1887.] Dr. Mitra— On Ekotibhava. 169 



kritic orthography ? This is mutatis mutandis the same question as 

 that which would ask, are the rules of Italian orthography — of the lan- 

 guage of Dante and Petrarch — applicable to the elucidation of the Latin 

 of Virgil, Horace, Cicero, or Caesar ? And put in this form I have no 

 doubt the reply would be an emphatic negative. The Italian of Dante 

 is the result of a process of decay, regeneration and hybridism, of the 

 Latin of Virgil, and the course which this process followed is exactly 

 the same which we meet with in the transition of the Sanskrit into 

 Prakrit. In either case the change took place slowly, gradually, but 

 steadily, and the principles which regulated it were the same, the ends 

 sought being simplification, softening and economy. Both in Italy and 

 India, the change began with the lower orders, and was looked upon by 

 the higher classes with contempt. In Italy the changing language was 

 indicated by the opprobrious names of lingua romana rustica, lingua 

 vulgaris, or lingua plebeia in contradistinction to the lingua aulia of the 

 patricians. During its earlier growth it was not thought fit for literary 

 composition, and so we have not any connected chain of proofs to 

 show the different stages in its growth for several centuries from the 

 time of Virgil. The poetry of the Troubadours is the earliest written 

 proof we have, bat the literary Italian of Dante suggests a long 

 anterior history, which we cannot now follow with precision. The same 

 is the case with the other Romance languages. In connexion with 

 French we have the language of the Troubadours, the Provencal, the 

 Langue d'Oc, and the Langue d'Oil, leading to the modern language of 

 France. In none of these can the forms of the later stages be appealed 

 to for what occur in previous ages. And the history of the transition 

 of the Sanskrit into Prakrit is a repetition of that of the Latin into the 

 Romance languages. We have in it two well-marked stages, the Gatha 

 and the Pali. Of the former I shall say nothing here, as some people 

 fancy that it is not the outcome of a process of natural growth, but the 

 result of ignorance. The latter is now, I believe, universally admitted 

 by European Orientalists and philologists to be an issue of the Sans- 

 krit, produced by the same process of change, which at a subse- 

 quent stage gave birth to the Prakrit ; and we may safely accept it 

 as a guide in the enquiry we have now in hand. It does not, 

 however, afford us any help. It contains not a single instance to 

 show that the change to which Mr. Growse refers had made even 

 a beginning in the age of the Pali. I have gone through Mr. 

 Childers' Pali Dictionary with some care, but have failed to find any 

 indication of it. Simple non-initial h, g, &c, in Pali always retain 

 their places, and are never elided. To give a few examples. We 

 have 



