The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practiceKeith, Arthur Berriedale
History
The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practice
Keith, Arthur Berriedale
Sanskrit drama -- History and criticism
There are strong points of similarity between this Old Ardha-Māgadhī
and the language of Açoka’s pillar inscriptions. They agree as regards
the use of l, s, and e, the dentals in palinata and vannīkāhi, 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.
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. [158]
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 Prākrit to low people in general.
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 saçrīkam irregularly
sassirīkaṁ 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; iyaṁ is
feminine as later iaṁ in Çaurasenī alone; bhavāṁ as nominative is
comparable with bhavaṁ; 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 dāṇiṁ.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account