________________
drama 'Hammiramadamardana' and in the above-mentioned three works of Hemacandra. Its difference from Paisact is negligible. In 'Siddha. Hemacandra' it is just cursorily referred to and earlier grammarians do not even allude to it. Sauraseni is found used in Sanskrit dramas in the prosc specch of women characters, according to the then prevalent dramatic tradition. Magadhi is also similarly found used only in dramas like 'Mrccha katika', 'Sākuntala' and Asvaghosas dramas in the speech of some low characters. Neither Sauraseni nor Magadhi can boast of any noteworthy literature. It is only in the general Prakrit and Apablır. amsa, as expounded in detail by Hemacandra, that great epic poems and other classical works are composed.
Jinakirtisüri, however, has handled all the above dialects with amazing skill and meticulous correctness, which point to his phenomenal mastery over the graminatical structure of all the above Prakrit dialects. We encounter works in general Prakrit. Even in modern times some learned Jain 'sādhus' and religious scholars have composed works (like 916 21981) in general Prakrit. And Apabhramla was favoured as a medium of epic poetry from C. 500 A. D. to about 1000 or 1100 A. D. and even later (as in the 196). But the other dialects like Paisāc! and Magadhi liave been almost defunct today. This vastly enhances the linguistic importance of these 'stavanas.'
Partly for the convenience of lay students, and partly to save space, 1 liave not given a translation of the verses nor supplied an Index of the stavanas, but have instead, remained content with giving a Sanskrit 'chāya' of each verse for the same reason. I have cschewed linguistic discussion of the gramınatical characteristics of the different dialects employed in the verses.
I will be very happy and will consider my arduous labours amply rewarded, if this brief study interests Indological scholars in India.
K. B. Vyas
