Appendix 5 - A note on the intervocalic (B) in Prakrita corresponding to (P) in Sanskrit

In all the Prakrta passages the intervocalic unaspirated sonant labial 'a' is uniformly found in the edition of Professor Monier-Williams. This labial 'a' persists even in the indeclinable 'fa' in Prakrta standing for Sanskrit 'afc'. The edition of Professor Richard Pischel, on the other hand, discloses in its stead a uniform representation by the fricative liquid 'a' in consonance with the prescription of the Prakrta grammarians. This discordance, however, stands in need of an explanation, as both the editions are admirably executed by scholars of no mean reputation, possessing no small experience of a truly critical editor, and one cannot but be impressed with the extent of labour, care and attention that the works have exacted from their editors in the collation of the numerous manuscripts consulted. Pischel, a Prakrta scholar of unique reputation claiming to have given special attention to the Prakrta passages probably because they are often found regrettably corrupt even in the editions of the savants of the East, delivers himself in the following manner: "I have given special attention to the Prakta passages and I trust this edition will contribute to a better knowledge of scenic Prakrta than it has been hitherto possible to acquire." Monier-Williams, one of the brightest luminaries of the West in Oriental Culture, having vast materials at his disposal and never shrugging nor shrinking from keeping a constant keen vigil to utilize them for a careful collation of the different manuscripts consulted, himself notes in his preface thus: "Not a passage was printed without a careful collation of all of them, and the three commentaries were consulted from beginning to end." From a close perusal of the texts of these editions, it will appear as almost certain that the readings given by Pischel reveal a

APPENDIX V 279 strong predilection for grammar, while the readings given by Monier-Williams seem to be based on an outlook of the historical background answering to the reliability of one or the other reading of the different manuscripts. In judging the readings of the texts of the ancient authors, specially of poets and playwrights, a mechanical adherence to strictly grammatical forms or to rules of rhetoric, prosody or dramaturgy, is as deceptive as is the blind allegiance to the text, in its entirety, of any particular manuscript, howsoever excellent or useful it might be. Collators of manuscripts best know how the original readings of ancient classics do undergo change of complexion, and sometimes beyond recognition, at the hands of grammarians, rhetoricians, prosodists and lexicographers; how blots or blemishes steal into the manuscripts through the negligence or ignorance of the scribes; how the intrusive hand of the poetasters, deluded by a chimerical and insolent hope of improving the author, inflicts a wound here and there, more serious than the mere negligence or ignorance of the copyists; how archaisms gradually give way to modern manners of expression at the hands of scholiasts long habituated to and well conversant with familiar forms and phraseologies of the modern classics. Needles indeed it is to expatiate upon the importance of disproving the idea of oversight or ignorance that may be deemed or apprehended as clustering round the apparently anomalous readings adopted by Monier-Williams. Oversight, which is apt to escape even the most vigilant eye, specially in strain and hurry can hardly be justified by its overwhelming frequency of occurrence. Equally preposterous it is to throw the present Prakta anomaly to the account of a bleared vision or an imperfect understanding of the learned editor, with finished equipment, in respect of a Sutra of simple and universal nature, prescribing the 1. : (Vararuci 2, 15; Hemacandra 1. 231; Trivikrama 1. 3. 55; Laksmidhara p 14; Simharaja 4, 62). It should be noted here that in one of editions of Kramadisvara's Prakrta grammar in Devanagri character the Sutra reveals a labial sonant (*), with the exexplanatory note and the illustrative example in the commentary, both following suit. The edition not being of a highly dependable nature in its reading, the question is one→

280 APPENDIX V change of intervocalic Sanskrit 'q' to 'a' in Prakrta. Another Sutra : (Hem. 1. 237; Tr. 1. 3. 61), a twin, as it were, in point of operation and application, that can justly be regarded as a double check to guard against the confusion or error apprehended, sets at nought the idea or apprehension of ignorance. Even if we assume or admit here the grammatical defence, not of the usual norm, devised or advised by a staunch votary of grammar, seeking to explain the labial '☎ in Prakrta for intervocalic Sanskrit 'q' as a loan from Apabhramsa, wherein labial 'a' generally replaces Sanskrit intervocalic 1) ³, in deference to the dictum of intended or formulated to cover the irregularities admitting of admixture of variety of dialects, it is not to be doubted here that under such circumstances, Monier-Williams has been inclined, as one should be, to value more the outlook of the historical background, as it is more likely to vanish in the treatment of matter in the mould of a mere grammarian. '☎' In fact the change of '' to labial 'a' seems to be an earlier phase of development than its mutation into the fricative liquid (v). The strong tendency towards sonantization of the unaspirated surds in the language of the Canonical literature of the Jainas, the collateral forms of the same word in Sanskrit both with 'q' and 'a' (like fq and f), as noticed in f, lend support to this view. It is quite likely that Monier-Williams took this kind of mutation of 'q' to 'a' as a case of archaism like other forms such as triyambaka, asa etc. (of course not in Prakrta) noticeable in the works of Kalidasa. This seems to be further corroborated by some of the irregular Prakrta forms found in the works of Bhasa and Asvaghosa which, though departing from the normal course of the Prakrta grammarians, reveal themselves as clear specimens of an intermediate stage leading to the subsequent evolution of forms unanimously sanctioned by the Prakrta grammarians. This is the main reason why the said readings with the labial 'a' (b) have been preferred in this edition. now left reserved for further investigation. Cf. also "EZ :' (Markandeya 2, 14). 2. anadau svaravasamyuktanam ka-sa-ta-ca-ya-pham ga-dhanya-dha-ya-bhah, -- Hem. 4. 396. 3. -Hem. 4. 447.

APPENDIX V 281 The introduction of this discourse is intended neither to disparage the readings adopted by Pischel nor to avoid queries from inquistive corners and censure from superficial critics, but solely to illustrate and account for the unseemly difference in reading uniformly maintained throughout the two editions, where special attention has been given to the careful collation of manuscripts. ERRATUM Preface. p. 7. 1. 10, for "Konnagar College" -Read "Nabagram Hiralal Paul College,"