Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c29.s4: 4. Grammars of Prākrit

A History of Sanskrit Literature c29.s4

Language
English

4. Grammars of Prākrit

c29.s4.1

It is clear that the Prākrit grammars² which we have were written under the direct influence of Sanskrit grammars. The tradition which ascribes to Pāṇini a Prākrit grammar is doubtless a mere invention to honour Prākrit, and the further contention that Katyāyana produced the *Prākṛtaprakāça*³ of Vararuci is equally absurd. That grammar handles Māhārāṣṭrī very fully, in nine chapters, then gives one each to Paiçācī, Māgadhī, and Çaurasenī, treating Māhārāṣṭrī as the highest form, but finding Sanskrit as the original of all Prākrits. The forms of these Prākrits are clearly later than those of Açvaghoṣa and reflect perhaps the works of the third century A. D. at earliest. What is certain is that Vararuci, if we give this name to the author, was commented on by Bhāmaha, the writer on poetics (*c.* 700). The relative age of Vararuci and Caṇḍa, author of the *Prākṛtalakṣaṇa*⁴ is disputed; unhappily that work has come down in the two recensions, and, even if one is older than Vararuci, the other is younger, while its original views on many important points, as to retention of inter-vocalic consonants, depend on dubious readings; it may give us a stage not otherwise represented of Ārṣa or Ardhamāgadhī, the Prākrit of the Jains, it gives one Sūtra only each to Apabhraṁça, Paiçācikī, and Māgadhikā. As we have seen, another testimony as to a Prākrit is given by the chapter on Prākrits in the *Nāṭyaçāstra*.

c29.s4.2

² Pischel, *Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen* (1900).

c29.s4.3

³ Ed. and trans. E. B. Cowell, Hertford, 1854.

c29.s4.4

⁴ Ed. A. F. R. Hoernle, BI. 1880.

c29.s4.5

Vararuci seems to have belonged to the east—which is another sign of distinction from Kātyāyana of the south. His tradition is alleged to have been followed by a mysterious Laṅkeçvara or Rāvaṇa,⁵ who wrote a *Prākṛtakāmadhenu* on which is based Rāma Tarkavāgīça’s *Prākṛtakalpataru*, a work of the seventeenth century, which again was used by Mārkaṇḍeya’s *Prākṛtasarvasva* in that century, while Kramadīçvara’s section on Prākrit grammar represents the same school. Laṅkeçvara is also credited with a comment on Çeṣanāga’s *Prākṛtavyākaraṇa-sūtra*—not, as stated by Grierson, on his own work—and, as the manuscripts alleged to contain his works have vanished, his existence is decidedly in the air.

c29.s4.6

⁵ Grierson, AMJV. III. i. 120 ff.; Mitra, *Notices*, ix, nos. 3157, 3158; these notices are quite inadequate foundations for any theory.

c29.s4.7

The western school is held to be represented by the *Vālmīki-sūtras* which are lost in their original form, and are only preserved in a much expanded late version. In Hemacandra’s grammar,¹ book viii deals with Prākrit; he adds Ārṣa to the list as a good Jain must, and takes note of Jain Māhārāṣṭrī as well as the ordinary Māhārāṣṭrī of the poets; besides Paiçācī he places Cūlikāpaiçācika, and handles Apabhraṅça, giving stanzas of unknown source. For Māhārāṣṭrī he cites Hāla and the *Setubandha*, for Paiçācī, it seems likely, the *Bṛhatkathā*, probably, however, not in the original version. He is followed by Trivikrama in his *Prākṛtaçabdānuçāsana*,² who uses the *Vālmīki Sūtra* terminology, by Siṅharāja (14th cent.) in the *Prākṛtarūpāvatāra*,³ by Lakṣmīdhara (16th cent.) in the *Ṣaḍbhāṣācandrikā* and others.

c29.s4.8

¹ Ed. Pischel, Halle, 1877–80.

c29.s4.9

² T. Laddu, *Prolegomena zu Trivikrama's Prākrit-Grammatik* (1912).

c29.s4.10

³ Ed. E. Hultzsch, London, 1909. Cf. Keith, IOC. ii. 299.

c29.s4.11

This account, however, of the schools is based on inadequate grounds, for Rāvaṇa is merely a name to us. In the case of the *Vālmīki Sūtra* we have more evidence, for the Sūtras are recognized in different forms by Trivikrama, Siṅharāja, and Lakṣmīdhara. But the question arises whether it is correct to assume that they are older than Hemacandra. Trivedi,⁴ from a comparison in detail with the Sūtra of that author, holds that the *Vālmīki Sūtra* is an improved version of the work of Hemacandra, basing his conclusion on the fact that the Sūtras are sometimes better expressed, sometimes abridged, Hemacandra. Against this has been set by Hultzsch⁵ the fact that, as both the text of the *Vālmīki Sūtra*, when preserved alone, and Lakṣmīdhara, to whom we may add the *Çambhurahasya*, ascribe the Sūtra to the author of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, the work can hardly have come into being after the date of Hemacandra. This, however, is decidedly conjectural, for we have no certainty of Trivikrama’s date. All that is certain is that he wrote after Hemacandra and before Lakṣmīdhara and the *Ratnāpaṇa* of Kumārasvāmin, who was a son of Mallinātha. Now Lakṣmīdhara was, it seems, the protégé of Tirumalarāja¹ of the third dynasty of Vijayanagara, who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century A. D., and Kumārasvāmin’s father Mallinātha lived before A. D. 1532, when a verse of his appears in an inscription,² and after A. D. 1400, since he quotes the *Vasantarājīya* (*c.* 1400).³ Kumārasvāmin also knows Lakṣmīdhara, so that there can be no real doubt of the latter’s date. We, therefore, can hardly say that the *Vālmīki Sūtra* could not have been composed after Hemacandra, and at present this seems the most probable conclusion. Siṁharāja’s date is also quite dubious; the reference⁴ to the fourteenth century is conjectural, and it is possible that he is really later than Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita. Lakṣmīdhara and he agree in treating of Māhārāṣṭrī as the Prākrit *par excellence*, and then shortly giving the particular features of Çaurasenī, Māgadhī, Paiçācī, Cūlikāpaiçācī, and Apabhraṁça. Of other grammarians Mārkaṇḍeya is noteworthy for his treatment of a large number of forms of Prākrit as a result of his revising the tradition of varieties of dramatic Prākrit; he treats of five principal divisions, Māhārāṣṭrī, Çaurasenī, Prācyā, Āvantī with Bāhlīkī, and Māgadhī with Ardhamāgadhī, and also of Çākārī, Cāṇḍālī, Çābarī with Ābhīrī and Auḍhrī, Ṭākkī, Nāgara and Upanāgara Apabhraṁça, and Paiçācī. It would be interesting to know how far he based his work on earlier writers, how far on the study of texts; that the latter was the case in the seventeenth century, when Prākrit was far more of a dead language than Sanskrit, must, despite Grierson’s assumption⁵ that Mārkaṇḍeya was a predecessor of Pischel, be regarded as wholly implausible, and the fact that Rāma Tarkavāgīça by no means agrees with his statements suggests that both were more or less intelligent compilers, not original investigators.

c29.s4.12

⁴ *Ṣaḍbhāshāchandrikā*, pp. 6 ff.

c29.s4.13

⁵ *Prākṛtarūpāvatāra*, p. vii.

c29.s4.14

¹ Hultzsch, *Report III*, p. viii; EI. iii. 238.

c29.s4.15

² JA. v. 20 *n*.

c29.s4.16

³ EI. iv. 327; Hultzsch, p. iv, n. 4.

c29.s4.17

⁴ Winternitz, GIL. iii. 406, n. 2.

c29.s4.18

⁵ AMJV. III. i. 123.

c29.s4.19

The value of the Prākrit grammarians has been strongly depreciated by Bloch¹ and Gawroński,² while it has been defended by Pischel³ among others. On the whole they do not make a very favourable impression; their rules are often obviously much too wide, a fault shared by them with the Sanskrit grammarians; moreover, they have clearly often generalized, while for many difficulties they afford no aid. On the other hand, recent investigations regarding Apabhraṁça⁴ have proved that they had often real grounds for forms which they give, and it must be remembered that they are often poorly preserved and inadequately explained.

c29.s4.20

¹ *Vararuci und Hemacandra* (1893), pp. 30 ff.

c29.s4.21

² *KZ.* xliv. 247 ff.

c29.s4.22

³ *Gramm. der Prakrit-Sprachen*, pp. 45 f.

c29.s4.23

⁴ Jacobi, *Sanatkumāracarita*, pp. xxiv ff.

c29.s4.24

The Pāli grammarians, though they are deeply influenced by Sanskrit grammar, yet do not assume that Sanskrit is the source whence Pāli is derived, and they write in Pāli, not Sanskrit. Like the Prākrit grammarians, they draw from literature for their models, not from spoken languages. Kaccāyana, the most famous, is later than Buddhaghosa, not perhaps before the eleventh century; he uses freely the *Kātantra* as well as Pāṇini; Moggallāna, in the twelfth century, who started a rival grammar, shows the influence of Candra also. The Burmese monk Aggavaṁsa's *Saddanīti* (1154), which has won fame in Burma and even in Ceylon, depends on Kaccāyana.⁵

c29.s4.25

⁵ Franke, *Zur Geschichte und Kritik der einheimischen Pāli-Grammatik und Lexikographie*, and Geiger, *Pāli*. Sanskrit is used for a Kanarese grammar in Bhaṭṭākalaṅkadeva's *Karṇāṭakaçabdānuçāsana* (ed. Bangalore, 1923), written *c.* 1600 A. D.

Cites (12)