Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c70.38

v1.c70.38

*P. 162.*—Sukthankar in *ZDMG* lxvi, 1912, p. 477f has considered the question of the dual authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa* in detail. He attempts to demonstrate by a comparison of the “two parts” of the work that while Allaṭa (author of the latter end) depends for his whole material upon Rudraṭa, Mammaṭa, although borrowing a great deal from the same source, follows older authors like Udbhaṭa. The point, however, appears to have been a little over-worked. Sukthankar's contention loses much of its force when we consider that *both* Mammaṭa and Allaṭa have made use of Rudraṭa's definitions and illustrations, and that a distinction in their respective treatment cannot, therefore, be very pointedly based on this consideration alone. The same scholar also argues (p. 533f) that a portion of the *vṛtti* to the definition of the poetic figure *samuccaya* in the *Kāvya-prakāśa* does not originate either from Mammaṭa or Allaṭa but must be regarded as an interpolation.