________________
196
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[SEPTEMBER, 1914
Mr. Pargiter, who has long devoted much time to the study of the Purâņas, hes now helped us out of this difficulty. In a handy volume he has brought together the accounts of the dynasties of the Kali Age contained in the Matsye, Vayu, Brahmanda, Vishyu, Bhagavata and Garuda Puranas. In addition to the printed editions of these works he has compared a great number of manuscripta, 80 that it is now easy to see at a glance. in every particular case, how the different sources read.
It will be apparent even from a superficial perusal of Mr. Pergiter's book how much the various accounts agree, and we are forced to the conclusion that they are all derived from a common source. This source must, according to Mr. Pargiter, be the Bhavishya-purapa, for we are often told that kings will be enumerated as they have been handed down (kathita or pathita) in the Bhavishya. Now it is & curious fact that the account of the same dynasties actually occurring in the Bhavishya does not agree at all and is evidently very late. There are, as is well-known, two recensions of the Bhavishya-purana, one of which even contains the Biblical history of Adam and Eve. On the other hand, Bhavishyatpuråpa is mentioned in the Åpastambiyadharmasdtra, . e., from a period previous to these dynasties. We thus know that there existed an old Bhavishya-puråņa, which was added to and recast in the course of time. Mr. Pargiter has not taken up the question about the various recensions which are now available. On the whole, a critical study on the Puranas is a great desideratum, and will have to be taken in hand as Boon as we get a critical edition of the Mahabharata. I should think that Mr. Pargiter must have brought together much materials for such a study. It is to bo hoped that he will some day make them available to the student.
Mr. Pargiter contends that the source of these accounts was written in Prakrit and probably in Kharoshthi characters. The question about the original language of the Indian epio has often been discussed, and the argumenta in favour of the Prakrit hypothesis have usually been the same, and never quite convincing. We cannot overlook the fact that the Indian epics have largely been handed down orally, and that their wording has not been safeguarded in the same way as in the case of the Vedas. Our manuscripts, which are all late, must therefore necessarily present many irregularities. In such circumstances we cannot wonder if we find soveral Prakritisms in the
Purapas. The same is, as is well known, the CASO in Indian Sanskrit inscriptions, and it does not prove that there was once a Prakrit original. Tho instances of wrong rhythm in the verses are just A9 little signifioant, if we remember how lato our manuscripts are. We must also remember that the classical Prakrita are not very old forms of speech. If the Indian epics were not originally written in Sanskrit, they must have been written in some old vernacular and not in tho Prakrit described in Pischel's grammar. If Mr. Pargiter is right in assuming that ashtadaša is oocasionally misread instead of abdan daia, it should be remembered that abdan is Sanskrit and not Prakrit. Everything depends on what is understood under the terma, Sanskrit and Prakrit. If the word Sanskrit is used to denoto only the classical Sanskrit of the grammarians and if every thing else is called Prakrit, then Mr. Pargiter may be right. But if we include the Vedio dialects and the epic language of the Mahabharata in Sanskrit, then I do not think that we can agree. The Purâņas are throughout Brahmanical, and the sacred language of Brahmanioalliterature was Sanskrit, in this wider sense of the word,
The theory that the oldest Puranio account of the dynasties of the Kali Age was written in the Kha. roshthi alphabet, is based on a still unsafer found. ation. That we occasionally find y for i and I for & in lato manuscripte, does not prove anything whatever. If all the Puranio accounta, for instance, had Ayoka instead of Asoka, we should have to account for it. But occasional mistakes of this kind do not make it even probable that the account of the Kali Age dynasties was originally written in Kharoshthf. It is not the case that " Kharoshthi is the oldest Indian script that we know of," and if the accounts of the dynasties of the Kali Age were drawn up or at loast closed in the fourth century A. D., the Kharoshţhf theory becomes very unlikely indeed.
On the whole, I am inclined to disagree with Mr. Pargiter about several questions dealt with in the introduction and the notes. I also think that it would have added to the usefulness of the book if tables of the different dynasties had been added. As Mr. Pargiter's book is, however, it should be received with sincere gratitude. It bears testimony to prolonged and careful work, and the exhaustive critical notes added to the texts are an important feature of the book. A work of this kind has long been wanted, and we must be very thankful to Mr. Pargiter for making it as reliable and handy as he has done.
STEN KONOW.
