Prolegomena to Prakritica et Jainica

Author(s): Satyaranjan Banerjee
Publisher: Asiatic Society

Page 39

THE EARLIEST MODERN SCHOLARS ON PRAKRIT
RICHARD PISCHEL
Hoefer was the first scholar to handle the grammar of Pkt. in De Prakrita dialecto libri duo, Berolini 1836'. Almost about the same time appeared Lassen's Institutions linguae Pracriticae, Bonnae ad Rhenum 1837, based on more richly abundant materials. A supplement thereto, die Radices Pracriticae was published by Delius, Bonnae ad Rhenum 1839. Up to that time none of the indigenous grammars had been published, and of the entire Pkt. literature there had appeared only a small portion, of the dramas, Mrcch., Sak., Vikr., Ratn., Prab., Mālatīm., Uttarar. Mudrār., besides Kāvyaprakāśa and Sāhityadarpaņa, all in wholly bad uncritical editions. Therefore, Lassen was able to describe mainly $. only, M. in accordance with the statements of the grammarians and Mg. on the basis of Mrcch., Sak., and Prab. Under these circumstances Lassen's work is an admirable performance. With his sagacity he has effected improvements in an excellent method in numberless places in the corrupt texts, correctly utilized them and laid the foundation on which the edifice of later research could be raised up. In spite of all such qualities up till now he has found no follower. The works of Weber on M., AMg., of Eduard Müller on AMg., of Jacobi on JM. are devoted to individual dialects; they will be referred to in appropriate places. Cowell, A short ·Introduction to the Ordinary Prákşit of the Sanskrit Dramas, with a list of
1. Cf. Benary, Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik 1836,
863 ff.