________________
96
the North, especially Gujarata and Madhyadeśa, are more exposed to it. Even eminent Sanskrit-grammarians like Hemacandra have not avoided Prakritisms. If the Bower Ms., the Sanskrit digests of the Bṛhatkatha, and the Sanskrit texts like the Dharmaparikṣā of Amitagati, Parisișta-parvan of Hemacandra and Samaraditya-samkṣepa of Pradyumnasuri contain Präkritisms, it is mainly due to the fact that the works are based on Prakrit originals directly or indirectly. Like Siddharşi who wrote his Upamitibhavaprapañcă katha at the beginning of the 10th century A. D., some authors studiously wrote in simple and popular Sanskrit that it might be understood in a wider circle of readers. Further whenever a text belongs to the class of popular epics and draws its material from Prakrit sources, it would certainly exhibit both Sanskritic solecisms as well as Prakritisms.
The medieval Sanskrit texts, especially those composed by Jaina authors from Gujarata and round about, have attracted the attention of eminent orientalists from a pretty long time; and their language has been Subjected to critical study by scholars like Weber, Jacobi, Hertel, Bloomfield and others. The orthodox Sanskritist may shun such a study; but a dispassionate linguist wants to have a fair acquaintance with the internal and external vicissitudes to which the Sanskrit language has been subjected throughout its phenomenal career; for him, there is nothing correct or incorrect; every authentic fact of the language has a judicious place in his study; and he would critically ascertain its exact position in the evolution of that language. Or as Jacobi remarks: 'it is considered the duty of a philologist to note such paculiarities in style, language, metrics etc. of the work he edits, as characterize its position in the Literature to which it belongs'. The Kathakośa of Harişeņa is being printed for the first time, and it would be worth the while to study its language from this point of view. Our limitations are plain: the text is not quite critical, all the three Mss. being of the same family; and more Mss. will have to be collated to arrive at a moderately final text. Some verses do present difficulties of interpretation. For the present, authenticity of the text amounts to the agreement of three Mss. It is not the intention of the editor to find fault with the author's language; but with all modesty he is trying to note down the salient linguistic peculiarities of the text, as it has come down to him, in the back-ground of
1
BṚHAT-KATHAKOSA
Jain Education International
Bloomfield: The Life and Stories of the Jaina Saviour Parsvanatha, Baltimore 1919, on the language of the text pp. 220-39; also Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel Gottingen 1923, Some aspects of Jaina Sanskrit, pp. 220-30. Jacobi: Upamitibhavaprapañca katha, Bibliotheca Indica ed., Preface pp. XX etc. Haragovinda and Becharadasa: Sri-Santinathamahakavya (Sri-Yasovijaya Jaina Granthamälä vol. 20, Benares Veer-Era 2437), Prastavana pp. etc. Hertel: The Pañcatantra-Text of Purṇabhadra, HOS, 12, Pūrṇabhadra's Language pp. 31-36; also his paper, 'On the Literature of the Shvetambaras of Gujarat' Leipzig 1922, especially, pp. 14f. Upadhye: Varangacarita, Bombay 1938, Intro. pp. 42-48. Mul Raj Jain: Citrasenapadmavaticarita, Lahore 1942, Intro. pp. 23-30.
2 See Bloomfield's paper 'Some Aspects of Jaina Sanskrit' and the editorial remarks in the Prastavana of Santinathamahākavya noted above.
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
