INTRODUCTION

    The Camatkaracandrika of Visvesvara is an interesting treatise on literary criticism in Sanskrit written in the later half of the fourteenth century. The author was a protege of Singabhupala of Recarla family, who ruled over a small p r i n c i p a l it y around Racaklnda in Telengana about 1387-1412 A.D. Singabhupala is already known to sholors as the author of the Rasarnavasudhakara, Kuvalayavali and Sangitasudhakara a commentary on the Sangitaratnakara, of Sarngadeva. The Camatkaracandrika was brough to light, for the first time, by Dr. V. Raghavan through his learned article The Camatkaracandrika of Visvesvarakavicandra, published in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. A detailed account of the contents was given in the article and the main importance of the work was said to be its approach to the criticism of poetry from the view-point of Camatkara. The study was based on a manuscript deposited in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras as well as the Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts of the India Office Library, London. In course of my search for valuable contributions to Sanskrit literature, made by Sanskrit authors from Andhra I was naturally attracted by this treatise and I made a humble attempt to present a critical edition thereof to the scholars. A number of works on Alankarasastra were produced in Andhradesa, during the medieval times. It has been even said that Andhrades is the Kashmir of the South in regard to the contributions made to literary ciritcism in Sanskrit. As a backgroung for the presentation of the work under consideration, a brief account of the development of Alankarasastra in Andhradesa is given here. The Prataparudrayasobha of Vidyanatha is the earliest of the Alankara treatises from Andhradesa. The work was produced about 1323 A.D. The author devoted the netire work to eulogize Prataparudra of the Kakatiya dynasty who was his benevolent patron. More or less at the same time Vidyadhara of Utkala wrote his Ekavali in the same manner, praising his patron Nrsimha. Both these works formed a model for a great many later writers on literary criticism in Sanskrit of Andhradesa as well as outside the region. The Rasarnavasudhakara of Singabhupala (c. 1386-1412 A.D.) may be mentioned next. The work is mainly a treatise on dramturgy. But it also treats of topics, that are common to literary criticism like Rasa, in great detail, illustrating profusely from anumber of literary works in Sanskrit. The work was probably composed about the middle of the 14the century. Visvesvara, who flourished in the court of the above royal author, wrote the Camatkaracandrika. The work is modelled after the Prataparudriya and the illustrations are composed in praise of his patron Singabhupala. It is of special interest for its approach to criticism from the standpoint of Camatkara. Mystic explanation of letters and Ganas in literary works, is met with in this treatise for the first time. Sayana's Alankarasudhanidhi, written about 1356 - 1378 A.D. is unique, since the author Sayana himself is eulogized in the illustrative verses in it. It is possible that most of them, however, were the compositions of Bhoganatha, his brother. The work is not available completely and it stops in hte middle of the third Unmesa in the extent manuscript. Sayana quotes from the Camatkaracandrika two verrses to illustrate the Cakrabandha and the Padmabandha type of configurative poems (Bandhakavita). Kumaragiri, the Reddi prince (1386-1402 A.D.) is the author of the Vasantarajiya, a manual on dramaturgy which is nolonger extant. It is mainly known from the commentaries on the three plays of Kalidasa by Katayavema. Katayavema states that he wrote the series of commentaries designated by him as Kumaragirirajiya in the light of the principles of dramaturgy enunciated in the Vasantarajiya. The work of Kumaragiri is also cited by Mallinatha, Kumarasvamin and Nandindla Gopamantrin. Pedakomativema (1403-1420 A.D.), who succeeded him, was also a great patron of letters and an author. He wrote the Sahityacintamani on poetics in theirteen Paricchedas. The kavyaprakasa of Mammata formed the model for the authof. Illustrations are culled from extant literature. The views of Mahimabhatta are criticised severely. A poet, Kusumayudha, is mentioned who may be one of the princes belonging to the Mudigonda Calukya line thatruled in Telangana. The author mentions a number of works belonging to this period besides his own. The work is important for the rich variety of literary compositions defined and illustrated in it. Gaurana, the nephew of one Potaraja, wrote two works in Sanskrit by the common appellation Laksanadipika. Potaraja was a minister of Madhava I of the Umamaheswaram grant (1375 A.D.) who ruled from Devarakonda. Gaurana's works are known by the laternative names Padarthadipika and Prabandhadipika. The subject-matter of both these works is almost the same. The mystic significance of letters, Ganas, etc. is emplained in detail. Minor metrical compositions and several varieties of Udaharana Kavyas are defined and illustrated. The latter work contains citations form Telugu literature also. Mallinatha, the illustrious commentator on the Majakavyas, wrote a commentary called Tarala on the Ekavali of Vidyadhara. His son Kumarasvamin commented on the Prataparudriya of Vidyanatha and the commentary is known as Ratnapana. Both these commentaries are considered to be valuable additions to the respective treatises. Both of them lived in the 15the Century. Saluva Gopa Tippa was the Governor of Mulbagal under Devaraya II (1423-1446 A.D.). He is the authro of Kamadhenu, a valuable commentary on the Kavyalankarasutravrtti of Vamana. The Alankarasangraha of Amrtananda Yogin, a protege of Manmabhupa, son of Bhaktibhupati, probably belongs to the period about 1400 A.D. This treatise is of special significance since it deals with two topics, which considerably engaged the attention ofthe Telugu writers on Alankara, viz., the auspiciousness or the lack of it of particular letters, syllables and Ganas and the varieties of minor compositions of the type of Panegyrics (Ksudraprabandhas). Varanasi Dharmasudhi, alias Ramanandasarasvati, the great author of Ratnaprabha, a gloss on the Brahmasutrabhasya of Sankara, was also the author of Sahityaratnakara, an interesting treatise on Alankara, on the model of the Prataparudriya. Dharmasudhi,however, wrote his illustrations in praise of Lord Sri Rama and blames authors like Vidyanatha, who devoted theri works to the praise of a king for mercenary ends. The work deals with the entire fiels of poetics including dramatyrgy in ten chapters. Three commentaries on it are known: the Mandara by Malladi Laksmanasuri, the Nauka by Madhusudanamisra of Utkaladesa and the commentary by Venkatesa also called Nauka. Yajnanarayana of Cerukuri family wrote two treatises on Alankara, the Alankararaghava and the Alankarasuryodaya. In the former work the illustrative verses are in praise of Lord Sri Rama. The Srngaramanjari is ascribed to a Muslim divine of Gulbarga, Shah Akbar Hussain. The test describes itself as a translation of a Telugu work. It is a valuable contribution to the subject of Nayakas and Nayikas as dealt with in workslime Rasamanjari. According to Dr. V. Raghavan, the work may be assigned the third quarter of the seventeenth century. Santaluri Krsnasuri of Tanuku, who lived about 1770 A.D. wrote the Sahityakalpalatika, explaining certin grammatical peculiarities in literary productions. The fifth chapter called Amaramandana is as answer to the criticism of Amarakosa in the Amarakhandana of one Sriharsa, who is different from his famous namesake. The portion is critically edited by Dr. V.Raghavan. Narasimha Timmaya, a disciple of Sukatirtha was patronised by Serfoji II (1800-1832 A.D.) of Tanjore. He wrote Gunaratnakara, an Alankara work mainly intended to illustrate poetic elements defined by others, with his own examples in praise of his patron. Nrsimhakavi, son of Sivarama, was patronised by Nanjaraja, son of Kaluve Virabhupala, who was minister and commander of Mysore forces during 1734-1770 A.D. He had the title of Abhinavakalidasa. Besides his Telugu work by name Halasyamachatmya, be wrotethe Nanjarajayasobhusana, a treatise on Alankara on the lines of the Prataparudrayasobhusana, eulogising his patron. The Rasagangadhara of Jagannatha Pandita, however, is the best among the contributions of Telugu writers on Alankara is Sanskrit. His critical acumen and originality, although sometimes over-reaching, are to be seen in it, which is acclaimed as the last of the great works on Alankara. Jagannatha, thereby, gained a lasting place in the history of Sanskrit poetics. The Citramimamsakhandana of the same author is a collection of his criticism of Appayya Dikshita's work in diferent contexts in his Rasagangadhara. Korada Ramacandra (1816-1900 A.D.) is know to have written a commentary on the Alankarasangraha of Amrtanandayogin. Addepalli Krsnasastri (1846-1907 A.D.) is known to have written a commentaqry on the Alankaramuktavali. Manavalli Gangadhara Sastri (1856-1914 A.D.) is the author of Kavyatmasamsodhana and is also said to have written a gloss on the Rasagangadhara. There is a work by name Alankaramanjari in eight Prakaranas, closely resembling the Prataparudriya, with illustrations in praise of Ramacandra, a Zamindar of Kakarlapudi in the Visakhapatnam District, in the 18th Century. Karavi Rama wrote Dasarupakapaddhati, a brief treatise on dramaturgy in one hundred and ten stanzas. He is also said to have commented upon the Kuvalayananda. He flourished in the court of the Zamindar of Karvetinagar in the 19th Century. Kaccapesvara Diksita is the author of Ramacandrayasobhusana, in three Paricchedas, eulogising Bommaraja of Karvetinagar. Rayaluri Kandalarya, a court - poet of Venkatabhupati of Gadwala, wrote the Alankarasirobhusana in ten Ullasas. Anivilla Venkatasastri, patronised by Meka Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao of Nuzividu, (c.1745 A.D.) wrote Apparayayasascandrodaya in prise of the chief. He is also the author of another Alankara work known as Alankarasudhasindhu. Narayana, the son of the above author, wrote the Sahityakalpadruma, as Alankara work celebrating Hagannatha Appa Ral of Nuzividu, which he dedicated to him. Carla Bhasyakara Sastri, is the author of Mekadhisakalpataru, an ingenious work on Alankara in praise of the Zamindar. The topics that are dealt with in the Prataparudriya are illustrated therein, interpreting the single term Mekadhisa, in a commentaryof the author himself. Cavali Ramasudhi is the author of Sahityacintamani as well as a commentary thereon named Budharanjani. The work is written in praise of Surya Raya, the Zamindar of Pithapuram. The Kuvalayamoda of Cavali Rama Sastri is an Alankara work, with illustrations in praise of his patron Simhadri Jagapati Rao (1853-1911 A.D.) of Peddapuram. Kolluri Somasekhara alias Rajasekhara, wrote two Alankara treatises. His Sahityakalpadruma was written to vie with the Sabityaratnakara of Dharmasudhi, with illustrations in praise of Lord Srikrsna. His Alankaramakaranda deals with Arthalankaras only and the illustrations eulogise Ammanna, a Brahmin chief of Mukteswaram in the East Godavari District. Mudumbai Nrsimhacarya (1814-1927 A.D.) is the author of Alamkaramala, Bharatasarvarthasamgraha etc., on Alamkara and allied topics. Venkatacarya II of Bukkapatnam family is the author of Kavyalamkarasamgraha. Venkatacarya III also known as Kiriti Venkatacarya wrote Alankarakaustubha and Srngaralaksana. Bucci Venkatacarya IV is the author of Abhinava'srngararasamanjari in three Ullasas. Devarakonda Aubalarya Krsnadhira, is the author of Alankarasarvasva. He mentions one Gopaladeva as an ideal Nayaka, who was probably his patron. The illustrations, however, are culled from different sources. Tirumalacarya commented upon the Prataparudriya and the Kuvalayananda. The commentaries are known as Ratnasana and the Camatkaracandrika, respectively. Bellamkonda Nrsimba is the author of Rjuvrtti a commentary on the Karika portion of the Kavyaprakasa. One Nrsimhacarya, is the author of Laksanamalika, a treatise on Alamkara and a commentary thereon called Alankarendusekhara. He is also said to have commented upon a musical work called Santavilasa of Harisavakavindra and secured his favour. Sonthi Marabhattaraka wrote the Rasasudhanidhi at the instance of Hanumanmantrin of Tekumalla family. In eight Pravahas, it contains the eulogy of the author's patron. Cilakamarti Rangasayin of Guarajala is the author of Amoda on the Rasamanjari of Bhanudatta. According to Dr. V. Raghavan, the Srngaramanjari of Akhar Shah follows this work. Godavarti Venkata Narayana Dikshita, is the author of Srngarasara in six Ullasas. He refers to another work of his called srngarasaravali, for details regarding Rupakas and Ksudraprabandhas. Muddu Venkarya is the author of Sahitisamullasa. Sitarama of Tiganara family wrote the Sahityacudamani with illustrations in praise of Lord Srikrsna. Thus, there are nearly fifty works on Alanarasastra, produced in Andhradesa. Almost all of them are eclectic in character, majority of them belonging to the Yasobhusana type, eulogising a patron king or diety. A class of minor poemsin Saskrit termed Ksudraprabandhas in which the Udaharanakavya and its subdivisions are included is found elaborated in most of these works. This is a special feature of these works by Telugu writers on Sanskrit poetics. Another important freature characteristic of these works is the mystic significance attributed to the letters and syllables of the Sanskrit language and the Ganas. Adducing the Upanisadic passages in support of concepts in literary criticism like Rasa is found early in the works of Visvesvara and Sayana. The credit of making Camatkara the basis of literary criticism and Elaborating it too goes to Vivesvara and Jagannatha. Jagannath Pandita, however, is unanimously acclaimed as the last authority among the writers on literary criticism in Sanskrit. Visvesvara, our author, flourished in the post-Kakatiya period which was the spring-time of Sanskrit literature in Andhra. The three kingdoms of the Rayas of Vijayanagar, the Reddis of Kondavidu and the Nayaks of Racakonda, tried their best to set reight the devastation brought about by the Muslims, by extending their patronage to Sanskrit learning. They made an organsied effort to produce works in Sanskrit both religious and secular in character. Kings of this period set a fashion for patronising scholars and poets. Among the seven meritorious deeds that make one's name eternal, the Saptasantanas, getting the dedication of a work was considered the best. Ideas of this kind were largely responsible for the literary renaissance of this period. It was an age of commentary in the history of Sanskrit literature. The great commentaries of Sayana on the Vedas, the famous commentaries of Mallinatha on the Mahakavyas, the commentaries of Katayavema on the three plays of Kalidasa, Sarasvatitirhtha's commentaries on the Naisadhiyacarita and the Kavyaprakasa, Mallinatha's Tarala on the Ekavali Kumarasvamin's Ratnapana on the Prataparudriya all belong to this period. In adddition to these commentaries, several new and original works were also written in poetry, drama and literary criticism. After the downfall of the Kakatiya empire, the Velama chieftains formed a small principality around Racakonda in Telangana and ruled from there for about a humdred years. The rulers of Racakonda and the Reddis of Kondavidu vied with each other, both inmatters of individual accomplishments and patronage of literature and learning. Singabhupala of Recarla and Pedakomativema of Kondavidu both assumed the title of ``Sarvajna''. The former distinguished himself in Natya and Sangita while the latter mastered Sahitya and Sangita. The Velamas patronised sccholars like Visvesvara and Appayarya while the Reddis had poets like the famous Vamanabhattabana in their court. Anavota (c. 1360-1385 A.D.), the father of the well known royal author Singabhupala II, the author of the Rasarnavasudhakara, was both an auhtor and a patron of Sanskrit literature. He wrote a Nataka in Sanskrit called Abhiramaraghava which is known from a citation in the Rasarnavasudhakara. The Nandi Sloka cited displays considerable literary merits. A poet naganatha, who composed the Ainavolu grant of Anovata of 1367 A.D., son of Pasupati Pandita of Kausikagotra, flourished in his court. He wrote the Madanavilasabhana which is said to have been intended for presentation at the spring festival of Kalyananarayana worshipped at Racakonda. The single manuscript of the work available in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, contains only a small portion of the text, nearly to the end of the Prastavana. The available portion, however, contains beautiful descriptions in elegant style. In the prologue of this work, the author mentions that he was a pupil of Visvesvarakavi of Bharadvajagotra, who is the same as our author of the Camatkaracandrika. One Mayibhattopadhyaya, the composer of the Umamahesvaram stone record of Madanayaka I, dated 1376 A.D., was a scholar in Vyakarana, Mimamsa and Nyaya. The last verse of this inscription preaks of Potaraja, a minister of Madadescribed as a scholar and a poet. Singabhupala II (c.1386-1412 A.D.) son of the above Anavota, is the esteemed author of Kuvalayavali, Rasarnavasudhakara, and Sangitasudhakara. He was a master of literature, music and dramaturgy. Visvesvara, the distinguished author of the Comatkaracandrika, was his court-poet and teacher, and he plays a high tribute to the literary achievements of Singabhupala in his work. Bommakanti Appayarya, another scholar of Singa's court, speaks of his patron as well-versed in literature and criticism and observes that, if a work is examined by Singa, it needs no further revision. The Camatkaracandrika, speaks of a poet, who delcares that in Singabhupala's court neither dress, nor vehicles but scholarship alone matters. The Padayojana, a commentary on the Ramayanacampu of Bhoja by one Narayana, a descendent of Mallinatha, says that Peddubhatta, a great scholar of his family was honoured by Sarvajna, with a shower of gold. The Sarvajna may be our Singabhupala. Srinatha, the great Telugu poet, speaks of Singa as the only person besides Lord Siva, who deserves the title Sarvajna. Thus all these references testify to the glory of his literary court and his liberal patronage. The Kuvalayavali, also known as Ratnapancalika is a Natika in four Acts, describing the marriage of Srikrsna with Kuvalayavali, who was no other than the Goddess of Earth in guise. she was kept under the protection of Rukminl as a Nyasa by Narada. The play closely resembles the Svapnavasavadatta of Bhasa and the Malavikagnimitra of Kalidasa. The following stanza from this drama is cited in the Rasarnavasudhakara to illustrate several factors of poetic beauty: =iMhbdiv;MɨnMiɨxnɺ- uɮMɨ֮EiEɨixjɨ* ix iɨɴɱɨ En x ɱ{ɰ{ɨɨi ɮҰI&** Kuvalayavali, Act III-4. The Rasarnavasudhakara summarieses the prenciples of dramaturgy in three chjapters known as Ranjakollasa, Rasikollasa and Rupakollasa. The first chapter, after giving the geneology of the author in detail, deals mainly with the varieties of Nayaka and Nayika and their allies. The Uddlpanavibhavas of Rasa, the Anubhavas born of body and mind and the origin and place of Sthayibhavas are also dealt with. the second chapter deals with the Vyabhicarins and their four stages, the eight Sthayins, the different Rasas and Rasabhasa. The third chapter deals with the varieties of drama, the characters, plot and technique, their subdivisions and in theend an epitome of the matter on drama is given. The prefatory portion on the geneology of the author and the concluding portion, comprising an epitome of the several topics of dramaturgy are known as Vamsavaliand Natakaparibhasa, respectively. The former is referred to by the name several times in the Camatkaracandrika and the latter occurs in independent manuscripts, on account of its usefulness. Singabhupala draws upon Natyasastra, Dasarapa, and Bhavaprakasa, mainly. In the description of Nayakas, however, he follows Bhoja. The views of Vidyadhara, the author of Ekavali, regarding Rasabhasa are subjected to severe criticism and he ridicules the latter for his servility to his patron Narasimha II of Orissa. The pungency in the criticism suggests keen political rivalry. The Rasarnavasudhakara, has been quite popular among the commentators and writers on Alankara. Among the several works cited in the work are the Virabhadravijrmbhana of Visvesvara, the Abhiramaraghava of Anavota and his own Kuvalayavali. The Kandarpasambhava is mentioned as his own work, which is also claimed by Visvesvara. Certain stray verses of his own are comparable with the Muktakas of Amaruka, and the explanation of some of them reveals them to be extracts form unknown works of the author. The verses given at the end of the chapters praise the royal-author himself.Several other such verses are strewn through-out the text and these do not seem to be his own compositions. Some of them are also common the the Camatkaracandrida of Visvesvara. It has been argued, therefore, that Visvesvaramight be the real author of the Rasarnavasudhakara. It is possible that theyroyal author tood a fancy to introduce verses in his praise, into his work. This is indeed a ticklish question, to decide conclusively, since there have been gifted rulers who have been writers and there have been also cases of court-poets who have them,selves written the works which later came to be ascribed to their patrons. The Sangitasudhakara of Singabhupala is a commentary on the Sanjgitaratnakara of Sarngadeva, which is the earliest known commentary on the work. Sri M.R. Kavi observes that in certin manuscripts of the commentary, the work is ascribed to a scholar by nam Gopanatha, who hails from the banks of the Narmada river. It is possible that Gopanatha went to Sssingabhupala's court and extended his heoping hand to the king in the composition of the commentary. The recent effort to identify its author with the Mithila King Bhupalasimba or a Nepalese royal poet of Mithila orgin, Bhupatindra is unsound. The chief among the proteges of Singabhupala was Visvevara, out author. He belonged to the Bharadvaja gotra. He flourished in the court of Anovata also, and he was the teahcer of Naganatha noticed above. Kasisvaramisra, the author of Rasamimamsa, was his Guru. Visvesvara is spoken of as a master of Sanskrit literature and the author of many poetical works. He was held in high esteem by Singabhupala, who considered Visvesvara's appreciation of his compositions as a watermark of criticism. His Camatkaracandrika along has come down to us, and his Virabhadravijrmbhana, a Dima type of dramatic composition, is known from the quotations in the Rasarnavasudhakara. The authorship of Kandarpasambhava is claimed by both Singabhupala and Visvesvara and we cannotsay anything about it. We do not know definitely if Visvesvara is the author of nay other work. A detailed account of the work and its evaluation and a discussion of other related topics are given in the sequel. Bommakanti Appayarya of Singabhupala court commented on the Amarakosa. Harihara, son of Nrsimharya, was his disciple and he commented on the Anargharaghava and the Tarkikaraksasamgraha. Ravu Madhava Nayaka or Mada II, the sixth son of Singabhupala II, wrote the Raghaviya, a commentary on the Ramayana of Valmiki. It is known only from the stone record of his wife Nagambika at Nagaram, near Racakonda, and it is said to have been writtenin 1427 A.D. One Gaurana, son of Ayyalumantrin and a nephew of Potaraja, the minister of Singayamadhava, is mentioned in the Umamaheswaram record (1376 A.D.) Gaurana must have lived about 1400 A.D. He wrote two works both called Laksanadipika on Alamkara. The former contains five Paricchedas and the latter also known as Padardhadipika and Prabandhadipika is divided into twelve Prakasas. They deal with almost identical topics and are noteworthy for the profuse quotations they contain. The latter work has citations form Telugu literature also. Gaurana quotes from the Rasarnavasudhakara and the Comatkaracandrika. It is in the literary milieu that Visvesvara composed the Camatkaracanmdrika, a critical edition of which is presented in the following pates. THE MANUSCRIPTS Five manuscripts of the work are collated in the preparation of this critical edition of the Camatkaracandrika. The following is a description of the manuscripts and a general notice regarding their usefulness for the constitution of the text: A) Apalm leaf manuscript from the eastern section of the Adyar Library, No. 74201. The manuscript contains a hunndred leaves, written on both sides and there are six lines on each side. Though worm-eaten in a few places, it is preserved in a good condition. The text is written in Telugu characters. But for a few lacunae, the entire text is preserved in this. The missing portions are indicated by blank space left over by the scribe. This is probably the oldest of the available manuscripts of the work. This was borrowed by the Andhra University Library for my use. B) A paper manuscript of Mackenzie's collections. Wilson's Catalogue - 14 Sept. 1825. The manuscript belonged to the collection of one Ramadoss. 2638/Eg.3966, N.25.RR.10.E. This is preserved in a perfect condition in the India Office Library, London. The text is neatly written in Telugu characters. This is also borrowed by the Andhra University Library for me. C) A palm leaf manuscript of the Suryaraya Vidyananda Library, Pithapuram No. Ta.gra./32. Samskrtamu Cumatkaracandrika, Alankarasastramu. The length of the palm leaf is 36.5 cm. There are 94 leaves altogether and is written on both sides with six to seven lines on each side. This is not preserved with proper care. The text is written in Telugu script and the lacunae are not indicated. The following information is available regarding its datd. The scribe of this manuscript was Voleti Bucciramudu, a resident of Komaragiri, near Pithapuram. According to Sri Chilukuri Papayya Sastry of Kakinada, he was the sixth ancestor of Voleti Parvatiswara Kavi and hence the copy was prepared, about hundredand twenty years before, in the year of Plavanga before last. The copy was prepared at the instance of Sri Kotagiri Venkatarayanimgaru, from the orginal of Citta[patla Madhavarayanimgaru. The Cittapatla family and the Kotagiri family are related to the Zamindara of Pithapuram. This manuscript was borrowed by me personally. D) A paper manuscript R.No.2679 of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras. It is written in Devanagari script. Scribal mistakes are in abundance. The text in this manuscript commences from...liɨ ʴɯrliɨ towards the end of pagetwelve of the present text. E) A paper copy in Devanagari of the text prepared by Pandita Ramachandra Sarma of Adyar Library, who kindly lent it for my use. It was prepared from the manuscript borrowed from Pandit S. Subrahmanya Sastri and late Principal Sundara Kikshitar, B.A.,L.T., Tanjore. The text was compared with the Adyar manuscript to some extent. Barring the manuscript of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library and the copy of Pandita Ramachandra Sarma, the other three are written in Telugu characters. Even these two copies are based on originals in Telugu script, since scribal errors resulting from the peculiarities of pronunciation of Sanskrit sounds of an ill-informed Telugu scribe are retained in them. These mistakes, bowever, are corrected in the copy of Pandita Ramachandra Sarma, to a large extent. A few such peculiarities are: non-distinction between and ; l and v ; using Anusvara and redundantly ; replacing the lengthening of the vowel by doubling the following consonant and so on. These are rectified in the constituted text, restoring correct Sanskrit pronunciation. The spelling of the royal hero's name occurs both as ʶRM and ʺRM. The Trivandrum edition of the Rasarnavasudhakara spells it as ʶRM. The correct spelling of the proper name in Telugu is ˺P and when it is borrowed into Sanskrit, it may be written as ʺRM. The Sanskritisation of the word would be ˺ɽ but not ʶRM. Hence the word is spelled as ʺRM throughout in the text. The text in the Adyar Manuscript is the least corrupt and it has been of great heop in constituting the critical text. The missing portions are also clearly marked out, giving a definite idea as to the extent of lacunae in each case. The lacunae are common to all the manuscripts and therefore the missing text could not be restored. This fact proves that all these are bosed on a single orginal in which, the portion of the text was lost. All variations in the readings of different manuscripts are noted. The plausible reading is given in the text and the variants are relegated to the foot-notes. In a single case, the second half of the Laksanasloka IV-12 is supplied form the Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja, work. This is also indicated in the foot-note. In the third chapter, the quotation from Magha kavya is found only in the copy of Sri Ramachandra Sarma (p. 53. F.N. 94). In all the manuscripts, an alternative reading for the beginning portion of Laksyasl;oka V - 15 is given. The Laksyaslokas and the Laksanaslokas are printed in different types and are numbered serialy for each chapter. In the case of the Laksyaslokas single Padas are also counted when they give a definition independently. Unintelligible portions are given as they are found in the manuscripts, suggesting within brackets probable readings in certain instances. GENERAL COMTENTS OF THE TEXT The Camatkaracandrika is divided into eight chapters called ``Vilasal'. The first chapter, described as ``Varnapadaviveka'' evidently describes the speech sounds of Sanskrit language, their mystical significance, the Ganas and their mystical significance, the three-fold classification of words Vacaka, Laksaka and Vyanjaka, the various defects of the words, and the different ways of overcoming those defects. The Second chapter defines a sentence and deals with the various defects thereof, showing how they turn to be acceptable in peculiar circumstances. This is named as Vakyagunadosavicara. The third chapter defines the three varieties of meaning, the defects of meaning and shows how they could be overcome. Then, the three-fold division of literature into Camatkari, Camatkaritara and Camatkaritama, the other divsion of literature, Verse, Prose and Mixed with their different types and varieties of minor poems like the Udaharanakavya. This Vilasa is disignated as `Arthagunadosaprabandhavisesaviveka'. In the fourth chapter thirty-two Gunas of Kavya are dealt with; Rlti, Vrtti, Paka, and Sayya are defined. The fifth chapter deals with Rasa. the eight Rasas, the various stages in its realisation - Pramanas inproof of the existence of the Rasa are discussed. The last three chapters comprising nearly half the text, are devoted to the elucidation of the Alamkaras. The sixthe chapter describes the Sabdalamkaras, the seventh Arthalamkaras, and the eighth Ubhayalamkaras. Now follows a detailed examination of the contents, noticing the speciality of the work in their treatment and an evaluation of the contribution of Visvesvara to Sanskrit poetics. The work begins with the Mangala sloka ``Mn nx ɨɺi-'' which is an invocation to the Goddess of Speech. The four forms of speech Dhvani, Varna, Pada and Vakya i.e., the articulated sound, letters, words and sentences, are referred to here.The verse seems to be an elaboration of the invocatory verse in the `Sarasvatikanthabharana' of Bhoja. vxɴh& {n Cʨiɺ{nSiֹ]ɨ* ɺ& Innx Mn iɨ{ɺɽ ** The second verse HlixVVɱ describes poetry as a lovely damsel. This is more poetical and charming in itself rather than the popular one ``ɤnl iɮJi'' of Prataparudriya. It is also suggestive of the way in which the various technical terminology of Sanskrit poetics evolved. Verses three and four explain the desirability of the choice of a noble hero for a poem. Visvesvara wishes that his work should become acceptable to the learned, on account of the great qualities of Singabhupala, like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata which are famous on account of their noble heroes. Visvesvara holds that the principal purpose of poetry is instruction, enjoining the good and the right thing and maintaining moral order among people. The instruction, when imparted in a delightful way gets impressed strongly in the minds of people. Camatkara or aesthetic delight is declared to be the effect of all the recognised seven factors contributing to poetic beauty viz.,Guna,Riti, Rasa, Vrtti, Paka, Sayya and Alamkara. He contrasts his position with that of Vamana and Bhoja who say that Riti alone of Gunas, Alamkaras and Rasa are the contributory factors, respectively. Here, it may not be out of place to trace the history of the concept of Camatkara in Sanskrit poetics. In common parlance, the term `Camatkara' means wonder. The term acquired a special signification in Sanskrit poetics, where it decotes poetic delight. The traditional etymology of the word is that, `camat' is the present participle of the vgerbal root `cam' meaning taste, eat and hence enjoy. Thus, `camattvam' means getting immersed in tasting or enjoyment of something, particularly of an aesthetic or mystical kind. The word may also be explained as a case of onomatopeia--the imitation of the sound wemake, while tasting something slimy, and is thus akin to `Rasa'. Gnoli observes: ``It is compounded of `camat' and `kara'; `camat', which occurs only in this expression, is probably no more than an interjection, expressing surprise or wonder while `kara' (from `kr') means the act of emitting such an interjection, of finding oneself in this state of consciousness''. He says further that ``it may be said equally that `camat' is a nlndiscursive phonic expression consisting of a vocality animated by a formof consciousness which arises from the very rhythm of our interior movement''. The first appearance of the word in the aesthetic literature is in the Abhinavabharati of Abhinavagupta, in course of the commentary on the famous Rasasutra. It is given there as a synonym of Rasa: SʴQ ʴSSɨiEɮ&* iVV%{ E{{ֱE䱱ɺxnʴEɮSɨiEɮ&** il ʽ* Si{iɴiɮEhSUz Mɴ <iSi \VxɺniɦMɺ{xnʴɹ] S x&Eh SɨiEɮ <i* S IiEɮɦɴ xɺvɪɴɺɪ E{ iɴ ilix zɺi* nɽ-- h I v֮ƶS xɶɨ ɤnx {ɪiE ɴi iJi%{ Vxi&* iSSiɺ ɮi xxɨɤv{ִ ɴκlɮh Vxxxiɮnx** <in* ɴl iɴn |iiɮɺni ɺ iɮ i* +i B ʴɶxiɮx{ʽiii xҪ i x EEi, x ʨl, xxɴS x EEiֱ, x inɮ{n{** Camatkara is described as an awareness devoid of obstacles. It is an uninterrupted state of immersion in an enjoyment, characterised by the presence of a sensation of inner fulness. It is also characterised by a kind of movement {xn the inner rhythmof the aesthetic experience which is an inner perception (x&Eh), like pleasure, pain, etc., and in this sense is not of a discursive order (ʴE{). Ksemendra observes that Aucitya is the life of Rasa and the contemplation thereof brings about Camatkara or poetic delight. +Siɺ SɨiEɮEʮhɶSɯSɴh* Vʴiɦiɺ ʴSɮ Ei%vx** He devotes his Aucityavicaracarca to elucidate the nature of propriety. In the third chapter of his Kavikanthabharana, devoted to the elucidation of charming expression or Camalkarakathana, he distinguishes ten varieties of Camatkara. Thus Camatkara not only stands for the aesthetic delight par excellence of Rasa but also for the other kinds of poetic effect, like that produced by the various varieties of propriety explained by Ksemendra. In the Sahityadarpana, Visvanatha explains the word as `wonder', which is of the nature of the expansion of the mind. SɨiEɮ& Skʴɺiɮ{ ʴɺɪ{ɮ{ɪǪ&** ʽin{hɨ iii-3 P. 72 He quotes the authority of one of his ancestors by name Narayana who heod that the principle of wonder underlies all the Rasas. Dharmadatta too testified to this: inɽ vɨnk& Oxl - ɮSɨiEɮ& ɴj{x֦ڪi* iSSɨiEɮɮi ɴj{ni & ** iɺnniɨɽ Ei xɮɨh ɨ ** Sahityadarpana P. 73 This implies that the marvellouw always underlies the Rasa. This can be correlated with Vaicitrya or Vicchitti whereby the protogonists of the Alamkara school and the Vakrokti school mean a special charm due to an act of imagination of the poet. This principle underlies and constitutes all poetic figure. In this manner, Camatkara is the quintessence of all poetic elements such as Rasa, Alamkara, Aucitya, etc. It is, in fact, our consciousness consisting of extraordinary pleasure. Dr. V. Raghavan rightly observes that the word is taken from `Pakasastra' as is the case with words like Rasa. ``It appears to me that originally the word Camatkara was an onamotopaeic word referring to the clicky sound we make with our tongue, when wetaste something snappy and in the course of its semantic enlargements, Camatkara came to mean a sudden fillip relating to any feeling of a pleasurable type''. Our author Visvesvara defines `Camatkara' thus. SɨiEɮi ʴnɨxxn{ʮɽEi** Camatkara is what produces a continual experience of extraordinary pleasure in the mind of the learned. He defines poetry as a linguistic expression possessing such a quality. ɤnl SɨiEɮ Eɴɨ All other poetic elements including Rasa, are considered as contributory factors. Mh i k {E ɺɨɱREiɨ* {iix SɨiEɮEɮh ִi v&* Mhnx CɶEi vɨǪMi&** This definition may be compared favourably with that of Jagannatha. He defines Kavya as follows: hҪl|i{nE& ɤn& Eɴɨ** which is finally stated thus: ʴʶɹ]VxEɴSUnE|i{nEiɺƺMh SɨiEɮiɴSɨ Eɴiɨ** This definition of Jagannatha is a kind of logical explanation of that of Visvesvara. According to Jagannatha, Camatkara is aesthetic delight, produced by all art, and when it is produced through the communicative power of language such linguistic expression is know as Kavya. In this manner, the meaning of the word Camatkara is expanded and it has evolved into one that denotes aesthetic experience in the most comprehensive sense of the term. This includes the pleasurable effect of Rasa realisation, thepoetic appeal of the Alamkaras, Aucitya,Riti etc. After declaring Camatkara to be the essence of poetical charm underlying all the recognised factors Visvesvara defines poetry on the basis of that concept, as has already been observed. The definition of Visvesvara is the most comprehensive one and it includes in its purview all types of Kavya from Dhvani to Sabdacitra. The definition of Jagannatha excludes mere Sabdacitras without a charming sense deliberately. Jagannatha explains this fact clearly. t{ j +lSɨiEiɺɨxɶx ɤnSɨiEi& ii{\Sɨɨvɨvɨɨ{ Eɴʴv MhʪnSiɨ* l BEIɮ{tvǴkɪɨE{Zɤxvn* il{ hҪl|i{nEɤniɰ{EɴɺɨxɱIhxGxiiɪ ɺii& Eɴiɦɴx ɽEʴʦ& |Sx{ɮ{ɮɨx֯x#vx& ij ij Eɴ xɤr{ xɺʤMhiɨ* ɺiκlix֮vii** Lignuistic expression and meaning producing extraordinary chrm are considered to be poetry by Visvesvara. Now he goes to analyse the nature of the expression and meaning. The expression i.e. `Bak' is threefold_ the letters, the words and the sentences.The letters i.e., the phonemes of Sanskrit language are called, Matrkas. They are divided into the `Voiced' and the Unvoiced' and `sonants' and `surds'. These letters are said to be contributory factors in the delineation of Rasa. They do also bring about good or bad to the poet, patron and the reader or listener when employed at the beginning of the literary production since they personify their respective deities. Therefore the different effects of these letters of the Alphabet are described in detail. They the prosodial units of Laghu, Guru and Gana are defined. It is followed by a description of their efficacies when used at the beginning of a poem. An inauspicious Gana will not harm if it is in the proximity of another auspicious one or if it heops remembering a delty. It is said that a Gana, or a letter does not have an evil effect if it is for Mangala or a proper name of a name of God or it conveys a sense of prosperity and loftiness. Here Visvesvara pronounces a general principle in these matters: |S |Sh Mɨɮ Vɺinvxix&* innɾiɨjh Rv Ihɺκli&** I-47 The literature of the ancients is generally of high standard. Therefore, the rules laid down may be contravened by the moderns following their examples. Some are of the view that the rules regarding the auspiciousness of the letters and Ganas should be observed only when a living hero is bing described. But it does not seem to be accpetable to our author. He says that a poem should be made devoid of all blemishes by all means for a single blemish can ruin the effect of the poem. The definitions of Varnaguna and Varnadosa follow. Sweetness of sound is the former and its opposite is the latter. The word and its varieties are described. An inflected formation is a word and it is expressive, connotative and suggestive. The expressive word is defined and illlustrated in its two-fold aspect of etymological and conventional. In the same manner, the connotative and suggestive words are explained. Now follow the defects of words. They are 15: Apabhrasta, Aprayukta, Nirarthaka, Viruddhartha, Apustartha, Apratita, Aniscaya, Klista, Desya, Saneyartha, Pratihasta, Avacaka, Jugupsita, Akalyana, Vridakara. All those mentioned by Bhoja have been accepted by Visvesvara in principle. But he gives different names to some of them. asadhu of Bhoja is called by the well-known name Apahrasta. Viparita is more or less Viruddhartha. Sandigdha is Aniscaya, Asamartha is Avacaka. The three varieties of Gramya, Aslila, Amangala and Ghrnavat in their three-fold division are treated separately as Akalyana or Amangala, Vridakara and Jugupsita. Kasta has already been given as a defect of letters. Gudha and Aprayojaka have not been mentioned considering them as of no significance. But Pratihasta is given which is defined as one that can be construed with the help of the knowledge of synonyms. All these blemishes of the word are shown by Visvesvara, to become Gunas in certain contexts like Anukrti or imitation. Apabhasta becomes Guna in imitation of Aprayukta and Nirarthaka become Gunas in Yamaka etc.,i.e., when they add to the beauty of sounds. Viruddhartha may become Guna if it is in the accepted usage of the poets of the past. Apustartha may be Guna when it purports excellence. Apratita is a Guna if in the context there is a full description of the particular technical subject. Aniscita is not a defect when there is no conflict in sense, when there is excellence of when the particular thing is known by Prakarana etc. (ƪM ʴ|ɪMɶSin) - Klista is Guna if it is used in a poem, if the proper order is maintained, or when there is the indication of the defects of the great or when it is somewhat clear. Desya is not a defect in titles, censures proper names. Neyartha can be used in Prahelikas, etc. Pratihasta does not lose beauty if employed in secret letters. Avacaka is not a Dosa if its sense is justified by Kamasastra, etc., in that particular context. Jugupsita may be a Guna if accepted by poets. Amangala may be Guna if it is concealed or it is in the proximity of another. Vridakara also may become a Guna if it is taken metaphorically. Bhoja called these Dosas, that may become Gunas in certain cases, as Dosagunas. Visvesvara's explanation of tehm moreor less agress with that of Bhoja but for in some small details. The author warns that one should not use logic in the matters and say that a poem is good or bad. One should examine the ancient literature and determine the excellences and dfects of a poem. Thus one may produce a poem of eternal values. The second chapter deals with the definition of the sentence, its excellences and blemishes. A sentence consists of syntactically related words and it is two-fold either Laksaka or Vyanjaka. Then the defects of sentence are enumerated as thirteen as against sixteen of Bhoja. Here too he changes certain names. Apaprayukta is the same as Sabdahina of Bhoja. Dussandhi is Visandhi. Vyutkrama is called Kramabhrastra. Punaruktimati is identical. Vakyagarbhita is the same Bhinnalingavacana and NYunadhikopamaare also the same. Vikala is three-fold. Chandovikala, Yativikala and Kriyavikal and they are mentioned as thress separte Dosas by Bhoja as Bhagnacchanda, Bhagnayati and Asarira. Kevala is not mentioned by Bhoja. Bhoja's Apada and Aritimat are also omitted by Visvesvara. It is also shown how these defects become Gunas. Apaprayukta is not a Dosa if it is intended by the speaker. Aslilasandhi may be allowed rarely. It would be better if Aslilasandhi is abandoned completely like a bad man. Vyutkrama is Guna if disregard of idea is conveyed. Duranvaya is also a Guna sometimes. Vakyangasankirna is not a Dosa if one is subsidiary to the other. Vakyagarbhita is Guna when it denotes the state of one's intense feeling. Upama with different gender and number is not a Dosa if itis not an obstacle in realising the poetic beauty for a critic. All the sixteen Dosas of Bhoja are mentioned. Bhinna is Khinna in Bhoja. Sasamsaya is Sandigdha. Anujjvala is Niralankara. Under Viruddha are given-Desa, Kala, Kala, Loka, Nyaya, Agama and so on. It is also shown how they become Gunas in different contexts. Apartha may be Guna if it is spoken by a dejected or mad man. Vyartha if it conveys some peculiarity becomes Guna; Aprayojana variety of it also is Guna in the same case. Ekartha is Guna if it is spoken at the jight of inspiration. Sasamsaya is Guna ifsome excellence is signified. Apakrama is Guna in Citrahetu. Parusa is not a Dosa in instruction and remembrance of a past deed. Virasa may be Guna if it is subordinated. Bhinna is Guna if the buauty of the poem is not reduced thereby. Atimatra is also Guna if it accords to the worls of if it is justified. Anujjvala is Guna in certain cases like the speech of a mere Vedic Scholar. Nicopama and Adhikopama are Gunas sometimes by the dexterity of the poet. Asdrksopama is Guna when context is meant. Aprasiddhopama may be Guna if it is charming. Aslila is Guna if it is acceptable to the great poets. Desavirodha is Guna if calamity or greatness are intended. Thus in the definition of the Dosas of sound, word, sentence and meaning he follows Bhoja. However, Nyunopama and Adhikopama are Gunas due to their being well-known or by inference. Chandovikala is allowed in languages other than Sanskrit like the Prakrts. Yativikala is allowed if it is due to vowel combination. Kriyavikala is Guna if it is rectified by supplying the words <n and +κi. Kevala is Guna in benedictions of Vedic Scholars. The third chapter deals with sense and its defets and the classification of poetry, formal and qualitative. Sense is three fold-Vacya, Laksya and Vyangya. Vacya is the sense conveyed by the direct denotation of the word and it is universal or particular. Laksya is the meaning got by the connotation i.e., by secondary signification and it is four-fold as it is inherent, associative, related or similar to the Vacya and is indicated by the incompatibility of the primary meaning. Virodha, Avirodha, Avayavavayavibhava etc., are also included in Sambandha (association). The Vyangyartha is then explained. It is Vastu, Aklankara or Rasa or Bhava and so on. Thenthe defects of the meaing are considered. He shown his originality in rejecting certain things and modifying certain names and defining them in a more lucid manner. He has also given them in a different order. Now he goes to classify Kavya. Poetry is three-fold--Camatkari--charming. Camatkaritara--more charming and Camatkaritama--most charming. ɤnSɯiii{ɪ SɨiEɮi Eli** When the poem purports the charm of sounds alone, it is the Camatkari. SSɯiii{ɪ SɨiEʮiɮ iɨ** That poetry is more charming which has for its purport the charm of the sense. This also includes Gunibhutavyangya. RMɪɺ S MhҦɴ inɽxʹh&** Even when the suggested sense i subordinate, it is called Camatkaritara. The third variety is the Dhvanikavya i.e., where the suggested is mainly charming, it is Camatkaritama. |iɪlǺ Sɯi SɨiEʮiɨ iɨ** He furnishes them with proper illustrations. while explaining the Gunibhutavyangya, he gives the varieties of Dhvani; the reader is also referred to Dhvanilocana etc., in this regard. Visvesvara is the first among critics to make the poetic charm or Camatkara the basis of the classification of poetry. However, this is not a new concept, as is shown before. When Dhvanikara says: SɯiiExɤxvx ʽ Sɴ RMɪɪ& |vxʴɴI** and determines the particular nature of poetry, he is giving prominence to the specific source of poetic charm. Visvesvara's classification closely resembles that of Jagannatha in Rasagangadhara. He has a four-fold division: Uttamottama, Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama referring to Dhvani, Gunibhutavyangya, Arthacitra and sabdacitra. However, he does not accept mere Sabdacitra without the trace of any charming meaning i.e., Arthcamatkara as poetry since such cases cannot be comprehended by his definition of poetry--hҪl|i{nE& ɤn& Eɴɨ. But Visvesvara finds a place for them also and includes them under the first namely Camatkari. Camatkaritara includes arthacitra and Gunibhutavyangya and Camatkaritama is the same as Dhvani. The author, then, gives a formal division of poetry-prose, verse or mixed. These are the three major forma of Kavya. A composition without division into feet is called Gadya and is very pleasing to the learned. Only a few people can master it. It is illustrated by Harsacarita and other variety of verse is what is having four feet and is two-fold Jati and Matra. And their explanation should be known from works on prosody. Poetry in verse is small or big. The small one is dealt with by Bhamaha etc., in detail. The big one is what is in Sargas with a noble theme. It contains descriptions of various kinds and leads to the three ends of life. Raghuvamasa, etc., are the examples. The Misra is the mixture of both prose and verse and it is either to be seen or to be heards. What is to be seen--is Rupaka and Uparupaka: Major Dramas and Minor dramas. Rupaka is tenfold, Nataka, etc. This deserves to head all the compositions. The elaboration thereof should be known from Rasarnavasudhakara of Singabhupala. Noneelse can say in such a manner. Uparupaka is Srigadita, etc., and their explanation should be looked for in Bhavaprakasika and other works. The Sravya variety is two-fold--Campus and Upacampus. Campu shines with beautiful descriptions of eighteen kinds and is also called Prabandha. Bhojacampu is a good example. Upacampus are of many kinds. Caturbhadra, Birudavali, Bhogavali, Vijayavali, Udaharana, Cakravalaka are defined. Dvipadi, etc., do also come under Ksudra poems. The explanation of these types is more elaborate here than what is found in the Prataparudriya. Then he goes to explain the various elements of poetry. They are given as seven by him. Guna, Riti, Vrtti, Savya, Paka, Rasa, Alankara. The first five are dealt with in the fourth chapter. Gunas are like beauty to the body. They are twenty three and are the same as those given by Bhoja. Bhoja gives another called Praudhi. This is the same as Paka and is dealt with as an independent poetic element. The same are treated twice as Sabdagunasand as Arhtagunas by Bhoja. Visvesvara does not differentiate them. Riti is the arrangement of words. It is derived from the root R meaning `movement'. The peculiar arrangement or movement or flow of words is Riti. It is four-fold. The uncompounded, one of medium compounds, that of lengthy compounds and the mixed. +ɨɺ ɨɺx vɨx S ʹi* +inPǺɨɺ S ʨɸ Si Si̴v** This is clearly an adaptation of the verse is Dhvanyaloka speaking of the varieties of Sanghatana. The definition may be compared with that of Bhoja. nnEi& {xl& Eɴ M <i i&* R Miʴi vi人 i{S iɯSi* Visvesvara is orignial in the treatment of Ritis. He bases his Ritis entirely on sanghatana, the collocation of sounds and the compounding of words. He defines the Asamasa Riti as a composition without compounds. It does not mean however, that it is completely uncompounded. Small compounds like the negative compound (x\ ɨɺ&) may be there. Also compounds of two of three words which do not produce distaste to an appreciative critic are not considered as compounds as is seen in the case of the works written by the poets who adopt the Asamasa Marga. He says that it is no other than Vaidarbhi. The Madhyamasamasa Riti is a composition with compounds of medium length, i.e., consisting of less that ten words and the Atidirghasamasa Riti is that composed of long compounds of more that ten words. The last variety is ther Mixed one, i.e., an admixture of the above three in different ways. In the history of Sanskrit poetics, Rudrata is the other authority who based his treatment of Ritis entirely on the length of compounds. The nominal words are found in two different ways i.e. Vrttis in poetic compositions. They are either compounded oruncompounded. The Samasavati Vrtti is the compounded variety and it has three styles or Ritis. They are given as Pancali, Latiya, and Gaudiya as they consist of small, mudium or long compounds. Pancali consists of compounds of two or three words: Latiyaof five or six and lengthy compounds comprise the Gaudiya style. The Asamasa is only one and is the same as Vaidarbhi. Thus Visvesvars's Asamasa and Atidirghasamasa are the same as Vaidarbhi and Gaudiya of Rudrata. Anandavardhana does not say explictly that Sanghatana directly gives rise to different Ritis. In making the collocation the basis of Ritis and in discarding the Gunas while defining them, Visvesvara has taken an independent line following Anandavardhana and Rudrata. Consequently, he differs form the ole school of Bhamaha, Dandin and Udbhata who define Ritis as depending on Gunas mainly. It may be noticed here that the treatment of Ritis by Singabhupala in Rasarnavasudhakara is altogether different from this. He has three Ritis-Komala, Kathina and Misra evidently meaning the mellifluous style, the majestic style and the mixed one. It is unfortunate that the latter half of the Sloka giving the definition of Vrtti is missing in all the manuscripts. However, it is probable that it is not much different from that of Bhoja, as the first half is identical with the corresponding portion there. ʴEɺ S ʴI{ ʴI ʴɺiɮ il* (Siɺ iʪj i k& { Rʴv**) They represent the various states of the mind such as bloom, distraction, agitation and expansion. They depend on the Rasas. Srngara and Karuna-the soft, Hasya and Adbhuta-slightly soft, the powerful ones Raudra and Bibhatsa and the less powerful Vira and Bhayanaka. Paka is the refinement of the art of composition as seen in the full literary appeal. It is generally two-fold-the soft and the rough. They are likened to Draksapaka and narikelapaka, respectively. The first is the characteristic feature of those born poets who are gifted with imagination and whose works yield immense joy to the readers. The other kind requires effort for its understanding and gives delight, not instantaneously, but after delay and is characteristic of those laboured poets whose mindsare filled with turns of expression and who are erudite and whose poems mainly display scholarship. Sayya is the mutual fitness in the setting of different words in a composition allowing no displacement whitout considerable loss of the charm of meaning. The nomenclature is given after the common parlance in the world. Rasa is to be taken up in a separate chapter. The transcendental pleasure produced by particular situations in poetry is called Rasa. A poem endowed therewith be comes verybeautiful and the poet who delineates Rasa acquires eternal fame. Such Rasa spoken of as of equal status with Brahman in the Scripture & is experienced only by certain fortunate people. Imaginative critics have said that Rasa is Siva Himself. The author says that the metaphor is apt since bothe have assumed eight forms ofr the benefit of the world. The Rasa are enumerated in pairs Srngara and Hasya, Vira and Adbhuta, Raudra and Karuna and Bibhatsa and Bhayanaka. As sweetness is the king of tstes, Srngara is the king of all Rasas. As a poet should direct his effort t delineate Rasa, so one forgetshimself enjoying it. He declares that, in his opinion, poetry is acceptable on account of Rasokti though Svabhavokti and Vakrokti may also be there. He Says: Sɮ Vi GH& ɦɴHS iɹ`iɨ* Ek Eɴx Ohi iɨǨ* Long live the turn of expression! Let the matter of fact statement lie there. In my opinion, the poems are acceptable on account of delineation of Rasa. Sound and sense without Rasa are compared to a couple devoid of mutal love. So at least a small amount of Rasa should be there in a Kavya. After these preliminary remarks the ten kinds of Rasoktis are defined and illustrated with respect to Srngara. The other Rasas should be explained in the light of that. Rasoktis are of ten kinds: kɺkx֤xv& xɹ{k& {ι]E* ɦɺ ɨ& & <iH ʽ H&** Bhoja gives twenty-four Rasoktis. But Visvesvara has taken ten since the others are not of great importance. ɴ Vxx֤xv%l xɹ{k& {ι]E* ɦɺ ɨ& .............. Sarasvatikanthabharana, V-9, p.555. In defining them also, he closely follows Bhoja. The defincition of Pusti is identical. Prema just has ten stages and they are merely enumerated. They are clearly explained in Singabhapaliya, i.e., the Rasarnavasudhakara of Singabhupala. |{ֹ]ɺlnE ʺRMɦ{ɱҪ xnE (|n̶i? ʽ** +ʦɱɹSxixxֺiMhɺEixuM&* ʴɱɺ =xnv Vbdiv;i iɶS nv i&** Thereafter the author describes briefly each Rasa with illustrations. Here he gets into a controversy on the existence of Rasa. One might say: `What proof do you have for the existence of Rasa' . Then he answers thus: It is pure experience that can prove it and this is shown already. And it can also be proved by other Pramanas. To satisfy the curiosity of those who indulge in unnecessary argument the following is being written. It becomes the object of ʴE{E|iIɨ perception with attributes. Here is quoted: x %κi |iɪ E & ɤnxMɨoi* +xʴrʨɴ Yx ɴ ɤnx Mi** The verse is introduced with the remarks: il S ɴiɮʴɶɺ Mɴi& {i\Sɱʦ|ɪ |E]i ɾi ʮMx* He gives inference also. We can say: the spectators have the experience of Rasa sionce they show such rection as the Yogins do in complete absortion. As Agama, herefers to the great works on Alankarasastra which speak of Rasa. Upamana is given thus. Aswe say Mo Mɴɪ& we can also say iSɺIiEɮo &** Arthapatti is due to the inapplicability of Vibhavas and Anubhavas without the realisation of Rasa. Aitihya too supports this. Here he quotes the authority of his preceptor Kasisvaramisra------- ɱIҨxoi Mbdiv;ɮihɨ* {hbdiv;I ʴuoVҹx֦ɴ l** The festoon of affected composition disregarding the splendour of Rasa is like the chewing of the residue of sugarcane abandoning the juice thereor. Now he refers the reader for other details, to the first two chapters of Rasarnavasudhakara. Since he is otherwise interested they are not dealt with here for fear of over-elaboration and irrelevancy. The last three chapters deal with Alankara. In chapater IV, he has said that his main concern is the definitions of Alankaras. Thus half the work is devoted for them. The sixth chapter deals with Subdalankaras. Those that beautify the poem, resting in one part thereof like the bracelet, which beautifies the entire form, are known as Alankaras. They are of three kinds-the figures of sound, the figures of sense and the figures of both sound and sense. Eleven Alankaras of sound are treated by Visvesvara. Bhoja gives twenty-four including elements like Rait, etc. Riti and Vrtti, are dealt with separately by Visvesvara along with Paka and Sayya. since they are of more general significance, He also omits such strange Sabdalankaras like-Jati, Gati, Sravya, Preksya, Abhiniti, Adhyeya, Pathiti, Bhaniti, Prahelika, Ukti. He brings down the sudivision thereof considerably. Of the twenty-four arthalankaras of Bhoja, he omits only the Pramanalankaras-Pratyaksa, Anumana, Sabda and Abhava. All the twenty-four Ubhayalankaras of Bhoja are accepted and they are treated in the last chapter at length. Bhoja's authority is also quoted in this connection. He collows Bhoja in all his definitions. Chapter VI deals with the following Sabdalankaras: I. Uɪ - xMʮEUɪ, OɨH Uɪ, ɨxH Uɪ II. p - {np, Sxɨp III. H& IV. & - |Eiɶ&, |iɪɶ&, {n&, ʴɦH&---- ViҪʴɦH&, ʴViҪʴɦH&, Sxɶ&, ɹɶ&** V. +x|ɺ& -- +{E&, {E& In is said that Vrttyanuprasa, Latanuprasa etc. are to be included here. VI. Mơx - xɮlEɤnP]x, +xOliɶɤnP]x, {nMơx, {nuMơx, {njɪMơx VII. Sjɨ - SGxv&, {bdiv;xɤxv& VIII. ɨE - +nɨE, vɪɨE, +xiɪɨE IX. ECɨ X. Mf - GMf, EɮEMf, ƤxvMf XI. |ɶxkɮ - +xi&|ɶxɨ, ʽ&|ɶxɨ, =ɪ|ɶxɨ Chapter VII-This chapter is devoted for the elucidation of Arthalankaras. I. Vi& - iiEʱE, xME** II. ʴɦɴx - EɮhxiɮƤɴx, ɦɴʴɦɴx** III. i& - |ɴiEGʴʶɹ]EɮEi&, |ɴiEGxʴɹ]EɮEi&, xɴiEGʴɹ]EɮEi&, xɴiEGxʴɹ]EɮEi&, Gʴɹ]|ɪVEi&, Gxʴɹ]|ɪVEi&, uiҪɴS IEi&, iiҪɴS IEi&, Gxʴɹ]|ɪVEi&, uiҪɴS IEi&, iiҪɴS IEi& SilԴS IEi&, {iɨҴS IEi&, ɨEɱ i&, ʴ{ɪǺiɽi&, +Hi&, +RMiɽi&** IV. +i& - ɦɴ{ɮɽi&, Eɮhxiɮ{ɮɽi&, Eɮhɨɱ** V. Iɨ** VI. =kɮ** VII. ʴɮv& -- riSEʴɮv&, OliɺiSEʴɮv&, rɦɺʴɮv&, Oliɦɺʴɮv&, ViʴɮvɶSiɮ&, Gɪ& GMhuʴɮv&, Mhɪ& ʴɮv&, Mhpɪ̴ɮv&, pɺ ph ʴɮv&, +Mi&, |ixE, xɹɨɨ, +vE** VIII. Ʀɴ& -- ʴvɺƦɴ&, ʴɹvɺƦɴ&** IX. +xxɨ - BEi, SʱE, xi&** X. {ʮk& -- iɪɴi J, iɪɴi Mh, Jʴxɨɪ&, Mhʴxɨɪ&** XI. xnx -- {ڴxnx, =kɮxnx, ɨ xnx** XII. iɮE& -- EliɺoɺViҪɴiɮE&, |iiɺoɺViҪɴiɮE&, Eliɺo ɴHiɮE&, Eliɺo BEiɮE&, Eliɺo =ɪɴiɮE&, Eliɺo oɴiɮE&, Eliɺo ʴɺoɴiɮE&, |iiɺo oɴiɮE&, {#®iiɺo ʴɺoɴiɮE&** XIII. ɨʽiɨ -- nʴE ɨʽiɨ, +nʴE ɨʽiɨ** XIV. xi& -- +ɱɨxɴi, xɮɱɨ, +iS iSɰ{, iS +iSɰ{, xiɸRJɱ** XV. ʴiE& -- xhǪxi&, +xhǪxi&** XVI. ʱiɨ -- ɨɨ, {ʽiɨ, inMhɨʱiɨ, +inMhɨiɱɨ** XVII. ɮhɨ** XIX. +xx֨xɨ** XX. +l{k&** Chapter VIII-This chapter deals with the figures of speech of both sound and sense. I. ={ɨ - ɴǺɨɺ {n{ɨ, +xiɦitiEl ɨɺ{n{ɨ, +xiɦiɪl ɨɺ{n{ɨ, ={ɨxl|iɪ {n{ɨ, ={ɨl|iɪ {n{ɨ, tiEl|iɪ {n{ɨ, iֱvɨl|iɪ {n{ɨ, {nlǺɨɴi {h C{ɨ, {i C{ɨ jv - iֱvɨDZ{ɴi, tiE{ɴi, =ɪɱ{ɴi, BEtiE, +xEtiE, tiEx, vɨǴiҴC{ɨ, E{ɨ, BEnɴi, ʱE, Jɱ, ʴ{ɪǺ{ɨ, =ɪ{ɨ, =i{t{ɨ, +xx{ɨ** II. {E - ɨɺɴp{E, ɺiɰ{E, =ɪɨ, ʴɶɨ, {ɮ{ɮ, Jɱ, ʱE, {E{E, Eɨ, ʴEɨ, H, +H, ɽVRM|vxɨ, +ɽɪ|vxɨ, =ɪ|vxɨ, ʴɹɨRM|vxɨ, Eɱɨ, iɮE** III. ɨɨ - ɨɴi|{\SH&, ʴEi|{\SH&, =iEǴi|{\SH&, +{EǴi |{\SH&, o]xiH&, |iɴɺiH&** IV. ƶɪH& - BEʴɹɪ, +xEʴɹɪ** V. +{xoi& - oɴɺixɺɴi, +oɴi** VI. ɨvH& - v̨ɺɨv&, vɨǺɨv&, =ɪɺɨv&*. VII. ɨɺH& - Pɴi, MɽǴi, ={ɱƦɴi, +ʦvҪɨxɺo Pɴi, +ʦvҪɨxɺo MɽǴi, +ʦvҪɨxɺo ={ɱƦɴi, PMɽhɺEi, ʴEiEliɺɨx ɨɺH&** VIII. =i|I - pɺɰ{i|I, pɡi|I, Mhɺɰ{i|I, Mhɽii|I, Mhɡi|I, Gɺɰ{i|I, Gɡi|I, Gɽii|I** IX. +|ɺii|ɶƺ** X. iֱɪMi - iil, xxnl** XI. Vɺii& - nɺ MhҦɴ&, Mhɺ nҦɴ&** XII. ɽH& - +oɴi, oɴi** XIII. ɨSSɪ& - |i{ntiE&, =kɮ{ntiE&** ɽ{nɸɪ& - |i{ntiE&, =kɮ{ntiE&** =ɪɴMǸɪ& - u{nɸɪ&, <iɮiɮM&, +x֦ɪɸɪ& ɨɽɮ&, +x֦ɪɸɪ& tiE&, =kɮ{nɸɪ&** XIV. +I{& - ʴvI{&, xɹvI{&** XV. +lxiɮxɺ&** XVI. ʴɶH&** XVII. {ʮE& - G{ʮE&, BEɴɱ** XVIII. n{E - Gn{E, +lǴkn{E, {nɴkn{E, {]&** XIX. G& - ɨɺiɶɤnG&, +ɨɺiɶɤnG&, =ɪG&, ni& +lG&, Eɱi& +lG&** XX. {ɪǪ&** XXI. +iɶɪH& - MhiɶɪH&, GiɶɪH&** XXII. &** XXIII. ɴx** XXIV. ƺι]& - EɱɶɤnɱREɮRE&, EɱlDZREɮRE&, EɱɪɱREɮRE&, ɤnlDZfrac14;EɮE&, ɤnɪɱREɮE&, +lɪɱREɮE&, ɤnlɪɱREɮE&, MhɱREɮE&** At the end of the portion dealing with Rupaka, it is stated that Vidyadhara, the author of Ekavali, holds, that Vyastarupaka does not give any charm. Visvesvara criticises this view and says that such a statement of Vidyadhara only shows his inability to frame an illustration. The concluding portion of the last chapter deals with Samsrsti-a mixture of the figures of speech. He does not differentiate between Sansara and Samsrsti as is done by some poeticians. Also he accepts the mixture of Gunas etc., and the figures of speech as a distinct figure of speech, following Bhoja and others. The Sloka given as an illustration thereof is significant otherwise also. Unfortunately the complete Sloka is not available. Still the main purport can be understood. `May the work of Visvesvara flourish, as long as the moon, sun, stars, sky, etc. exist, along with the fame of Singabhupala'. ``Thus have I shown the definition of the elements of poetry, carefully considering the ways of the ancient poets. Let those learned in both creative art and criticism, scrutinize the same''. THE DATE OF CAMATKARACANDRIKA Visvesvara flourished in the court of Singabhupala of Racakonda. Singa is the author of Rasarnavasudhakara, a treatise on dramaturgy. His date is given as 1330 A.D. by the editor of Rasarnavasudhakara, Sri Ganapathi Sastry, identifying him with Singa Iof the geneology of the Recarla. But it has been shown untenable. The author of Rasarnavasudhakara is the grandson of Singa I, and son of Anaovta. He was highly learned and bore the title Sarvajna which he acquired on account of his great scholarship. Sarvajna Singabhupala was a great patron also. Visvesvara and Bommaganti Appayarya flourished in his court. Visvesvara was in the court of Anavota also. He was the preceptor of Naganatha Kavi, the author of the Ainavolu grant of Anavota dated Saka 1291 - 1367 A.D. Sarvajna Singabhupala is also known as Kumara Singa which shows that he was thus praised when his grand-father was still alive. This shows that Singabhupala attained fame both as a hero and a scholar in his early age even when his grand-father was alive. He lived to ripe old age. Singabhupala held Visvesvara in high esteem. It is probable that Visvesvara was the preceptor of Singabhupala. Thus Visvesvara shoule have flourished between 1325-1400 A.D. approximately. Evidently Camatkarracandrika is later than Rasarnavasudhakara. Both have quoted Vidyadhara and have criticised his views in Ekavali. Camatkaracandrika is quoted by the famous scholar Sayana in his Alankarasudhanidhi while illustrating Cakrabandha. The work and author are given as SɨiEɮVix and ʴɷ{iEʴ respectively. Alankarasudhanidhi was written when Sangama II was still a child and Sayana was the prince regent. Thus the date of composition of Alankarasudhanidhi later than 1358 A.D. Sri Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma writes: Alankarasudhanidhi must have been written abour Saka 1280 or Saka 1300 at the latest. Before this date, Visvesvara completed his Camatkaracandrika. Rasarnavasudhakara is still earlier that latter one. Hence it may be concluded that Singa II wrote the Rasarnavasudhakara sometime about 1368 A.D. While he was a prince. Our work was written about 1370 A.D. RASARNAVASUDHAKARA AND CAMATKARACHAMDRIKA Rasarnavasudhakara is a treatise on dramaturgy by Visvesvara's patron Singabhupala. It is in three Vilasas and deals with Heros and Heroines Rasa, and dramatic compositions. The work precedes that of Visveswara and is referred to, oftern, in his Cakatkarancandrika. In the third chapter of Camatkaracandrika while dealing with the different varieties of compositions the author says that the details regarding the Drama and its divisions shoule be known from Rasarnavasudhakara of Singabhupala. In the fifth chapter, the work is referred to twice. Defining Pusti, one of the ten states of Rasa, he observes that there are ten stages of this Pusti itself and they are explained in Singabhupaliya i.e., Rasarnavasudhakara of Singabhupala. Again, towards the end of the same chapter he states: +xHxʨɽx IɱIhʴɺiɮ&* ʺRMɦ{ɱɮSi hǴɺvE** +nuiҪɪ& v ұxҪ ʴɱɺɪ&* +xjɤroι]inʦx|{\Si&** xʽ ɴj ɴ ʴɶh |nxɨ* +iʴɺiɮnh OxlSUn|ɺRMi&** Those elements of Rasa that are not explained here are to be learnt from Rasarnavasudhakara, where they are dealt with elaborately. They are explained there in teh first and second Vilasa. They are nto explained by me in detail since it is not my mainconcern. Also everything cannot find a place every-where since it may be too elaborate or irrelevant. The above references show that the two works are complementary to each other. The subject matter of Alankarasastra includes dramaturgy also as is seen in works like, Sahityadarpana, Prataparudriya etc. There are also works which exclude dramatugy and explain only poetry as referred to other literary compositions. They are works like Dasarupaka and Bhavaprakasa which deal mainly with Dramas, Rasa, Hero and Heroine. Rasarnavasudhakara belongs to the type of treatises represented by Dasarupaka. Camatkaracandrika belongs to anothe type dealing mainly with poetry. It is interesting to note in this connection certain other points regarding these two works of the patron and the protege. The text of Rasarnavasudhakara consists of three distinct section. The first portion is whate is called Vamasvali which gives thegenealogy of Singabhupala and the beginning of the first Vilasa. Next follows the text proper. And in the end of the third chapter, having dealt whit all the varieties of dramatic composition, he summarises his views saying that here is the techinique of Drama in short (x]E{ʮɹ). There is a separate manuscript of this portion preseved in the India Office Library which gave rise to a doubt that it is an independent treatise. Verses from the first portion-Vamsavali are quoted by Visvesvara several times with the remarks-xɪE ƶɴxɨ and so on. All these show that Rasarnavasudhakara is well-known and widely studied and has been recognised to be consisting of the three separate units. Here, it is proper to discuss a controversy raised by certain scholars regarding the authorship of Rasarnavasudhakara. They hold that Visvesvara, the court poet, should himself be the real author of the Rasarnavasudhakara also. They put forth the fact that the two works are complementary in nature to say that both the works are written by the same author i.e., Visvesvara. There is also another point in its favour. Vamasavali consists of praise of the ancestors of Singabhupala and of himself. Some of the illustrative verses in Rasarnavasudhakara do also praise Singabhupala. And at the end of all the three Vilasas of that work there are two verses, unconnected, which merely contain the praise of Singabhupala. Moreover, there is a work called Kanarpasambhava which is referred to in both the works with the remarks ɨ Exn{ǺƦɴ, the author-ship being claimed by both of them. All this goes to prove that the authorship of the Rasarnavasudhakara is doubtful and that probably visvesvara himself wrote the work and give his patron's name to it. That the works are complementary cannot be an argument to prove the identity of authorship, since both of them lived at the same time and each held the other in great respect and appreciation. While Visvesvara praises Singa's talents and poetic genius: + ʽiɺM ʺRMvɮh{i&* Pɪ ɺ zr S ʴɷɮ ** ʺRMvɮh{ɱ iɴɺʽiSi֮* Singa says in his Ratnapancalika: + ʽiɺM ʺRMvɮh{i&* Pɪ ɺ zr ʴɷɮɮi** there are several illustrative verses in Camatkaracandrika which speak of Singabhupala's literary achievements. He is also referred to as having the title ɴY which he seems to have acquired by virtue of his scholarship. Indeed there are certain points of comparison between the two works. Both are divided into chapters called Vilasas. Both define things in a lucid manner. But the definitions in both are not very much original. They have adopted most of those given by earlier writers like Bharata and Bhoja. Both have criticised others' views. Vidyadhara, the protege of kalinga king Narasimha II and author of Ekavali, is criticised severely. The pungent remarks may also be due to political rivalry between the two kingdoms. Singabhupala accepts the view that Rasa delineated in respect of animals is only a semblance of it. But Vidyadhara, following Mammata holds that Rasa can be described in respect of animals and Mlecchas too and it is no flaw: +{ɮ i ɦɺ iɪI |SIi iz {ɮIIɨɨ* i乴{ ʴɦɴnƦɴi* ʴɦɴnYxɶx iɪ\S x Vx ʴi֨ɽxi ɺi Sz* xֹ乴{ ESklɦi ʴɹɪɦɴɦɴ|ɺRMi* ʴɦɴn Ʀɴ ʽ |i |ɪVE x ʴɦɴvYxɨ* iiɶS iɮSɨ{ɺi &** This view is criticised by Singabhupala as due to bad taste alone. In the Camatkaracandrika while defining Rupaka and its varieties Visvesvara considers the remarks of Vidyadhara in Ekavali on Vyastarupaka. Vidyadhara holds that there is no Camatkara, i.e., poetic charm in such varieties of Rupaka. Visvesvara observesthat such remarks are to be attributed to the author's inability to compose proper illustrations. But the differences are also striking. Regarding the Ritis both have different veiws. Singa describes three of them-Eɱ, E`x and ʨɸ and defines them as collocations of sweet sounds or harsh sounds and of both kinds of sounds mixed, respectively. But Visvesvara bases Ritis on compounds and has four varieties of them called +ɨɺ, vɨɺɨɺ, nPǺɨɺ and ʨɸ** Rasarnavasudhakara criticises Bhoja whereas Camatkaracandrika closely follows him in many a respect. The illustrations in the Rasarnavasudhakara are from various sources. Besides the famous masters of Sanskrit literature like Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti he quotes from-Abhiramaraghava, a drama by his father Anavotanayaka, Virabhadravijrmbhana a Dima written by Visvesvara, Kandarpasambhava, a work of doubtful authorship and Karunakandala, etc. whose authorship is not known definitely. He also quotes profusely from his own Ratnapancalika-a Natika. Besides, there are many verses in teh fist two chapters on Nayaka and Nayika and Rasa and Bhavas which appear to be stray ones probably composed by the author himself to illustrate the various elements of aesthetic beauty defined in the treatise. Some of them which contain praise of the author himself might be the verses of the poets patronised by him in his court. This is a feature found in the case of Sahityacintamani of Peda Komati Vama also wherein we find the verses sung in praise of him are included in appreciation thereof. The last few verses of the chapters of Rasarnavasudhakara containing Singa's praise may be later accretions since they have not a place there in any way. Camatkaracandrika, on the other hand, has been written to sing the praise of Singa and to perpetuate his fame. It is to be compared with the works of Vidyanatha, Vidyanatha, Prataparudrayasobhusana and Ekavali. There are, however, certain verses of other great writers. He does not seem to be so conventional in spirit as to avoid even the mention of any great master of Sanskrit poetry and their works. He quotes from Kalidasa and other great writers to illustrate the principles of criticism. Now regarding the dubious mention of the authorship of Kandarpasambhava in both the works as `ɨ' it is indeed confusing. There is no proof either way. In the light of the above facts we have to discuss the question of the authorship of the Rasarnavasudhakara. That Singabhupala was highly learned is borne out by Visvesvara himself in many contexts. Further Bommaganti Appayarya was another protege of Singabhupala and the author of Amarakosavyakhya. We know form him as also from Visvesvara that he had a title ɴY and was well-versed in poetry and criticism. He was also a critical judge and set high standards of literary composition in his court. Mallinatha the famous commentator and Kumarasvamisompithin and others have quoted the work as an authority recognising it as the work of Singabhupala. Further Srinatha, the great Telugu poet, pays a great tribute to Sarvajna's scholarship. He says that Sarasvati got established in the court of Singabhupala, the widely learned. Singabhupala is known as the author of Ratnapancalika or Kuvalayavali a Natika of great literary excellence. He is also the author of a learned commentary on Sangitaratnakara of Sarngadeva. The commentary is called Sangitasudhakara. It must have been written in his ripe old age. Such being the attainments and talents of Singabhupala borne out by great authorities, the baseless doubt of his authorship of the Rasarnavasdhakara is to be deplored. Probably it is founded on the popular misconception that an active ruler cannot be a thorough scholar and an author. But this rule has many an exception in the history of Sanskrit literature. Moreover, the difference of opinion in the case of Ritis cannot be accounted for if we say Visvesvara is the author of the Rasarnavasudhakara also. Thus Visvesvara cannot be the author of Rasarnavasudhakara. It is interesting to notice here that the Cakatkaracandrika throws light on certain historical events. A verse 䱱ʺx {ɮEx{i etc., refers to the good relations between Singabhupala and a Muslim ruler (one with moon as an emblem). The readingadopted by other scholars, however, does not have the support of the manuscripts. In a similar way another verse ʺRMIhɦV& EʱRMEV alludes to the marriage of Singabhupala with the daughter of the King of Kalinga who was offered to him in the battlefield as a gift. An evaluation of the contribution of Visvesvara to Sanskrit poetics is to be done before concluding the introductory remarks. The work is a simple treatise describing the elements of poetics. It does not contain much of controversial matter and scholarly discussions on them. The author has drawn on the earlier authors profusely. In fact he owes much to Bhoja. In spite of this he altered and adopted their views in his own way. In his treatment of Ritis, he follows Rudrata but he differs from him in details. In the same way, in Alankaras also he scrutinises each one of them as they are given by Bhoja and adopts only those acceptable to him. He avoids many details following the principle. nRjɨ ɺj vҨiɨ{ni* ɪɨɴɦɺxi ʴɶ& {ʮұxi** He is rather original in his definition and classification of poetry. There is not much of difference betwee his classification and that of Jagannatha. His idea in basing the classification of Camatkara anticipates the views of Jagannatha. He is the earliest to quote the great Upanisadic authority in support of the existence of Rasa. The first portion of the work is peculiar in that the subject-matter dealt with there does not find a place usually in treatises on poetics. It does not find a place usually in treatises on poetics. It does great service in preserving a tradition regarding the auspiciousness or otherwise of particular latters and Ganas at the beginning of a poem. As a poet he is fairly good. His illustrative verses show that he is a gifted poet and testify to his delicate and critical taste. P. Sriramamurti.