The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c10.s6: 6. The Language of the Plays
The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c10.s6
- Language
- English
6. The Language of the Plays
c10.s6.1
Bhāsa’s Sanskrit² is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractions *putreti* and *Avantyādhipateḥ*, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active, *gamisye, garjase, drakṣyate, pṛcchase, bhraṣyate, ruhyate, śroṣyate*. In other cases the active replaces the middle, *āpṛccha, upalapsyati, pariṣvaja*. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb in *sravati* and *vijanti*, and in *vimoktukāma*. The forms *rudantī* and *gṛhya* have many epic parallels. Irregular compounds are *sarvarājñaḥ* in verse, and *Kācirājñe* in prose; *vyūḍhoras* and *tulyadharma* occur in verse. The use in one clause of both *ced* and *yadi* is found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styled *pratyāyati*, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb, *samācvāsitum* with causative sense, and *yudh* as a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini's rules.
c10.s6.2
² See *Pratimānāṭaka*, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.
c10.s6.3
The Prākṛits¹ found in Bhāsa are normally Caurasenī, which is present in all the plays save the *Dūtavākya*, which has no Prākṛit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Aṣvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Aṣvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but both *t* and *t* are changed to *ḍ* and *d* in Bhāsa. Aṣvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss of *k, g, c, j, t, d, p, b, v,* and *y* when intervocalic. *y* itself suffers frequent change to *j*, contrary to Aṣvaghoṣa's usage. The change of *n* initial and medial to *ṇ* is regular, while it is unknown to Aṣvaghoṣa. The aspirates *kh, gh, th, dh, ph,* and *bh* are all often reduced as later to *h*, but never in Aṣvaghoṣa.
c10.s6.4
¹ W. Printz, *Bhāsa's Prākṛit* (1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, *JRAS.* 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.
c10.s6.5
In the case of conjunct consonants we find that *jñ* gives in Bhāsa either *ññ* or *ṇṇ*, possibly the latter by error; Aṣvaghoṣa has *ññ* only, Kālidāsa *ṇṇ*. For *ny* and *ṇy* Bhāsa has always *ṇṇ* as against Aṣvaghoṣa's *ññ*. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as in *dīsadi*, is unknown to Aṣvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Aṣvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it in *evva, evvam, jovvana*, *devva*, *ekka*. On the other hand, like Aṣvaghoṣa, for *ry* he has *yy* only in lieu of Kālidāsa's *jj*. For the later *metta* *matta* is always found, and the epenthetic vowel is *u*, not *i*, in *purusa*, and *puruva* is normal.
c10.s6.6
In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems in *a*, *āni* in Aṣvaghoṣa, *āṇi* in Bhāsa, while both *āṇi* and *āim* are allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously to *āṇi* in the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Aṣoka inscriptions,¹ *āṇi*, and the locative singular feminine is in *āam*, not as later *āe*. For the later *attāṇaam* we have *attāṇam*. For ‘we’ Aṣvaghoṣa has *vayam*, Kālidāsa *amhe*; Bhāsa both and *vaam*. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has both *amhāam* and the only form later *amhāṇaṃ*, while Aṣvaghoṣa would doubtless have used *amhākaṃ*. *kissa* is kept for later *kīsa*, and *kocci* (*kaccid*) disappears later. The root *darṣ* is represented by *dass* and *daṇs*, *grah* by *gaṇhadi* against the later *geṇhadi*, which, however, is found in Aṣvaghoṣa. The older form *karia* and *gacchia* or *gamia*, are found in lieu of *kadua* and *gadua*, but the last occurs once. *mā* is used with the gerund in the sense of *alam*.
c10.s6.7
¹ *āṇi* in Pāli, *āṇi* in the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.
c10.s6.8
Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* and the *Cārudatta*, the second in the *Bālacarita* and the *Pañcarātra*; in the two latter we have *ṣ* and *o* for the *ś* and *e* of the former. As in Aṣvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which require *ṣṭ* for Sanskrit *ṣṭh* or *ṣṭ*, *śc* for *cch*, *sk* or *hk* for *kṣ*. For ‘I’ we find *ahake*, which is an intermediate stage between Aṣvaghoṣa's *ahakaṃ* and the later *hage*. *ny* becomes *ṇṇ*, not *ññ*, and the use of *y* to denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.
c10.s6.9
The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in the *Karṇabhāra*, where the characteristic signs, the use of *r*, *s*, and *e*, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in the *Bālacarita* we have the use of *l* and a locative in *ammi*. A single passage in the *Pañcarātra* suggests Māgadhī Apabhraṃśa, but is probably corrupt.