Date Of Second Middle Indo Aryan A Fresh Chronological Estimate

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text by Satya Swarup Misra, focusing on the chronological estimates of Middle Indo-Aryan, specifically the Second Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) stage:

The paper, "Date of Second Middle Indo-Aryan A Fresh Chronological Estimate" by Dr. Satya Swarup Misra, presents a revised chronological framework for the historical development of Indo-Aryan languages, particularly focusing on the Second Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) period. This period is significant as it encompasses major Prakrit languages like Ardha-Magadhi, Sauraseni, and Magadhi.

Critique of Prof. Suniti Kumar Chatterji's Chronology:

Misra begins by outlining and critiquing the widely accepted chronological framework proposed by Professor Suniti Kumar Chatterji. Chatterji's proposed dates for Indo-Aryan stages are:

• Old Indo-Aryan (OIA): 1500 (or 1200) BC to 600 BC
• First Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA): 600 BC to 200 BC
• Transitional MIA: 200 BC to 200 AD
• Second MIA: 200 AD to 500 or 600 AD
• Third/Late MIA: 600 AD to 1000 AD

Misra argues that Chatterji's dates are "rough and tentative" and lack explicit evidentiary support. He suggests that Chatterji made these statements casually to link linguistic material with historical development.

Misra's Proposed Chronological Framework:

In contrast, Misra presents his own chronological estimates, which differ significantly from Chatterji's, as detailed in his recent work "Fresh Light on Indo-European Classification and Chronology." His proposed chronology for Indo-Aryan is:

• Old Indo-Aryan: 2000 BC to 1000 BC
• First Middle Indo-Aryan: 1000 BC to 600 BC
• Second Middle Indo-Aryan: 600 BC to 300 BC
• Third Middle Indo-Aryan: 300 BC to 001 BC
• New Indo-Aryan: 001 AD onwards

Focus on Second Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA):

The core of Misra's paper is his revised dating for the Second MIA stage. He disputes Chatterji's view that Ardha-Magadhi, a key language of this stage, began in the 2nd century AD. Misra argues, based on his linguistic chronology, that the Second MIA, including Ardha-Magadhi, started from the 6th century BC.

Evidentiary Basis for Misra's Chronology:

Misra asserts that his chronology is supported by evidence, including archaeological evidence for the New Indo-Aryan period and the principle of allowing "approximate time gaps" between developmental stages. These gaps are not arbitrary but are based on the extent of linguistic change observed in each period. He suggests that the assumed gap periods (e.g., 377 or 400 years) might even be underestimates.

Traditional Beliefs and Ardha-Magadhi:

Misra highlights the traditional belief that Ardha-Magadhi was the language spoken by Mahavira. He finds no linguistic basis to challenge this, and therefore supports placing Ardha-Magadhi safely within the 6th century BC as its starting point. He directly refutes Chatterji's suggestion of an "Old Ardha-Magadhi" to force his later chronological placement.

The Case of Kalidasa:

Misra further strengthens his argument by analyzing the dating of Kalidasa. Kalidasa's works exhibit Classical Sanskrit, Second MIA elements, and some Apabhramsa. Misra argues that Kalidasa's natural Sanskrit style places him closer to Panini than later influences would suggest. While scholars debate whether Kalidasa lived in the 1st century BC or 4th century AD, Misra contends that Kalidasa's Apabhramsa verses, if accepted as authentic, would necessitate a much earlier dating for Apabhramsa than Chatterji's 6th century AD estimate. Misra, having presented evidence in his book that Kalidasa belongs to the 1st century BC, also positions Kalidasa as belonging to the last phase of Apabhramsa.

Conclusion:

Based on the traditional dating of Ardha-Magadhi to Mahavira's time and his revised chronological framework supported by evidence and reasoned time gaps, Misra concludes that his estimate of the Second MIA beginning in the 6th century BC and concluding as a natural spoken language in the 4th century BC is quite reasonable. He acknowledges that literary forms of these languages persisted for centuries. His chronological estimates are presented as more preferable and evidence-based compared to Chatterji's tentative proposals.