Indian Antiquary Vol 59

SR No.: 032551
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 380
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 16 MB

Page 10

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
JANUARY, 1930
yohicle of literature, like the various Prakrits. When Sanskrit was standardized, any deviation from the norm meant Apabhramsa, and it is what Dandin has expressly told us by orig संस्कृतारन्यदपभ्रंशतबोशितम्.
But, in obedience to philological law, Sanskrit could not maintain its sway for ever, and it began to deteriorate gradually. At this juncture, as the structure of the language was still almost the same and considerable foreign matter had not found its way in, cultured society tolerated this corruption of the vocables at the hands of their own people and gave to tho speech the significant name of Pråkpit- natural,' 'common ' or 'ordinary language. In course of time even this less favoured speech became the idol of its votaries in whom it inspired the same respect and zeal as its predecessor. This also died a natural death yielding place to a tongue which not only inherited the legacy reserved for it, but also high-handedly added a large amount of foreign matter to it. This was too much to digest and assimilate, and an altogether new language was therefore the result of this surfeit. It began practically to losu its inflectional character, , fc, taking the place of old case-endings. This was doubtless an utter deterioration of the norm, and Aryan people could not help calling it, though indignantly, apabhranida--corruption' or 'deterioration. The investigation whether the foreign matter pertained to Abbîras or Gurjaras concerns ethnology more than philology, and does not therefore deserve elaborate discussion here. What can be positively asserted here is that the refined Prakrits became turbid by the admixture of some very coarse un. refined and vulgar matter. It was possibly Abhîras who first thrust their vernacular into Prakrit. And the disappearance of Sarasvati (the river as well as the speech), attributable to their abhorrence of it (vide Mahabharata, IV, 20, 798), is very significant, in this connection. At first the mixture came to be called w ith or wroftfr, after them. There is mention of this w ork in the oldest document (C's Natya distra, 18, 44, Benares vdition, 1929) extant in this field of literature. But when this corruption introduced by Abhiras or Gurjaras developed into & widespread linguistio phenomenon and was imbibed by almost all the Prakrits of different countries, the appellation with being unsuited to the wider sense, was confined to the proper writt dialect. Markan. døya in his Prakrit-sarvasva has clearly indicated that fact by mentioning varit as different from Apabhramsa. Dandin by saying with that o f at: has only reminded us of the original sense of the term, and nothing more. Had Apabhramsa been from beginning to end connected exclusively with Abhîras or others, it could not have Aourished so much nor comprised so vast a literature as to claim the careful attention of such conservative Sanskrit poeticians as Bhåmaha and Dandin.
of textual evidence there is an abundance, but I shall cite here only a few examples to show that Dr. Keith's allegation that Apabhramsa was never a vernacular and that it was different from Sanskrit and Pråkfit is baseless.
Namisadhu, while commenting upon the same passage of the Kavydlankára (II. 12) of Rudrata, which has been the basis of Keith's verdict, quoted above, has the following remarks on Apabhramsa
तथा प्राकृतमेवापभ्रंशः । स चान्यपनागराभारग्राम्यत्व भेदेन त्रियोक्तस्तनिरासार्थमुक्तं भूरिभेद इति । तो देशPaštara I TRY T O 44 1
The importance of the passage lies in the fact that Namisadhu (1) recognizes Apa bhrama as one of the Präkfits themselves, (2) names the varieties laid down by others before him as being upanagara, Athira and gramya, (3) expressly says that they are many more than three, and, what is most important of all, (4) points to the people themselves as the best source to learn it. The last point is most significant as showing that by the time of Namisadhu, who finished his commentary in 1069 A.D., the Apabhramsa of many dialects had not ceased to be spoken by the common people,