Skip to content
Browse articles

Was Sumati—the Author of the Prakrta Paingala?

By S. N. Ghosal

Vol. 27 · No. 4December - 1951pp. 333–336English

Summary

S.N. Ghosh’s note ‘Was Sumati—the Author of the Prakrta Paingala?’ addresses the long-standing debate about the authorship of the Prākr̥ta Paiṅgala, a work on Prakrit grammar. Early scholars such as R.G. Bhandarkar attributed the treatise to the ancient prosodist Pingala, believing he wrote a Prakrit version of his Chandasūtra. Others, including Kashinath Parab, proposed that the author was Sumati, son of Apataratha, based on statements in later commentaries. Ghosh reviews these views and examines philological and historical evidence. He notes that the Prākr̥ta Paiṅgala employs linguistic features characteristic of the Apabhramsa dialect and refers to metrics and grammatical forms unknown in Pingala’s time. Additionally, the colophon of some manuscripts explicitly names Sumati as the author. Ghosh cites the commentary of Śrīpati, which states that Sumati, son of Apataratha, composed the work. He argues that the identification of Pingala as the author is untenable because Pingala lived before the rise of Apabhramsa and would not have used later grammatical categories. Ghosh also notes that the Jain scholar Haribhadra mentions a Sumati who composed a Paingala and that the name Pingala may have been mistakenly associated with the work due to the resemblance of names. By analysing the internal evidence of the text, such as its treatment of Prakrit nouns, verb conjugations and metres, Ghosh shows that the author was familiar with linguistic developments of the early medieval period. The article concludes that Sumati, not Pingala, wrote the Prākr̥ta Paiṅgala and that he likely lived in the early centuries CE.

AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.

Conclusion

Ghosh effectively dispels the traditional attribution of the Prākr̥ta Paiṅgala to the ancient metrician Pingala by demonstrating that the text’s language and metrical discussions belong to a later period. Through manuscript evidence and references in commentaries, he shows that Sumati, son of Apataratha, authored the treatise. This reassessment clarifies the chronology of Prakrit grammars and highlights the importance of distinguishing between homonymous authors in Indian textual history.

Key passages

Chosen by AI from the article's text. Each one is checked word for word against the text before it is shown.

  • “The author of the Prakrta Paingalsa (abbr. PP.) 125 spoken nothing about himself 10 his excellent work.”
  • “the author of the Sanskrit Cbhandabsitra and the PP. is the one and-same per-”
  • “It is a [2૮૬ that the above information occurs in the commentary of the PP., which was prepared by Ravimisra and titled *‘Pingala-sira- પારકા.”

Works cited in this article

  1. Bombay Kavyamala Series
  2. Bhabisattakaha
  3. History of Ancient Sanskrit literature
  4. History of Sanskrit literature
  5. Prakrta-Paingala

Discussed in this article

People

Texts & works

  • Prakrta Paingala
  • Chandabsiatra

Dynasties, sects & groups

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.

Same author

More by S. N. Ghosal

All articles →
Sambodhi

Haoma as a Plant in Avestan Text

By S. N. Ghosal

April 1980 - January 1981
Sambodhi

The Word Mahāṇa in Prākrit

By S. N. Ghosal

April 1979 to January 1980
Sambodhi

Self‑Immolation as an Expedient for Emancipation as Revealed in the Uvāsagadasāo

By S. N. Ghosal

April - 1978 to January - 1979
Sambodhi

Prakrit Studies

By S. N. Ghosal

April-July 1977