Nrutyaratna Kosh Part 02

SR No.: 034222
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kumbhkarna Nrupati
Publisher: Rajasthan Purattvanveshan Mandir
Publication Year: 1889
Total Pages: 258
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 8 MB

Page 45

NRTYARATNAKOSA
(5
This, however, raises another question : how to explain the attribution of authorship of the work to Kālasena? Dr. Kunhan Raja guesses that Mahārāṇā Kumbha had the name Kālasena also, and that in a particular Ms. the name Kumbha was suppressed deliberately and that this other name was put in the place. His reason for this rather queer procedure is that someone was using the copy for dancing girls and he was purposely concealing the name. But this explanation leaves other related questions unsolved. Kālasena has a geneology of his own which is different from that of Kumbhakarņa, has a different mother and a different queen. As we shall see the several places mentioned in the colophons of Kālasena are different and situated in the Marhatta country round about the region of Nasik and Tryambak. So there is no doubt that Kālasena is a person different from Kumbhakarna, and so this double attribution of authorship remains unexplained,
A comparative study of Nrtyaratnakosa and Sargitaratnākara of Sārñgadeva shows that the former is based upon the latter. Not only that, but a long quotation from Kalānidhi (of Kallinātha) a commentary on Samgitaratnākara is given in the Nịtyaratnakosa (p. 134). This shows that whoever wrote N. R. he was well-versed in Samgitaratnākara and its commentary Kalānidhi. In the colophon of Kumbhakarna, we are told that he wrote a drama in Telugu also. Kumbhakarna's proficiency in Sanskrit and Prakrit, it is possible to accept; but it is straining our credulity to accept that he was proficient in Telugu also This, however, would be possible for Kālasena or Kāluji as he is often called. Familiarity with Samgitaratnākara and Kalānidhi, though possible in both, can be more easily accepted for Kālasena. Still, however, the atribution of Saṁgītamimāṁsā to Kumbhakarņa being supported by stronger evidence cannot be shaken by these corsiderations. So the only way in which we can explain this plagiarism is to take it as rather a transference of authorship. Some southern Pan ta or Panditas who wrote the Telugu play and Samgitarimāṁsā, fitst presented the authorship to Kumbhakarņa and then transferred it to Kālasena.? But we must state that there is no solid evidence to support this guess and so for the present we must leave the question here. Kalasena's Prasastis :
The main argument, as we have said, against the identity of Kālasena with Kumbhakarna is that the Pars'astis of Kālasena prove him to be an altogether different person from Kumbhakarņa. Let us examine these
1. See pp. XLVII-XLIX, Introduction, Samgita Rāja, Vol. I. 2. Some such view is held by Sri Ramakrisna Kavi. See p. X. Introduction,
Bharatakos'a.