SANSKRIT STUDIES
50
the higher mind of the community. There is also some doubt about the precise character of the Sanskrit that is used by the classical writers. While it conforms for the most part to the re- quirements of Paninian grammar, it not infrequently startles us by deviations from it which cannot be satisfactorily explained with- out assuming, as is done here, a distinction between the language of the priests — ‘Sanskrit’ strictly so termed — and the language that was current in courts and other aristocratic circles. These forms of Sanskrit differ less from each other than either does from Prakrit, but they are sufficiently divergent to be reckoned as two. It is in the latter, which for the sake of convenience is sometimes de- scribed as ‘epic Sanskrit’, that the Rdmdyana and the Mahabharata are written. The classical writers are influenced by both these forms of linguistic tradition. Their literary lineage, as is clear from the contents as well as the general artistic make-up of their works, goes back to old epic poets like Valmlki and it would indeed have been strange if they had not similarly come under their influence on the side of language. Their adherence at the same time to the norm of Panini is to be explained by their great learning which was indispensable for them since their works came to be addressed more and more to expert audiences. The resulting speech Dr. Keith describes as ‘singularly beautiful’— purer and more refined than the Sanskrit of the epics but simpler and more elastic than the Paninian form of it. It was first confined to Brahminical writings but gradually extended its scope to Jaina and Buddhistic literature, fields which were at first hostile to it, and continued to be the literary language of all India until Mahomedan rule brought a new language into prominence.
The second part which treats of belles-lettres is necessarily the biggest and the most important. Western scholars in their study of this subject have a tendency to stress its historical aspects at the expense of the literary. Questions about authorship, date, authenticity of text, etc., engross their attention but they forget that Sanskrit literature may be valuable for its own sake. It may be that Sanskrit literature, like other literatures, has its own peculiarities which prevent foreign scholars from feeling quite at home with it. But yet with a certain degree of interest in the subject, it will not at all be difficult for them to appreciate it. Prof. Macdonell, while admitting that many beauties in classical Sanskrit poetry are lost to the generality of Western Sanskritists,
