________________
956
G. H, Schokker
Verges of songs to be sung by women in the course of the dramatic perfo, rmance. Since its model, viz. Sanskrit, as the universal standard language could be used for any style, at the margin of the drama Śaurasen may also have been used for lyric purposes But its proper use was to represent the conversational language of the high-class female characters in the drama.
This close connection between the use of a language and a particular style seems to be characteristic of Indian literature in general For instance it is well-know from New Indo-Aryan Braj and Avadhl, viz respectively the Western and Eastern Variants of Hindi, received their literary coltivation within the scope of two differont styles. Whereas Braj served a lyric atyle proper to the Krsna-cult for which it was used, Avadhl served a narra. tlve-didactic atyle which in its initial stage was cultivated by the Sufis in their romaacos (premakhyana) and at a later stage by the devotees of Rama lo theft Rama-epics.
Proceeding on the assumption that Braj, like Saurasen, was the vernacular of the country of Mathura, it is generally taken for granted that Braj descended from Saurasonī. Bat if the use of a language 13 a matter of style, Braj no more than Sauraseul can be directly connected with the vernacular of the countary about Mathura. From a stylistic point of view it 18 also interesting to note that Braj just played the reverae part of that played by Sauraseni in the drama, Braj belag used for a lyric style, and Saurasons for & proso style.co
! The difference of atyle, between Maharasstri and Sauraseny manifests Itaelf in the fact that the former boars the distinguishiaz marks of its lyric stylo, and the latter thoso of its prose style. Io the study of Prakrit this important point up to now has hardly received any attention. Since in the drama as a rule the use of Maharaştri and Sauraseny is confined to the high-class female characters, such a difference of style between these two kinds of Prakrit may generally manifest itself only on a small scale. But the karpūramanjarī 18 entirely written in Prakrit, and therefore, offers a good opportunity for comparing Mabarştci with Saurasent from a atylistic polnt of view,
Here I may call attention to a striking Polat la which Mahāraştri and Saurasen, as used in the Karpüramanjart differ from each other. This poiot relates to the fact that they make a different use of the present partigiple and the absolutive. In Maharastri tho use of the present participlo to a large extent predominates over that of the absolutivo, the ratio of tho present participles to the absolutives being 56.9.42 On the other hand, Šauragent in this respect just gives the reverse picture. Here the age of
