Indian Antiquary Vol 21

SR No.: 032513
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 430
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 17 MB

Page 184

174
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
JUNE, 1892.
These were facts which Piyadasi found established, and which he was obliged to take into his calculations. In the second place, it will be remarked that the two systems of spelling, or, if it is preferred, the two dialects used by Piyadasi, exactly coincide with the distinction between his immediate dominions and the merely vassal provinces, which, I believe, I have established by arguments perfectly independent, and having no reference to the facts which we are now considering. It was quite natural that Piyadasi should accommodate himself to the local customs of regions which were only indirectly attached to his empire, and in which traditions must have existed which it might have been both suitable and convenient to respect.
Certain useful indications can be drawn from the inscriptions. The various versions are not equally consistent in the application of orthographical peculiarities which correspond to dialectic differences. Even at Dhauli and Jaugada, where the initial y is most regularly elided, it is occasionally retained: yé (J. det. I. 4); yi (Dh. IV. 17); yé (Dh. V. 20; det. I. 8); at Khâlsi and on the columns this is much more common: at Rûpnath, the y is retained in the only three words in regard to which the question could be raised ; at Bairit, we have, side by side, an and ya. On the other hand, it is at Rûpnath that we find two or three words in which the ris retained and not replaced by l. As a general rule the distinction between masculine and neuter is lost in the Magadhi of the inscriptions, both genders making the nominative in é. Nevertheless, at Khálsi, it would appear that we have some nominatives masculine in 8 (satiyaputo, II. 4; Kelalaputa, ibid. ; sô, V. 14; cf., also, lájáno, Il. 5), while neuters very often have the nominative in an. These inconsistencies can be explained in two ways. They result either from the influence of the learned language, or from the sporadic action of the local dialect entering into the official Magadhi. I do not venture to decide.
Other irregularities, such as those which we meet at Kapur di Giri and at Girnar, are inverse cases. Thus, we have frequently in both versions nominatives singular in é (1) both for masculines and neuters. I may quote at Girnar : prádésiké, yuté, yárisé, bhútapurvé, vadhité, tárisé, apaparisavé, dévánampiyé, sésté, kammé, dhamacharané, manigale, dasané, dáné, vipulé, karimé, múlé; at Kapur di Giri: antiyéké, si, athi, sakali, maté, turamaye, jive, bhutapurvé, radhitē, tadićé, dané, niche, darsané, été, yé, kalavi, hati, yi, nichi, vijité, ghatiti, mahalaké, likhité; at Kapur di Giri, several locatives in asi (mahan asasi, I. 2; gananasi, III. 7; yutasi, V. 13; orodhanasi, VI. 14; &c. are contrasted with the ordinary form, which is in é. It is clear that these accidental forms cannot be explained in this case by the influence either of a learned language, or of a popular one. They are so many Magadhisms, whose only possible source can have been the influence of the Magadhi officially employed by the suzerain of the states.
To sum up, the inscriptions of Piyadasi divide themselves, from a linguistic point of view, into two series, of which one, that of the north-west, betrays by certain, though not very important, indications, the existence of a dialectic sub-division. The other must represent the official language of the royal chancery. They bring before us two strongly contrasted orthographical systems; the one more nearly allied to the popular speech, the other with a greater tendency to approaching etymological and learned forms. Neither the one nor the other is subject to definite rules;- neither the one nor the other escapes individual discrepancies, or certain local influences. We shall see from what follows, and it is this which gives these facts a real interest, that this state of things marks the first phase of an evolution which was destined to accentuate itself more and more as it pursued its course. We shall see, in the epoch which follows, on the one hand, the Mixed Sanskrit, on the other hand the monumental Prakrit, each continuing in parallel lines the tradition of which we here grasp the most ancient manifestations.
On several occasions, in the remarks which precede, I have been led to speak of "a learned language," and "a learned orthography." These expressions might lend themselves to