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 288

270
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[SEPTEMBER, 1892.
áyyakéna (A. S., V. p. 19, No. 14), dyyaka na and buddha (ibid. p. 82, No. 19). The maintenance of the long vowel before the double consonant is here to reveal a Sanskrit influence, and an analogous action is altogether natural in the participle buddha, which is identical in the learned language and in the popular tradition. Doublings (even purely Praksit ones) are more numerous in No. 27 of Kaņhêri (4. S., p. 85): pániyyao, bhádrajanijjánain, etta, ekka, ettó, puttana, savvaséva, fhitánari, tti. This inscription is, generally speaking, rather couched in Mixed Sanskțit, forms like pratigrahé, putrasya, kulasya, bear witness to a more or less direct action on the part of classical orthography. Its linguistio level is, in other respects, very uneven, and side by side with these Sanskrit forms, appears a genitive like dhutua. Dr. Bühler, whose experience on this point is entitled to great respect, considers that this inscription, written in Andhra characters, contains some forms of more modern letters. It, therefore, most probably, belongs to the third century.
These facts speak clearly. It is certain that Prakrit, as it was written on the monuments, was quite ready to accept the graphio doubling of congonants. From the moment when the diffusion of Sanskrit set the example of this doubling, this tendency shews itself in various dispersed instances, welling over from Mixed Sanskrit to introduce itself into Prakrit. These instances form the evidence of the movement which was inevitably destined to carry on the Pråkpits in its course. They shew also that this movement had not yet resulted in the fixation of the orthography of the Prâksits, for, in that case we should find in the Prâksit of the monuments, instead of rare indications, & constant practice.
Leter facts prove that this is not an unfounded conjecture.
It will be remembered that after the commencement of the 3rd century, the series of epigraphical monuments is interrapted by an unfortunate lacuna. The most ancient inscrip tions which come next to carry on the chain of tradition, are, so far as is at present known, a few epigraphs of the Pallavas. The earliest is an endowment of Vijayabuddhavarman 10 Messrs. Barnell and Fleet agree, on palæographical grounds, in attributing it to the fourth century. 11 of the four faces which are covered with writing, only the last is in Sanskrit. In the condition in which they have come down to us, the three first do not appear to be susceptible of a continued translation, but that is not indispensable for our present purpose. Whatever may be the difficulties and uncertainties, the general fact which concerns us leaps at once prominently into notice. Words like sirivijayak handavammamahardjassa, yuvamahárájassa, sirivijayabuddhavammassa, páduttare pásé shew us a Prakrit which, for the first time in the series of epigraphs, doubles its consonants like the grammatical Prakrits. This, too, is not an accident or a caprice. The copper-plates of Hirahadagalli, which belong to the same dynasty, and to the same time, and which have been kindly communicated to me by Mr. Burgess, use on the whole the same orthography.
The fact is of high importance. It conclusively testifies how the writing of the monumente was naturally inclined to adopt the more regular and accurate orthography used by the Literary Prakrits. If therefore, it had not adopted it sooner, it was because that use had not yet been established. It thus gives us a means for determining with sufficient approximation the epoch in which the final elaboration of the Prakfits occurred.
To sum up. The reform of the Literary Prakfits was subsequent to the diffusion of Sanskrit in profane use, and cannot therefore, be earlier than the first centuries of our era. In the 4th century it had been carried out; at least, the general system had been established. This is borne witness to by the reaction which it exercised upon the Prakṣit of the monuments; all that we do not know is to what dialects it at first extended. The few examples of doubling which we find in the epigraphs of the end of the 2nd century, or of the beginning of the 3rd, would seem to mark this epoch as the period of this grammatical work. 10 Fleet, Ind. Ant. 1880, p. 100.
11 Ind. Ant. 1876, pp. 175 and #f. 1 It has since been published by Dr. Bühler in Epigraphica Indica, Part I.