The date of the Prakrta Paingala

Summary

In this article the author investigates the date of the Prākṛta Paiṅgala (Prakrta Paingala), a work on prosody written in Prakrit/Apabhramsa, which remains uncertain in scholarship. Scholars have dated the text anywhere from the early 14th century to as late as the 16th century. To narrow this range, the author reviews previous arguments and examines internal evidence. Jacobi suggested that the Paingala was about 100 years earlier than the Chandahkośa (first half of the 15th century), placing it in the late 14th century. Other scholars, including Gune, S. K. Chatterjee and D. C. Ganguly, placed it between the 14th and 15th centuries. The author emphasises that the Paingala is a compilation, containing verses from earlier treatises; thus its final redaction must postdate its sources. The text includes six verses from the Karpūramañjarī, whose author Rajashekhara flourished c.880–920 A.D. It also includes stanzas from the 10th‑century Varna‑vṛtta texts and references to medieval poets. More importantly, the Paingala quotes verses about the Chauhan king Hammira, who reigned in the early 14th century, indicating that the compilation could not have been completed before his time. The author considers linguistic evidence: Apabhramsa features in the text, such as the simplification of consonant clusters and the lengthening of vowels, correspond to stages in the evolution from Prakrit to modern Indo‑Aryan languages. These features suggest a date by the latter half of the 14th century, when Apabhramsa was transitioning to early New Indo‑Aryan. The article also analyses external references: the text is cited in the 15th‑century Prakrit grammar Piṅgala‑prakāśa and does not mention later works, implying a terminus ante quem. Balancing these clues, the author concludes that the Prakrta Paingala likely assumed its present form in the late 14th or early 15th century; earlier material was incorporated from older sources, but the compiler arranged them and added examples relevant to his time. The paper suggests that the treatise was probably composed in Rajasthan or Rajputana and that its influence was later transmitted to Bengal and other regions. The conclusion emphasises that dating linguistic compilations requires attention to both textual borrowings and socio‑linguistic context.