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
In the case of conjunct consonants we find that jñ gives in Bhāsa
either ññ or ṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa has ññ only,
Kālidāsa ṇṇ. For ny and ṇy Bhāsa has always ṇṇ as against Açvaghoṣa’s
ññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of
the vowel as in dīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of
the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in
Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a
double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is
unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it in evva, evvaṁ, jovvana, devva,
ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, for ry he has yy only in lieu
of Kālidāsa’s jj. For the later metta matta is always found, and the
epenthetic vowel is u, not i, in purusa, and puruva is normal.
In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of
neuter stems in a, āni in Açvaghoṣa, āṇi in Bhāsa, while both āṇi and
āiṁ are allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also,
analogously to āni in the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,
[238] āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is in āaṁ, not as later
āe. For the later attāṇaaṁ we have attāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa has
vayaṁ, Kālidāsa amhe; Bhāsa both and vaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa
has both amhāaṁ and the only form later amhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would
doubtless have used amhākaṁ. kissa is kept for later kīsa, and kocci
(kaccid) disappears later. The root darç is represented by dass and
daṅs, grah by gaṇhadi against the later geṇhadi, which, however, is
found in Açvaghoṣa. The older forms karia and gacchia or gamia, are
found in lieu of kadua and gadua, but the last occurs once. mā is used
with the gerund in the sense of alam.
Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two
slightly varied forms, the first in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa and the
Cārudatta, the second in the Bālacarita and the Pañcarātra; in the two
latter we have ṣ and o for the ç and e of the former. As in Açvaghoṣa
there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which
require sṭ for Sanskrit ṣṭh or ṣṭ, çc for cch, sk or ẖk for kṣ. For ‘I’
we find ahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’s
ahakaṁ and the later hage. ny becomes ṇṇ, not ññ, and the use of y to
denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.
The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are
the remarks of Indra in disguise in the Karṇabhāra, where the
characteristic signs, the use of r, s, and e, are found; in the
speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in the Bālacarita we have the use of l
and a locative in ammi. A single passage in the Pañcarātra suggests
Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.
7. THE METRES OF THE DRAMAS
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