________________
62
CAMDALEHA
Sanskrit and Prākrit,' and are written in prose and verse. The dialect of the Prākrit prose can be Saurasenī, or Māgadhi or something approximating to it according to conventions which had at their basis actual facts in the society in earlier times. In early days the songs too must have been in Sauraseni like the Dhruvas of the Nātyaśāstra. But with the rise of lyrical gāthās in Māhārāștrī, the preeminent Prākrit of poesy, the plays were sure to admit some of them for the entertainment of the audience. Though they are absent in the plays of Bhāsa, their traces appear in the Mrcchakaţikam and Sākuntalam. The Prākrit language of the plays in general and of the verses in particular was bound to be influenced by Māhārāştri tendencies. It is in this back-ground that we have to understand the remark of Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpaņa (VI. 159): (that women not of lowly origin should speak Sauraseni in drama, but in their songs they should use Māhārāştri. The verses used in plays could not escape the influence of that elastic dialect so happily perpetuated in the gāthās of Hāla etc.
Saurasenī and Māhāraştrī might have had their basis in popular speeches in two different regions; but it is almost beyond detection now. Once they became literary languages and were imitated in literature, all the while evolving side by side, mutual contamination, especially in the plays, was inevitable. When grammarians use these terms, we must try to grasp their limitations. The grammatical tradition they themselves followed and the literature which they had in view give a specific significance to all that they add about them. Though it is true, to a certain degree, that they have a basic common tradition about Prākrit grammar, almost all our Prākrit grammars are partial attempts: their sphere of influence is often limited and the literature which they have taken into account is meagre, Naturally we face a complicated situation today in distinguishing Sauraseni and Māhārāștri as described by different Prākrit grammarians. In the plays some influence is weilded by Sanskrit also on the Prākrit passages, because the passages in both of them are preserved side by side. Pischel, it is true, has attempted a comprehensive Prākrit grammar which is admirable; but by rigorously applying his standards to earlier texts we are faced with grave difficulties. A good illustration to the point
1 See the discussion above pp. 24-27. 2 Grammatik der Prākrit Sprachen, Strassburg 1900.
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
Jain Education International
