Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c30.22

v1.c30.22

This statement about the joint-authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa* receives confirmation from an independent source. Commenting on *Amaru-śataka* (ed. Kāvyamālā 18, 1916, *śl.* 30), Arjunavarman who, flourished in the first quarter of the 13th century, quotes from the *Kāvya-prakāśa* vii ad 14 (the verse *prasāde vartasva*⁴ cited therein) with the remark *yathódāhṛtaṃ doṣa-nirṇaye mammaṭālāKābhyām*. In the same chapter on doṣa in the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, Amaru 72 is quoted as instancing the fault technically known as *jugupsāślīlā* (vulgarity causing disgust), because the word *vāyu* in the verse is supposed to connote vulgar associations. Arjunavarman defends Amaru from this fastidious criticism with the pointed remark: *kiṃ tu hlādaikamayī-vara-labda-prasādan kāvyaprakāśakārau prāyeṇa doṣa-dṛṣṭī, yenaivaṃvidheṣvapi paramārtha-sahṛdayānanda-padeṣu sarasa-karisamdarbheṣu doṣam eva sākṣāt akurutām*. Both these passages, which mention the dual authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, refer in particular to ch. vii where the *doṣas* or faults of composition are discussed. Unless the remarks be taken to imply a general reference to the fact of joint-authorship without particularly meaning collaboration of any special chapter, one may be led to the conclusion that Allaṭa (here mentioned as Alaka) had a hand not only in the 10th, as the the tradition makes it out, but also in the 7th chapter.