Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c8.20

c8.20

For in the instances given in the book, they are dropped in all the manuscripts used by Dr. Hoernle, even in A and B, which according to him contain the older version. Thus we have एइ for एति (I. 12), गयणओ-उ or गयणाओ-उ for गगनतः (I. 16), कयं for कृतम् (I. 23 and everywhere else), इहागओ-उ for इहागतः (II. 1), इच्छिअं for इच्छितम् (II. 3), कायव्वं-व्वं for कर्तव्यम्, सुइणं for सूचीनाम् (II. 4), नेउरं for नूपुरम् (II. 4), घयं for घृतम्, काउण for कृत्वा, दीसइ for दृश्यते (II. 5), गच्छइ for गच्छति, वइ for पतिः (II. 10), सरिआणं or सरियाणं for सरिताम् (II. 11), गइ-ई for गतिः, मइ-ई for मतिः (II. 17), &c. &c. It is very much to be regretted that the Doctor should in all these cases have set aside the readings of his manuscripts and invented his own with the त्, च्, and प् standing in the words, instead of being dropped. This invention or restoration, as he calls it, is based on a singular inference that he deduces from a single word, कृतं given as a Prâkrit word in the book. He says it must originally have been कतं, but the copyist, not knowing of such a word being in the later Prâkrit which he knew, took it as the Sanskrit कृतं, and wrote accordingly. If, therefore, कतं was the Prâkrit word in this case, it must have been so in all those cases in which कयं occurs in the book, and so Dr. Hoernle makes it कतं throughout. But it did not strike him that if the copyist knew Prâkrit enough to see that कतं was not a Prâkrit word, he must have seen that कृतं also was not a Prâkrit word; and could not have given it as such. Now the reason why these consonants were not admitted by Chanda, according to the manuscripts A and B, among those that are dropped, but only among those that are softened must be that all these rules are only general and not universal, and there were as many instances of softening as of dropping. Besides, I have already said that Chanda’s work is perfunctory, and does not show accuracy of observation and statement. The third point is the preservation of the medial single surd aspirate consonants with the only exception of kh; i. e., द्, थ्, फ्, are preserved. But III. 11 provides for t e change of these to द्, ध्, and भ्, if we look to the sense of the sing. of masc. and neut. nouns optionally in आह as कम्माह; and the form of the nom. sing. of the first personal pronoun is हगे. If we apply the test furnished by these rules to the several dialects used by the characters in the Mṛichchhakaṭika as it is in the existing editions, which play contains a large variety of characters, and consequently of speech, we shall find that the language of the Châṇḍâlas, the Śakâra, his servant Sthâvaraka, and even Kumbhîraka and Vardhamânaka, is Mâgadhî, though the rules about स्थ, थ, and ॡ are scarcely observed. There is hardly any dialectic difference in their speeches. But the Sâhityadarpaṇa would lead us to expect his Châṇḍâlikâ and Śâkârî respectively in the first two cases, and Ardhamâgadhî in the last three. As before observed, some admixture of Mâgadhî characteristics constitutes this last dialect. Under this view there are instances of the use of the Ardhamâgadhî, as Lassen remarks, in the Prabodhanandrodaya. The dialect used by Mâthura, the keeper of the gambling-house in the Mṛichchhakaṭika, is somewhat different. In his speeches, we sometimes find ल् and श् used for र् and स्, and sometimes not. The nom. sing. ends in ओ, as in the Mahârâshṭrî or Śaurasenî, in some cases, in others it ends in ए as in the Mâgadhî, and sometimes in अ as in the Apabhraṃśa; and the gen. sing. sometimes ends in आह as in the Mâgadhî. If the text is to be depended on, the Dâkshiṇâtya which Vis'vanâtha⁵ attributes to gamblers may be such a mixed language.