________________
98
Amrita
Prākrit' which he finds in the Nātyaśāstrals. He argues that the Prākrit that is scantily dealt with in that book can be no other than Saurasenī, for all others named by Bharata can have no claims to the eminent position given to it there. Māhārāstrī the only, other Prākrit which can claim that position is not mentioned by Bharata in the list of his Bhāṣās and Vibhāṣās and was unknown to him. Sauraseni is the only important Prākrit in the dramas and therefore Bharata must have dealt with Saurasenī in his theory of Prākrit. This however remains at best doubtful and Bharata's treatment, coming as it does as a digression, gives us no clear hint that he is dealing with Sauraseni. If Bharata names sauraseni and prescribes its use in the dramas to a considerable extent, one fails to see why he should give his treatment of Saurasenī under the general name Prākrit, while it is equally probable that by Prākrit he means its generic connotation. This is made almost certain when.. we find him contrasting the Sanskrit and Prākrit Pathya with which his treatment of Prākrit begins 16
That the word Prākrit denoted either the whole of the Prākrit group of languages or else in its specific sense, the Māhārāstrī language can be proved from the consideration of a number of facts about its usage in Indian literature. Rudrata's enumeration of six languages in which Sauraseni and Prākrit occur side by side leaves no doubt of their separate nature. His illustrations!? also show the same thing and it is certain that Rudrata clearly regarded them as distinct from each other and used Prākrit to mean Māhārāstrī. The evidence of Dasarūpal and Kavyamīmāṁsā only shows that there the word Prākrit is used in its generic sense and that Māhārāstrī played no important part in the dramas.
Rājasekhara's views on Präkrit' are of some interest and importance. Nowhere does he mention the languages like Māhārāstrī, Sauraseni and Māgadhi with their specific names. In his Kavyamīmāmsā we find many references to Prākrit languages but in all the places he appears to give a fourfold division of languages into Sanskrit, Prākrit, Paišācī and Apabhramsa. Thus, while describing the Kāvyapurusa 20 he says that his face is Sanskrit, his arms Prākrit, his hips are Apabhrama and his feet are Paisāci. According to his conception of a Kavirāja2 he should be able to compose in all languages and for him there is no restriction of language, all being of equal value to him. He further notes that a particular language is favoured by the people of a particular country. The Gaudas favour Sanskrit, the Lātas Prākrit, those living in Maru, Takka and Bhādāna Apabhramśa, the people of Avanti; Pāriyātra and Daśapura favour Paiśācī while the poet living in the