________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
86
forns as anakhi ( 2.10 , say iyu (162; 23.16). dariyalám (17.50 ), acika. that (1814). Bij (29.1; 30.16), pele ( 29 12), Cikre ( 29.08 ) and jamuk (30,18 not only add to the charm of the language but also vouch for the author's knowledge of Sanskrit Grammar.
Lorg descriptions of all sorts are carefully avoided. Compounds are not rare and they becoine conlusive when Prakrit or dialectical names anu) epithets are compounded the language is quite simple and unassuring all throughout and is rarely figurative, with the exception, of course, the two remarkable specches of Vilbū Vamani (6.5-10; 6,63-7.41. ABN:7sa, however, appears at many places (e.g. 13.6, 7, 8; 25.15; 28.7-8 in a natural way.
the most out-standing features of the style of the J.Ps are directness, simplicity and succinctness. All the prabandhas are related in a story-telling manner. This feature is so striking that the reader or the listener feels that the story is bein; told to him aratly in the inost traditional way. As a con: sequence they are grasped quite easily and promptly. Dialogues are mostly short, constitute of very short sentences and this makes them all the more effective (c.g. 12.20 fi. ). Occasionally the expressions become puinted, The dialogue bineer Minister Maideva and king Hadna bhrama (7.1015 ) my be citer as an instance in the point. The bril sperch of Sadanabhrama there 1 7.12-15) nicely brings out the heroic sentiment. The personality of this king is nicely developed through his only two brisk speeches ipige 7).
Sucli pithy sentences as " Aho ! *bhayabhrasta jälil" (12.19 ) enhance the charm of the narrative, which at times becomes rythmical; e.g. bhavyam juluin milita yat-loc! ( 13.7).
Humour also is not altogether absent. The brief dialogue of dialectic disputation between Iiniky a sūri and Kumuda candra (24.4-7) may be citel as an instance in the point.
Succinctness is the most glaring characteristic leature nf the style of LPS. At tines the verb is dropped. Take, for instance, the following: esminy. avusare elada šrijiyasinpladero duidusavarşanı yaval digvijiya krivi kontak paris re panungtyalip:ray wiárukus.caire ( 5.8-9). Here a verb is required after parisar. The difficulty is not solved by removing the dandut separating the two sentences. Likewise in k45mia galvå sthilah ( 16.13 ) some such word as nagars is requireel alter kasmin in order to complete the sense. Similarly in sahaküre cartipydandena "hatal (17.12 ) the subject of ühalah viz. san, i.e. sahakaraḥ, is missing. In dvālrimsadvarse panigilan gayati (28.10), again, the subject viz, mlálangi is dropped, Occasionally even ca is dropped ;
For Private And Personal Use Only
