A History of Sanskrit Literature c19.s3.4

c19.s3.4

The language and form of the new text do not permit of precise determination. It is possible that the references to Paiçācī forms and citations in the case of Hemacandra are derived from this Kashmirian text, and if so they would show that the work was handed down in a form of Paiçācī. Nor, of course, is there anything implausible in such a proceeding. It is not rare for a dialect once established to remain in use for a certain work after the original has been changed. We have the perfectly clear statement of Somadeva that the language was altered, and this can hardly mean anything less than a translation. If the original had been in Sanskrit, it seems incredible that it would not have influenced both Kṣemendra and Somadeva sufficiently to cause frequent verbal similarities, and this is not the case. The similarities which do occur, as for instance in the stories of the *Pañcatantra*, can easily be explained by the fact that both authors were dealing with a work in a dialect which admittedly was considerably more Sanskritic than the ordinary Prākrit; indeed, on one list of the relative position of Prākrits Paiçācī is ranked after Sanskrit in honour.