Cracow Indological Studies Vol. XIX, No. 2 (2017) https://doi.org/10.12797/CIS.19.2017.02.06 Andrew Ollett, Language of the Snakes. Prakrit, Sanskrit, and the Language Order of Premodern India . pp. 290. Oakland: University of California Press. October 2017.—Reviewed by Lidia Wojtczak (SOAS, University of London). $QGUHZ2OOHWW¶VERRNSXEOLVKHGLQ2FWREHUFRQVWLWXWHVDUHYLVHG YHUVLRQ RI KLV 'RFWRUDO 7KHVLV RI 7KH ³ELRJUDSK\ RI 3UDNULW IURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIFXOWXUDOKLVWRU\´ S LVDEROGVWDWHPHQWRI WKHDXWKRU¶VGHGLFDWLRQWRDFORVHDQGVHQVLWLYHUHDGLQJRIWKHOLWHUDWXUH RI SUHPRGHUQ 6RXWK$VLD7KH ERRN LV GLYLGHG LQWR VHYHQ FKDSWHUV HDFK D IDUUHDFKLQJ DQG LQGHSWK DQDO\VLV RI 3UDNULW¶V LPSDFW RQ and interactions with, the literary culture of early India. The volume LV VXSSOHPHQWHG E\ WKUHH YDOXDEOH DQG LOOXPLQDWLQJ DSSHQGLFHV DQG E\ FRSLRXV QRWHV ZKLFK EULQJ RXW WKH DXWKRU¶V HUXGLWH DSSURDFK WRWKHVXEMHFWPDWWHU 2OOHWW SRVLWV WKDW 3UDNULW LV WKH ³NH\ WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ literary languages worked in premodern India as a whole and it pro- YLGHV DQ DOWHUQDWLYH ZD\ RI WKLQNLQJ DERXW ODQJXDJH´ S $V KHH[SODLQV3UDNULW¶VSODFHLQWKHLQWHUDFWLYHOLQJXLVWLFIUDPHZRUNRI ,QGLDDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKH&RPPRQ(UD2OOHWWGLVWDQFHVKLPVHOI IURP PRGHUQ GLVFXVVLRQV RQ ZKDW VWDQGV EHKLQG WKH WHUP µ3UDNULW¶ DV RSSRVHG WR µ0LGGOH ,QGLF¶ DQG LQVWHDG ORRNV IRU KLV GH¿QLWLRQ LQSUHPRGHUQVRXUFHV3UDNULWKHWHOOVXV³LVZKDW3UDNULWWH[WVWHOOXV they are written in”, and most generally, it is “the language of literary WH[WVFRPSRVHGLQWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKH¿UVWPLOOHQQLXP&(´ S 118 Cracow Indological Studies ,W ZDV D ³FODVVLFDO´ ODQJXDJH LQ PDQ\ VHQVHV RI WKH ZRUG²3UDNULW WH[WVZHUHMXGJHGFODVVLFDOE\WKHSHRSOHUHDGLQJWKHPIURPWKHEHJLQ - ning of the Common Era and the language was cultivated as a mark- HU RI ³LQWHOOHFWXDO FXOWXUH´ QRW RQO\ LQ ,QGLD EXW DFURVV 6RXWK DQG South-East Asia (p. 9). Literature was foundational to the formation of the “Sanskrit Cosmopolis”—the supra-regional, socio-political, and cultural order WKDW 6KHOGRQ 3ROORFN KDV LGHQWL¿HG DV H[LVWLQJ LQ WKH ¿UVW PLOOHQ nium CE. As the term itself suggests, this was a phenomenon that hinged on the Sanskrit language, and it was intrinsically connected to the production of “courtly literature”, NƗY\D . However, Ollett under- VFRUHVWKHVLJQL¿FDQWLPSDFWWKDW3UDNULWKDGRQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI NƗY\D DQGKHSURSRVHVWRWDNHXS³DQROGEXWPRVWO\IRUJRWWHQVXJJHV - tion that NƗY\D EHJDQDVkavva DQGWKDW6DQVNULWOHDUQHGWREHSRHWLF IURP3UDNULW´ S 2OOHWWUHÀHFWVWKDW3UDNULWLVDODQJXDJHZKLFKVWXEERUQO\UHIXVHV to conform to modern categories of language theory. This gives rise WRWKHTXHVWLRQRIWKHIXQFWLRQRI3UDNULW²LWZDVQRWDODQJXDJHRI D³FRPPXQLW\RIVSHDNHUV´RURIDUHOLJLRXVJURXSEXWXSKHOGZKDW FDQ RQO\ EH GH¿QHG DV D ³OLWHUDU\ FXOWXUH´ S 3UDNULW PXFK OLNH6DQVNULWZDVDQ³DUWL¿FLDO´ODQJXDJHZKLFKIXQFWLRQHGWKURXJK LWV WH[WV S DQG ERWK 6DQVNULW DQG 3UDNULW ³FDQ EH WKH VXEMHFWV RI D FXOWXUDO KLVWRU\ RI ODQJXDJH VLQFH WKH\ KDYH EHHQ GH¿QHG DQG deployed as cultural products all along” (p. 22). Ollett is not in favour RIVHDUFKLQJIRUWKHEHJLQQLQJVRI3UDNULWLQWKHPRVWDQFLHQW,QGLDQ WH[WV VXFKDV3DWDxMDOL¶V 0DKƗEKƗ܈\D DQGLQVWHDGDUJXHVWKDW3UDNULW EHJDQZKHQLWZDV³LQYHQWHG´DVDODQJXDJHRISRZHU7KLVPRPHQW of creation was part and parcel of the greater emergence of a set of FXOWXUDODQGSROLWLFDOSUDFWLFHVLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKH6ƗWDYƗKDQD(PSLUH (1 st c. BCE–3 rd c. CE). 2OOHWWJRHVRQWRDUJXHIRUWKH³LQYHQWLRQ´RI3UDNULWLQWKHWZR following chapters. In Chapter Two, he provides the reader with a pen- HWUDWLYHVWXG\RIWKHHDUOLHVW6ƗWDYƗKDQDLQVFULSWLRQVDWWKH1Ɨ৆HJKƗ৬ 3DVV LQ WKH:HVWHUQ *KDWV7KH 6ƗWDYƗKDQDV UXOHG RYHU WKH 'HFFDQ Reviews 119 URXJKO\ EHWZHHQ %&( DQG &( DQG DV 2OOHWW ZULWHV ZHUH ³FORVHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ERWK ZLWK UDGLFDO LQQRYDWLRQV LQ LQVFULSWLRQDO GLVFRXUVHLQWKLVSHULRGDQGZLWKWKHLQYHQWLRQRI3UDNULWOLWHUDWXUH´ S $W1Ɨ৆HJKƗ৬ĝUƯ6ƗWDNDU৆LDQGKLVTXHHQ1ƗJDQLNƗFRPPLV - , L۬Ɨ܈VLRQHGWKHFDUYLQJRID3UDNULWLQVFULSWLRQLQZKLFK dharma and GDN as well as the Vedic rituals of UƗMDVnj\D and DĞYDPHGKD play a central UROHDWWHVWLQJWRWKH6ƗWDYƗKDQD¶V³YLVLRQRISROLWLFDOSRZHU´ S 2OOHWW UHPDUNV RQ WKH XQPLVWDNDEO\ OLWHUDU\ QDWXUH RI WKH LQVFULS - WLRQ¶V ODQJXDJH²LW LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ ORQJ VHULHV RI FRPSRXQGV ZKDWZRXOGODWHUEHFDOOHG ojas SRZHUE\WKHRUHWLFLDQV DQGE\¿J - XUHVRIERWKVRXQGDQGVHQVH S Ollett then discusses a roughly contemporaneous counter-practice RI XVLQJ 6DQVNULW LQ HXORJLVWLF LQVFULSWLRQV ZKLFK ZDV HPSOR\HG E\ WKH .ৢDWUDSDV²WKH 6F\WKLDQ RU ĝDND NLQJV RI ZKDW LV PRGHUQGD\ *XMDUDW%\UHIHUULQJWRDSDLURILQVFULSWLRQVVSRQVRUHGE\WKHĝDNDUXOHU 8ৢDYDGƗWD RQHLQ3UDNULWWKHRWKHULQDPL[RI3UDNULWDQG6DQVNULW 2OOHWWSURYHVWKDWOLQJXLVWLFFKRLFHVKDGDNH\IXQFWLRQDOLW\LQHVWDE - OLVKLQJ WKH FRQFHSWLRQV RI SRZHU LQ WKH ¿UVW FHQWXULHV RI WKH &RP - mon Era and that these choices had lasting effects on the political and cultural discourse. 7KHFKDQJHVZKLFKOHG6DQVNULWWREHFRPH the language of power WRRNSODFHDV2OOHWWQRWHVRQDQDHVWKHWLFYHFWRUDQGZHUHQRWLQÀX - HQFHGE\UHOLJLRXVFRQFHUQV+HUHIXWHVWKHWKHRU\WKDW6DQVNULWZHQW “hand-in-hand” with Brahmanization, pointing out that the early Brah- minical society had never expressed itself as a SROLWLFDO or cultural HQWLW\LQ6DQVNULW,QIDFWDV2OOHWWDUJXHV%UDKPLQVZRXOGKDYHEHHQ VWURQJO\DJDLQVWWKHXVHRIWKHODQJXDJHRIWKHJRGVE\IRUHLJQLQYDGHUV VXFKDVWKH.ৢDWUDSDV SS± Ollett challenges the role of Sanskrit as a legitimizing agent and questions the importance of Sanskritization in creating a language of politics. He points to the contradictions which arise when one links Sanskritization to the Brahmanization of cultural discourse. He writes WKDW³>L@WLVRQO\ZKHQZHORRNDWFXOWXUDOFKDQJHVDQGDERYHDOOWKHFUH - DWLRQDQGFRQWHVWDWLRQRIDSRHWU\RISROLWLFVEHWZHHQWKH6ƗWDYƗKDQDV 120 Cracow Indological Studies DQGWKH.ৢDWUDSDVWKDWZHFDQXQGHUVWDQGWKHJHQXLQHO\QHZUROHVWKDW 6DQVNULWDQGLWVRWKHUVRFFXSLHGLQWKH¿UVWFHQWXU\DQGWKHFRPSOH[ ways in which these roles redetermined the languages that occupied them” (p. 48). In the conclusion to Chapter Two, Ollett also proposes WRORRNDWWKHSURFHVVHVWDNLQJSODFHLQWKH,QGLDRIWKH6ƗWDYƗKDQDV DQG .ৢDWUDSDV WKURXJK WKH OHQV RI ³OLWHUDUL]DWLRQ´ ZKLFK KH GH¿QHV DV ³WKH SURFHVV E\ ZKLFK DQ H[LVWLQJ GLVFRXUVH WDNHV RQ µOLWHUDU\¶ features” (p. 48). &KDSWHU7KUHH³,QYHQWLQJ3UDNULW7KH/DQJXDJHVRI/LWHUDWXUH´ FHQWUHV RQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI -DLQ 3UDNULW OLWHUDWXUH 2OOHWW SURSRVHV WKDW WKH KLWKHUWR KHOG UHGXFWLYH GLYLGH RI HDUO\ 3UDNULW LQWR ³-DLQ´ DQG³FRXUWO\´3UDNULWKDVVNHZHGRXUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHDQDORJLHV EHWZHHQWH[WVVXFKDVWKH³QRQ-DLQ´ 6DWWDVDƯ and the “Jain” 7DUD۪JDYDWƯ (p. 51). In presenting his vision of the interconnected and multi-lingual emergence of poetic language in India, Ollett coins the phrase “ NƗY\D movement” which he understands as “a cultural-political formation, lasting roughly from the second to the twelfth century and spreading over much of southern Asia, that was imagined through the universal- izing discourses of Sanskrit” (p. 52). 7KHIROORZLQJVHFWLRQVGHDOZLWKWKHEHJLQQLQJVRI3UDNULWOLWHUDWXUH DQGWKHPDLQGLIIHUHQFHVWKDWDUHVHHQWRH[LVWEHWZHHQ-DLQDQGQRQ -DLQ 3UDNULW ZRUNV IRUPDO WKHPDWLF OLQJXLVWLF FRQWH[WXDO 2OOHWW emphasizes that these differences were not present in the earliest stages RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI3UDNULWOLWHUDWXUHDQGSURFHHGVWRDQLQGHSWK analysis of the 6DWWDVDƯ —theories on its dating, its self-representation (p. 59), its literary and ideological context, and its courtliness. The 6DWWDVDƯ FRPSRVHG LQ WKH FRXUW RI WKH 6ƗWDYƗKDQD NLQJ +ƗODZDVDVWDUWLQJSRLQWIRUWKHFRXUWO\3UDNULWSRHPDQG2OOHWWXVHV LWV DQDO\VLV WR IRUP WKH JURXQGZRUN IRU TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH EHJLQ - QLQJVRI-DLQ3UDNULWOLWHUDWXUH+HGLVFXVVHVWKUHHDFFHSWHGFRQVWDQWV of Jain literature: its continuity with Jain teachings; the continuity ³EHWZHHQ -DLQ ODQJXDJH SUDFWLFHV DQG GHPRWLF µHYHU\GD\¶ ODQJXDJH SUDFWLFHV´DQGWKHLGHQWL¿FDWLRQRI-DLQODQJXDJHSUDFWLFHVDV3UDNULW (pp. 69–72). Ollett studies the development of literature composed in Reviews 121 ³-DLQ0ƗKƗUƗৢ৬UƯ´ZLWKVSHFLDOIRFXVRQWKHODQJXDJHRIWKHHDUOLHVW FRPPHQWDULDO WUDGLWLRQV +H WKHQ PRYHV RQ WR H[DPLQH 3ƗOLWWD¶V - 7DUD۪JDYDWƯ D YHUVHG 3UDNULW QRYHO ZKLFK VXUYLYHV RQO\ LQ DEULGJ ments, and which he refers to as, “the missing piece that links the two KLVWRULHVRI3UDNULWOLWHUDWXUHWRHDFKRWKHU´ S 3ƗOLWWDZDVD-DLQ SRHWDVVRFLDWHGZLWK+ƗODFRPSLOHURIWKH6DWWDVDƯ . This association, together with the features of the 7DUD۪JDYDWƯ VKRZ WKDW LQ 3ƗOLWWD¶V WLPHV ³WKH FRXUWO\ DQG WKH -DLQ KLVWRULHV RI 3UDNULW DUH FURVVHG RU UDWKHUWKH\KDYHQRW\HWEHHQVHSDUDWHGIURPHDFKRWKHU´ S 2OOHWW¶VPRVWLPSRUWDQWFRQFOXVLRQLQWKLVFKDSWHULVWKDWWKHHURWLF FRXUWO\3UDNULWWH[WVDQGWKHPRUHGLGDFWLF-DLQ3UDNULWSRHWU\FRRSHUDW - HGLQWKHFUHDWLRQRIWKH³QHZGLVFXUVLYHSKHQRPHQRQ´WKDWZDV3UDNULW OLWHUDWXUH+H]HURHVLQ³RQDPRPHQWZKHQ3UDNULWOLWHUDWXUHZDVJLYHQ the form that it would take for more than a millennium afterwards” S DQGSRVLWLRQVLWDVWKHSRLQWRIRULJLQRIDOLWHUDUL]HG3UDNULW² “of new discursive spheres, new genres and practices to occupy them, and new disciplines to regulate them” (p. 83). &KDSWHU)RXU³7KH)RUPVRI3UDNULW/LWHUDWXUH´DLPVWRGLVFXVV 3UDNULW ³SKHQRPHQRORJ\ DQG DHVWKHWLFV´ ZLWKRXW FRQWUDVWLQJ WKHP with their Sanskrit counterparts (p. 85). Ollett examines various DSSURDFKHV WRZDUGV OLWHUDU\ ODQJXDJH DQG REVHUYHV RQFH DJDLQ WKDW 3UDNULWFDQQRWEHIRUFHGLQWRDQ\RIWKHH[LVWLQJPRXOGV+HWKHQSUHV - HQWV KLV UHDGHUV ZLWK ZKDW PDGH 3UDNULW D OLWHUDU\ ODQJXDJH DFFRUG - LQJWRWKHSHRSOHXVLQJLW²³VZHHWV\OODEOHV´³TXDYHULQJUK\WKP´DQG ³XQERXQGFKDUDFWHU´ S 7KHVHFWLRQRQWKH¿UVWLVDQH[DPLQDWLRQ RIWKHSKRQHWLFFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKH3UDNULWODQJXDJH²WKHVFDUFLW\RI FRQVRQDQWVFRPELQHGZLWKWKHSUHGRPLQDQFHRIRSHQYRZHOVRXQGV gives the impression of musicality (pp. 88–94). The section Quavering Verses LV DQ DGYDQFHG VWXG\ RI 3UDNULW