Sahitya-Mimamsa: Prakrit Text Restored

Summary

V. M. Kulkarni’s article is a philological reconstruction of the Sahitya‑Mīmāṃsā, a lost or fragmentary treatise on poetics that originally existed in Prakrit. Scholars have long known of the text through references in later Sanskrit works, but no complete manuscript survives. Kulkarni scoured commentaries, anthologies and rhetorical compendia for citations and fragments, compiling them into a coherent structure. He then analysed the language, metre and technical vocabulary of these fragments to infer the original Prakrit wording. The Sahitya‑Mīmāṃsā appears to have been organised similarly to other poetics treatises: it defined key concepts such as kāvya (poetry), rasa (aesthetic sentiment), alankāra (figures of speech) and guṇa (poetic virtues). It discussed the classification of plots, the appropriate sentiments for different genres and the importance of suggestion (dhvani) in evoking emotions. Kulkarni argues that the work was influenced by but distinct from the better‑known Sanskrit treatise Dhvanyāloka. The Prakrit author drew examples from Jaina narratives and adapted Sanskrit theories to a vernacular milieu. In restoring the text, Kulkarni faced the challenge of reconstructing Prakrit forms from Sanskritised citations. He employed comparative phonology to reverse the Sanskritisation and consulted extant Prakrit grammars like Hemacandra’s Siddha‑hema. The article explains these methodological steps in detail and provides transliterations alongside translations. The reconstructed passages reveal a sophisticated poetics that balances adherence to classical norms with an appreciation for local idioms. Kulkarni suggests that the Sahitya‑Mīmāṃsā may have been composed between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, when Jaina monks actively promoted Prakrit literature. The restored text not only fills a gap in our knowledge of Jaina literary theory but also highlights the pluralism of India’s aesthetic discourse. By bringing to light this Prakrit voice, the article challenges the Sanskrit‑centric narrative of Indian poetics and demonstrates that vernacular treatises contributed significantly to the development of literary criticism.