Comprehensive Critical Dictionary of Prakrit Languages Volum 01

Author(s): A M Ghatage
Publisher: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

Page 18

(* 11 )
and the gerund ends in -dūna. The name given to this Kalidāsa, Harsa, Sūdraka, Visakhadatta, Bhavabhūti dialect is intended to suggest that it is a peculiar form and others upto the dramas of Rajasekhara and the of Sauraseal used by the Jain writers of the south. The dramatic theory that Saurasent was the language of peculiarities of this Prakrit need further confirmation the prose spoken by ladies in general and Māhīrāstri by the editions of these work in a more critical corm. to be used in their stanzas, 1 view held by Pische),
Konow and others. This position was, however, objected (iv-vi) Maharastri and the Dramatic Prakrits
to by some scholars and the use of Mähärastri wag The nature of Maharastri is described by the
denied for the dramas as was done by Hillebrandt and Prakrit grammarians like Vararuci, and others follow
others, or it was considered to be the same as Sauraseni ing him in detil because they considered it as repre
but in a more developed form as M. Ghosh and sentative of all the Prakrit dialects being the most others did, thus casting some doubt on the validity of comprehensive. From the date of Dandin onwards it is
the views of the dramaturgists and the grammarians. named Maharastri and is thought to be the best Prakrit In particular, two problems arose (1) whether the in which famous epics were composed. But its relation stanzas are to be in Maharastri or in Saura seni and to Dāksinatya of Bhrata, as used in the dramıs, and (2) whether the generally accepted characteristic feature to Saurasebi in particular, which is the most extensive-
Sensive of Sauraceni, the voicing of the dental stops is valid
of Surakent, the voicing Of ly used I'rakrit in the dramas, remais doubtful and
s doubtful and or not. This led to a further question, what languago the problem needs a historical review.
is meant by Prakrit' when it is used by the gramma.
riaps as a cover term for the whole group of Middle IndoDuring the beginning of the 20th century when Aryan languages with which they deal. Prakrit studies we[e in their intancy and were primarily related to the dramatic Prakrits, a controversy Alexicographer has to decide how to designate arose about the distribution of dialects among the the Prakrit pissages which are found in the Sanskrit dramatic personages and the d stinction between the dramas. Hence he bas to take some decision about various Prakrits as described by the Prakrit gramma'ians. the various Prakrits, dialects and subdialects called It was natural and inevitable to proceed with the Bhäsã and Vibhåsā A closer examination of the information supplied by the writers on dramaturgy and orginal data is essential to decide the issue. I have poetics as regards the use of the dialects by various a feeling that much of the controversy on this account characters in the drama and to rely on the Prakrit is based on some assumptions of a linguistic natura grammarians for the distinguishing characteristics of which are not correct and some interpretations of the dialects usually enumerated in this context The the passages on which they are b.:sed appear to be result was a kind of disagreeinent between the two erroneous. To the first group belongs the view that Views leading to the problem of deciding the Main distinctions in the literary djalects is mostly based on Prakrit of the dramas. However, it must be noted phonological differences. This may be true where we that neither the Prakrit grammarians were of one can actualiy analyse the spoken languages which are opinion about the features of a given dialect, nor did the faitly uniform in this respect. But while dealing with works on dramaturgy show complete unanimity in the ancient and medieval languages which are availablo use of a language by a particular type of character in the only in their written form, this may not do. They are dramas. The result was a kind of historical recons- not uniforin and use material belonging to different truction of the growth in the dramatic practice, which stages of development and hence are misleading. Nor distinguished various stages: (i) a pre-classical Prakrit are the sounds uniformly used in all the words in which called old Saurastai, as the dominant language in the they are expected to occur. A striking example is earliest stage of the Sanskrit drama, as seen in the supplied by the opinion of Lüders, who sets up & fragments of Buddhist drainas discovered in Cintral language cailed Ardha-lagadhi for the drit:natic fragAsia, edited and analysed by Lüders (il) a slightly ments found in central Asia on the evidence of & later stage as seen in the use of Sauraseol in the single form of future tease külām for this purpose, Dhruvās given by Bharata in thg 3 2nd chapter of his His other assumption, that the three forms of Prakrit Natyasastra and the absence of Māhärästri in the list revealed in these fragments are representative of their of the dramatic Prakrits, this language being gramma- older stage on the ground that the intervocalic stops are tically analysod by Jacobi and supported to some extent preserved and are not lost, is also doubtful. Phonetic by the receatly discovered dams attributed to Bhasa changes in the various langu ges and dialects do not (lii) a classical stage represented by the drainas of proceed with the same speed and older and younger