Studies in the Epics and Puranas c9.10

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.