________________
SEPTEMBER, 1892.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
267
tion of the eastern porch, dated in the reign of the Saugas, ases concurrently both forms 1 and I ; bat in what way ? It has pôté na, puténa, puténa, probably tóranain and certainly upanna. If both forms are here known, it is quite clear that the distinction between them is, not popular, but arbitrary and learned. This is proved not merely by its inconsistencies and by its irregularities, but by the application of the cerebral to terminations in which its presence is explicable in Sanskțit, but in Sanskrit only, by the proximity of an , which has disappeared in the vulgar idiom. At Girnar, at the time of the.edicts of Asoka, where the distinction between n and n is marked, the pedantic imitation does not go so far, - the cerebral never appearing in terminations. At Sanchi, the state of affairs is very analogous to that which is presented at Bharhut. In all the ancient dedications the I is unknown. It only makes its appearance in an inscription of the reiga of Satakaņi (No. 190), the introducer of Sanskrit into the epigraphy of the Andhras. At the other extremity of India, in the monuments of Ceylon, the signs I and I are evidently employed without distinction, and it is natural to conclude that the case was the same in the region from which that great island had borrowed its alphabet It is a curious fact that the only inscription (No. 57 of E. Müller) in which a deliberate distinction appears to have been made — we have in it mahasarané, budhasaranagaté, beside nati (natii), afhané, niyatê - appears to be directly based on a Mågadhi dialect, and yet, in its use of and I, it deviates equally both from the practice of Piyadasi, and from the rules of the literary Magadbi.
Nowhere are things more clear than in the tract which interests us more immediately, the country of Mahar Ashtra. I have just drawn attention to the fact that in the root-portion of words, Girnar follows Sanskrit in distingaishing between the two n's. At Nânaghất, the ancient Andhrae know nothing but the dental n. The cerebral I reappears in the period following, we have seen above under what conditions. The confusion is continual. No fixed rule allows us to disentangle it. Neighbouring inscriptions make exclusive use, the one of 1, the other of I. The meaning of this hesitation, of this medley, is further accentuated by the parallel facts concerning the palatal n. This nasal has disappeared in the literary Maháráshtris, and is replaced by the cerebral or by the dental. Nevertheless, in the inscriptions, we constantly find the genitive rúño, and also forms such as hérañika (C. T. I, p. 54, No. 32). On the other hand spellings such as kalianaka (C. T. I., p. 53, Nos. 28, 30) are of a nature to lead us to conclude that the i is no longer a living letter. We have, indeed, already quoted aranaka, an), and ni, héranika, puna, náti, &c., which shew that the use of the sign í is only a mere pedantic affectation. It is certainly not otherwise with the signs 1 and I. In the inscriptions they represent a value which is in both cages absolutely identical ; and if the grammatical reform of the literary dialects has assigned to them special roles, it is owing to an arbitrary differentiation which has no connexion with the actual variations of the current pronunciation.
Although summary, these remarks are, unless I am mistaken, sufficient to mark the peculiar characteristics of Monumental Prákpit, and also, more especially, of the Literary Pråkpits, and to present them under their trae aspect. This is an indispensable preparation for elacidating the problem with which we are concerned. It resolves itself into two terms; when and how were the Litorary Prakrits constituted P These two points embrace all the secondary questions.
It is a trite observation that languages, in the normal course of their history, are invari. ably subject to a gradual decay of their phonetic elements. This is a current down which all float. None can, of itself, go up the stream by its natural movement. This has ordinarily, and very naturally, been made the basis of the relative chronology of the dialects of India: The
. It is very powsible that this state of affairs www in reality mach more ancient. In fact, putting aside the peculiar spelling flaydou (G. VIII. 1), the edicts of Girnar, along with the ordinary orthography of fi for my have in one parenge VIII. 4) the rending Mirana. Inversely,' while the appears nowhere in the edicts in the Mgadht dialoot, Dhauli presente na unique example in patimit for pratis, alwaye supposing that the reading of the Corpus is exact, which I have great difficulty in believing.
