Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c12.6

c12.6

Again, if these had been artificial languages they would not have been called after the names of provinces as we have seen they were. I have given reasons for believing that though the difference between the S'aurasenî and the Mahârâshṭrî was not great, some peculiarities of the former have been preserved by the modern Sindhî Panjâbî, Braja and Hindî, while the Marâṭhî represents the old Mahârâshṭrî, and some of the peculiarities of the Mâgadhî Prâkṛit are distinctly observable, as we have seen, in some of the inscriptions of As'oka, in which it would be absurd to suppose an artificial language was used. And how, if they were not popular dialects, could the idea of using them for women and the inferior characters in dramatic plays have in the first place arisen? That a poet should make certain persons in his work speak their peculiar dialect, especially when that is an inferior dialect and likely to create mirth, is natural, and this device is resorted to by writers in all countries. But it was probably more from considerations of propriety than liveliness that these languages began to be used by Sanskrit dramatists. For they are no less particular about such proprieties, and of even the so-called unities, than other nations. For one of the rules of the Art is that one act should not contain the events of more than a day. Similarly the minute directions about the use of certain Prâkṛit dialects in the case of certain persons are explicable only on the supposition that the original idea was to represent in the drama a state of things actually existing in the world. For these varied reasons it admits of no question whatever that the Prâkṛits of the poets and of the grammarians were really at one time spoken languages. But it is of course not meant that they were spoken just as we find them written, or that they were necessarily spoken at the time when the poets that use them flourished. The Prâkṛits became literary and dead dialects as Sanskrit itself had before them, and, as already remarked, they may be used for literary purposes even now, if one wishes to do so. The distinction between the written Prâkṛits and the corresponding spoken Prâkṛits cannot be greater than the usual distinction between the language of books and that of ordinary life; and probably the Prâkṛits of some of our early plays represent the vernaculars of the time faithfully. I must not omit to mention that Mr. Beames has considerably modified his opinion since he wrote the article from which the above extract is taken, for in the beginning of the Introduction to his Comparative Grammar he speaks of the Prâkṛits as spoken languages, and attempts to account for the use of so many in the dramatic plays instead of setting it down to a mere fancy.