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 259

AUGUST, 1892.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI. BY E. SENART, MEMBRE DE L'INSTITUT DE FRANCE.
Translated by G. A. Grierson, B.C.S., and revised by the Author.
(Continued from page 210).
PART II.
243
MIXED SANSKRIT AND CLASSICAL SANSKRIT.
It is in the monuments of the last Kshaharata, Nahapana, and in those of the first Andhrabhrityas that we find the knot of the questions with which we are concerned. According to my opinion, these monuments are dated with certainty. Even for those who may not share my opinion, they are not one whit of less capital importance. A difference of 50 or 100 years is, in this matter, of small consequence, and, at any rate, there can be no dispute about one point, viz., that all these texts are to all intents and purposes contemporaneous. Nevertheless, from the point of view of language, they present characteristic differences.
At Nasik, Kârli, and Junnar, seven inscriptions of the reign of Nahapana have been brought to notice. Not only do they all belong to the same time, but also, with the exception of the last, they all emanate from the same person, Usavadata, son-in-law of Nahapana. Of these inscriptions, one, No. 5 at Nâsik, appears at the first glance to be couched in grammatical Sanskrit, spelled according to classical rules. But, on closer examination, we observe more than one irregularity, the transgression of certain rules of Samdhi, Prakritizing methods of spelling, 52 such as dvátrisatnáligéra, lénam, podhiyo, bhatárkánátiya, varsháratum, utamabhadram, &c. These irregularities, which are very rare at the commencement, multiply towards the end of the inscription. Another (Nasik 6 A) is, on the other hand, entirely Prakrit in its terminations; homogeneous consonants are not doubled; r is retained after a consonant (leshatrapa), but assimilated where it precedes (savana); it distinguishes three sibilants, but, by the side of sata, we read sata, and even panarasa for pañchadasa; by the side of the ordinary assimilations of Prâkrit, the group ksha is retained unchanged, and we find nétyaka equivalent to the Sanskrit naityaka. It is hardly otherwise with No. 7 of Nasik. It contains both kusana and kasana, śrénisu beside Ushavadáta,63 kárshápana and kahapana, sata and sata, all which does not prevent its using the vowel ri in krita.
In another inscription, No. 19 of Kârli, pure Prâkrit reigns supreme, except in the orthographies brahmana and bhárya. The fact is the more striking because the formula employed is the exact counterpart of the Sanskrit formula of the monument first referred to. The case is the same at Nasik, in Nos. 8-9, save for the orthographies putra, kshatrapa, and kshaḥarata, by the side of Dakhamitá (equivalent to Dakshamitra). Finally, in No. 11 of Junnar, the ksha gives way to kh, which, nevertheless, does not prevent them from writing amátya and not amacha, by the side of sámi for svámi, and even of matapa for mandapa. I cannot dispense with again referring to No. 10 of Nasik which, although we are unable to fix its date with precision, is undoubtedly contemporaneous. This time, the terminations, the genitive masculine in asya, have the appearance of Sanskrit; but we also find the genitive varmanaḥ, side by side with varmasya; as a general rule the orthography is Sanskrit, but, nevertheless, we read in it gimhapakhé, chôthé (= chaturthe), vishnudatdyd, gilánabhéshaja. This is the exact reverse of the preceding inscriptions, which write kshatrapa, and have the genitive in asa.
This capricious and unequal mixture of classical and popular forms is no new thing. In the literature of the Northern Buddhists, it has a name. It is the Gatha dialect. Nowadays, that this same mode of writing has been found not only in prose religious 52 Hoernle, Ind. Ant. 1883, pp. 27 and f.
51 Cf. Arch. Surv. West. Ind. IV. pp. 99 and ff.
63 Ushavadata itself could easily contain an instance of confusion between the sibilants. The v, which is almost constant, does not appear to me to lend itself to the transcription Rishabhadatta of Dr. Bühler. It is, unless I am mistaken, Utsavadatta, which we should understand.