Dictionary of Prakrit for Jain Literature Vol 01 Fasc 01

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

Page 20

(11)
and the gerund ends in -duna. The name given to this Kālidāsa, Harsa, Südraka, Visakhadatta, Bhavabhūti dialect is intended to suggest that it is a peculiar form and others upto the dramas of Rajasekhara and the of Sauraseni used by the Jain writers of the south. The dramatic theory that Saurasepl was the language of peculiarities of this Prakrit need further confirmation the prose spoken by ladies in general and Mahārāstri by the editions of these works in a more critical form. to be used in their stanzas, a view held by Pischol,
Konow and others. This position was, however, objected (iv-vi) Māhārāstri and the Dramatic Prakrits
to by some scholars and the use of Mahārāştri wag The nature of Mahārāstrī 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 bim, in detail because they considered it as repre
but in a more developed form as M. Gbosh and sentative of all the Prakrit dialects being the most
others did, thus casting some doubt on the validity of
of comprehensive. From the date of Dandin onwards it is
the views of the dramaturgists and the grammarlans. named Maharastri and is thougbt to be the best Prakrit In particular, two problems arose (1) whether the in which tamous epics were composed. But its relation
stanzas are to be in Maharastri or in Saurasens and to Dakşınätyå of Bharata, as used in the dramas, and (2) whether the generally accepted characteristic to Sauraseni in particular, which is the most extensive of Sauraseni, the voicing of the dental stops is valid ly used Prakrit in the dramas, remains doubtful and or not. This led to a further question, what language 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 were in their intancy and were primarily related to the dramatic Prakrits, a controversy Alexicographer bas to decide how to designate arose about the distribution of dialects among the the Prakrit passages which are found in the Sanskrit dramatic personages and the distinction between the dramas. Hence he has to take some decision about various Prakrits as described by the Prakrit grammarians. the various Prakrits, dialects and subdialects called It was natural and inevitable to proceed with the Bhāsā and Vibhāṣā. A closer examination of the information supplied by the writers on dramaturgy and original 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 nature 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 based appear to be result was a kind of disagreement 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 dialects is mostly based on Prakrit of the dramas. However, it must be noted phonological differences. This may be true whero wa that neither the Prakrit grammarians were of one can actually apalyse the spoken languages which are opinion about the features of a given dialect, nor did the fairly 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 uniform and use material belonging to different truction of the growth in the dramatic practice, wbich 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 Saurastni, 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 dramas discovered in Central language called Ardba-Magadhi for the dramntic fragAsia, edited and analysed by Lüders (ii) a slightly ments found in central Asia on the evidence of a later stage as seen in the use of Saurasenl in the single form of future tense kähäme for this purposo, Dhruvās given by Bharata in the 32nd chapter of his His other assumption, that the three forms of Prakrit Natyasastra and the absence of Maharastrl 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 analysed by Jacobi and supported to some extent preserved and are not lost, is also doubtful. Phonetic by the recently discovered dram 13 attributed to Bhāsa changes in the various languages and dialects do not (lii) a classical stage represented by the dramas of proceed with the same speed and older and younger