The Rasarnavalamkara of Prakrsavarsa
By Sushil Kumar De
Summary
The *Rasarnavalamkara of Prakasavarsa* is a Sanskrit poetic treatise analyzed in the provided text, which critiques Pandit V. Venkatarama Sharma’s claims about its chronology and originality. The work, published by Sharma in the *Journal of the University of Madras* (1924), draws heavily from two manuscripts, including one from the Madras Oriental Manuscript Library. The author of the critique argues that Prakasavarsa’s *Rasirpava* is likely a late composition, postdating Bhoja (c. 7th–8th century CE), rather than preceding Bhiamaha and Dandin as Sharma suggested. The text highlights close parallels between Prakasavarsa’s treatment of *gunas*, *dosas*, and *alamkaras* (poetic devices) and Bhoja’s *Sarasvati-kanthibharana*. Nearly all definitions, classifications, and even verse quotations in Prakasavarsa’s work are directly copied from Bhoja, with minor modifications or additions. For instance, Prakasavarsa retains 22 of Bhoja’s 24 *fabda-gunas*, omitting only two, and adds four new *arthalamkiras*. The structural and terminological alignment between the two texts is striking, particularly in the categorization of *dosas* (e.g., *pada*, *vakya*, and *vakyirtha* classes). The critique also notes that Prakasavarsa unacknowledgedly borrows verses and ideas from Dandin and Bhiamaha, further undermining claims of originality. The author concludes that Prakasavarsa’s work
Conclusion
The Rasarnavalamkara of Prakasavarsa challenges earlier assumptions about its chronological position in Sanskrit poetics, with this analysis demonstrating its close alignment with Bhoja’s Sarasvati-kanthibharana rather than predating Bhiamaha and Dandin. The text’s heavy reliance on Bhoja’s classifications, definitions, and even verses—often verbatim—reveals Prakasavarsa’s eclectic nature and dependence on later rhetorical traditions. While it introduces minor modifications to Bhoja’s frameworks, these do not substantiate claims of earlier composition. The work’s reverence for Dandin and Bhiamaha, coupled with its incorporation of their ideas without attribution, further undermines arguments for its antecedent status. This study underscores Prakasavarsa’s role as a compiler rather than an innovator, situating it within a continuity of thought that builds on—rather than precedes—earlier masters, thereby refining the timeline of Sanskrit literary criticism.