Prakasavarsa and his Rasarnavalankara
Summary
Prakasavarsa, a Sanskrit poet and rhetorician from the 8th century CE, is attributed with the *Rasarnavalankara*, a critical work on poetics preserved in two manuscripts: a palm-leaf version (circa 350 years old) from the Adyar Theosophical Society and a later paper copy from the Madras Oriental Manuscript Library. The text contains five chapters covering *doga*, *guna*, *alankara*, *arthalankara*, and *rasa*, though the fifth chapter appears incomplete and inconsistent, suggesting textual imperfections. Despite its gaps, the work reflects a structured approach distinct from contemporaries like Bhamaha and Dandin, though parallels exist. Prakasavarsa’s authorship is confirmed by colophons in the third and fifth chapters. He is also credited with verses in *Subhasita* collections, including Vallabhadeva’s *Subhasitivali*, and a commentary on Bharavi’s *Kiratirjuniya*. Scholars debate his timeline, placing him post-Bhamaha (7th–8th century CE) but before Dandin (8th century CE). The *Rasarnavalankara* cites earlier works like Bana’s *Gadya Vidha*, reinforcing its late 8th-century context. While the text contains errors and omissions, it remains a valuable, though incomplete, contribution to *alankara* literature.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
Prakasavarsa's *Rasarnavalankara* represents a significant yet enigmatic contribution to Sanskrit poetics, bridging the traditions of Bhamaha and Dandin. While its authorship is inferred from colophons in key chapters, the work's incomplete fifth chapter and textual inconsistencies complicate its interpretation, suggesting potential gaps in transmission. The treatise systematically addresses poetic devices like *doga*, *guna*, and *rasa*, yet its brevity and unexplained shifts in focus—particularly in the final chapter—hint at an unfinished or corrupted manuscript history. Despite these challenges, the work's structured approach and parallels with contemporary rhetoricians underscore its role in the evolution of *alankara* theory, offering a valuable, if imperfect, window into early medieval literary thought. Its unresolved questions of chronology and textual integrity invite further scholarly scrutiny to clarify its place within the canon.