Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Epics and Puranas c9: Chapter II

Studies in the Epics and Purāṇas c9

Language
English

Chapter II

c9.1

In the introduction to his *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, Pargiter observes with regard to the Purāṇas that "It is highly probable that they consisted at first mainly of ancient stories, genealogies, ballads, etc., which formed the popular side of ancient literature, and were quite probably in Prakrit originally", which he calls "an old literary Prakrit used by the higher classes."¹ These were Sanskritized later on by converting Prakrit words into Sanskrit and by substituting the future for the past tense without violating the metre, as also by dropping words, inserting compensatory expletives and recasting the sentence occasionally.² He mentions the following six peculiarities as supporting his inference, offering proof in Appendix I of the same book: "first, certain passages violate the śloka metre, whereas in Prakrit form they would satisfy the metre; secondly, certain Prakrit forms actually occur, especially where they are actually required by the metre, which the corresponding Sanskrit forms would violate; thirdly, Sanskrit words occur at times in defiance of syntax, whereas the corresponding Prakrit forms would make the construction correct; fourthly, mistaken Sanskritization of names and words; fifthly the copious use of expletive particles; sixthly, irregular Sandhi."³

c9.2

¹ p. xvii, n. 2.

c9.3

² op. cit., p. xviii.

c9.4

³ Op. cit., p. 77.

c9.5

Before meeting these arguments it is worth considering Pargiter's well-known theory of Brahmin and Kṣatriya tradition, of which the above inference comes as a natural corollary, since the Kṣatriya or popular tradition, before being taken over by the Brahmins, was in the language of the people, the Prakrit.⁴ This theory on which rests the superstructure of the inference of Prakrit origin, however, is untenable on account of a number of reasons, which are briefly indicated here. In the first place, there have never been in India, two such water-tight compartments as the Brāhmaṇa tradition and the Kṣatriya tradition. Even in the works distinctly assigned to Kṣatriya tradition by Pargiter, we find the glorification of the Brāhmaṇas, and the so-called Brahmanic literature abounds in Kṣatriya legends. There has always been a Kṣatriya king and a Brāhmaṇa Guru; and some stray quarrels between individual kings and their priests do not warrant the inference of a fight between the Church and the State, which European scholars are always prone to draw on the analogy of similar eternal quarrels in their own country. The Purāṇas themselves assign a comparatively small portion to genealogical accounts,—the genuine Kṣatriya tradition according to Pargiter. The Purāṇas, moreover, follow the Vedic religion, and pride in styling themselves the fifth Veda; and entirely ignore, as stated by Prof. Dikshitar, non-Vedic sects as Buddhism and Jainism.⁵ The so-called Kṣatriya texts, viz. the epics and the Purāṇas, are equally Brahmanic compilations like the *Saṃhitās*, *Brāhmaṇas*, etc. Further, as observed by Prof. Keith, the earliest reference to Purāṇas is for a point of Brahmanical lore and not for a point of genealogy or history, which would have been the case had Pargiter's view regarding the Kṣatriya origin of the Purāṇas been correct;⁶ other early references also relate to similar matters. It is thus clear that there was no such thing as the distinct Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya tradition.

c9.6

⁴ AIHT, pp. 5-14.

c9.7

⁵ IHQ, VIII, p. 758.

c9.8

⁶ JRAS, 1914, p. 1027.

c9.9

Now to turn to the grounds cited by Pargiter in support of his thesis. It may be observed at the outset, that even accepting all the grounds to be valid and proved, they are not sufficient to postulate the existence of originals in Prakrit. In the first place, they relate only to the genealogical portions, which occupy but a small part of the bulky mass the Purāṇas contain. The number of instances quoted in support of each of the grounds is quite disproportionate to the total number of stanzas these accounts include. One would have expected a stronger and an all-pervasive evidence to support even a *prima facie* case. The evidence brought forward by Pargiter is not sufficient to warrant the inference.

c9.10

The arguments put forth can be met satisfactorily. The first two relate to metrics, and the next two to grammar. With regard to the violation of metre, Pargiter has apparently started with the assumption that strict metrical rules must be observed in genealogies. Authors of genealogies were not chiefly concerned with metrical niceties, and similar metrical lapses are found in other portions of the Purāṇas as well. As regards the other part of the argument that Prakritic forms satisfy the metre in the instances cited, Dr. Keith has shown that a critical examination of these forms proves them not to be Prakritic forms at all.⁷ Concerning the arguments showing grammatical irregularities, it is to be observed that they are better explained on the supposition that they are due to the influence of popular speech which accounts for these quasi-Prakritisms, than by supposing that Prakrit originals have been deliberately translated into Sanskrit. Influence of Prakritic tendency is found even in Vedic texts, which naturally persisted in later ritual texts, epics and the Purāṇas. Irregularities regarding the use of numerals find their counterparts even in pre-classical Sanskrit texts. On the contrary, as shown by Dr. Keith, the theory becomes inexplicable when it is seen that the Matsya, the older version even according to Pargiter, is found to have correct numeral expressions, while the later Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa have ungrammatical words.⁸ In such cases as ekachatra for ekakṣatra, the Prakritic influence, as rightly observed by Dr. Keith, is only that of some transcribers, not a sign of Prakrit original.⁹ The fifth argument (which relates to the use of too numerous expletives which has been explained as due to the transmutation of the Prakrit past tense into future) can be explained in part by stating that these portions do not profess to be specimens of good poetry. In the second place, what would appear to Englishmen as too profuse use of the expletives or the so-called verse fillers appears as quite normal to the Indians; and in fact forms a feature of classical Sanskrit poetry. The last argument regarding irregular and double Sandhis has been answered by Dr. Keith by stating that they are simply instances of careless Sanskrit, which are not rare in Sanskrit.¹⁰ It may also be stated that similar lapses are found in other parts of the Purāṇas as well. Hence, all the arguments having been satisfactorily answered, it is quite unnecessary to postulate the original composition of the Purāṇas in Prakrit.

c9.11

⁷ JRAS, 1914, pp. 1027-1928.

c9.12

⁸ JRAS, 1914, pp. 1028-1029.

c9.13

⁹ JRAS, 1914, p. 1029.

c9.14

¹⁰ JRAS, 1914, p. 1030.

c9.15

Another objection to the inference of the existence of Prakrit originals for the Purāṇas is the fact that at the period preceding that of Apastamba, when we get reference to a Purāṇa, there is no record of any literary Prakrit. The theory thus requires the assumption of the existence of some form of literary Prakrit in the fifth century B.C. to render it plausible. Further, as Jacobi says,¹¹ such a revolutionary literary transformation (of Prakrit originals into Sanskrit) would scarcely have passed unnoticed in the whole range of Indian literature, had it been a real fact. Again, in the development of the Purāṇas (into the details of which it is unnecessary to enter at present) we nowhere come across any Prakrit stage at an early date. The Prakrit influence as such pertains to a later period. With reference to the Prakritic names current in the vernacular such as Rādhā and Ayān, Dr. Chatterji considers them as a strong evidence for the antiquity of some of the features of the Kṛṣṇa legend despite the silence of the Purāṇas about them.¹² He places them as far back as the sixth century A.D. In the absence of any critical edition of the Purāṇas it is most hazardous to draw chronological deductions from linguistic data. As there is no relevant material available, it cannot be definitely stated at what particular epoch the Prakrit influence was at work.

c9.16

¹¹ ZDMG, 48, pp. 407ff.

c9.17

¹² BSOS, VIII, pp. 457-466.

c9.18

It is interesting in this connection to note the similar case of the Mahābhārata as it also belongs to the so-called Kṣatriya tradition, and scholars like Grierson actually contended that the epic was originally composed in Prakrit.¹³ The same arguments are applicable in both cases. As the epics and the Purāṇas were intended to cater for the general public, to instruct them and to make a popular appeal, it was but inevitable that there should be an influence of popular speech both on the composers and transmitters of the tradition. With regard to the metrical irregularities in the Mahābhārata, Prof. Hopkins has attributed them to the influence of popular speech,¹⁴ which can with equal justice be applied to the case of the Purāṇas as well.

c9.19

¹³ Cf. Grierson, Indian Epic Poetry, IA, XXIII, pp. 52-56.

c9.20

¹⁴ GEI, pp. 260-266.

c9.21

Thus on the analogy of the *Mahābhārata*, and in view of the facts shown above, it seems safe to conclude that there is no basis for postulating the existence of the Purāṇas originally in Prakrit. The so-called Prakritisms are, as already indicated, a late phase, due to the influence of popular speech on the transmitters and transcribers of the Purāṇas who had to instruct the general public.

Linked texts (3)