Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 600

52
REVIEWS
further development of the middle Indian stage. In this regard the lecturer puts forth two important ideas. In the first place the literature available today does not make it possible to get a clear picture of the further development of the Prākstas in the various geographical areas. If the literature in those days had not developed in isolation from the people, if it had treated of the subjects directly concerning the people, we would have been fortunate today to receive specimens of many Prākrtas which must have been in use in those days in different parts of the country. The second point stressed by the lecturer is that the phonetic changes witnessed in the development of MIA (and for that matter also of OIA) are not absolute innovations. Such changes had already started in the language as a matter of natural course. The contact with the speakers of the other linguistic families in India may have only helped the rapid spread of these changes. It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that the middle Indic phonetic changes (and the morphological changes arising out of them) were due to the ignorance or the laziness of the people who spoke them. Before closing the series, the lecturer has expressed hope that it would be possible for the Pārsvanātha Vidyāśrama and other similar institutions to take up the publication of good editions of Jaina canonical literature. Such editions should be furnished with an accurate description of the language and a vocabulary which woull ultimately lead to the compilation of a broad-based Prāksta grammar.
On p. 21, the Shāhbăzgarhi and the Mānsehrā versions of the Asokan rock edicts are said to belong to the north-east, which is obviously a mistake due to oversight. On the same page, these versions are twice correctly referred to as belonging to the north-west. The reasons given on pp. 7-8, while discussing as to why the works belonging to the Vedic period were not written down, may not represent the correct state of affairs. The explanation may not be sought in the limited knowledge of the script or in the attempt of the Brāhmaṇas to monopolise the knowledge of the intricate Vedic ritual, but into the fact that written texts easily lead to variations, a thing which had to be scrupulously avoided in order to ensure the efficacy of the sacrifices. In the second lecture, the lecturer has attempted a geographical description of the Präkrtas on the basis of the Aśokan inscriptions. This may be done, but only after a critical examination of the data enabling us to fix what really constitutes the eastern or the western, etc. In this respect it may be permitted to refer to an article published in the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. I, pp. 240-44 showing that certain exceptional features occurring in the Dhauli and the Jaugada separate edicts are not eastern but north-western.
--M. A. MEHENDALE.
Madhu Vidyā/575