The History of Indian Literature c9.22

c9.22

The distinction in point of subject-matter between the first and second periods consists mainly in the circumstance that in the former the various subjects are only handled in their details, and almost solely in their relation to the sacrifice, whereas in the latter they are discussed in their general relations. In short, it is not so much a practical, as rather a scientific, a poetical, and artistic want that is here satisfied. The difference in the form under which the two periods present themselves is in keeping with this. In the former, a simple and compact prose had gradually been developed, but in the latter this form is abandoned, and a rhythmic one adopted in its stead, which is employed exclusively, even for strictly scientific exposition. The only exception to this occurs in the grammatical and philosophical Sútras; and these again are characterised by a form of expression so condensed and technical that it cannot fittingly be termed prose. Apart from this, we have only fragments of prose, occurring in stories which are now and then found cited in the great epic; and further, in the fable literature and in the drama; but they are uniformly interwoven with rhythmical portions. It is only in the Buddhist legends that a prose style has been retained, the language of which, however, is a very peculiar one, and is, moreover, restricted to a definite field. In fact, as the result of this neglect, prose-writing was completely arrested in the course of its development, and declined altogether. Anything more clumsy than the prose of the later Indian romances, and of the Indian commentaries, can hardly be; and the same may be said of the prose of the inscriptions.