Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c9.s3: 3. The Language of the Dramas

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c9.s3

Language
English

3. The Language of the Dramas

c9.s3.1

In accordance with the later rules we find the Buddha, his disciples, the hero of the hetaera play and Dhānaṃjaya speaking Sanskrit; the same is true of the allegorical characters, and this is also in accord with later practice, for in both Kṛṣṇamiçra and Kavikarṇapūra’s works some of the allegorical characters speak Sanskrit, though others, of more feminine appeal and character, speak Prākṛit. One Çramaṇa speaks Sanskrit, another—conceivably an Ājīvika—a Prākṛit.

c9.s3.2

The Sanskrit contains some errors, which are obvious Prākṛitisms, and which it would be unjust to attribute to the author, or authors. Genuine departures from the norm are scanty; the use of ārttha for artha has a precise parallel in the nearly contemporaneous dialect of Mathurā; tuṣṇīm is frequent in Buddhist Sanskrit as well as etymologically correct; *krimi* is found also in the *Buddhacarita* where the reading *kṛmi* would spoil the metre; *pratigṛhīta* has many Sanskrit parallels.) In *pradveṣam* where the metre requires *pradoṣam* Buddhist influence is doubtless present, but *yeva* and *tāva* are probably merely errors of the scribe, to whom may be assigned such a monstrosity as *paçyemas* and *Somadattassa*. But *bhagavām* has the support of the practice of the *Mahāvastu* where stems in *mat* and *vat* end thus, and it explains the Sandhi *çṛṇvam puṣpā*. These are minimal variants; in the main the Sanskrit is excellent and the fragments shows traces of the able versification and style of Açvaghoṣa.)

c9.s3.3

The other characters speak Prākrit, and, by a curious variation from the normal practice, the stage directions, which are freely given as in the classical drama, are normally expressed in the language which the character concerned uses, though there are cases of mixture and apparent confusion which may be due to the scribe. Three different forms of Prākrit may be distinguished, the first spoken by the Duṣṭa, the second by the mysterious *Gobam°*, and the third by the hetaera and Vidūṣaka.

c9.s3.4

The Duṣṭa’s speech in three important points is similar to the Māgadhī of the Prākrit grammarians; it substitutes *l* for *r*; reduces all three sibilants to *ç*; and has *e* in the nominative singular of masculine nouns in *a*. But it ignores the rules of the grammarians in certain matters; hard letters are not softened (e.g. *bhoti*), nor soft consonants elided (e.g. *komudagandha*), when intervocalic. There is no tendency to cerebralize *n*, and in *kālanā* the dental replaces the cerebral. Fuller forms of consonants remain in *haṅgho* (*haṅho*) and *bambhaṇa* (*bamhaṇa*). The later forms of development of consonantal combinations are unknown; thus for *rj* we have *jj*, not *yy*, as in *ajja*; *cch* remains in lieu of becoming *çc*; *kṣ* becomes *kkh*, not *sk* or *hk*; *ṣṭ* and *ṣṭh* give *ṭṭh*, not *st*. In *kiçca* we have an older form than *kīça*, in *ahakaṃ* than *ahake*, *hake*, *hage*. In practically all these details we must see an earlier stage of what becomes Māgadhī in the grammarians. With it may be compared the metrical inscription of the Jogīmārā cave on the Rāmgarh hill which belongs to the period of Açoka.

c9.s3.5

The Prākrit of the *Gobam°* agrees with this Old Māgadhī in having *l* for *r* and *e* in the nominative singular, but it reduces all sibilants to *s*. It thus shows a certain similarity to the Ardha-Māgadhī of the grammarians, but that dialect often keeps *r* though it frequently alters it to *l*; for instance it has *r* for the *kaleti* of this Prākrit and the Old Māgadhī. Other points of similarity are the retention of the dental for cerebral in *vanna*; the lengthening of the vowel before the suffix *ka* (*vannikāhi*); the accusative plural neuter in *pupphā*; and the infinitive *bhumjitaye* (*bhuñjittae*). There are points of difference, but they are probably all cases of earlier forms. Thus, as in Old Māgadhī, we have no softening or loss of intervocalic consonants; *n* is not cerebralised, but even introduced in *palinata*; *ḷ* appears in lieu of *l*; the instrumental in *āhi* has no nasal; the nominative of *vat* stems appears as in *vā*, as against *vam* or *vante*; in the infinitive we find no doubling of the consonant in *taye*. The fact, however, of the regular change of *r* to *l* and the use of the form *yeva* after a long vowel as in Māgadhī and Pāli show that the Old Ardha-Māgadhī was more akin to Māgadhī than the later Ardha-Māgadhī, which came steadily under the influence of the western dialects as shown by the tendency to change *e* of the nominative to *o*.

c9.s3.6

There are strong points of similarity between this Old Ardha-Māgadhī and the language of Aço-ka’s pillar inscriptions. They agree as regards the use of *l*, *s*, and *e*, the dentals in *palinata* and *vannikāhi*, *yeva* after long vowels, and the long vowel before the suffix *ka*. They disagree in the nominative and accusative plural neuter of *a* stems, which have *āni* in the inscriptions as against *ā*, but that is of no great importance, as these are doublets. The infinitive, however, is in *tave*, which cannot be equated with *taye*; Ardha-Māgadhī *ttae* may be from either.

c9.s3.7

The Açokan dialect is doubtless the court speech of his kingdom, and a descendant of the Ardha-Māgadhī of Mahāvīra, the founder of the Jain religion, and probably also of the Buddha, whose speech was clearly not akin to the Māgadhī of the grammarians, though it is called Māgadhī in the sacred texts.¹

c9.s3.8

¹ Cf. Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.

c9.s3.9

The theory of the *Nāṭyaçāstra* assigns Ardha-Māgadhī as the language of savants, sons of kings or Rājputs, and Çreṣṭhins, rich merchants, but, with the exception of Bhāsa’s *Karṇabhāra*, it does not appear in the extant dramas. Māgadhī, on the contrary, is required in the case of men who live in the women’s apartments, diggers of underground passages, keepers of drink shops, watchers, the hero himself in time of danger, and the Çakāra. Into which category the Duṣṭa falls is not certain; the Daçarūpa ascribes this Prākṛit to low people in general.

c9.s3.10

Çaurasenī is ascribed to the hetaera by the Çāstra which gives Prācyā or eastern dialect to the Vidūṣaka, but it is clear that the Prācyā is a mere variety of Çaurasenī, from which it differs only in the use of certain expressions. This is borne out by the dramas, in which there is no real distinction between the speech of these two characters. With the Çaurasenī of the grammarians it shows remarkable parallels. It has *r* in lieu of changing it to *l*; it reduces the sibilants to *s*; and for the nominative masculine it has *o*. Further, it changes *kṣ* into *kkh*, not *cch*; for *chard* it has *chaḍḍ*, for *mard*, *madd*; for *saçrikam* irregularly *sassirīkam* with the double *s* despite the epenthetic vowel; and in the third singular future *issiti*. The gerund *kariya* is parallel to *karia* in Hemacandra’s grammar; *bhaṭṭā* is the vocative of *bhartṛ*; *iyaṃ* is feminine as later *iaṃ* in Çaurasenī alone; *bhavāṃ* as nominative is comparable with *bhavam*; *bhaṇ* is conjugated in the ninth class; *viya* is parallel to *via* for *iva*; and *dāni* with loss of *i* as a particle is similar to *dāṇim*.

c9.s3.11

In other cases the forms of this Prākṛit are clearly older than those of the grammarians’ Çaurasenī. As in the other Prākṛits of the drama, there is no softening or omission of intervocalic consonants, and no cerebralization of *n*. Further, initial *y* is kept, not reduced to *j*; the interjection *ai* in licu of *aï* is supported by the language of the Girnār and Udayagiri inscriptions; in *nirussāsam* we have an older form than *ūsasida* of Çaurasenī; *iñ* and *ny* give *ññ*, not the later *ṇṇ*; *dy* gives *yy* (written *y*) for *jj*; *tuvaṃ* and *tava* are both manifestly older than the forms *tumaṃ* and *tuha*, while *karotha* is a remarkable example of the preservation of the old strong base. Old also is the preservation of the long vowel in *bhavāṃ*. In *adaṇḍāraho* and the dubious *arhessi* we have two variants on the rule of Çaurasenī, which has *i* as the epenthetic vowel in *arh*, but this merely illustrates the uncertainty of these epentheses; *duguṇa* in lieu of *diuṇa* is not older, but a variant mode of treating *dviguṇa*, and there is no special difficulty in holding that *dāṇi* and *idāṇi* are forms which were originally doublets of *dāṇim* and *idāṇim* in Ṣaurasenī, and later were superseded. From other Prākrit passages, presumably in the same Old Ṣaurasenī, we obtain old forms like *vayam*, we, and *tumhākam* in lieu of *tumhāṇam*; *edisa* for *erisa* or *īdisa*; *dissati* for *disadi*; *gahitam* for *gahidam*; *khu* is kept after short vowels in lieu of being doubled; a long vowel is kept before *tti* and such forms as *mhi*. The future in *gamissāma* is probably old, while *nikkhanta* and *bambhaṇa* admit of this explanation against the later *nikkanta* and *bamhaṇa*.

c9.s3.12

In the words of the hetaera the word *surada* occurs, with softening of *t* to *d*; conceivably the passage might be verse, but in all probability we are merely faced with a sporadic instance of a change which later set in, due perhaps to a copyist's error; to find in it an evidence of Māhārāṣṭrī would be unwise, especially as the very next word (*vimadda*) is not in the Māhārāṣṭrī form (*vimaḍḍa*). In the dialect of the Duṣṭa we have a form *makkaṭaho* which may be genitive, as in Apabhraṃśa, but is not allowed in Māgadhī; but the sense is too uncertain to permit of any security.

c9.s3.13

The existence and literary use of these Prākrits is most interesting in the history both of the language and the literature, for they present archaic features which place them on the same plane of change as Pāli and the dialects of the older inscriptions. They may be set beside the inscriptions in the Sītābengā and Jogīmārā caves on the Rāmgarh hill, which both show lyric strophes. The influence of the Kāvya style in Sanskrit can be traced obviously in the later Nāsik inscription in Prākrit of the second century A.D., and even in the inscription of Khāravela of Kaliṅga perhaps in the second century B.C.¹ We cannot, therefore, see any plausibility in the idea of the gradual adaptation of Sanskrit, a sacred language, to belles lettres; on the contrary the dramas show that the Prākrits in literature were already under the influence of the Sanskrit Kāvya.

c9.s3.14

¹ That any date is given in the inscription is wholly uncertain; see discussions in IA. xlvii. 223 f.; xlviii. 124, 206 f.; xlix. 30, 43 ff.; JRAS. 1910, pp. 324 ff.

Linked texts (5)