子制作翅膀，装配妥当后便飞离克里特。伊卡洛斯因飞得太高，蜡制羽翼受热融化而坠海身亡。这片海域由此得名伊卡里亚海。"
A more complete account of this very tight summary is already to be found in Apollodorus ^(6){ }^{6}, in which both the details of Daedalus’ 阿波罗多洛斯 ^(6){ }^{6} 的记载中已有比这更为完整的版本，其中详细记述了代达罗斯......
construction of the wings and his warning to his son, left out by Hyginus, find mention. 代达罗斯为自己和儿子制作了翅膀，并告诫儿子起飞时既不要飞得太高，以免胶水（kolla）被太阳晒化导致羽翼脱落；也不要飞得太靠近海面，以免湿气使翅膀松脱。但执迷不悟的伊卡洛斯无视父亲的警告，不断攀升至高空，最终胶水融化，他坠入以他命名的伊卡里亚海而丧生。
“Daedalus constructed wings for himself and his son, and enjoined his son, when he took to flight, neither to fly too high, lest the glue (kolla) should melt in the sun and the wings drop off, nor fly near the sea, lest the wings should be detached by the damp. But the infatuated Icarus, disregarding his father’s injunctions, soared ever higher, till the glue melted and he fell into the sea, called after him Icarian, and perished.” "代达罗斯为自己和儿子打造了翅膀，并告诫儿子飞行时既不可飞得太高——以免阳光融化胶合剂导致羽翼脱落，也不可飞得太低——以免海面湿气侵蚀翅膀。然而着魔的伊卡洛斯无视父亲禁令，不断攀升直至胶合剂融化，最终坠入以他命名的伊卡里亚海溺亡。"
This latter detail of flying too close to the sea Diodorus ^(7){ }^{7} leaves out as part of Daedalus’ advice in his own version of the story, only to utilize it as the manner in which the father himself cooled his wings from time to time when heated by the sun, and thus escaped his son’s fate. It appears to originate in an attempt at rationalization, which Diodorus, like Pausanias after him ^(8){ }^{8}, favoured - that father and son made the getaway in “small boats”. (ploia ou megala) driven by sails, the discovery of which had also been credited to the ingenuity of Daedalus. The Latin poets stuck to the more romantic mythical version, Ovid ^(9){ }^{9} being even verbose in his description of the making of the wings, while Virgil ^(10){ }^{10} and Juvenal ^(11){ }^{11} both recall Daedalus dedication of his pair of wings to Apollo at his temple at Cumae in Italy after his long trans-Aegean flight.It may however be Virgil’s consciousness of this which led him to the expressive metaphor for Daedalus’ equipment as “the orage of his wings” (remigium alarum). ^(12){ }^{12} 狄奥多罗斯在讲述自己版本的故事时，省略了飞得离海面太近这一细节——这部分原本属于代达罗斯的忠告，转而将其描述为父亲本人为双翼降温的方式：当阳光炙烤导致羽翼过热时，他便不时贴近海面飞行，从而避免了儿子遭遇的厄运。这种处理似乎源于一种合理化解释的尝试，狄奥多罗斯与其后的保萨尼阿斯都倾向于此说——父子二人实则是乘坐"小船"（ploia ou megala）借助风帆逃脱，而帆船的发明同样被归功于代达罗斯的巧思。拉丁诗人则坚持更具浪漫色彩的神话版本，奥维德甚至不厌其烦地详述翅膀的制作过程，维吉尔和尤维纳利斯都提及代达罗斯在完成横跨爱琴海的漫长飞行后，将那对翅膀献给了意大利库迈的阿波罗神庙。或许正是这种认知，促使维吉尔用"羽翼之桨"（remigium alarum）这一生动隐喻来指代代达罗斯的飞行装备。
Our jataka parallel is found, as mentioned earlier on, in the Migalopa. Another version of this is in the Gijjha Jataka (No. 427), which also includes a fairly lengthy verse account as given 正如前文所述，我们的本生经对应故事见于《鹿本生》。另一个版本则收录于《鹫本生》（第 427 号），其中还包含相当长的偈颂叙述，由佛陀在
by the Buddha between the story of the past and the samodhana, of which the story of the past, the jataka proper, is commentarial. 过去世故事与结语之间讲述，而过去世故事——即本生经正文——实为注释性内容。
The Indian story deals with actual birds, vultures (gijjha) in the place of human beings fitted with wings in the Greek, while the danger up above is not the sun but destructive winds called Verambha. These are deliberate variations; otherwise the details of the motif remain much the same. 印度故事中的主角是真实鸟类——鹫（gijjha），不同于希腊版本中长着翅膀的人类；上方的危险也非太阳，而是名为"吠岚婆"的毁灭性飓风。这些是刻意设置的差异，除此之外，该母题的细节仍大体相同。
In both jatakas the story is told by the Master at Jetavana concerning an unnamed Younger Brother who resented direction by his well-wishers, teachers and the like and admitted to the Buddha his unruliness. Whereupon the Buddha told him the respective stories. They are to the effect that a young vulture, in the Migalopa Jataka, called Migalopa, in the Gijjha, called Supatta, was in the habit of flying exceedingly high. Hearing of this his father warned him not to rise above a certain limit, for if he did, it would bring him his death. But the son did so, was struck by the Verambha Wind and disintegrated. 在这两则本生经中，佛陀于祇园精舍讲述了一位无名幼弟的故事：他怨恨师长善知识的规劝，并向佛陀坦承自己的桀骜不驯。佛陀便为其讲述了相应的寓言。其要旨是：在《鹿斑本生》中名为弥迦罗波、在《鹫本生》中名为苏波达的幼鹫，素来有飞极高空的习性。其父闻讯后警告它不可逾越特定高度，否则将招致灭顶之灾。但这只幼鹫仍一意孤行，最终被毗蓝婆风击中而粉身碎骨。
As in the case of the Marriage of Agariste and the corresponding Nacca Jataka, which we will soon look at, what were human participants in the Greek myth of Icarus have been rendered here as birds. But in this instance there is not even the ghost of a chance to suggest priority for the latter over the former on the grounds that fables involving birds or beasts must necessarily be prior to those in which the participants are men. One could always consciously - to use the words of Macan - transform and degrade anything into a bird- or beast-fable. 正如我们即将探讨的"阿伽里斯忒的婚礼"与对应的《舞蹈本生》故事那样，希腊神话中伊卡洛斯的人类角色在此被转化为鸟类。但此例中，我们甚至找不到丝毫理由能断言鸟类寓言必定早于人类故事——那种认为鸟兽寓言必然先于人类故事的论调根本站不住脚。正如麦肯所言：人们完全可以有意识地将任何事物降格改编为鸟兽寓言。
No need to labour the point here, however, since we are not dealing with fable and fable, but myth and fable - and myth entirely has to do with men and gods, even if a monster is thrown into it now and again. It is the most natural thing, then, that winged men of the one should be rendered as birds in the other - vultures, since they are some of the most high-flying of birds. And with the wings now not artificial and susceptible to disintegration in the heat of the sun, a different source of danger has also to be found. This is now found 然而此处无需赘言，因为我们探讨的并非寓言与寓言，而是神话与寓言——神话全然关乎人类与神明，即便偶尔会混入怪物。因此，最自然不过的是，一方长翅膀的人类在另一方被转化为鸟类（选择秃鹫，因它们是飞得最高的鸟类之一）。既然翅膀不再是人工制品且不会因烈日炙烤而解体，就必须寻找另一种危险源头。这危险如今体现为
in the Verambha Wind, a wind that also derives its name from a sea, as the jataka’s translator, Neil helpfully footnotes, citing in evidence the Divyavadana (p. 105). 维兰巴风——正如本生故事译者尼尔在注释中引证《天业譬喻经》（第 105 页）所言，此风之名亦源自某片海域。
Whether the Icarian sea and its island, Icaria, got their names from some ancient historical incident mythologized by the story of the fall of Icarus, or the story itself was aetiological of these names is difficult to discover. But already Homer ^(13){ }^{13} knew the sea by that name; afterwards Ibycus, lyric poet of the 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} century B.C. ^(14){ }^{14} mentioned it. Herodotus ^(15){ }^{15} refers to the island, Icaria, casually as though everybody knew it as such, as well as its location. On the other hand this incident is all that is known in mythology of a son of Daedalus called Icarus; so that if it is contended that the story of the boy was a figment inspired by the names of the sea and the island, there is no positive evidence to countenance it. Besides, does not the flight of father and son veer a great deal off the route from Knossos in Crete to Cumae in Italy, just to take in Icaria and the Icarian sea? 伊卡利亚海及其岛屿伊卡利亚得名于伊卡洛斯坠落神话所演绎的某个远古史实，抑或该神话本身是为解释这些地名而作，现已难以考证。但荷马 ^(13){ }^{13} 早已以该名称指代这片海域；此后公元前 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} 世纪的抒情诗人伊比科斯 ^(14){ }^{14} 亦曾提及。希罗多德 ^(15){ }^{15} 在提及伊卡利亚岛时语气随意，仿佛世人皆知其名与方位。然而在神话体系中，代达罗斯之子伊卡洛斯的事迹仅此一例；若有人主张少年坠海的故事纯属受海域名启发而杜撰，目前尚无确凿证据佐证。更何况，父子二人的飞行路线从克里特岛的克诺索斯到意大利的库迈，为何要大幅度偏航途经伊卡利亚岛与伊卡利亚海？
Such inconsistencies abound in mythology and in no way disconcert it. The episode locks in with the story of the ancient craftsman, which belongs to the oldest layer of Greek saga, involving Minoan civilization, prehistoric sites, heroized personalities and so-called “daedalid” inventions, which are intimately in the context of Greece and can find nothing referable to India and Indian sagas antecedant to the jatakas. 神话中这类矛盾比比皆是，却丝毫不会影响其魅力。这个情节与古希腊能工巧匠的传说紧密相连——这些故事属于希腊传说最古老的层次，涉及米诺斯文明、史前遗址、英雄化人物以及所谓"代达罗斯式"发明，这些元素都深植于希腊文化土壤，在印度及早于本生经的印度传说中完全找不到对应物。
2. Minos' Search for Daedalus and the Gem Prasna of the Maha Ummagga Jataka. 2. 米诺斯追寻代达罗斯与《大隧道本生》中的宝石谜题
After Daedalus’ escape from Crete, King Minos is said to have gone in search of him, hoping to discover him by resorting to the solution of a problem, which only 据传代达罗斯逃离克里特岛后，米诺斯王为寻找他，试图通过解答唯有
Daedalus could have solved. Apollodorus ^(16){ }^{16} writes: 代达罗斯才能破解的难题来发现其踪迹。阿波罗多洛斯 ^(16){ }^{16} 记载道：
“Minos pursued Daedalus and in every country that he searched, he carried a spiral shell and promised to give a reward to him who should pass a thread through the shell, believing that by that means he would discover Daedalus. And having come to Camicus in Sicily, to the court of Cocalus, with whom Daedalus was concealed, he showed the shell. Cocalus took it, promised to thread it, and gave it to Daedalus; and Daedalus fastened a thread to an ant and, having bored a hole in the spiral shell, allowed the ant to pass through it. And when Minos found the thread passed through the shell, he perceived that Daedalus was with Cocalus and at once demanded his surrender”. 米诺斯追寻代达罗斯的踪迹，每至一国便持一枚螺旋贝壳，悬赏能穿线过壳之人，深信此法必能寻获匠师。当米诺斯抵达西西里卡米库斯——即藏匿代达罗斯的科卡罗斯王廷时，他出示了这枚贝壳。科卡罗斯接过贝壳佯装应允，暗中将其转交代达罗斯；匠师将丝线系于蚂蚁身上，在螺旋贝壳上钻出小孔，引蚁穿行而过。当米诺斯发现贝壳被成功穿线时，立即识破代达罗斯正藏身科卡罗斯处，随即要求引渡这位逃亡者。
If Daedalus lost his son Icarus in the Icarian sea and also dedicated his wings to Apollo in Cumae in the western coast of Italy, he must have flown across the mainlands of both Greece and Italy; and if he is now heard of in Sicily with King Cocalus, as he was heard of in Sardinia with Iolaus, he must have got to these subsequent places by other means than flight. What we are presently concerned is the manner in which Minos found him; for (even if it may or may not be partially reflected in the Sonaka Jataka (No. 529) in King Arindama’s search for his long-lost friend Sonaka by the publication of a stanza that called for capping) ^(17){ }^{17}, the unique devise used by Minos is reflected in a surprisingly similar way (and it surprised me when I first heard of it) in the twelfth of the nineteen prasna (problems) posed to Prince Mahosadha, called ‘The Gem’ in the Maha Ummagga Jataka. ^(18){ }^{18} 倘若代达罗斯在伊卡里亚海痛失爱子伊卡洛斯后，又将双翼献祭于意大利西海岸库迈的阿波罗神庙，那么他必然曾飞越希腊与意大利大陆；而若他如今现身西西里岛与科卡罗斯王为伴，正如昔日曾与伊奥劳斯同居于撒丁岛，则他抵达这些后续地点必定借助了飞行以外的其他方式。我们此刻关注的焦点在于米诺斯王寻获他的方式——即便这种寻人方式与《索纳卡本生经》（第 529 号）中阿林达玛王通过发布待续诗节来寻找失散多年的好友索纳卡的情节或有相似之处 ^(17){ }^{17} ，但米诺斯所采用的独特计谋，竟与《大隧道本生经》中向玛霍萨达王子提出的十九道谜题之第十二题"宝石谜" ^(18){ }^{18} 呈现出惊人的相似性（初闻此事时着实令我惊诧不已）。
The gem concerned was said to have been given by Sakka to King Kusa and is described in the Pali as atthasu thanesu vamko (lit. “bent in eight places”). Its thread was broken, and the king required someone to remove the old thread, of which part was stuck inside the hole, and put a new one. No one could do it, so they told the sage. Then Mahosadha bade them fear nothing, and asked for a lump of honey. With this he smeared the two ends of the hole in the gem, and twisting a thread of wool, he smeared the end of this also with honey, and pushing it a little way into the hole, he put it in a place where ants were passing. The ants, smelling the honey came out of their hole, and eating away the old thread, bit hold of the end of the woolen thread and pulled it out at the other end. Seeing how the feat was accomplished, the king was pleased. 据说这颗宝石由帝释天赐予库萨王，巴利文经典将其描述为"atthasu thanesu vamko"（字面意为"八处弯曲"）。宝石的串线断裂，国王需要有人取出卡在孔洞内的旧线并换上新线。众人束手无策，遂求教于智者。大须陀尊者令众人莫慌，取来一团蜂蜜。他将蜜涂抹于宝石孔洞两端，又捻羊毛为线，线头亦涂蜂蜜。尊者将线头稍稍推入孔中，置于蚂蚁必经之路。群蚁嗅蜜而出，啃尽旧线之际，咬住羊毛线头从另一端拽出。国王见状龙颜大悦。
In a more detailed study of the gem prasna, I had shown that the configuration of the gem had necessarily to involve the run of its hole, and that if one end of it was to be offered to the ants, and the other averted from them, the interpretation “octagonal” (the best I have come across) is unsatisfactory - what we would have to have is a spiral. In which case, King Kusa’s fabulous gem, the atthavamkamanirathanam offered to the precocious Mahosadha for threading was to all purposes no different from the spiral shell offered by King Minos to the wondrous craftsman Daedalus, as also was their achievement of the threading of them by the use of ants. ^(19){ }^{19} 在对宝石谜题更细致的研究中，我曾指出宝石构造必然涉及孔洞走向——若一端需面向蚁群而另一端需背对它们，那么"八角形"（这是我见过的最佳解释）的说法并不令人满意，实际需要的应是螺旋结构。如此说来，库萨国王那枚神奇的螺旋宝石"阿塔万卡玛尼拉塔纳姆"被交给神童玛霍萨达穿线时，本质上与米诺斯国王交给巧匠代达罗斯的螺旋贝壳并无二致，二者都借助蚂蚁完成了穿线任务。 ^(19){ }^{19}
The two stories are brought closer together in Robert Graves’ presentation of the Greek myth, when from sources he cites (he does not disclose a knowledge of the Indian parallel) he says, firstly that Daedalus smeared the edge of the hole he had made on the apex of the spiral shell with honey, and secondly that he made a fine thread 罗伯特·格雷夫斯在呈现希腊神话时，将这两个故事联系得更为紧密。根据他引用的资料（未提及知晓印度版本），他首先提到代达罗斯在螺旋贝壳顶端钻孔后涂抹蜂蜜，其次说明他自制了细线
GREEK STORY MOTIFS IN THE JATAKAS 《本生经》中的希腊故事母题
of his own to pull through first ^(20){ }^{20} - which is perhaps what is meant in : the gem prasna when it says there that Mahosadha twisted a thread himself. 作为引线之用 ^(20){ }^{20} ——这或许正对应宝石谜题中玛霍萨达自行捻线的记载。
The earliest reference to the trial by which Minos discovered Daedalus at the court of Cocalus takes us back to the lost play of Sophocles called the Camicians, a brief fragment from which speaks of the spiral shell and the search for someone who could pass a thread through it. 关于米诺斯在科卡洛斯宫廷发现代达罗斯的审判，最早的记载可追溯至索福克勒斯失传的剧作《卡米科伊人》。该剧残篇中提及螺旋贝壳及寻找能穿线之人。
“Through this spiral sea-shell, O child, if anyone I can find who could pass a thread through it.” ^(21){ }^{21} "孩子啊，若有人能穿过这螺旋海贝的纹路，我定要寻得此人。" ^(21){ }^{21}
Apollodorus may have derived the material for his story from the hypothesis of Sophocles’ play, though he (and Zenobius) call the shell kochlos, kochlias and again kochlion. When the name of the Greek king who gave refuge to Daedalus, Cocalus, suggests a kind of land snail with a shell, called in Greek kokkalia, or more popularly, kôkalia, we have reason to think, as with Icarus and the Icarian sea, that the myth is intimately connected with Greece, the name of the king arising from the word for the spiral-shell, or vice-versa, the myth of the spiral-shell being inspired by the name of this Camician king. 阿波罗多洛斯可能从索福克勒斯剧作的假说中取材，尽管他（与泽诺比乌斯）将贝壳称为"kochlos""kochlias"或"kochlion"。当收留代达罗斯的希腊国王科卡洛斯（Cocalus）之名令人联想到一种带壳陆生蜗牛（希腊语称"kokkalia"或更通俗的"kôkalia"）时，我们有理由认为——正如伊卡洛斯与伊卡利亚海的关系——这个神话与希腊渊源极深：国王之名源自螺旋贝壳的词汇，抑或相反，螺旋贝壳的神话灵感正来自这位卡米科伊国王的名字。
In connection with the prasna which were posed to Mahosadha along with the gem prasna is another, ‘The Son’ (5) which I mention in passing, though its source may be the Bible rather than any- 与向摩诃苏陀提出的宝石难题相关联的，还有另一则"儿子谜题"（5）。此处仅顺带提及，其源头或许更接近《圣经》而非其他——
The Greek Myths (Penguin Books) vol. I (reprint 1969) (§ 92.i) p. 313-314 and relevant sources. The Greek story makes no mention of second thread, whether of Jossamer (Graves) or any other substance, which was first pulled through, so that this is in excess of the evidence. Either Graves has invented this detail or read it in from the jataka account. 《希腊神话》（企鹅出版社）第一卷（1969 年重印版）（§ 92.i）第 313-314 页及相关资料。希腊故事中并未提及第二根线——无论是蛛丝（格雷夫斯所述）还是其他材质的线——最初被拉过的情况，因此这一细节超出了现有证据范围。要么是格雷夫斯杜撰了这个细节，要么是从本生经的记载中读到的。
Athen. iii - 86 c-d=86 c-\mathrm{d}= Fr. 324 Pearson A.C.Pearson Fragments of Sophocles vol. II, Cambridge (1917) p. 6): 雅典娜神庙卷三 - 86 c-d=86 c-\mathrm{d}= 皮尔森《索福克勒斯残篇》第二卷，剑桥（1917 年）第 324 页第 6 段：
(H)alias strabelou tesde, teknon, ei tina
dunaimeth’ (h)eurein <(h)os dieireien linon>.
(h)os dieireien linon: Nauck, on the strength of Zenobius’ account. Pearson admits it would be difficult to find a better supplement. (h)os dieireien linon：Nauck 根据 Zenobius 的记载提出这一解读。Pearson 承认很难找到更合适的补充方案。
thing Greek, for it recalls for us the judgement of Solomon. ^(22){ }^{22} The story is too well-known to need retelling in any great detail - it is the claim of two women to the same child. But it will be remembered that, as in the case of Mahosadha, Solomon’s solution of the problem was a manifestation of supreme wisdom of a terrestrial order. For it followed immediately upon the night in which in a dream God had granted him “a wise and understanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shalt any rise like unto thee”. In the Indian story the imposter is a female demon, in the Hebrew a mother who had overlaid her child and killed him; in the Indian, Mahosadha arranges that the two rival claimants tug the child in either direction across a line, in the He-\mathrm{He}- brew Solomon announces his intention of cutting the child in half and giving a portion to each. Despite the variation in this detail and the Indian is more sensible, for all Solomon’s wisdom - the judgement rests upon the same psychology in finding out who the genuine mother was. On the other hand, the antiquity of the Old Testament’s version far exceeds that of the jataka, and may even have inspired the idea of that whole range of prasna set to Mahosadha as tests of his Solomon-like wisdom. ^(23){ }^{23} 这则希腊故事让我们联想到所罗门的审判。故事广为人知，无需赘述——两个女人争夺同一个孩子。但值得记住的是，与摩诃苏陀的案例相似，所罗门解决这个问题的方式展现了人间至高的智慧。因为就在此前一夜的梦境中，上帝赐予他"聪明智慧的心，甚至在你之前没有像你的，在你之后也不会兴起像你的"。印度故事中的冒名者是个女罗刹，希伯来故事中则是位压死亲生孩子的母亲；印度版本里，摩诃苏陀让两位争夺者各执孩子一端进行拉扯，而所罗门则宣布要将孩子劈成两半平分。尽管这个细节存在差异——印度版本更为合理，尽管所罗门充满智慧——但两者审判所依据的心理学原理相同，都是为了找出真正的生母。 另一方面，《旧约》版本的古老程度远超本生经，甚至可能启发了整套以玛霍萨陀为对象的"智慧考验"构思，这些考验旨在测试他如所罗门般的智慧。 ^(23){ }^{23}
The comparability of Mahosadha in the Maha Ummagga Jataka with the Greek Daedalus does not stop with the gem prasna. For 玛霍萨陀在《大隧道本生经》中与希腊代达罗斯的可比性不仅限于宝石谜题。因为
the tunnel, which Mahasadha later built and which is epitomised by the gem which he threaded, is in its construction and purpose no different to the labyrinth which Daedalus, the threader of the spiral shell, had constructed in Crete and through which, in fact, Theseus was later to draw a thread. ^(24){ }^{24} For ummagga (ud+magga) literally means “off-track”, and in its device, was intended to confuse and mislead, as much as was the purpose of a labyrinth. So that it is not improbable, granted the variation in its construction, that the conception of Mahosadha’s tunnel in the Indian Maha Ummagga Jataka owed as much to the labyrinth of Daedalus as its wondrous atthavamka maniratana and the ingenious mode of its threading reflected the spiral shell and Daedalus’ technique of threading it in the Greek. 玛霍萨陀后来建造的隧道——以他穿线的宝石为象征——其构造和功能与代达罗斯在克里特建造的迷宫毫无二致。这位螺旋贝壳的穿线者所造的迷宫，后来正是忒修斯牵着线穿过的地方。 ^(24){ }^{24} "ummagga"(ud+magga)字面意为"偏离轨道"，其设计初衷就是要制造混乱与误导，这与迷宫的功能如出一辙。因此考虑到构造差异，印度《大隧道本生经》中玛霍萨陀隧道概念的灵感，很可能既源自代达罗斯迷宫，其神奇的 atthavamka maniratana 宝石与精妙的穿线方式，也对应着希腊传说中螺旋贝壳与代达罗斯的穿线技艺。
3. Prince Hippolytus and Prince Paduma 3. 希波吕托斯王子与帕杜玛王子
The Cretan saga carries over to Attica, to which region in the mainland of Greece, Theseus brought Phaedra, the daughter of Minos, having forsaken her sister, Ariadne, who had helped him find his way back in the labyrinth after slaying Minos’ misbegotten son, the Minotaur. Hyginus writes: ^(25){ }^{25} 克里特传说延续至阿提卡地区——忒修斯将米诺斯之女菲德拉带往这片希腊大陆时，抛弃了曾助他诛杀米诺斯孽种米诺陶洛斯后逃出迷宫的阿里阿德涅。许癸努斯记载： ^(25){ }^{25}
“Phaedra, daughter of Minos and wife of Theseus, fell in love with her step-son, Hippolytus. When she could not get him to gratify her passion for him, she sent a letter to her husband saying she had been raped by Hippolytus, and then killed herself by hanging. When Theseus heard of this he ordered his son to leave the city and wished from his father Poseidon death for the lad. So, when Hippolytus was riding (his chariot) with yoked horses, a bull suddenly appeared from the sea, at whose roar the horses were thrown into panic and dragged Hippolytus apart and killed him.” "米诺斯之女、忒修斯之妻菲德拉爱上了继子希波吕托斯。当她无法得偿所愿时，便写信诬告希波吕托斯强暴自己，继而悬梁自尽。忒修斯闻讯后驱逐亲子，并向其父波塞冬祈求这少年死亡。于是当希波吕托斯驾着套马战车疾驰时，海中突然跃出一头公牛，受惊的马匹将少年拖拽得四分五裂而亡。"
Euripides’ presentation of the myth in his extant play, Hippolytus, has enough detail-parallels to reveal a strikingly similar motif to that of the Maha Paduma Jataka (No. 427) and its variant, the Bandhanamokkha Jataka (No. 120), both of which the Buddha is said to have narrated while dwelling at Jetavana about Cincamanavika, a woman who, on the instigation of the heretics who had lost their honour and gifts from the people due to the superior excellence of the Buddha, had attempted to besmirch his reputation by pretence of having been his mistress and become pregnant by him. ^(26){ }^{26} 欧里庇得斯在其现存剧作《希波吕托斯》中对这一神话的呈现，具有足够多的细节对应点，揭示出与《摩诃波头摩本生经》（第 427 号）及其变体《解脱枷锁本生经》（第 120 号）惊人相似的母题。据传佛陀在祇园精舍时曾讲述这两个本生故事，内容关于旃遮摩那女子——由于佛陀的卓越德行使外道失去民众的尊敬与供养，这些外道唆使她佯称曾为佛陀情妇并怀有其子，企图玷污佛陀的声誉。
Hippolytus was, like Paduma, a prince; his father, Theseus, like Brahmadatta, was king of the land. Like Brahmadatta, Theseus had taken a consort upon the death of his first wife, the mother of the young prince, the Amazon Antiope (also called Melanippe). As Brahmadatta had left the city to quell an uprising and was about to re-enter the city when the incident took place, so Theseus had gone on an adventure to Hades and had just come back and due in the city when Phaedra, frustrated in her passion for her step-son like the jataka’s queen, and fearing he would incriminate her, falsely incriminated him herself and took her life. ^(27){ }^{27} Here too, as in the jataka, the king acted impetuously and, without giving a proper hearing to his son’s remonstrations, condemned him to death. 希波吕托斯与帕度玛一样，都是王子；他的父亲忒修斯如同梵授王，是一国之主。与梵授王相似，忒修斯在原配妻子——年轻王子的母亲亚马逊女战士安提俄珀（亦称墨兰尼珀）去世后，也续娶了新王后。正如梵授王离城平定叛乱，在即将返城时事件爆发；忒修斯同样前往冥界冒险，甫一归来将抵都城之际，王后菲德拉就像本生经中的王后那样，因对继子爱而不得，又惧怕他会揭发自己，反而抢先诬告他并自尽身亡。 ^(27){ }^{27} 此处亦如本生故事，国王行事冲动，未认真听取儿子的申辩便判处其死刑。
In two principal details however, the jataka will be found to be at variance with the version of the Greek myth in Euripides’ tragedy - though this hardly disturbs the broad identity of the motif. There are (1) the shamelessness of the step-mother’s overtures to Prince Paduma and (2) her death coming after the detection of her treachery. For, in the Greek play the queen does not play the role of an 但在两个关键细节上，本生经与欧里庇得斯悲剧中的希腊神话版本存在差异——尽管这几乎无损于主题的广泛一致性。其一是继母向帕度玛王子示爱时的无耻程度，其二是她阴谋败露后才选择自尽。因为在希腊戏剧中，王后并未扮演......
aggressive lover, and even the disclosure of her love for Hippolytus happens through her nurse and without her consent; her death is occasioned by the humiliation of the disclosure and Hippolytus’ rejection of her more than from a fear of the king. Organic modifications of this nature are to be expected as part of the artistic treatment of a motif by story-tellers into whose hands it passes and whose intentions in telling the story differ not a little from one another, for instance from a wish to be innovative, suit it to his context and purpose or simply disguise the adoption. ^(28){ }^{28} 这位充满激情的恋人，甚至她对希波吕托斯的爱意也是通过她的奶妈泄露的，且未经她本人同意；她的死亡更多源于告白被公开的羞辱以及希波吕托斯对她的拒绝，而非对国王的恐惧。这类本质上的有机调整，可视为故事讲述者对母题进行艺术处理的一部分——随着母题在不同讲述者间传递，他们的叙事意图也大相径庭，比如可能是为了创新、适应自身语境与目的，或仅仅是为了掩饰对母题的借鉴。
Even so, a plea is unnecessary in these instances, for a treatment of both these details in just the manner found in the Maha Paduma appears in an alternate and possibly older version of the Hippolytus myth, which Euripides had himself used as the basis of the plot of an earlier tragedy of his on the same affair, the so-called Hippolytus Kaluptomenos. In this the dramatist (gossip says incensed at the misconduct of his own wife) painted the character and behaviour of Phaedra in much darker colours than in the extant Hippolytus, where he softened the portraiture, representing her as the helpless victim of the goddess Aphrodite, who was using her to punish Hippolytus, all the while resisting the impulse of her fatal passion, refusing to tell her love to Hippolytus, and dying by her own hand rather than endure the shame of her betrayal by a blundering nurse. 即便如此，在这些案例中无需赘言，因为《大莲华本生》所呈现的这两个细节的处理方式，与希波吕托斯神话的另一个可能更古老的版本如出一辙——欧里庇得斯本人曾以此版本为基础创作了关于同一事件的前期悲剧，即所谓的《蒙面希波吕托斯》。在这部剧作中（据传闻是因愤慨于妻子的不端行为），剧作家以远比现存《希波吕托斯》更阴暗的笔触刻画了淮德拉的性格与行为。在后来的版本中，他柔化了人物形象，将其塑造成女神阿芙罗狄忒操纵下的无助牺牲品：女神利用她来惩罚希波吕托斯，而她始终抗拒着致命情欲的冲动，拒绝向希波吕托斯表白，最终选择自尽也不愿承受被鲁莽乳母出卖的耻辱。
Indeed, it is the former version that seems to have been the more popular one in antiquity - and it is the one followed by Apollodorus, according to whom Phaedra, like the jataka queen, made criminal advances to her step-son. (deitai sunelthein aute) ^(29){ }^{29}, and by the scholiast on Homer Od. xi. 321. 事实上，前一个版本似乎在古代更为流行——阿波罗多洛斯所遵循的正是这个版本。据其记载，淮德拉与本生经中的王后一样，对继子实施了罪恶的勾引（"求他与自己同寝"），荷马《奥德赛》第十一卷 321 行的古代注疏者亦持此说。
It has been suggested that the versions of Ovid in his Heroides and Seneca in his Phaedra, in which the same features appear, also derived wholly or partly from the Kaluptomenos. 有人认为，奥维德在《女杰书简》和塞内加在《费德拉》中呈现的相同特征，也全部或部分源自《被遮掩的希波吕托斯》。
There are scholars, Welcker ^(30){ }^{30} for instance, who hold that this was the order of things in the plot of the lost Phaedra of Sophocles as well, namely, that Phaedra endeavoured to move Hippolytus to compliance and that she hanged herself only afterwards, when her slander was exposed. If this was so, then not only the myth in general but the aggressive role of the royal step-mother and the point at which she dies in the sequence of events go back beyond 428 B.C. in Greece, the date of Euripides’ extant Hippolytus, to his own Hippolytus Kaluptomenos and Sophocles’ Phaedra, and suggest strongly that, whatever the Greek source may have been for the motif of the Maha Paduma Jataka, it ultimately traced back to the myth as used in these lost plays rather than to Euripides’ surviving tragedy. 有学者如韦尔克尔 ^(30){ }^{30} 主张，索福克勒斯已失传的《费德拉》剧情结构亦是如此——即费德拉先试图说服希波吕托斯顺从，待其诽谤败露后才自缢身亡。若果真如此，则不仅神话整体如此，连王室继母的主动攻势及其在事件序列中的死亡节点，都可追溯至公元前 428 年（欧里庇得斯现存《希波吕托斯》的创作年份）之前的希腊，即欧里庇得斯自己的《被遮掩的希波吕托斯》与索福克勒斯的《费德拉》时期。这强烈表明：无论《大莲华本生经》中该母题的希腊源头为何，其最终都可追溯至这些失传剧作所采用的神话版本，而非欧里庇得斯现存悲剧。
At the conclusion of his review of the many stories of India which manifested what he treated as the Potiphar Motif, M.Bloomfield ^(31){ }^{31} observed that, with all their many variations, they showed in general the same moments as does the old Biblical story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. (1) The hero is of beautiful person and character; (2) the wayward wife is unable to resist his charms; (3) the hero rejects her overtures; (4) the woman shams virtue and constructs a ‘frame-up’, which is believed by her husband; (5) but out of consequent danger, misfortune and degradation, the hero emerges to vindication and fortune. M.Bloomfield 在回顾印度众多展现波提乏母题的故事时指出，尽管存在诸多变体，这些故事总体上与古老的圣经中约瑟与波提乏之妻的叙事具有相同要素：(1)主人公拥有俊美的外貌与高尚品格；(2)任性的妻子无法抗拒其魅力；(3)主人公断然拒绝她的勾引；(4)妇人伪装贞洁并构陷"冤案"，其说辞被丈夫采信；(5)主人公虽历经危难、厄运与屈辱，最终得以昭雪并重获荣华。
All this and more would follow for the Maha Paduma, and in greater comprehensiveness of detail, from the Hippolytus-Phaedra than from anything like the Joseph-Potiphar story. The Greek myth has, besides (as mentioned earlier), the considerable probability of having got to India with numerous other story-motifs. Bloomfield himself observes this early appearance of the motif in India as already “fullfledged”. This of course is not to deny the probability of a Biblical story making its way to India - there is certainly no precedent, for instance, for the Maha Ummagga Jataka’s motif of the son-prasna 所有这些以及更多内容，都将通过希波吕托斯-菲德拉的故事而非约瑟-波提乏这类故事，为《大莲华本生》提供更为详尽的细节支撑。正如前文所述，希腊神话极有可能与其他众多故事母题一同传入了印度。布卢姆菲尔德本人就注意到，该母题在印度早期文献中已呈现"完整形态"。当然，这并非否定圣经故事传入印度的可能性——例如《大隧道本生》中"子问难题"的母题，就确实找不到更早的先例。
(as we saw) in Greek story, whereas it constitutes the Old Testament’s story of the judgement of Solomon. The evidence however necessarily includes the Hippolytus-Phaedra myth, along with its predecessors in the Cretan cycle, the fall of Icarus and Minos’ search for Daedalus, in the considerable package of Greek fables, myths and historical anecdotes that made their presence in India, for the first time, with the Buddhist jatakas, and shortly after, but not demonstrably before, the Greek presence in India with Alexander. Even so, this myth cannot but have been one of the most striking, even without the testimony of Pausanias that every foreigner who knew Greek knew the story of Phaedra’s passion and the nurse’s crime. ^(32){ }^{32} （正如我们在希腊故事中所见），而这构成了《旧约》中关于所罗门审判的故事。然而，证据必然包括希波吕托斯-菲德拉神话，以及其在克里特循环中的前身——伊卡洛斯的坠落和米诺斯寻找代达罗斯的故事，这些希腊寓言、神话和历史轶事首次随着佛教本生经传入印度，不久之后，但无法证明是在亚历山大将希腊势力带入印度之前。即便如此，即使没有保萨尼亚斯的证言——即每个懂希腊语的外国人都知道菲德拉的激情和奶妈的罪行——这个神话也必然是最引人注目的之一。 ^(32){ }^{32}
4. The Princess in the Tower; of Devagabba and Danae. 4. 塔中的公主：德瓦加巴与达娜厄的故事。
The Ghata Jataka (No. 454) tells the story of a King Mahakamsa, who had two sons, Kamsa and Upakamsa, and a daughter Devagabba. On the girl’s birthday brahmins had foretold “A son born of this girl will one day destroy the country and the lineage of Kamsa.” The king was too fond of the girl to put her to death, so leaving her brothers to settle it, he lived his days out. Thereafter Kamsa became king and Upakamsa his viceroy. These two feared that killing their sister would cause an outcry, so they resolved to give her in marriage to none, but put her in a single round tower and set a watch on her. But a young man, Upasagara, learning of the girl in the tower, fell in love with her, and with the aid of her serving-woman visited her. When the brothers found their sister pregnant, they gave her in marriage to Upasagara but resolved to kill the child if it was a son. This child proved to be a daughter but thereafter Devagabba produces not one but ten sons (!) the birth of each of whom is concealed from the brothers by exchanging him with a daughter of the serving-wuman, who had proved to be equally prolific at child-bearing - or better still, daughter-bearing! Later, these sons, grown big and strong, began plundering the country. 《罐本生经》（第 454 号）讲述了摩诃甘萨王的故事，他有两个儿子甘萨与优波甘萨，以及女儿提婆迦波。在女孩生辰那天，婆罗门预言道："此女所生之子终将毁灭国家与甘萨王族。"国王因过于疼爱女儿不忍处死她，便将此事交由儿子们处置，自己安度余生。此后甘萨继位为王，优波甘萨成为副王。兄弟俩唯恐杀害亲妹会引发众怒，于是决定不让她婚配，将其囚禁于圆形孤塔中并派人看守。青年优波娑伽罗得知塔中女子后心生爱慕，在侍女协助下与她相会。当兄弟发现妹妹怀孕时，只得将她许配给优波娑伽罗，但决议若产下男婴必杀之。首胎确是女婴，但随后提婆迦波竟接连诞下十子（！）——每次生产后，侍女都用自己的女儿调换男婴（这位侍女同样生育力旺盛，或者说更擅长生女儿！），成功瞒过了兄弟二人。 后来，这些儿子们长大成人，变得身强力壮，开始劫掠乡里。
Whereupon the king, now Kamsa, discovered their identity and staged a wrestling match to lure them to their capture and death. These youths naturally turned up; and when one of them had disposed of the two killer wrestlers put up by the king, the eldest, Vasudeva by name, threw a wheel, which lopped off the heads of the king and his viceroy, Kamsa and Upakamsa, and thus fulfilled the prophesy that the brahmins had made over Devagabba at her own birth. 当时的国王——康萨识破了他们的身份，便策划了一场摔跤比赛，企图诱捕并杀死他们。这些青年果然中计前来参赛；当其中一人击败了国王派出的两名杀手摔跤手后，最年长的瓦苏德瓦掷出一个飞轮，斩下了国王康萨及其副王乌帕康萨的首级，从而应验了婆罗门们在德瓦加芭出生时所作的预言。
This is not the end of the Ghata Jataka. The story trails on with a fantastic account of a city that rose into the air at the bray of an ass and such like stuff that is highly fanciful but thankfully also exceeds the motif of our concern. 《陶罐本生经》的故事至此尚未结束。后续还离奇地描写了一座因驴鸣而升空的城池等荒诞情节，这些内容虽极富幻想色彩，但所幸已超出我们关注的主题范围。
There can be no doubt that up to the point where Vasudeva kills his two uncles and fulfils the prophesy made by the brahmins over Devagabba, we have a close approximation of this story to the Greek myth of Danae and her son Perseus, even if with exaggerations and variations of details which detract from the tightness of the plot of the Greek myth. 毫无疑问，直到瓦苏德瓦杀死两位叔父并应验婆罗门对德瓦加芭所作预言的这段情节，都与希腊神话中达娜厄与其子珀尔修斯的故事高度相似——尽管某些夸张和细节变异削弱了希腊神话原有的严密情节。
The best account of this Greek myth is, again, to be found in Apollodorus, ^(33){ }^{33} our second century, B.C. grammarian and mythographer. 关于这个希腊神话最完整的记载，再次见于公元前二世纪的语法学家兼神话编纂者阿波罗多洛斯的著作中。
"When Acrisius consulted the oracle (of Delphi) about the possibility of male children, the god replied that a son would be born to his daughter and that he would kill him. Fear- "当阿克里西俄斯向德尔斐神谕询问是否会有男性子嗣时，神谕回复说他的女儿将生下一个儿子，而这个儿子会杀死他。由于恐惧——
ii. 4. 1-2 and 4. The translation is of J.G.Frazer, Loeb ed. vol. 1, p. 153 f. Apollodorus’ account of this myth is the fullest and best. He seems to have followed the version of Pherecydes bk. II, which the scholiast on Apol. Rhod. Argo iv. 1091 and 1515 has used as his authority. Zenobius Cent. i. 41 derives from Apollodorus, but like schol. on Apol. Rhod., he by-passes the Andromeda episode. See further Tzetzes schol. on Lycophron 838 and schol. on Homer II. xiv. 319. Sophocles wrote a play Acrisius and Euripides a Danae, which dealt with the myth. See Trag. Gr. Fragmenta ed. A.Nauck p. 143 f., 168 f. and 453 f. and Pearson op.cit. vol. 1. p. 38 f. and 115 f. ii. 4. 1-2 和 4。译文采用 J.G.弗雷泽的洛布版译本第 1 卷第 153 页及以下。阿波罗多洛斯对这个神话的叙述是最详尽且最优秀的。他似乎遵循了菲勒塞德斯的第二卷版本，该版本被阿波罗尼俄斯《阿尔戈英雄纪》第四卷 1091 和 1515 行的注释者引为权威。泽诺比乌斯《箴言集》第一卷 41 章源自阿波罗多洛斯，但和阿波罗尼俄斯的注释者一样，他略过了安德洛墨达的插曲。另见策策斯对吕科弗隆 838 行的注释及荷马《伊利亚特》第十四卷 319 行的注释。索福克勒斯创作过戏剧《阿克里西俄斯》，欧里庇得斯则写过涉及该神话的《达娜厄》。参见 A.瑙克编《希腊悲剧残篇》第 143 页及以下、168 页及以下和 453 页及以下，以及前述皮尔逊著作第 1 卷第 38 页及以下和 115 页及以下。
ing this, Acrisius built a brazen chamber underground and guarded Danae in it. However, she was seduced, as some say, by Proteus (Acrisius’ brother), whence rose a quarrel between Acrisius and him; but some say that Zeus had intercourse with her by changing into a shower of gold which streamed through the roof and into Danae’s lap. 听闻此事后，阿克里西俄斯建造了一座青铜地窖，将达娜厄囚禁其中。然而据某些传说，她却被普洛透斯（阿克里西俄斯的兄弟）引诱，由此引发两人争执；另一些版本则说宙斯化作金雨穿透屋顶，洒落达娜厄膝间与她结合。
The myth continues that when Acrisius learnt that Danae had given birth to a son, he put mother and child in an ark (Gk. larnax) and cast it on the sea. The ark drifted to Seriphos, where it was fetched ashore by a fisherman called Dictys, whose brother Polydectes, king of the island, desired to marry (or indeed married) Danae. As for the prophesy, it saw fulfillment when Danae’s son, Perseus, as a youth taking part in an athletic contest, threw his discus and accidently hit his grandfather (who also happened to be there) on his foot - or as some say, on his head - and instantly killed him. Thereafter he made himself king of Tiryns, which was part of the kingdom of Acrisius. 神话续述当阿克里西俄斯得知达娜厄产子后，便将母子二人装入木箱（希腊语称 larnax）抛入大海。木箱漂至塞里福斯岛，被渔夫狄克提斯捞起，其兄——岛主波吕得克忒斯执意要娶（或已迎娶）达娜厄。而那个预言最终应验：达娜厄之子珀尔修斯在青年时期参加竞技比赛时，投出的铁饼意外击中在场观赛的祖父——或伤其足部，或中其头颅——致其当场毙命。此后珀尔修斯便自立为提林斯国王，这片土地原属阿克里西俄斯的疆域。
It is no surprise that in several of its details the Ghata Jataka’s story is closer to the Greek myth than is the account of King Pandukhabaya in the Sri Lankan chronicle, the Mahavamsa, ^(34){ }^{34} which utilizes it. For instance, it is the king, Mahakamsa, who first restrains himself from killing the child, just as Acrisius restrained himself from killing Danae. The tower in the jataka is free-standing like Danae’s, not joined to the king’s sleeping-chamber as was the 毫不意外的是，在诸多细节上，《罐本生》的故事比斯里兰卡编年史《大史》 ^(34){ }^{34} 中引用的槃陀迦巴耶王传说更接近希腊神话。例如，正是摩诃甘萨王最初克制了杀害婴儿的冲动，如同阿克里西俄斯对达那厄所做的那样。本生经中的塔楼是独立建筑，类似达那厄的铜塔，而非像《大史》所述那样与国王的寝宫相连。
chamber in which Panduvasudeva’s daughter (Pandukhabaya’s mother) of the Mahavamsa, Citta was protected. The number of people whose lives were endangered by the girl’s giving birth to a son (even though she bore nine more afterwards) were just two, not ten, and they were dramatically and not infeasibly killed by a single blow, whereas there are ten threatened by Pandukhabaya’s existence in the Mahavamsa, calling for a whole war. It will also be observed that, even so, they were not killed without residue; Pandukabhaya let two survive, Abhaya, his eldest uncle, and Girikandasiva, whose daughter he married. Last, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that Vasudeva, the Perseus of the jataka story, killed his two uncles, Kamsa and Upakamsa, at some sort of Olympics-like athletic games involving a sport the Greeks loved, wrestling. Besides, he does so in a manner that recalls, and remarkably, the manner in which Perseus himself killed his grandfather, Acrisius, by a circular implement used at the sports. 《大史》中记载，潘杜瓦苏德瓦之女（潘杜卡巴亚之母）奇塔曾被保护于一间密室。因该女子诞下一子（尽管她后来还生育了九子）而生命受到威胁的仅有两人，而非十人，且他们被戏剧性地一击毙命——这种情节虽离奇却并非不可信。反观《大史》中因潘杜卡巴亚的存在而受威胁者多达十人，最终引发全面战争。值得注意的是，即便如此也非赶尽杀绝：潘杜卡巴亚留下了两位幸存者——其长叔阿巴亚，以及他迎娶其女的吉里坎达西瓦。最后或许最关键的是，本生故事中珀尔修斯式的人物瓦苏德瓦，正是在希腊人钟爱的摔跤比赛中，于某种类似奥运会的竞技赛事上杀死了两位叔父康萨与乌帕康萨。更耐人寻味的是，其杀人手法——使用体育赛事中的圆形器械——竟与珀尔修斯本人用运动器械击杀外祖父阿克里西俄斯的方式惊人地相似。
Notwithstanding these, the Ghata Jataka’s treatment of the drama is disappointing and anticlimactic, not only rendering the exercise with the tower, free-standing or otherwise, wholly superfluous when the first child proves to be a girl, but going on to give her in marriage to the adulterer to produce a boy! - and then, not one but ten! For its part the Mahavamsa has to make concessions to history, even when it blatantly uses mythic material to couch some of that historical data - as we also find in the story of Vijaya, the foundation myth of Sri Lanka. 尽管如此，《陶罐本生经》对戏剧性情节的处理令人失望且虎头蛇尾——当第一个孩子被证实是女孩时，不仅使得高塔（无论是独立式还是其他形式）的整个设计显得完全多余，更荒谬的是竟将这个女孩许配给通奸者以求生育男孩！最终诞生的非但不是一子，而是十子！而《大史》则不得不向历史事实妥协，即便它公然运用神话素材来包装某些历史数据——正如我们在斯里兰卡建国神话维阇耶故事中所见。
Compared to the Ghata Jataka and the Mahavamsa, however, the story of the birth of Krishna, ^(35){ }^{35} which also must look back to the Ghata Jataka, is a travetsy of the highest degree, preserving hardly anything of the forthrightness, logicality and drama of the original Greek story, but wallowing in the same kind of fantasy into which we found the Ghata Jataka degenerating in the latter half of its story. 然而相较于《陶罐本生经》和《大史》，同样需溯源至《陶罐本生经》的黑天诞世故事 ^(35){ }^{35} 堪称最高程度的滑稽模仿——它几乎完全丧失了原始希腊故事的直率、逻辑性与戏剧张力，反而沉溺于我们在《陶罐本生经》后半段所见的那种堕落式幻想之中。
On the other hand, there are at least three distinct considerations which, aside from a total consideration of the Greek myth of Danae and the Ghata Jataka’s story of Devagabba, prove the latter’s indebtedness to the former as against any other indigenous Indian story motif. 另一方面，至少有三个不同的考量因素可以证明《鬼喻经》中德瓦伽巴的故事借鉴了希腊达那厄神话，而非其他印度本土故事母题——即便不考虑对这两个故事的整体性比较。
The first of these, which is by no means the strongest, is, in the evidence, not only the reason for and consequence of the confinement of the princess in the chamber, but in that chamber’s architecture. For Sophocles (Gk. chalkodetoi aulai; thalamos) ^(36){ }^{36} and for Apollodorus (Gk. thalamos chalkeos) ^(37){ }^{37} Danae’s chamber was an apartment of indeterminate form, but one made of bronze for strength, Hyginus however renders her protection as a “stone wall” (Lt. murus lapideus), ^(38){ }^{38} perhaps with the implication of the practice of “walling in” (Lt. murare) of maidens such as priestesses, who were required to be chaste but had offended. ^(39){ }^{39} Ovid is not specific of its nature when he says Zeus came to the girl as a fecund shower of gold (Lt. fecundo auro; pluvio auro). On the other hand, Horace clearly calls it a tower (Lt. turris). And it appears this was Sophocles’ own original conception of it; for among the three or four things the chorus in his tragedy Antigone say failed to ward off Danae’s destiny is her ‘tower’ (Gk. purgos). 其中第一个证据虽非最强有力，却不仅揭示了公主被囚禁于密室的原因与后果，更体现在密室的建筑构造中。索福克勒斯（希腊文 chalkodetoi aulai；thalamos） ^(36){ }^{36} 与阿波罗多洛斯（希腊文 thalamos chalkeos） ^(37){ }^{37} 笔下的达娜厄密室是个形制不明的房间，但为坚固起见以青铜铸成；而许癸努斯则将其防护描述为"石墙"（拉丁文 murus lapideus） ^(38){ }^{38} ——或许暗指对触戒女祭司等需守贞却犯禁的少女实施"砌墙禁锢"（拉丁文 murare）的习俗。 ^(39){ }^{39} 奥维德述及宙斯化作丰饶金雨（拉丁文 fecundo auro；pluvio auro）临幸少女时，未具体说明密室性质；贺拉斯则明确称之为"塔楼"（拉丁文 turris）。这似乎正是索福克勒斯最初的构思——在其悲剧《安提戈涅》中，歌队列举的三四种未能阻挡达娜厄命运的事物里，就包括她的"高塔"（希腊文 purgos）。
It is this that would have inspired the notion of Devagabba’s apartment in the jataka as an ekathunaka (or variantly, ekatthambha) ^(40){ }^{40} pasada, which becomes the ekathunika gehe of 正是这一点启发了《本生经》中关于提婆迦巴居所的构想——那是一座被称为"独柱楼阁"（ekathunaka，或变体写法 ekatthambha）的宫殿，
the Mahavamsa, a building conceived of as like a dove-cot propped upon a single pillar. ^(41){ }^{41} 在《大史》中则演变为"独柱之宅"（ekathunika gehe），这种建筑被想象为如同单根支柱支撑的鸽舍。
The second striking item in the Ghata Jataka is the ‘wheel’ (Pl. cakka) with which Vasudeva kills his uncles in the context of a wrestling festival. It is strange that Rouse, who translated this jataka for the Cowell edition and was an accomplished Classical scholar who did not fail to observe that in general “the prophesy, the tower, and result will remind the reader of Danae”, ^(42){ }^{42} satisfied himself with rendering cakka as “a wheel”, no more, and then explaining it briefly, if also rather naively, as “a kind of weapon”. At best Rouse was here adverting to the cakrayudha (Sin. paravalalla), a metal ring with a cutting out edge, which was thrown at the enemy, but was thought to return to the thrower like a boomerang. But he had failed to observe the remarkable similarity of this round object meant to be thrown to the discus which Perseus, in the Greek myth, threw and killed his grandfather, Acrisius, hitting him on the foot (or head) like Vasudeva, and, like Vasudeva, thus fulfilling the prophesy made over his respective mother regarding him! ^(43){ }^{43} 《伽陀本生经》中第二个引人注目的细节是"轮子"（梵语 cakka），瓦苏提婆在摔跤节庆中用其杀死了自己的叔伯们。令人费解的是，为考威尔版本翻译该本生故事的劳斯——这位造诣深厚的古典学者本应注意到"预言、高塔与结局会让读者联想到达娜厄"——却仅将 cakka 译为"轮子"，并简单地（甚至有些天真地）解释为"某种武器"。充其量劳斯此处指的是"轮宝"（僧伽罗语 paravalalla），一种带锋利边缘的金属环，可投掷攻击敌人，但被认为能像回旋镖般返回投掷者手中。但他未能察觉这个用于投掷的圆形物体与希腊神话中珀尔修斯投掷的铁饼存在惊人相似性：珀尔修斯用铁饼击中祖父阿克里西俄斯的脚部（或头部）致其死亡，正如瓦苏提婆所为，同样应验了各自母亲关于他们的预言！
I come now to the last, and perhaps the most striking piece of evidence indicative of the derivation of the Ghata Jataka motif from the Greek myth of Danae. This is to be found in the etymology of the Ghata Jataka princess’ name - Devagabba, i.e. ‘god-pregnant’ 现在我要谈到最后一点，或许也是最引人注目的证据，表明《陶罐本生》故事母题源自希腊的达娜厄神话。这体现在本生故事中公主名字的词源——"提婆迦波"（Devagabba），即"神孕"之意
which is curious in the context, since neither is this girl impregnated by a god, nor pregnant with a god. The princess who was, is rather the Greek Danae, to whom Zeus came down as a shower of gold! 这一命名在故事语境中显得颇为奇特，因为这位公主既非由天神受孕，也非怀有神子。真正符合这一描述的，反倒是希腊的达娜厄——宙斯化作金雨与她结合！
Thereafter the jataka princess’s name may have inspired the story of her being pregnant with a god in India. For the account of the birth of Krishna, though it changes the princess’s name now to Devaki, has other names derived from the jataka. But now the god (Krishna) becomes only the eighth child - a sad anticlimax, and both tower and secret lover, the characteristics of the original myth have vanished, while other details also appear perverted. 此后，本生故事中公主的名字可能启发了她在印度版本中"怀有神子"的情节。虽然《克里希纳诞生记》将公主名字改为提婆吉（Devaki），但仍保留了本生故事的其他名称元素。但此时天神（克里希纳）仅被降格为第八个孩子——可谓虎头蛇尾，原神话中的高塔与秘密情人的核心特征已然消失，其他细节也遭到扭曲。
On the other hand the Danae myth, replete with tower and god who impregnates the maid locked in it, makes its appearance in quite another part of the world - in distant Tashkurgan on the Silk Route. Here, unlike at Panduwasnuwara in Sri Lanka, where popular imagination visualized an ektam ge that was not there, ^(44){ }^{44} a stone tower gave the place itself its very name (i.e. Tashkurgan). For it is narrated there of this particular stone tower that a soldier, detailed to conduct a Chinese princess to Persia as a bride for the king, but encountering a war, guarded her in this. Afterwards, when he went to fetch her down, he found she was pregnant. The explanation, quite like that of Danae, was that a god had come down to her from above. The son born to her later became a renowned hero. 另一方面，达娜厄神话中那座囚禁少女的高塔与令其受孕的天神，竟在遥远的丝绸之路重镇塔什库尔干重现。与斯里兰卡潘杜瓦斯努瓦拉地区凭空想象的"独柱宫殿"不同， ^(44){ }^{44} 此处的石塔直接赋予了地名（即塔什库尔干，意为"石头城"）。当地传说讲述：一位奉命护送中国公主远嫁波斯国王的士兵，因战乱将她藏匿于此塔。待战事平息接她时，却发现公主已身怀六甲。其解释与达娜厄故事如出一辙——有天神自塔顶降临使她受孕。公主所生之子后来成为著名英雄。
As for the rest of the Greek myth of Danae - the floating of the princess (with her son) in the larnax, her drifting to another land where she is found by a fisherman (or fishermen), and taken as bride by the king, and finally, of her son becoming a great hero, Perseus - all this, intermixed with details from another myth of the 至于达娜厄希腊神话的其余情节——公主与幼子被装入木箱漂流海上，被渔夫发现后带往异国，最终嫁给当地国王，其子珀尔修斯成长为伟大英雄——这些内容混杂着另一则神话的细节
Perseus saga, where a queen is connected with an offence committed against the sea, the consequence of which is that the sea inundates the kingdom and the king offers his daughter as a sacrifice to the waves - though perhaps not reflected in any jataka or other Indian story of antiquity, appears as the legend of another princess of Sri Lanka, Viharadevi, wife of King Kavantissa - and mother of the redoubtable warrior prince, Dutthagamani. ^(45){ }^{45} 珀尔修斯传说中，一位王后因冒犯海洋而招致灾祸，海水因此淹没王国，国王不得不将女儿献祭给海浪——这一情节虽未见于任何本生经或其他古印度故事，却在斯里兰卡另一位公主维哈拉黛维的传说中重现。她是卡万蒂沙国王的妻子，也是骁勇善战的杜塔伽马尼王子的母亲。 ^(45){ }^{45}
5. Heroes, Witches and a Flying Horse 5. 英雄、女巫与天马
As mentioned before, in an article devoted to the consideration of the first fifty jatakas, the Bishop of Colombo at the time disputed Rhys-Davids opinion that the story of the ass in the lion-skin and the tortoise who was carried aloft by a bird (or birds) and dropped to his death, were of Indian origin by pointing out that they were irrelevant to Buddhism - as he put it then, they were ouden pros Dionyson - and simply enlisted into the jatakas by making the Buddha a witness to the happenings in a previous life. Despite his cynicism later on the delight Rhys-Davids appears to have taken at finding the Buddha recognized and honoured under the name of St. Josephat as a Christian saint by the whole Catholic Christendom, he concedes that we owe him a debt of gratitude for the more important and interesting observation that the fables of Europe, from Babrius and Phaedrus onwards, derive more or less directly from the mass of Eastern stories, of which the Jataka Book is the most important collection. “Meanwhile,” he adds, “some at least of the stories have probably traveled to India from the West” and finds reason for thinking that the hero of the Losaka Jataka (No. 41) is an Indian version of Ulysses. 如前所述，在一篇专门探讨前五十部本生经的文章中，当时的科伦坡主教对里斯·戴维斯的观点提出异议。里斯·戴维斯认为"披着狮皮的驴"和"被鸟（或群鸟）带上高空坠落而死的乌龟"这两个故事源自印度，而主教则指出这些故事与佛教无关——用他当时的话说，这些是"与狄俄尼索斯无涉"的——只是通过让佛陀成为前世事件的见证者，才被纳入本生经体系。尽管后来里斯·戴维斯对"佛陀以圣乔瑟法特之名被整个天主教基督世界尊为基督教圣徒"一事表现出嘲讽态度，但他承认我们应当感谢他那个更重要且有趣的发现：自巴布里乌斯和费德鲁斯以降，欧洲寓言或多或少直接源自大量东方故事，其中《本生经》是最重要的合集。"与此同时，"他补充道，"至少有部分故事很可能是从西方传入印度的"，并找到理由认为《卢萨卡本生经》（第 41 则）的主角原型可能源自小亚细亚的伊索寓言。 41) 这是尤利西斯的印度版本。
The parallels which he points to as between the adventures of Mittavindaka of the Losaka and Odysseus however appear farfetched - except perhaps that both men go from island to island, and at least once, upon a raft. Besides, his derivation of the name 然而，他所指出的《卢娑迦本生》中弥多频陀迦与奥德修斯冒险经历的相似之处显得牵强——或许除了两人都乘木筏辗转于岛屿之间这一点。此外，他将奥德修斯名字
Odysseus to mean kalakanni (“ill-fated”) is etymologically somewhat inexact. ^(46){ }^{46} On the other hand it is the Valahassa (No. 196) which enlists Greek epic material, combining Jason and his Argonauts’ visit to an all-woman island and the Lotus-eater-like reluctance of some of them to escape the Siren-like consorts when they realized the danger. Besides, those who opted to do so are rescued by a remarkable creature - a Trojan Horse-like flying Pegasus - none other than the Bodhisatta! It will be recalled that the episode of the Trojan Horse figured in a schist relief from Gandhara of the first or second century A.D. (as we saw), suggesting its popularity and had gone on to inspire the creation of a wooden elephant in India, the ruse by which King Candapajjota of Ujjain captured Prince Udena of Vatsa. ^(47){ }^{47} 的词源解释为"kalakanni"（意为"厄运缠身"）在语源学上并不准确。 ^(46){ }^{46} 另一方面，《瓦拉哈萨本生》（第 196 则）确实融入了希腊史诗元素，结合了伊阿宋与阿尔戈英雄们造访纯女性岛屿的经历，以及部分英雄如同食莲者般沉溺于塞壬般伴侣的温柔乡而拒绝逃离险境的描写。更值得注意的是，选择逃离的英雄们是被一只非凡生物所救——那匹特洛伊木马式的飞天神马珀伽索斯——而这正是菩萨的化身！我们还记得，特洛伊木马的故事曾出现在公元一至二世纪犍陀罗的片岩浮雕中（如前所述），表明其流传之广，甚至启发了印度人创造木象计谋——优禅尼国王旃陀波阇波多正是借此智取跋蹉国的优填王子。 ^(47){ }^{47}
It is therefore difficult to dismiss the statement of Dio Chrisostom that the Indians were familiar with Homer in their own tongue as well, as some kind of traveller’s yarn, as does Banerjee, or again Plutarch’s observation that through Alexander Asia was civilized (whatever that may have mean) and Homer known there, or Aelian’s assertion that the Indians and the Persians had translated the poems of Homer. ^(48){ }^{48} 因此，很难像班纳吉那样，将迪奥·克里索斯托姆关于印度人同样熟悉用自己语言翻译的荷马史诗的论述简单地视为某种旅行者的奇谈，同样难以忽视普鲁塔克关于亚历山大使亚洲文明化（无论其确切含义为何）并使荷马在当地广为人知的观察，或是埃利安关于印度人和波斯人曾翻译荷马诗作的断言。 ^(48){ }^{48}
Of equal interest is the fact that the island concerned in the Valahassa is none other than Sri Lanka. For while this makes the legend of Vijaya and the yakkhini, Kuvanna, the foundation myth of Sri Lanka, its companion, ^(49){ }^{49} the latter refers back to the former by the information that she had devoured traders who had visited the island in their ships ere Vijaya. ^(50){ }^{50} 同样引人关注的是，《瓦拉哈萨》中涉及的岛屿正是斯里兰卡。因为虽然这使得维贾亚与夜叉女库万娜的传说成为斯里兰卡的建国神话，但其姊妹篇 ^(49){ }^{49} 却通过"她在维贾亚到来之前就已吞噬了乘船到访该岛的商人"这一信息，与前者形成了呼应。 ^(50){ }^{50}
What is most remarkable of this foundation myth is the fact that no one reading or hearing it fails to observe its resemblance to the adventure of Odysseus with the witch Circe in the island of Aeaea. For here is an island in which a hero lands with his companions, who are taken captive by a demoness working at a loom. If they are not transformed into beasts (pigs) from men, they are at least led to her by one of her kind taking the guise of a bitch. Like Odysseus, Vijaya had the assistance of a guardian deity, Uppalavanna (Vishnu); Hermes had given the former a magical plant, the Moly; the latter received as a paritta a thread and sprinking of holy water. Both heroes rushed at their respective witches with weapons and forced them to yield up their men; then both had themselves and their men feasted and both enjoyed sexual intercourse with these women. Afterwards, in a scene reminiscent of Odysseus’ slaughter of the Suitors with the help of Athena, Vijaya slays the yakkas with Kuvanna’s help. 这一创世神话最引人注目之处在于，任何读者或听众都会立即发现它与奥德修斯在埃埃亚岛遭遇女巫喀耳刻的冒险故事如出一辙。故事中同样出现了一座岛屿，英雄与同伴登陆后，同伴被正在织布的罗刹女所擒。即便他们未被变成牲畜（猪），至少也是被一只化身为母犬的同族引至她面前。与奥德修斯相似，维阇耶也得到守护神优钵罗华那（毗湿奴）的庇佑——赫尔墨斯曾赐予前者神草摩吕，后者则获赠护咒丝线与圣水洒净。两位英雄都持武器冲向各自的女巫，迫使她们释放同伴；随后皆与部下共享盛宴，并与这些女性发生关系。此后，在令人联想到奥德修斯借雅典娜之力屠杀求婚者的场景中，维阇耶在俱梵那协助下诛杀了夜叉众。
From this point on the Sri Lankan story follows that of Jason and his witch, Medea (niece of Circe). For Vijaya lives with the yakkhini as man and wife and, like Jason, has two offspring, then decides to abandon her for a royal marriage, claiming that people were ever afraid of demoniac beings. Thereafter he marries the daughter of the king of Pandu, ^(51){ }^{51} as Jason intended marrying the daughter of Creon, king of Corinth. 从此处开始，斯里兰卡传说便与伊阿宋及其女巫美狄亚（喀耳刻的侄女）的故事如出一辙。因为毗阇耶与夜叉女结为夫妻共同生活，并像伊阿宋那样育有两子，而后却决定抛弃她以缔结王室婚姻，声称世人向来畏惧妖魔。随后他迎娶了般度国王的女儿 ^(51){ }^{51} ，正如伊阿宋曾意图娶科林斯国王克瑞翁之女为妻。
from Jambudipa. “Thus the Vijaya legend,” he writes, “according to evidence available, is not a historical account. It’s value lies in the fact that it is a literary work, an epic poem, a product of the mind and not the story of the first Aryan settlement as it took place.” 来自阎浮提。"因此，维贾亚传说，"他写道，"根据现有证据，并非历史记载。其价值在于它是一部文学作品，一首史诗，是心灵的产物，而非雅利安人最初定居的真实故事。"
To return from the historical fundamenta to the mythic elaboration of our concern - Perera is mistaken when he thought that the clue of the footprints leading to Kuvanna’s pond but none coming back, which alerted Prince Vijaya as to the fate of his men, was a parallel of a similar detail in Odysseus’ adventure with Polyphemus, the Cyclops. ^(56){ }^{56} There is no such detail in the latter. On the other hand, as we saw, all such instances of nulla vestigia retrorsum in the jatakas may ultimately trace back to the Aesopic fable of The Lion and the Fox, in which a fox, coming to visit a lion who pretended to be sick in his cave, is warned of the consequences by this clue, and of which I suspect the Pancatantra story of the jackal who would not enter his own cave from seeing the footprints of a lion go in but not come out is a direct inversion. The antiquity of the Greek fable of one-way footprints was shown by Plato’s own familiarity with it and also Solon’s allusion to it when warning the Athenians of their collective stupidity, but is, as I mentioned earlier, ultimately traceable to a different story, a myth, viz. that of Hercules and Cacus. 从历史基础回归到我们关注的神话演绎——佩雷拉误以为线索是脚印通向库万纳池塘却无返回足迹，这一细节使维贾亚王子警觉其随从的命运，与奥德修斯遭遇独眼巨人波吕斐摩斯的冒险存在相似之处。 ^(56){ }^{56} 然而后者故事中并无此类细节。另一方面，正如我们所见，本生经中所有这类"无返足迹"的案例，最终都可追溯至伊索寓言《狮子与狐狸》：狐狸探望假装生病的洞中狮子时，正是通过这个线索意识到危险；而我怀疑《五卷书》中豺狼因看见狮子足迹有进无出而不敢回洞的故事，实为对此寓言的直接反转。柏拉图对此单向足迹寓言的熟知，以及梭伦警示雅典人集体愚行时的隐喻，皆证明这个希腊寓言源远流长——但正如前文所述，其终极源头可追溯至另一个不同的故事，即赫拉克勒斯与卡库斯的神话。
This Cacus was a savage man-monster of hideous aspect, who lived in a cave on the Aventine. When Hercules came this way with the cattle he had taken from the three-bodied Geryon, Cacus stole four bulls and four heifers from their stalls and dragged them all to his cave by their tails, thus reversing the direction of their hoof-prints. This ruse deceived Hercules as well, until a stolen cow happened to reply to the lowing of his herd from deep within the cavern. Cacus, who was a son of Vulcan, god of fire, breathed out flames and fumes, but for all that Hercules seized him, choked him to death, and recovered his animals. ^(57){ }^{57} 这个卡库斯是个面目可憎的野蛮人形怪物，住在阿文廷山的洞穴里。当赫拉克勒斯带着从三体巨人革律翁那里夺来的牛群途经此地时，卡库斯从牛棚里偷走了四头公牛和四头母牛，拽着牛尾巴把它们全拖进洞穴，从而颠倒了牛蹄印的方向。这个诡计一度也骗过了赫拉克勒斯，直到一头被偷的母牛在洞穴深处回应了牛群的哞叫。身为火神伏尔甘之子的卡库斯能口吐烈焰浓烟，但赫拉克勒斯仍将其擒获并扼死，最终夺回了牲畜。 ^(57){ }^{57}
6. Polygnotus and the Dreams of King Pasenadi. 6. 波利格诺托斯与波斯匿王的梦境
Two Greek myth motifs will be found to have worked their way into a jataka, this time the Mahasupina (No. 77), as the seventh and eighth dreams of the sixteen which Brahmadatta, king of Benares, dreamed in the last watch of a single night and which the Bodhisatta, then born as a brahmin and dwelling in the Himalaya country, interpreted for him - these dreams being the very same that in the paccuppannavatthu find description as the dreams Pasenadi, king of Kosala, also dreamed and which the Buddha interpreted for him in the present life itself. (Here we have another instance of the jataka proper repetitious of the present-life story). But what is remarkable about the seventh and eighth of these dreams is that they do not come off any literary source but from certain artistic representations, and these ultimately off no less a place than the walls of the famous club-house (lesche) of the Cnidians at Apollo’s shrine in Delphi. These walks the great painter, Polygnotus of Thasos, had decorated with, among other heroic subjects, scenes from Odysseus’ descent to the Underworld. 在《大梦本生经》（第 77 则）中，可以发现两个希腊神话母题已融入其中——作为贝拿勒斯国王梵授王在夜间最后一更所做的十六个梦境中的第七与第八梦。当时转生为婆罗门、隐居在喜马拉雅山区的菩萨为其解梦。值得注意的是，这两个梦境与《现世因缘经》中记载的桥萨罗国波斯匿王所梦完全一致，且由佛陀在现世亲自解梦（此处再次印证本生故事对现世传说的复现）。但第七与第八梦的特殊之处在于：其来源并非任何文学典籍，而是源自德尔斐阿波罗神庙内克尼多斯人会堂（lesche）墙壁上的艺术呈现——这座由萨索斯岛伟大画家波利格诺托斯装饰的著名建筑，除其他英雄主题外，还绘有奥德修斯冥界之旅的场景。
The first of King Pasenadi’s two dreams is of a man who wove a rope, and as he wove it, threw it down at his feet; whereupon a hungry she-jackal, lying under his bench without his knowing it, kept eating it as fast as he wove it. 帕塞纳迪国王的两个梦境中，第一个是有人编织绳索，边编边将绳索抛在脚下；而一只饥饿的雌豺狼不知何时潜伏在他长凳下方，正以他编织的速度不断啃食着绳索。
Rouse, coming across this in his translation of the jatakas, published it along with its Greek parallel, the story of Ocnus and the ass, in a very brief note in Folklore, calling it “A Jataka in Pausanias”, and referring to it as “yet one more Jataka story in Greek, beyond those mentioned by Mr. Jacobs in his Aesop”. ^(58){ }^{58} J.G.Frazer however observes that the parallels had already been remarked by A.Grunwedel ^(59){ }^{59} and himself provides a very exhaustive note on the Greek tale. ^(60){ }^{60} 劳斯在翻译本生经时发现这个情节，将其与希腊的奥克努斯与驴子故事一同发表于《民俗学》期刊的简讯中，标题为"保萨尼阿斯记载的本生故事"，并称这是"继雅各布斯在《伊索寓言》中提及之外，又一个希腊化的本生故事"。 ^(58){ }^{58} 然而弗雷泽指出，格林韦德尔 ^(59){ }^{59} 早已注意到这两个故事的相似性，他本人还为这个希腊故事撰写了极为详尽的注释。 ^(60){ }^{60}
Pausanias, Greek traveller and antiquarian of the second century A.D., in the course of his description of the paintings in the lesche of the Cnidians ^(61){ }^{61}, makes mention of Perimedes and Eurylochus, Odysseus’ companions, who are shown carrying consecrated victims. He then goes on: 公元二世纪的希腊旅行家兼文物学家保萨尼阿斯，在描述尼多斯人议事厅壁画 ^(61){ }^{61} 时，提到奥德修斯的同伴佩里墨得斯和欧律洛科斯正搬运祭品。随后他继续写道：
“Behind them is sitting a man who the inscription says is Ocnus. He is represented as plaiting a rope and a she-donkey stands beside him, eating the rope as he plaits it. They say this Ocnus was an industrious man who had an extravagant wife; however much he earned working, she squandered without delay. That is what they would have Polygnotus mean by his allegorical picture of Ocnus. I know that when the Ionians see a man labouring to no purpose they say the fellow is plaiting Ocnus’ rope”. “他们身后坐着一个人，铭文显示是奥克努斯。他被描绘成正在编绳子的样子，身旁站着一头母驴，边编边啃食他手中的绳子。传说这位奥克努斯是个勤勉之人，却有个挥霍无度的妻子；无论他工作赚取多少，妻子都会立刻挥霍一空。人们认为波吕格诺托斯通过这幅寓意画正是要表达这个意思。我知道爱奥尼亚人看见有人徒劳无功时，就会说这人‘在编奥克努斯的绳子’。”
Another painting of Ocnus was known, by Nicophanes, ^(62){ }^{62} a pupil of Pausias of Sicyon. Plutarch ^(63){ }^{63} makes mention of “the picture of the rope-plaiter in hell, who allows a browsing ass to consume what he is plaiting”, while Cratinus, ^(64){ }^{64} in one of his comedies, also refers to “the man plaiting a rope in hell and the she-ass eating what he plaits”. Propertius ^(65){ }^{65} speaks of it as though it were proverbial. 另有一幅关于奥克努斯的画作出自西锡安的帕乌西亚斯的学生尼科法尼斯 ^(62){ }^{62} 之手。普鲁塔克 ^(63){ }^{63} 曾提及"地狱中编绳者的画像，任由啃食的驴子吞吃他编织的成果"，而克拉提努斯 ^(64){ }^{64} 在其某部喜剧中也提到"地狱里编绳子的人与被母驴啃食的编织物"。普罗佩提乌斯 ^(65){ }^{65} 的提及方式则表明这个典故已近乎谚语。
Notwithstanding the obvious (and obviously misguided!) substitution of she-jackal for she-donkey in the jataka, the Bodhisatta’s interpretation of the animal of King Pasenadi’s vision as symbolic of women who lusted after men, strong drink and finery and ate away their husband’s substance is immediately appreciable. But it is equally remarkable that Pausanias’ understanding of the Greek 尽管本生经中明显（且明显错误地！）用雌豺替代了母驴，但菩萨将帕森纳迪王梦中所见动物解释为象征那些贪恋男子、烈酒与华服并耗尽丈夫家财的妇人，这一解读仍立即可被领会。同样值得注意的是，保萨尼亚斯对希腊......
parallel of Ocnus and the ass is not any different: Ocnus stands for an industrius man with an extravagant wife; all that he earned by his work she soon spent. Frazer, following Pausanias, found the fable of the rope-weaver and the ass “a sufficiently obvious apologue of misdirected and therefore fruitless labour”. But most scholars are puzzled by this interpretation for the reason that oknos in Greek means ‘indolence’, the very opposite of ‘industry’. However, since he is a Hades-figure, the likelihood is that Ocnus is, in this task of eternal and futile rope-weaving, undergoing punishment for some erstwhile indolence upon earth - which also then puts him in the category of those traditional great sinners whose torment in Hades involved psychological torture involving frustration i.e. Sisyphus, Tantalus and the Water-carriers. If he was himself no offender, I cannot see why he even figures in this role and in the company of these others in Hades. 奥克努斯与驴子的寓言并无二致：奥克努斯代表勤勉的丈夫，其妻挥霍无度；他劳作所得很快被她挥霍一空。弗雷泽沿袭保萨尼阿斯的观点，认为织绳人与驴的寓言"显然是对方向错误因而徒劳无功的劳动的讽喻"。但大多数学者对此解释感到困惑，因为希腊语中"oknos"意为"怠惰"，与"勤勉"截然相反。不过既然他是冥界人物，很可能奥克努斯在这项永恒而无用的编绳劳作中，正为生前怠惰之罪接受惩罚——这也使他跻身传统重罪者之列，这些人在冥界所受折磨皆包含挫败感构成的心理煎熬，如西西弗斯、坦塔罗斯及运水者们。若他本无过错，我实难理解他何以在此扮演此角色，并与这些冥界受罚者为伍。
Apart from the paintings of Polygnotus and Nicophanes, of which we have only literary record, Frazer refers to no less than six extant monuments of ancient art which depict the story of Ocnus and his ass. Among these are a stucco relief in a columbarium of the Vigna Campana near the Porta Latina in Rome, which shows Ocnus as a bearded man who kneels and plaits a rope while in front of him the ass eats its other end; a mural in a columbarium of the Villa Pamfili at Rome which shows him sitting on a stone and holding the end of the rope while the ass, lying, again in front of him, is eating it; a painting found in a tomb at Ostia (and now in the Lateran Museum), in which Ocnus is depicted sitting and plaiting his rope while the ass eats the other end behind his back. But it is the three other monuments which are of greater significance to us when dealing with the Mahasupina Jataka. For they show Ocnus and his ass, the inspiration of the king of Kosala’s seventh dream, in association with the inspiration of his eighth dream, the water-carriers of Hades (rightly or wrongly identified with the Danaides) - an association already found in Polygnotus’ mural at Delphi as well. For, when the Buddha at Jetavana asked the king what his eight dream was, which needed interpretation, the king answered: 除了波吕格诺托斯和尼科法内斯的画作（我们仅有文字记载）外，弗雷泽还提及至少六件现存古代艺术遗迹描绘了奥克努斯与驴的故事。其中包括罗马拉丁门附近坎帕纳葡萄园骨灰龛中的一幅灰泥浮雕，呈现蓄须的奥克努斯跪地编绳，而驴在他面前啃食绳的另一端；罗马潘菲利别墅骨灰龛的壁画显示他坐在石头上握绳端，躺卧的驴再次于其前方啃食绳索；奥斯提亚某墓葬（现存拉特朗博物馆）出土的绘画中，奥克努斯坐着编绳，驴在其背后啃食另一端。但对我们研究《大梦本生》更具意义的是另外三件遗迹——它们将科萨拉王第七梦的灵感来源奥克努斯与驴，同第八梦的灵感来源冥界运水者（被或对或错地等同于达那伊得斯姐妹）并置呈现，这种关联早在波吕格诺托斯的德尔斐壁画中已有体现。 因为，当佛陀在祇园精舍询问国王需要解梦的第八个梦境时，国王答道：
Abstract 摘要
“Methought, Sir, I saw at a palace gate a big pitcher which was full to the brim and stood amid a number of empty ones. And from the four cardinal points, and from the four intermediate points there kept coming streams of people of all the four castes, carrying water in pipkins and pouring it into the full pitcher. And the water overflowed and ran away. But nonetheless they kept pouring more and more water into the overflowing vessel, without a single man giving so much as a glance at the empty pitchers. This is my eighth dream. What shall come of it?” "尊者啊，我梦见在王宫大门处有个大瓮，瓮中水满欲溢，周围却摆着许多空瓮。从四方与四隅不断涌来各阶层的民众，他们用陶罐盛水倒入那只满瓮。水溢出流淌，但他们仍不断往已满的瓮中加水，竟无一人瞥视那些空瓮。此乃我第八梦。此梦主何吉凶？"
While the parallel between the man and the she-jackal of the seventh dream of the Mahasupina Jataka and the Greek Ocnus has been remarked by a few writers, no one, to my knowledge, has observed the parallelism between these water-carriers of the jataka king’s eighth dream and those of the Greek Hades, not to mention the even more remarkable fact of their respective occurrences together with the rope-weaver. 虽然已有少数著述者指出《大梦本生》第七梦中男子与雌豺的典故与希腊奥克努斯传说的相似性，但据我所知，尚未有人注意到本生经中国王第八梦中这些运水者与希腊冥府运水者的对应关系——更不必说两者都与搓绳者情节相伴出现这一更为惊人的事实。
If we ignore the empty pitchers which stood around the one specifically mentioned as big in the dream-vision of the Indian king (as the water-carriers in that dream also ignored them) and review the scene, have we not here an absolutely faithful re-enactment of the drama in the Greek underworld? For here are people, both men and women, who keep ceaselessly coming up to a huge jar and pouring water into it from smaller vessels - and yet their task is futile, since the water pours away from it. This does not stop them; they continue to perform it as though it were some kind of compulsive act or some eternal punishment that has been meted to them, a penance for some sin\sin. 若我们忽略印度国王梦境幻象中那个被特别强调的大水罐周围摆放的空罐（正如梦中那些运水者也对其视若无睹），重新审视这一幕场景，难道不正是在希腊冥界戏剧的完美复现吗？这里的人们——无论男女——都永不停歇地走向巨罐，用较小的容器向其注水，然而他们的劳作注定徒劳，因为水总会从罐中流失。这并不能阻止他们；他们持续着这项任务，仿佛这是某种强迫性的仪式，或是施加于他们的永恒惩罚，为某些 sin\sin 而进行的苦修。
Two scenes in the Polynotus murals of the Cnidian lesche seem to have depicted the water-carrying people of the Greek Hades. They are detached from each other, but are quite obviously related from the nature of the activity and Pausanias’ interpretation of them. Of the first he writes: 克尼多斯议事厅波利诺图斯壁画中的两个场景似乎描绘了希腊冥界的运水者。这两个场景虽彼此分离，但从活动本质和保萨尼阿斯的诠释来看显然相互关联。关于第一幅壁画，他写道：
“The women above Penthesilia are carrying water in broken pots; one is still beautiful to see, but the other is older; neither of them has an inscription of her own, but they share one saying that they are women not initiated in the mysteries.” 彭忒西勒亚上方的女人们正用破罐子取水；其中一位风韵犹存，另一位则年岁已长；她们虽无单独铭文，却共享一则题词，表明她们是未入秘仪的女子。
And almost immediately afterwards he goes on to describe the other group: 几乎紧接着，他又继续描述另一组人物：
“Beyond Callisto and the women with her is the shape of a cliff, with Sisyphus, the son of Aiolus, struggling to heave his rock up to the top. There is also a great jar in the painting, an old man, a boy, and some women, a young one under the rock and an old one beside the old man. Most of them are carrying water, but you can see that the old woman’s pot is broken, and whatever water was left is pouring into the great jar. I conclude that these people as well despised the rites of Eleusis … Below the great jar is Tantalus suffering as Homer has made him suffer, and terrified in addition by the stone hanging above him.” "卡利斯托及其同伴之外，可见悬崖轮廓，埃俄罗斯之子西绪福斯正奋力将巨石推向山顶。画中还有一只巨瓮、一位老者、一个男孩和若干女子——有年轻女子蜷于岩下，亦有老妇立于老者身侧。她们大多在取水，但可见老妇的瓦罐已破，残存的水正倾入巨瓮之中。我由此断定这些人同样蔑视厄琉息斯秘仪……巨瓮下方，坦塔罗斯正遭受荷马笔下所载之苦，更被悬顶巨石吓得魂飞魄散。"
The water-carriers of Hades are familiar to us from Plato’s reference to them as part of the Orphic vision of the afterlife. “The impious and the unjust”, Adeimantus says in the Republic, ^(66){ }^{66} “they (the Orphics) bury in a kind of mud in Hades, and compel them to carry water in a sieve”. 我们从柏拉图的描述中熟知冥界的运水者，这是俄耳甫斯教对死后景象的描绘之一。阿狄曼图在《理想国》中提到："他们（俄耳甫斯教徒）将不敬神者和不义者埋在冥界的一种泥沼里，强迫他们用筛子运水。"
It appears that here too, as in the case of the women above Penthesilia and the old woman in Polygnotus’ other group, filling of the large jar was frustrated by the leaking of the carrying vessel - the sieve. However, the evidence is stronger that it was the large vessel into which the water was being emptied that did not retain it, when the carriers are shown, with their own vessels integral, bearing them on their heads or shoulders or successfully emptying them into the big 此处情况似乎与上文彭忒西勒亚身旁的妇女以及波利格诺托斯另一组画中的老妇人类似——由于运水容器（筛子）的渗漏，导致无法装满大罐。但更有力的证据表明，当画中运水者带着完好无损的容器（或顶在头上或扛在肩上，或成功将水倒入大容器）时，问题出在接水的大容器无法存住水。
one. “To pour water into a broken jar” appears to have been an ancient proverb. ^(67){ }^{67} Sometimes, however, the futility of the exercise may have been intensified by the notion that both the big jar which was to be filled, as well as the carrying-vessels were leaky, the latter being alternately replaced by sieves. This inability to retain their contents in the case of both is the subject of a pun in Plato’s Gorgias, ^(68){ }^{68} where Socrates is found saying: 一、“往破罐里倒水”似乎是句古老谚语。 ^(67){ }^{67} 但有时这种徒劳行为会因双重意象而更显荒谬——待注满的大缸与运水容器皆已渗漏，后者甚至被替换为筛子交替使用。柏拉图《高尔吉亚篇》 ^(68){ }^{68} 中苏格拉底便以此双重不保的特性玩了个文字游戏：
“A certain ingenious man, probably an Italian or a Sicilian, playing on the word, invented a myth in which he called that part of the soul which is the seat of desire a jar (pithos) because it was retentive (pithanos) and persuadable, and he called the ignorant ‘unsealed’ (amuetoi) … and declared that of the souls in Hades the uninitiated were most miserable, for they carry water into a pithos which is pierced in like manner”. "某位机敏之士——想必是意大利或西西里人——借谐音编了个寓言，将灵魂中欲望所在称为'陶瓮'(pithos)，因其易被说服(pithanos)；又管愚昧之徒叫'未封口的'(amuetoi)……并宣称冥府众魂里，未受启迪者最惨，他们正用漏瓮般的容器往破缸里运水。"
Right from the institution of the Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries such water-carryings had been considered the punishment of the uninitiated in Hades, the hudreiai ateleis of the Danaides of the pseudo-Platonic Axiochus. ^(69){ }^{69} How these water-carriers came to be identified with the daughters of Danaus need not concern us here. On the other hand, the huge jar with a hole at the bottom recalls the funerary jars used by the Greeks upon graves and into which liquid sustenance was once poured for the dead beneath. Frazer must therefore be right in supposing that, though Pausanias does not mention it, and besides, there was no means of seeing the fact, the big pitcher in the Polygnotus painting was also holed and the task of filling it made that much more impossible. 自俄耳甫斯教和厄琉息斯秘仪创立之初，这类运水行为就被视为未受启蒙者在冥界的惩罚，正如伪柏拉图《阿西俄库斯》中达那俄斯之女们徒劳无功的汲水刑罚。至于这些运水者如何与达那俄斯的女儿们产生关联，此处无需深究。另一方面，底部有孔的巨罐令人联想到希腊人置于墓地的葬瓮——人们曾通过这些器皿向地下的亡者倾注液体祭品。因此弗雷泽的推测必然正确：尽管保萨尼阿斯未曾提及，且当时已无法验证事实，但波吕格诺托斯画作中的大瓮理应也有孔洞，使得注满它成为更加不可能完成的任务。
It must be this very difficulty to see this vessel punctured at its base in the Greek original that led the anonymous author of the Mahasupina Jataka to his representation of it as overflowing at the top rather than leaking at the bottom. This certainly aided the import of the dream - that is, if indeed it did not inspire it. In its visual aspect the picture presented by the dream-vision of the Indian jataka remains no different from the Hades vision of the Greek myth, or at least Polygnotus’ representation thereof. 正是由于希腊原版中难以表现容器底部穿孔这一细节，才使得《大梦本生经》的无名作者将其描绘为顶部溢出而非底部渗漏。这种处理无疑强化了梦境寓意——甚至可能直接启发了整个构思。从视觉呈现来看，印度本生经的梦境异象与希腊神话中的冥界幻象（至少波利格诺托斯所绘版本）依然如出一辙。
It is in the Axiochus that the water-carriers of Hades are identified as the Danaides, that is, maidens. Plato nowhere suggests they were all women. Nor is there the faintest evidence that the winged eidola depicted climbing a huge half-buried jar and emptying their water-pots into it, in a black-figure amphora in the Pinakothek in Munich, Danaides, or are, for that matter, women. ^(70){ }^{70} On the other hand, another black-figure vase, also antedating Plato by more than a century and kept at the Museum in Palermo, ^(71){ }^{71} shows emphatically that they are not the Danaides, for at least three of the seven are men. From Pausanias description of the group of water-carriers in the Polygnotus’ painting, it will be evident that the artist had taken care to depict them in the four categories of sex and age, i.e. as man and woman, boy and girl, not just as maidens. It may be this fourfold distinction that now surfaces in variation as the four castes in the otherwise indiscriminate ‘people’ who streamed “from the four cardinal points and from the four intermediate points” to fill the overflowing pitcher in the dream of King Pasenadi of the jataka. 在《阿西俄库斯》中，冥界的运水者被确认为达那伊得斯，即少女们。柏拉图从未暗示她们全是女性。也毫无证据表明，慕尼黑古代绘画陈列馆中那件黑绘双耳瓶上所描绘的——攀爬半埋巨罐并倾空水壶的有翼精灵是达那伊得斯，或就此而言是女性。 ^(70){ }^{70} 另一方面，另一件早于柏拉图一个多世纪的黑绘陶瓶（现藏于巴勒莫博物馆） ^(71){ }^{71} 则明确显示她们并非达那伊得斯，因为七人中至少有三位是男性。根据保萨尼阿斯对波吕格诺托斯画作中运水者群像的描述，显然艺术家刻意将其表现为四种性别与年龄的组合：男人与女人、男孩与女孩，而不仅仅是少女。或许正是这种四重区分，如今以变体形式呈现为本生经中帕赛纳迪王梦境里"从四方与四维"涌来注满溢水罐的"不分贵贱的民众"所划分的四种姓。
Quite apart from their widespread and independent appearance in classical and late antiquity in Greek and Roman art and literature, the scenes of Ocnus and his ass and the water-carriers of Hades, which appear in conjunction with each other in the murals of Polygnotus, also seem to have appeared so in other monuments of the ancient art of the West. Notable among these is a round marble well-head, sometimes described as an altar and now in the Vatican, which shows in relief sculpture Ocnus and his ass and, beside him, the Danaides pouring water into a huge jar. They also occur together and even interlinked, these subjects of the seventh and eighth dreams of the king of Kosala, in the black-figured lekythos of the Palermo museum (mentioned above), both scenes being treated in caricature. The seven water-carriers run to empty their pots into the half-buried jar and Ocnus sits, a bearded long-haired figure, gazing at some lines before him, which may be supposed to stand for the rope; behind him is the ass falling on its nose (or is it a posture of eating?) while one of the male water-carriers pulls it by its tail, thereby interestingly linking these two otherwise independent images, one with the other. There is, finally a drawing in the Codex Pighianus preserved in Berlin, which exhibits five scenes of Hades in five separate compartments, e.g. Ixion on his wheel, Hercules and the hell-hound Cerberus, the Danaides pouring water into a large broken jar, Sisyphus hoisting his rock up the hill and Ocnus and his ass. Here Ocnus is beardless and wears a shirt and trousers; he sits on a stool and plaits his rope while the ass eats it at the other end. The drawing is in all probability a copy of the reliefs on a Roman sarcophagus. ^(72){ }^{72} 除了在古希腊罗马艺术与文学中广泛独立出现的场景外，俄克诺斯与他的驴子以及冥界运水者的画面——这两者在波吕格诺托斯的壁画中相互关联——似乎也以同样方式出现在西方古代艺术的其他遗迹中。其中尤为著名的是一件圆形大理石井栏（有时被描述为祭坛），现藏于梵蒂冈，其浮雕展现了俄克诺斯与他的驴子，以及身旁的达那伊得斯姐妹正将水倒入巨罐的场景。在巴勒莫博物馆的黑绘细颈油瓶（前文提及）上，这两组源自憍萨罗国王第七与第八梦境的题材不仅同时出现，甚至相互交织，且均以讽刺手法呈现。 七名运水者奔向半埋的陶罐倒空水壶，奥克努斯静坐着——这位蓄须长发的身影凝视着面前的几道线条，或许可视为绳索的象征；他身后有头驴正摔个嘴啃泥（抑或是进食的姿态？），而一名男性运水者拽着驴尾，巧妙地将这两个原本独立的意象相互关联。最后，柏林保存的《皮吉亚努斯手抄本》中有幅画作，在五个独立区域呈现冥界的五个场景：伊克西翁缚于火轮、赫拉克勒斯与地狱三头犬刻耳柏洛斯、达那伊得斯姐妹向破碎大瓮注水、西西弗斯推石上山，以及奥克努斯与他的驴。此处的奥克努斯无须，身着衬衫长裤，坐在矮凳上编绳，驴则在另一端啃食绳索。该画作极可能是罗马石棺浮雕的摹本。 ^(72){ }^{72}
Hellenistic artists and their successors working out East seem to have been familiar with works of Greek art, later on, even with Romanized treatments of them that were in existence in the West. Evidence of such a thing may be seen, for instance, in the Trojan Horse frieze from Gandhara mentioned before, where the subject is treated in its Virgilian modification and imitates details appearing in artistic renderings of the theme in Roman art. The Roman 希腊化时期的艺术家及其东方继承者们似乎对希腊艺术作品颇为熟悉，后来甚至接触过西方现存的罗马化处理版本。例如前文提及的犍陀罗特洛伊木马浮雕便可见一斑——该题材采用了维吉尔式的改编手法，并模仿了罗马艺术中同类主题作品呈现的细节特征。这些罗马
tableaux referred to shortly before are derivative testimony of the evidence of Greece. Not that even so they matter to a study of the jataka, unless it can be shown that the evidence which they provide antedates the appearance of these supposedly Greek motifs in the jataka. For the evidence these Roman works repeat certainly do that; they represent in art the Western counterparts of that same classical material which made its far longer and more tenuous passage eastward to the regions of Buddhist India in those same centuries. 艺术场景正是希腊渊源的衍生佐证。但即便如此，它们对本生经研究的意义仍存疑，除非能证明这些罗马作品提供的证据早于所谓希腊母题在本生经中的出现。因为这些罗马作品所复现的素材确实具有更早的源头；它们以艺术形式呈现了与佛教印度地区相同的古典素材——这些素材在相同世纪里经历了更为漫长曲折的东传历程。
7. Amphitryon and the Treasurer, Illisa 7. 安菲特律翁与司库伊里萨
Lastly, I come to a jataka which I approached rather hesitantly because it seemed so far from the Greek myth which I suspected inspired some features in it - yet upon further research felt the intuition was by no means fatuous. This is the Illisa Jataka (No. 78) and the motif it takes after is that which told of Amphitryon, Alcmena and the miraculous birth of Heracles, partially following the rehandling of it as is emulated by the Roman playwright Plautus in his comedy, the Amphitryon. 最后，我要讲述一个本生故事，起初我对此颇为犹豫，因为它与我怀疑受希腊神话启发的某些特征相去甚远——但经过深入研究后，我确信这种直觉绝非无稽之谈。这便是《伊黎萨本生》（第 78 号），其故事原型源自安菲特律翁、阿尔克墨涅与赫拉克勒斯神奇诞生的传说，部分借鉴了罗马剧作家普劳图斯在其喜剧《安菲特律翁》中对这一题材的改编处理。
The circumstances which led the Buddha to narrate the Illisa Jataka was when it was reported to him of a miserly treasurer who would give nothing to anybody and himself lived on the barest minimum. So when one day the man, craving for crock-cake, got his wife to cook but just the one for himself, the Buddha, becoming aware of this, sent the Elder, Moggallana to exercise his transcendental powers and bring the man, his wife, crock-cake and all from distant Sakkhara to his presence in Rajagaha. Then, performing with the cake a miracle such as the one Christ was, near five centuries later to perform with the loaves and fishes, he fed all the Brethren and those present, with much to spare. Upon this the treasurer and his wife attained Fruition of the First Path of Salvation. As for the cave in which the remnants of the cake were dumped, “to this day”, says the paccuppannavatthu “a spot called ‘The Crock-cake’ (Kapallapûvapabbhâra) is shown at the extremity of it”. 佛陀讲述伊梨萨本生故事的缘起，是有人向他禀报一位吝啬的国库官从不施舍他人，自己仅以最简陋的食物维生。某日此人馋求陶罐烤饼，却只让妻子单独为他烹制一块。佛陀觉察此事后，便派遣目犍连尊者施展神通，将此人连同其妻、烤饼及所有物从遥远的萨迦罗城瞬间移至王舍城。随后佛陀以烤饼显圣迹——正如五百年后基督以五饼二鱼所行神迹——不仅让所有比丘及在场者饱食，更有大量剩余。国库官夫妇由此证得初果圣位。至于倾倒烤饼残渣的洞穴，《现世因缘》记载："至今仍能在洞穴尽头看到名为'陶罐烤饼岩'（Kapallapûvapabbhâra）的遗址"。
The relevant Greek myth of Amphitryon tells of how Amphitryon had gone with his Theban army to fight King Pteralas and his Teleboans, when god Zeus, impersonating him and deceiving his wife Alcmena, slept with her. When Amphitryon returned and realized she knew everything about the war and even, as proof of his having come before, produced the bowl of King Pterelas, which he himself had brought as a gift for her, he was baffled. Afterwards, when he tried to enter his own house when Zeus was inside, he was driven out as an imposter. Later when the two Amphitryons, the 相关的希腊神话讲述了安菲特律翁如何率领底比斯军队与国王普忒瑞拉斯及其特莱波亚人作战时，天神宙斯假扮成他，欺骗了他的妻子阿尔克墨涅并与之同寝。当安菲特律翁归来，发现妻子对战争细节了如指掌，甚至出示了普忒瑞拉斯王的金碗——这本是他自己带回送给她的礼物作为先前来过的证据时，他感到困惑不已。随后，当真正的安菲特律翁试图在宙斯仍在屋内时进入自己家门，却被当作冒名者驱逐。后来当两个安菲特律翁——
true and the impersonating, face each other and the former, failing to establish his identity against the other, finds no help from the captain of the ship (the equivalent of the barber in the Illisa), there is a crash of thunder and Amphitryon faints. At this point is heard the voice of Zeus declaring himself to have been the interloper and revealing that of the twin children to be born, one is Amphitryon’s, the other, Heracles, his own. 真相与冒充者对峙时，前者因无法证明自己的身份而得不到船长的帮助（相当于伊里萨故事中的理发师角色），此时雷声大作，安菲特律翁昏厥。就在此刻，宙斯的声音响起，宣称自己才是那位介入者，并揭示即将诞生的双胞胎中，一子是安菲特律翁的骨肉，另一子赫拉克勒斯则是他的血脉。
Earliest reference to Zeus’ cohabitation with Alcmena is found in The Shield of Heracles, epic attributed to Hesiod ^(73){ }^{73} and its antiquity confirmed by Pindar’s briefer allusion in Isthmian vii, while it formed the subject of plays, now lost, by Sophocles and Euripides. Zeus’ impersonation is not mentioned by Hesiod or Pindar but inferable, while the fuller accounts tell that Amphitryon learnt who the imposter was from the seer, Teiresias. The whole story was given by Pherecydes of Leros, ^(74){ }^{74} as we learn from the scholiasts on Homer Il. xiv. 223 and Od. xi.266, and it is likely that Apollodorus too followed him, for he refers to him a few lines later. 关于宙斯与阿尔克墨涅同居的最早记载见于《赫拉克勒斯之盾》——这部史诗被归为赫西俄德所作 ^(73){ }^{73} ，其古老性亦得到品达在《地峡颂》第七卷中的简短引述所证实。该题材曾被索福克勒斯和欧里庇得斯搬上舞台（剧本今已散佚）。赫西俄德与品达虽未明言宙斯假扮他人之事，但可推知；更详尽的叙述则记载安菲特律翁是从先知忒瑞西阿斯处识破冒名者身份。据荷马《伊利亚特》第十四卷 223 行与《奥德赛》第十一卷 266 行的古代注疏所示，莱罗斯的菲瑞塞德斯 ^(74){ }^{74} 完整记载了这个故事，而阿波罗多洛斯很可能沿袭了他的说法——因后者在数行后便引用了其论述。
Opinion has been divided on whether Sophocles’ play called the Amphitryon was a tragedy or a satyr play; more likely it was a tragedy. On the other hand, Euripides play, called Alcmena, appears to have been a parody and not very much different from Plautus’ boisterous Roman comedy. Following Plautus Accius (or Attius) Roman tragic poet (born 170 B.C.) wrote an Amphitryon thought to be adapting Sophocles. “In any case”, says Pearson, “the plot may be taken to have covered the same ground as the well-known travetsy of Plautus”. ^(75){ }^{75} 学界对索福克勒斯剧作《安菲特律翁》的体裁存在分歧：或为悲剧，或为羊人剧，但更可能属于悲剧。而欧里庇得斯的《阿尔克墨涅》则显然是部滑稽剧，与普劳图斯喧闹的罗马喜剧相差无几。继普劳图斯之后，罗马悲剧诗人阿克齐乌斯（或阿提乌斯，公元前 170 年生）创作的《安菲特律翁》被认为是对索福克勒斯的改编。皮尔逊指出："无论如何，该剧情节框架应与普劳图斯那出著名的谐谑剧基本一致" ^(75){ }^{75} 。
All this goes to show that the treatment of the myth as narrative, tragedy, satyr play, parody or comedy had the potentiality to be 这一切都表明，神话作为叙事、悲剧、羊人剧、戏仿或喜剧的表现形式，确实具备
cast in either a tragic or comic form, as Mercury in the prologue of Plautus’ play admits. The plot of the Illisa Jataka is not without these same possibilities. 如普劳图斯戏剧序幕中墨丘利所承认的那样，既可呈现悲剧形态也可呈现喜剧形态。《伊梨萨本生》的故事情节同样蕴含这种双重可能性。
In 1889 Robert Chalmers (who translated the Illisa for the Cowell edition) ^(76){ }^{76} drew attention to the argument of a poem by William Morris ‘The Proud King’ in which a haughty king, Jovinian by name, had his clothes stolen when he was bathing, and his form assumed by an archangel, who was then accepted by queen and courtiers etc. as Jovinian while Jovinian himself was driven away with blows, and does not regain his kingdom and all, until in deep humiliation he humbles himself before God. ^(77){ }^{77} This story, like the old French, “Moralite’ l’orgueil et presomption de l’empereur Jovinian” is undoubtedly taken from the 13^("th ")13^{\text {th }} century story book, the Gesta Romanorum. Chalmers traces the story further back, to the Koran verse: 1889 年，罗伯特·查默斯（曾为考威尔版翻译《伊梨萨本生》） ^(76){ }^{76} 指出威廉·莫里斯诗歌《骄傲的国王》的构思：一位名为乔维尼安的傲慢国王沐浴时衣物被窃，大天使盗取其形貌后获得王后与朝臣的认可，而真正的乔维尼安却遭棍棒驱逐，直至在上帝面前彻底谦卑才重获王国。 ^(77){ }^{77} 该故事与古法语作品《乔维尼安皇帝的骄傲与自负道德剧》无疑都源自 13^("th ")13^{\text {th }} 世纪故事集《罗马人传奇》。查默斯进一步追溯至《古兰经》经文：
“And we did try Solomon and we threw upon his throne a form; then he turned repentent.” "我确已考验素莱曼，我曾将一个形体抛在他的宝座上；然后，他归依了。"
Commentaries on this refer to the demon whom God used for this purpose as named Sakhr (or Sakhar) and say he usurped the throne by stealing the royal ring. After Solomon’s repentance, the demon flew away, throwing the ring into the sea. Afterwards it was recovered by Solomon miraculously from inside a fish, after which he threw Sakhr into the sea. In the Babylonian recension of this work c. A.D. 500, Solomon, unrecognized even in Jerusalem when deprived of his ring, is mocked by his own porter and driven away with blows. Of this “Talmudic-Koranic fiction” Sir Richard Burton had found the Gesta Romanorum story (and therefore, adds Chalmers, Morris’ poem) “the manifest descendant” though he himself says, “with greater caution, and perhaps more certainty, it may be maintained that the traditions are akin, springing from one stock.” Chalmers for his part observes that "Sakhr is simply the god Çakra of the older Indian theology, the archangel Sakka of Pali. And in 对此的注释提到，上帝为达成此目的所差遣的恶魔名为萨赫尔（Sakhr 或 Sakhar），并描述他通过窃取王权戒指篡夺了王位。所罗门忏悔后，恶魔将戒指抛入海中飞遁而去。后来这枚戒指奇迹般地从一条鱼腹中被所罗门寻回，随后他便将萨赫尔投入大海。约公元 500 年的巴比伦版本中记载，失去戒指的所罗门在耶路撒冷无人识认，遭自己的守门人嘲弄并被殴打驱逐。理查德·伯顿爵士认为这个"塔木德-古兰经虚构故事"与《罗马人传奇》的记载（因此也包括莫里斯的诗作，查默斯补充道）存在"明显的传承关系"，不过他本人更谨慎地表示："或许可以更确定地说，这些传统本属同源，出自一脉。"查默斯则指出："萨赫尔其实就是古印度神学中的天神因陀罗（Çakra），即巴利语文献中的大天使萨迦（Sakka）。而在
the Pali Jatakas occurs the story of Illisa, who is punished for sin and brought to repentance by the archangel Sakka assuming his form". 巴利文《本生经》中记载了伊里萨（Illisa）的故事——他因罪孽受罚，大天使萨迦化身其形貌使他悔悟"。
“It is a far cry from Gotama the Buddha to William Morris”, says Chalmers at the outset of his article, “The Lineage of the Proud King”, “but it will be the object of these pages to establish the succession, not apostolic but literary, linking the Victorian poet and the Indian sage of the fifth century B.C.” He then goes on to add, "从佛陀乔达摩到威廉·莫里斯之间横亘着巨大的鸿沟，"查默斯在其文章《骄傲国王的世系》开篇写道，"但本文的目标正是要建立这种传承关系——并非使徒传承，而是文学谱系——将这位维多利亚时代的诗人与公元前五世纪的印度圣哲联系起来。"随后他进一步补充道：
“The chain of sequence of the Jataka to Mr. Morris is still far from complete and it may be hoped that scholars with a larger knowledge than I can lay claim to, of the several literatures in which the story appears, may be willing to amplify and extend this sketch.” "本生经与莫里斯先生之间的传承链条仍远未完整，或许可以期待那些比我更精通相关文献的学者们——这些故事曾出现在多种文学传统中——愿意对这篇概述进行补充和扩展。"
Chalmers does not however concede that the motif as present in the Illisa Jataka is original with its author. He is right here. But for his part he suspects a simpler Buddhist form, and that Buddhism borrowed this, with Sakka, from pre-Buddhist folklore, now lost. 然而查默斯并不认为《伊利萨本生》中出现的母题是其作者的原创。这一点他是正确的。但他个人推测存在一个更简朴的佛教版本，而佛教连同帝释天一起，是从现已失传的前佛教民间传说中借鉴了这个母题。
For my part, however, I think speculation was possible for Chalmers in another direction, which would have opened up when he was discussing names. For while the name Sakhr pointed him to the Illisa Jataka, he has let the equally fascinating name Jovinian of the Gesta ride. For just as much as Sakka is the impersonating god of the Illisa, the impersonating god of the Amphitryon myth is (in his Romanized form) no other than Jove! If however this name is now shifted to the impersonated hero in the Gesta and not to the impersonating god, one must appreciate the new context of the story, which is Christian. Sakka is reduced to the status of the archangel of the Talmudic-Koranic God; so Jove (as Jovinian) is .used for the names of the king of the Christianized version. In retaining these names, no matter in what capacity, these later versions point their finger to their original sources, the Buddhist Indian story of Illisa and the Graeco-Roman myth of Amphitryon, both protagonists of which suffered impersonation and humiliation through divine intervention, bewilderment by the miraculous duplication of the 然而在我看来，查默斯本可从另一个角度进行推测，这一可能性在他讨论名字时便已显现。因为当"萨赫尔"这个名字将他引向《伊梨萨本生经》时，他却放过了《行传》中同样引人入胜的名字"约维尼安"。正如萨迦是伊梨萨故事中假扮凡人的天神，安菲特律翁神话里假扮凡人的天神（以其罗马化形态出现）不是别人正是朱庇特！不过若此名如今被移用于《行传》中被冒充的英雄而非冒充的天神，就必须理解这个基督教故事的新语境。萨迦被降格为《塔木德-古兰经》上帝座下大天使的地位；因此朱庇特（作为约维尼安）被用于基督教化版本中国王的名字。这些后世版本无论以何种形式保留这些名字，都指向了它们共同的源头——佛教印度故事中的伊梨萨与希腊罗马神话中的安菲特律翁，两位主角都因神明干预遭受身份被窃的屈辱，被神奇复现的幻象所迷惑。
vital piece of material evidence (Pterelas’ bowl and Illisa’s bump) and rejection by their own wives and followers. 关键物证（普特雷拉斯的碗与伊里萨的肿块）以及被妻子和追随者背弃的情节。
If further evidence be required of the fact that the motif of the Illisa plot has been borrowed into the Buddhist jataka, it is to be seen in the absurdly insignificant role the Bodhisatta plays in it. He is no more than Illisa’s barber in that life, who is brought in to testify to the identity of the genuine Illisa by the bump on his head, of which he alone (like the barber of King Midas and those donkeys ears) was aware. What is even more pathetic is that his evidence is rendered futile by Sakka when he produces a similar bump on his own head as well! ^(78){ }^{78} 若要进一步证明伊里萨故事母题确被佛教本生经借鉴，最明显的证据莫过于菩萨在其中扮演了荒谬至极的配角。他此生仅是伊里萨的理发师，被传唤作证真伊里萨的身份——通过其头顶的肿块，这特征唯有他知晓（如同知晓迈达斯国王驴耳的理发师）。更可悲的是，当帝释天在自己头上变出相同肿块时，他的证词便彻底失效了！ ^(78){ }^{78}
CHAPTER XII 第十二章
THE DANCING PEACOCK HERODOTUS IN THE JATAKAS 本生经中的舞孔雀与希罗多德
Among the Greek story-motifs which have parallels in the stories of the great compendium of the Buddhists, the Jatakatthavannana, no less than four appear in the Histories of Herodotus in one form or another. Already well-known is the striking similarity of the fable of the dancing peacock of the Nacca Jataka (No. 32) to the Herodotan anecdote which tells of how Megacles of Athens and not Hippocleides, his fellow-citizen, came to marry Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon. ^(1){ }^{1} Another is the Ucchanga Jataka (No. 67), in which a woman, given the choice of saving only one member of her family from death, opts for her brother, adducing the same arguments which Intaphernes’ wife in Herodotus adduced before the king of Persia, when she was faced with a similar predicament and made a similar choice. ^(2){ }^{2} 在佛教巨著《本生经》故事中与希腊故事母题相呼应的情节里，至少有四个案例以不同形式出现在希罗多德的《历史》中。其中最广为人知的是《那迦本生》（第 32 则）中孔雀跳舞的寓言与希罗多德笔下记载的轶事存在惊人相似——该轶事讲述了雅典的麦加克勒斯（而非其同胞希波克莱德斯）如何最终娶到西锡安僭主克利斯提尼之女阿伽里斯塔。 ^(1){ }^{1} 另一例是《乌昌伽本生》（第 67 则），其中一位妇女在只能拯救一位家庭成员免于死亡时选择了兄弟，其申辩理由与希罗多德记载中波斯王面前的因塔弗尼斯之妻如出一辙——当后者面临同样困境时也作出了相同选择。 ^(2){ }^{2}
These two parallels, together with another jataka with the Rhampsinitus story in Herodotus, a jataka which I have so far failed to discover, ^(3){ }^{3} have been commented upon or at least adverted to aa propos their origin since Western scholars became acquainted with the Jatakatthavannana after its edition in the Pali by Fausböll and its translation into English by various hands under the editorship of 这两则相似故事，连同另一个与希罗多德《历史》中拉姆普西尼图斯传说相关的本生经（该本生经我至今尚未发现） ^(3){ }^{3} ，自西方学者通过 Fausböll 的巴利文校勘本及考威尔教授主持的多译者英译本接触《本生经注》以来，其起源问题就不断被学界评述或至少有所提及 aa 。
Prof. Cowell. The other two jatakas which I wish to bring into discussion here have not been popularly recognized as reflecting motifs from Herodotan story material as the Nacca Jataka and the Ucchanga - though I find that S.J.Warren ^(4){ }^{4} had at least casually observed one of them in passing. 而本文将要讨论的另外两则本生经——虽不及《舞蹈本生》与《乌昌伽本生》那样广为人知——却未被普遍认为反映了希罗多德故事母题，不过我发现 S.J.沃伦 ^(4){ }^{4} 曾对其中的一则有过偶然的观察记录。
The first of these latter is the Macch-Uddana Jataka (No. 288), which emulates in part the story Herodotus had heard of how the poet Arion was separated from his money during his voyage home by ship, in part the story of the restoration of Polycrates ring to the tyrant, after he had cast it in the waters of the sea, by a fish that had swallowed it. The other is the Manicora Jataka (No. 194), which builds upon a detail of the life of Aesop himself, which, true enough, is only alluded to by Herodotus, but, if so, simply because he could take it for granted that his audience was quite familiar with it. It concerns the arrest of the fabulist on that trumped-up charge of having stolen a gold cup from the temple at Delphi and his death at the hands of the Delphians, to which I made reference in Chapter II of this book. 后者中的第一个是《摩诃乌达那本生经》（第 288 号），它部分模仿了希罗多德听闻的诗人阿里昂在乘船归途中钱财尽失的故事，部分借鉴了暴君波吕克拉底将戒指抛入海中后，被鱼吞下又物归原主的传说。另一个则是《摩尼拘罗本生经》（第 194 号），其情节基于伊索本人生平的一个细节——诚然，希罗多德对此仅一笔带过，但这仅仅因为他认定听众对此早已耳熟能详。该故事讲述了这位寓言作家因被诬陷盗窃德尔斐神庙的金杯而遭逮捕，最终死于德尔斐人之手的经过，我在本书第二章已提及此事。
It may be thought that historical anecdote has precedence over myth and fable in the claim to evolving motif. And indeed it should be so, considering that historical anecdote is generally based on a factual event. In which case the four stories we treat here from Herodotus must have evolved the motifs, which then reappear in the fables and stories of their respective jataka versions. The wedding of Agariste, Intaphernes’ wife’s remarkable choice, the story of Polycrates’ fateful ring and the incrimination of the fabulist, Aesop, all involve historical personalities and would have been thought to have taken place in exactly that way or at least provided some factual basis for the formulation encountered in the historian, whereas the imaginative Indian stories would have seized upon them and represented them, fiction from fact, as the birth stories of the Buddha. 或许有人认为，在母题演变方面，历史轶事应优先于神话和寓言。考虑到历史轶事通常基于真实事件，这种看法确实有其道理。若果真如此，我们在此探讨的希罗多德笔下的四个故事——阿伽里斯特的婚礼、因塔弗尼斯之妻的非凡抉择、波吕克拉底命运之戒的传说，以及寓言家伊索被诬陷的故事——必然经历了母题的演变过程，随后这些母题又重现于各自本生故事的寓言版本中。这些故事均涉及真实历史人物，人们会认为它们确曾如此发生，或至少为历史学家记载的叙述提供了某些事实依据；而充满想象力的印度故事则可能将这些史实加以艺术加工，将事实转化为虚构，将其呈现为佛陀的诞生故事。
Unfortunately, no writer is prepared to concede anything more to the historicity of these Herodotan anecdotes than that of the participants and perhaps some unrecognizable happening devoid of the romanticism which may have dressed them up. Such romantic treatment may be no less fiction than fable and myth themselves, and may indeed be secondary elaboration intervowen with fact in the tradition in which the historian encountered them - that is, if they were not the work of the historian himself. ^(5){ }^{5} This has already been found true of some of episodes in the Mahavamsa which have knowingly or unknowingly exploited motifs from Greek myth - and there is no reason why the same cannot be true of Herodotus. 遗憾的是，没有哪位学者愿意承认希罗多德这些轶事具有更多历史真实性——除了参与者或许存在，以及某些可能被浪漫主义修饰得面目全非的事件内核。这种浪漫化处理本身或许与寓言神话无异，甚至可能是历史学家在传统叙事中遇到的、与事实交织的二次加工产物——倘若这些故事并非史家本人杜撰的话。 ^(5){ }^{5} 《大史》中某些刻意或无意借鉴希腊神话母语的章节已被证实如此——希罗多德的记载自然也可能面临同样境遇。
Thus, on the face of it, the claim of Greek history to priority in the motifs of our four stories here as against the Buddhist birth-stories, on this contention alone appears to be little better than that of the Greek fables or Greek mythology. It is necessary, therefore, to turn from such a priori considerations to an actual examination of the several anecdotes in Herodotus, along with their respective jataka parallels, to determine the likelihood of the direction of borrowing and, in connection with this, once again, the matter of chronological priority. At any rate, a fresh and closer look at the comparable stories, the Greek, which appear as historical anecdotes in Herodotus, and the Indian, which appear as imaginative Buddhist moral-stories, seems to me as relevant an exercise a propos the historian and the Jatakatthavannana as did the fables of Aesop in the light of that same Indian compilation. I fear however that the lack of space 因此，从表面上看，仅就这一论点而言，希腊历史对我们这里四个故事母题优先权的宣称，相对于佛教本生故事而言，似乎并不比希腊寓言或希腊神话更有说服力。因此，有必要抛开这些先验的考量，转而实际考察希罗多德笔下的几则轶事及其对应的本生故事平行文本，以确定借鉴方向的可能性，并再次关联到时间先后顺序的问题。无论如何，在我看来，对这些可比较故事——希腊版本以历史轶事形式出现在希罗多德著作中，印度版本则呈现为富有想象力的佛教道德故事——进行全新而细致的审视，对于历史学家与《本生经注》的研究意义，就如同伊索寓言在那部印度汇编文献光照下的价值。然而我担心篇幅所限
and the general nature of this book will not permit me to look at them more than cursorily. 以及本书的总体性质，将只允许我对它们进行粗略的考察。
There need be no doubt that, once the Greeks were settled in the regions of India conquered by Alexander, and upon their learning of the language(s) of the indigenous population or these peoples learning Greek, some works of the Greek authors had been translated or that their contents become known to the elite at least. In these circumstances there can also be no doubt that Herodotus’ Histories would have gained precedence among these works, especially since it was written in prose, it dwelt with the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks, it had extensive geographical, historical and sociological accounts of adjacent lands, and above all, included a description of the very regions and peoples of India into which the Greeks had now moved. Admittedly the first hold of the Greeks in NorthWestern India did not last very long; yet neither did they pack up and depart when the regions of their occupancy came under Mauryan rule. Instead, it appears they continued as an influential, if not considerable community whose langugae, to judge from the surviving Kandahar inscriptions, was still popular in places, perhaps to be revitalizes under the Bactrian kings until two or three centuries later they had altogether lost their Greek identity in the cosmopolitan milieu. 毫无疑问，当希腊人定居于亚历山大征服的印度地区后，随着他们掌握当地语言或原住民习得希腊语，部分希腊作家的作品必然已被翻译，至少其内容已为当地精英阶层所知晓。在此背景下，希罗多德的《历史》无疑会在这些作品中占据首要地位——这部散文体著作不仅记述了希腊人击败波斯人的史实，更包含对周边地区广博的地理、历史与社会学描述，尤其重要的是，它详细记载了希腊人新近迁入的印度区域及其民族风貌。诚然，希腊人在印度西北部的首次立足并未持续太久；但即便当他们的占领区归入孔雀王朝统治时，他们也未曾彻底撤离。 相反，从现存的坎大哈铭文判断，他们似乎仍作为一个颇具影响力的群体延续着，其语言在某些地区依然通行，或许在巴克特里亚诸王的统治下曾一度复兴，直到两三个世纪后，他们才在这片文化交融的土地上彻底丧失了希腊人的身份认同。
The possibility of a knowledge of the writings of Herodotus in India had occurred to Macan ^(6){ }^{6} though he argued for a Greek borrowing of the motif of its “Marriage of Agariste” from the Nacca Jataka rather than vice-versa. A strong suspicion that Herodotus had been translated into Sanskrit was also harboured by the renowned Sri Lankan archaeologist, Senarat Paranavitana, which found expression in his reading of interlinear writings upon a slab 麦肯曾考虑过希罗多德著作传入印度的可能性 ^(6){ }^{6} ，不过他主张希腊是从《那伽本生经》中借鉴了"阿伽里斯忒的婚礼"这一母题，而非相反。斯里兰卡著名考古学家塞纳拉特·帕拉纳维塔纳也强烈怀疑希罗多德作品曾被译为梵文，这一观点体现在他对一块石板上的行间铭文的解读中。
inscription of Mahinda IV at Abhayagiri in Anuradhapura “and on many separate stones” ^(7){ }^{7} - though these are now deemed to be purely hallucinatory and of absolutely no worth as evidence - except, that is, of his own strong intuition, to which perhaps the discussion of motifs from Greek story in general and from the historian in particular that I undertake below may help to give some substance. 阿努拉德普勒无畏山寺摩哂陀四世的铭文"以及许多独立石碑上的记载" ^(7){ }^{7} ——尽管如今这些内容被视为纯属臆想，毫无证据价值——除了能证明他本人强烈的直觉。或许下文我将展开的关于希腊故事母题（尤其是历史学家所述母题）的讨论，能为这种直觉提供些许实质依据。
1. The Dancing Peacock and the Dancing Eupatrid. 1. 孔雀舞者与贵族舞者
To begin with the wedding of Agariste - the Herodotan story has its parallel in the Indian jatakas, as mentioned before, in the Nacca Jataka. In brief both accounts tell of how his unseemly dance cost a suitor the hand of the maiden he had all but won, and how she was thereupon betrothed by her father to someone else. 首先从阿伽里斯忒的婚礼说起——正如前文所述，希罗多德记载的这个故事在印度本生经《舞蹈本生》中有其对应版本。简而言之，两个故事都讲述了一位求婚者因失态的舞蹈动作而错失几乎到手的佳人，随后新娘的父亲将她许配给了他人。
Herodotus tells his story in a characteristic digression on the house of Alcmaeon, occasioned by the gossip, which he strongly repudiates, 希罗多德以标志性的插叙方式讲述了这个关于阿尔克迈翁家族的故事，起因是他极力驳斥的一则流言：
that it was the Alcmaeonidae (descendants of Alcmaeon) who were responsible for treacherously signalling the Persians with a shield during the Persian invasion of Attica in 490 B.C. For, asks he, 该流言指控阿尔克迈翁家族（阿尔克迈翁的后裔）在公元前 490 年波斯入侵阿提卡时，曾用盾牌向波斯人发出背叛信号。希罗多德质问道：
“It is likely that these men, who were obviously greater tyrant-haters than even Callias, the son of Phaenippus, father of Hipponicus, should have wished to see Athens ruled by Hippias under foreign control?” "这些人显然比菲尼普斯之子、希波尼库斯之父卡利亚斯更憎恶僭主，他们怎会希望看到雅典在异族控制下由希庇亚斯统治呢？"
With this he launches into two episodes in the chronicles of the Alcmaeonidae which brought them wealth and prestige. The first of these is the humorous story of how Alcmaeon got as much gold as he could carry on his person from King Croesus of Lydia, and the sight he presented emerging form the king’s treasury, which made the latter burst into laughter. In the next generation, says the historian, the family became even more famous through the marriage of Alcmaeon’s son to Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, and goes on to narrate the circumstances. 接着他讲述了阿尔克迈翁家族编年史中令其获得财富与声望的两个事件。其一是阿尔克迈翁从吕底亚国王克罗伊斯那里获取随身可携黄金的趣闻——当这位贵族满载黄金从国库蹒跚而出时，其滑稽模样引得国王开怀大笑。历史学家继而指出，下一代人通过阿尔克迈翁之子与西锡安僭主克里斯提尼之女阿加丽斯特的联姻使家族声名更盛，并详细叙述了这段姻缘的来龙去脉。
It appears Cleisthenes, wishing to give his daughter, Agariste, in marriage to the best man in all Greece, had it announced at the Olympic Games, inviting all those who deemed themselves worthy of being his son-in-law to present themselves at Sicyon within sixty days to be betrothed to his daughter in an year from the sixtieth day. Every man of Greek nationality who had something to be proud of complied. Here follows a list of some of the more illustrious of the suitors, who are of no interest to us here, except the two Athenians, Megacles, son of Alcmaeon, and Hippocleides, son of Tisander, “the wealthiest and best-looking man in all Athens”. For one whole year Cleisthenes kept them in his palace, testing them in their ability at conversation, their temper, accomplishments, manners, virtues, and in the younger, their athletic prowess. For one reason or another it was the two Athenians who impressed Cleisthenes most favourably, and of the two Tisander’s son had the edge. 看来，克利斯提尼希望将女儿阿加丽斯特许配给全希腊最优秀的男子，便在奥林匹克运动会上宣布：凡自认配得上做他女婿的人，可在六十日内前往西锡安，六十日满一年后与他女儿订婚。所有引以为豪的希腊人都应召前来。以下是部分显赫求婚者的名单，这些人对我们而言无关紧要，唯有两位雅典人例外——阿尔克迈翁之子墨伽克勒斯，以及"全雅典最富有、最英俊的男子"提桑德之子希波克莱德斯。整整一年间，克利斯提尼将他们留在宫中，考验他们的谈吐、性情、才艺、礼仪、品德，对年轻者还测试其运动才能。种种因素综合考量，这两位雅典人给克利斯提尼留下了最佳印象，而提桑德之子更胜一筹。
When the day came for the betrothal Cleisthenes held a great banquet, and following the dinner the suitors began to compete with 订婚之日来临之际，克利斯提尼设下盛大宴会。宴席结束后，求婚者们开始竞相
each other in music and in talking on a set theme to the assembled company. In both these Hippocleides excelled - until at last, as more and more wine was drunk, he asked the flute-player to play a tune and began to dance to it. Herodotus continues: 在音乐演奏和围绕既定主题向众人演说这两项才艺上，希波克莱德斯都表现得极为出色——直到宴饮渐酣时，他竟要求乐师奏曲，随之翩然起舞。希罗多德继续写道：
“Now, it may well be that he danced to his own satisfaction; Cleisthenes, however, who was watching his performance, began to have serious doubts about the whole business. Presently, after a brief pause, Hippocleides sent for a table; the table was brought, and Hippocleides, climbing on to it, danced first some Laconian dances, next some Attic dances, then ended by standing on his head and beating time with his legs in the air. The Laconian and Attic dances were bad enough; but Cleisthenes, though he already loathed the thought of having a son-in-law who could behave so disgracefully in public, nevertheless controlled himself and managed to avoid an outburst; but when he saw Hippocleides beating time with his legs, he could stand it no longer. “Son of Tisander”, he cried, “you have danced your marriage away” (Ô pai Teisandrou, apôrchēsao ge men ton gamon). To which Hippocleides’ cheerful reply was, “Hippocleides doesn’t care!” (Ou phrontis Hippocleide); and it was hence that the common saying had its origin.” "此刻，他或许跳得心满意足；但观舞的克莱斯提尼却对整个场面产生了严重疑虑。稍作停顿后，希波克莱德斯命人搬来一张桌子，他登上桌面，先跳了几支拉科尼亚舞，又跳了些阿提卡舞，最后竟倒立起来，双腿在空中打着拍子。那些拉科尼亚与阿提卡舞已够糟糕了；尽管克莱斯提尼一想到将有如此当众失仪的女婿就深感厌恶，却仍强自按捺未发作；但当他看见希波克莱德斯用双腿打拍子时，终于忍无可忍。'提桑德罗斯之子啊，'他喊道，'你已把婚事跳没了！'（ὦ παῖ Τεισάνδρου, ἀπώρχησαι γε μὲν τὸν γάμον）。希波克莱德斯却快活地答道：'希波克莱德斯不在乎！'（οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ）——这句俗语正是由此而来。"
As for the girl, Agariste, says the historian, Cleisthenes gave her in marriage to Megacles, the son of Alcmaeon. 至于那位姑娘阿伽里斯忒，历史学家记载道，克莱斯提尼将她许配给了阿尔克迈翁之子墨伽克勒斯。
Turning to the Nacca Jataka, it will be found that it adopts the same paccuppannavatthu, or story of the present, which sets out the circumstances in which the Buddha was supposed to have narrated the Devadhamma Jataka (No. 6), a jataka which itself has elements common with Greek story. 翻阅《那伽本生经》时会发现，它沿用了与《天法本生经》（第六则）相同的"当下因缘"叙事框架——后者正是佛陀讲述该本生故事的缘起，而《天法本生经》本身也蕴含着希腊故事的叙事元素。
The incident concerned is one in which a monk, brought before the Buddha for possessing more than the wherewithal prescribed by him, and questioned by the Buddha, lost his temper, tore off even the clothes he was wearing and stood stark naked before the Exalted 事件起因是一位比丘因持有超出戒律规定的物品被带到佛陀面前。当佛陀质询时，这位比丘勃然大怒，竟扯下身上所穿的衣物，赤身裸体地站在世尊面前，
One, exclaiming, “Then I’ll go about like this!” When everyone cried “Shame!” he ran away and reverted to the state of a layman. 叫嚷着："那我就这样修行！"在众人"可耻"的斥责声中，他仓皇逃离僧团，还俗成为在家人。
Afterwards the Master said to his monks, explaining: 事后，世尊向比丘们开示道：
“Brethren, this is not the only loss his shamelessness caused him; for, in bygone days he lost a jewel of a wife just as now he has lost the jewel of the faith.” "诸位，他的无耻行径不仅造成这一损失；往昔他失去如珍宝般的妻子，如今又失却信仰之宝。"
And so saying, he told them the story of the dancing peacock. 说罢，他便向他们讲述了孔雀起舞的故事。
It seems the Golden Goose (suvanna hamsa), king of the birds, had a daughter, to whom he promised to grant any boon she might ask. What she asked was that she be allowed to choose a husband for herself. So, in fulfilment of his promise the king summoned all the birds together in the country of the Himalayas. All the birds thereupon made their appearance, swans and all other sorts and assembled upon a great plateau of bare rock. The king then asked his daughter to choose after her own heart. As the fair gosling reviewed the crowd, her eyes lighted upon the peacock with his neck of jewelled sheen and tail of varied hue and she chose him, saying “Let this be my husband.” Thereupon the peacock, overwhelmed by his extreme joy, exclaimed, “Up to now you haven’t seen how talented I am,” and in breach of all modesty he spread his feathers and began to dance in the midst of the vast assembly - and in dancing he exposed himself. The royal Golden Goose was shocked. He said, “This fellow has neither modesty in his heart nor decency in his outward behaviour! I will certainly not give my daughter to one so shameless!” And in the presence of all who were gathered there he recited this stanza: 金鹅（苏梵那·汉萨），众鸟之王，似乎有个女儿。他曾许诺满足女儿的任何心愿。女儿所求的，是允许她自己选择丈夫。于是，为履行诺言，国王召集喜马拉雅国境内所有的鸟儿前来。众鸟闻讯而至，天鹅与其他各类飞禽齐聚于一片裸露巨岩构成的高原之上。国王便让女儿随心挑选。当美丽的雏鹅审视鸟群时，目光落在那颈泛宝石光泽、尾羽斑斓的孔雀身上，选中他说道："愿此君为我夫婿。"孔雀闻言狂喜难抑，高声道："诸位尚未见识我才艺！"竟不顾廉耻开屏，在众目睽睽之下起舞——舞姿中尽显丑态。尊贵的金鹅震怒道："此辈内心无羞耻，外表失体统！我断不能将女儿许给这般无耻之徒！"遂当众吟偈曰：
A pleasing note is yours, a right resplendent back; Almost like opal in its colour is your neck, A fathom’s length your outstretched tail-feathers reach; But 'cause of your dance, I’ll give you no daughter of mine. 你歌声悦耳，背羽华美；颈项如蛋白石般斑斓，尾羽舒展足有一寻长；但因你跳那支舞，我绝不将女儿许配给你。
So saying he bestowed his daughter to a young goose, a nephew of his. As for the peacock, covered with shame at not getting the fair gosling, he rose straight up into the air and flew away. 说罢，他将女儿许配给一只年轻公鹅——自己的外甥。孔雀求偶失败羞愤难当，径直腾空飞离。
The similarity of motifs in the Greek historical anecdote and the Indian beast- (or rather, bird-fable is unmistakable, indeed remarkable. Here are two fathers, both wishing to give their daughters in marriage; each invites a host of eligible suitors to a distinctive venue and a selection is arrived at of one who is most outstanding in looks/ accomplishments, when, for one reason or another (in the Greek, inebriation, in the Indian, vanity) the prospective bridegroom begins a dance - a dance which turns out to be most indecorous and vulgar and so infuriates the father, who had been watching the performance, that he declares (in strikingly similar words) that he has “danced his bride away”. 这则希腊历史轶事与印度动物（确切地说是鸟类）寓言中的母题相似性确凿无疑，甚至堪称惊人。两位父亲都想为女儿择婿，各自邀请众多候选追求者来到特定场所，最终选出外貌/才艺最出众者。却因某种缘由（希腊版本因醉酒，印度版本因虚荣），准新郎跳起舞来——这支舞竟粗俗不堪，令观礼的父亲勃然大怒，用惊人相似的措辞宣布对方"用舞蹈葬送了婚事"。
The variation in the reaction to this rejection between Hippocleides and the peacock (observed by Warren) ^(8){ }^{8} is little to the point, and if anything, reveals the jataka author’s wish to be different while at the same time emphasizing the close similarity of the rest of the story. Hippocleides may have continued dancing, which, from a means, had become for him an end in itself and more to his fancy than the girl, to win whom he had begun dancing in the first place. As for the peacock, we are told he departed in the shame of defeat. In both stories it would be noted that thereafter the respective fathers betrothed their daughters to another, at best a second-best. 希波克莱德斯与孔雀对拒绝反应的不同（沃伦所观察到的） ^(8){ }^{8} 几乎无关紧要，如果说有什么意义的话，那就是揭示了本生经作者既想标新立异，同时又强调故事其余部分的惊人相似性。希波克莱德斯可能继续跳着舞，对他而言，舞蹈已从手段变成了目的本身，甚至比最初为赢得芳心而跳舞的姑娘更令他着迷。至于孔雀，我们被告知它因战败的耻辱而离去。值得注意的是，在这两个故事中，两位父亲随后都将女儿许配给了他人——充其量只是次优选择。
Though the author of the Pancatantra made no use of the fable of the dancing peacock from the jatakas in his work, there is reference to it in a stanza occurring in what may perhaps be its older recension, contained in the Perlin ms. On the other hand, at the time of the translation of the first forty jatakas, one of which happens to be the Nacca Jataka, Rhys-Davids was unaware of the existence of its parallel in Herodotus. Consequently we are deprived of his observations on the matter, though there is little doubt that, 尽管《五卷书》的作者未在其作品中采用本生经里跳舞孔雀的寓言，但在可能属于更古老版本的佩林手稿中，有一节诗提及了这个故事。另一方面，当翻译前四十篇本生经（其中恰巧包含《舞蹈本生》）时，里斯·戴维斯尚未意识到希罗多德著作中存在的平行故事。因此我们无缘得知他对此事的见解，尽管毫无疑问，
op.cit. p. 477. 同上书，第 477 页。
keeping with his view, he would have accepted priority for the Indian story as against the Greek. ^(9){ }^{9} This was also the opinion of G.H.Rawlinson ^(10){ }^{10} and others like W.R.Halliday ^(11){ }^{11} and T.R.Glover, ^(12){ }^{12} who followed him in thinking that Indian fables such as this one and that of the Ucchanga Jataka, including also the account of the Indian Uttarakuru, who had their home in the Himalayas, had found their way into Herodotus. A fuller discussion of the Herodotan anecdote of the wedding of Agariste and the Indian fable of the dancing peacock, however, appears in the edition of Herodotus by Macan, ^(13){ }^{13} whose attention had been drawn to the jataka by the Pali scholar, Arnold C. Taylor. 根据他的观点，他本应承认印度故事比希腊故事具有优先性。 ^(9){ }^{9} 这也是 G.H.罗林森 ^(10){ }^{10} 以及 W.R.哈利迪 ^(11){ }^{11} 和 T.R.格洛弗 ^(12){ }^{12} 等人的观点，他们追随他的思路，认为诸如本故事和《鹧鸪本生》这样的印度寓言，包括关于居住在喜马拉雅山区的印度北俱卢洲人的记载，已经进入了希罗多德的著作。然而，关于希罗多德笔下阿伽里斯塔婚礼的轶事与印度孔雀跳舞寓言之间关系的更详细讨论，出现在麦肯 ^(13){ }^{13} 所编的希罗多德版本中——这位学者的注意力是由巴利文学者阿诺德·C·泰勒引向本生经的。
Macan found it unacceptable “that the Greek story, as told by Herodotus, was carried to India in the days of Alexander the Great, and there, in course of time, transformed and degraded into a beast(or bird-) fable, to be again in course of time, moralized into a Buddhist birth story (according to which the soul of the peacock was reincarnate in the person of a luxurious monk, one that degraded himself in the presence of the Master, whose soul had formerly inhabited the body of the same royal Golden Goose).” Any such hypothesis, he says, would place a severe strain upon the conscience of historian and mythologist. According to him, it is infinitely more probable that an Indian fable had reached Hellas and been historicized before the days of Herodotus, than that a page of Herodotan history, so to speak, was torn out and carried to India in the train of Alexander and there “dissolved and dessicated into a bird-fable”. For, says he, “the fable wears upon its very face and front the more primitive stamp; the Herodotan story is transparently imaginative, poetical, pragmatic”. 麦肯认为"希罗多德所讲述的希腊故事在亚历山大大帝时代传入印度，随后逐渐演变为低俗的动物（或鸟类）寓言，最终又被佛教化转世故事所道德化（根据该故事，孔雀的灵魂转世为一位奢靡僧侣，他在佛祖面前自甘堕落，而佛祖前世曾是同一只皇家金鹅的灵魂）"这一说法令人难以接受。他指出，任何此类假设都将严重挑战历史学家和神话学家的学术良知。在他看来，印度寓言在希罗多德时代之前就已传入希腊并被历史化的可能性，远大于"希罗多德史书中的某一页被撕下，随亚历山大军队传入印度后'消解干涸成鸟类寓言'"的假设。他强调："这则寓言从表面到内核都带有更原始的印记；而希罗多德的故事明显是充满想象力的、诗意的、实用主义的创作。"
Theorizing thus that the fabulous element in the Herodotan story is derived neither directly nor indirectly from the Jatakatthavannana but from an earlier and remoter source, Macan sets out to determine the time about which the peacock fable from India would have made its advent within the European conspectus by the date assignable to the introduction of the bird to the West, only to find that the epiphany of the bird in Athens does not antedate Herodotus, while Herodotus himself nowhere mentions it. ^(14){ }^{14} Macan would indeed have been spared the effort had he been aware, as we saw, that the home of the peacock that the Greeks came to know was Persia rather than India. Besides, while fable as a story-genre may antedate historical anecdote, there is no reason to think that other forms of narrative could not have been deliberately reduced to fable in the folk medium of a different culture. For instance, the Greek myth of Icarus reappears transformed into a bird-fable in the Migalopa and Gijjha Jataka (Nos. 381 and 164) and I cannot but help thinking that there is also the Phaethon-motif at the bottom of the story of the two wild geese of the Javana Hamsa Jataka (No. 476), who tried to keep pace with the sun and felt as if the joints of their wings were afire - though they are saved from the fate of that rash youth, who had to be struck down in mid-course by Zeus’ thunderbolt, by the Bodhisatta, himself a goose in that incarnation. 由此推论希罗多德故事中的奇幻元素既非直接也非间接源自《本生经》，而是来自更早更遥远的源头，麦肯进而试图通过孔雀传入西方的可考年代，确定印度孔雀寓言何时进入欧洲视野，却发现雅典出现孔雀的时间并不早于希罗多德，而希罗多德本人却从未提及这种鸟类。 ^(14){ }^{14} 倘若麦肯知晓——正如我们所见——希腊人所认知的孔雀原产波斯而非印度，本可省去这番考证。此外，虽然寓言作为一种故事类型可能早于历史轶闻，但没有理由认为其他叙事形式不可能在异文化的民间传播过程中被刻意简化为寓言。例如希腊伊卡洛斯神话在《弥伽罗波本生》与《吉迦本生》（第 381 与 164 号）中就以鸟类寓言的形式重现；而我不禁认为《贾瓦纳汉萨本生》（第... 476)，他们试图与太阳赛跑，却感觉翅膀关节仿佛着火——尽管他们因菩萨（当时化身为鹅）的干预而幸免于那位鲁莽青年的命运，后者在飞行途中被宙斯的雷电击落。
It is true that the fabulous element of the tale of the wedding of Agariste leaves the historical truths unaffected - namely, that Hippocleides and Megacles were the chief, (perhaps only), suitors for the hand of Cleisthenes’ daughter. But those who suggest that it was Herodotus himself who worked the fable-motif from India or wherever into the texture of the historical event have the onus of explaining in some other way the saying “Hippocleides doesn’t care”, already popular in Greece in Herodotus’ day and age. It is too much to think, however, that this saying had grown out of some other event, even perhaps some other Hippocleides, and was the cause, not consequence, of the metamorphosis of the dancing peacock of India into a dancing Eupatrid in Greece. 诚然，阿伽里斯忒婚礼故事中的奇幻成分并未影响历史真相——即希波克莱德斯和墨伽克勒斯是克莱斯提尼女儿的主要（或许唯一）求婚者。但那些认为希罗多德本人将印度或其他地方的寓言母题编织进历史事件的说法，仍需另寻途径来解释"希波克莱德斯不在乎"这句谚语，该说法在希罗多德时代已盛行于希腊。若认为这句谚语源自其他事件，甚至可能源自另一位希罗多德，并导致（而非源于）印度孔雀舞者变形为希腊贵族舞者，这种设想未免过于牵强。
Despite calling the concordance between the Greek and the Indian stories a ‘coincidence’ (Ubereinstimmung), Warren ^(15){ }^{15} too was inclined to the idea of a borrowing from India, both on the grounds of the seeming antiquity of the story (which he, like Macan, however fails to establish beyond the third century B.C.) and the manner in which the bridegroom was to be selected, which he found reminiscent of the Indian practice of svayamvara, i.e. the girl or her father making the choice from among an assembly of suitors. 尽管沃伦 ^(15){ }^{15} 将希腊与印度故事的相似之处称为"巧合"（Ubereinstimmung），但他仍倾向于认为这是从印度借鉴而来的观点。这一判断既基于该故事表面上的古老性（然而他与麦肯一样，未能将其确切年代追溯到公元前三世纪之前），也基于新郎的选拔方式——他认为这种方式令人联想到印度"自主选婿"（svayamvara）的习俗，即由女子或其父亲从众多求婚者中挑选夫婿。
In the strictest sense svayamvara (self-choice) must mean the privilege accorded to a girl to choose a husband for herself - which is the boon King Golden Goose granted his daughter, even though it was he who ultimately stepped in and, like Cleisthenes, chose the husband for his daughter - and from a more serious consideration than the superficial appearance of the peacock which had swept his daughter off her feet. 严格意义上的"自主选婿"（svayamvara）应指赋予女子自主选择夫婿的权利——这正是金鹅国王赐予女儿的恩典，尽管最终仍由他像克利斯提尼那样出面为女儿择婿，且其选择标准比那只让女儿一见倾心的孔雀外表更为深思熟虑。
Birds and beasts assembling at a chosen spot to select one of themselves for king, if not for some other purpose, is popular in fable throughout the world; it occurs in Aesop as much as it does in the jatakas and other stories of the Pancatantra and Hitopadesa in India. In fact the Golden Goose had himself been selected king in this way in the Uluka Jataka (No. 270), besides being himself a second choice upon rejection of the owl (on an objection raised by the crow). Such fabulous assemblies of birds and beasts must really be in emulation of human conduct, a democratic element which has replaced the natural selection of the leader within a herd - which is more akin, then, to the selection by trial of prowess or talent, also found in epic and familiar to the Greeks as much as to the Indians and, in fact, the mode of selection which figures in the Herodotan story. Well-known of course is the contest of the suitors for the hand of Penelope in the Odyssey. G.Grote ^(16){ }^{16} however suggested that the wooing of Agariste imitated the epic Wooing of Helen, and Stein, that it came from an ode in Pindar. ^(17){ }^{17} 鸟兽聚集在特定地点推举首领的情节，在世界各地的寓言中屡见不鲜——无论是伊索寓言，还是印度的本生经、《五卷书》与《益世嘉言》皆有所载。事实上，《猫头鹰本生》（第 270 则）中那只金鹅正是通过这种方式被选为国王的，尽管它本身是乌鸦反对猫头鹰继任后的第二选择。这类鸟兽集会的寓言场景，显然是对人类行为的模仿，体现了以民主推举取代族群内部自然选择首领的倾向——后者更接近于通过武艺或才能比试来选拔首领，这种模式既见于史诗，也为希腊人与印度人所熟知，希罗多德讲述的故事中便采用了这种选拔方式。《奥德赛》中求婚者争夺佩涅洛佩的著名竞赛自不待言。不过 G.Grote ^(16){ }^{16} 认为，阿伽里斯忒的求婚模仿了史诗《海伦的求婚》，而斯坦因则提出其灵感源自品达的颂诗。 ^(17){ }^{17}
What is indeed surprising and goes no small way in suggesting that whatever story, the Greek or the Indian, borrowed from the other knew more of it than its central motif, is the fact that a clear idea of svayamvara figures in Herodotus as well, with a father granting his daughters the boon of selecting their own husbands - and, of all places, immediately prior to the story he tells of the wedding of Agariste! Besides, it is told of no less a person than the Callias whom Herodotus says the Alcmaeonidae rivalled in their hatred of the Persians. For, says the historian, one of the three things for which the man deserved frequent mention by all was the fact that, when his three daughters were of marriageable age, “he not only gave them a most magnificient portion, but likewise attended to their desires so much that he gave each in marriage to him of all the Athenians whom she herself chose to select.” As for the fact that this svayamvara is not present in the Greek anecdote of our concern itself, it may be pointed out that, for all its svayamvara, the Indian too concluded with the father choosing the bridegroom for his daughter, like Cleisthenes. 真正令人惊讶且在很大程度上表明，无论是希腊故事还是印度故事，彼此借鉴时都不仅限于核心主题，而在于一个明显的事实：自主选婿（svayamvara）的概念也清晰地出现在希罗多德的记载中——一位父亲允许女儿们自行选择丈夫，而且这段记载恰好紧接在他讲述阿伽里斯特婚礼的故事之前！更值得注意的是，这位父亲正是希罗多德笔下与阿尔克迈翁家族同样痛恨波斯人的卡利亚斯。这位历史学家写道，此人值得被世人反复提及的三件事迹之一便是："当三个女儿适婚时，他不仅给予她们极其丰厚的嫁妆，还充分尊重她们的意愿，让每位女儿自主选择雅典公民中的意中人成婚。"至于为何我们关注的希腊轶事中并未出现这种自主选婿的情节，可以指出的是：即便在印度版本中，虽然存在自主选婿的环节，但最终仍以父亲为女儿选定新郎收场——正如克利斯提尼所做的那样。
Admittedly, one could argue that Herodotus was culprit in the svayamvara issue as much as in the anecdote as a whole. For in his devastating attack on the honesty of the historian, Plutarch had already compared him to the brash Hippocleides himself, accusing him of “dancing the truth away” and saying “Herodotus doesn’t care” But I cannot think that Herodotus would have dared to roundly lie about, not one but both these prominent families of Athens, whose close descendants would have been in the audience that heard him read his Histories - and, of all things, based his lies upon a peacock fable from India! This, and the well-grounded, anapaestically formulated proverb involving Hippocleides expressing gay abandon, must belong with some historical truth in Greece itself. 诚然，有人可能会辩称希罗多德在自选驸马事件乃至整个轶事中都难辞其咎。因为在普鲁塔克对这位历史学家诚信度的毁灭性抨击中，早已将其比作莽撞的希波克莱德斯本人，指控他"用舞蹈抹杀真相"，并称"希罗多德毫不在意"。但我难以想象希罗多德胆敢公然编造谎言——且不止针对一个，而是同时诋毁雅典这两大显赫家族，他们的近支后裔很可能就在聆听他朗诵《历史》的听众之中——更不可思议的是，这些谎言竟以印度的孔雀寓言为蓝本！这个细节，连同那个以扬抑抑格精心构建、表达恣意狂欢的希波克莱德斯谚语，必然植根于希腊本土的某些史实。
There is, ultimately, another detail which links the Nacca Jataka to the Greek story, true, one that is not of great significance, but still remarkable in that it re-echoes a qualification of the suitor found most eligible for the hand of Agariste. This is the relationship of the young goose whom the royal Golden Goose chose for his daughter after rejecting the peacock. He was, we are told in the 最终还有另一个细节将《那迦本生经》与希腊故事联系起来——这个细节虽无重大意义却依然值得注意，因为它复现了阿伽里斯忒选婿时对最合格求婚者的特质要求。这个细节关乎被皇家金鹅选中作为女婿的年轻灰雁（此前孔雀已遭拒绝）。据经文所述，这位幸运儿
jataka, a kinsman of his, a nephew. The same qualification, a particular kinship to someone (even if not to himself), figured in Cleisthenes’ preliminary preference for Hippocleides over Megacles as his son-in-law; for the historian says there that Hippocleides was related some generations back to the noble Corinthian family of Cypselus. That this consideration is transferred from Hippocleides who was rejected in the Greek story to the young goose, who was (ultimately) selected in the Indian (the Megacles of that) is nothing to the matter that; after all, it is present in both stories! And here again I cannot think that Herodotus had strained historical fact to make it conform to a detail - and an inessential one at that - of an imaginary fable from India. On the other hand, transference of a borrowed detail is popular enough in the jatakas. 本生经中，他的一个亲戚，一个侄子。同样的资格条件——与某人（即使不是他自己）有特定的亲属关系——也出现在克莱斯提尼最初选择希波克莱德斯而非麦加克勒斯作为女婿的考量中；因为历史学家提到，希波克莱德斯数代前与高贵的科林斯库普塞罗斯家族有亲缘。这一考量从希腊故事中被拒绝的希波克莱德斯转移到印度故事（即该故事中的麦加克勒斯）最终被选中的小鹅身上，对此无需多言；毕竟，它同时存在于两个故事中！我再次认为，希罗多德不可能为了迎合一个来自印度的虚构寓言中的细节——而且是一个非本质的细节——而扭曲历史事实。另一方面，借用细节的转移在本生经中相当常见。
What is really fascinating and could well be the strongest argument for the genuineness and originality of the Indian fable is, of course, the aptness with which the peacock figures in it. Having heard it myself I cannot agree that the cry of the peacock is, as described by King Golden Goose, “a pleasing note” (rudam manunnam) ^(18){ }^{18} but there can be no doubt as to the bird’s beauty, which swept the fair gosling off her feet. The most remarkable feature is how well the peacock’s dance fits this fable - the bird’s tendency, when fanning out his tail-feathers in doing so, not only to expose his rear, but to turn it towards his audience! ^(19){ }^{19} 最令人着迷且可能成为印度寓言真实性与原创性最有力证据的，莫过于孔雀在故事中的绝妙设定。虽然亲耳听过孔雀鸣叫后，我无法认同金鹅国王所描述的"悦耳鸣声"(rudam manunnam) ^(18){ }^{18} ，但毋庸置疑的是，这种鸟类的绝世美艳确实让纯洁的小雌鹅一见倾心。最精妙的安排在于孔雀之舞与这则寓言的完美契合——当孔雀开屏起舞时，不仅会暴露出尾部，还总会刻意将臀部转向观众！ ^(19){ }^{19}
However, this handsome appearance of the peacock, coupled with this tendency for indecent exposure when dancing (naccanto 然而孔雀这般华美的外表，偏偏配以舞蹈时暴露不雅的习性(naccanto
appaticchanno ahosi), which may be thought to clinch the origin of the story to the peacock and India, a land of peacocks, is strongly matched in Greece by certain dance forms (schemata), which, like the kordax of Old Comedy, were positively unseemly and vulgar. Hippocleides’ offending dances were, A.B.Cook ^(20){ }^{20} conjectures, “Theban figures”, if not improvisations of Hippoceides’ own. He refers to the fragment of a pella of local fabric found in the site of the Kabeirion of Thebes and datable to the end of the fifth century B.C., which shows a man standing on his hands upon a three-legged stool, with his feet in the air, while another, seated on his right, may be playing a flute. Can it be doubted that, then, in executing such a dance, standing on his head and beating time with his legs in the air, Hippocleides did not also, like the shameless peacock of the jataka, expose what decency required him to conceal in the presence of Cleisthenes’ guests, not to mention the prospective bride? （appaticchanno ahosi），这一细节或许可被视为该故事起源于孔雀的佐证。印度作为孔雀之乡固然有其合理性，但希腊某些舞蹈形式（schemata）的匹配度同样惊人——譬如古希腊喜剧中的科达克斯舞（kordax），其动作确实有伤风化、粗俗不堪。A.B.库克推测，希波克莱德斯冒犯众人的舞姿若非即兴发挥，便是"底比斯式舞步"。他援引了公元前五世纪末出土于底比斯卡贝里翁圣殿的本地陶片残件为证：碎片描绘一人正以双手倒立于三脚凳上，双腿悬空，右侧坐着的另一人可能正在吹奏长笛。试想，当希波克莱德斯以头撑地、双腿悬空击打节拍时，难道不会像本生经中那只不知羞耻的孔雀那样，在克利斯提尼的宾客——更不用说准新娘面前——暴露出礼法要求他遮掩的部位吗？
Herodotus’ story of Hippocleides does not seem to have been a popular one, judging by the fact that no other ancient writer refers to it, and even afterwards, except Dio Chrisostom. Yet the historian narrates it with such aplomb that Warren ^(21){ }^{21} himself, who found the svayamvara typically Indian and the evidence bespeaking a greater antiquity for the Indian peacock-fable, ultimately had his doubts and remained undecided. On the other hand, the Nacca Jataka’s reuse of the paccuppannavatthu of another jataka may perhaps - though not necessarily - imply that it is an interloper of sorts among the jatakas, even if not much later in date than the rest. The verse stanza of the Nacca Jataka is definitive enough and links the commentarial birth-story with the canonical Jataka Pali, which contains only the gatha or verses. At the same time, this jataka has 希罗多德关于希波克莱德斯的故事似乎并不广为人知，从其他古代作家都未曾提及这一事实即可判断——甚至后世也只有狄奥·克里索斯托姆例外。然而这位历史学家叙述此事时如此镇定自若，以至于连沃伦 ^(21){ }^{21} 本人（他认为自主选婿仪式极具印度特色，且证据表明印度孔雀寓言的历史更为悠久）最终也产生了疑虑，始终未能定论。另一方面，《舞蹈本生》对另一则本生故事"现世因缘"的再利用或许——虽非必然——暗示着它在众多本生故事中属于某种外来者，即便其年代与其余故事相差无几。《舞蹈本生》的诗节足够明确，将注释中的转世故事与仅包含偈颂的巴利文《本生经》正典联系起来。与此同时，这则本生故事...
been fortunate enough to have been one of those depicted in the bas-reliefs on the railings of the Bharhut stupa. There the gosling is shown in profile, facing left, while the peacock, on a slightly lower register and facing forwards, dances characteristically with his back to her, his tail-feathers beautifully splayed out. The scene, though labelled Hamsa Jataka (“Goose Birth”) in characters of the third century B.C., is clearly that of our story, for which this is a reasonable alternate title. ^(22){ }^{22} 我有幸成为巴尔胡特佛塔围栏浮雕中描绘的场景之一。画面中，小鹅以侧面示人，面朝左侧，而孔雀位于稍低处正对前方，正背对着她跳着标志性的舞蹈，尾羽华丽地展开。尽管这幅公元前三世纪的浮雕标注为《天鹅本生经》（"Hamsa Jataka"），但显然就是我们所述的故事，这个标题作为替代名称也合情合理。 ^(22){ }^{22}
Thus, it would appear that the story of the dancing peacock was composed and compiled in the Buddhist birth-stories some time before the railings of the two stupas were decorated with scenes from them but some time after the earliest compositions descriptive as jatakas in the Nikayas, a period of time which encompasses at least three quarters of a century after the arrival of the Greeks in India, during which - to use Macan’s words - a page of Herodotan history, torn off and carried to India in the train of Alexander, could well have “dissolved and dessicated into a bird-fable”. 由此可见，孔雀起舞的故事应当是在佛教本生故事编撰完成之后、两座佛塔围栏装饰这些场景之前的某个时期形成的，但晚于尼柯耶经典中最早那些被称为本生故事的篇章。这段时间跨度至少涵盖了希腊人抵达印度后的四分之三个世纪——用麦肯的话说——希罗多德史书的一页被撕下，随亚历山大的军队带到印度后，很可能已"消解风干成了一则鸟类寓言"。
2. A Woman's Remarkable Choice. 2. 一位女子的非凡抉择
Herodotus’ story of Intaphernes’ wife and the jataka called the Ucchanga both tell of a woman who, when offered the life of any one of the family’s male members her husband, son and brother, who had been condemned to death, chooses brother over husband and son with the selfsame argument that she could always get another husband or son but, mother and father being dead, not another brother. 希罗多德笔下因塔菲尼斯之妻的故事与佛本生故事《乌昌伽》都讲述了一位女性面临家族男性成员——丈夫、儿子和兄弟——被判处死刑时，获准选择救赎其中一人。她以相同的理由选择了兄弟而非丈夫与儿子：丈夫和儿子尚可再得，但父母既逝，兄弟却不可复得。
According to Herodotus, Intaphernes, one of the seven confeder- 据希罗多德记载，因塔菲尼斯作为参与推翻伪司美尔迪斯的七位同盟者之一
ates who conspired against the Magi and seized power in Persia, was arrested by King Darius along with all his children and near relations on the strong suspicion that he and his family were about to raise a revolt. Thereupon Intaphernes’ wife came to the palace and wept and lamented outside the door, until the king, moved by pity, agreed to spare the life of any one of them whom she chose. Having thought the matter over, the woman opted for her brother. The answer surprised Darius, who inquired of her the reason for her unexpected choice. “My lord”, she replied, “God willing, I may get another husband and other children when these are gone. But as my father and mother are both dead, I can never possibly have another brother”. We are told that Darius so appreciated the woman’s good sense that he granted her, not only the life she asked, but also that of her eldest son; the rest of the family were put to death. 密谋反对波斯祭司集团并夺取政权的贵族因塔弗尼斯，因与家人涉嫌谋反被大流士王连同所有子女及近亲一并逮捕。随后因塔弗尼斯的妻子来到宫门外痛哭哀号，国王心生怜悯，允诺赦免她指定的任意一名亲属。这位妇人深思后选择了自己的兄弟。大流士对此选择感到惊讶，询问她出人意料的缘由。"陛下"，她答道，"若蒙神恩，失去丈夫与子女后我尚可改嫁再生。但父母既已双亡，我永不可能再得兄弟"。据载大流士深佩其睿智，不仅赦免了她所求之人，还额外开恩释放其长子，其余亲属则尽数处决。
It will be recalled that in his Antigone, ^(23){ }^{23} Sophocles has Antigone make the selfsame argument in defence of her intense brother-love, when caught attempting to bury Polyneices against the edict of Creon, her uncle and king of Thebes, saying: 值得回顾的是，索福克勒斯在《安提戈涅》中让女主角为违抗舅父兼底比斯国王克瑞翁的禁令埋葬兄长波吕尼刻斯时，用完全相同的论调为其强烈的兄妹之爱辩护："
“I would not have done the forbidden thing For a husband or a son. "我绝不会为丈夫或儿子
做出违禁之事。
For why? I could have had another husband, And by him other sons, if one were lost; 为何？若失去一个丈夫，
我还能再嫁他人；
若失去一个儿子，
还能生育其他子嗣；
But father and mother dead, where would I get Another brother?” 但父母若已离世，
我何处再寻得兄弟？"
Sophocles is thought to have been a close friend of Herodotus, which may well be true, so that he may have owed this argument in the Antigone to the Intaphernes story which the historian tells. ^(24){ }^{24} Some, like Dindorf, think that what we may have here in Sophocles may be an interpolation. ^(25){ }^{25} If so the verses must have got into the text 据传索福克勒斯与希罗多德交谊甚笃，此说可信，因此《安提戈涅》中的这一论点可能源自历史学家所述因塔弗涅斯的故事。 ^(24){ }^{24} 如丁多夫等学者认为，索福克勒斯剧中此处或为后人增补。 ^(25){ }^{25} 若此说成立，则这些诗行必是后来混入文本。
very early, for they appear to have been there in the Antigone known to Aristotle. Some have therefore ascribed the addition to the dramatist’s son, Iophon. R.Pischell however was convinced that this is no interpolation and that it is even more doubtful that Sophocles borrowed the argument from Herodotus. ^(26){ }^{26} Donaldson ^(27){ }^{27} thought otherwise, but it seems more natural in the context of the historian than in Sophocles. As Blakesley ^(28){ }^{28} observes, “The argument comes in so strangely in the play, introduced by the question tinos nomou de tauta pros charin lego that it is difficult not to conceive it as taken from some popular imported story rather than the home-growth of Sophocles’ imagination”. 很早便存在，因为在亚里士多德所知的《安提戈涅》版本中就已出现这些内容。因此有人将这一增补归功于剧作家之子伊奥丰。然而 R.皮舍尔坚信这并非后人添加，更难以认同索福克勒斯是从希罗多德处借鉴这一论点。 ^(26){ }^{26} 唐纳森 ^(27){ }^{27} 持不同见解，但该论点置于历史学家的语境中比置于索福克勒斯作品中显得更为自然。正如布莱克斯利 ^(28){ }^{28} 所言："剧中这个论点出现得如此突兀，由'tinos nomou de tauta pros charin lego'（依据何种律法我要为此辩护）这一问题引出，很难不认为它源自某个外来的流行故事，而非索福克勒斯想象力的本土产物。"
Thus, if Plutarch had any truth in his story in the De Malignitate ^(29){ }^{29} and Herodotus had in fact recited a portion of his history before the Antigone was written, it is easier to think that Sophocles adopted the argument from the historian than the other way round. Antigone’s words, it is obvious, are strange and illogical in the context in which she utters them; not only are they, as Tawney calls them, “somewhat unromantic” but one may recall that this was not the only brother Antigone had, and besides’, the nature of that union from which she was then speaking of having others. 因此，如果普鲁塔克在《论希罗多德的恶意》中的叙述确有真实成分，且希罗多德确实在《安提戈涅》创作前公开朗诵过其历史著作片段，那么更合理的推断是索福克勒斯从这位历史学家的记述中借鉴了情节，而非相反。显而易见，安提戈涅的台词在她所处的语境中显得怪异且不合逻辑——不仅如陶尼所言"略显缺乏浪漫色彩"，更值得注意的是她并非只有这一个兄弟，更何况她所提及的"生育其他子女"的婚姻关系本身也值得商榷。
The circumstances in which the Buddha narrates the Ucchanga Jataka are as follows: 佛陀讲述《乌昌伽本生经》的背景如下：
Some robbers had plundered folk in the forest and made their escape. The victims, pursuing them, mistook three men - a man, his wife’s brother and his son, who were ploughing on the edge of the forest, for the robbers and 一伙强盗在森林中劫掠村民后逃窜。受害者们追赶时，误将正在森林边缘耕作的三人——一名男子、其妻弟及其儿子——认作盗匪
hauled them before the king of Kosala (who, it must be inferred, condemned them all to death). After some time there appeared at the palace gates a woman, who with loud lamentations begged for wherewith to cover herself. The king, misconstruing her request, sent her a shift. But she refused it, saying that this was not what she meant, but a husband - without whom, the first stanza explains, a woman is bare and naked. Pleased with her answer that the true covering of a woman was a husband, the king granted her the freedom of any one of the three men whom she would chose. Whereupon the woman replied “Sire, if I live, I can get another husband and another son; but as my parents are dead, I can never get another brother. So give me my brother, Sire.” 将他们押解至憍萨罗国王面前（可以推断，国王判处他们全部死刑）。一段时间后，有位妇人来到宫门前，她悲恸哭喊着乞求蔽体之物。国王误解了她的请求，派人送去一件衬裙。但她拒绝接受，解释说所求并非衣物，而是丈夫——首段偈颂阐明，女子若无丈夫便如同赤身裸体。国王听闻"丈夫才是女子真正的蔽体之物"的回答龙颜大悦，准许她从三名男子中任选一人释放。妇人当即回应："陛下，若我活着，还能再嫁丈夫再生子；但双亲既逝，永难再得兄弟。求您还我兄长性命。"
The stanza relevant to the choice does not appear in the paccuppannavatthu but in the jataka proper, where, be it noted, the circumstances are said to have been identical, except that the king was then Brahmadatta ruling in Benares. 关于抉择的偈颂并未出现在现世因缘中，而是载于本生经正文。值得注意的是，除当时统治波罗奈城的国王名为梵授外，所述情境完全一致。
A son’s an easy find; of husbands too An ample choice throngs public ways. But where Will all my pains another brother find? 寻子易如反掌，择夫摩肩接踵。但耗尽心血，何处再觅同胞？
Pleased with the woman’s reply, the kings in both instances let her have all three prisoners, brother, husband and son - all of whom, for justice’s sake, had all along been innocent! 国王对妇人的回答感到满意，两则故事中的君主都允许她带走全部三名囚犯——兄弟、丈夫与儿子。而事实上，为正义故，这三人自始至终都是无辜的！
Pischel argued for an Indian origin for this ratiocination in favour of a brother over spouse and son and drew attention to the parallel in the Ramayana ^(30){ }^{30} where Rama, lamenting over his dead brother, Laksmana, complains: 皮舍尔主张这种"兄弟优先于配偶与子女"的推理模式源自印度，并提请人们注意《罗摩衍那》中的相似情节：当罗摩为死去的兄弟拉克什曼那哀悼时，他悲叹道：
“Somewhere I can find a wife, a son and all other relations; but I don’t see a place where I can find a brother. Parjanya (god of rain) sends down all things from above that’s the teaching of the Veda; but this proverb is also there, that he cannot rain down a brother.” "妻子可再娶，子嗣可再生，诸亲皆可寻；但普天之下，何处能觅得兄弟？帕尔贾尼亚（雨神）自天降甘霖——此乃吠陀真谛；然亦有谚云：天雨可降，兄弟难求。"
Old as is the Ramayana ^(31){ }^{31}, the proverb it cites must be older, and upon this and the presence of the ratiocination in the Buddhist jataka Pischel bases his argument for an Indian origin for it; the Intaphernes’ story was for him merely evidence of Persia as the land through which the Western world got most of its Indian fables and fairy tales. To Th. Noeldeke, ^(32){ }^{32} on the other hand, this latter point only confirms that the origin of the notion was in Persia, whence it made its way to India. As further evidence of this he cites an Iranian story from the Marzbanname fable and fairy-tale collection belonging to the twelfth century A.D. but possibly retold from a work two hundred years older, in which a woman profers the same argument to a demon called Dahak when the serpents issuing from his shoul-der-blades threatened to consume her husband, son and brother, and he granted her the concession of saving one of them. Dahak’s humanity is stirred by her reply and he grants her the lives all three. 《罗摩衍那》虽年代久远，其中引用的谚语必然更为古老。皮舍尔正是基于此点，以及佛教本生经中存在的逻辑推理，论证了该故事的印度起源；在他看来，因塔弗尼斯的故事仅能证明波斯是西方世界获取印度寓言与童话的主要中转站。而另一方面，西奥多·诺尔德克则认为，这一点恰恰印证了该概念的波斯起源，后经此传入印度。作为佐证，他援引了公元 12 世纪波斯寓言集《马尔兹班纳玛》中的故事（该故事可能改写自更早两百年的作品）：当恶魔达哈克肩胛骨窜出的毒蛇威胁要吞噬女子的丈夫、儿子和兄弟时，她以相同论点向恶魔陈情，获准选择救回其中一人。达哈克因她的回答而动容，最终赦免了三人的性命。
Something close to the Intaphernes story may well have taken place in Persia, with its volatile and eccentric monarchs; there is also avidence of a Persian practice of punishing a whole family for the misdeed of a single individual in the Book of Daniel, though the Darius here, more merciful than his Biblical namesake, had not arrested the womenfolk. It is also to be observed that the king, according to Herodotus, spared only the woman’s brother and the eldest son; the rest, including Intaphernes, he put to death. 与因塔弗尼斯故事极为相似的情节很可能确实发生在波斯，那里有着喜怒无常且行为古怪的君主；《但以理书》中也有证据表明波斯存在因一人过失而惩罚整个家族的惯例，不过此处的达里乌斯比圣经中同名的君主仁慈，并未逮捕女眷。还需注意的是，据希罗多德记载，国王仅赦免了那位妇人的兄弟和长子；包括因塔弗尼斯在内的其余人等，皆被处死。
Herodotus’ version, as Noeldeke observes, is cruel; but this very point may be the evidence that lifts the story in the historian above 正如诺尔德克所言，希罗多德的版本显得残酷；但正是这一点可能成为佐证，使这位历史学家笔下的故事超越了...
the level of fable. But it also goes a long way to suggest that, if anything, the late Persian story of the demon Dahak, where all are spared, is more in affinity with the Ucchanga Jataka (a fact once again observed by Noeldeke) than with the basic Intaphernes story which Herodotus sets in Persia itself. This point of concordance may furthermore establish that this Persian story was derived from the Buddhists in the spread of the jataka story-motifs westward in the Middle Ages than (as Noeldeke construed it, from an indigenous Persian story which Herodotus had found involving Intaphernes. Quite upart from the gap of over one and a half thousand years between the Intaphernes affair and the Dahak tale, during which we have no traces of the motif in Persia, the new element of compassion (menschliches Rûhen), which takes the place of the king’s pleasure with the woman’s reply in the Intaphernes version, and from it (in my opinion) even in the jataka story as it appears in the Jatakatthavannana, must owe something to the Buddhist source from which such stories emanated westwards in later centuries. Tawney, who says that the stanza the woman in the Ucchanga uttered before King Brahmadatta to justify her preference for her brother over husband and son, 寓言层面。但这也充分表明，若要说波斯晚期的恶魔达哈克故事（其中所有人都幸免于难）与哪个更相似，那它与《鹧鸪本生经》（诺尔德克再次指出这一事实）的关联度，实际上比希罗多德笔下发生在波斯本土的因塔弗尼斯基本故事更高。这一契合点或许更能证明：波斯故事源自佛教徒——是中世纪本生故事母题向西传播的结果，而非如诺尔德克所推测的那样，源自希罗多德发现的波斯本土因塔弗尼斯故事。且不论因塔弗尼斯事件与达哈克传说之间相隔一千五百多年的空白期（期间波斯未见该母题的踪迹），单就新出现的慈悲元素（人类悲悯之情）而言——它取代了因塔弗尼斯版本中国王因妇人回答而生的欢愉，甚至（在我看来）在《本生经注》所载的本生故事中也存在这一特质——必然部分源自佛教源头，正是这些故事在后来几个世纪向西传播。 陶尼认为，乌昌迦女子在婆罗门达多王面前吟诵的诗节——她借此申明自己对兄弟的重视胜过丈夫与儿子——
Ucchange deva me putto, pathe dhâvantiyâ pati, Tan ca deúam na passami yato sodariyam ânaye ti 乌昌迦天神啊 我儿奔跑于道路 其父我未能见 故将兄弟带来
is less romantic even than the speech of Antigone, suggested that the story was part of a common heritage of the Aryan races. ^(33){ }^{33} The ratiocination in favour of a brother, perhaps; but the concordance in context as well between the Greek (Herodotus) and the Indian (Ucchanga) suggests a more direct influence between the two that cannot be accounted for by the acquaintance with merely the smart reasoning. The same may be said for any theory of dispersal in either direction, westward to Greece and eastward to India, from Persia - since at the end of it one has to account for how the Greek and Indian versions came out reflecting each other so closely in detail as well. Noeldeke may well be right that the Greeks and Indians had got their story ultimately from an original Persian source, provided that he concedes that the Indian borrowing came through the Greek. 这段表述甚至比安提戈涅的台词更缺乏浪漫色彩，暗示该故事属于雅利安民族的共同遗产。 ^(33){ }^{33} 或许可以解释为对兄弟偏袒的诡辩；但希腊（希罗多德记载）与印度（乌昌迦故事）在语境上的高度吻合，表明两者间存在更直接的相互影响，这无法仅用巧言善辩来解释。任何关于故事传播路径的理论——无论自波斯西传至希腊或东传至印度——同样面临这个问题，因为最终必须说明为何希腊与印度版本在细节上会形成如此精确的镜像对应。诺尔迪克的论断或许不无道理：希腊与印度的故事最终都源自波斯原型，但前提是他必须承认印度是通过希腊间接获取这个故事的。
Pischel is not conclusive about India being the original source of the motif; he suggests a common source for Greece and India, or again, the likelihood of their having hit upon the idea independently. The appearance of it in the Ramayana, which he remarks, cannot however be treated lightly, since the work must be the oldest in which it is found - and may antedate Herodotus by as much as a century and a half at least. Besides, there is undoubtedly a resemblance between the second stanza of the Pali of the jataka. 皮舍尔并未断言这一母题源自印度；他认为希腊和印度可能存在共同源头，亦或是两地独立产生了相同构思。不过他指出，《罗摩衍那》中出现的这一母题不容忽视，因为该著作必定是现存记载中最古老的版本——至少可能比希罗多德的记载早一个半世纪。此外，巴利文《本生经》第二偈与上文所引《罗摩衍那》四偈中的第二偈确实存在相似之处。
tan ca desam na passami yato sodariyam ânaye ti 我未见彼处 可携姊妹归
and the second verse of the four verses of the Sanskrit from the Ramayana given above. 与上文所引《罗摩衍那》四偈中的第二偈
tam tu desam na pasyâmi yatra sodaryam âpnuyâm 我未见彼土 能得亲妹归
which, as Pischel has pointed out, is nothing but remarkable. I have my doubts, however, as to the priority of the argument for a brother over spouse or son in the Ramayana and suspect the similarity of the second line in language, and the whole idea in the first two lines is an interpolation and inspired by nothing other than the corresponding stanza in the story of our jataka here. On the other hand, the reference to the Veda and the ancient proverb may constitute what Rama had said in the original text - it looks old and genuine material, free from the sophistication of this rather feelingless and selfish contention, which has been attracted to the work from the nature of the context. ^(34){ }^{34} 正如皮舍尔所指出的，这确实非同寻常。然而，我对《罗摩衍那》中将兄弟置于配偶或儿子之上的论点是否具有优先性存疑，并怀疑第二行在语言上的相似性，以及前两行的整体构思实属后人增补，其灵感来源无非就是此处本生经故事中对应的诗节。另一方面，对吠陀和古老谚语的引用或许构成了罗摩在原典中的真实表述——这些内容显得古老而真实，摆脱了这场近乎冷酷自私的论辩所特有的矫饰，后者不过是因语境特性而被吸附至文本中的产物。
Quite apart from the date of Herodotus and of the compilation of the Jatakatthavannana, once again it is the paccuppannavatthu that betrays of what may be accommodation of a later composition into the bulk of the birth-stories. For, is it not passing strange that a woman who comes to a king asking for “wherewith to be covered” (meaning thereby a/the husband) and feeling bare and naked, even with ten brothers but no mate, should end up requesting the king for the life of a brother over husband and son? The contradiction goes right back to the two stanzas themselves. 暂且不论希罗多德的时代与《本生经》编纂的年代，正是这"现世因缘"暴露出后世作品可能如何被融入本生故事的主体。试想，一位女子因"无物蔽体"(意指缺乏丈夫)而向国王求助，虽有十兄弟却无配偶，深感赤裸难堪——最终竟为保全兄弟性命而舍弃丈夫与儿子，岂非咄咄怪事？这种矛盾直接体现在两首偈颂之中。
It would seem then that there is no way of getting past the conclusion that the latter part of the story in the paccuppannavatthu, which is also the part of which is constituted the jataka proper and is commentarial to the second of the stanzas, has been grafted on to an existing one, in which a woman petitions for her husband from the king with a riddling request, which the king fails to construe and, pleased with the wit thereof, grants her the life of her husband! After all, had she not declared the need of a husband as greater to her than having ten brothers? How else can we explain her aboutturn in the second part of the story, in which she goes on to suggest that husbands are, as it were, a dime a dozen, and then ask for her brother, ten of whom she had declared earlier did not serve her need (of a cover!) as did her husband? Besides, it is a weakness also of the narrative as it stands that, when she had come explicitly for her husband, the king should offer her a choice - a choice in which the woman ends up contradicting the intent with which she first came to the palace. Varium et mutabile is hardly the character of the femina concerned which impressed his royal highness in this instance to make his generous offer. 由此看来，我们不得不接受这样的结论：巴利藏本生经中故事的后半部分（即构成正规本生经主体并对第二偈颂进行注释的部分），是被嫁接到一个既存故事之上的。原故事讲述一名女子以谜语般的请求向国王讨还丈夫，国王未能参透其意，却因欣赏她的机智而赦免了她丈夫的性命！毕竟，她不是曾宣称丈夫对她而言比十个兄弟更重要吗？否则我们该如何解释她在故事后半段的立场突变——她突然暗示丈夫如同廉价商品般随处可见，转而索要兄弟，尽管她先前明确表示十个兄弟也无法像丈夫那样满足她（遮体之需）？此外，现存叙事的另一缺陷在于：当她明确为丈夫而来时，国王竟给予她选择权——这个选择最终导致女子的行为与她初入王宫的初衷自相矛盾。 在这件事上，打动殿下慷慨解囊的绝非那位女性善变无常的品性。
However, too much should not be made of Noeldeke’s contention that the Herodotan version is the original simply because in it only two lives are spared, whereas in the oriental version, all three husband, brother and son, are given their freedom. After all, in the latter they deserved to be spared, since they were innocent; it would have been tragic and not in the character of the moral stories to which the Ucchanga belonged, if any one of them had been punished, with death or otherwise - quite apart from leaving us with a 然而，不应过分强调诺尔德克的观点，即希罗多德版本才是原始版本，仅仅因为该版本中只有两人幸免于难，而在东方版本中，丈夫、兄弟和儿子三人都获得了自由。毕竟，在后者中他们理应得到赦免，因为他们是无辜的；如果其中任何一人受到死亡或其他形式的惩罚，那将是悲剧性的，也不符合《乌昌伽》这类道德故事的特质——更不用说会给我们留下一个
criminal Brahmadatta (who was then none other than the Bodhisatta). What the woman in the jataka achieved by her answer, therefore, was more or less divine dispensation; Intaphernes’ wife merely had her pleas doubly answered by a king’s whim. 罪犯婆罗门达多（当时正是菩萨本人）。因此，本生故事中那位妇人通过回答所获得的，多少可视为神意裁决；而因塔弗涅斯的妻子不过是因国王的一时兴起，使她的请求得到了双重应允。
So then the episode involving Intaphernes and his wife, which may actually have taken place in the same, or in some similar way in Persia and found its way into the pages of the Greek historian, Herodotus, must be thought to have reached India some time before or during the prolific composition of our Buddhist birth-stories and suggested itself to one or another of their authors to build a story upon it. If indeed it is true that it was the jataka that thereafter inspired the fable of the woman and the demon, Dahak, in Persia where the story had in fact had its origin many centuries before with the Intaphernes affair, the cyclic passage of this motif in antiquity (beginning with Persia and returning to it) need not surprise us; the motif of the Maha-Ummagga Jataka’s story of the judgement by the test of the chalk circle has been found to have done a vastly greater circuit 那么，关于因塔弗尼斯与其妻子的这段插曲——它很可能确实以相同或类似的方式发生在波斯，而后被希腊历史学家希罗多德记载——我们必须认为，这个故事在佛教本生故事大量创作之前或期间就已传至印度，并启发其中一位或多位作者据此构建了一个故事。倘若真是如此，即本生故事后来反过来启发了波斯关于女子与恶魔达哈克（Dahak）的寓言，而这个故事其实早在多个世纪前就因因塔弗尼斯事件起源于波斯，那么这一母题在古代的循环传播（始于波斯又回归波斯）便不足为奇；《大隧道本生》中"粉笔圈审判"故事的母题，已被发现经历了更为宏大的循环轨迹。
3. Robbery at Sea and a Big-Mouthed Fish. 3. 海上劫案与巨口鱼
I now come to the third of the parallels that I see between Herodotus and the jatakas. Story-motifs from two anecdotes in the historian appear to have been used to compose the single story of the Buddhists here - that of the Macch-uddana Jataka. The first of these, to be found in the first few pages of his Histories, ^(35){ }^{35} occurs as a digression in which he tells of the adventure of Arion of Methymna, poet, musician and reputedly inventor of the dithyramb, and of how he was robbed at sea. 现在我要探讨希罗多德与《本生经》之间的第三个相似之处。这位历史学家笔下两则轶事中的故事母题，似乎被佛教徒用来组合成了《摩诃优陀那本生》这则独立故事。第一则轶事出现在《历史》开篇数页中， ^(35){ }^{35} 作为插叙讲述了诗人、音乐家、被公认为酒神颂发明者的梅图姆纳的阿里昂的海上历险，以及他如何在海上遭遇抢劫。
It seems that after making a great deal of money in Italy and Sicily Arion was making his way back to Cornith, where he had found favour with the tyrant, Periander, when the crew of the Corinthian ship in which he was travelling hatched a plot to throw him overboard and rob his money. He however got wind of this and begged 据说阿里昂在意大利和西西里赚取大量财富后，正乘船返回科林斯——他在那里曾受僭主佩里安德宠信——不料所乘科林斯船只的船员密谋将他抛入海中劫财。但他察觉了阴谋，便哀求
them to take his money but spare his life. It was to no purpose; the sailors bid him kill himself if he wished to be buried ashore, or in the alternative, jump into the sea. Arion, seeing that their minds were made up, thereupon requested permission to deck himself in his singing-robes and sing a last song before throwing himself overboard. They agreed to this, but when he was in the water, a dolphin picked him up and carried him on its back to Taenarum. From Taenarum Arion made his way to Corinth, where he told Periander of what had transpired. Later, when the ship put to harbour and the sailors lied that they had left the poet safe and sound at Taenarum, Arion made his appearance, giving them an unpleasant shock. Needless to say, they were adequately dealt with. 他们拿走钱财却饶他一命。但这无济于事；水手们命令他若想葬在岸上就自行了断，否则就跳海。阿里昂见他们心意已决，便请求允许穿上吟游长袍，在投海前唱最后一支歌。水手们应允了，可当他跃入水中时，一只海豚驮起他，将他送至泰纳隆。阿里昂从泰纳隆前往科林斯，向佩里安德讲述了事情经过。后来当船只靠港，水手们谎称诗人平安留在泰纳隆时，阿里昂突然现身，令他们大惊失色。这些恶徒自然得到了应有的惩处。
The first part of the plot of the Macch-uddana Jataka makes use of this motif, though inverting it, so that it is not the owner of the money, but the money itself that ends up in the water. A younger brother set on robbing his elder brother (the Bodhisatta) of his parcel of a thousand pieces of money, made a similar parcel full of gravel and put both away, then when they were crossing a river by boat, he pretended to stumble and kick into the water his brother’s parcel of coins (as in fact he did, though he himself thought it was the parcel of gravel he had prepared for his ruse). Then he cried to the elder brother that the money was gone. But when he got home with the parcel he thought was of money and found that he had mistaken one for the other, his heart dried up in anguish and disappointment. 《鱼本生》故事前半段运用了这一母题，但进行了反转处理——最终落水的并非钱币主人，而是钱币本身。弟弟为抢夺兄长（菩萨）那包千枚钱币，事先用碎石装满另一相似钱袋藏好。当两人乘船渡河时，他佯装失足将兄长的钱袋踢入水中（实际确实如此，尽管他自以为是事先准备的碎石袋）。随后他向兄长哭喊钱币已丢失。但当他带着自以为是钱币的包裹回家，发现错拿碎石袋时，痛苦与失望使他心如枯槁。
The money, however, was restored to its rightful owner, (as no doubt Arion’s was), but for doing so this jataka exploits a different motif, though again one derived from Herodotus. This involves as notorious a Greek tyrant as was Periander of Corinth of the first motif, i.e. Polycrates of Samos, and how his fabulous ring cast into the sea, came back to him in the belly of a fish. The parallel, as said, had already been remarked by S.J. Warren - though for him it was just another case of concordance between Greece and India. ^(36){ }^{36} 然而，这笔钱物归原主（无疑如同阿里翁的财物那般），但本生经为达成这一结局采用了不同的故事母题——尽管同样源自希罗多德。这次涉及的是与第一母题中科林斯暴君佩里安德同样恶名昭彰的希腊僭主，即萨摩斯的波吕克拉底，以及他那枚被抛入大海的传奇戒指如何通过鱼腹回到手中。正如前文所述，S.J.沃伦早已指出这一对应关系——尽管在他看来这不过是希腊与印度故事契合的又一例证。 ^(36){ }^{36}
To turn to this second motif as it appears in the Macch-uddana before their boat-trip, the elder brother of the jataka, the Bodhisatta, had fed some fish in the river with the remnants of his meal and given merit by this act to the river-spirit. Now, in gratitude for this the river-spirit made a wide-mouthed fish swallow the parcel of money as it was kicked into the water. Later, fishermen happened to catch this fish, and though they sought to sell it for an exorbitant amount, which no one would pay, parted with it to the Bodhisatta for a ridiculously low price. And when his good wife cut up the fish for cooking, lo and behold! there was the parcel of money he had lost! Thereupon the river-spirit made his appearance and explained everything - though, notwithstanding his advice not to give his crook of a brother anything, the Bodhisatta gave him half of the thousand pieces of gold. 让我们来看第二个主题在《大鱼本生》中的呈现：乘船出行前，本生故事中的兄长——菩萨将饭食残渣喂给河里的鱼，以此功德回向给河神。出于感激，河神让一条大口鱼吞下了被踢入水中的钱袋。后来渔夫偶然捕获此鱼，虽漫天要价无人问津，却以极低价格卖给了菩萨。当他的贤妻剖鱼烹饪时——看哪！丢失的钱袋赫然在目！河神随即现身说明原委，尽管他告诫菩萨别分文给奸诈的弟弟，菩萨仍将千金分了一半给他。
The anecdote connected with Polycrates of Samos is told by Herodotus when narrating of the rise of the tyrant. Amasis, pharaoh of Egypt and friend of Polycrates, alarmed by the remarkable run of good luck Polycrates was enjoying, advised him to throw away something that he valued most and the loss of which he would regret most. This happened to be a signet-ring which he used to wear, an emerald set in gold, the work of a Samian craftsman named Theodosius. So, setting out to sea in a vessel, he threw it into the water. Some days later a fisherman caught a fine big fish and thought it a worthy present for the tyrant. When however Polycrates’ servants cut up the fish, lo and behold! there was the ring. When Polycrates saw the ring returned to him, he at once recognized that the hand of God was in this. And so did Amasis, who, surmising that his friend was to die a miserable death, immediately severed all connections with him to spare himself the grief. And it did so happen in aftertimes that Polycrates was lured to his death by a Persian named Oroetes and his body hanged on a cross. 关于萨摩斯的波吕克拉底轶事，希罗多德在叙述这位僭主崛起时曾提及。埃及法老阿玛西斯作为波吕克拉底的朋友，对其持续不断的好运感到不安，便建议他抛弃一件最珍视且失去后会最为懊悔之物。这恰巧是他常佩戴的一枚金镶祖母绿印章戒指，出自萨摩斯匠人特奥多修斯之手。于是波吕克拉底乘船出海，将戒指投入水中。数日后，一位渔夫捕获了一条肥美大鱼，认为值得献给僭主。当仆人们剖开鱼腹时——看哪！戒指赫然在目。波吕克拉底见戒指失而复得，当即意识到这是神明的旨意。阿玛西斯也作如是想，他预见到友人将遭遇惨死，立即断绝了所有往来以免自己伤心。后来果然应验：波吕克拉底被波斯人欧洛特斯诱杀，尸体被钉上十字架。
It is noteworthy for such as Macan that this account appears in Herodotus in no less a place than the pages of his work which immediately follow the historian’s story of the wife of Intaphernes, 值得注意的是，对于像麦肯这样的学者而言，这段记载出现在希罗多德著作中一个极为重要的位置——紧接在历史学家讲述因塔费尔涅斯之妻的故事之后，
which we saw was itself emulated in its motif by the Ucchanga Jataka. ^(37){ }^{37} 而我们已发现，《鹧鸪本生经》在故事母题上正是对这段记载的模仿。 ^(37){ }^{37}
In the first of the motifs that constitute the Macch-uddana Jataka a man is separated from his money on a voyage by a party who have designs of robbing him of it, the one or the other being pitched overboard so that recovery is effected by a fish. In the Greek story it is the man, Arion, who goes into the water; he is rescued by a dolphin. If in the jataka it is the money that goes into the water, this in not only inversion but used to accommodate this motif to the second Greek one, found involving Polycrates. For, in this latter motif it is the coveted valuable (the ring) which goes into the water and is brought back to its owner in and through a fish. The friendliness of the dolphin in the Arion-story (the implication is that it was then attracted by the poet’s song) appears transferred in the jataka to the river-deity, who made the fish swallow the parcel of money: (surely the fish could not lend itself to the role itself). In the case of the Polycrates, the whole thing seems to happen accidentally - or was there divine agency there too, as Amasis and Polycrates themselves presumed? 在构成《摩诃乌达那本生经》的第一个母题中，一名男子在航程中被图谋劫财的同伙设计分离，无论人或财被抛入海中，最终都通过一条鱼得以寻回。希腊故事中则是诗人阿里昂落水，被海豚所救。若本生经中是钱财入水，这不仅是情节倒置，更是为了将该母题与第二个希腊母题——波吕克拉特斯的故事相融合。在后一个希腊母题中，被觊觎的珍宝（指环）落入水中，又通过鱼腹物归原主。阿里昂故事中海豚的友善（暗示其被诗人歌声吸引）在本生经中转移为河神驱使鱼吞下钱袋（鱼类显然无法自主扮演此角色）。至于波吕克拉特斯的故事，整个事件看似偶然——抑或如阿玛西斯与波吕克拉特斯所推测，亦有神明暗中干预？
Thus, in the running together of the two motifs in the jataka, which had appeared separately in Herodotus, certain elements have been transferred form one to the other, which become evident when they are extricated one from the other. In addition to this, a religious intention is run through the texture of the resultant story, which, though it owes itself to the Buddhist context in which the narrative is created, may reflect the divine dimension found in the Herodotus anecdote of Polycrates. The elder brother (the Bodhisatta) had shown concern for the deity and fish of the river he was going to cross - and afterwards, in spite of the deity who quite unbuddhistically had caused the death of a fish to restore the money to the Bodhisatta and then advised him not to give his younger brother a share of that money, displayed a generosity quite the contrary to what Polycrates in the Greek story would have meted to his sailors who tried to do Arion out of his wealth! 因此，当本生经中将希罗多德笔下原本分离的两个母题融合时，某些元素已从一个母题转移到另一个母题，这种转移在将二者拆解后便清晰可见。除此之外，宗教意图贯穿于合成故事的肌理之中——虽然这种意图源于创造该叙事的佛教语境，但可能也反映了希罗多德笔下波吕克拉特斯轶事中蕴含的神性维度。作为长兄的菩萨（Bodhisatta）对即将渡越的河神与鱼类表现出关切，而后尽管那位河神以极不符合佛教教义的方式——通过致鱼死亡来将钱财归还菩萨，并建议他不要分给弟弟——菩萨却展现出与希腊故事中波吕克拉特斯截然相反的慷慨，后者对待企图侵夺阿里昂财富的水手们可谓冷酷无情！
It may be observed in passing that, apart form the inversion of what went into the water in the jataka from what went into the water in 我们不妨顺便注意到，除了本生经与希罗多德版本中投入水中的物品存在倒置外（前者投入的是钱币而后者投入的是戒指），
the Greek historical anecdote, certain other details, deliberately or otherwise, suffer change. The plurality of sailors who were for robbing Arion is now just one, the Bodhisatta’s brother; sea has become river, ship has become boat. The idea of money for the ring the fish swallowed in the Polycrates anecdote had already been prompted by the Arion anecdote. 在希腊历史轶事中，某些其他细节——无论有意与否——都发生了变化。原本要抢劫阿里昂的众多水手，现在只剩下菩提萨埵的兄弟一人；大海变成了河流，船只变成了小船。波吕克拉底轶事中鱼吞戒指换钱的构思，其实早已在阿里昂的轶事中埋下伏笔。
Whatever degree of fiction there may be in the two anecdotes from Herodotus’ history which are present in the Macch-uddana Jataka, there can be no doubt that they engross factual details or popular beliefs that were thoroughly Greek, just as much as did the story of the betrothal of Agariste emulated by the Nacca Jataka. Both Arion and Polycrates are historical personalities, while the dolphin’s friendliness towards men - and it may not be an exaggeration that one assisted the poet to reach land - was well known to both Greeks and Romans. ^(38){ }^{38} The signet ring of Polycrates, made by the Samian craftsman, Theodorus, was famed in antiquity; the donation of an extraordinary catch to a ruler, exampled in the instance of a turbot to Domitian, is the subject of Juvenal’s fourth satire. It is also history that Polycrates had concluded a pact of friendship with Amasis (Ahmose) of Egypt - perhaps also that the pharaoh had rescinded it for some reason, even if it may not have been the one given by Herodotus. The story of Polycrates is one of the best illustrations of the doctrine of Divinity as jealous (to theion… hôs esti phthoneron), coupled with the notion of Nemesis which was preva- 无论希罗多德史书中那两则出现在《摩诃乌达那本生经》里的轶事含有多少虚构成分，它们无疑都吸纳了纯属希腊的史实细节或民间信仰，正如《那伽本生经》效仿的阿伽里斯忒订婚故事一般。阿里昂与波吕克拉底都是真实历史人物，而海豚对人类友善的传说——说其中一只曾协助诗人登岸或许并非夸张——在希腊罗马世界广为人知。 ^(38){ }^{38} 波吕克拉底那枚由萨摩斯匠人西奥多罗斯打造的玺戒在古代颇负盛名；将非凡渔获（如图密善皇帝收到的比目鱼）献给统治者的做法，正是尤维纳利斯第四讽刺诗的主题。波吕克拉底与埃及法老阿玛西斯（雅赫摩斯）缔结友好盟约亦是史实——尽管法老后来可能因故废约，未必全然如希罗多德所述那般。波吕克拉底的故事完美诠释了"神明善妒"（τὸ θεῖον... ὡς ἐστὶ φθονερόν）的教义，与当时盛行的"涅墨西斯"报应观念相结合——
lent among the Greeks and in which Herodotus was himself an ardent believer. Equally strongly Greek was the fear that an unbroken run of good luck would terminate in a great disaster, and the expectation that a small calamity (natural or self-induced) might serve to avert it. 这些观念在希腊人中广为流传，希罗多德本人也是其狂热信徒。同样具有鲜明希腊特色的是对持续好运终将招致大灾的恐惧，以及认为人为制造或自然发生的小灾祸能够避免大难临头的预期。
These anecdotes in Herodotus, then look thoroughly homespun in Greece, even if the second motif may have had as its basis a popular folk tale. 因此，希罗多德记载的这些轶事即便第二个母题可能源自民间传说，在希腊语境中仍显得十足本土化。
Quite apart from reappearing with anonymous characters and relieved of historical details, a significant divergence in the Indian story is the substitution of the parcel of money for the ring. Yet it is the reappearance of the ring of the tyrant Polycrates as the ring King Dushyanta in the plot of the Sakuntala of Kalidasa, a dramatist whose plays show much Greek influence, ^(39){ }^{39} that we have clearer proof that it was the motif in its Greek version that had also reached India. It had to be a wide-mouthed fish indeed, a mahamukho maccha, in the jataka to swallow, not just a ring, but, keeping with the typical Indian love of exaggeration rampant in the jatakas - a parcel of a thousand pieces of money! 且不论印度故事中匿名角色的重现与历史细节的剥离，其显著差异在于用钱袋替代了指环。但更确凿的证据来自迦梨陀娑戏剧《沙恭达罗》中暴君波吕克拉特斯的指环化身为杜什扬塔国王指环的情节——这位剧作家的作品深受希腊影响 ^(39){ }^{39} ，表明该母题的希腊版本确已传入印度。本生经中那条大嘴鱼（mahamukho maccha）不仅要吞下指环，更夸张地（符合本生经惯用的印度式夸张）吞下了装有千枚钱币的布袋！
4. Planted Evidence and Miraculous Substitution. 4. 栽赃嫁祸与神迹调包
The Manicora Jataka, which takes off from a very brief and unimaginative paccuppannavatthu, is narrated by the Buddha at 《摩尼迦罗本生经》源自一个极其简略且缺乏想象力的现世故事，佛陀在
Veluvana in example of the fact that “it was not this once only that Devadatta had tried to kill me; he tried to do so before also and failed.” 竹林精舍讲述此经，用以说明"提婆达多不仅今生企图杀害我，往昔亦曾尝试而未遂"这一事实。
Here the Bodhisatta, as a householder, was married to a beautiful wife named Sujata. One day, when they were on their way to visit the lady’s parents, the king of Benares, the oft-recurrent Brahmadatta, saw her and was overwhelmed with desire for her. So, seeing that she was married, he had his crown surreptitiously dropped into the waggon in which the couple were journeying, then had a hue and cry raised that it had been robbed and a search made of anyone leaving the city. The crest was duly found in the Bodhisatta’s vehicle, whereupon he was arrested, assaulted and condemned to death. 故事中，菩萨转世为在家居士，娶得美妻名为善生。某日夫妇前往探望岳父母时，反复出现的波罗摩达陀王瞥见其妻，顿时欲火中烧。见妇人已有婚配，便暗中将王冠投入夫妇乘坐的车厢，继而谎称王冠失窃，下令搜查所有出城者。王冠果然在菩萨车中被发现，菩萨遂遭逮捕、殴打并被判处死刑。
From here on another motif becomes operative, in which a victim, whose death is for some reason not desired by the gods, is miraculously rescued and in his place is found substituted some other creature - here, with justice seasoning miracle, the king himself! For when the Bodhisatta was thrown on his back to be beheaded, Sujata lamented the unconcern of the gods. Whereupon Sakka miraculously switched roles, putting King Brahmadatta himself under the executioner’s axe and the Bodhisatta, in the regalia of the king, upon the back of the royal elephant. Of course, as the samodhana of our jataka here explains “at that time Devadatta was the wicked king”. ^(40){ }^{40} 从此处开始，另一个主题开始发挥作用：某个因神明意愿而免于一死的受害者被奇迹般救出，取而代之的是另一生物——此处以公义调和奇迹，被替换的竟是国王本人！当菩萨被仰面按倒准备斩首时，苏阇陀悲叹诸神的漠然。帝释天遂施展神迹调换身份，将梵授王本人置于刽子手的斧钺之下，而菩萨则身着王袍骑上皇家象背。诚如本生故事结尾所释："彼时提婆达多正是那邪恶的国王"。 ^(40){ }^{40}
If the two motifs of the Manicora Jataka are disengaged, one from the other, and read separately, one would not fail to observe their striking similarity to two incidents which occur in the Old Testament, i.e., Joseph’s arrest of his brother, Benjamin, on a trumped-up charge 若将摩尼珠本生故事中的两个主题拆解开来单独审视，不难发现它们与《旧约》中两个事件的惊人相似性：其一是约瑟以捏造的罪名逮捕弟弟便雅悯
of having stolen a gold cup, ^(41){ }^{41} and God’s miraculous substitution of a ram in place of Isaac as the sacrificial victim on Abraham’s altar. ^(42){ }^{42} The likelihood that these Biblical stories reached India is, however, less than of similar motifs having found their way into Greek story, as may be the case with the planting of a valuable object in someone’s possession to falsely incriminate him; as for miraculous substitution of some other oreature for a sacrificial victim, there has been from antiquity the well-known instance of Iphigeneia, again figuring in Greek drama and possibly carried to India by the Greeks. 被指控偷了一只金杯， ^(41){ }^{41} 以及上帝奇迹般地用一只公羊替代以撒作为亚伯拉罕祭坛上的牺牲品。 ^(42){ }^{42} 然而，这些圣经故事传入印度的可能性，要小于类似主题通过希腊故事传入的可能性。例如将贵重物品栽赃于某人以诬陷他的情节；至于用其他生物奇迹般替代牺牲品，自古就有著名的伊菲革涅亚案例，这再次出现在希腊戏剧中，并可能由希腊人带到了印度。
It is the judgement of Solomon in the dispute between two women claiming the same child which is remarkably reflected in Mahosadha’s judgement in a similar situation in the pracena called “The Son” of the Maha Ummagga Jataka that bespeaks direct transmission from a Biblical source into Indian story at this time. On the other hand, those who were for tracing the story of the false incrimination of a youth by a woman scorned in the Maha Paduma Jataka to the Biblical story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife had, as we saw, failed to observe the closer correspondence the jataka had in its details to the Greek myth of Hippolytus and Phaedra. 所罗门王对两名妇女争夺同一孩子归属的裁决，在《大隧道本生经》"儿子篇"中摩诃苏陀于类似情境下的判决得到了显著呼应，这表明当时圣经故事直接传入了印度叙事。另一方面，那些试图将《大莲华本生经》中青年遭拒爱女子诬陷的故事溯源至圣经约瑟与波提乏之妻情节的研究者，正如我们所见，未能注意到该本生故事细节与希腊希波吕托斯和淮德拉神话存在更紧密的对应关系。
Herodotus ^(43){ }^{43} does no more than allude to the incident which is the Greek parallel of the main motif of the Manicora Jataka - the planting of a valuable object belonging to a powerful person in the property of someone else, whom he thereafter incriminates of theft. As observed earlier, it is remarkable that this centres on a detail of the life of no less a person than Aesop himself, whose fables had provided the most numerous and striking parallels to the motifs of the jatakas and whose name inevitably comes up in any discussion of Greek influence in them. 希罗多德只是略微提及了一个与《摩尼卡罗本生经》核心母题相似的希腊故事——将权贵人物的贵重物品暗中放置于他人财产中，随后诬陷其盗窃。值得注意的是，正如前文所述，这个情节竟与伊索本人的生平细节相关。伊索寓言曾为本生故事提供了数量最多且最引人注目的相似母题，在探讨希腊对本生经的影响时，伊索的名字总是不可避免地被提及。
Talking of the courtesan, Rhodopis and an absurd rumour that it was she who built the third pyramid of the Great Pyramids of Egypt at Giza, viz. that attributed to Menkaure (or as Herodotus calls 当谈及名妓罗多庇斯以及关于她建造吉萨大金字塔群中第三座金字塔（即归属于门卡乌拉法老的那座，希罗多德称之为米凯里诺斯）的荒谬传闻时，
him, Mykerinus), the historian goes on to say that this Rhodopis was a fellow-slave of Aesop, the fable-writer. Then he adds: 这位历史学家继续写道：罗多庇斯与寓言作家伊索曾是同为奴隶的伙伴。随后他补充道：
“The clearest proof that Aesop was a slave of Iadmon is the fact that when the Delphians, in obedience to the Delphic oracle’s command, repeatedly advertised for someone to come and claim the compensation for the murder of Aesop, the only one to do so was the grandson of Iadmon, a man of the same name; and he received the compensation.” 伊索是雅德蒙奴隶的最确凿证据在于：当德尔斐人遵照神谕之命，多次发布公告寻找认领伊索遇害赔偿金的人时，唯一前来认领的正是雅德蒙同名的孙子；他最终获得了这笔赔偿金。
The circumstances which led to the death of Aesop must have been known to the Greeks of his day, which is why Herodotus does not bother to recount how it came to involve compensation. We however saw very good evidence in Aristophanes’ Wasps that the fabulist was accused of having stolen a gold cup from the temple of Apollo and that in defence of himself he narrated the fable of The Eagle and the Dung-Beetle. The scholiast on the Wasps ad.loc. adds that the gold cup was planted in Aesop’s baggage by the Delphians themselves, which, though it looks suspiciously like the Bible story of Joseph and Benjamin, gives good reason for the oracle’s demand that the Delphians compensate for the fabulist’s death. That the charge was trumped up is also confirmed by Plutarch ^(44){ }^{44} - though what he tells us was the nature of the offence for which the Delphians were led to implicate him falsely was that Croesus had sent him to distribute four minae to each of them but that he sent the money back to Sardis, Later testimonies say Aesop incurred their ire by exposing their greedy misappropriation of the gifts made to the oracle and so they accused him himself of sacrilege. He was put to death, it appears, by being cast down from a rock ^(45){ }^{45} - a manner of killing which interestingly enough appears in the Maha Paduma Jataka, a jataka of a similar vein in which an innocent man is to be 导致伊索死亡的境况，他那个时代的希腊人想必都知晓，这也解释了为何希罗多德未费笔墨详述赔偿事宜的来龙去脉。不过我们在阿里斯托芬的《马蜂》中发现了有力证据：这位寓言家被指控从阿波罗神庙窃取金杯，而他在自我辩护时讲述了《鹰与蜣螂》的寓言。该剧注释者补充道，这只金杯其实是德尔斐人自己偷偷塞进伊索行李的——虽然这情节与《圣经》中约瑟和便雅悯的故事惊人相似，却为神谕要求德尔斐人为寓言家之死作出赔偿提供了合理解释。普鲁塔克 ^(44){ }^{44} 也证实这项指控纯属构陷，不过他记载的嫁祸动机是：克罗伊斯曾派伊索给每位德尔斐人分发四米那银钱，伊索却将钱财送回了萨迪斯。后世证言则称，伊索因揭露他们贪婪侵占献给神谕的礼物而招致怨恨，故而被诬陷犯有渎神罪。 他显然是被从岩石上推下而处死的 ^(45){ }^{45} ——这种处决方式相当有趣地出现在《大莲花本生经》中，这部同类本生故事同样讲述了一个无辜者
put to death on a false charge and which is also indebted in its primary motif to a Greek myth (that of Hippolytus) and which in turn reflects the Bible anecdote of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. No matter the reason, all sources are in agreement with Herodotus and Aristophanes that Aesop was innocent of the charge. The popularity of the story was afterwards caught up in the proverb “Aesop’s blood”, applied to people guilty of unexpiatable crimes. ^(46){ }^{46} 因一项虚假指控而被处死，其核心主题也借鉴了希腊神话（希波吕托斯的故事），而该神话又反映了圣经中约瑟与波提乏之妻的轶事。无论原因如何，所有资料都与希罗多德和阿里斯托芬的观点一致，认为伊索是无辜的。这个故事后来演变为"伊索之血"的谚语，用来形容犯下不可饶恕罪行之人。
Fact or fiction then, this tradition of the arrest and execution of Aesop was well established by the middle of the fifth century B.C. so that Herodotus could presume knowledge of it among his hearers without qualms. The same could be said of the audience which three or four decades later attended Aristophanes’ lively comedy, the Wasps. 无论事实还是虚构，伊索被捕与处决的传说在公元前五世纪中叶已广为流传，因此希罗多德能毫无顾虑地假定听众对此耳熟能详。三四十年后观看阿里斯托芬生动喜剧《马蜂》的观众，同样对此传说了然于心。
As for the motif of the miraculous substitution, one has to step outside the Histories of Herodotus to the even better known mythology of the Trojan War and the episode there of King Agamemnon’s sacrifice of his daughter, Iphigeneia, at Aulis. Sent for from home on the pretext of giving her in marriage to Achilles, the maiden was laid on the altar of Artemis as a sacrificial offering to propitiate the goddess and obtain fair weather for the Greek fleet to sail to Troy. But as the knife fell on her neck - so the version used by Euripides for his Iphigeneia in Aulis goes - a mist obscured the sight, and when it cleared, upon the altar there lay, not the maiden Iphigeneia but the body of a hind. As for the girl, the goddess had whisked her away from under the knife to Tauris, where she was established as priestess of that goddess’s temple. ^(47){ }^{47} 关于奇迹替代的母题，我们必须跳出希罗多德的《历史》，转向更为人熟知的特洛伊战争神话——阿伽门农王在奥利斯献祭女儿伊菲革涅亚的著名桥段。这位少女被以许配给阿喀琉斯为借口从家中召来，实则被置于阿尔忒弥斯祭坛上作为献祭品，以求平息女神之怒，为希腊舰队赢得顺风航向特洛伊。但就在利刃斩向她颈项之际——欧里庇得斯在《伊菲革涅亚在奥利斯》中采用的版本如是叙述——一阵迷雾遮蔽了众人视线，待雾气散尽，祭坛上躺着的已非少女伊菲革涅亚，而是一头母鹿的躯体。至于那位姑娘，女神早已在刀锋下将她瞬移至陶里斯，任命其为该女神庙宇的女祭司。 ^(47){ }^{47}
Knowledge of the Trojan cycle of myths is not confirned to this one Indian story. As we saw, the Valahassa Jataka (No. 196) compressed into a single adventure in the island of Lanka more than one island adventure of Odysseus, while it’s flying horse, a cross between the Wooden Horse of Troy and the winged horse, Pegasus, reappears as 对特洛伊神话系列的了解并不局限于这一个印度故事。正如我们所见，《瓦拉哈萨本生经》（第 196 号）将奥德修斯的多个海岛冒险压缩为楞伽岛上的一次奇遇，而其中那匹融合特洛伊木马与飞马珀伽索斯特征的飞天骏马，后来又以
the wooden elephant used to capture Prince Udena in the story which appears in Gunadhya’s Brhatkatha about the second century A.D. Definite evidence of a knowledge of the story of the Wooden Horse of Troy is afforded by a Romanized scene from it which appeared on that schist relief from Gandhara, including, among the identifiable personalities, at least Priam, Laocoon and Cassandra and a dimunitive wooden horse upon a wheeled platform. Besides, the foundation myth of Sri Lanka, the legend of Vijaya and Kuvanna reflects more closely than has been generally suspected, the Greek hero Odysseus’ individual adventure with Circe. 故事中用于俘获乌德那王子的木象，出自公元二世纪左右由德富所著的《大史略》。关于特洛伊木马故事的明确认知证据，来自犍陀罗出土的片岩浮雕上罗马化的场景描绘，其中可辨识的人物至少包括普里阿摩斯、拉奥孔与卡珊德拉，以及一辆带轮平台上的微型木马。此外，斯里兰卡的建国神话——维阇耶与库万娜的传说，与希腊英雄奥德修斯和喀耳刻的个人冒险经历之相似度，远超人们通常的想象。
Some of these myths may have got to India through the tragic dramas of the Greeks themselves. In the year 326 B.C. a play Agen(?) was staged in a military camp of Alexander on a bank of the river Jhelum in upper Punjab. Among the other evidence is a fragment of a Greek vase, found in Peshawar, depicting a scene from no less a play than the Antigone of Sophocles, while the Maha Paduma Jataka must surely have owed its treatment of the HippolytusPhaedra theme to a great extent to a dramatized Greek version perhaps the lost Hippolytus Kaluptomenos of Euripides or even Sophocles’ Phaedra, rather than to Euripides’ extant Hippolytus. 部分神话可能是通过希腊人自身的悲剧戏剧传入印度的。公元前 326 年，在旁遮普上游杰赫勒姆河畔的亚历山大军营中，曾上演过一部名为《阿格恩(?)》的戏剧。其他证据还包括在白沙瓦发现的一个希腊花瓶碎片，上面描绘的正是索福克勒斯名作《安提戈涅》中的场景。而《大莲华本生经》对希波吕托斯-菲德拉主题的处理，很大程度上必定借鉴了希腊戏剧化版本——或许是欧里庇得斯已失传的《被遮盖的希波吕托斯》，甚至是索福克勒斯的《菲德拉》——而非欧里庇得斯现存版本的《希波吕托斯》。
Individually and collectively then these pararells that subsist between the history of the Greek Herodotus, written during the third quarter of the fifth century B.C. and the stories found as jatakas in the Jatakatthavannana speak emphatically of a degree of influence this work had had in India at the time. But the likelihood is that whoever drew on these motifs from him had them from an oral recounting or as part of the paraphernalia of a personal literary memory than by direct recourse to the written work as such. So that hardly anything can be expected from a linguistic inquiry of any nature. On the other hand, one would see that the rendition of the motifs in the local metaphor, detail and context is itself consummate, even if deliberate, and speaks highly of those several authors who rehandled them in the production of the jatakas. 这些存在于公元前五世纪后二十五年的希腊历史学家希罗多德著作与《本生经》故事之间的平行对应关系，无论是单独还是整体来看，都强烈表明了该作品当时在印度所产生的影响程度。但更可能的情况是，任何借鉴这些主题的人，都是通过口头转述或作为个人文学记忆的组成部分获取的，而非直接参考书面文本本身。因此，几乎无法期待从任何形式的语言学调查中获得收获。另一方面，我们会发现这些主题在本土隐喻、细节和语境中的呈现本身已臻完美，即便是刻意为之，也高度体现了那些在创作本生故事时重新处理它们的多位作者的造诣。
As one of the first Greek writer on India, whose account has survived, Herodotus may seem well informed about the land, even if 作为最早记述印度的希腊作家之一，希罗多德关于这片土地的记载虽得以留存，看似见闻广博，然而——
there is much in his description which smacks of credulity on his part. Some of his information he may have drawn from a lost account of Skylax of Charyanda, whom Darius had sent to explore the Indus, or from some other first-hand evidence, some of it from the geographer Hecataeus. ^(48){ }^{48} 他的描述中多有令人觉得轻信之处。部分信息可能源自大流士派遣探索印度河的卡里安达人斯基拉克斯失传的记载，或是其他一手证据，另一些则可能引自地理学家赫卡泰奥斯。 ^(48){ }^{48}
Those who were for the idea of a Greek borrowing from India thus presumed that the Indian stories, which they thought later evolved the jatakas or birth-stories of the Buddha, had reached Greece shortly before Herodotus via Persia, if not directly, and that in the course of this, or soon afterwards, transformed themselves into myths, fables or historical anecdotes that were typically Greek. The Ucchanga is valuable evidence for them of the Persian route by which Indian stories had made this westward passage, while the fable form of these, like the peacock fable of the Nacca Jataka bespoke for them their having been of a more primitive genre than the historical anecdote at least, in which some of them (as we have seen) appear in Herodotus. 支持希腊借鉴印度这一观点的人因而推测：他们认为后来演变为佛陀本生故事的印度传说，若非直接传入，便是通过波斯在希罗多德时代前不久传入希腊；在此过程中或稍后，这些故事蜕变为极具希腊特色的神话、寓言或历史轶事。于他们而言，《乌昌伽》是印度故事借波斯通道西传的重要证据，而这类故事的寓言形式——如《那迦本生》中孔雀寓言所示——至少表明它们比历史轶事更为原始，其中部分（如我们所见）已出现在希罗多德的著作中。
As had been said earlier, however, fable is undoubtedly the more primitive genre than the historical anecdote we find in Herodotus and anywhere else and may be older in India than in Greece. But it must be acknowledged that, even if Herodotus’ standards of historical criticism were lax, he was not as lax in his historical morality as to have deliberately intervowen into historical record material that he himself knew was exotic fable. Reiterating - many in his audience would have been familiar with the background, factual and romantic, of such personalities as the Alcamaeonidae, Polycrates or Periander, so that any imposition on his part would not have failed to raise many an eyebrow. 然而如前所述，寓言无疑比希罗多德及其他任何地方出现的历史轶事更为原始，在印度的起源可能早于希腊。但必须承认的是，即便希罗多德的历史批判标准宽松，他在历史道德方面也并未松懈到故意将明知是异域寓言的材料编织进历史记载中。重申一点——他的许多听众对阿尔克迈翁家族、波吕克拉底或佩里安德等人物的事实背景与传奇故事都耳熟能详，因此任何刻意的虚构都必定会引起众人侧目。
The alternative, then, is to think that the historian found his material already cast in motifs derived from the orient and that at worst he 那么另一种可能是，这位历史学家发现其素材早已被塑造成源自东方的故事母题，而最坏的情况不过是他
was an innocent and uncritical receiver of such borrowed and transformed property. Were this the case with the two or three story motifs we have from Herodotus, it would be understandable, perhaps even true. But when these are as numerous as we have shown them to be, including fable and also myth, the cumulate points in the other direction, no matter how Greece herself came by these motifs (and one or two may even have got there from India itself). 他不过是这些借用并改编素材的天真且不加批判的接受者。若希罗多德仅借鉴了两三个故事母题，这种说法尚可理解，甚至可能是事实。但正如我们已揭示的，这些母题数量如此庞大——包括寓言与神话——累积的证据都指向相反方向，无论希腊本土如何获得这些母题（其中一两个甚至可能源自印度本身）。
There is no evidence of the respective stories of the Jataka Book, let alone of their motifs, in India before the last quarter of the fourth century B.C. - to be more precise, before the invasion of Alexander. With his advent in Greece with a host of Greeks (not to mention soldiers of other nations), however (and I repeat) what would indeed he surprising is if the contrary were the case with the writings of Herodotus, who had for over a century now been for the Greeks a popular source of information on India. Familiarity with the literature, mythology and folklore of Greece would for some time have been confined to the immigrant population, but speedily disseminating among the indigenous population, from both categories of which members may have evinced interest in the religion of Buddhism that was gaining ground in the very regions of India in which these new-comers had settled. Apart from a possible translation of select books, elitist Greeks would have acquired a knowledge of Sanskrit and Pali as Indians learnt Greek, and among the reading of the latter what other work could have claimed a greater interest than the Histories, which told of India, the Persians who had ruled these regions of India, and of the Greeks who had defeated them in Greece, and now replaced their rule in India? 在公元前四世纪最后 25 年之前——更准确地说，在亚历山大入侵之前——印度本土并无《本生经》相关故事存在的证据，遑论其故事母题。然而随着他（亚历山大）率领大批希腊人（更不用说其他民族的士兵）进入希腊后，（我要再次强调）若希罗多德著作中呈现相反情况反倒令人惊讶——毕竟一个多世纪以来，希罗多德的作品始终是希腊人了解印度的重要信息来源。希腊文学、神话与民间传说知识的传播起初可能仅限于移民群体，但很快就在当地居民中扩散开来。这两类人群中或许都有人对正在印度新兴地区扎根的佛教产生兴趣。 除了可能翻译某些精选书籍外，希腊精英阶层会像印度人学习希腊语那样掌握梵文和巴利语。在他们阅读的印度文献中，还有哪部作品能比《历史》更引人入胜呢？这部著作讲述了印度、曾统治过印度部分地区的波斯人，以及在希腊击败波斯人、如今取代其在印度统治的希腊人。
If anything, it is such a happening that would account for how, within less than a century Greek literary and artistic influence permeated Buddhist work to produce a distinct cultural milieu popularly recognized by the term Graeco-Buddhist. For, as may be seen, a number of jatakas we have in the Jataka Book may as truly be deemed Graeco-Buddhist or Graeco-Indian as the examples of sculpture from Gandhara or the very reliefs on the Bharhut and Sanchi stupas, which refer to these jatakas pictorially. 若要说有什么事件能解释希腊文学艺术影响何以在不到一个世纪内渗透佛教作品，并形成被广泛称为"希腊-佛教"的独特文化氛围，那便是这种情况。正如我们所见，《本生经》中的许多故事确实可被视为希腊-佛教或希腊-印度文化的产物，就像犍陀罗的雕塑作品或巴尔胡特、桑奇佛塔上描绘这些本生故事的浮雕一样。
As for historical anecdote being reduced to fable, even beast or bird-fable, it is a far more facile thing (since fable is pure fiction and does not offend in ignoring fact) than that of straining near contemporary historical fact and personality into the motifs of fable and dishing them out to a public who are in a different mood of receptivity and perhaps not wholly ignorant of the things and people about whom the historian was speaking. If some of these derivative “fables” of the jatakas “wear on their face and front a primitive stamp”, it only bespeaks the ingenuity of their transmitters, who had so quickly come to assimilate the spirit and flavour of Indian story. Such jatakas hold about them the same mystery as the GraecoBuddhist sculptured art of India, where the perfect syncrasis prevents the distinction of where Greek leaves off and Indian begins. 至于将历史轶事简化为寓言，甚至是动物寓言，这远比强行将近乎当代的历史事实和人物塞进寓言主题要容易得多（因为寓言纯属虚构，不会因忽视事实而冒犯他人），然后再呈现给那些处于不同接受心态、或许对历史学家所谈及的事物和人物并非全然无知的公众。如果这些《本生经》中的衍生"寓言"中有些"表面上带有原始的印记"，那只能说明其传播者的聪明才智，他们如此迅速地吸收了印度故事的精神和风味。这些本生故事与印度的希腊佛教雕塑艺术一样充满神秘，完美的融合使人无法区分希腊元素何处终止、印度元素从何开始。
5. In the Footsteps of the Fox. 5. 追随狐狸的足迹
If I bring this last of the parallels between Greek and Indian story that I need to discuss under Herodotus, it is from the fact that the historian, though he makes no direct allusion to the significance thereof, which he undoubtedly knew, makes mention of the context in which it was made. This is a poem of the statesman, Solon, ^(49){ }^{49} a fragment of which survives, rebuking the Athenians themselves for the plight which they had brought upon themselves, i.e. the tyranny of Persistratus, by foolishly providing him a bodyguard. 若要将这最后一项希腊与印度故事的相似之处置于希罗多德笔下讨论，关键在于这位史学家虽未直接点明其寓意（他必然知晓此事），却记载了该故事产生的背景。这是政治家梭伦 ^(49){ }^{49} 的一首诗作残篇，诗中斥责雅典人因愚昧地为庇西特拉图提供卫队，从而自招厄运——即陷入其暴政统治。
It reads as follows: 诗文如下：
ei de peponthate lugra di humeterôn kakotēta,
me to theois toutôn momphon epampherete. autoi gar toutois euxesate rhumata dontes kai dia tauta kakēn eschete doulosunēn. 倘若你们因自身恶行遭受苦楚，勿将此咎归于众神。正是你们亲手献上权力之杖，才招致这悲惨的奴役枷锁。
Solon fr. 10 = Diod. ix. 21 (see Diog. Laert. i.51.) Diodorus (loc.cit. = Solon fr. 9; see Diog. Laert i.50) shows that the statesman had already warned the people that “from her great men is a city destroyed, through their own folly do the common folk fall into the bondage of a dictatorship”. 梭伦残篇 10 = 狄奥多罗斯《历史丛书》卷九第 21 章（参见第欧根尼·拉尔修《名哲言行录》1.51）。狄奥多罗斯（同前=梭伦残篇 9；参见第欧根尼·拉尔修 1.50）表明这位政治家早已警告民众："伟人会使城邦倾覆，而平民因自身愚昧终将陷入独裁者的奴役"。
humeôn d’ eis men hekastos alôpekos ichnesi bainei sumpasin d’ humîn chaunos enesti nōos. eis gar glôssan orate kai eis epos aiolon andros, eis ergon d’ouden gignomenon blepete 你们各自追随狐狸的足迹而行
但众人心智却如此空洞
只关注那人口中如风的言语
却不见其所行的实事
“If you suffer bitterly through you own fault, do not blame the gods for it; for you yourselves have exalted these men by giving them guards, and it is on account of this that you undergo base servitude. Each of you walks in (with) the footsteps of the (a) fox, (but) collectively your intelligence is slight; for you look to a man’s tongue and shifty speech, and not to the deeds that he does.” "若因己过而遭受苦果，莫将此咎归于众神；正是你们自己授予护卫之权，才使这些人权势膨胀，也正因如此，你们才沦为卑贱的奴仆。人人皆如狐狸般独行其道，众人智慧却如此浅薄；因你们只盯着那人的巧舌如簧之辞，却不见其所行之事。"
Solon here rebukes the Athenians for having wisdom yet acting foolishly on the first occasion that Peisistratus made himself tyrant. By his ruse of coming before the people with injuries on himself and his cart-mules, he was able to persuade them to give him a bodyguard, with the help of whom he made himself tyrant. Herodotus ^(50){ }^{50} however transfers this accusation of the Athenians made by Solon from the first to Peisistratus’ second seizure of power in Athens - this time by the stunt of driving into the city with a handsome woman dressed in armour, spreading the news that Goddess Athena herself was bringing him along to her city. Over which we find Herodotus declaring, like Solon, that the Greek race had never been simpletons; from ancient times they had been distinct from other nations for their superior intelligence and freedom from folly; yet they were taken in by what seemed to him the silliest trick which history has to record. This clearly re-echoes Solon’s rebuke. 梭伦在此谴责雅典人虽有智慧，却在庇西特拉图首次僭主夺权时表现得愚不可及。此人通过自伤躯体并佯装骡车遇袭的诡计，成功说服民众授予他卫队，借此建立了独裁统治。然而希罗多德 ^(50){ }^{50} 将梭伦对雅典人的这番指责，移植到了庇西特拉图第二次夺权之时——那次他让一位披甲执锐的绝色女子驾车入城，散布雅典娜女神亲自护送他回归圣城的谣言。对此我们发现希罗多德与梭伦同声慨叹：希腊民族绝非愚钝之众，自古便以卓越智慧与清醒头脑区别于他族，却仍被这史上最拙劣的骗术所蒙蔽。这显然是对梭伦训诫的隔世回响。
Rutherford ^(51){ }^{51} thought Solon’s reference here was to the Aesopic fable of The Lion, the Fox and the Stag (B. 95). "In three words Solon brings home to the hearts of the Athenians that in allowing Peisistratus to make himself despot, they have been acting the part of the stag in the fable, and following at the heels of the crafty fox 卢瑟福 ^(51){ }^{51} 认为梭伦此处引用的是伊索寓言《狮子、狐狸与牡鹿》（编号 B.95）。"梭伦用三个词让雅典人痛切意识到：他们允许庇西特拉图成为僭主的行为，正如同寓言中那只牡鹿，跟随着狡猾狐狸的脚步
to the lion’s den". The three words he refers to are alôpekos ichnesi bainei (“going in the footsteps of the fox”). 径直走向狮穴"。他所指的这三个词是"alôpekos ichnesi bainei"（意为"循着狐狸的足迹前行"）。
This Greek fable is one of a lion who was too ill to hunt and asked his friend, a fox, to lure a certain stag to within his reach. The fox went to the stag and spun him a yarn that the lion, about to die, wished to confer the kingship over animals to him. The stag fell for the fox’s story and came to the lion’s cave behind the fox. Thereupon the lion sprang at him, but due to overhaste, missed him, only slashing an ear. The fox lied to the stag that what the lion had tried to do was touch his ear while giving advice, as a dying father his child, and so lured the stag again to him. But this time the lion made no mistake. 这则希腊寓言讲述一头病重无法捕猎的狮子，它请求好友狐狸将特定牡鹿诱入其利爪范围。狐狸对牡鹿编造谎言，称垂死的狮子欲将百兽之王位传予它。牡鹿信以为真，跟随狐狸来到狮穴。狮子当即扑袭，但因操之过急仅撕下鹿耳。狐狸又谎称狮子触碰其耳实为临终嘱托，如同父亲对孩子的教诲，遂再次诱使牡鹿返回——这次狮子再未失手。
There is however an epilogue to this fable. The lion, it seems thereupon began eating the whole stag, giving nothing to the watching fox. But when the heart rolled out, the fox stealthily grabbed it and ate it, then when the lion counted the parts and inquired regarding the stag’s heart, the fox exclaimed, “Indeed he had no heart; don’t look for it in vain. What kind of a heart would he or any creature have, who came a second time to a lion’s den?” 然而这则寓言还有个尾声。狮子似乎开始独吞整头鹿，丝毫不分给旁观的狐狸。但当鹿心滚落时，狐狸偷偷抓过来吃掉。随后狮子清点部位询问鹿心的下落，狐狸高声道："它确实没有心啊！别白费力气找了。但凡有心的生物，怎会第二次踏入狮子的巢穴呢？"
If this is the fable of Solon’s allusion, the notion of the heart as the seat of intelligence makes it typically Greek. ^(52){ }^{52} Again, even if the story appears first in Babrius, it now gets a very early terminus ante quem from Solon’s use of it - the first half of the 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} century B.C. But more than all this, it puts the Buddha in the situation of Solon, when it is found that he himself narrates a jataka with nearly the same plot, the Putimansa (or ‘Carrion Flesh’) Jataka (No. 437), but now with lion replaced by jackal (Putimansa), the fox replaced 如果这就是梭伦所引用的寓言，那么将心脏视为智慧所在的观念极具希腊特色。 ^(52){ }^{52} 再者，即便这故事最早见于巴布里乌斯笔下，如今通过梭伦的引用，我们得以将其年代上限大幅提前——公元前 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} 世纪上半叶。但更重要的是，当发现佛陀本人讲述的情节几乎相同的本生经《腐肉本生》（第 437 号）时，佛陀便处于与梭伦相似的境地。只不过在这个版本中，狮子被替换为豺狼（腐肉），狐狸则被……
by the jackal’s wife (Veni) and the stag by a wild she-goat. The she-goat escapes the first time when, lured by the vixen to the jackal, saying he was dead and needed to be lamented over; the jackal lifts his head all too soon. But when the vixen cajoles the she-goat to come a second time, we have an inversion - she agrees, but to do so along with some friends - hounds! This so frightens the vixen that she dissuades her - and flees. 被雌豺（维尼）所骗，而雄鹿则被一只野山羊所骗。第一次，雌豺谎称雄豺已死需要哀悼，将野山羊诱至雄豺处时，雄豺过早抬头导致野山羊逃脱。但当雌豺再次哄骗野山羊前来时，情节发生了反转——野山羊答应前来，但条件是带着几位朋友——猎犬同行！这吓得雌豺连忙劝阻并仓皇逃窜。
As for the epilogue on the heart, it is not to be found in the jataka, but interestingly surfaces in the Pancatantra; besides, here not only does the lion come back to the story, but the jackal (for fox), is restored as his friend; as for the wild-goat, he becomes a donkey. The Indian weakness for exaggeration is manifest in this story of the Pancatantra as well, when ears are added to the heart which the jackal robbed and ate. 至于关于心脏的尾声部分，本生经中并未记载，但有趣的是在《五卷书》中出现了这个情节；不仅如此，这里不仅狮子重新登场，豺（替代狐狸）也恢复了其朋友身份；而野山羊则变成了一头驴。印度人偏爱夸张的特点在这个《五卷书》故事中同样显露无遗——当描述豺偷吃的心脏时，竟额外增添了耳朵的细节。
Unfortunately however it is difficult to agree with Rutherford’s identification of Solon’s allusion with the fable of The Lion, the Fox and the Stag. Firstly, there is a clear contrast in Solon’s Greek between Athenian behaviour collectively and Athenian behavior as individuals. Collectively their intelligence, Solon says, is slight (sumpasin d’ humin chaunos enesti noos); but individually they walk in (with) the footsteps of the fox (humeôn d’ eis men hekastos alôpekos ichnesi bainei). So that if by the latter is meant the action of the stag, it makes their individual behavior as stupid as their collective. ^(53){ }^{53} 然而遗憾的是，我们难以认同卢瑟福将梭伦的隐喻等同于《狮子、狐狸与牡鹿》这则寓言的观点。首先，梭伦的希腊原文明确区分了雅典人作为群体的行为与作为个体的行为。他指出群体的智慧是浅薄的（sumpasin d’ humin chaunos enesti noos）；但个体却迈着狐狸的步伐（humeôn d’ eis men hekastos alôpekos ichnesi bainei）。因此，若将后者理解为牡鹿的行为，便会使个体的愚蠢程度与群体无异。 ^(53){ }^{53}
I therefore suggest that the animal who walks in the footsteps of the fox, is none other than the fox himself; we should read alôpekos ichnesi to mean “with the footsteps of a fox”, not “in the footsteps”. The contrast between crowd behavior and individual be- 因此我认为，迈着狐狸步伐的动物正是狐狸本身；我们应将 alôpekos ichnesi 理解为"带着狐狸的步伐"，而非"踩着狐狸的足迹"。群体行为与个体行为之间的对比——
CONCLUSION 结论
Considerable as may seem the evidence which has been marshalled in the foregoing chapters of this book in argument for an Indian indebtedness to Greek fable, myth and historical anecdote for the comparable motifs which have manifested themselves in the jatakas, they constitute but a small fraction of the considerable wealth of story material that these birth stories of the Buddha contain. Nor, I presume, would the percentage by substantially affected if we were to take into cognizance motifs of story that the jatakas may have derived ultimately from other sources than the Greece of our concern here. On the other hand - and I reiterate - it would have been more a cause for surprise if the presence of the Greeks and the influence of their rich culture in North-western India had not been remarked in the indigenous literature of India - and significantly in the literature (as in the art) of the religion that was then flourishing in these regions of India and so consanguine to the trends of Western thought and ideology - Buddhism. 尽管本书前几章所列举的证据似乎相当充分，用以论证印度本生经中出现的类似母题应归因于对希腊寓言、神话及历史轶事的借鉴，但这些例证仅占佛陀本生故事丰富素材库中的极小部分。即便我们进一步考量本生经中可能源自其他非希腊文化渊源的叙事母题，这一比例想必也不会发生显著变化。另一方面——我必须再次强调——倘若希腊人的存在及其灿烂文化对印度西北部的影响，未能在印度本土文献中留下痕迹，那才真正令人诧异。尤其是在当时盛行于该地区、与西方思想意识形态血脉相连的宗教——佛教——的文献（正如其艺术表现）中，这种文化交融的缺席反倒不合常理。
Admittedly a few stories or story motifs from India may have made their way to Greece during the rule of the Bactrian kings (roughly the 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} century B.C.) and the Sakas who followed them, even though the Greek subjects were almost entirely cut off by the Parthian empire from intercourse with their homeland. Three or four of the fables appearing in such writers on Babrius and Zenobius may be of this sort. But till the more liberal spread of stories from India (especially the Pancatantra) though the Kalila wa-Dimma, evidence of Indian story motifs manifesting themselves in the West is almost nonexistent - while the onus of proof that the earliest motifs with Greek parallels - those we have dealt with - were of Indian origin rests with those who are for mooting it, both by general contention and the study of individual stories. 诚然，在巴克特里亚国王（约公元前 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} 世纪）及其后继者塞种人统治时期，可能有少量印度故事或故事母题传入了希腊，尽管帕提亚帝国几乎完全阻断了希腊臣民与故土的联系。巴布里乌斯和泽诺比乌斯等作家笔下出现的三四则寓言或许就属此类。但在《卡里莱与笛木乃》推动印度故事（尤其是《五卷书》）更广泛传播之前，西方几乎找不到印度故事母题存在的证据——而那些最早与希腊故事存在对应母题（即我们讨论过的案例）究竟是否源自印度，举证责任完全落在主张此说者肩上，这既需要总体论证，也离不开对单个故事的细致考察。
To assert that such stories must have had their origin in India “because India is more naturally the land of story” - if it is with the implication that no other land is such, is palpably inane. At the same time, as I have shown, the presence of exotic animals in the Greek fables does not necessarily deny the Graecity of such, as it also does not concede their origin to India; such animals (and birds) were known to the Greeks from lands nearer at hand, and of recent times, Babylonia among these, has made with some scholars a significant claim not only to be prior to both Greece and India with the fable and animal story but also to be the possible source and earliest inspiration to both these lands. 若断言此类故事必定源自印度，“因为印度天然是故事的国度”——倘若言下之意是其他地区皆非如此，显然荒谬至极。同时，正如我所揭示的，希腊寓言中出现异域动物，既未必否定其希腊属性，亦不意味着承认其印度起源；希腊人本就通过邻近地域（如近世的巴比伦）熟知这些鸟兽。更有学者提出重要观点：巴比伦不仅早于希腊和印度拥有动物寓言传统，更可能是这两大文明的共同源头与最初灵感。
The strongest argument, apart from any internal evidence to which the comparable stories may give rise, individually and collectively, is the matter of chronology and opportunity. While the form of literature known as the jatakam goes back to the canonical works of Buddhism with a handful of examples of such (in none of which the Bodhisatta assumes an animal incarnation and none of which reflect a possible Greek motif), the jatakas of the Jatakatthavannana of our concern, singly or collectively, cannot be shown to antedate the third century B.C., whereas the antiquity of some of the corresponding individual Greek fables can be shown in evidence to antedate them, while also collectively the majority of them reach back to at least the time of Aristotle, when we hear of the book roll of Demetrius of Phaleron. Again, the contention that these were all folk stories which existed in India in oral tradition long before they were Buddhistized and coopted as birth stories of the Buddha proves everything and nothing. There can be little doubt that a great deal of these stories were of such a sort and indigenous of India, but until which of these were, and which of these were not such is capable of discrimination, such an assertion is of no help. Besides, we are concerned with what I may call the Graecizing jatakas - and if the supposition is that these too were of indigenous origin, the onus of showing that they were so and how they then got to Greece, and when, is also incumbent on such contenders. Nor would this restrict itself to the particular fables but take into congnizance to the Greek myths 除却那些可供比照的故事——无论是单独还是整体——可能引发的任何内在证据外，最具说服力的论点在于年代顺序与传播契机。虽然名为"本生经"的文学形式可追溯至佛教典籍中的少数范例（其中菩萨既未化身为动物，也未体现任何可能的希腊主题），但我们所关注的《本生经注》所载本生故事——无论单独或整体——都无法被证明早于公元前三世纪；而与之对应的某些希腊寓言却可证实年代更为久远。就整体而言，这些希腊寓言大多至少可上溯至亚里士多德时代——当时我们已听闻法勒伦的德米特里所著书卷。再者，所谓"这些故事早在被佛教化并吸纳为佛陀本生故事之前，就已作为民间故事长期存在于印度口述传统中"的论断，实则既证明了一切，又什么也没能证明。 毫无疑问，这些故事中有大量作品属于此类且源自印度本土，但在能够区分哪些属于此类、哪些不属于之前，此类断言毫无助益。此外，我们关注的是那些可称为"希腊化本生经"的故事——倘若假设这些同样源自印度本土，那么举证责任便落在主张者身上，他们需要证明其印度起源，并阐明它们如何及何时传入希腊。这种考证不应仅限于特定寓言，还需将希腊神话
and historical anecdotes as well, which are seen to share motifs with some of the jatakas. ^(1){ }^{1} 与历史轶事纳入考量范围，因为它们与部分本生经共享着某些故事母题。 ^(1){ }^{1}
The existing evidence will not bear out such a hypothesis, and there is little hope for protagonists of the Indian cause unless literary or artistic evidence turns up, which reach back beyond the Buddhist and antedate the Greek evidence as well, such as will prove the existence of at least some of the jatakas involving parallel motifs, as folk tale, fiction or saga of greater antiquity. Some such hope is there with Babylonia, which has already come up with surprising evidence on fables and proverbs which imply fables, in the cuneiform tablets which constituted its “Wisdom Books”, and further discoveries are not beyond expectation. Manuscripts which may contribute significantly to the history of the fable literature of Greece too could turn up in unexpected quarters as they have been doing of other literary works. On the other hand, it is too much to expect that art and literature antedating what is already known in India remains to be discovered, whether by archaeology or chance finds that would significantly contribute to this great debate on the surprisingly similar motifs that had surfaced as between India and Greece with the notice of such works as the Pancatantra and the Jatakatthavannana by Western scholars, not to mention the art on such monuments as the topes of Bharhut and Sanchi, during the last two centuries. We can only live in hope - and until such time the view-point supported in this book on one of the most exciting academic issues of recent scholarship needs to be appreciated and accepted, or denied and replaced on a re-examination of the selfsame evidence that I have reviewed. 现有证据无法支撑这一假设，除非出现年代早于佛教文献且先于希腊证据的文学或艺术作品，能够证明至少部分本生故事中涉及的平行母题作为更古老的民间故事、小说或传奇已然存在，否则印度起源论的支持者难有转机。巴比伦领域已现曙光——其楔形文字板"智慧书"中关于寓言及隐含寓言内容的谚语提供了惊人证据，未来发现更值得期待。正如其他文学作品不断意外现世那般，可能对希腊寓言文学史研究产生重大影响的写本，同样有可能在出人意料之处重见天日。 另一方面，若期待在印度已知艺术与文学之前仍有待考古发掘或偶然发现更早遗存——这些发现或将极大推动关于印度与希腊惊人相似母题的学术论争（自西方学者关注《五卷书》与《本生经》等著作以来，更不用说巴尔胡特与桑奇佛塔等遗迹上的艺术，近两个世纪此议题持续发酵）——这种期待未免过于奢求。我们只能怀抱希望。而在此之前，本书针对这一近年学界最激动人心的学术议题所持观点，有待读者基于我所检视的相同证据予以认可接纳，或在重新审视后加以驳斥更替。
The mind-set that India owd nothing of her thought and literature to the Greeks appears to have been encountered by Thapar as well, for she writes (op.cit. p. 212-212- 213) “Indo-European scholarship has felt the impact of many decades of what has been described as the ‘Greek miracle’. The superiority of Greeks civilization has been so over-emphasised as to produce an unfortunate inferiority-complex among members of certain other civilizations. This has naturally resulted in an effort to prove that non-Greek cultures had identical values to those of the Greek dominated ones.” 塔帕尔似乎也遭遇了那种认为印度的思想和文学与希腊毫无渊源的思维定式，她在著作（同前，第 213 页）中写道："印欧学术研究深受数十年来所谓'希腊奇迹'论调的影响。希腊文明的优越性被过度强调，导致某些其他文明成员产生了不幸的自卑情结。这自然引发了一种努力，试图证明非希腊文化拥有与希腊主导文化同等的价值。"
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 2: PLATE I. Eastern gate of the Great Stupa of Sanchi, showing some of the famous reliefs which included jatakas sharing motifs with Greek story. 图 2：图版 I. 桑奇大塔东门，展示部分著名浮雕作品，其中包含与希腊故事共享主题的本生经故事。
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 3: (A) 图 3：(A)
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 4: (B) 图 4：(B)
PLATE II. Two fragments from the Bharhut Stupa, portraying a scene from the Hamsa (i.e the Nacca) Jataka. (A) The elated peacock, tail-feathers fanned, dances before the fair gosling. (B) Some of the unsuccessful competitors. 图版 II。来自巴尔胡特窣堵波的两块浮雕残片，描绘《天鹅本生》（即《那吒本生》）中的场景。(A) 开屏的孔雀欢欣起舞，向优雅的雏鹅示好。(B) 部分竞逐失败的求偶者。
PLATE III. Bas-relief from Gandhara showing Yasodhara being presented to Siddhartha. Note the Gracco-Roman costumes and the laurel wreathes worn by the women. Schist. 14 cm . (British Museum, London). 图版三：犍陀罗浮雕，描绘耶输陀罗被引见给悉达多太子的场景。注意人物身着希腊罗马式服饰，女性头戴月桂花环。片岩材质，高 14 厘米。（现藏于伦敦大英博物馆）
PLATE IV. (A) Greek red-figure cup c. 460 B.C. caricaturing Aesop in animated conversation with a fox. (B) Fragment of a cosmetic tray from Sirkap showing a man (Aesop or the Bodhisatta?) seated between a feeding bird and a watching animal. Schist (Courtesy Micielli di Biase) 图版四：（A）希腊红绘杯（约公元前 460 年），以漫画手法表现伊索与狐狸的生动对话。（B）西尔卡普出土的化妆盘残片，描绘一名男子（伊索或菩萨？）端坐在进食的鸟类与观望的动物之间。片岩材质（米切利·迪·比亚塞惠赠）
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 5: PLATE V. Alexander, who led Greeks in their numbers to North-west India, shown in battle with the Perstans. Part of the eastern frieze of the so called "Sarcophagus of Alexander" from Sidon (c. 325 B.C.) 图 5：图版五：率领希腊大军进入印度西北部的亚历山大大帝与波斯人交战场景。此系所谓"亚历山大石棺"（约公元前 325 年，出土于西顿）东侧檐壁局部
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 6: PLATE VI. Two young monks in clothing approximating to the chiton and himation/toga of the Greeks and Romans. Stucco, 25.5 cm . from Hadda (Musee Guimet, Paris) 图 6：图版 VI。两位年轻僧侣身着近似希腊罗马基同衫与希玛申/托加袍的服饰。灰泥雕塑，高 25.5 厘米，出土于哈达（现藏巴黎吉美博物馆）
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 7: (A) 图 7：（A）
PLATE VII (A) Remankably beautiful stucco head of the Buddha 29.2 cm . Style of Hadda and Taxila (Victoria and Albert Museum, London). (B) Reverse of a gold coin of Kanısha, showing a standing Buddha with halo and nimbus, with inscription BUDDO in Greek lettering. 图版 VII (A) 哈达与塔克西拉风格的佛陀灰泥头像，高 29.2 厘米，造型极为精美（藏于伦敦维多利亚与阿尔伯特博物馆）。(B) 迦腻色伽金币背面，以希腊字母镌刻"BUDDO"铭文，展现带背光与头光的立佛形象。
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 8: (B) 图 8: (B)
\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
Figure 9: (A) 图 9：(A)
PLATE VIII (A) Line-reproduction of a fragment from the Bharhut Stupa showing the monkey of the Sumsumara/Vanara Jataka, possibly glaring down at the crocodile. (B) Sherd of an Indian sprinkler found at Mantai, Sri Lanka ( 2^("nd ")-4^("th ")2^{\text {nd }}-4^{\text {th }} cent.) showing the same monkey riding the crocodile. 图版八 (A) 巴尔胡特佛塔残片线描图，描绘了苏姆苏马拉/瓦纳拉本生故事中的猴子，可能正怒视下方的鳄鱼。(B) 斯里兰卡曼泰出土的印度洒水器碎片（约公元 0 世纪），展示同一只猴子骑在鳄鱼背上的场景。
PLATE IX Figure of the Bodhisatta, evidencing strong iflueuce of classical greek sculpture (British Museum, London). Before hus no artists of India had presumed torepresent the image of the Buddha. 图版九 菩萨像，明显受到古典希腊雕塑的强烈影响（藏于伦敦大英博物馆）。在此之前，印度尚无艺术家敢直接表现佛陀形象。
BIBLIOGRAPHY 参考文献
(The more important readings and references cited in the text, excluding the author’s own, which are however brought into the footnotes where relevant). （文中引用的重要文献和参考资料，不包括作者本人的著作，但相关内容会酌情列入脚注）。
A
Allen J. “A Tabula Iliaca from Gandhara” J.H.S. vol. LXVI. 艾伦·J.《来自犍陀罗的伊利亚特碑板》J.H.S.第 66 卷
B
Banerjee G.N. Hellenism in Ancient India 3^("rd ")3^{\text {rd }} ed. Delhi (1961) 班纳吉·G.N.《古印度之希腊化》第 0 版，德里（1961 年）
Barua B.M. “Identification of Four Jatakas at Bharaut” JPASB vol. XIX (1923) p. 349-356. 巴鲁阿·B.M.《巴鲁特四则本生经的辨识》JPASB 第 19 卷（1923 年）第 349-356 页
Basham A.L. “Prince Vijaya and the Aryanization of Ceylon” Ceylon Historical Journal vol. 1 no. 3 (1952) 巴沙姆 A.L. 《维贾亚王子与锡兰的雅利安化》 锡兰历史期刊 第 1 卷第 3 期 (1952 年)
Benfey T. Pantchatantra vol. I, Leipzig (1959) re-print Hildeshiem 1966. 本菲 T. 《五卷书》第 1 卷 莱比锡 (1959 年) 希尔德斯海姆 1966 年重印版
Bloomfield M. “Joseph and Potiphar in Hindu Fiction” T.A.Ph.A. vol. LIV (1923). 布卢姆菲尔德 M. 《印度小说中的约瑟与波提乏》 美国语文学会会刊 第 54 卷 (1923 年)
Buchthal H. The Western Aspects of Gandhara Sculpture London (1945). 布赫塔尔 H. 《犍陀罗雕塑的西方元素》 伦敦 (1945 年)
C
Carswell J. “The Port of Mantai” Rome and India, the Ancient Sea Trade ed. V.Begley and R.D de Puma, Wisconsin (1991). 卡斯维尔 J. 《曼泰港》收录于《罗马与印度：古代海上贸易》V.贝格利与 R.D.德普马合编，威斯康辛（1991 年）
Chalmers R. “The Lineage of ‘The Proud King’” JRAS (Gr. Brit. & Ire.) (1892) 查默斯 R. 《"傲慢之王"的世系》载《英国及爱尔兰皇家亚洲学会会刊》（1892 年）
Cook A.B. “Hippocleides” Dance" Cl. Rev. vol. XXI (1907) p. 169-170. Cunningham A The Stupa of Bharhut Benares (1962). 库克 A.B. 《"希波克莱德斯之舞"》载《古典评论》第 21 卷（1907 年）第 169-170 页。坎宁安 A 《巴鲁特窣堵波》贝拿勒斯（1962 年）
D
Devendra D.T. “The Palace on a Single Column” JRAS (CB) vol. V (1956). 德文德拉 D.T. 《独柱宫殿》载《锡兰皇家亚洲学会会刊》第 5 卷（1956 年）
Dickson J.F. “The Popular Acceptance of the Jatakas as shown in Picturestories and Sculptures” JRAS (CB) vol. VIII no. 28. 迪克森 J.F. 《本生故事在绘画与雕塑中的民间接受度》载于《皇家亚洲学会锡兰分会期刊》第 8 卷第 28 期
Djik G.J. Van “Aesop” in Encyclopaedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition vol. I London (2000). 范·迪克 G.J. 《伊索》收录于《希腊与希腊传统百科全书》第 1 卷 伦敦（2000 年）
Douglas N Birds and Beasts of the Greek Anthology London (1928). E 道格拉斯 N 《希腊诗选中的飞禽走兽》 伦敦（1928 年）
Ebeling E. Die babylonische Fabel und Ihre Bedeutung fur die Literaturgeschichte Leipzig (1927). 埃贝林 E 《巴比伦寓言及其对文学史的意义》 莱比锡（1927 年）
Edgerton F. The Pancatantra Roconstructed Connecticut (1924). 埃杰顿 F.《五卷书重构》康涅狄格 (1924)
Edgerton F. The Pancatantra London (1965). 埃杰顿 F.《五卷书》伦敦 (1965)
Evans-Wentz W.V. The Tibetan Book of the Dead 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} ed. London (1949). F 伊文思-温兹 W.V.《西藏度亡经》第 2 版 伦敦 (1949) F
Fausböll V. Five Jatakas London (1861). 福斯鲍尔 V.《五部本生经》伦敦 (1861)
Fausböll V. The Jataka together with its Commentary London (1877 1897) re-print Pali Text Soc. London 1967. Fausböll V. 《本生经及其注释》伦敦（1877-1897 年），巴利圣典协会 1967 年重印本。
Fick R. Sociale Gleiderung in nordostlichen Indian zu Buddha’s zeit, Mit besonderer Berucksichtegung (1877) re-print 1974 = The Social Organization of North East India in Buddha’s Time transl. S.Maitra, Calcutta (1920). Fick R. 《佛陀时代印度东北部的社会分层》（1877 年），1974 年重印本=《佛陀时期印度东北部的社会组织》S.Maitra 译，加尔各答（1920 年）。
Francis H.T. and Thomas E.J. Jataka Tales Cambridge (1916). Francis H.T. 与 Thomas E.J. 《本生故事集》剑桥（1916 年）。
Foucher A. The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays transl. L.A.Thomas, London (1917) Foucher A. 《佛教艺术的起源及其他论文》L.A.Thomas 译，伦敦（1917 年）
Frazer J.G. Pausanias’ Description of Greece London (1913) 弗雷泽 J.G. 《保萨尼阿斯希腊志》 伦敦 (1913)
Freer, L. Etudes Bouddhique: Les Jatakas Journ. Asiatique (1975) trans lated into English by G.M.Foulkes “A Study of the Jatakas” (1875) reprint Calcutta (1965). 弗里尔 L. 《佛教研究：本生经》 亚洲学刊 (1975) 由 G.M.福克斯英译为《本生经研究》(1875) 加尔各答重印版 (1965)
G
Garbe R. Contribution of Buddhism to Christianity Chicago (1911). 加尔贝 R. 《佛教对基督教的贡献》 芝加哥 (1911)
Geiger W. Pali Literature and Language (tr. 1937) 2^("nd ")ed2^{\text {nd }} \mathrm{ed}. Delhi (1968). 盖格 W. 《巴利语文学与语言》(1937 年译本) 2^("nd ")ed2^{\text {nd }} \mathrm{ed} 德里 (1968)
Gordon E. “A New Look at the Wisdom Books of Sumer and Akkad” Bibl. 戈登·E.《重新审视苏美尔与阿卡德的智慧之书》圣经
Orientalis vol. XVII Leiden (1960) p. 122-152. 东方学 第十七卷 莱顿（1960 年）第 122-152 页
Gordon E. “Sumerian Animal Proverbs and Fables. Collection Five” Journal of Cuneiform Studies vol. XII (1958) p. 1-75. 戈登·E.《苏美尔动物谚语与寓言·第五辑》楔形文字研究期刊 第十二卷（1958 年）第 1-75 页
Gordon E. Sumerian Proverbs, Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia Philadelphia (1959). 戈登·E.《苏美尔谚语：古代美索不达米亚日常生活掠影》费城（1959 年）
Graves R. The Greek Myths Penguin Books (1955) vols I and II reprint (1978). 格雷夫斯 R. 《希腊神话》 企鹅出版社（1955 年）第一、二卷重印本（1978 年）
Grote G. History of Greece London vol. II (1907) p. 413. 格罗特 G. 《希腊史》 伦敦 第二卷（1907 年）第 413 页
Guthrie W.K.C. Orpheus and Greek Religion London (1935). 格思里 W.K.C. 《俄耳甫斯与希腊宗教》 伦敦（1935 年）
H
Hallade M. The Ganühara Style and the Evolution of Buddhist Art transl. Dianá Imber, London (1968). 阿拉德 M. 《犍陀罗风格与佛教艺术的演变》 黛安娜·英伯译 伦敦（1968 年）
Hallidäy W.R. Greek and Roman Folklore London etc. (1927). 哈利迪 W.R. 《希腊与罗马民间传说》 伦敦等地 (1927 年)
Halliday W.R. Indo-European Folk-Tales and Legends Cambridge (1973). 哈利迪 W.R. 《印欧民间故事与传说》 剑桥 (1973 年)
Handford S.A. Fables of Aesop Penguin ed. (1954) reprint 1971. 汉福德 S.A. 《伊索寓言》 企鹅版 (1954 年) 1971 年重印
Hardy, S. Manual of Buddhism - It’s Modern Development London (1853). 哈迪 S. 《佛教手册——其现代发展》 伦敦 (1853 年)
Hardy S. Legends and Theories of the Buddhist London (1881). 哈迪 S.《佛教的传说与理论》伦敦（1881 年）
Hargreaves H. “An Unidentified Relief from Gandhara” Annual Report of the Arch. Soc. of India (1923). 哈格里夫斯 H.《来自犍陀罗的未识别浮雕》印度考古学会年报（1923 年）
Harrison J. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion Cambridge (1903) 哈里森 J.《希腊宗教研究导论》剑桥（1903 年）
Hertel J. Das Pancatantra, seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung Leipzig (1914) 赫特尔 J.《五卷书：其历史与传播》莱比锡（1914 年）
J
Jacobs J. History of the Aesopic Fables vol. I, London (1889). 雅各布斯 J. 《伊索寓言史》第一卷，伦敦（1889 年）
Jones J.G. Tales and Teachings of the Buddha London (1979). 琼斯 J.G. 《佛陀的故事与教义》伦敦（1979 年）
K
Keith A.B. A History of Sanskrit Literature London (1920). 基思 A.B. 《梵语文学史》伦敦（1920 年）
Keith A.B.“Pythagoras and the Doctrine of Transmigraton” JRAS (Gr. Brit. & Ire.) vol. XLI. 基思 A.B. 《毕达哥拉斯与轮回学说》载《英国及爱尔兰皇家亚洲学会会刊》第 XLI 卷
Kern H. Der Buddhismus Leipzig (1882-1884) vol. I. p. 328. 克恩·H.《佛教》莱比锡（1882-1884 年）第一卷 第 328 页
Keuls E. The Water-Carriers of Hades, A Study of Katharsis through Toil in Classical Antiquity Amsterdam (1974), 柯尔斯·E.《冥界的运水者：古典时期通过劳苦实现净化的研究》阿姆斯特丹（1974 年）
Kulasuriya A.S. “The Jataka Potha in Sinhala Literature and History” JRAS(SL) sesq. com. vol. (1995) p. 263-283. 库拉苏里亚·A.S.《僧伽罗文学与历史中的本生经》JRAS(SL) sesq. com. 卷（1995 年）第 263-283 页
Kramer S.N. From the Tablets of Sumer. Twenty Five Firsts in Man’s Re corded History Colorado (1956) 克莱默·S.N.《来自苏美尔的泥板：人类有记录历史中的二十五个第一》科罗拉多（1956 年）
L
L
Lacote F. Essai sur Gunadhya et la Brhatkatha Paris (1908). 拉科特 F. 《论古纳迪亚与<大故事>》 巴黎 (1908)
Lassen C. Dissertatio de Insula Taprobane Veteribus Cognitis Bonn (1847). 拉森 C. 《古代人所知的塔普罗巴尼岛考》 波恩 (1847)
Luders H. Buddhistische Märchen aus dem alten Indien Jena (1921) 吕德斯 H. 《古印度佛教故事集》 耶拿 (1921)
Lyons I. Gandharan Art in Pakistan N. York (1957) including Descriptive Catalogue by H.Ingolt. 莱昂斯 I. 《巴基斯坦的犍陀罗艺术》 纽约 (1957) 含英格霍尔特撰写的描述性目录
M
Macan R.W. Herodotus London (1895). 麦肯 R.W. 《希罗多德》 伦敦 (1895).
Majumdar N. “The Lost Ring of Sakuntala - is it a Greek Reminiscence?” JBORS vol. VII (1921) p. 96-99. 马宗达 N. 《沙恭达罗遗失的戒指——是否源自希腊记忆？》 JBORS 第七卷 (1921) 第 96-99 页.
Malalasekera G.P. The Pali Literature of Ceylon Colombo (1928). 马拉拉塞克拉 G.P. 《锡兰巴利语文献》 科伦坡 (1928).
Marshall J. Taksila - an Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excava tions Cambridge (1952). 马歇尔 J. 《塔克西拉——考古发掘图解报告》 剑桥 (1952).
Marshall J. The Buddhist Art of Gandhara vol. I (1960) 马歇尔 J. 《犍陀罗佛教艺术》第一卷（1960 年）
Mendis G.C. “The Vijaya Legend” Paranavitana Felicitation Volume Co lombo (1965) 门迪斯 G.C. 《维贾亚传说》帕拉纳维塔纳纪念文集 科伦坡（1965 年）
Müller, M. Selected Essays in Language, Literature and Religion vol. I London (1881). 缪勒 M. 《语言、文学与宗教文选》第一卷 伦敦（1881 年）
N
Narain A.K. The Indo-Greeks Oxford (1957) 纳兰 A.K. 《印度-希腊人》牛津（1957 年）
Noeldeke T. “Zu Herodot 3.119 (Sophocles Antigone 903-913)” Hermes vol. XXIX (1894). 诺尔德克 T. 《论希罗多德 3.119（索福克勒斯<安提戈涅>903-913 行）》 赫尔墨斯期刊第 XXIX 卷（1894 年）
0
O’Conner F. “The King of the Birds” Spam vol. XXIII (Sept. 1982) p. 16-19. 奥康纳 F. 《百鸟之王》 斯帕姆期刊第 XXIII 卷（1982 年 9 月）第 16-19 页
Oldenburg S.d’ “On the Buddhist Jatakas” transl. by H.Wenzel JRAS vol. XXV (1893) p. 315-356. 奥尔登堡 S.d’ 《论佛教本生经》 H.温策尔英译 英国皇家亚洲学会会刊第 XXV 卷（1893 年）第 315-356 页
P
Page D. Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey Cambridge Mass. (1912). 佩奇 D. 《荷马<奥德赛>中的民间故事》 马萨诸塞州剑桥（1912 年）
Parker H. Village Folk-Tales of Ceylon London (1910). 帕克·H.《锡兰乡村民间故事》伦敦（1910 年）
Paranavitana S. The University of Ceylon History of Ceylon vol. I pt. I (1959) p. 82-94. 帕拉纳维塔纳·S.《锡兰大学锡兰史》第一卷第一册（1959 年）第 82-94 页
Paranavitana S. The Greeks and the Mauryas Colombo (1971). 帕拉纳维塔纳·S.《希腊人与孔雀王朝》科伦坡（1971 年）
Pearson A.C. Fragments of Sophocles Cambridge (1917). 皮尔逊·A.C.《索福克勒斯残篇》剑桥（1917 年）
Penzer N.M. “The Dohada or Craving of Pregnant Women” JOAS vol. LX, pt. 1 (1920) p. 1-24. 彭泽尔 N.M. 《孕妇的 Dohada 或渴望》 JOAS 第 60 卷第 1 期 (1920 年) 第 1-24 页
Perera L.S. The University of Ceylon History of Ceylon vol. I Colombo (1959) p. 98. 佩雷拉 L.S. 《锡兰大学锡兰史》第一卷 科伦坡 (1959 年) 第 98 页
Perry B.E. Aesopica Urbana (1952). 佩里 B.E. 《伊索寓言集》 城市版 (1952 年)
Perry B.E. Babrius and Phaedrus (Loeb ed.) Cambridge Mass (1965). 佩里 B.E. 《巴布里乌斯与费德鲁斯》(洛布古典丛书版) 马萨诸塞州剑桥 (1965 年)
Pischel R. Zu Sophocles Antigone 909-912 Hermes vol. XXIII (1893) p. 465-468 皮舍尔 R. 《论索福克勒斯的〈安提戈涅〉第 909-912 行》 赫尔墨斯期刊 第 23 卷 (1893 年) 第 465-468 页
R\mathbf{R}
Raby J. “Between Bogdia and the Marduks: A Note on the Earliest Illustrations to Kalila wa Dimna” Oriental Arts vol. XXX. 4 (1988). 雷比 J. 《在波格迪亚与马尔杜克之间：卡里拉与迪姆纳最早插画考》 东方艺术 第 30 卷第 4 期 (1988 年)
Rawlinson G.H. India and the Western World Cambridge (1916). 罗林森 G.H. 《印度与西方世界》 剑桥 (1916 年)
Rhys-Davids T.W. Buddhist Birth Stories London (1880) 里斯·戴维斯 T.W. 《佛教本生故事》 伦敦 (1880 年)
Rhys-Davids T.W. Buddhist India London (1903) 6th ed. Calcutta 1955. 里斯·戴维斯 T.W. 《佛教印度》 伦敦 (1903) 第 6 版 加尔各答 1955 年
Rhys-Davids C.A.F. Editorial to T.W.Rhys-Davids Buddhist Birth Stories 1987 edition. 里斯·戴维斯 C.A.F. 《佛教本生故事》1987 年版编者序
Rider A.W. The Panchatantra transl. Chicago (1925) Jaico Books ed. Bombay/ Calcutta 1949. 赖德 A.W. 《五卷书》译本 芝加哥 (1925) 贾科图书版 孟买/加尔各答 1949 年
Rose H.J. Hyginus: Fabulae Leiden (1934). 罗斯 H.J. 《许癸努斯：神话集》 莱顿 (1934)
Rutherford W.G. Babrius London (1883). 卢瑟福·W·G 《巴布里乌斯寓言集》 伦敦（1883 年）。
S
Smith V.A. The Early History of India from 600 A.D. to the Mohammedan 史密斯 V.A. 《印度早期历史：从公元 600 年到穆斯林征服》
Conquest including the Invasion of Alexander the Great Oxford (1904). 包括亚历山大大帝入侵在内的征服 牛津（1904 年）。
Smith V.A. Asoka, the Buddhist Emperor of India 3^("rd ")3^{\text {rd }} ed. Oxford (1920). 史密斯 V.A. 《印度佛教皇帝阿育王》第 0 版，牛津（1920 年）。
Sparkes B.A. “The Trojan Horse in Classical Arts” Greece and Rome vol. XVIII no. 1 (1971) with pl. 46. 斯帕克斯 B.A. 《古典艺术中的特洛伊木马》 刊于《希腊与罗马》第 18 卷第 1 期（1971 年）含图版 46
Speyer J.S. Jatakamala London (1895). 斯佩耶 J.S. 《本生鬘》 伦敦（1895 年）
Stcrnbach L. The Hitopadesa and its Source Connecticut (1970). 斯特恩巴赫 L. 《益世嘉言及其源流》 康涅狄格州（1970 年）
Stein H. Herodotus Berlin (1883). 斯坦 H. 《希罗多德》 柏林（1883 年）
T
Tawney C.W. “A Folk-lore Parallel” The Indian Antiquary vol. X (1881). 陶尼 C.W. 《民间传说平行比较》载于《印度古物志》第十卷（1881 年）
Tawney C.H. The Ocean of Story (transl. of Kathasaritsagara) (1924) vol. I append III “On the Dohada or Craving of the Pregnant Woman as a Motif in Hindu Fiction”. 陶尼 C.H. 《故事之海》（《Kathasaritsagara》译本）（1924 年）第一卷附录三《论印度小说中孕妇渴望（Dohada）的母题》
Thakur U. Studies in Jainism and Buddhism in Mithila Benares (1964). 塔库尔 U. 《米提拉与贝拿勒斯的耆那教和佛教研究》（1964 年）
Thapar R. Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas Oxford (1961) 塔帕尔 R. 《阿育王与孔雀王朝的衰落》牛津出版社（1961 年）
W
Warren S.J. “Herodotus vi. 126” Hermes vol. XXIX (1984) p. 478. 沃伦 S.J. 《希罗多德第六卷第 126 章》 赫尔墨斯期刊第 XXIX 卷（1984 年）第 478 页。
Warmington E.H. The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India Cambridge (1929). 沃明顿 E.H. 《罗马帝国与印度之间的贸易》 剑桥出版社（1929 年）。
Warren S.J. Herodot. vi 126. Hcrmes vol. XXIX (1894) p. 476-478. 沃伦 S.J. 《希罗多德第六卷第 126 章》 赫尔墨斯期刊第 XXIX 卷（1894 年）第 476-478 页。
Weber A “Uber de Zusammenhang indischer Fabeln mit Griechischen” Indische Studien vol. III p. 327-373. 韦伯 A 《论印度寓言与希腊寓言的关联》 印度研究第 III 卷第 327-373 页。
Weerakkody D.P.M. Taprobane: Ancient Sri Lanka as known to the Greeks and the Romans Brepols, Turnhout (1997). 韦拉科迪 D.P.M. 《塔普罗巴尼：希腊罗马人所知的古代斯里兰卡》 布雷波尔斯出版社，图尔奈（1997 年）
Wilson H.H. Essays on Sanskrit Literature vol. I, 威尔逊 H.H. 《梵语文学论文集》第一卷
Winternitz M. Geschichte der indische Literatur - A History of Indian Literature transl. from the German by S.Ketkar and H.Kohn, Calcuta (1933). 温特尼茨 M. 《印度文学史》德文原版由 S.凯特卡与 H.科恩译为英文，加尔各答（1933 年）
Winternitz M. “Jataka” in Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics New York (1964 ed.) vol. VII. p. 491. 温特尼茨 M. 《本生经》收录于《黑斯廷斯宗教与伦理百科全书》纽约（1964 年版）第七卷第 491 页
Wright J.C. Review of Greta Van Damme “Jekhals in de Oudindische Pancatantra”, Bulletin of the SOAS, University of London vol. LIX pt. 3 (1993) p. 645. 赖特 J.C. 评格蕾塔·范达姆《古印度五卷书中的狐獴》，伦敦大学亚非学院学报第 LIX 卷第 3 册(1993 年)第 645 页。
Concerning Relaxation and Tension (P. iii.4) 164202 论松弛与紧张（P. iii.4）164202
City Mouse and Country Mouse 城里老鼠和乡下老鼠
(C 243) 145
Crow and the Fox 乌鸦与狐狸
(C 165) 10111866141146164186 195232
Crab and his Mother 螃蟹和他的母亲
(C 152) 69164
Dog and the Butcher 狗与屠夫
(C183) 351 n
Dog and the Cock 狗与公鸡
(C 180) 1355149167
Dogs and Crocodiles 狗与鳄鱼
(P. 25) 32102127
Dog and the Piece of Meat 狗与肉块
( C 185C 185 )
Dove and the Ant 鸽子与蚂蚁
(C 242) 166
Aesop and the Dog (Arist.Wasps) 71
Aesop at the Shipyard (H 19) 71
Ant (C240) 78
Ape and the Camel (C360) 138
Ape and the Fox (Perot. Ap.) 104-105 118
Ape's Young (H366) 111
Ape and Zeus (H 364) 140161194
Ass, the Cock and the Lion (H323) 111
Ass and the Lion (H 323b) 200
Ass in the Lion-skin (267) 1149101138162232233235 242
Ass and the Lion-skin (297) 4101115101138
Ass and the Wolf (C 107) 311
Ass and the Wolf (C287) 133
Asses to Zeus (C125) 77
Bald Man and the Fly (P. v. 3) 1331129161163
Beaver H 189 (189) 111
Beetles (C 149) 30143163
Bird and the Bat (C75) 143164
Buying an Ass (C 263) 136163
Camel (C 148) 101 102n
Camel, Elephant and Monkey (H 183) 103-104 111 102n
Camel and Zeus (H 184) 102n
Cat and Aphrodite (C76) 132168
Cat and the Cock (C 12) 151162
Cat and the Mouse (Arist. Wasps) 71
Children of the Farmer (C 86) 128163 182-183
Concerning Relaxation and Tension (P. iii.4) 164202
City Mouse and Country Mouse (C 243) 145
Crow and the Fox (C 165) 10111866141146164186 195232
Crab and his Mother (C 152) 69164
Dog and the Butcher (C183) 351 n
Dog and the Cock (C 180) 1355149167
Dogs and Crocodiles (P. 25) 32102127
Dog and the Piece of Meat ( C 185 )
Dove and the Ant (C 242) 166| Aesop and the Dog | (Arist.Wasps) 71 |
| :--- | :--- |
| Aesop at the Shipyard | (H 19) 71 |
| Ant | (C240) 78 |
| Ape and the Camel | (C360) 138 |
| Ape and the Fox | (Perot. Ap.) 104-105 118 |
| Ape's Young | (H366) 111 |
| Ape and Zeus | (H 364) 140161194 |
| Ass, the Cock and the Lion | (H323) 111 |
| Ass and the Lion | (H 323b) 200 |
| Ass in the Lion-skin | (267) 1149101138162232233235 242 |
| Ass and the Lion-skin | (297) 4101115101138 |
| Ass and the Wolf | (C 107) 311 |
| Ass and the Wolf | (C287) 133 |
| Asses to Zeus | (C125) 77 |
| Bald Man and the Fly | (P. v. 3) 1331129161163 |
| Beaver | H 189 (189) 111 |
| Beetles | (C 149) 30143163 |
| Bird and the Bat | (C75) 143164 |
| Buying an Ass | (C 263) 136163 |
| Camel | (C 148) 101 102n |
| Camel, Elephant and Monkey | (H 183) 103-104 111 102n |
| Camel and Zeus | (H 184) 102n |
| Cat and Aphrodite | (C76) 132168 |
| Cat and the Cock | (C 12) 151162 |
| Cat and the Mouse | (Arist. Wasps) 71 |
| Children of the Farmer | (C 86) 128163 182-183 |
| Concerning Relaxation and Tension (P. iii.4) 164202 | |
| City Mouse and Country Mouse | (C 243) 145 |
| Crow and the Fox | (C 165) 10111866141146164186 195232 |
| Crab and his Mother | (C 152) 69164 |
| Dog and the Butcher | (C183) 351 n |
| Dog and the Cock | (C 180) 1355149167 |
| Dogs and Crocodiles | (P. 25) 32102127 |
| Dog and the Piece of Meat | ( $C 185$ ) |
| Dove and the Ant | (C 242) 166 |
Eagle and the Dung Beetle 鹰与蜣螂
Eagle, Jackdaw and the Shepherd 鹰、寒鸦与牧羊人
Eagle and the Vixen 鹰与雌狐
Ethiopian 埃塞俄比亚人
Farmer and the Eagle 农夫与鹰
Farmer who lost his Mattock 丢失锄头的农夫
Farmer and the Snake 农夫与蛇
Farmer and the Stork 农夫与鹳
Fox and the Crane 狐狸与鹤
Fox and the Crocodile 狐狸与鳄鱼
Fox and the Hedgehog 狐狸与刺猬
Fox and the Grapes 狐狸与葡萄
Fox and the Leopard 狐狸与豹子
Fox and the Lion 狐狸与狮子
Fox and the Lion 狐狸与狮子
Fox and the Lion 狐狸与狮子
Fox and the Monkey 狐狸与猴子
Fox and the Monkey 狐狸与猴子
Foxes at the River Maeander 迈安德河边的狐狸
Fox with the Distended Stomach 肚子鼓胀的狐狸
Gnat and the Elephant 蚊与象
Gnat and the Ox 蚊与牛
Goat and the Ass 山羊与驴
Goat and the Goatherd 山羊与牧羊人
Goatherd and the Wild Goats 牧羊人与野山羊
Gold-bearing Goose 下金蛋的鹅
Hawk and the Nightingale 鹰与夜莺
Horse and the Stag 马与鹿
Horse and the Miller 马与磨坊主
Hungry Bears 饥饿的熊
Hungry Dogs 饥饿的狗
Hyenas 鬣狗
Hyena and the Fox 鬣狗与狐狸
Kid and the Wolf 孩子与狼
Kites 鸢
Lamp 灯
Lion and the Ass 狮子与驴
Lion, the Ass and the Fox 狮子、驴和狐狸
Lion and the Bear 狮子与熊
Lion and the Bear 狮子与熊
Lion and the Boar 狮子与野猪
Lion and the Farmer 狮子与农夫
(C 4) 677277113
(C 5) 140162188
(C 3) 6569148 （C 3）6569148
(C 11) 145 （C 11）145
(C 79) （C 79）
(H 21) 134201
(C 81) 66124133161
(B 13) 128
(H 34) 27110166256266268
(H37) 102
(H 36) 63677172 (H36) 63677172
(C 32) 165 186-187 232 (C32) 165 186-187 232
(H 42) 109n (H42) 109n
(H 41) 13 108-109 134190 （H 41）13 108-109 134190
(H 40) 108 （H 40）108
(H39) 108 （H39）108
(C38) 107229 （C38）107229
(C39) 65218229
(C 30) 217237 (C30) 217237
(C30) 217237
(Babl.) 22
(C 189) 103n
(C 16) 30164208
(H 17) 145
(C 17) 150196
(C 287) 11112132
(C 282)
(H 175) 2280
(H 174) 95
(Perot. 22) 111 （佩罗特 22）111
(C 176) 161188195 （C 176）161188195
(H 404) 103111 （H 404）103111
(H 405) 103111 （H 405）103111
(C 107) 133
(C 136) 113138
(C 232) 88
(C 208)
(H 39) 16109150
(C200) 55148167
(C 203) 55148
(H 253) 161
(C 198) 131 （C 198）131
Lion and the Fox 狮子与狐狸
298355
Lion, Fox and Stag 狮子、狐狸与牡鹿
Lion, Fox and Stag 狮子、狐狸与牡鹿
Lion and the Hare 狮子与野兔
Lions and Hares 狮子群与野兔群
Lion, Prometheus and the Elephant 狮子、普罗米修斯与大象
Lion and the Wild Ass 狮子与野驴
Lion and the Shepherd 狮子与牧羊人
Lion and the Mouse 狮子与老鼠
Lion, Wolf and Fox 狮子、狼与狐狸
Man and his Dog 人与他的狗
Man and the Fox 人与狐狸
Mistress and her Maids 女主人与侍女
Monkey and the Cats 猴子与猫
Monkey and the Dolphin 猴子与海豚
Monkey and the Fishermen 猴子与渔夫
Mule 骡子
Murderer 杀人犯
North Wind and the Sun 北风与太阳
Orator Demades 演说家德马德斯
Ostrich 鸵鸟
Oxen and the Axles 公牛与车轴
Ox and the Calf 公牛与小牛
Pig without a Heart 无心的猪
Pig and the Ox 猪与牛
Piping Fisherman 吹笛的渔夫
Reeds and the Oak 芦苇与橡树
Robbers and the Cock 强盗与公鸡
Robbers and the Mulberry Tree 强盗与桑树
Seer 先知
Sheep and the Dog 绵羊与狗
Sheep and the Pig 绵羊与猪
Shepherd and the Wolf 牧羊人与狼
Snake and the Crab 蛇与螃蟹
Snake and the Crab 蛇与螃蟹
Snake and the Crane 蛇与鹤
Snake and the Farmer 蛇与农夫
Soldier and the Horse 士兵与马
Swan and his Owner 天鹅与主人
(C196) 16203265109126161233
(C 358) 64151169352 (C358) 64151169352
(C 199) 109 (C199) 109
(C 204) 13162 (C204) 13162
(H 241) 71
(C 210) 103104143164
(C 209) 16150
(Ph. 563) 136
55166
(205) 2930109134164207
(C 178) 144 （C 178）144
(C 58) 133207 （C 58）133207
(H 110) 180 （H 110）180
150
(C 305) 3070104106142159170 （C 305）3070104106142159170
211 216-217
(C 304) 27105168
(C 128) 72137
(H 48) 102
(H2) 78
(C 96) 80 （C 96）80
(H 391) 103 （H 391）103
(H 79) 88 （H 79）88
(C11) 127 （C11）127
(Av. 30) 351n （平均 30）351n
(C 92) （C 92）
(C 24) 67 （C 24）67
(C 143) 183n （C 143）183n
(C 158) 131179
(C 214) 147163
(C 233) 202
(H 317) 70-71
(C94) （C94）
(H 376) 165256 （H 376）165256
(H 348) 163 （H 348）163
(C70) 65 （C70）65
(C 290) 142
(C81) 3133151
(C 142) 127
(C 174) 115
Tail and Quarters of the Snake (C 288) m 88 蛇尾与蛇身（编号 C 288）第 88 页
Tortoise and the Eagle (C 35) 11182966141161190 乌龟与鹰（编号 C 35）第 11182966141161190 页
Tortoise and Zeus … (C 125) 137 乌龟与宙斯……（编号 C 125）第 137 页
Viper and the Fox (H 145) 154166256264 蝰蛇与狐狸（编号 H 145）第 154166256264 页
Wayfarer and Hermes (C 260) 130201 旅人与赫尔墨斯（C 260）130201
Wayfarers and the Plane Tree (C 257) 143-144 202 旅人与梧桐树（C 257）143-144 202
Wolf and the Goat (C 270) 187188 狼与山羊（C 270）187188
Wolf and Hermes (C 260) 狼与赫尔墨斯（C 260）
Wolf and the Heron (C 224) 147162232 狼与鹭（C 224）147162232
Wolf and the Lamb (C 221) 14151162 狼与羔羊（C 221）14151162
Wolf and the Lion … (H 280) 143163200 狼与狮子……（H 280）143163200
Wolf and his Shadow … (H 280) 143163200 狼与它的影子……（H 280）143163200
Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing (C 154) 98153 披着羊皮的狼（C 154）98153
Wild Ass (C 264) 野驴（C 264）
Zeus and Apollo (C 187) 153 宙斯与阿波罗（C 187）153
Zeus and Men (C 120) 78 宙斯与人类（C 120）78
Zeus and the Tortoise … (C 125) 77113191194210 宙斯与乌龟……（C 125）77113191194210
In the circumstances it is no surprise thal a few of these had found their way to Sri Lanka (which had at this time the closesest links with North-west India), not the least of these the motif of the legend of Vijaya. The author expects shortly to put together his comparative studies of !hese, again as a Godage publication, under the title Mahavamsa Studies: Greek Mylh in the Ancient Tradition. 在这种情况下，这些故事中有几个流传到斯里兰卡（当时与印度西北部联系最为密切）并不令人意外，其中维贾亚传说主题的传播尤为显著。作者预计不久将把这些比较研究整理成册，仍由 Godage 出版社出版，书名为《大史研究：古代传统中的希腊神话》。
Prof. Peris was, till 1995, Professor of Classics at the University of Peradeniya. His doctorate, obtained from the University of Londen (19611963), was by an exegesis on Ancient Greek. Notions of the Reincarnation of the Soul. 佩里斯教授直至 1995 年都担任佩拉德尼亚大学的古典文学教授。他于 1961 至 1963 年间在伦敦大学获得博士学位，论文主题是对古希腊灵魂转世观念的释经研究。
From cancti Healing thit Buidala. Stuces drantiamblary. 源自《佛陀治愈疾病》研究手稿残篇
^('){ }^{\prime} Pantchatantra vol. 1. Leipzig (1859) (Reprint Hildeshiem 1966) p. 192 and 71. In the introduction p. xi - xii he says, “Although we are unable at present to give any certain information either as to the author or as to the date of the work, we receive, as it seems to me, no unimportant compensation in the fact that it turned out with a certainty beyond doubt, to have originally been a Buddhist book. This followed especially from the chapter discussed in 225 . But it was already indicated by the considerable number of the fables and tales contained in the work, which would also be traced in Buddhist writings. The number, and also relation between the form in which they are told in our work, and that in which they appear in the Buddhist writ ings, incline us - nay, drive us - to the conclusion that they were the source from which our work, within the circle of Buddhist literature, proceeded…” (transl. T.W.Rhys-Davids Buddhist Birth Stories London (1880) revised ed. p. lxii - lxiii. ^('){ }^{\prime} 《五卷书》第一卷，莱比锡（1859 年）（1966 年希尔德斯海姆重印版）第 192 页及 71 页。作者在序言第 xi-xii 页中写道："虽然目前我们无法就该书的作者或成书年代提供确切信息，但在我看来，我们获得了某种重要补偿——该书被确凿无疑地证实原为佛教典籍。这一点尤其通过第 225 章讨论的内容得以确认。但书中包含的大量寓言故事同样可追溯至佛教文献，这一事实早已有所暗示。这些故事的数量，以及它们在本著作中的叙述形式与佛教文献中呈现形式的关联，促使我们——甚至可以说是迫使我们——得出这样的结论：它们正是本著作在佛教文献圈内的源头..."（T.W.里斯·戴维斯英译《佛教本生故事》伦敦（1880 年）修订版第 lxii-lxiii 页） ^(2){ }^{2} Das Pancatantra, seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung Leipzig (1914). ^(2){ }^{2} 《五卷书：历史与传播研究》莱比锡（1914 年）
3 Manual of Eustism - Stindern Development London (1853) p. 100-101. 3 《优斯蒂斯主义手册》- 斯坦德恩发展出版社 伦敦（1853 年）第 100-101 页
4 See A.S.Ku’avery? “The !aiaks Potha in Sinhale Litcrature and History” Journal of the Royai asictic Society of S.i Larka, sesquicentennial commemoraive vol.(1995) p. 263-283. 4 参见 A.S.库阿维里《僧伽罗文学与历史中的本生故事集》，刊于《斯里兰卡皇家亚洲学会期刊》创刊一百五十周年纪念特辑(1995 年)第 263-283 页。
s op.cit. p. 100-101. 同上书第 100-101 页。
loc.cit. 同上出处。
’ Five Jatakas London (1861); see p. 1. 《五部本生经》伦敦版(1861 年)；见第 1 页。
s The Jataka together with its Commentary. First published by Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co. London. Reprint for the Pali Text Society by Luzac & Co., London 1967. 《本生经》及其注释。初版由伦敦 Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co.出版。1967 年伦敦 Luzac & Co.为巴利圣典学会重印。
9 Buddhist Birth Stories, London (1880). 《佛教本生故事》，伦敦（1880 年）。 ^(10){ }^{10} The Jataka, Cambridge (1895-1907). The translators are: vol. I. R.Chalmers; vol. II. W.H.D.Rouse; vol. III. H.T.Francis and R.A.Neil; vol. IV. W.H.D.Rouse; vol. V. H.T.Francis; vol. VI. E G.Cowell and W.H.D.Rouse; vol. VII contains the Index. All volumes were republished in London in 1969, also by Cosmo Publications, Delhi in 1973. A complete German translation by Julius Dutoit was published in Leipzig. beginning 1908. 《本生经》，剑桥（1895-1907 年）。各卷译者分别为：第一卷 R.查默斯；第二卷 W.H.D.劳斯；第三卷 H.T.弗朗西斯与 R.A.尼尔；第四卷 W.H.D.劳斯；第五卷 H.T.弗朗西斯；第六卷 E.B.考埃尔与 W.H.D.劳斯；第七卷为索引。所有卷册于 1969 年在伦敦再版，1973 年德里 Cosmo Publications 亦曾再版。尤利乌斯·杜托伊特的完整德译本 1908 年起于莱比锡陆续出版。
" op.cit. intro. p. v - vii. 同前书，引言第 v-vii 页。
" op.cit. p. 294 n. 1. 同前引书，第 294 页注释 1。
" op.cit. p. xliv. 同前引书，第 xliv 页。
4 loc.cit. 同前引书第 4 处。
^(13){ }^{13} History of the Aesopic Fables, London vol. 1 (1889) p. 108. ^(13){ }^{13} 《伊索寓言史》，伦敦第 1 卷（1889 年）第 108 页。
to H.T.Francis and E.J.Thomas Jataka Tales Cambridge (1916) p. 5-6. The opinions he expressed were perhaps also shared by his co-author, Francis. 致 H.T.弗朗西斯与 E.J.托马斯《本生经故事集》剑桥版(1916 年)第 5-6 页。他所表达的观点或许也得到合著者弗朗西斯的认同。 ^(17){ }^{17} Selected Essays in Language. Mythology and Religion, vol. 1. London (1881) p. 508 and 510 f. ^(17){ }^{17} 《语言、神话与宗教文选》第一卷，伦敦(1881 年)第 508 页及 510 页以下。
18
Essays on Sanskrit Literature. vol. I. p. 201. See Muller loc.cit. 《梵语文学论集》第一卷 201 页。参见缪勒前引书。
19 op.cit. p. 509-510. 19 同前书 509-510 页。
20 See the Nalapana Jataka, the Vanarinda and the Tayodhamma. Following the first of these the Pancatantra story of The Vengeful Monkey ( 5.61 f .) has an elderly monkey cautioned by one-way foot-prints at a pool, whereas the jackal in the story of The Cautious Jackal (3.225), approaching a cave in which he suspects a hungry lion lurks (the parallel of Aesop’s The Lion and the Fox) is not provided this expressive clue. 20 参见《那罗波那本生经》、《瓦纳林达》与《塔约达摩》。根据其中第一部经典，《五卷书》中《复仇的猴子》（5.61 及后续）的故事里，一只年迈的猴子因池塘边的单向足迹而警觉；而《谨慎的豺狼》（3.225）故事中，怀疑洞穴里潜伏着饥饿狮子的豺狼（对应伊索寓言《狮子与狐狸》）却未获得如此鲜明的线索。 =>\Rightarrow Prov. Cent. 1.27:50 Suidas. =>\Rightarrow 《箴言集》1.27:50 苏伊达斯。
"- See op.cit. Preface p. vii. "- 参见前引书序言第 vii 页。 ^(23){ }^{23} A History of Sanskrit Literature, London (1920) p. 354-357 for examples. ^(23){ }^{23} 例证见《梵语文学史》，伦敦（1920 年）第 354-357 页。 ^(24){ }^{24} op.cit. p. 353. ^(24){ }^{24} 同前引书 第 353 页。 ^(25){ }^{25} op.cit. p. 355. But see G.N.Banerjec Hellenism in Ancient India Delhi (3N ed. 1961) p. 290. ^(25){ }^{25} 同前引书 第 355 页。但参见 G.N.班纳吉《古印度的希腊化》德里（第三版 1961 年）第 290 页。
^(26){ }^{26} op.cit. p. 354. In a desperate effort to established a greater antiquity for the comparable story motifs, Banerjee (op.cit. p. 291-292) writes: “The earlier history of the fable in India, before its form was adopted in the birth stories of the Buddha, cannot be definitely traced, though it is remarkable that almost all the Jatakas containing fables begin with the formula, ‘Once upon a time when Brahmadatta was reigning in Benares’, and the previous incamation of the Buddha was in the person of Kasyapa, the son of this Bramadatta. It is possible, therefore, that a separate collection of Beast-Fables existed, connected with this Kasyapa, which was incor porated in the Jatakas, assuming him to be a pre-incamation of the Buddha. These stories probably existed as Beast-Fables among the folk, before they were incorpo rated in the Buddhist canon.” On the basis of this airy supposition he boldly dates the jatakas (p. 286) to circa the sixth century B.C. Among the means of transmis sion of what he distinguished as the Aesopic from the Libyan fables from India, he was even prepared to look at Jacobs’ suggestion of a derivation “directly or indirectly from the Singhalese embassy which came to Rome about A.D. fifty two” i.e. that which is mentioned by Pliny. ^(26){ }^{26} 同前引书 第 354 页。班纳吉（同前引书第 291-292 页）为证明类似故事母题具有更古老渊源而极力论证道："佛教本生故事采用寓言形式之前，印度寓言的早期历史虽无法明确追溯，但值得注意的是几乎所有包含寓言的《本生经》都以'往昔波罗痆斯城梵授王治世时'开篇，而佛陀前世曾化身为这位梵授王之子迦叶。因此很可能存在一部与这位迦叶相关的独立动物寓言集，后被纳入《本生经》体系——编撰者假定迦叶是佛陀的某一前世。这些故事在被纳入佛教经典前，可能早已作为民间动物寓言流传。"基于这番空泛推测，他竟大胆断言本生经的年代（第... 286) 约公元前六世纪。在区分伊索寓言与源自印度的利比亚寓言传播途径时，他甚至考虑采纳雅各布斯的观点——这些故事可能"直接或间接源自公元 52 年左右出使罗马的僧伽罗使团"，即老普林尼曾提及的那次出访。
27 op.cit. p. 355 27 同前引书 第 355 页
^(28){ }^{28} Op, cit; also see his 'Pythagoras and the Doctrine of Transmigration, J.R.A.S. (Gr. Brit. and Tre.) vol. XLI p. 610. ^(28){ }^{28} 同前引；另见其《毕达哥拉斯与轮回说》，载《英国及爱尔兰皇家亚洲学会会刊》第 41 卷第 610 页。
29 Indo-European Folk-Tales and Greek Legends Cambridge (1933) p. 46 29 《印欧民间故事与希腊传说》剑桥 1933 年版 第 46 页
30 This was circulated under the title Srephanites and Ichnelates and first edited by Seb. Gotfried Starke, Berlin (1697). See B.E.Perry Babrius and Phaedrus (Loeb ed.) Cambridge Mass. (1965) p, xix. 30 该作品以《斯特凡尼特斯与伊克内拉特斯》之名流传，最初由柏林的塞巴斯蒂安·戈特弗里德·斯塔克编辑（1697 年）。参见 B.E.佩里《巴布里乌斯与费德鲁斯》（洛布版），马萨诸塞州剑桥（1965 年）第 xix 页。
31 “A New Look at the Wisdom Books of Sumer and Akkad” Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. XVII, Leiden (1960) p. 122-152. 31 《重新审视苏美尔与阿卡德的智慧之书》，《东方文献》第十七卷，莱顿（1960 年）第 122-152 页。 ^(32)quad{ }^{32} \quad From the Tablets of Sumer: Twenty-five Firsts in Man’s Recorded History. Colorado 1956. ^(32)quad{ }^{32} \quad 译自《苏美尔泥板：人类有记录历史的二十五项第一》，科罗拉多 1956 年。
33 “Sumerian Animal Proverbs and Fables. Collection Five”, Jounal of Cuneiform Studies, vol. XII (1958) p. 1-75 and Sumerian Proverbs. Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia Philadelphia (1959). 33 《苏美尔动物谚语与寓言·第五辑》，《楔形文字研究期刊》第十二卷（1958 年）第 1-75 页，以及《苏美尔谚语：古代美索不达米亚日常生活掠影》，费城（1959 年）。
^(14){ }^{14} Die babylonische Fabel und Thre Bedeutung fur die literaturgeschichte. Leipzig (1927). ^(14){ }^{14} 《巴比伦寓言及其对文学史的意义》，莱比锡（1927 年）
35 A History of Indian Literature. vol. II tr. from German by S.Ketkar and H.Kohn, Calcutta (1933) p. 154-155. 35 《印度文学史》第二卷，由 S.Ketkar 和 H.Kohn 从德文翻译，加尔各答（1933 年）第 154-155 页
30 Buddhist Birth Stories. p. iii. 30 《佛教本生故事》第 iii 页
37 " “Uber de Zusammenhang indischer Fabeln mit Griechischen” Indische Studien. vol, III. p. 327-373. 37 《论印度寓言与希腊寓言的关联》，《印度研究》第三卷，第 327-373 页
3s Babrius London (1883); see p. xxv. He adds (p. xxvii) "It is among the professional thetors of degenerate Greece, and their successors, the illiterate and trivial monks of the Middle Ages, that we must look for work at all corresponding to these Oriental books. The fabulists of India and of medieval Europe are tarred with the same stick. They have both tried to make strong drink out of the sugared milk on which children thrive. If they found hearers, it was because there was no vigorous intel lectual vitality in the peoples whom they addressed. 3s 巴布里乌斯伦敦版(1883)；参见第 xxv 页。他补充道（第 xxvii 页）"我们必须在堕落的希腊职业修辞学家及其继承者——中世纪那些粗鄙浅薄的僧侣中，寻找与这些东方书籍相对应的作品。印度和中世纪欧洲的寓言作家都如出一辙。他们都试图将滋养孩童的甜牛奶酿成烈酒。若他们还能找到听众，只因所面对的族群已然丧失了蓬勃的智力生机。"
40 The Ucchanga and Maha Ummagga with their Greek parallels will be subjected to a cursory discussion in ch. XX. 40 《乌昌伽》与《大乌摩伽》及其希腊对应文本将在第 XX 章进行简要讨论。
^(41){ }^{41} See my “The Ujjain Elephant and the Trojan Horse”. Sri Lanka Journal of Humani -ties vol. II no. 2 (1976) p. 32-43. See ch. XI p. and note ad loc. ^(41){ }^{41} 参见拙作《邬阇衍那象与特洛伊木马》。《斯里兰卡人文期刊》第二卷第二期(1976 年)第 32-43 页。另见第十一章及相关注释。 ^(42){ }^{42} See my “Greek Elements in the Vijaya Legend” JRAS (Sri Lanka Branch) vol. XXVI (1982) p. 43-66: “Of Perseus and Pandukabhaya: A Greek Myth in the Mahavamsa” SLIH vol. IX nos. I and II (1983) p. 34-66; “The Princess in the Boat: Of Viharadevi and Danae” SLJH vol. X nos. I and II (1984) p. 57-86. ^(42){ }^{42} 参见拙作《维贾亚传说中的希腊元素》。《皇家亚洲学会期刊》（斯里兰卡分会）第二十六卷(1982 年)第 43-66 页；《珀尔修斯与槃度迦婆耶：〈大史〉中的希腊神话》。《斯里兰卡人文研究》第九卷第一、二期(1983 年)第 34-66 页；《船中公主：毗诃罗提毗与达娜厄的故事》。《斯里兰卡人文杂志》第十卷第一、二期(1984 年)第 57-86 页。
^(43){ }^{43} See my “The Acsopic Motifs of the Kaka and Kapi Jatakas” Nava Samskri. vol. I no. I (1986) p. 75-83. ^(43){ }^{43} 参见拙作《〈迦迦本生〉与〈迦毗本生〉中的伊索式母题》，载《新梵语》第一卷第一期（1986 年）第 75-83 页。
Sec my “The Greek Constituents of the Gutha Pana Jatake” Kalyani vols. II - IV, (1984-1985) p.119-127. 参见拙作《〈古塔帕纳本生〉中的希腊成分》，载《吉祥天女》第二至四卷（1984-1985 年）第 119-127 页。
Der Buddhismus Leipzig. (1882-84) vol. 1 p. 328. Deriving from jata in the sense of “what has become”, “what has happened”. J.S.Speyer adopts this (Jatakanala London (1895) p. xxii). 《佛教》莱比锡版（1882-84 年）第一卷第 328 页。源自 jata 一词"已成之事"、"已发生之事"的含义。J.S.斯佩耶采纳此说（《本生鬘》伦敦 1895 年版第 xxii 页）。
In her editorial note to the 1897 edition of Rhys-Davids’ Buddhist Birth Staries (p. x), Alternately she suggests ‘birth-er’ or collecaively, ‘birth-anea’. 在其为 1897 年版里斯·戴维斯《佛教本生故事》所撰编者按（第 x 页）中，她另提出"诞生者"或集合名词"诞生群"的译法。
3 op.cit. p. 125. 3 同前引书，第 125 页。
4 Preface to Speyer op.cit. 4 斯佩耶尔前引书序言。
3 In the Saddharmapundarika vv (SBE xxi (1884) p. 120) it is said that the Buddha, knowing the differences in faculties and energy of his numerous hearers, preaches in many different ways, “tells many tales, amusing, agreeable, both instructive and pleasant. tales by means of which all beings not only become pleased with the law in this present life, but also after death will reach happy states”. See also op.cit. ii. 44 (SBE xxi p. 44 f.) - the Buddha teaches both by sutras and stanzas and by legends and jatakas. See M.Winternitz “Jataka” in Hasting’s Encyclopaedia of Religion and Eth ics New York (1964 ed.) vol. vii p. 491. 3 在《妙法莲华经》（《东方圣典》第 21 卷，1884 年，第 120 页）中提到，佛陀知晓众多听法者根器与精力的差异，因而以多种方式说法，“讲述诸多妙趣横生、悦耳动听，既具教化意义又令人愉悦的故事。通过这些故事，一切众生不仅能在现世中对佛法心生欢喜，死后亦能往生善趣”。另见同前引书第 2 卷第 44 页（《东方圣典》第 21 卷第 44 页及以下）——佛陀通过经偈、本生故事等多种形式进行教化。参见 M.温特尼茨《本生经》条目，载《黑斯廷斯宗教与伦理百科全书》纽约（1964 年版）第 7 卷第 491 页。
^(6){ }^{6} “Paper on the First Fifty Jatakas” JRAS (Cey. B.C.) vol. VIII no. 28 (1884) p. 114 - 115; see also p. 106. ^(6){ }^{6} 《前五十本生故事研究》，《皇家亚洲学会锡兰分会刊》第 8 卷第 28 期（1884 年）第 114-115 页；另见第 106 页。
’ Rouse, transtating this jataka for the Cowell edition (vol. II p. 89-91) positively identifies this island with Sri Lanka, calling it Ceylon, and the river Kalyani referred to therein as the modern Kelani-ganga. See p. 90, n. 1 and the Journal of the Pali Text Society. (1888) p. 20. 考威尔版本中负责翻译本生经的劳斯（第二卷第 89-91 页）明确认定该岛屿就是斯里兰卡，称其为锡兰，其中提到的卡利亚尼河即现代凯拉尼河。参见第 90 页注释 1 及《巴利文协会会刊》（1888 年）第 20 页。
^(8){ }^{8} Rev. Hardy (Legends and Theories of the Buddhists London (1881; see 1886 ed. p. 151), treating the stories as expressions of reality, asks how it is that the Buddha in his numerous births was never any kind of creature except those common to India. Also (p. 149-151) how of his past births he makes no mention of a world that was so different to what it is now, including the prehistoric animals like the pleiosaurus and megatherium, whose fossils have been found. 哈代牧师（《佛教徒的传说与理论》伦敦 1881 年版，参见 1886 年版第 151 页）将这些故事视为现实的表达，提出疑问：为何佛陀在无数转世中从未化身为印度地区之外的生物。此外（第 149-151 页），他还质疑为何佛陀对前世经历的描述中，从未提及与现今截然不同的世界景象，包括那些已发现化石的史前生物，如蛇颈龙和大懒兽。
" See Rhys-Davids Buddhist India London (1903), - 6^(1b)6^{1 b} ed. Calcutta (1955) p. 111-113 where he gives the views of Dr. Richard Fick (Sociale Gleiderung im nordostlichen Indien zu Buddha’s zeit p. vi - vii) and Hofrath Buhler (Georg Buhler Indian Studies No. 5 Vienna (1895). Fick thinks the evidence relates to the time of the Buddha; Buhler is of the view that they describe not the condition of India in the third century B.C. but an older one. Fausböll. Rhys-Davids thinks, agrees - and so does he himself. But this is quite different to viewing the jatakas as Rev. Hardy does - as realistic reminiscences of the Buddha of the world many lifetimes ago. 参见里斯·戴维斯《佛教印度》伦敦版(1903 年)，- 6^(1b)6^{1 b} 加尔各答版(1955 年)第 111-113 页，其中他引述了理查德·菲克博士（《佛陀时代印度东北部的社会分层》第 vi-vii 页）和霍夫拉特·布勒（乔治·布勒《印度研究》第 5 辑，维也纳 1895 年）的观点。菲克认为这些证据与佛陀时代相关；布勒则认为它们描述的并非公元前三世纪印度的状况，而是更早时期的情形。里斯·戴维斯认为福斯伯尔也持相同见解——他本人亦赞同此说。但这与哈迪牧师将本生经视为佛陀多生前尘世生活的写实回忆录的观点截然不同。
^(11){ }^{11} ed, Pierre Grimal, London etc. (1973: 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} impress 1981) p. 258. ^(11){ }^{11} 皮埃尔·格里马尔版，伦敦等地(1973 年： 6^("th ")6^{\text {th }} 1981 年重印)第 258 页。
^(15){ }^{15} See my “The Jataka Bodhisatta”. SLJH vol. xxii nos. I and 2 (1996) p. This is itself not exhaustive, to avoid being tedious. ^(15){ }^{15} 参见拙文《本生经中的菩萨》，《斯里兰卡历史学报》第 22 卷第 1、2 期(1996 年)第...页。为避免冗长，本文本身并未穷尽所有例证。
16 op.cit. p. 103. 16 同前引书第 103 页。
" Winternitz p. 121. 温特尼茨，第 121 页。
is Buddhist India p. 108. 见《佛教印度》第 108 页。
19
See n5n 5 above. 参见上文 n5n 5 。
ac Buddhist Birth Stories p. lii. 见《佛教本生故事》第 lii 页。 =>\Rightarrow op.cit. p. lxxvii - Ixxviii. =>\Rightarrow 同前引书第 lxxvii-lxxviii 页。
^(22){ }^{22} R.C.Childers. A Dictionary of the Pali Language London (1909) Preface p. ix, n. See also Muller op.cit “The tradition is that the 550 Jataka stories composed in Pali (Magadhi) were taken to Ceylon by Arahat Mahinda, about 250 B.C., that the commentary was there translated into Sinhalese and that commentary was retranslated into Pali by the Elder Buddhaghosa in the 5th century A.D. It is in this commentary that the Jatakas have come down”. Rhys-Davids op.cit. p. Ixii thought this very uncertain and Winternitz op.cit. p. 117 n. 1 appears to agree with him. See also W.Geiger Pali Literature and Language (tr. 1937) 2nd ed. Delhi (1968) p. 31 and G.P.Malalasekera The Pali Literature of Ceylon, Colombo 1928. He agrees it could be a Ceylon monk, a lesser namesake. The Pansiya Panas Jataka Pota was freely adopted to Sinhalese from this work some time in the 14 th century A.D. It is neither a translation of the original Pali commentary brought to the island by Arahat Mahinda or whomever, nor its first Sinhalese rendition by the Elder Buddhaghosa or whomever. For a complete discussion of the Pansiya Panas Jataka Pora and its influence upon subsequent Sinhala Iiterature, see A.S.Kulasuriya op.cit. ^(22){ }^{22} R.C.柴尔德斯《巴利语词典》伦敦(1909)序言第 ix 页注释。另见穆勒同前引书："据传，由阿罗汉摩哂陀于公元前 250 年左右将 550 则用巴利语（摩揭陀语）撰写的本生故事带至锡兰，注释部分在当地被译为僧伽罗语，后由觉音长老于公元 5 世纪将注释重新译回巴利语。这些本生故事正是通过该注释得以流传。"里斯·戴维斯同前引书第 lxii 页认为此说极不可靠，温特尼茨同前引书第 117 页注释 1 似表赞同。另见 W.盖格《巴利文献与语言》（1937 年译本第二版）德里(1968)第 31 页，以及 G.P.马拉拉塞克拉《锡兰巴利文献》科伦坡 1928 年。他认同可能是锡兰某位同名的次要僧侣所为。《潘西雅·潘纳斯本生故事集》约公元 14 世纪时据此书自由改编为僧伽罗文本，既非阿罗汉摩哂陀（或他人）携至岛上的原始巴利注释译本，亦非觉音长老（或他人）所作的首部僧伽罗语译本。 关于《潘西亚·帕纳斯本生经》及其对后世僧伽罗文学影响的完整讨论，请参见 A.S.库拉苏里亚前引书。
23 op cit. p. Ixxvii.f. 23 前引书第 Ixxvii.f 页。 ^(34){ }^{34} op.cit. p. 119 n.2. ^(34){ }^{34} 前引书第 119 页注释 2。
25 The Buddhist Art of Gandhara. Memoirs of the Department of Archaeology in Pakistan vol. 1 Cambridge (1960) p. 8. He adds, “The large number of these stories of Bharhut and the stereotype brevity with which they are recounted leave little room for doubt that they had long been a favourite theme among Buddhist sculptors before wood had been replaced by stone.” 25 《犍陀罗佛教艺术》，巴基斯坦考古部论文集第一卷，剑桥（1960 年）第 8 页。他补充道："巴尔胡特浮雕中大量出现的这些故事及其程式化的简洁叙述方式，几乎可以确定它们早在木材被石材取代之前，就已是佛教雕塑家们钟爱的主题。"
26 See Rhys-Davids Buddhist India p. 108; reiterated in p. 113. The one exception is the Buddha’s identification of himself with the bull Nandivisala in the Vinaya Pitaka (iv. 5-6; cp. the Nandivisala Jataka (No. 28)). But this belongs with the Kuddhaka Nikaya, of which portions of the texts are of later date. 26 参见里斯·戴维斯《佛教印度》第 108 页；第 113 页重申此观点。唯一例外是佛陀在《律藏》（第四卷第 5-6 节；对照《难提毗沙罗本生经》第 28 号）中将自己等同于公牛难提毗沙罗。但这属于《小部》内容，其中部分经文年代较晚。
27 op.cit. p. 125. He adds. “When they became monks, they endeavoured as far as possible to connect these memories with the monkish and purely religious traditions,” and that “it is precisely this that makes the Jatakas of so much greater importance in the history of Indian literature”. 27 同前引书第 125 页。他补充道："当这些人成为比丘后，他们尽可能尝试将这些记忆与僧团及纯宗教传统联系起来"，并指出"正是这一点使得本生故事在印度文学史上具有更为重要的意义"。
2s “The Greeks” says. Marshall (op.cit. p. 4) were very open-minded about religious matters; and the teaching of Sakyamuni, by its essential ethical character, by its logical reasoning, and by the stress it laid on free will and the observance of the golden mean, was bound to make a strong appeal to the Greek intellect. notwithstanding that it was based on a view of life altogether more negative and joyless than the Greek". Those who became monks would have adopted Buddhist names like the Yona, Dharmaraksita (who finds mention in the Mahavamsa - though I have reason to doubt the good monk’s name, considering the play on it in M/hv xii. 4-6), while the names of others would have got Indianized, like the donor Dattamitra (Demetrius), son of Indragnidatta, the Yonaka from the North, who donated a Nasic cave, or Irila (Euryalus?), one of the three Yonakas of the inscriptions of the Junnar caves, or those others who are recorded in the Buddhist caves of the Bombay Presidency, not to mention the Yavans of the Milinda panha. In the case of the carly caves the inscriptions date to the second century A.D., showing that as late as this there were Greek Buddhists in India. Whether they were themselves Buddhist or not the Bactrian rulers like Menander (Milinda) and Agathocles were partial to the religion, the latter being the first to mint coins with Buddhist symbols. 马歇尔（同上，第 4 页）指出："希腊人在宗教事务上思想非常开明；而释迦牟尼的教义因其根本的道德属性、逻辑推理，以及对自由意志和恪守中庸之道的强调，必然会对希腊人的智慧产生强烈吸引力——尽管其基于的人生观整体上比希腊思想更为消极且缺乏欢乐。"那些成为僧侣的人会采用佛教名号，如耶槃那（Yona）、法护（Dharmaraksita）（他在《大史》中被提及——尽管我有理由怀疑这位高僧的名字，考虑到《大史》第十二章 4-6 节对其名的戏谑），而其他人的名字则会被印度化，如来自北方的耶槃那施主因陀罗耆尼达多之子达多蜜多罗（Dattamitra，即德米特里）、捐赠纳西克石窟的施主，或朱纳尔石窟铭文中记载的三位耶槃那人之一的伊里拉（Irila，欧律阿洛斯？），更不用说孟买管区佛教石窟中记载的其他耶槃那人，以及《弥兰王问经》中的耶槃那人。就早期石窟而言，铭文可追溯至公元二世纪，这表明直到这一时期印度仍存在希腊裔佛教徒。 无论巴克特里亚的统治者如弥兰陀（Milinda）和阿加索克利斯是否本身信奉佛教，他们都偏爱这一宗教，后者更是首个铸造带有佛教符号钱币的君主。
^(1){ }^{1} Histories ii. 136. ^(1){ }^{1} 历史卷二 136 页。
=quad=\quad ii. 100 . =quad=\quad 卷二 100 页。 ^(1){ }^{1} Diogenes Laertius (v. 80) describes this as logôn Aisopeiôn sunagôgai and presumably it was in tight prose summaries. ^(1){ }^{1} 第欧根尼·拉尔修（第五卷 80 节）将其描述为"伊索寓言的汇编"，推测应为简洁的散文体摘要。
4 ‘Aesepus’ was the name of a river god of Mysia, after whom the river itself was named (Hesiod Theog. 342.) It was also the name of a Trojan at the siege of Troy. 4 "埃塞普斯"是密细亚一位河神的名字，这条河流也因他而得名（赫西俄德《神谱》342）。它同时也是特洛伊围城战中一位特洛伊人的名字。
s Rutherford thinks the name Aesop was Greek, though its derivation is unknown (op.cit. p. xxvi.) He points to the Roman tragic actor of that name, and to a mention of a historian in a Latin translation of a life of Alexander the Great by Julius Valerius. These may however have been named after the fabulist and so prove nothing. As a desperate argument Rutherford adds, “One thing is certain that Greek was the language he used: and it is hardly less manifest that he was more at home in Greece than anywhere else.” 卢瑟福认为伊索的名字源自希腊语，尽管其词源已不可考（同前引书第 26 页）。他列举了同名罗马悲剧演员，以及尤利乌斯·瓦列里乌斯所著《亚历山大大帝传》拉丁译本中提及的一位历史学家。但这些人物很可能是因寓言家而得名，故无法作为证据。作为孤注一掷的论证，卢瑟福补充道："可以确定的是他使用希腊语进行创作：且几乎同样明显的是，希腊才是他最自在的居所。"
Orations vii.3. 《演说集》第七卷第三章
'Wasps 1446 f. This comedy was written in 422 B.C. 《马蜂》1446 行以下。该喜剧创作于公元前 422 年。
^(5){ }^{5} s.v. “Aesop” in Encyclopaedict of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition vol. I. London (2000) p. 26-28. ^(5){ }^{5} 参见《希腊与希腊传统百科全书》第一卷“伊索”词条。伦敦（2000 年）第 26-28 页。
^(9){ }^{9} In the play Myrmidons.This information comes from a Scholiast on Aristophanes Birds vs. 808. Diogenian and Theon even appeared to know the name of the Libyan fabulist, i.e. Kibussa - but this could well have originated from a corruption of Libukos or Libusrikos. ^(9){ }^{9} 出自戏剧《密耳弥冬人》。该信息源自阿里斯托芬《鸟》第 808 行注释者。第欧根尼安与忒翁似乎甚至知晓这位利比亚寓言家的名字——基布萨，但这很可能是利布科斯或利布斯里科斯之名讹变而来。
10 Philologus vol. LXXIV p. 470. Adverted to by Keith op.cit. p. 354 n. 2 - though 1 fear he has not got his reference correctly. 10 《语文学家》第 74 卷第 470 页。基思在前引书第 354 页注释 2 中提及——尽管我担心他的引证未必准确。
"Babrius 18: see Hieronymus of Rhodes apud Athenacus xiii. 604 d . "巴布里乌斯 18：参见罗德岛的希罗尼穆斯，载于《阿特纳奥斯》xiii. 604d。"
^(12){ }^{12} Bishop Theophilus resorts to this in his Ad Autolycum ii. 37 when he says. 'But I know one thing, but big, to pay back anyone who hurts me with his dreadful crimes". ^(12){ }^{12} 提奥菲鲁斯主教在《致奥托吕库斯》第二卷第 37 章中采用了这一说法，他宣称："我只知道一件事，但这件事至关重要——要以牙还牙，报复那些用可怕罪行伤害我的人。"
^(13){ }^{13} Benfey (op.cit. vol. 1. p. 383) believed that it passed into the Pancatantra through the Greek empire in Asia. ^(13){ }^{13} 本菲（同前引书，第 1 卷，第 383 页）认为该故事是通过亚洲的希腊帝国传入《五卷书》的。
(") Mor. 178.6 （"）Mor. 178.6
20 op cit. p. xlv - slyi. 20 同前书 第 xlv - slyi 页
21 III-conceived philological attempts have been made to derive Aesop’s ugliness from his narse. Eustathius suggests crithötops i.c. “fiery-faced” Rutherförd (op.cit. p. xxxvi n.1) suggests aischros and ops, a face that is shameful. defending it as a “conjecture which does not require the stupidity of the monk’s Life of Aesop to confirm it”. 21 曾有三次牵强的语文学尝试试图从伊索的名字推导出他的丑陋。尤斯塔修斯提出"crithötops"即"火红面孔"；卢瑟福（前引书第 36 页注 1）则认为是"aischros"和"ops"的组合，意为可耻的面容，并辩称这是"无需依赖《伊索传》中僧侣愚蠢记载就能成立的推测"。
:'\because De Anima A3.407620. He asks of the Pythagorean teaching of transmigration how “a chance soul could enter a chance body”. :'\because 《论灵魂》A3.407620。他质疑毕达哥拉斯学派关于灵魂转世的教义："一个偶然的灵魂如何能进入一具偶然的躯体"。
^(24){ }^{24} The orator Demades was once addressing the people of Athens, and since they paid little attention to his speech. he asked for permission to tell them a fable of Aesop. On obtaining their consent he began: “Demeter was travelling in company with a swallow and an eel. When they reached the bank of a river, the swallow flew up into the air and the eel plunged into the water.” At this point he stopped “Well,” they asked, “and what about Demeter?” “She is angry with you,” he said, “because you disregard affairs of the state and are all ears for Aesop’s fables”. A similar story is told of the orator Demosthenes, who in the circum stances narrated the fable of two men who quarreled over the shadow of an ass (H 339. Plut. Vit. Decem Orar. 848a). 演说家德马德斯曾在雅典民众面前演讲，由于听众对他的演说兴致寥寥，他便请求允许讲述一则伊索寓言。获得许可后，他开始说道："丰收女神得墨忒耳曾与燕子和鳗鱼结伴同行。当他们抵达河岸时，燕子飞向天空，鳗鱼潜入水中。"讲到这里他突然停下。"然后呢？"人们追问，"得墨忒耳怎样了？""她对你们很生气，"德马德斯回答，"因为你们漠视国家大事，却对伊索寓言全神贯注。"类似的轶事也记载在演说家德摩斯梯尼身上，他在类似情境下讲述了两名男子为驴影争吵的寓言（H 339. 普鲁塔克《十演说家传》848a）。
" Peri Ideôn ii. 12. 3. 《论理念》卷二第十二章第三节
s. 15 B.C. - c. 50 A.D. Ignored by leading Roman writers, he is first mentioned by Martial (iii. 20.5, who refers to the improbi iocos Phaedri - though what was ‘wicked’ or ‘shameless’ about his writings is difficult to see) and then by Avianus. 约公元前 15 年-公元 50 年。这位被罗马主流作家忽视的寓言作家，最早由马提亚尔（iii. 20.5，提及"恶棍费德鲁斯的笑话"——尽管其作品究竟有何"邪恶"或"无耻"之处实难理解）提及，后又被阿维阿努斯记载。
== Loeb Cl. Libr., London etc. (1965) intro. p. xix. == 洛布古典丛书，伦敦等地（1965 年）引言第 xix 页
5 Alexis, comic poet of the fourth century B.C. is the first to associate Aesop with Solon. This is in his comedy titled Aesop, of which a few lines are quoted by Athenaeus, which represent the fabulist in conversation with the statesman in Athens. Plutarch in his Banquet of the Seven Sages has Aesop, sent by King Croesus on a diplomatic mission, matching wits with these wise men in the court of Periander in Corinth. All this must be literary fiction of the fourth century B.C., yet it shows the regard in which the fabulist came to be held in Greece. 5 公元前四世纪喜剧诗人亚历克西斯首次将伊索与梭伦联系起来。这见于他题为《伊索》的喜剧中——雅典奈乌斯曾引用该剧几行诗句，描绘这位寓言家在雅典与政治家的对话。普鲁塔克在《七贤会饮》中记载，被克罗伊斯王派遣执行外交使命的伊索，曾在科林斯佩里安德宫廷里与诸位智者斗智。这些无疑都是公元前四世纪的文学虚构，但显示出这位寓言家在希腊逐渐获得的崇高地位。
6 xii. 52 f. 6 十二卷 52 页及以下
’ 620 b-d. 620 b-d.
82b. See also Phaedrus 249b - e and Timaetis 42a - d. Interesting also is the categorization of women by Semonides of Amorgos (fl. 664-661 B.C.) in his surviving poem eg. pig-woman, vixen, she-ass, weasel. mare, monkey, bee. 82b. 另见斐德罗篇 249b-e 和蒂迈欧篇 42a-d。同样有趣的是阿莫戈斯的塞蒙尼德（活跃于公元前 664-661 年）在其现存诗作中对女性的分类，例如：猪女、狐女、驴女、鼬女、马女、猴女、蜂女。
9 The Merchant of Venice iv. 1.136-146. 9 《威尼斯商人》第四幕第一场 136-146 行。 ^(10){ }^{10} 904c-e. See for instance W.V.Evans-Wentz in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} ed. London (1949) intro. p. 49 f. See also the animal-like instances in Semonides’ poem referred to above, which may easily evoke this sort of identification ^(10){ }^{10} 904c-e. 例如可参阅 W.V.埃文斯-温茨在《西藏度亡经》 2^("nd ")2^{\text {nd }} 伦敦 1949 年版导言第 49 页及后续内容中的论述。另见上文提及的塞蒙尼德诗作中动物化的女性形象，这些描述极易引发此类身份认同。
" Unless, that is, rat, lizard, frog and possibly fish were all bigger than snipe. Rev. Hardy (Legends and Theories of the Buddhists p. 153) treating the jatakas as he does, as “Gospel truth” among the Buddhists, asks with characteristic sarcasm whether the Buddha thought it below his dignity to be born as any lesser organisms - of which there were countless millions. 除非老鼠、蜥蜴、青蛙，可能还有鱼都比鹬体型更大。哈迪牧师（《佛教徒的传说与理论》第 153 页）将本生经视为佛教徒眼中的"福音真理"，并以他特有的讽刺口吻质问道：佛陀是否认为转世为更低等的生物——其数量数以亿计——有损他的尊严。
_(13){ }_{13} See on this Rutherford op.cut. p. xxxvii. As preserved by the scholiast on Aristophanes Birds 880, this is the fable of an eagle shot by an arrow feathered with his own feathers. Aphthonius. Hermogenes and Theon have this in their Progymmesmata; so also other rhetors. _(13){ }_{13} 关于这一点，参见卢瑟福前引书第 37 页。根据阿里斯托芬《鸟》第 880 行注释者保存的版本，这是一个关于雄鹰被用自己羽毛制成的箭射中的寓言。阿弗托尼乌斯、赫摩根尼斯和忒翁的《初级修辞练习》中都有记载；其他修辞学家亦然。
14 London (1928) p. 9-10. 14 伦敦（1928 年）第 9-10 页。
is What the fables tell of the camel is that it is the next largest animal the Greeks knew after the elephant. In. The Camel (C.148. H.180, P.195, Hs.210) when men saw it for the first time they were terrified by its huge size and ran: in The Camel. the Elephant and the Monkey (H.183) it vies for kingship with the elephant. counting on its size; in The Camel and Zeus (H.184) a camel angers Zeus by asking for horns, not being satisfied with the size and strength of its body. (Samuel Baker, notorious in Sri Lanka for his massacre of elephants. had measured one of his camels in Abyssinia at 7 ft . 31//231 / 2 inches to the top of the hump). One the other hand, the North African (forest) elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) was a smaller animal than the Afr can bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) and it was this that the Greeks would have known before Alexander’s venture east, and it extinction in the regions where they encountered it. 寓言中描述的骆驼是希腊人认知中仅次于大象的第二大动物。在《骆驼》（C.148. H.180, P.195, Hs.210）故事里，人们初次见到它时被其庞大体型吓得逃跑；在《骆驼、大象与猴子》（H.183）中，骆驼倚仗体型优势与大象争夺王位；而在《骆驼与宙斯》（H.184）中，骆驼因不满足于自身体型与力量，向宙斯索要犄角而触怒神明。（塞缪尔·贝克——这位以屠杀大象而臭名昭著的人物在斯里兰卡活动时，曾在阿比西尼亚测量其骆驼驼峰高度达 7 英尺 31//231 / 2 英寸）。另一方面，北非（森林）象（圆耳象）体型小于非洲草原象（非洲象），希腊人在亚历山大东征前所熟知的正是这种体型较小的象种，后来该象种在其栖息地灭绝了。
^(16){ }^{16} Ii.68. See also Aristotle Hist.Anim. passim. He refers more than once to the Egyptian crocodile when describing the beast. ^(16){ }^{16} 参见《动物志》第二卷 68 章及亚里士多德相关论述。他在描述鳄鱼时多次提及埃及鳄。 ^(17){ }^{17} The Gnat and the Ox (C.189, H.235, P.137, Hs.140, B.84) ^(17){ }^{17} 《蚊蚋与公牛》（C.189, H.235, P.137, Hs.140, B.84）
is op.cit. p. 50: When the gnat had settled on the elephant’s head, he sald, “Brother, have I been a burden to you? [If so] I will go away, over there by the pond.” Said the elephant to the gnat, “I was not aware that you had settled on me. What are you anyhow? And if you have left, well, I didn’t notice your departure either,” 见前引书第 50 页：当蚊子落在大象头上时，它说道："兄弟，我可曾给你添了负担？[若是如此]我便离开，去那边池塘旁。"大象对蚊子说："我未曾察觉你落在我身上。你究竟算什么呢？即便你已离去，呵，我也未曾注意到你的离开。"
19 For a fuller discussion of this fable in comparison with the relevant jataka, see ch. VIII. 19 关于这则寓言与相应本生经的详细比较讨论，参见第八章。
10 Perouti’s Appendix, so-called consisted of thirty fables attributed to Phaedrus. Niccolo Perotti, (1430-1480) humanist scholar, got these from a defective manuscript of Phaedrus’ fables. On this see Perry op.cit. p. xcvii - xcviii. 10 所谓佩罗蒂附录，是由归名于菲德鲁斯的三十则寓言组成。人文主义学者尼科洛·佩罗蒂（1430-1480 年）从一份残缺的菲德鲁斯寓言手稿中辑得这些内容。相关论述见前引书第 xcvii 至 xcviii 页。
^(21){ }^{21} op.cit. vol. I p. 105 and vol. II p. 9. The Greek original is Pithçkos kai Halieis, i.e “The Monkey and the Fishermen” (C.301, H.362) What gets caught in the cleft when the meddling monkey pulls the wedge out of the log, sitting astride it are, according to the Pancatantra (and Hitopadesa) the fellow’s testicles, thus rather arguing for a lack of tail - but this is obviously an improvisation on the fable, in India by Vishnusharman himself, seeing the malicious glee with which he tells it: a monkey’s testicles are hardly pendent enough for the purpose. I have seen the story told otherwise, and not from considerations of embarrassment alone. ^(21){ }^{21} 同前引书，第一卷 105 页及第二卷 9 页。希腊原版为《Pithçkos kai Halieis》，即"猴子与渔夫"（编号 C.301, H.362）。当多管闲事的猴子跨坐原木拔出楔子时，被夹在裂缝中的部位——根据《五卷书》（及《益世嘉言》）所述——是猴子的睾丸，这反而证明其缺乏尾巴。但这显然是印度毗湿奴笈多本人对此寓言的即兴改编，从他讲述时流露的恶意欢愉可见一斑：猴子的睾丸根本不够下垂以实现该情节。我曾见过不同版本的故事，且并非仅出于避讳考虑。
23 op.cli. 502a17. He makes distinction between ape (pithēcos) and the monkey (kēbas) and baboon (kunokēphales), remarking that “the monkey is an ape having a tail” (estl d’ ho men kebas pithëcos echón ouran). Among the apes and monkeys, in particular the long-tailed kinds called cecropitheci imported from Africa and Ethiopia as pets by the Romans in aftertimes, says E.H.Warmington (The Commence between the Roman Empire and India, Cambridge (1929) p. 147) were included probably hanuman, Madras, Malabar and Nilgin langurs. He draws attention to a silver tray found at Lampsacus (plate facing description of it in p. 143) which shows hanuman monkeys “each distinguished by the long hind limbs and tail in spite of a slight misrepresentation of the face”. Cretan frescoes from Knossos and Thera (the former restored as a boy by Sir Arthur Evans) show Minoans knew the long-tailed monkey; if not as an exotic creature, it must have become extinct in the island. 23 参见《古典语文学年鉴》502a17 节。他区分了无尾猿（pithēcos）、猴子（kēbas）和狒狒（kunokēphales），并指出"猴子就是长尾巴的无尾猿"（estl d’ ho men kebas pithëcos echón ouran）。E·H·沃明顿在《罗马帝国与印度的商贸往来》（剑桥 1929 年版第 147 页）中提到，罗马人后期从非洲和埃塞俄比亚引进作为宠物的长尾猴（cecropitheci）中，很可能包含了哈努曼叶猴、马德拉斯叶猴、马拉巴尔叶猴和尼尔吉里叶猴。他特别提及在兰普萨库斯发现的一个银盘（见第 143 页对面图版），上面雕刻的哈努曼叶猴"虽面部略有失真，但皆以修长的后肢和长尾为特征"。克诺索斯和锡拉岛的克里特壁画（前者由阿瑟·埃文斯爵士修复为少年形象）表明米诺斯人已认知长尾猴；若非作为外来生物，这种动物在该岛必定已灭绝。
23 Fragment preserved in Ammonius De Voc. Diff. ch, vi. 23 该残篇保存于阿莫尼乌斯《词汇差异》第六章
24 op.cif. p. xxvx x v n. 3 contd. 24 同前引书第 xxvx x v 页注释 3 续 ^(23){ }^{23} Jahrbacher f. Klass. Phil. vol. IV. P. 309-418. ^(23){ }^{23} 《古典语文学年鉴》第四卷 第 309-418 页
26
A. Weber. See op.cit. p. 353. A. 韦伯。参见前引书第 353 页。
^(27){ }^{27} Indische Studien vol. III, p. 327-373. See p. 335. He believed, and correctly that while India was appreciative of the monkey, it did not rate Reynard the Fox a wise or shrewd creature, so that India would have borrowed all the fables which credited the jackal with intelligence. This opinion of the jackal has recently been clarified by Greta Van Damme in her study “Jekhals in de Oudindische Pancatantra” reviewed by J.C.Wright in Bulletin of the SOAS. University of London, vol. LVI. pt. 3 (1993) p. 645. ^(27){ }^{27} 《印度研究》第三卷，第 327-373 页。参见第 335 页。他正确地认为，虽然印度欣赏猴子，但并不认为狐狸雷纳德是聪明或机敏的生物，因此印度会借鉴所有赋予豺狼智慧属性的寓言。关于豺狼的这种观点最近得到了格蕾塔·范·达姆的澄清，她在其研究《古印度五卷书中的豺狼》中进行了探讨，该研究由 J.C.赖特在《伦敦大学亚非学院通报》第 LVI 卷第 3 期（1993 年）第 645 页进行了评述。
(Even if not with a lion but his cousin) the comparative cunning of the fox is shown in the fable. The Fox and the Leopard (H. 42 and H.42b). A leopard boasts of being more spotted than all the other animals. To which the fox replies that the leopard may be so in his body, but he himself is more spotted, i.e. devious (poikilotera) in his mind! （即使不是与狮子，而是与其表亲）寓言中展示了狐狸相对狡猾的一面，见《狐狸与豹子》（H.42 和 H.42b）。一只豹子夸耀自己比所有其他动物都有更多的斑点。对此，狐狸回答说，豹子可能在身体上如此，但自己在心灵上却更为斑驳，即更为狡黠（poikilotera）！
31 Perseus 6.9-11. Ennius claimed to be the fifth incamation of Pythagoras from the peacock (Quintus parvone e Pythagoreo). See scholiast ad.loc., also Lact. Stat. Theb, 3.484 and Pseudo-Acro (Hor. Odes, 1.28.10). Tertullian Anim. 33.8 sneeringly observes that a bird with so raucus a voice hardly does credit to the poetic lineage to which Pythagoras, Homer and Ennius claimed to belong. 31 珀尔修斯 6.9-11。恩尼乌斯自称是毕达哥拉斯从孔雀转世的第五化身（Quintus parvone e Pythagoreo）。参见该处注释者，另见拉克坦提乌斯《神谱》3.484 及伪阿克罗（贺拉斯《颂歌》1.28.10）。德尔图良《论灵魂》33.8 讥讽道，这种嗓音嘶哑的鸟类实在难以匹配毕达哥拉斯、荷马与恩尼乌斯所宣称的诗人家族谱系。
32
op.cit. appendix p. 194-195. 同前书附录第 194-195 页。
33
Which, if correct, is in origin comparable to the Greek fable we have just referred to of The Hungry Bears, 22 in Perotti’s Appendix. 若此说成立，其起源可类比于我们刚提及的希腊寓言《饥饿的熊》，即佩罗蒂附录中的第 22 篇。
I have discussed this in some detail in ch. X . 我已在第十章对此进行过详细讨论。
4 op.cit. p. xxxv and xl . 4 同前书，第 xxxv 和 xl 页。 ^(5){ }^{5} op.cit. p. xxxyi. He adds (loc.cit.) “One thing is certain - that Greek was the language that he used; and it is hardly less manifest that he was more at home in Greece than anywhere else.” ^(5){ }^{5} 同前书，第 xxxyi 页。他补充道（同前书）：“有一点是确定的——他使用的语言是希腊语；同样明显的是，他在希腊比在其他任何地方都更自在。”
op.cit intro. p. 8 (This river is the Aesepus (see Hesiod Theog. vs. 342). 同前书引言，第 8 页（这条河是埃塞普斯河（参见赫西俄德《神谱》第 342 行）。
Thomas sees the traditions as to the existence of Aesop as of no value - only that it is significant that Phrygia occurs most frequently as his home. 托马斯认为关于伊索存在的传统毫无价值——唯一值得注意的是弗里吉亚最常被提及为他的故乡。
s The amalgam of nations that this region saw induced Marshall (op.cit.) p. 1-2) to write “With such a history behind them it is not surprising that the people of Gandhara were thoroughly cosmopolitan in their culture and their outlook. Of their physical appearance we get some idea from the old sculptures. Some of the men with strikingly tall and dignified figures, closely resembled many present-day Pathans, and wore the same distinctive kind of baggy trousers and sleeved coats. Others were characteristically Greek; others just as characteristically Indian. And no doubt, if we knew more about them, we should recognize other racial elements portrayed by the sculptors”. This description, based on the art that soon began to appear in these regions mutatis mutandis would very appropriately characterize the Buddhist story literature with which we a dealing. 该地区曾见证多民族的融合，这促使马歇尔（前引书第 1-2 页）写道："拥有如此历史背景，犍陀罗人民在文化和观念上彻底世界化也就不足为奇了。我们从古代雕塑中可略窥其体貌特征：有些男子身形高大挺拔、气度不凡，酷似当今许多普什图人，穿着同样独特的宽松裤和长袖外套；另一些则明显具有希腊人特征，还有些则带有典型的印度人特征。毫无疑问，若了解更多，我们还能识别出雕塑家刻画的其它种族元素。"基于这些地区不久后兴起的艺术，这段描述稍作修改后，也完全适用于我们正在研究的佛教故事文学。
^(12){ }^{12} The first, in Aramaic and Greek, while the second is a Greek version of the end of the 12^("th ")12^{\text {th }} and the beginning of the 13 th edict, possibly a fragment of a complete version of all fourteen. Vocabulary, style and even lettering conform to the current usage in the Hellenistic world. 第一份铭文以阿拉米语和希腊语书写，而第二份则是第 12^("th ")12^{\text {th }} 结尾与第十三道诏令开篇的希腊语译本，可能是全部十四道诏令完整版本的残篇。其词汇、文体乃至字母形态都与希腊化世界的通行规范完全一致。
To effect this without the crab also falling to his death, the crab is made to get the crane to take him back to his pond, and only clip his neck just as he was entering the water. Sir Arthur Cunningham ( The Stupa of Bharhut Benares (1962) p.49), giving this jataka in full to show the extent to which the fables of the Hitopadesa are indebted to the old Buddhist jatakas, observes that this simple tale “reads very much like one of Aesop’s fables.” 为了让螃蟹不至于也摔死，螃蟹设法让鹤把它带回池塘，就在即将入水时咬断了鹤的脖子。亚瑟·坎宁安爵士（《巴鲁特佛塔》，贝拿勒斯 1962 年版第 49 页）完整引述了这个本生故事，以说明《益世嘉言》中的寓言在多大程度上借鉴了古老的佛教本生故事，他指出这个简单的故事"读起来非常像伊索寓言"。
^(14){ }^{14} Called the Bidala this is also depicted in the Bharhut reliefs, with a cat watching a cock on a tree.Cunningham op.cit. plate XLVII. At p. 78 he observes the similarity of this jataka to Aesop’s fable. ^(14){ }^{14} 该故事名为《猫本生》，同样见于巴鲁特浮雕——一只猫正盯着树上的公鸡。坎宁安前引书图版 XLVII。在第 78 页他指出了这个本生故事与伊索寓言的相似性。
Legends and Theories of the Buddhists London 1981 ed. p. 151. 《佛教的传说与理论》伦敦 1981 年版第 151 页。
Sociale Gliederung um nordostlichen Indian zu Buddha’s zeit p. vi. vii. 《佛陀时代印度东北部的社会结构》第 vi-vii 页。
3 Georg Buhler Indian Studies no. 5 Vienna (1895). 3 乔治·布勒《印度研究》第 5 期，维也纳（1895 年）。
4 In another version of this Aesopic fable, (H.276b) the heron (erodios) is replaced by crane (geranos). When the Javasakuna replaces the unpopular wolf with lion and the heron/crane with woodpecker, we have a smart bit of inversion in detail with the bird now not extracting the bone but tapping it out of the lion’s throat. For this it has to enter the beast’s mouth - which was big, and the woodpecker correspondingly small, with need of a prop to see that he did not close his jaws on it. 4 在这则伊索寓言的另一个版本（H.276b）中，苍鹭（erodios）被替换为鹤（geranos）。当《本生经》将不受欢迎的狼替换为狮子，将苍鹭/鹤替换为啄木鸟时，我们看到了细节上的巧妙反转——现在鸟儿不是从喉咙里取出骨头，而是通过敲击将骨头从狮子的喉咙里弄出来。为此，它必须进入野兽的嘴里——那嘴很大，而啄木鸟相应地很小，需要支撑物来确保狮子不会合上颚咬住它。
s op.cit. vol. 1 p. 105 and vol. II p. 9. 同前书，第 1 卷第 105 页及第 2 卷第 9 页。
The Panchatantra translated from the Sanskrit. Chicago (1925) Jaico Book ed. Bombay and Culcutta (1949) p. 6. 《五卷书》译自梵文。芝加哥（1925 年），贾科图书版，孟买和加尔各答（1949 年）第 6 页。
^(7){ }^{7} The notion that the Sinhalese people had come from North-eastern India has during the last century been corrected to North-western India by scholars such as C.Lassen (Dissertatio de Insula Taprohane Veteribus Cognita Bonn (1847) 17 n.) identifying Lata or Lara of the Vijaya legend with the coastal region known as Lata, the Larike of Ptolemy vii.1, there - that is to say, modern Gujerat rather than East Bengal. Supparaka of the Mahovamsa, where Vijaya is said to have stopped. he identifies with Soppam, the port on the west coast of India Paranavitana (Universety of Ceyon History of Cerfon vol. 1 pt 1.p 82 . 94) sought to strengthen this theory by pointing to a Simbapura and a Vanga region in Northwestern India which could accord with the story. ^(7){ }^{7} 关于僧伽罗人源自印度东北部的观点，在上个世纪已被 C·拉森（《古代已知的塔普罗巴内岛专论》波恩 1847 年版第 17 页注）等学者修正为印度西北部。他将毗阇耶传说中的拉塔或拉拉地区，与托勒密《地理志》七卷一章记载的沿海拉塔地区（即今古吉拉特邦，而非东孟加拉）相对应。《大史》记载毗阇耶曾停驻的苏帕拉卡港，则被他认定为印度西海岸的索帕姆港。帕拉纳维塔纳（《锡兰大学锡兰史》第 1 卷第 1 分册第 82、94 页）通过指出印度西北部存在符合传说的辛巴普拉和文伽地区，试图强化这一理论。
s Apollodorus Bibliotheka ii.5.10 following Pherecydes tells of how Helios, the Sungod, lent this golden bowl (chruseon depas) in which he sailed from west to east to climb heaven the next day, to Hercules when he went on his quest for the king of Geryon. See Stesichorus on this. Also Athenaeus xi. 38 p. 468E; compare id. xi.16.p.468E. The early poets Pisander and Panyasis in their respective poems called Heracleia include this voyage of the hero. See Athen.xi.38.p. 469D; also Macrobius Saturn.v.21. 16 and 19. In the Kunala Jataka (No. 536) an infant is drifted downriver in an earthenware vessel, covered with another. See Cowell ed. vol. V p. 230. Moses, it would be recalled (Exodus 2.3), was himself in infancy put in an ark of bulrushes but only deposited on a river bank, not floated in the water. These were however infants, and the vessels no golden pots. 据阿波罗多洛斯《书库》卷二第五章第十节引述斐瑞库得斯的记载，太阳神赫利俄斯曾将金杯（chruseon depas）借予赫拉克勒斯，供其远征革律翁王时使用——这金杯本是太阳神每日自西向东横渡天际的舟具。相关记载可参阅斯特西克鲁斯作品，另见阿忒纳乌斯《哲人宴》第十一卷第三十八章 468E 节；对照同书第十一卷第十六章 468E 节。早期诗人皮桑德与帕尼亚西斯在各自的《赫拉克勒亚》史诗中皆提及英雄的这次航海。见阿忒纳乌斯《哲人宴》第十一卷第三十八章 469D 节；另参马克罗比乌斯《农神节》第五卷第二十一章第十六及十九节。在《鸠那罗本生》（第 536 号）中，一名婴孩被置于倒扣的双层陶罐中顺流而下。见考威尔编订本第五卷第 230 页。值得提及的是，摩西幼时亦曾被置于蒲草箱中（《出埃及记》2:3），但仅被安置于河岸，而非漂流于水上。不过这些故事的主人公皆为婴孩，所用容器亦非金制器皿。
^(9){ }^{9} Ptolemy (i.11.7), relying on the geographer Marinus of Tyre, says it was to a place called Stone Tower that the agents of Maes Titianus, a Macedonian entrepreneur, had travelled from Balk (in Bactria). This was the furthest east travellers from lands bordering the Mediterranean had reached on the transcontinental route to China. Stone Tower is said to be close to another place called only “the starting place of the traders for Sera”; Sera itself was given by these people as still seven months journey. Since Tashkurgan means “Stone Tower” the coincidence would have been a happy one. J.O.Thomson (History of Ancient Geography Cambridge (1948) p. 309 n.I) thought they were the same. But the approach to Ptolemy’s stone tower is by a zig-zag route, including ascent through the gorge of Comedae. Ptolemy’s map references are contradictory on this. See my “To Tashkurgan and Panduwasnuwara: a Greek Myth on the Silk Routes” Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities vol. VI. (1990) p. 49-55. 托勒密（《地理学》i.11.7）根据推罗地理学家马里努斯的记载，提到马其顿商人梅斯·提提安努斯的商队从巴克特里亚的巴尔赫出发，曾抵达一个名为"石塔"的地方。这是地中海沿岸居民沿跨大陆路线前往中国时向东行进的最远记录。据称石塔毗邻另一个仅被称为"通往赛拉国商旅起点"的地方；而据这些商旅所述，赛拉国本身仍需七个月行程。由于"塔什库尔干"在突厥语中意为"石塔"，这一巧合显得颇为巧妙。J.O.汤姆森（《古代地理学史》剑桥 1948 年版第 309 页注 1）认为二者实为同一地点。但托勒密所述通往石塔的路线曲折蜿蜒，包括穿越科米迪峡谷的上行路径。托勒密的地图坐标在此问题上存在矛盾。详见拙文《塔什库尔干与潘杜瓦斯努瓦拉：丝绸之路上的一则希腊神话》，载《斯里兰卡人文杂志》第六卷（1990 年）第 49-55 页。
A Greek fable also exists of a tree being uprooted by the force of the wind. But what survive the blast are reeds - by bending before it. See The Reeds and the Oak (C.143, H.172b, P.70, Hs.239). 一则希腊寓言同样讲述了一棵树被狂风连根拔起的故事。但能在风暴中存活的是芦苇——它们通过随风俯仰得以保全。参见《芦苇与橡树》(编号 C.143, H.172b, P.70, Hs.239)。
2 Compare Velusumana’s horse in Mahavamsa xxii.72. The governor of Giri had a Sindha horse that would let no man ride him. But when he saw Velusumana he thought. “Here is a rider worthy of me”, and neighed joyfully. The similarity of this horse with Bucephalus had occurred to Geiger; see his transl, of the Mahavamsa n. 1 to x xx iii.74x \times i \mathrm{i} i .74. 2 可对比《大史》xxii.72 中韦卢苏马纳的马。吉里总督有匹信德马，从不让人骑乘。但当它看见韦卢苏马纳时，心想"这才配当我的骑手"，遂欢快嘶鸣。盖格早已注意到此马与布塞法洛斯（亚历山大的战马）的相似性；参见其《大史》译本第 x xx iii.74x \times i \mathrm{i} i .74 章注释 1。
3 The role of King Brahmadatta in the several jatakas in which he occurs too should provide an interesting subject for study - though by no means as complex an one as the Bodhisatta - Buddha of the compendium. 3 波罗摩达陀王在多个本生故事中的角色也值得研究——虽然其复杂性远不及汇编中的菩萨-佛陀形象。
The Greek of Babrius Fable 45 translates as follows: “It was snowing. To escape this a certain goatherd drove his goats flecked white with the snow, into a cave that had not been occupied before. But there he found some horned wild goats had entered it speedily, which were far more numerous than his. also larger and better. So to these he brought boughs from the woods. but he let his own starve severely. So when it dawned, he found them dead; nor did the others remain but made their way to the inaccessible thickets of the unpastured mountains. So the goatherd, losing his goats went home a laughing-stock. Hoping for greater gains, he got no profit even from the ones he originally had.” 巴布里乌斯寓言第 45 篇的希腊文原文翻译如下："天正下雪。一个牧羊人为了躲避风雪，将他那些被雪染白的山羊赶进了一个从未有人使用过的洞穴。但他在洞里发现一群长角的野山羊早已捷足先登，数量远比他自己的羊群多得多，体型也更大更健壮。于是他给这些野山羊采来林中的嫩枝，却让自己饲养的山羊忍饥挨饿。天亮时分，他发现自己的山羊全都死了；而那些野山羊也没留下，全都逃往无人放牧的崇山峻岭中难以企及的密林深处。牧羊人就这样失去了所有山羊，沦为笑柄回到家中。他原指望获得更大收益，结果连原有的羊群也赔了进去。"
s W.H.D.Rouse, who translates this jataka for the Cowell ed. (vol. ii p. 148) puts these two verses: into Latin: 为考威尔版翻译本生经的 W.H.D.劳斯（第二卷第 148 页）将这两句诗译为拉丁文：
*Non pede, longinquave manu, non dentibus utar *非足非远手，非齿可用之
Stercore, cui stercus cura, perisse decet." 粪土所钟者，合当粪土逝。"
^(6){ }^{6} Cowell ed. The Jataka vol. ii p. 181 n. 2 to the Mula-Pariyaya. See Hitopadesa i. 95 . ^(6){ }^{6} 考威尔编《本生经》第二卷第 181 页，对《根本法门》的注释 2。参见《益世嘉言》第一卷第 95 节。
^(7){ }^{7} The Bodhisatta’s riddle also concerns life and has a like profundity in its answer. "Time consumes everything, even time tself. Who is’t consumes the timeconsumer? Come on, tell "By kalaghaso ‘consumer of time’ is meant he who destroys the thirst for existence, says the scholiast. See Rouse ad loc. n. 3. ^(7){ }^{7} 菩萨的谜题同样关乎生命，其答案具有相似的深邃性。"时间吞噬万物，连时间自身亦被吞噬。谁能吞噬这时间吞噬者？来吧，告诉我。"注疏者解释道：所谓"时间吞噬者"（kalaghaso）即能灭除存在之渴求者。参见劳斯对此处的注释 3。
^(9){ }^{9} op.cit intro. p. xlviii-xlix. See Ovid Fasti iv.681. Rutherford wonders whether the poet invented the story to explain the custom or whether “the custom had for centuries preserved on Italian soil the memory of some such fatal conflagaration in the mexperienced childhood of the Indo-European race.” ^(9){ }^{9} 同前引书导言第 48-49 页。参见奥维德《岁时记》第四卷第 681 行。卢瑟福质疑究竟是诗人杜撰了这个故事来解释习俗，还是"这个习俗在意大利土地上保存了印欧民族懵懂童年时期某场致命火灾的记忆长达数世纪"。
^(3){ }^{3} Cowell ed. The Jataka vol. III. p. 88. The translator of the Sumstunara (op.cit. vol. II, p. 111-112 is Rouse. B.M.Barua “Identification of Four Jatakas at Bharaut” JPASB vol. XIX (1923) p. 349-350 conjectures that the monkey embracing a fruit upon an overhanging branch with three other fruits in broken portion of a relief from Bharhut (Cunningham plate XXIII.6) must belong with the Sumsumara. It, for him, depicts only the concluding portion of the story, i.c. the scene of the monkey admonishing the crocodile (in the missing portion of the sculpture) and bidding him farewell. Cunningham op.cit. p. 6 and 47 merely took it to be a monkey eating a mango or custard-apple. no more. Barua could well be right that the monkey is not eating but intently gazing at a missing figure. “I on the contrary”, he writes, “conjecture that the missing figure is a being of the crocodile or porpoise species. so that the sculpture may be well explained in the light of the Sumsumara-Jataka (No. 208).” See also n. 17 below. ^(3){ }^{3} 考威尔编《本生经》第三卷第 88 页。苏姆苏马拉故事的译者（见同书第二卷第 111-112 页）为劳斯。B·M·巴鲁阿在《巴鲁特四则本生故事考辨》（JPASB 第十九卷，1923 年，第 349-350 页）中推测：巴鲁特浮雕残件（坎宁安图版 XXIII.6）中悬挂枝头怀抱果实、枝干另结三果的猴像，必属苏姆苏马拉本生。他认为该浮雕仅呈现故事的尾声部分，即猴子训诫鳄鱼（位于雕塑缺失部分）并与之告别的场景。坎宁安（同书第 6 页及 47 页）仅将其解读为猴子食用芒果或释迦果，别无深意。巴鲁阿关于猴子并非进食而是凝神注视缺失形象的推测很可能成立。"我反而认为"，他写道，"缺失形象当属鳄鱼或海豚类生物，如此该雕塑便可借苏姆苏马拉本生（第 208 号）得到合理解释。"另见下文注释 17。
“Why, if our heart were inside us when we go jumping among the tree tops, it would all be knocked to pieces”. "试想，若我们的心脏长在体内，当我们在树梢跳跃时，岂不要被震得粉碎"。
3 Pilheakos kai Delphis = The Monkey and the Dalphit. 3 猴与海豚
4 This is the Crocodylus porosus, salt water crocodile, largest reptile on earth, nicknamed “saltie” and found in the waters of India, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, New Guinea and Northern Australia. One was recorded measuring 8.6 metres and weighing 2 tonnes. For a reference to such in Indian seas see the Sonaka Jataka stanzas at sec. 255. 4 这是湾鳄（学名 Crocodylus porosus），地球上体型最大的爬行动物，俗称"咸水鳄"，分布于印度、斯里兰卡、东南亚、新几内亚及澳大利亚北部的海域。有记录显示其最大个体体长 8.6 米，重达 2 吨。关于印度海域出现此类鳄鱼的记载，可参阅《本生经》中《索那卡本生》（Sonaka Jataka）第 255 节的偈颂。
5 Peroti’s Appendix 1. Sumius at Vialpes. See ch. IV p. 105-106 5 参见佩罗蒂附录 1。苏米乌斯在维阿尔佩斯。详见第四章第 105-106 页 ^(6){ }^{6} The Fox and the Monkey (C 38, H.44, P.81. Hs.83) see p. 107. ^(6){ }^{6} 《狐狸与猴子》（编号 C 38, H.44, P.81. Hs.83）见第 107 页
7 See ch. IV p. 102-103 7 详见第四章第 102-103 页
s For this story and reference to dolphins, see ch. XII p.338-340 and n. ad.loc. 关于这个故事及海豚的记载，参见第十二章第 338-340 页及该处注释。
9 See my “The Jataka Bodhisatta” Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, vol. XXII. (1996) p 51-62. 9 详见拙文《本生经中的菩萨》，载《斯里兰卡人文杂志》第 22 卷（1996 年）第 51-62 页。
10 “The Dohada or Craving of Pregnant Women” JAOS vol. LX pt. 1 (1920) p. 1-24. 10 《孕妇的 Dohada（妊娠渴求）》，载《美国东方学会杂志》第 60 卷第 1 期（1920 年）第 1-24 页。
" The Ocean of Stories transl. C.H.Tawney (1924) vol. I, append III “On the Dohada, or Craving of the Pregnant Woman as a Motif in Hindu Fiction” p. 224. " 《故事海》C.H.托尼译本（1924 年）第一卷附录三《论印度小说中孕妇 Dohada（妊娠渴求）的母题》第 224 页。
12 T.W.Rhys-Davids and W.Stede Pali-English Dictionary, London (1959) p. 715. col. 2 restricts the Pali sumsumara to ‘crocodile’. obviously reading back from the Pali jataka stories (in the Vanarinda it is unambiguously a kumbhila). But see the associated Skt. sisumara in M.Monier Willaams A Sanskrit-English Dictionan Ox ford (1899) p. 1076 col. 2 “a child-killer, the Gangetic porpoise or dolphin. Delphinus Gangeticus … An alligator.” Synonym for these would be makara (Pali) - though it is less specific, more mythical, a Leviathan of sorts. (The Gangetic dolphin is 5 to 15 feet long and found also in the rivers of Nepal, where it is presently in danger of becoming extinct. References to them in India’s Ganges is found in artifacts dating back to 230 B.C., the time of King Dharmasoka). Childers in his Pali Dictionary also proposes crocodile, and following him, Barua points out, it is crocodile and alligator who would kill children, not dolphins, Gangeticus or otherwise: besides even if both can be reckoned jalagocara, as found in both the Pali and the Sanskrit versions. the latter says that the being used to “come on the shore” - which certainly militates against dolphin, porpoise - or even shark. Somadeva would hardly have been unaware of this. (My colleague P.B.Meegaskumbura believes the young could be the crocodile’s own, and the origin of the world possibly from the sight of its carrying its new-hatched to the water in its mouth.) 12 T.W.瑞斯·戴维斯与 W.斯特德合编《巴利语-英语词典》（伦敦，1959 年）第 715 页第 2 栏将巴利语 sumsumara 限定为"鳄鱼"，显然是从巴利本生经故事反推而来（在《猕猴本生》中明确指代 kumbhila 鳄）。但可对照梵语 sisumara 一词，见 M.莫尼尔·威廉姆斯《梵英词典》（牛津，1899 年）第 1076 页第 2 栏："杀害孩童者，指恒河江豚或海豚（学名恒河豚）……亦指短吻鳄。"其同义词可为 makara（巴利语）——尽管该词定义更宽泛且更具神话色彩，类似某种利维坦海怪。（恒河豚体长 5 至 15 英尺，亦分布于尼泊尔河流，目前正濒临灭绝。印度恒河流域相关文物中对它的记载可追溯至公元前 230 年达摩阿育王时期）。蔡尔德斯在其《巴利语词典》中同样主张译作鳄鱼，巴鲁阿随后指出，杀害孩童的应是鳄鱼或短吻鳄，而非恒河豚或其他海豚：况且二者皆可归为 jalagocara（水生动物），这在巴利语和梵语版本中均有体现。 后者提到该生物曾"上岸"——这显然排除了海豚、鼠海豚甚至鲨鱼的可能性。索马德瓦不太可能不知道这一点。（我的同事 P.B.米加斯昆布拉认为幼崽可能是鳄鱼自己的后代，这个说法的起源或许源于人们目睹鳄鱼用嘴将新孵化的幼崽带入水中的场景。）
See ch. IV. p. 105 and n. 21 ad.loc 参见第四章第 105 页及该页注释 21
14 op.cit. vol V. p. 133 n. l. 14 同前引书 第五卷第 133 页注释 1
15 vol. 11. p. 110. n. 1. 15 第 11 卷第 110 页注释 1
See n. 17 above. 见上文注释 17。
19 Diameter 10 cm . Taranto, National Museum 22429 19 直径 10 厘米。塔兰托国家博物馆，编号 22429
20 John Carswell (“The Port of Mantai” in Rome and India: the Ancient Sea Trade ed. V.Begley and R.D. de, Puma, Wisconsin (1991) 197-203 20 约翰·卡斯维尔（《曼泰港》收录于《罗马与印度：古代海上贸易》V.贝格利与 R.D.德普马合编，威斯康星州（1991 年）第 197-203 页）
v. 80. 第 80 卷。
2 The ms. is now known as Monacensis 546. B.E.Perry Aesopica vol. 1 Urbana (1952) p. 300: “Fabularum recensio 1, sive Augustana, quae est locupletissima. quin sit ab antiquits temporibus tradita, i.e. a prino vel secundo vel tertio p.C.n. saeculo, nemo harum rerum peritus dubitaverit.” 2 该手稿现称为 Monacensis 546。B.E.Perry 所著《伊索寓言集》第一卷（厄巴纳 1952 年版）第 300 页指出："寓言汇编第一版，即奥古斯塔纳版，内容最为丰富。凡精通此道者，皆不疑其传承自古早时期，即公元一、二或三世纪。"
3 But see EEdgerton The Pancatantra, London (1965) intro. p. 15. “Only in one very late version of he Aesopic fables.” he says, “is the ass recognized by his bray. a feature on which all Indic versions agree.” He means the Augustana, but before scholarship related it to Demetrius. However. It will be observed that what he then thought was the earliest Greek version of the fable, Lucian’s, was innocent of the puff of wind and lends support rather to the bray as the cause of the discovery. 3 但参见 EEdgerton《五卷书》（伦敦 1965 年版）引言第 15 页。他提到："仅在伊索寓言的一个极晚期版本中，驴子因嘶鸣而被认出——这一特征与所有印度版本一致。"此处他指的是奥古斯塔纳版，但在学界将其与德米特里相关联之前。值得注意的是，他当时认为最早的希腊寓言版本——琉善的版本——并未提及风吹草动的情节，反而支持了驴鸣导致暴露的观点。
4 C. 280 p. 454 (Aliter) 4 约公元 280 年 第 454 页（另见）
s Buddhist Birth Stories intro. p. vi. 《佛教本生故事》引言第 vi 页
10 A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 355. See Muller op.cit. p. 512-517, with whom Keith is in agreement re the possibility of independent origination of our fable. “In this case it is again quite clear that the Grecks did not borrow their fable and the proverb from the Pancatantra; but it is not easy to determine positively whether the fable was carried from the Greeks to the East or whether it was independently in the two places.” 10 《梵语文学史》第 355 页。参见穆勒前述著作第 512-517 页，基思在关于该寓言可能独立起源的观点上与之一致。"此例再次清晰表明，希腊人并非从《五卷书》中借鉴其寓言与谚语；但难以明确判定该寓言是从希腊传入东方，抑或是两地独立产生的。"
"Herodorus vol. II London (1895) append. 14. “Hippocleides and the Peacock” p. 304-311. "希罗多德第二卷，伦敦（1895 年）附录 14。"希波克莱德斯与孔雀"第 304-311 页。"
^(12){ }^{12} ibid. p. viii. ^(12){ }^{12} 同上，第 viii 页。 ^(13){ }^{13} loc.cit. See also Edgerton loc.cit. ^(13){ }^{13} 同前引。另见 Edgerton 同前引。
^(14){ }^{14} In the Sihakotthuka the lion-like cub of a lion and a jackal attempts to roar and only manages to yelp. The lion admonishes him to desist, lest he reveal his jackal nature, Cp. The Mule (C.128, H.157) in Aesop. A young mule gambols and frisks and shouts that his father is a swift-footed horse, then suddenly hangs his head in shame. recalling that his mother is but on ass. See also The Lion and the Ass (C.208, H.259, P.151, Hs. I56). A lion and an ass hunt together. The ass’s bray frightens goats from a cave and the lion kills them. Later the ass asks the lion about his performance. To which the lion replies that even he would have been frightened by the ass’s bray. did he not know it was an ass. ^(14){ }^{14} 在《狮虎本生》中，狮与豺所生的狮形幼崽试图咆哮却只能发出哀鸣。狮子告诫其停止，以免暴露豺的本性。对照伊索寓言《骡子》（C.128，H.157）：幼骡欢跃嬉戏，自称父系是快马，忽又垂首羞愧，因其母仅为驴。另见《狮子与驴》（C.208，H.259，P.151，Hs.156）：狮驴合作狩猎，驴鸣惊出洞中山羊，狮捕杀之。后驴询问狮对其表现的评价，狮答曰若非早知其为驴，连自己也会被驴鸣所惊。
15 See on this ch. IV p. 100-101 15 关于此点参见第四章第 100-101 页
^(18){ }^{18} See especially his Essai sur Gunadhya et la Brhatkatha Paris (1908). ^(18){ }^{18} 特别参见其《论古纳迪亚与〈大故事集〉》，巴黎（1908 年）。 ^(19){ }^{19} Geschichte der indischen Litteratur vol. III p. 291. See L.Sternbach The Hitopadesa and its Source Connecticut (1970) intro. p. 1. ^(19){ }^{19} 《印度文学史》第 3 卷，第 291 页。参见 L.斯特恩巴赫《〈益世嘉言〉及其来源》，康涅狄格（1970 年），引言第 1 页。
20 The Pancatantra Reconstructed vol. II. Connecticut (1924) p. 20 f.; see also p. 48 20 《重构五卷书》第 2 卷，康涅狄格（1924 年），第 20 页及以下；另见第 48 页。 =>\Rightarrow op.cit. Leipzig - Berlin (1914) p. 40 f. =>\Rightarrow 同前引，莱比锡-柏林（1914 年）第 40 页及以下。
22 N’etam sîhassa naditum na vyagghassa na dipino, pâruto sihacammana jammo nadati gadrabo ti. 22 此非狮吼，亦非虎啸，更非豹鸣，披着狮皮的蠢驴终显本声。 ^(23){ }^{23} See Muller op.cit. p. 512 n. 1. He refers to the translation by Stanislaus Julien (vol. II p. 59) in which the ass takes a lion-skin and frightens everyone, till he begins to bray and is recognized as an ass. I regret not having seen this version. especially since Muller’s summary of it suggests that the ass put the skin on himself by himself, that it was a lion-skin, and that he was detected by his bray. ^(23){ }^{23} 参见穆勒同前引第 512 页注释 1。他提及斯坦尼斯劳斯·朱利安译本（第二卷第 59 页）中驴子披上狮皮恐吓众生，直至嘶鸣暴露真身。憾未得见此版本，尤其穆勒概述显示该驴自行披皮、所披确为狮皮、且因嘶叫败露。
25 op.cit. vol. Il p. 365. It is also included, without the archaic spelling and the bracketing, in his The Pancatantra p. 111. 25 同前引第二卷第 365 页。该故事亦收录于其《五卷书》第 111 页，未保留古体拼写与括号标注。
’ Cowell ed. vol. V. p. 124. He is surely right in reading vittasayitva (“highly excited”) for citrâsayitava of the fourth verse, rendering it expressively as “panic stricken”. 考威尔编第五卷第 124 页。他将第四颂中的 citrâsayitava 校读为 vittasayitva（"极度惊恐"），并生动地译为"惊慌失措"，这一处理无疑是正确的。
2 Mathew 7:15. It is to be noted that the application of both the Christian and Buddbist allusions (like the saying cucullus non fecit monachum: “the cowl does not make the priest”) is to religious imposters. 2 马太福音 7:15。值得注意的是，基督教与佛教的这两处典故（如谚语"cucullus non fecit monachum"所言"僧袍不造僧"）都指向宗教骗子。
4quad4 \quad Cowell ed. vol. v. p. 132. Francis’ translation. 4quad4 \quad 考威尔编 第五卷第 132 页 弗朗西斯译本
s H.Buchthal. The Western Aspects of Gandhara Sculpture Annual Lecture on Aspects of Art, Henriette Hertz Trust (July 1945) P.4. Thirty three of these are described by Sir John Marshall; see his Taksila: an Ilustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations vol. III, Cambridge (1952) ch. 25 p. 493 f. See Buchthal op.cit. figs. 1, 3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,133,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 15 and the reference in p. 5-7 thereof. Five of these are given by Marshall in his The Buddhist Art of Gandhara vol. I, figs. 15-17 and discussed in p. 17-19. H·布赫塔尔《犍陀罗雕塑的西方元素》艺术特征年度讲座，亨丽埃特·赫兹基金会（1945 年 7 月）第 4 页。其中 33 件由约翰·马歇尔爵士描述；参见其《塔克西拉：考古发掘图解报告》第三卷，剑桥（1952 年）第 25 章第 493 页及后续。参阅布赫塔尔前引书图 1、 3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,133,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13 与 15，及其第 5-7 页相关论述。其中五件由马歇尔在其《犍陀罗佛教艺术》第一卷图 15-17 呈现，并于第 17-19 页进行讨论。
^(6){ }^{6} op.cit. p. 6 and fig. 13. ^(6){ }^{6} 前引书第 6 页及图 13 ^(7)quad{ }^{7} \quad ibid. But others assign it to the first century (Early Saka). See the Descriptive Catalogue (by H.Ingolt) in Islay Lyons Gandharan Art in Pakistan, N.York (1957). This tray is at the Taksila Museum. 同上。但其他人将其归为公元一世纪（早期塞迦时期）。参见 H.英戈尔特所著《巴基斯坦的犍陀罗艺术》（纽约，1957 年）中的描述性目录。该托盘现藏于塔克西拉博物馆。
B Symp. Dispt. 1c.5. p. 614E. B 研讨会辩论 1c.5. 第 614E 页。
For a fuller discussion see my “A Toilet Tray from Gandhara” Pratidana Manjari: W.F.Gunawardhana Commemoration Volume (1987) p. 59-69. 更详细的讨论请参阅我的论文《来自犍陀罗的梳妆盘》，收录于《Pratidana Manjari：W.F.古纳瓦德哈纳纪念文集》（1987 年）第 59-69 页。
For a brief yet excellent exposition on the subject s.v. “Mythology” by D. P. M. Weerakkody in Encyclopaedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition. vol. II, London (2000) p. 1113-1118. 关于该主题的简要而精辟的阐述，参见 D.P.M.维拉科迪在《希腊与希腊传统百科全书》（第二卷，伦敦，2000 年）第 1113-1118 页中撰写的"神话学"词条。
2 i. 12-15 and 18-19. 2 i. 12-15 和 18-19。
_(4){ }_{4} These make their appearance in the Mahavamsa mythistorical stories of Ummadacitta in her tower (cp. myth of Danae); the inundation of Kelaniya due to the anger of the sea-deties, involving sacrifice of the king’s daughter Viharadevi (cp. the myth of Andromeda), and the floating of the princess upon the sea, her becoming mother of a great hero who wins back his ancestral kingdom, Dutthagamani (cp. myth of Perseus). I will make references to the Vijaya legend and its parallel in the Greek myth of Odyseus and Circe elsewhere. The jataka in which the first of these motifs first appears is the Ghata Jataka (No. 454), the last reflects details also found in the Valahassa (No. 196), the drama of which is itself enacted in Lanka. The common source of the Sri Lankan chronicles, Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa, also Buddhagosha’s historical introduction to the Samantapasadika, not to mention the new information in the Vamsatthappakasini (commentary of the Mahavamsa) and the so-called Cambodian or Extended Mahavamsa is the lost Atthakatha Mahavamsa, a catch-all compendium, also called Poranatthakatha, or Porana, for being old, and Sihalattakatha for being written in Sinhala, that grew both length wise and breadthwise from a continuous inflow of traditions originating both in India and Sri Lanka, which pertained to the island’s history and her religion; on this see L.S.Perera in the University of Ceylon History of Ceylon p. 46 f. and S. Kiribamune “The Mahavamsa - a Study of the Ancient Historiography of Sri Lanka” Senerat Paranavitana Commemoration Volume ed. L.Prematilaka etc. Leiden (1978) p. 125-136. _(4){ }_{4} 这些情节出现在《大史》中乌摩达西塔的塔楼神话历史故事里（参照达娜厄神话）；由于海神愤怒导致凯拉尼亚的洪水，涉及国王女儿维哈拉黛维的献祭（参照安德罗墨达神话），以及公主在海上漂浮，成为伟大英雄之母，这位英雄夺回了祖先的王国杜图迦摩尼（参照珀尔修斯神话）。我将在其他地方提及维贾亚传说及其与希腊神话中奥德修斯和喀耳刻的相似之处。这些母题中第一个出现的是《罐本生》（第 454 号），最后一个则反映了《马本生》（第 196 号）中的细节，该剧本身就在兰卡上演。 斯里兰卡编年史《岛史》与《大史》的共同源头，以及佛音尊者所著《善见律毗婆沙》的历史导论部分，更遑论《大史注释》（即《大史疏》）与所谓柬埔寨版或扩展版《大史》中的新增内容，皆源自已佚的《阿陀迦陀大史》——这部包罗万象的汇编典籍亦被称为《古注》《往世书》，因其年代久远；或称《僧诃罗注》，因其以僧伽罗语书写。该文献通过持续吸纳源自印度与斯里兰卡两地的历史宗教传统，在纵向时间维度和横向内容广度上不断扩展。相关研究可参阅 L.S.佩雷拉在《锡兰大学锡兰史》第 46 页及后续章节的论述，以及 S.基里巴穆内所撰《大史——斯里兰卡古代史学之研究》，该文收录于《Senerat Paranavitana 纪念文集》（L.Prematilaka 等编，莱顿 1978 年版）第 125-136 页。
5quad5 \quad Fab. 40. 5quad5 \quad 寓言 40.
6 op.cit. i. 12-15. 6 同前引书 i. 12-15.
7 iv. 77. 7-9. ^(8){ }^{8} ii.; see Diod. iv. 79. 5-6. ^(8){ }^{8} 二；参见狄奥多罗斯《历史丛书》第四卷 79 章 5-6 节。
9 Met. viii. 195 f. 9 梅特. 八卷 195 页起
10 Aen. vi. 14 f. 10 埃涅. 六卷 14 页起
" Sat. iii. 25. " 萨特. 三卷 25 页
12 loc. cit. 12 同前引
13 Il. ii. 145. 13 《伊利亚特》卷二 第 145 行
1495.
15 vi. 96. 15 卷六 第 96 行
^(10){ }^{10} loc. cit. See also Zenobius Cant. iv. 92. 12-15. The story is repeated often with slight differences by Diodorus iv. 79.2, Tzetzes Chil. 1. 508 f., Schol. on Homer II. ii. 145, Schol, on Pindar Nem. iv. 59 (95). Ovid Ibis 289 with scholia, Pausanias vii. 4-6, Conon Narrat. 25 and Hyginus Fab. 44. ^(10){ }^{10} 同前引。另见 Zenobius Cant. 第四卷 92 章 12-15 节。该故事在 Diodorus 第四卷 79.2 章、Tzetzes《Chil.》第一卷 508 页以降、荷马《伊利亚特》卷二 145 行注疏、品达《涅墨亚颂》第四卷 59(95)节注疏、奥维德《伊比斯》289 行及注疏、保萨尼阿斯第七卷 4-6 章、Conon《Narrat.》第 25 篇以及 Hyginus《Fab.》第 44 篇中均有记载，细节略异。 ^(17){ }^{17} See Cowell ed. vol. V. p. 128-130. If it is - and here I only surmise - it is intervowen with the riddle of the Sphinx in the Oedipus myth. For the stanza seeks to elicit answer from one particular person, and him alone. The riddle - and it is a riddle, in the Mula Pariyaya Jataka effects the opposite. See the discussion of it in Ch.V. p. 143-144 ^(17){ }^{17} 参见考威尔编订版第五卷第 128-130 页。若确有此关联——此处仅为推测——则该情节与俄狄浦斯神话中斯芬克斯之谜相互交织。因诗节旨在向特定且唯一之人寻求解答。而《根本说一切有部毗奈耶》本生经中的谜题——确为谜题——却产生相反效果。详见第五章第 143-144 页相关论述。
^(19){ }^{19} “The Tunnel-Maker and the Labyrinth-Builder” Senerat Paranavitana Commemoration Volume (E.J.Brill ed. 1978) p. 148-150. ^(19){ }^{19} 《隧道建造者与迷宫建筑师》Senerat Paranavitana 纪念文集（E.J.Brill 出版社 1978 年版）第 148-150 页。
See U. Thakur Studies in Jainism and Buddhism in Mithila Benares (1964) p.130. One of the frescoes in Cave xvi in Ajanta described by Yazdani refers to this prasna, saying, “Once a child was stolen and it was through the efforts of Mahosadha that the mother got back the child.” For the story of the Bible, see Kings 3. 18-28. This classic trial has appeared in Europe in recent times with Bertold Brecht’s play Der Kaukasische Kreidekreis (“The Caucasian Chalk Circle”). Brecht’s plot traces back to the jataka, not the Bible. It would seem that “The Son” prasna was the basis of the seventh cent. Chinese play Hoei-lan-ki (“The Chalk Circle”), which was successfully adapted by Klabund in Germany in the 1920’s in der Augsburger Kreidekreis produced by Reinhardt in October 1925. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, the story of the judgement by the chalk circle has come full circle when Henry Jayasena produced the Brecht play as Hunuwataye Kathava (1967) before an audience familiar with its motif for perhaps two thousand years now. 参见 U. Thakur《米提拉地区耆那教与佛教研究》（贝拿勒斯 1964 年版）第 130 页。阿旃陀第十六窟壁画中有一幅被 Yazdani 描述的图像正对应此案，题记称："曾有孩童被盗，正是大善见（Mahosadha）的努力使母亲重获孩子。"圣经相关记载见《列王纪上》3 章 16-28 节。这一经典审判案例近年通过贝托尔特·布莱希特的剧作《高加索灰阑记》重现欧洲舞台。布莱希特的情节原型实为佛本生故事而非圣经。七世纪中国杂剧《灰阑记》似以此"亲子案"为蓝本，该剧 1920 年代经克拉邦德（Klabund）改编为《奥格斯堡灰阑记》，由莱因哈特剧团于 1925 年 10 月搬上德国舞台。就斯里兰卡而言，当亨利·贾亚塞纳 1967 年将布莱希特剧作改编为僧伽罗语版《灰阑故事》（Hunuwataye Kathava）时，这个流传两千年的经典母题终于在其最初孕育的观众群体中完成了文化回环。
A.Weber (Indische Streifen iii p. 60), also R.Garbe Contributions of Buddhism to Christianity Chicago (1911) are right the Jews could not have borrowed from the Indians. But Hugo Crissman Deutsche Rundschau vol. XXXIII (1907) p. 212 gives reasons for an Indian origin. For other ref. see Winternitz op.cit. p. 138 and n. 2. A.韦伯（《印度研究》第三卷第 60 页）以及 R.加伯（《佛教对基督教的贡献》，芝加哥，1911 年）认为犹太人不可能从印度人那里借鉴，这一观点是正确的。但胡戈·克里斯曼（《德国评论》第 33 卷，1907 年，第 212 页）提出了印度起源说的理由。其他参考文献参见温特尼茨前引书第 138 页及注释 2。
24 Pearson n. ad.loc. “The device adopted by Daedalus recalls the thread, also called linon in Apollod. Epit i. 9 etc, which he gave to Theseus to guide him on his return from the labyrinth.” 24 皮尔逊注释同前："代达罗斯采用的方法让人联想到那根线——在阿波罗多洛斯《书库》摘要 1.9 等处也被称为 linon——他曾将这条线交给忒修斯，引导其从迷宫中返回。"
26 Though the Bhandanamokkha precedes the Maha Paduma in arrangement by over three hundred and fifty jatakas, it boldly refers back to the paccuppannavatthu of the latter for its context. There is not even a pretext that these stories of the past belong to different lives. However, apart from the queen’s desire for the youth and her false accusation of him, the plot of the Bhandanamokkha follows a completely different line. 26 尽管《Bhandanamokkha 本生》在编排顺序上比《Maha Paduma 本生》早了三百五十多个故事，但它却大胆地回溯后者的现世因缘作为背景。甚至没有假装这些过去的故事属于不同的生命。不过，除了王后对青年的欲望以及她对他的诬告外，《Bhandanamokkha 本生》的情节走向完全不同。
27 See Soph. Phaedra frag. 686 and 687 (Pearson). The order is the same in Ovid (Her. v. 109) and Seneca Phaedra. 27 参见索福克勒斯《淮德拉》残篇 686 和 687（皮尔逊辑本）。该顺序在奥维德（《女杰书简》5.109）和塞内加《淮德拉》中保持一致。
28 It is fear that is the reason for the queen’s false incrimination of the youth in the Maha Paduma; in the Bhandanamokkha it is positively revenge. In Euripides’ Hippolytus, in which Phaedra is freer from the grosser traits, it is the fear of disgrace that drives her to suicide, when the nurse reveals her passion. This is what Apollodorus also states. 28 在《大莲花本生》中，王后诬陷青年是出于恐惧；而在《班达那莫卡》中则明确是出于报复。欧里庇得斯的《希波吕托斯》中，菲德拉摆脱了更粗鄙的特质，当乳母泄露她的激情时，正是对耻辱的恐惧驱使她走向自杀。阿波罗多洛斯也如此记载。
Epit. i. 18-19. See Diodorus (iv. 62.3). As with the Icarus story, he tries to rationalize. 《摘要》i. 18-19。参见狄奥多罗斯（iv. 62.3）。如同伊卡洛斯的故事一样，他试图合理化解释。
30 See Pearson op.cit. p. 295. 30 参见皮尔森前述著作第 295 页。
" “Joseph and Potiphar in Hindu Fiction” T.A.Ph.A. vol. LIV (1923) p. 166. "《印度小说中的约瑟与波提乏》" T.A.Ph.A. 第 54 卷 (1923 年) 第 166 页。
32 1.22.1. He makes this remark when mentioning a second tomb of Hippolytus (other than the one in Athens) at Troizen, and with it gives the Troizonian version of the Phaedra-Hippolytus affair. 32 1.22.1. 他在提及特洛伊曾（除雅典之外）另一处希波吕托斯墓时作出这番评论，并由此引出了特洛伊曾版本关于菲德拉与希波吕托斯事件的叙述。
35 See the Harivamsa 47.1-57;48.1-37a. See Hindu Myths; A Source book trans lated from the Sanskrit. (Penguin Books) p. 206-207. On the birth of Krishna ef. Agni 12; Bhagavata 10.1-4; Brahmanda 2.3, 71. 200-241 Brahmavaivarta 4. 1 17; Brhaddharma 3.16; Devibhagavata 4. 18-23; Linga 1.69; Padma 6.245; Vishna 5. 1-13. See also Swami Prabhupada Krsna. The Supreme Personality of Godhead vol. I. London (1974) ch. 1-3. esp. p. 3 and 5-8. 35 参见《诃利世系》47.1-57；48.1-37a。另见《印度神话：梵文原典译丛》（企鹅出版社）第 206-207 页。关于黑天诞生的记载可对照：《火神往世书》12 章；《薄伽梵往世书》10.1-4；《梵卵往世书》2.3，71.200-241；《梵转往世书》4.117；《广法往世书》3.16；《女神薄伽梵往世书》4.18-23；《林伽往世书》1.69；《莲花往世书》6.245；《毗湿奴往世书》5.1-13。另参斯瓦米·帕布帕德所著《奎师那：至尊人格首神》第一卷（伦敦 1974 年版）第 1-3 章，尤见第 3 页及 5-8 页。
36 Antigone 944-946. 36 《安提戈涅》944-946 行。
37 iv. I. 37 第四卷第一章
38 Fab. 63. 38 寓言 63。
39 H.J.Rose ed. Hyginus: Fabulae Leiden (1934) p. 48. n. ad.loc. draws attention to the prevalence of the practice in the Middle Ages. Cf. Wissowa A.R.W. p. 213 f. 39 H.J.罗斯编《希吉努斯：寓言集》莱顿 1934 年版第 48 页注释指出该习俗在中世纪盛行。参见维索瓦《古罗马宗教词典》第 213 页及以下。
40 In ms. B (d). 40 见于 B 抄本(d)。
_(4)^(4){ }_{4}{ }^{4} See the Bhaddasala Jataka (No. 465) where King Brahmadatta wished to have one such and sent builders to the forest to look for a suitable tree. Fausboll op.cit. vol. IV. p. 153 Cowell op.cit. vol. IV. p. 96. See Cul. 73. 92-94, where Parakramabahu I is said to have had one built for himself, and Geiger’s note ad.loc. It’s structure is compared to a candelabra. See Devendra op.cit. and ch. VI p. 172 and not ad.loc _(4)^(4){ }_{4}{ }^{4} 参见《婆达娑罗本生经》（第 465 号），其中梵授王希望获得一个并派遣工匠到森林寻找合适的树木。福斯伯尔前引书第四卷第 153 页，科威尔前引书第四卷第 96 页。参见《小史》73 章 92-94 节，记载波罗迦罗摩巴忽一世曾命人为自己建造，以及盖格对此处的注释。其结构被比作枝形烛台。参见德文德拉前引书及第六章第 172 页注释。
42 Vol.IV p.50.n. 1. 第四卷 第 50 页 注释 1
43 According to one version, the funcral games were in honour of Polydektes.Perseus took part in the pentathlon, one of the events of which was the discus throw; (an other was surely wrestling). See Scholiast on Eur. Orestes 953; Apollod. ii. 4.4. Robert Graves op.cit. vol. I p. 241 section p. But see op.cit. p. 242 section ‘e’ for alternate version followed by Hyginus. According to Pausanias (ii. 16.2) Perseus hit his grandfather accidently when he was showing off to everyone with the discus, of which he was the inventor. 43 根据某一版本记载，葬礼竞技会是为纪念波吕得克忒斯而举办。珀尔修斯参加了五项全能比赛，其中一项赛事是掷铁饼（另一项无疑是摔跤）。参见欧里庇得斯《俄瑞斯特斯》953 行注释；阿波罗多洛斯《书库》卷二第四章第四节。罗伯特·格雷夫斯前引书第一卷第 241 页 p 节。但关于许金努斯遵循的另一版本，参见前引书第 242 页 e 节。据保萨尼阿斯记载（《希腊志》卷二 16.2），珀尔修斯在向众人炫耀其发明的铁饼时，意外击中了外祖父。
4 The site, described and discussed by Senerat Paranavitana (Ceylon Today voil. II, no. 2 (Feb. 1953) p. 7-10) is assigned by him to a date one and a half millenia after Panduvasudeva and Citts, i.e. to the reign of King Parakramabahu I. Nor does he identify it as the site of the ekatthambhapasada attributed to this king as well (Cul. loc.cit.).Instead he thought this circular sunken site a Chakravalakotta, in the middle of which the king sat and fooled himself (if not his subjects as well) with the delusion of being Chakravarti, Lord of the Universe. 4 塞纳拉特·帕拉纳维塔纳（《今日锡兰》第二卷第二期，1953 年 2 月，第 7-10 页）对该遗址进行了描述与探讨，将其年代定于槃度婆苏提婆与契多斯之后一千五百年，即波罗迦罗摩巴忽一世统治时期。他亦未将此遗址认定为该国王所建独柱殿的所在地（《小史》同章）。相反，他认为这处圆形下沉遗址是转轮王堡，国王坐镇其中，沉溺于成为宇宙主宰转轮王的幻想，自欺（或许还欺瞒臣民）。
45 See my “The Princess in the Boat: Of Viharadevi and Danae” The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities. vol. X (1984) p. 57-86. 45 参见拙作《船中公主：毗诃罗提毗与达那厄》载《斯里兰卡人文杂志》第十卷（1984 年）第 57-86 页。
4* Od. 72-75: Aeolus, god of winds, says the world holds no greater sinner or one more detested by the gods than Odysseus. Odussomai = be aggrieved or wroth; in the passive, be hated. Chalmers in the Cowell ed. (vol. I p. iii n. 1) calls this attempt to trace in the wanderings of Mittavindaka the germ of part of the wanderings of Ulysses “dubious”. 4* 《奥德赛》72-75 行：风神埃俄罗斯宣称，世间没有比奥德修斯更罪孽深重、更受诸神憎恶之人。"Odussomai"意为遭受痛苦或愤怒；其被动式则表示被憎恨。查尔默斯在考威尔版本（第一卷第三页注 1）中将试图从弥多频陀迦游历中追溯尤利西斯部分冒险原型的做法称为"值得商榷"。
47 See Frontispiece. Published by H.Hargreaves as “An Unidentified Relief from Gandhara” in the Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India in 1923, this is in the Wylie Collection. It shows in profile a dimunitive wooden horse on wheels being pushed forward by a man (Sinon) towards another - who hold a spear threateningly to its chest (Laocoon). On the further side of the horse is an old man with a beard (Priam). Behind Laocoon and framed by a doorway a dhoticlad Cassandra (upper body bare) raises both arms in alarm. The clothes and footwear of the men appear Roman. For a discussion see J.Allen “A Tabula Iliaca from Gandhara” J.H.S. vol. LXVI (1946) p. 22 f.; A.Foucher comptes rendus de l’Academile des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1950) p. 407 s . Cf. Picard Revue archaeologique 6 series vol. XXXVI (1950) ii. p. 150 f. Cp the Trojan Horse scene on lid- front of the Roman sarcophagus in the Ashmolean Museum - H.Heydemann Illupersis Berlin (1866) pl. 1, 2, 3,; K.Weitzmann Ancient Book Ilumination, Cambr. Mass. (1939) pl. 23, fig. 54. B.A.Sparkes “The Trojan Horse in Classical Art” Greece and Rome vol. XVIII. no. 1 (1971) pl. 46. 47 见卷首插图。此浮雕由 H·哈格里夫斯以"一件来源不明的犍陀罗浮雕"为题发表于 1923 年印度考古调查年度报告，现藏于怀利收藏馆。画面呈现侧影：一名男子（西农）推着带轮的木制小马前行，另一人（拉奥孔）正用长矛威胁性地指向马胸。木马远端站着一位蓄须老者（普里阿摩斯）。拉奥孔身后门框内，身着腰布的卡珊德拉（上半身赤裸）惊恐地举起双臂。人物服饰与鞋履呈罗马风格。相关讨论参见 J·艾伦《出自犍陀罗的伊利亚特图板》J.H.S.第 66 卷(1946)第 22 页以下；A·富歇《法兰西文学院铭文与美文学术院报告》(1950)第 407 页以下。对照皮卡德《考古学评论》第 6 辑第 36 卷(1950)第二部分第 150 页以下。比较阿什莫林博物馆藏罗马石棺盖板正面的特洛伊木马场景——H·海德曼《伊利亚陷落》柏林(1866)图版 1、2、3；K·魏茨曼《古代书籍插图》剑桥麻省(1939)图版 23 图 54；B·斯帕克斯《古典艺术中的特洛伊木马》《希腊与罗马》第 18 卷第 1 期(1971)图版 46。
The female demons are said to scour the coast as far as the river Kalyani (Kelani) on the one side and the island Nagadipa on the other. Their city is the same Sirisavatthu of the Vijaya legend and the region in which the Valahassa traders were shipwrecked must be the same as where Vijaya and his men put ashore - the region of Tambapanni. See ch. Il n. 7. 据说这些女魔会沿着海岸搜寻，一边远至卡利亚尼河（凯拉尼河），另一边则到达纳加迪帕岛。她们的城市正是维贾耶传说中提到的西里萨瓦图，而瓦拉哈萨商人遭遇海难的那片海域，必定与维贾耶及其随从登陆的地点相同——即坦巴潘尼地区。参见第二章第七节注释。
so Mhv vii. 24. 见《大史》第七章第 24 节。
s1 Mhv. vii. 59-62 and 72-73. 见《大史》第七章第 59-62 节及 72-73 节。
s2 Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey Cambr. Mass. (1912) p. 64-67. What he points out is that whereas Odysseus used a herbal antidote against Circe, Vijaya resorted to prophylactic water-sprinkling and an arm-thread; that the order in which the two made love to their witches differs; lastly he thinks no version that depended on Homer would have skipped the transformation of the men into beasts.He certainly makes too much of these. The first is a Buddhistic variant. Of the second, it is notable, notwithstanding the order, that both did consort with the women. Lastly we did have a human turned beast - the yakkhini who came as a bitch to Vijaya’s men. These are all deliberate variations involving localization such as we found in the jatakas engaging Greek motifs and does credit to their exploiters. s2 荷马《奥德赛》中的民间故事，剑桥·马萨诸塞（1912 年）第 64-67 页。他指出，奥德修斯使用草药解药对抗喀耳刻，而维贾亚则采用预防性洒水和护臂线；两人与女巫发生关系的顺序不同；最后他认为任何依赖荷马版本的传说都不会省略将人变成野兽的情节。这些观点显然过度解读了。第一种是佛教变体。值得注意的是第二种情况，尽管顺序不同，但两人确实都与女性结合了。最后我们确实有人变兽的情节——那个以母狗形态接近维贾亚部下的夜叉女。这些都是经过深思熟虑的本土化变异，正如我们在涉及希腊主题的本生经中所见，并体现了改编者的智慧。
53 “Prince Vijaya and the Aryanization of Ceylon” Ceylon Historical Journal, vol. 1, no. 3 (1952) p. 163 and 165. 53 《维贾亚王子与锡兰的雅利安化》，锡兰历史期刊第 1 卷第 3 期（1952 年）第 163 和 165 页。
so op.cit. p. 101-102. 同前引书第 101-102 页。
57 Propertius’ Elegies iv.9.10; Ovid Fasti i.545, Livy 1.7; Virgil Aen. viii. 207-208. 217-233, Robert Graces op.cit. vol. II, (§ 132.1-m) p. 136-137. 57 普罗佩提乌斯《哀歌集》iv.9.10；奥维德《岁时记》i.545，李维《罗马史》1.7；维吉尔《埃涅阿斯纪》viii.207-208，217-233；罗伯特·格雷夫斯前引著作第二卷（§132.1-m）第 136-137 页。
ss Folklore vol. 1 (1820) p. 409. 《民俗学》第 1 卷（1820 年）第 409 页。
sq In Original-Mittheil aus der ethnology. Abtheil, der konigl. Mus. zu Berlin vol. 1 (1885) p. 42. 《柏林皇家博物馆民族学分馆原始通讯》第 1 卷（1885 年）第 42 页。 oo\infty Pausanias* Description of Greece vol. V, London (1913) p. 356-360 and n. 25.1 for commentary, and p. 360 for bibliography. 保萨尼阿斯*《希腊描述》第 5 卷，伦敦（1913 年）第 356-360 页及注释 25.1 为评注部分，第 360 页为参考文献目录。
61 Paus. x.25.1x .25 .1 - 31.2 is a description of the building and the fine murals by the master-artist. The remnants of this club-house have been identified and completely excavated by the French in 1895. It was situated a few steps to the east of the theatre. 61 保萨尼阿斯 x.25.1x .25 .1 - 31.2 节描述了这座建筑及其由艺术大师创作的精美壁画。1895 年法国考古队已确认并完整发掘了这个俱乐部会所的遗迹，其位置位于剧院以东数步之遥。
67 Xen. Oecon. vii. 40; Aristot. Oecon. i.6. It’s counterpart, “to carry water in a sieve” (koskinô hudor pherein) was represented as one of the impossibilities (adunata) which is also Roman (cf. Plautus Pseud. 102), and as an ordeal(Pliny N.H. xxviii.12; see also Lucr. iii. 936 f). See E.Keuls The Water-Carriers of Hades: a Study of Katharsis through Toil in Classical Antiquity Amsterdam (1974). 67 参见色诺芬《经济论》vii.40；亚里士多德《经济学》i.6。其对应表述"用筛子装水"（koskinô hudor pherein）被列为不可能之事（adunata）之一，该典故亦见于罗马文献（参考普劳图斯《伪君子》102 行），并作为神判仪式（见老普林尼《自然史》xxviii.12；另参卢克莱修 iii.936 以下）。详参 E.凯尔斯《冥界的运水者：古典时期通过劳苦实现净化的研究》阿姆斯特丹（1974 年）。
68 493a
69 573e. The punning with esoteric significance is unmistakable here too; ateleis is both unaccomplished" and “uninitiate”. The dialogue is full of mystical allusions. 69 573e。此处双关语的秘仪含义同样显而易见：ateleis 兼具"未完成"与"未入会"之义。该对话充满神秘主义隐喻。
70 For a line reproduction of this painting, see fig. 166 in J.Harrison Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion Cambridge (1903) p. 617 and fig. 15 in K.C.Guthrie Orpheus and Greek Religion London (1935) p. 103. (Jahn. Cat. 153; Baumeister II.866). 70 此画作的线描复制品见 J.哈里森《希腊宗教研究绪论》剑桥（1903 年）第 617 页图 166，及 K.C.古思里《俄耳甫斯与希腊宗教》伦敦（1935 年）第 103 页图 15。（雅恩目录 153 号；鲍迈斯特 II.866） ^(71){ }^{71} Archaologische Zeitung vol. XXVIII (1871) pl. 31.22 with the remarks of H. Heydemann p. 42 f. Diodorus (i.97) observes that in Acanthi in Egypt was a perforated jar to which a different priest each day brought water from the Nile, and not far from there, in one of the festivals was to be seen a performance of the myth of Ocnus, with a single man weaving a rope, which many others beyond him unravelled. It is of course Diodorus who here juxtaposes the two scenes, himself no doubt influenced by the association of them in the art of Greece. ^(71){ }^{71} 《考古学杂志》第 XXVIII 卷（1871 年）图版 31.22，附 H·海德曼第 42 页及以下注释。狄奥多罗斯（i.97）记载埃及阿坎提城有一个带孔陶罐，每天由不同祭司从尼罗河取水注入；不远处在某节庆期间会上演奥克努斯神话场景——单人编织绳索，其后众人拆解。显然是狄奥多罗斯将这两个场景并置叙述，无疑受到希腊艺术中二者关联的影响。
73 Aspis 27-56. 73 《盾牌》27-56 行。
74 Logographer who lived in Athens in the first half of the 5^("th ")5^{\text {th }} century B.C. and wrote copiously on myths and genealogies. His work would have served Apollodorus as the model for his own book. All hs writings are lost. For the story in Apollodorus see Bibl. ii. 4. 7-8. Also see Diod. iv. 9 and Hyginus Fab. 29. 74 这位编年史家生活于公元前 5^("th ")5^{\text {th }} 世纪上半叶的雅典，著有大量神话与谱系著作。其作品可能为阿波罗多罗斯提供了著作范本。所有作品均已散佚。阿波罗多罗斯记载见《书库》ii.4.7-8；另参见狄奥多罗斯 iv.9 及许癸努斯《传说集》29。
76 vol. i, p. 195-201. 76 第 1 卷，第 195-201 页。
" “The Lineage of ‘The Proud King’” JRAS (Gr. Brit. and Ire.) (1892) Art. II p. 39 - 51 . "《傲慢国王的世系》" JRAS（大不列颠及爱尔兰）(1892) 第二篇 第 39-51 页。
78 For a somewhat more detailed study of the Illisa -Amphitryon parallel, see my article ‘Illisa’s Bump and Amphitryon’s Bowl’ in The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities vol. XXIII (1997) p. 65-75. 78 关于伊里萨与安菲特律翁相似性的更详细研究，参见拙文《伊里萨的肿块与安菲特律翁的碗》，载《斯里兰卡人文杂志》第 23 卷(1997)第 65-75 页。
’ vi. 127-130. 第六卷 第 127-130 页。
2 iii. 118-119. 第二卷 第 118-119 页。 ^(3){ }^{3} ii. 121. See W.R.Halliday Greek and Roman Folklore p. 107-108 and also his Indo-European Folk Tales and Greek Legend p. 49. He writes: “The story, which appears in the Jatakas and in other Indian collections, is evidently old in the East; it is one of the tales which passed with Buddhism from India to Tibet and China”. The motif appears in a Sri Lankan folk tale, which H.Parker entitles “The Thief called Harrantika”. See his Village Folk-Tales of Ceylon London (1910) p.41-42 and the variant in p. 43-46. W.Goonetilleke gave the story in The Orientalist vol.I p. 59. A story similar to these appears in the Kathasaritsagara (Tawney) vol. If p. 93 and it must be this, not a jataka, that Halliday meant. ^(3){ }^{3} 第二卷第 121 页。参见 W.R.霍尔戴《希腊罗马民间传说》第 107-108 页及其《印欧民间故事与希腊传说》第 49 页。他写道："这个出现在本生经及其他印度故事集中的传说，显然在东方源远流长；它是随佛教从印度传入西藏和中国的故事之一"。该母题亦见于斯里兰卡民间故事，H.帕克将其命名为《盗贼哈里提卡》，参见其《锡兰乡村民间故事》伦敦 1910 年版第 41-42 页及第 43-46 页的变体。W.古纳提拉克在《东方学家》第一卷 59 页记载了这个故事。《故事海》（陶尼译本）第二卷第 93 页载有类似故事，霍尔戴所指应是此版本而非本生经。
4 “Herodotus. vi. 126”. Hermes vol. XXIX (1894) p. 478. 4 "希罗多德《历史》第六卷第 126 章"。《赫尔墨斯》第二十九卷（1894 年）第 478 页。
s See W.W.How and J.Wells A Commentary on Herodotus vol. II (1912) p. 117, n. to vi. 126 “The fact of the wedding of the daughter and heiress of Cleisthenes is doubtlessly historical, the details are obviously fictitious,” See G.Grote A History of Greece London (1869) vol. III p. 38 and n. His thinking too was that this anecdote bore much more the stamp of romance than reality: that it could have been the work of an ingenous Athenian as a compliment to the house of the Alcmaeonidae, to which both the reformer Cleisthenes and Pericles belonged, but that at the same time it supplied mythical explanation to an existing proverbial expression (involving some other Hippocleides) On Herodotus as responsible for lies and inventions (pseusmata kai plasmata) see Plutarch De Herodoti Malignitate 854f, 866c, 867b. 参见 W.W.豪与 J.威尔斯合著《希罗多德注释》第二卷（1912 年）第 117 页对第六卷第 126 节的注释："克利斯提尼之女与继承人的婚礼确属史实，但细节显然纯属虚构。"另见 G.格罗特《希腊史》伦敦版（1869 年）第三卷第 38 页及注释。格罗特同样认为这段轶事更似浪漫传奇而非现实：它可能是某位机敏的雅典人为向阿尔克迈翁家族（改革家克利斯提尼与伯里克利均属该家族）致敬而作，但同时为现存谚语（涉及另一位希波克莱德斯）提供了神话解释。关于希罗多德作为谎言与虚构（pseusmata kai plasmata）责任者的论述，参见普鲁塔克《论希罗多德的恶意》854f、866c、867b 节。
^(6){ }^{6} op.cit. append. xiv. p. 304-311. ^(6){ }^{6} 同前书，附录十四，第 304-311 页。
^(1){ }^{1} On the discovery of these inscriptions see p.I\mathrm{p} . \mathrm{I} of the Preface of his The Greeks and the Mauryas Colombo (1971), and on their nature, Ch. 1, especially p. 5 of same. First publication of this was in a paper read on 11th Oct. 1964 at the University of Peradeniya entitled An Account of Alexander the Great and Greek Culture in a Universal History written in the Reign of Mahasena. (The “evidence” is used again in his The Story of Sigiri Colombo (1972) and in an article titled “References to Greek and Roman Celebrities in Ancient Historical Writings of Ceylon”, Palma (1972) p. 145-146. In the account on Greece the inscription is said to record its author Buddhapriya as saying, among other things, that the book of Herodotus (Haradatta pandita) was translated into Sanskrit - but that as neither he nor anyone else had seen this translation, he had his doubts. Intriguing also is the assertion that Herodotus had possessed the previous preparation to become a Buddhist, had he been born in Jambudvipa (India)! “It took me some time,” says Paranavitana, “to convince myself that I was not the victim of some sort of hallucination” The contents have been subjected to a critical examination by S.Kiribamune “Some Reflections on Prof. Paranavitana’s Contribution to History” Ceylon Journal of Humanities vol. 1 no. 1 (1970) p. 76 - 92; P.E.E. Femando “Sri Vijaya and Malaysia in Sinhala Inscriptions” Ceylon Journal of Humanities vol. II. no. 2, (1971) p. 138-146 and D.P.M.Weerakkody Taprobane: Ancient Sri Lanka as known to Greeks and Romans Brepols: Turnhout (1997) ch. xv p. 183-195, while the very existence of such interlinear writing has been denied by R.A.L.H.Gunawardana in “Ceylon and Malaysia: a study of Prof. Parnavitana’s Research in Relations between the Two Regions” University of Ceylon Review vol. XXV. nos. 1-2. p. I - 64 and by K.Indapala “Review: Ceylon and Malaysia” by S.Paranavitana JRAS (CB) n.s. vol. XI. p. 101 - 106. ^(1){ }^{1} 关于这些铭文的发现，参见其著作《希腊人与孔雀王朝》（科伦坡，1971 年）序言部分的 p.I\mathrm{p} . \mathrm{I} ；关于铭文性质，参见同书第一章，特别是第 5 页。首次公开是在 1964 年 10 月 11 日佩拉德尼亚大学宣读的论文《摩诃舍那王统治时期撰写的世界史中关于亚历山大大帝与希腊文化的记载》中。（该"证据"在其著作《西吉里故事》（科伦坡，1972 年）及题为《锡兰古代历史文献中对希腊罗马名人的记载》的论文中再次使用，后者载于《棕榈》1972 年刊第 145-146 页。）在关于希腊的记载中，铭文记录其作者佛陀波利耶曾提及希罗多德（Haradatta pandita）的著作被译为梵文——但由于他和其他人均未见过该译本，故存疑。更耐人寻味的是其中断言：倘若希罗多德生于阎浮提（印度），他本已具备成为佛教徒的前期准备！ 帕拉纳维塔纳说："我花了一些时间才说服自己并非某种幻觉的受害者"。相关内容已受到 S.基里巴穆内《对帕拉纳维塔纳教授历史贡献的若干思考》（《锡兰人文杂志》第 1 卷第 1 期，1970 年，第 76-92 页）、P.E.E.费尔南多《僧伽罗铭文中的室利佛逝与马来亚》（《锡兰人文杂志》第 2 卷第 2 期，1971 年，第 138-146 页）以及 D.P.M.维拉科迪《塔普罗巴尼：希腊罗马人认知中的古代斯里兰卡》（布雷波尔斯出版社，图尔奈，1997 年，第 15 章第 183-195 页）的批判性检验。而 R.A.L.H.古纳瓦达纳在《锡兰与马来亚：评帕拉纳维塔纳教授关于两地关系的研究》（《锡兰大学评论》第 25 卷第 1-2 期，第 1-64 页）和 K.因达帕拉《书评：帕拉纳维塔纳著〈锡兰与马来亚〉》（《皇家亚洲学会锡兰分会期刊》新辑第 11 卷，第 101-106 页）中则完全否认这种行间注写形式的存在。
^(9){ }^{9} Buddhist Birth Stories p. 294, n. 1. ^(9){ }^{9} 《佛教本生故事》第 294 页注释 1。
to India and the Western World Cambridge (1916) p. 25. 至印度与西方世界 剑桥（1916 年）第 25 页。
" op.cit. p. 48-49: Greek and Roman Folklore p. 106-107. 同前引书第 48-49 页：《希腊罗马民俗学》第 106-107 页。
12 Herodotus California (1924) p. 119. 12 希罗多德《加利福尼亚》（1924 年）第 119 页。
13 loc.cit. 13 同上。
14 The bird was however know to his contemporaries; see Eupolis apud Athenueus p. 391, Aristophanes Achm. 63, Birds 102, 269, 885; cp Athenaeus loc.cit. 14 这种鸟在当时广为人知；参见阿特纳奥斯第 391 页引用的欧波利斯、阿里斯托芬《阿卡奈人》第 63 行、《鸟》第 102、269、885 行；对照阿特纳奥斯前引书。
is op.cit. 见前引书。
16 loc.cit. See also How and Wells loc.cit. 16 同前引书。另见豪与韦尔斯同前引书。 17quad17 \quad vi. 122. 17quad17 \quad 第六卷 第 122 节。
is The bird’s cry is, as Tertullian called it, raucus. Flannery O’Conner, who reared peacocks, says (“The King of Birds” Spam vol. XXIII, no. 9 (Sept. 1982) p. 18) “Frequently the cock combines the lifting of his tail with the raising of his voice. He appears to receive through his feet some shock from the centre of the earth. which travels upwards through him and is released: Eee-000-ii! Eee-000-ii! To the melancholy this sound is melancholy and to the hysterical it is hysterical. To me it has always sounded like a cheer for an invisible parade.” The hen’s call he compares to a mule’s bray - heehaw, heehaw, aa-sww! 这只鸟的叫声，正如德尔图良所言，是嘶哑的。饲养孔雀的弗兰纳里·奥康纳在（《鸟中之王》Spam 杂志第 23 卷第 9 期（1982 年 9 月）第 18 页）写道："雄孔雀常将尾羽展开与鸣叫同时进行。它似乎通过双脚接收来自地心的某种震颤，这种震颤向上传导并通过叫声释放：咿——呜——咿！咿——呜——咿！忧郁者闻之愈觉凄清，癫狂者听来更添狂躁。于我而言，这声音总像在为无形的游行队伍喝彩。"他将雌孔雀的叫声比作骡子的嘶鸣——嘿哈，嘿哈，啊——嗖！ ^(19)quadO^('){ }^{19} \quad O^{\prime} Conner (op.cit. p. 17) says “The cock opens his tail by shaking himself violently until it is gradually lifted in an arch round him. Then, before anyone has a chance to see it, he swings around so that his back faces the spectator”. ^(19)quadO^('){ }^{19} \quad O^{\prime} 康纳（前引书第 17 页）写道："雄孔雀通过剧烈抖动身体逐渐将尾羽拱形展开。而后未等观者细看，便倏然转身以背部示人"。
22 Cunningham op.cit. p. 69 (with Plate xxvii item ii). The sculpture is very much broken, the whole of the lower half and portions of both sides being lost. Yet enough remains to help identify the story. Strongly, like Rhys-Davids he failed to remark the parallelism we have here with the Greek story of the dance of Hippocleides for the hand of Agariste. See also J.F.Dickson “The Popular Acceptance of the Jatakas as shown in Picture-stories and Sculptures” JRAS: (Ceylon Br.) vol. VIII no. 28 p. 137. He thinks the jataka had undergone a namechange, not that what we have is an alternate title. But see Rhys-Davids Buddhist India p. 110. 22 坎宁安前引书第 69 页（含图版 xxvii 第二项）。该雕塑损毁严重，下半部整体及两侧部分均已缺失，但残存部分仍足以帮助辨识故事内容。与里斯·戴维斯一样，他强烈地未能注意到此处与希腊故事中希波克莱德斯为迎娶阿伽里斯忒而跳舞的典故存在对应关系。另见 J.F.迪克森《本生经通过图画故事与雕塑展现的民间接受度》载《皇家亚洲学会杂志》（锡兰分会）第 8 卷第 28 期第 137 页。他认为本生故事经历了名称变更，而非现存版本为替代标题。但参阅里斯·戴维斯《佛教印度》第 110 页。
23 909-912.
24 Evidence of this is partly the poem the dramatist addressed to the historian, partly other correspondences noted between the works of the two, which appear, in this case and another, more than accidental. 24 相关证据部分源于剧作家致历史学家的诗作，部分源于两人作品间被指出的其他对应关系——在本案例及另一案例中，这些对应显然超出了偶然性范畴。
25 See L.Campbell and E.Abbot Sophocles vol. II, Oxford (1886) p. 212 n. to vs. 905 f. 25 参见 L.坎贝尔与 E.阿博特合编《索福克勒斯》第二卷，牛津（1886 年）第 212 页对第 905 行及以下注释。
26 “Zu Sophocles Antigone 909-912” Hermes vol. XXVIII (1893) p. 465. 26 《论索福克勒斯〈安提戈涅〉909-912 行》载《赫尔墨斯》第 28 卷（1893 年）第 465 页。
27 See C.W.Tawney “A Folk-lore Parallel” The Indian Antiquary vol. X (1881) p. 370. 27 参见 C.W.陶尼《民间故事平行研究》载于《印度古物志》第十卷(1881 年)第 370 页。 ^(28){ }^{28} See Tawney loc.cit. Blakesley is refering to v. 908 - “On what grounds do I say this?” ^(28){ }^{28} 参见陶尼前引书。布莱克斯利此处所指为第 908 行——"我凭何理由作此断言？"
29
862
^(31){ }^{31} Keith dates it to between 500 B.C. and 300 B.C., Jacobs suggests it was older; see his argument in The Date of the Ramayana" JRAS (1915) p. 318-329, with his conclusion in p. 327. ^(31){ }^{31} 基思将其年代定为公元前 500 至 300 年间，雅各布斯则认为更早；参见其论文《罗摩衍那年代考》载于《英国皇家亚洲学会会刊》(1915 年)第 318-329 页，结论见第 327 页。
34 I am obliged to my erstwhile colleague, Ven Yatagama Dhammapala (of the Dept. of Pali and Buddhist Studies of the University of Peradeniya) for drawing my attention to the fact that P.L.Vaidya omits both these slokas (and the four others that follow) as being additions. See his The Ramayana vol. VI Baroda (1971) p. 241 n. 796. 34 我要感谢我昔日的同事——佩拉德尼亚大学巴利语与佛教研究系的维纳·亚塔伽玛·达摩波罗（Ven Yatagama Dhammapala），是他提醒我注意到 P.L.维迪亚（P.L.Vaidya）将这两首偈颂（及随后的另外四首）均视为增补内容而予以省略。参见其所著《罗摩衍那》第六卷（巴罗达，1971 年）第 241 页注释 796。
^(38){ }^{38} Taras riding a dolphin is shown on the coins of the Greek city of Tarentum in South Italy (G.F.Hill Historical Greek Coins (1906) p. 175, Plate ii. B.V.Head A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks, London (1959) Pl. vi. nos. 3, 4, 5; Pl. xiii. nos. 6, 7; Pl. xxv. nos. 9, 10; Pl. xxxi. nos. 4, 5; Pl. xxxvii nos. 7, 8.) He is said to have ridden a dolphin from the promontory of Taenarum to South Italy where he founded Tarentum (Paus. x : 10, 4, 5, 13). So also Arion on later coins of Methymna (B.V.Head Historia Nummorum 2nd ed. (1911) p. 561). Melicertes was shown on a dolphin at Corinth. The story is told more fully in Plutarch Sept. Sap. Con. 18 f., where other dolphin stories are given. See also J.G.Frazer op.cit. vol. II p. 398. On the monument of Arion at Taenarum, which Herodotus mentions (i.24) see Paus. iii. 25.5. He thinks Herodotus tells the story of Arion and the dolphin from hearsay. On the Aesopic fable of the monkey who was mistaken for a man by a dolphin, see Chapter VIII and n. 17 thereof. Hyginus* Fable 194 on Arion is a highly corrupted version of Herodotus’ anecdote. See also, on the friendship of dolphins with humans, Pliny Letters ix. 33. ^(38){ }^{38} 意大利南部希腊城市塔伦通的硬币上描绘了塔拉斯骑乘海豚的形象（G.F.希尔《历史希腊钱币》（1906）第 175 页，图版 ii；B.V.黑德《希腊主要钱币指南》，伦敦（1959）图版 vi 编号 3、4、5；图版 xiii 编号 6、7；图版 xxv 编号 9、10；图版 xxxi 编号 4、5；图版 xxxvii 编号 7、8）。传说他从泰纳鲁姆海角骑海豚抵达意大利南部并建立了塔伦通（保萨尼阿斯 x：10，4，5，13）。同样地，梅提姆纳后期钱币上也出现了阿里昂骑海豚的图案（B.V.黑德《钱币史》第二版（1911）第 561 页）。科林斯地区则流传着墨利克尔忒斯与海豚的造像。普鲁塔克在《七贤会饮》18 节及后续章节中更完整地记载了这个故事，并附有其他海豚传说。另见 J.G.弗雷泽前引书第二卷第 398 页。关于希罗多德提及（i.24）的泰纳鲁姆阿里昂纪念碑，参见保萨尼阿斯 iii.25.5。他认为希罗多德关于阿里昂与海豚的记载源自道听途说。关于伊索寓言中猴子被海豚误认为人类的故事，参见第八章及其注释 17。许癸努斯《寓言》194 条关于阿里昂的记载，实为希罗多德轶事的严重讹传。关于海豚与人类的友谊，另见普林尼《书信集》ix.33。
39 See Surendra Nath Majumdar “The Lost Ring of Sakuntala - is it a Greek Reminiscence?” JBORS "ol. VII (1921) p. 96-99. He says a clue to the source of the idea of the ring swallowed by a fish is given by the dramatist Kalidasa himself when he introduces Yavanis, or Greek ladies from Ionia, (off the coast of which is Samos of Polycrates) as waiting upon King Dushyanta while on his hunting excursion.“Kalidasa must have introduced them because he actually knewYavanis as waiting maids in Indian courts, not of course, in the time of Dushyanta, but in his own age.” But see Keith op.cit. p. 355 n.3. For him this is one instance where Greek priority is “extremely dubious”. He gives no reason why. As for the Kathahari Jataka (No. 7) of which an attempt has been made to trace it back to the story of Dushyanta and Sakuntala (JRAS (C.B.) (1884) we have only a signet ring and no fish there. Besides, the ring is to identify the son born to the maid, and even as such he is not acknowledged by the king, who all the while knew the truth. She had to have recourse to other and more dramatic means to have him do so! 39 参见苏伦德拉·纳特·马宗达《沙恭达罗遗失的戒指——是否源自希腊记忆？》JBORS 第七卷（1921 年）第 96-99 页。他指出，剧作家迦梨陀娑本人为"鱼吞戒指"这一构思的源头提供了线索——当国王杜什扬塔狩猎时，剧中出现了来自爱奥尼亚（波利克拉特斯的萨摩斯岛即位于其海岸附近）的希腊侍女雅瓦尼随侍左右。"迦梨陀娜之所以引入这些角色，必然是因为他亲眼见过雅瓦尼侍女在印度宫廷中侍奉的场景，当然这并非发生在杜什扬塔时代，而是他自己的时代。"但另见基思前引书第 355 页注释 3，他认为这是希腊优先性"极其可疑"的例证之一，却未阐明理由。至于《本生经》第七则《戒指本生》，虽有人试图将其溯源至杜什扬塔与沙恭达罗的故事（《英国皇家亚洲学会锡兰分会刊》1884 年），但该故事仅出现印章戒指而无鱼吞情节。此外，戒指仅用于辨认侍女所生之子，即便如此国王仍拒绝相认——尽管他始终知晓真相。最终她不得不借助更富戏剧性的手段才迫使国王相认！
40 The role of Brahmadatta as king of Benares most often serves to identify a new jataka and provide a court circle for drawing characters when necessary. If he is of high moral quality he could be the Bodhisatta; if it is someone else that deserves equation with the Bodhisatta, he could be Ananda. Here we have him playing a rare but positively villainous role as Devadatta, in consequence of which he suffers beheading. 40 波罗摩达多作为贝拿勒斯国王的角色，最常见的作用是标识一个新本生故事，并在必要时提供一个宫廷圈子来塑造人物。若他品德高尚，便可能成为菩萨；若另有他人堪与菩萨比肩，他便可能扮演阿难陀。此处我们看到他罕见地扮演了提婆达多这一彻头彻尾的反派角色，最终落得身首异处的下场。
41 Gen. 44. 1-15. 41 《创世纪》44:1-15
42 Gen. 22.1-13. 42 《创世纪》22:1-13 43quad43 \quad i. 23-24.
^(44){ }^{44} De Sera Num. Vind. C. 12.557a. See Life of Aesop 98-100. Afterwards the Delphians suffered from “strange diseases” until they made atonement by paying compensation to ladmon. This part of the story of an embassy for Croesus was perhaps not known to Herodotus (cf. i. 154) and seems more like a literary invention to bring the two men into a relationshp. ^(44){ }^{44} 德·塞拉《复仇女神》第 12 章 557a 节。参见《伊索生平》98-100 节。后来德尔斐人遭受"怪病"折磨，直到他们通过向拉德蒙支付赔偿金才得以赎罪。关于克罗伊斯派遣使团这部分故事，希罗多德或许并不知晓（参见卷一 154 节），且更像是为使两人产生关联而杜撰的文学情节。 ^(45){ }^{45} Oxyrinchus Papyrus 1800 (2 ^("nd "){ }^{\text {nd }} cont. A.D.); Plutarch, Lucian, Himerius ( 4^("th ")4^{\text {th }} cent. A.D.) ^(45){ }^{45} 奥克西林库斯纸草 1800 号（公元 2 ^("nd "){ }^{\text {nd }} 世纪续）；普鲁塔克、卢奇安、希梅里奥斯（公元 4^("th ")4^{\text {th }} 世纪）
48 The Indika of Ctesias of Cnidos, Greek doctor at the Persian court in the reign of Artaxerxes, fragments of whose larger work on Persia survive (J. Gilmore Fragments of the Persika of Ctesias (1888)) may not by then have been published. This was to be the first separate work on India written in Greek. 48 克尼多斯的克特西亚斯所著《印度记》，这位希腊医生曾供职于波斯阿塔薛西斯王朝宫廷，其关于波斯的长篇著作残篇尚存（J.吉尔莫《克特西亚斯波斯志残篇》(1888)），但该书当时可能尚未刊行。这将是希腊语写就的第一部印度专题著作。
so i. 59-60. 见第一卷，第 59-60 页。
51 op.cit. vol. I. intro. p. xxvii for instance. 例如，参见前引著作第一卷引言第 27 页。
52 The heart as the seat of thought goes back to Homer (II. xxi. 411; cf. x. 444; see also OdO d. iv. 572 and v. 389) Empedocles spoke of blood round the heart (perikardion haima, Fr. 105) as thought in man. See the fable of The Dog and the Butcher (C.183; H. 232 and Avianus Fable 30: The Pig without a Heart. This notion was perpetuated by the Sicilian school of medicine, until it found its strongest champion in Aristotle. If India contributed to such a theory, it was hardly popular enough to pass into folk belief, so that the Pancatantra, which adds ears to the bargain, must be simply reproducing from the Greek. 将心脏视为思维中枢的观点可追溯至荷马（《伊利亚特》xxi.411；参见 x.444；另见《奥德赛》iv.572 及 v.389）。恩培多克勒曾提及环绕心脏的血液（perikardion haima，残篇 105）是人类思想的载体。可参照《狗与屠夫》寓言（C.183；H.232）及阿维亚努斯寓言第 30 则《无心的猪》。这一观念经西西里医学学派传承，直至亚里士多德成为其最有力的支持者。即便印度曾对此理论有所贡献，也未能广泛到融入民间信仰，因此《五卷书》中额外添加耳朵的情节，显然只是对希腊原型的复现。
53 Prof. C.W.Amarasinghe (under whom the author read the Classics at the University of Peradeniya) express this succinctly when he writes "The men and de and the position of humeon make it quite clear that there is a contrast. Literally translated it would be, “Amongst you, while each of you walks in the footsteps of the fox, all together you are numbskulls”. 佩拉德尼亚大学古典学教授 C.W.阿玛拉辛赫（本文作者曾师从其研习古典学）对此作出精辟阐释："men 和 de 的使用以及 humeon 的位置明确显示出对比关系。直译为'当你们每个人都效仿狐狸行事时，聚在一起却成了愚钝之徒'"。
导出提示
谨慎下载超过 300 页以上 PDF，容易内存溢出。
PDF Pro 下载需借用浏览器的打印功能，出现打印界面后，在【打印机】处选择【另存为 PDF】，最后点击【保存】即可。
