Prakrit Textual Criticism

Here is a comprehensive summary of Dr. Satyaranjan Banerjee's "Prakrit Textual Criticism," based on the provided text:

Introduction and the Problem of Prakrit

Dr. Satyaranjan Banerjee's work addresses the significant challenges involved in Prakrit textual criticism. Prakrit, identified as Middle Indo-Aryan, serves as a crucial linguistic bridge between Old Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit and Vedic) and the modern Indo-Aryan languages. The field of Prakrit literature is vast, spanning over 1500 years and encompassing diverse forms:

• Inscriptional Prakrits: Numerous inscriptions found across India.
• Pali Literature: Both canonical and non-canonical Buddhist texts.
• Jain Literature: Works in Ardha-magadhi, Sauraseni, Maharastri, and Apabhramsa.
• Non-Jain Literature: Works by poets outside the Jain tradition.
• Sanskrit Dramas: These plays feature a variety of Prakrit dialects representing different social strata, often reflecting a socio-linguistic pattern rather than strict regional accuracy.
• Other Prakrits: Including Kharosthi, Niya, Gandhari, and the Prakrit Dhammapada found outside India.

The inherent variety of Prakrit dialects, often used interchangeably or with overlapping features, makes the study and editing of Prakrit texts exceptionally difficult. Our understanding of these "Literary Prakrits" primarily relies on the works of Prakrit grammarians (like Vararuci and Hemacandra) and Sanskrit rhetorical treatises. However, a key problem is that these grammarians often prescribe dialectal features without detailing their specific characteristics, leaving scholars to infer them from contemporary usage or potential historical knowledge.

Key Problems in Editing Prakrit Texts

Banerjee identifies three primary challenges faced by scholars editing Prakrit texts:

1. Dialectal Issues:

   • The identification of the specific dialect of a Prakrit passage is often problematic, even for renowned scholars like Jacobi and Pischel.
   • Assumptions about "Jain Maharastri" and "Jain Sauraseni" arise from Jain texts exhibiting features that appear to deviate from the standard dialects described by grammarians. However, the extent of these deviations and whether they constitute separate dialects remains a contentious issue.
   • Even in earlier literary specimens, features described by grammarians may not be consistently preserved, leading to confusion when manuscripts deviate from established norms.

2. Orthographic Issues:

   • The peculiar handwriting in manuscripts, particularly Jain ones, can lead to misinterpretations. Ambiguities in the writing of certain letters (e.g., na vs. ṇa, y vs. th, ṣ vs. ph, jh vs. bh) and conjuncts can result in incorrect readings. A thorough understanding of manuscript calligraphy is crucial for accurate transcription.

3. Selection of Readings:

   • This is a critical area where errors in editions can lead to misinterpretations of linguistic features. Banerjee divides this into two categories:
     • Grammatical Texts: Inaccurate readings in grammatical texts can obscure the linguistic characteristics of a language. An example is Senart's edition of Kaccayana's Pali Grammar, where the word tu-dampati was misinterpreted as a compound, when it should have been the emphatic particle tu followed by dampati. Similarly, Cowell's edition of Vararuci's Prakrita-prakasa had an issue with the reading isi (short i) versus īsi (long ī), with the latter being the correct form according to most grammarians. Hultzsch's edition of Simharaja's Prakrita-rupavatara introduced a cerebral l based on a South Indian manuscript, which is a rare occurrence in Prakrit and likely a scribal peculiarity or influence from Sanskrit.
     • Prakrit Texts: The editing of Prakrit texts often involves inconsistencies between manuscripts and established grammatical rules.
       • Sten Konow's edition of Rajasekhara's Karpuramanjari presented a mix of Maharastri in verses and Sauraseni in prose, based on the dictates of dramaturgy. A later edition by M. Ghosh presented the entire text in Sauraseni, highlighting the divergence in editorial choices.
       • Pischel's analysis of Desinamamala highlights the difficulty in making sense of the glosses and examples, often due to poor manuscript quality or the editor's interpretation. Banerjee offers an improved reading and interpretation of a verse from Hemacandra, demonstrating how a better selection of readings can yield more coherent meaning.
       • The differing editorial approaches to labial b and semivowel v in editions of Kalidasa's Sakuntala by Monier-Williams and Pischel illustrate the conflict between adhering to grammatical prescriptions and following historical sound development, leaving the reader with conflicting interpretations.
       • In Jain canonical texts, scribal errors, often stemming from lack of education or dictation, can introduce readings that are mistaken for "archaic" features. The example of ramai (long i) in the Uttaradhyayana Sutra versus the more common short i highlights this issue.

Manuscripts vs. Grammarians and Emendation

A fundamental debate in Prakrit textual criticism is whether to prioritize the readings found in manuscripts or the rules prescribed by grammarians. Banerjee acknowledges that while most scholars believe any linguistic phenomenon is possible in Prakrit, this can lead to the inclusion of ungrammatical or erroneous forms in editions. He argues that Prakrit grammarians, writing when the language was somewhat stereotyped, offer valuable insights, but their prescriptions can also vary. Manuscript readings are not always consistent, and copyists often make mistakes due to limited knowledge of the language.

Banerjee believes that emendation is sometimes necessary when manuscript readings are not entirely reliable, provided that variant readings are recorded in footnotes.

Conclusion

The essay concludes by emphasizing the ongoing challenge for scholars to establish clear principles for editing Prakrit texts. The tension between adhering to grammarians and respecting manuscript readings, coupled with the inherent complexities of Prakrit dialects and orthography, makes the task arduous. Banerjee's work aims to illuminate these difficulties, leaving it to the readers to evaluate the presented arguments and the value of critical analysis in understanding Prakrit passages. He stresses that direct, fixed principles are hard to establish, and a balanced approach, considering the role of grammarians, is essential.