________________
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
LITERACY AND RATIONALITY IN ANCIENT INDIA
must have been resorted to on such occasions and that can in fact explain certain oddities that we meet with in the corners of Panini's grammar
I have quoted this passage at length because it plays, and has to play, an essential role in Staal's argument, and in that of all those who maintain that Panini's grammar is the product of an exclusively oral culture.
Staal's reflections find support, at least at first sight, in subsequently published studies about writing in ancient India. Harry Falk's Schrift im alten Indien (1993) is widely regarded as the definitive study on this subject. It shows that all the literary indications that had been taken to prove the use of writing before the period of emperor Asoka (ca. 268-233 B.C.E.) do no such thing. Moreover, Falk maintains that the inscriptions of Asoka themselves show that writing was new, and underwent important improvements during the realm of the emperor itself. In other words, writing was not introduced into India until just before, or during the reign of Asoka. Falk adds that the script used in Asoka's inscriptions is insufficiently refined phonologically to be used for Sanskrit; this adaptation occurred several centuries later, according to Falk.
It is no surprise that Falk subscribes to Staal's position to the extent that Panini's grammar must have been composed orally, without any use whatever of writing. Indeed, Falk states in an article (1990:110) that it is our fault, not Päņini's, that it is difficult for us to imagine how such an intricate system could have been developed without writing.
Here, I submit, Falk goes too far. It is fair to expect that we believe that Vedic memorisation-though without parallel in any other human society-has been able to preserve very long texts for many centuries without losing a syllable. The evidence in support of this is strong, and the determined sceptic can still today, visit traditional Vedid scholars and test the extent and the precision of their mastery of the texts concerned. However, the oral composition of a work as complex as Pāņini's grammar is not only without parallel in other human cultures, it is without parallel in India itself. It would have to be regarded as a totally unique event, in India and in the world, and here the least one can ask for is some kind of indication as to how Panini did it. It just will not
do to state that our difficulty in conceiving any such thing is our problem. Staal understood this. The credibility of his position, and that of Falk, is intimately linked to the plausibility of his explanation.
Mention must here be made of Jan E.M. Houben's observations (1999:34 ff. $ 4.6; 2001:171 n. 9) to the extent that Panini's grammar is not primarily or exclusively a testimony to the intelligence and genius of a single author. Rather, Panini formed part of a tradition of grammar-authors plus an educated public that made use of those grammars. The result is that Panini cannot have been all that extraordinary, for had he been, no one would have appreciated his work, no one would have learned it and made use of it, no one would have transmitted it. Houben may be right in all this, yet his observations throw no new light, as far as I can see, on the question as to how Pānini's grammar may have been composed without the help of writing.
In this context it is only appropriate to point out that Panini, far from being totally unfamiliar with writing, is generally accepted (also by Falk) to be the first Indian author to unambiguously refer to it. It is true that the brevity of his reference does not allow us to determine with certainty what kind of writing he was referring to. Hinüber (1990:57) suggests Kharosthi or Aramaic but prefers the former, Falk (1993:258-259) argues that it must have been Aramaic, a script used exclusively by a professional class of writers in the service of the Achacmenid empire. Aramaic was not used or understood by anyone outside this caste of writers, certainly not by Brahmins. Falk's is a possible interpretation of Panini's reference to lipi 'script', but clearly not the only one
To this must be added that, thanks to the work carried out by Hinüber (1990:34-35) and Falk (1993:303-304), we now know that Pāņini lived, in all probability, far closer in time to the period of Asoka than had hitherto been thought. According to Falk's reasoning. Pāṇini must have lived during the decennia following 350 B.C.E., i.e. just before (or contemporaneously with?) the invasion by Alexander of Macedonia. Indeed, in a more recent publication Falk (1994:327 n. 45) considers it credible that Panini may have lived under the Mauryas, and therefore (until) after the invasion of Alexander. It is moreover generally agreed that Pāņini lived in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent, probably in what is now Pakistan.
13
14
Cf Malamoud, 1997:105-06, 2002:148: "Mais peut-être faut-il distinguer entre ce que requiert la composition d'un texte et les caractéristiques qui facilitent sa transmission. Il est certain que les Sutra, par de tout autres moyens que la poésie, sont conçus pour être contes à la mémoire. Mais l'enchainement de ces fils, surtout de ceux qui tissent la grammaire, suppose de la part des auteurs une prévision de tous les détail de l'ensemble, une mémoire raisonnante, une puissance intellectuelle dont on voit mal comment elles pourraient se deployer sans le secours de l'écriture."
15
All Falk says is (1990:110): "Before Panini perfected the system there were many generations in different parts of the subcontinent working on it and it is impossible to reconstruct the steps or to estimate the span of time needed to lead to such an end." Hinuber (1990:57) mentions a passage in the Ramayana (1.12.6) which may have contained Lipikara, the word known to Panini, in the meaning 'painter rather than 'writer, but this can hardly have been the meaning known to Panini.
