PREFACE xxvii
of local as well as class dialects. At any rate arguments used to deny vernacular character to Sanskrit are quite adequate to prove the same hypothesis of standard English, which unquestionably is a true vernacular. 1
Moreover, the fact that Sanskrit was thus regularly used in conversation by the upper classes, court circles eventually following the example of the Brahmins in this regard, helps to explain the constant influence exercised by the higher form of speech on the vernaculars which reveals itself inter alia in the constant influx of Tatsamas, words whose phonetic state runs counter to the tendencies of the vernacular. It is quite impossible to explain this phenomenon adequately by the theory of borrowing from literature only ; those who adapted the vernaculars for the purpose of writing in any form or literary composition were doubtless in constant touch with circles in which Sanskrit was actually in living use. Doubtless, important changes to the dis- advantage of Sanskrit as a spoken language resulted from the Mahomedan invasions, which culminated in the substitution of a new speech in official use at the courts of Mahomedan rulers, but for the period from A.D. 300 up to 1200, dealt with in this work, there is little evidence of any fundamental change in the extent or character of the use of Sanskrit ; the same impression is given by the Kamasutra, perhaps c. 400, the Kavyamlmahsa of Rajacekhara (c. 900), and Bilhana (c. 1100).
On the vital chronological issue of Kaniska's date certainty has not yet been achieved; a case for A.D. 128-9 as the initial year of his era 2 has been made out, while his death in Khotan is assigned to 152. 3 This places him half a centuiy after A. D. 78, and it can only be said at present that the new dating, while it has many merits, none the less leaves unexplained difficulties.
1 An interesting loan-word is suggested in kampana or kampand (below, p. 170) by B. Liebich (Festgabe Strcitberg, pp. 230-2) who sees in it a derivative of campus. Liebich has a most amuting note (ZII. v. 153-63) showing how in Paticatantra, i. 7 (below, p. 257) the original version has a bug, not a flea, but the latter was introduced by Burz5e's version. BurzOe's alleged narrative is suspected by Sir E. Denison Ross {Ocean of Story, v. pp. vff. ; BSOS. iii. 443), but the existence of a Pahlavi rendering, which alone is of importance to Indologists, is not questioned.
2 W. E. van Wijk, Acta Orientalia, v. 168 ff.
- S. Konow, IHQ. iii. 851-6. The conclusions of this article are far from
certain.
