________________
8 TWO PRAKRIT VERSIONS OF THE MAŅIPATI-CARITA it back (Av. aho surabhi moyago tti padiappio, MPC surahi tti bhaneūnam samappio) to the servant. Later when the king takes the vows he regrets that he has given no thought to another life (Av. akaya-paraloya-sambalo, MPC agahiya-paraloya-sambalam). And so the comparison can be continued throughout the text of the stories occurring in the Avaśyaka commentaries.
Enough has been said to show that the author of the MPC almost certainly used as a source for his narrative the tales preserved in virtually the same form in the Av. and in the Prakrit passages of Haribhadra's tīkā. There is equally little doubt that the MPC is the pūrvácāryair vidybdhe Manipati-carite of the MPCJ and the puvva-cariya of the MPCH
The anonymity implicit in these expressions makes futile any. enquiry into the authorship of the work. In time it must be anterior to Sam. 1005 (the date of the MPCJ) and probably to Sam. 989 (the date of the BKK). As the Avasyaka-cūrni is generally put not later than the seventh century A.D. it would probably be not unreasonable to assign the MPC to the eighth or ninth century.
The language of the work offers little help in dating. It is the standardised Māhārāşțri Prakrit normally used in Jaina narratives, though it includes some seventeen verses (mainly subhāşitas) in Sanskrit, eighteen verses in Māgadhi, put in the mouth of a ganikā, and one which is probably Apabhramśa. The style is for the most part simple and there are many proverbs and homely turns of phrase ; but there are attempts at greater ornateness particularly in the descriptive passages which also show a considerable use of śleşa. A number of set phrases often, it would seem, barely appropriate in the context, are taken over directly from the canon ; one may instance the ganthimavedhima-pūrima-sanghāima of verse 64, the conventional characterisation (same bhee dande uvappayāṇammi ai-kusalo) of Abhaya in verse 304, and the description of the samavasaraṇa in verses 308-315.
The insertion after the rather obscure verse 2 of a detailed explanation in Sanskrit suggests that there may once have existed a Sanskrit commentary on the whole work but no other fragment of it seems to have been incorporated in the manuscript. The Gujarati paraphrase which accompanies the text does not show features of great antiquity but is certainly older
