Kansvaho

Author(s): Rama Paniwada, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

Page 50

INTRODUCTION
xlix
are worthy of a genuine poet. These descriptions a:c spiced with poetic embellishments like Upamā, Utprekşā, Rūpaka, Drstānta etc. ; and we come across a few happy illustrations of Arthäntaranyāsa. Most of them are mentioned in the Notes on different verses.
Among the Sanskrit authors of note, Rāma Pāṇivāda can be favourably compared with Māgha whose influence he betrays in many places. We miss here the outstanding Utprekşās and the natural scenes of the country-side seen in Gaüdavaho ; nor do we get here the pedantic descriptions full of unwieldy compounds exhibited in Rāvanavaho. Antiquity may be an advantage but is not a virtue by itself ; nor is modernity a fault which should be allowed to obscure the genuine merits of a poet. Taking into consideration the able delineation of the subject, the successful handling of the language and the well-deccrated presentation of poetry seen in Karsavaho, it can be said that Rāma Panivada deserves a respectable seat in the gallery of his predecessors like Pravarasena, Vākpati Rajasekhara and Gunacandra.
5. THE CHÃYĀ AND ITS AUTHORSHIP
As already noted above, both the Mss. give the Sanskrit rendering or the Chāyā of the Prākrit text. It is practically identical in both the Mss. : there is a single case where the two Mss. differ with a corresponding difference in the Präkrit text (i. 38). There are a few variants on the common Prākrit text. So far as the tenses of the verbal forms are concerned, the Chāyā is not literal ; and in fact the forms of the Present are substituted by those of the Imperfect and Perfect. Who is the author of this Chāyā is a question for the solution of