No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Dual Authorship of the Kavya-prakasa
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
It is, I believe, familiar knowledge that the work on Rhetoric called Kāvya-prakāśa was composed by two authors, Mammaṭa and Alaka or Alaṭa. The traditional verse quoted by Rājānaka Ānanda, in his commentary entitled Kāvya-prakāśa-nidarśanā—
informs us that Mammaṭa wrote the work as far as Parikara, and the rest was completed by Alaka. Sanskrit scholars therefore inferred that “about a third of the last chapter on Figures of Speech, or roughly speaking a tenth of the whole work, was written by Alaka, i.e. from the second half of the 118th, verse onwards”. But the reference to the joint authorship of the seventh Ullāsa by Arjunavarmadeva has given rise to the question whether “Alaka had a hand not only in the tenth, but also in the seventh chapter”. An attempt is made in the present article to examine the question and to arrive, if possible, at some definite conclusion in the matter.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1927
References
page 505 note 1 K.P., p. 789, footnote 3. (K.P. = Kāvya-prakāśa.)
page 505 note 2 Ibid., lines 2 and 3 from the bottom.
page 505 note 3 Dr. Jha's Translation of K.P., Introduction.
page 505 note 4 Kane's, Sāhitya-darpaṇa, Introduction, pp. civ, cvGoogle Scholar.
page 506 note [1 This argument seems to press the matter too far, since nothing need have prevented an author commenting upon a verse in sections even if he had composed it as a whole.—F. W. T.]
page 506 note 2 K.P., p. 17.
page 506 note [3 Hardly. An intention to treat the subject would suffice.—F. W. T.]
page 506 note 4 K.P., p. 25.
page 506 note [5 See n. 3, supra.]
page 506 note 6 K.P., p. 185.
page 507 note 1 K.P., p.261.
page 507 note [2 See n. 3, supra.]
page 507 note 3 K.P., p.327.
page 507 note 4 Ibid., p. 465.
page 507 note 5 Ibid., pp. 481–2.
page 507 note 6 De, , Sanskrit Poetics, vol. i, p. 166Google Scholar.
page 508 note 1 Annals of the Bhandarker Oriental Research Institute, vol. for 1920, pp. 99–103.
page 508 note 2 K.P., p. 257.
page 509 note 1 Z.D.M.G., 1912, pp. 477 f.
page 509 note 2 De's, Sanskrit Poetics, vol. i, p. 346Google Scholar.
page 512 note 1 K.P., p. 741.
page 512 note 2 Ibid., pp. 305–15.
page 513 note 1 K.P., p. 789.
page 513 note 2 Ibid., p. 84.
page 514 note 1 Dhvanyāloka, pp. 60–4.
page 514 note 2 K.P., pp. 82–4.
page 514 note 3 Dhvanyāloka, p. 78.
page 514 note 4 Dhvanyāloka, pp. 205–6.
page 514 note 5 K.P., p. 201.
page 515 note 1 K.P., p. 116.
page 516 note 1 K.P., pp. 216–56.
page 517 note 1 K.P., pp. 564–76.
page 517 note 2 Ibid., p. 573.
page 518 note 1 K.P., p. 769.
page 518 note 2 Ibid., pp. 212–15.
page 519 note 1 K.P., p. 38.
page 519 note 2 Ibid., p. 201.
page 519 note 3 Ibid., pp. 579–30.
page 519 note 4 Ibid., p. 708.
page 519 note 5 Ibid., p. 10.
page 519 note 6 Ibid., p. 138.
page 519 note 7 Ibid., p. 238.
page 519 note 8 Ibid., p. 406.
page 519 note 9 Ibid., p. 504.
page 520 note 1 K.P., pp. 789–90.