काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

KĀVYAPRAKĀSHA
OF
MAMMATA
WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
( REVISED )
( Chapters I to X )
( With Index & Appendices )
By
Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Sir Ganganatha Jha,
M. A , D. Litt , LL. D , Vidyā-Sāgara, Ex Vice-Chancellor
Allahabad University
BHARATIYA VIDYA PRAKASHAN
VARANASI-1 (India)

The provided image is completely blank and contains no readable text.

Published by :
Kishore Chand Jain,
Proprietor,
BHARATIYA VIDYA PRAKASHAN,
P. B. No 108, Kachauri Gali,
Varanasi-1

© Dr. Ādityanātha Jhā

Price Rs 40/- [तीय विद्या प्रकाशन,]
August 1967 [र्धित मूल्य .७०/- ...]

Printers :
Bhargava Bhushan Press,
Gai Ghat, Varanasi.

FOREWORD
The famous English “Translation” of Kavya-Prakāsha by late
Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Sir Ganganatha Jha had been out of print
for the last several years and the scholars from all over the world
have been persistently craving for its re-issue. The same is being
done with the concurrence of Dr. Adityanath Jha, Vacaspati, I. C. S.
Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi, the only surviving son of the illus-
trious translator.
Although Sir Ganganatha Jha called his work merely a translation
in all humility, it is really a highly learned commentary as well, since
attempt has been made here not only for reproduction in English
of the Sanskrit text and commentary, but also towards their further
elucidation, and for this the illustrious savant has supported his
stand by references to different authorities and by providing supple-
mentary notes. Although the work, as published hitherto, did not
contain the text in the present edition the same has been added for
the convenience of the readers. Dr Jha had said in the previous
editions that he had followed the text of Vāmanī, but at so many places
it is not so, and so effort has been made to present the readings as
followed by the learned translator, and not that by Vāmanāchārya.
In the meantime a copy of the manuscript of the Kāvya Prakāsha-
Kārikā was discovered in the Saraswati Bhavana Library, Varanasi.
Its opening stanza is significant in as much as it mentions expressly
that Mammata was the Vṛttikāra, without mentioning about his
being the author of the Kārikā In addition the stanza, in which
Śānta is mentioned as a Rasa ( 31 ), is missing in this manuscript.
The writer of this manuscript has in another stanza, where Śānta
( 26 ) is mentioned in other manuscripts, a text that does not have
the word śānta. In the present edition not only the Kārikās have been
reproduced, but the readings where this manuscript differs from
those of Vāmanāchārya have also been mentioned.
While effort has been made to preserve the method of trans-
cription of the translator, a deviation has been made, especially in
respect of the anusvāra. Dr. Jha had m for both म and anusvāra, but

II
in the present edition, anusvāra is being indicated by m. Certain
misprints of the text, particularly in the Prakrit passages, have been
rectified. Readers will find that श is transcribed in some places by
sh and at others by ś.
The work is being issued in two parts, Part I consisting of the
first seven chapters and Part II of the remaining chapters with
indices including a biography of Dr. Sir Ganganatha Jha.
Dr. Adityanath Jha has left to the charge of this humble student
the honourable task of arranging for re-publication of the works of
his father. In consequence thereof through the interest taken in
the project by the energetic proprietor of Messess Bharatiya Vidya
Prakashan Shri Kishore Chand Jain the first work of Dr. Jha
that he had originally written as a university student is being
published presently. It is now for scholars to see how far success
has been attained in the matter of faithful reproduction of the work
of the master. If this edition receives approbation of scholars,
other works of Dr. Jha will follow in succession. and the second
work to be published is the Prābhākara School of Pūrva-Mīmāmsā.
In execution of this work Pt. Shri Ahi Bhushan Bhattacharya,
Principal. C. M. Anglo Bengali College, Varanasi, the worthy son of
one of the greatest Sanskritists of the time, namely late Mahamaho-
padhyaya Pandit Phanibhushan Bhattacharya, has ungrudingly co-
operated in correcting the proofs, although for all shortcomings the
responsibility rests with
Subhadra Jhā.
Vārāṇasī, 13. 12. 1966.

श्रीः पातु
प्रास्ताविकम्
काव्यानुशासनाविवेचनकोविदानां
प्रज्ञासुवर्णनिकषोपलतां दधानः ।
स्वल्पैः पदैर्विवृतभूरिगभीरतत्त्व-
काव्यप्रकाश इह कस्य न सुप्रशस्यः ॥ १ ॥
यन्निमितिप्रजनिता भुवि मम्मटस्य
वाग्देवतापुरुषरूपतया प्रसिद्धिः ।
श्रीश्रीधरादिविबुधै रसवेदसंख्या
व्याख्याश्च सविदधिरे यदुपाश्रयेण ॥ २ ॥
सङ्गृह्य पूर्वविवृतीरथ वामनाख्या-
ऽऽचार्येण चारु रचितास्य विभातिटीका ।
लोकप्रिय सकलसूरिसमाजसेव्य
साहित्यरत्नकलश स विराच्चकास्ति ॥ ३ ॥
दोषा गुणा ध्वनिरलङ्कृतय समस्ता
शास्त्रान्तरीयमनुबन्धि तथाऽर्थतत्त्वम् ।
काव्यप्रकाशमुकुरे , प्रतिबिम्बकल्प
प्राकाशि मम्मटबुधेन नवक्रमेण ॥ ४ ॥
यत्सूरिभिर्निगदित पद-वाक्य-मान-
शास्त्रेषु काव्यसहकारि विचारहारि ।
स्फोटादि जैमिनिनयानुगतञ्च किञ्चित्
बौद्धोदितञ्च विनिवेशितमत्र युक्त्या ॥ ५ ॥

६
सूक्ष्मेक्षिकामधिगम्यमुपेयवस्तु
सूत्रात्मकैर्गुरुगभीरगिरा प्रवाहै ।
आस्वादयन् सहृदयान् विशद यश स्व
श्रीमम्मट स्फटिकमन्दिरवच्चंचकार ॥ ६ ॥
एतद्ग्रन्थमनोज्ञताञ्चितमतिर्विद्वत्कुलाम्भोजिनी-
तिग्मांशु स महादिमाङ्कितमहोपाध्यायभाषाचित ।
गङ्गानाथसुधीर्मदीयजनको लोकोपकारक्षमा
व्याख्यामाङ्गलंगिराऽस्य निर्मलपदन्यासोत्तमा निर्ममे ॥ ७ ॥
श्रीभारतीयविद्याप्रकाशन काशिकानिलयम् ।
काव्यप्रकाशमेन प्रकाशयत् काशता स्वगुणै ॥ ८ ॥
पितृचरणवच श्रीदेवनद्या प्रवाहे
विबुधनिवहहृत्सोत्तमसान्निध्यहृद्ये ।
सविनयनतिशाली पुष्पमेतत्सुवर्णं
विसृजति मिथिलाभू श्रीमदादित्यनाथः ॥ ९ ॥

GOVINDA !
It was at your instance that this translation was done in 1891, and it
is at your persistent insistence that it has been re-written in 1924. May
you find it more satisfactory than its predecessor—is the fervent hope of
Your own,
GANGA.

The provided image is completely blank and does not contain any text.

KĀVYAPRAKĀSHA
'Light of Poesy'
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
It was in a fit of juvenile enthusiasm that I permitted the first
edition of my translation of the Kāvyaprakāsha to appear in the
‘Pandit’ of Benares ; otherwise, under ordinary circumstances, it
would be sheer audacity on the part of a boy of eighteen to put
himself forward as the interpreter of a book which, apart from its
subject-matter, is regarded, in point of style and expression, as one
of the tersest, and hence the most difficult, in the Sanskrit language.
The boy of eighteen, however, had his justification; he had written
out a rough translation of the work in course of his preparation for
the M A. Examination ; and when, on passing that examination, he
had his ambition for authorship aroused by the example and precept
of his late lamented tutor, Dr. Arthur Venis of Benares, he sent his
aforesaid translation to him and asked him if he thought it fit for
publication. Apparently with a view to encouraging his pupil, the
doctor wrote to him—" room could be found in the Pandit for your
translation of the Kāvyaprakāsha", and the work was allowed to go
forth to the public. The boy of eighteen has since grown to be an
old man of fifty, and numerous have been the volumes with which
he has thrust himself before an indulgent public ; and after all these
years, when he came to look into his earlier work, he felt that he owed
it to the public to revise at least such of his works as had secured a
number of readers. Foremost among these appeared to be the
Kāvyaprakāsha, the translation of which, imperfect as it is, has had to
be read, more or less, by numerous candidates for the M. A. degree,
for whom the original is prescribed by almost every University in
India Thus it is in the spirit of repaying a debt long over-due that I
am setting my hand to doing what is practically the rewriting of the
translation of the work which, during all the centuries that have
elapsed since it was written in far-off Kāshmīr, has held the supreme
position in the world of Sanskrit rhetorical literature.

IV
With a view to interesting the modern reader, I requested my
son, Amaranatha Jha of the University of Allahabad to add some
notes, which would help the comparative study of this interesting
subject After he had done this work over Chapter I, it was found
that matter available for these notes was so abundant that if it were
to appear in the form of foot-notes, the original work would become
hugely encumbered. He has therefore decided to incorporate all
this material for comparative study in a separate book that he is
writing on the subject, and to include in this volume only a few
notes.—My own notes on the text I have embodied in the Text itself,
distinguishing them from the text either by using square brackets (in
the case of short notes) or by employing a smaller type (in the case
of longer ones).
I hope the reader will find this revised translation less defective
than its forerunner.
THE UNIVERSITY :
ALLAHABAD, GANGANATHA JHA.
February 22, 1924.

.Preface to the First Edition
This is the second Sanskrit work on the Science of Poetry that .
is being offered to the English-reading public in an English garb—
if we do not count the Bhāshā-Bhūshana, a Hindī work on the same
subject, which was rendered into English and published in the pages
of the Indian Antiquary in 1894, by Dr. Grierson, whose labours
in the cause of Hindī literature rival those of the late Mr. Growse.
The first was the Sāhitya-Darpana of Vishwanātha Kavirāja, which
was placed over twenty years ago before the public by Rai Bahadur
Pramadā Dāsa Mittra, in an English form, that still remains a model
of scholarly and excellent translation. It is time that another work
on the subject, expounding more or less different views on impor-
tant points, should be published. Indeed it is surprising that so little
attention should have been directed to this department of Sanskrit
learning by Oriental Scholars. For, as it seems to the present writer,
the Sāhitya literature of India is remarkably full and complete, and
contains perhaps as many useful ideas worth the acceptance of
foreign scholars as the literature of philosophy.
With the growth of interest and study in metaphysics and psy-
chology there has undoubtedly grown on parallel lines, in Europe,
interest in and study of the philosophy of other sciences. And we
see excellent books issued from the press day after day, which seek
to clear up the fundamental ideas of Law, of History, of Politics, of
the Physical Sciences and of the various branches of Art. In short
there has been a general growth of introspective “Intelligence” on
all matters, and an effort is perceptible everywhere to locate every
portion of knowledge in its proper place in a universal scheme.
There has been no philosopher worthy of the name, who has left an
impress other than merely ephemeral on subsequent literature, and
has not endeavoured so to organise the whole of human knowledge
into one complete whole, or not matured ideas on all matters interest-
ing to humanity. But it must be confessed that the literature on the
science and philosophy of poetry is not excessively rich in English.
Works on poets, dramatists, novelists, and on the history of literature
abound; and naturally many of such works, principally biographical,

viii
critical, appreciative, or descriptive, yet incidentally, enunciate
directly, or indicate indirectly, very useful and instructive ideas on
the basic questions of the subjects concerned. But scientific works,
professedly confining themselves to the principles which underlie all
literature (in the special sense of the term, viz. belles lettres), are few.
Prof. Bain's works on Rhetoric and Composition and On Teaching
English are what might have been expected from him, a clear thinker
and philosopher and scholar of "encyclopedical learning" in the
well-judged language of Mill But they stand almost by themselves,
Prof. Bain himself says in his prefaces, with reference to the depart-
ment of Figures of Speech, that "never before has that branch
received so large a share of attention", and again, adverting to the
emotional qualities of style, that his "is the first attempt at a
methodical and exhaustive account of these qualities". And they are
not final nor complete, as the Professor himself admits beforehand.
Thus, though it would probably be presumptuous at this date, to
hint that India had anything new to teach Europe, still it may per-
haps be excusable to say that Indian books on Sāhitya might help to
clear up ideas if only by affording the occasion for a further and
deeper study of the subject.
The first and most important question of the science is as to what
constitutes the essence of poetry. The long accepted answer in India
is that Emotion constitutes that essence—a conclusion which British
investigators are only now approaching, and with still hesitating
steps; as Dr. Bain tentatively says (On Teaching English, p. 214)—
"to emotion we must come at last, in any precise definition" of
poetry. Of course there are more or less slight differences in the
details as discussed by different writers. The author of the work
now translated has formulated his answer to the question in language
which may appear at first sight to be even radically different from
the accepted view; and students will find interesting points of re-
semblance in his treatment of the subject and Prof. Bain's, who also,
at least in the form of his book on Rhetoric, treats of all connected
questions as subsidiary to Style. But this innovation of our author's
too is only apparent; and is perhaps due to nothing else than an exagge-
rated desire to be original. He tacitly reverts to the general position
in his treatment of the auxiliary subjects,—herein again offering a
point of resemblance to Dr. Bain. And this is the essence and the

net result of the teaching of the Sāhitya Shāstra : viz. that the ex-
pression of the emotions, in their infinite forms and their combi-
nations developed by the infinite forms and situations of human life,
is the business of literature; and that those writers are the greatest,
and those works the most permanent and the most prominent that
have seized and embodied the most permanent and prominent emo-
tions of humanity in the most remarkable manner.
It is interesting and instructive to compare Dr. Bain's class-
fication of the emotions admissible into poetry with those of the
Sanskrit authors, and their respective arguments in support of them.
The secret of the true reason, why Pathos plays such an important
part in all literature, why रसेषु करुणो रसः ( " amongst the poetical
emotions the supreme is Pathos ") in the words of the ancient Indian
poet, and why " our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest
thought " in the words of the modern English poet, is still to seek.
Neither Mammata nor Bain, etc., are quite satisfactory on this point.
The student might try and invent an explanation for himself. If
he can, further, satisfy himself as to why "the Furious" "the Terrible"
and " the Disgusting " should find a place in poetry, he will
have discovered a deeper reason than Dr. Max Nordau, for the
amazing outbreak of these in the literature, whose aberrations he so
trenchantly, if not sufficiently deeply, exposes in his book entitled
" Degeneration ".
Another notable point is that the form of the Kāvya is assigned a
very secondary place in Sāhitya. While in the West, metre, and to
a less extent, rhyme, have been held to be essentials, they are of very
minor importance in India. Prof. Bain and J. S. Mill before him (vide
his Dissertations), apparently approximate to the Indian view which
allows of such famous gadya-kāvyas (prose-poems) as Kādambarī,
Vāsavadattā, &c., and of course includes the drama under poetry at
large, as one of its species , Walt Whitman and his imitators also
recognise in practice the accuracy of it. It must be confessed, how-
ever, that this view is only correct in principle and as a theory. In
practice the powerful additions made to the pleasures of poetry by
metre and rhyme have checked the growth of prose-poems consider
ably, and thrown into the shade all but the very best. For similar
reasons, just as the metrical poem is an advance upon the prose-

x
poem, so "recited poetry" and the drama constitute an advance upon
the metrical poem, to the musical effects of metre and rhyme which
enlist the services of the ear in furthering the pleasures of poetry,
the drama adds the scenic effects, which engage the eye also. And
hence the dictum काव्येषु नाटकं श्रेष्ठम् (of poems the drama is the
highest). Thus it appears that Sāhitya treats of the principles of poetry
and it treats of Words and Style only in so far as they express more
fitly or otherwise the appropriate emotion. The treatment of the
metre form it leaves to Prosody for metre and rhyme, and to Nāṭya
Shāstra for dramaturgy. Sanskrit Prosody has little interest for the
general English reader; but the science of Mimetics obviously has,
and there is no work on the subject yet, for a wonder, in the land of
Shakespeare,—the one or two books like Hammerton's "The Actor's
Art," that are just beginning to come out, being scarcely entitled
to rank as scientific books. If opportunities are favourable, the
present writer hopes to bring out some day a translation of Bharata's
Nāṭya Shāstra, the oldest work available on the subject.
The history of the science of poetry in India, like that of all others,
is lost in antiquity. Tradition speaks of original aphorisms by
Çauddhodani, by Bharata and by Vāmana. These aphorisms too
are lost for the present, except the last which has been recently printed
by the enterprising publishers of the Kāvyamālā. Vāmana's Sūtras
are not old, that is to say, not much older than 800 A. C. Fragments
of the other two are met with in the form of quotations by later writers.
It is possible and to be hoped that they may be recovered some day;
for not very old authors refer to them as having formed the subject
of their studies, before they began their own works; and it is very
much to be desired that they may be so recovered, for the Sūtra—
literature shows a finality of statement, so far as general principles
are concerned, which could result only from a perfect grasp of the
completed "circle of knowledge," and it is not likely that any
future races will succeed in improving upon these statements of final
principles, however much they may and will make fuller the contents
of the general ideas in consequence of more varied experience in larger
circles of life.
Shauddhodani appears to have been one of the first to definitely
formulate the view that emotion is the essence of poetry—

xi

वाक्यं रसादिमत् काव्यम्—(utterance embodying emotion is poetry), accord-
ing to a quotation in Alaṁkāra Shekhara. It is only a matter of con-
jecture whether he belonged to the genuine Sūtra period of Sanskrit
literature—the period immediately following Vyāsa, the great or-
ganiser of Sanskrit learning
The outlines and the elementary principles of Sāhitya are given
in the Agni Purāna also as now extant, but as to the authorship,
authenticity and antiquity of the work grave doubts are entertained
by those learned in these matters.
As regards Bharata, a tradition says that the Kārikās (memorial
verses), of the Kāvya-Prakāça, themselves are the work of Bharata,
and that Mammata wrote only the prose portion of the text in the
form of a commentary. But another tradition, as also the fact that
Mammata refers to Bharata in one place, in the fourth Chapter of the
work, in support of the doctrine stated in the Kārikā, goes against this.
The truth, as usual, probably lies between, and Mammata seems to
have made large use of the Sūtras of Bharata in fashioning his verses,
and has perhaps incorporated therein large pieces of them bodily,
thus giving rise to the first mentioned tradition.
Mammata himself was undoubtedly a Brāhmana of Kashmir and
lived and wrote his famous work certainly before the 12th century
A. C., about the time when English literature was just beginning to
be born. The earliest commentary on his work now available and
apparently the earliest in fact also, is, that of Mānikya-Chandra, and
that is expressedly dated by Mānikya-Chandra himself, in the colophon,
with the Saṁvat year 1216, corresponding with 1159 A. C. At the
same time there is no reason to believe that the author of the Kāvya-
Prakāsha lived earlier than the eleventh century A. C.; for he quotes
a verse in his 10th Chapter from Bhoja, who reigned in the earlier
half of that century, for a tradition has it that his younger brother
Uvvata attended the court of this very Bhoja at his capital Avanti
for some time; and he was probably the medium of the quotation.
It is easy to understand that the Court-Pandit should have gladly
seized on the first opportunity that offered of paying an elegant com-
pliment to the literary merits of his really deserving master, by securing
for a production of his a gratifying reference and quotation in the
masterpiece of his famous brother, and of, at the same time, and by
the same stroke of policy, obtaining for that masterpiece an introdu-

XII
ction under the most favourable circumstances to the court of his
royal patron.
Mammaṭa was a member of a true Pandit family ; he was the son
of Jayyaṭa, the joint author with Vāmana of the celebrated grammatical
treatise, the Kāshikā; and the brother of Kayyaṭa, the author of the
standard gloss on Patañjali's Great Commentary and of the above-
mentioned Uvvaṭa, the author of a Bhāshya on the Vedas and other
Vedic works, which, however, have been superseded by the later
works of Sāyaṇa and Mādhava. Mammata is said, by Bhīmasena in
the opening verses of his commentary on the Kāvya-Prakāsha to have
travelled to Benares for purposes of study. The times of Mammaṭa
seem to have been times of a general outburst of literature and learn
ing in Kashmir, which had most likely something to do with the
Buddhist literature and learning, then on its way out of India to its
present Tibetan home across the Himālayas. A lot of literary names
ending with the characteristic syllable ṭa are to be found in the books
of this period, Vajjraṭa, Rudraṭa, Bhallaṭa, Vābhaṭa, Allaṭa, &c. How
these outbursts and revivals travel about from place to place is a phe-
nomenon which is observable in the literary history of ancient and
modern Europe also. Sāhitya in India appears to have passed on
from Kashmir to Mithilā, and thence to Bengal ; it is now almost
confined to the Deccan.
The mention of Allaṭa leads us to the fact that the Kāvya-Prakāsha
could not be completed by Mammaṭa, notwithstanding the inevitable
maṅgalācharaṇa, the propitiation of the appropriate Goddess of
Speech. Apparently in accordance with the very satisfactory ex-
planation of the ingenious Naiyāyika, the past evil karma of Mammaṭa's
previous births was too voluminous to be dispelled by the amount
of maṅgalācharaṇa he made, and so the thread of his life broke short !
But it broke short when he was in sight of his goal ; and he has prac-
tically completed his work. About a third of the last chapter on
Figures,—or rather as they are more becomingly named in Sanskrit,
Ornaments of Speech—which third amounts roughly to a tenth of
the whole work,—was written by Allaṭa, from the second half of the
118th verse onwards, (page 244 of the translation*). This is expressly
stated by Anand in his commentary entitled the Nidarshana on the
Kāvya-Prakāsha, who again, in explaining the last verse of the work
*Not in the present edition.

xiii
refers to the same fact in this wise, “ although this 10th chapter has
been written by two authors, still the appreciating I will miss no
pleasure of true excellence, indeed the general experience is that the
mango fruit bred out of crossed varieties is even more luscious
(than the fruit of either of its original parents).” Other commenta-
tors also interpret the shloka above referred to, to the same effect
Of commentaries and glosses on the Kāvya Prākāsha the number is
legion. Verses current amongst the Pandits refer to this fact thus—
काव्यप्रकाशस्य कृता गृहे गृहे टीका तथाप्येष तथैव दुर्गमः ॥
(commentaries on the Kāvya-Prakāsha have been done up in every
house, and yet it remains as difficult to understand as ever !)
Or again—
काव्यप्रकाशे टिप्पण्यः सहस्रं सन्ति तथापि ।
(although there are thousands of glosses on the Kāvya-Prakāsha
still, &c. &c.). There is no other Sanskrit work so much be-commen-
ted, except perhaps the Paribhāshendu-Shekhara of Nāgesha Bhatta It
might be worth mention in this connection that Vishwanātha Kavirāja,
the author of the other most famous work on Sāhitya, referred to
at the outset of this preface, thought fit to write an elaborate com-
mentary on the Kāvya-Prakāsha after composing his own independent
work, as is evident from the frequent references to the latter in the
former. Indeed the work seems to have excited a most singular
emulation amongst all classes of writers to show their appreciation
of it by means of comments; famous Naiyāyikas like Jagadīsha and
Gadādhara, leaders in Vyākaraṇa like Nāgesha Bhatta, renowned
Tāntrikas like Gokula-Nātha and Kalyāna Upādhyāya, have all tried
their hands at it. This gives us an idea of the high honour in which
the Kāvya-Prakāsha has always been held throughout India, as an
authority on its subject, and as a work, the careful study of which
is indispensable to every Pandit who aspires to be regarded as a
“ Sāhityāchārya ”.
A very full account of principal commentaries* on the work is
*Though no less than forty-six commentaries are enumerated,
there, three more commentaries have been found of which no men-
tion is made : (1) By one “ Paṇḍita-Rāja ” (identified by Pandits
with Raghunandana Rāya, the renowned disciple of Mahesha Thakk-
ura. This commentary begins thus : रघुवंशजलधिचन्द्रं रावणवनदन्तिपारीन्द्रम् ।

X V
to be found in the elaborate Sanskrit Introduction (from which
many of the facts stated above have been taken) to his edition of it,
(with his own—the latest, perhaps the best, and certainly the fullest
commentary), by the eminently learned Mahāmahopadhyāya Pandit
Vāmanāchārya Zhalkīkar of Poona.
In bringing the above remarks to a conclusion, I have to thank
the gentlemen who have, in one way or another, helped me in the
मीतामुदितमयूरीमुदिरमुदारमहं कलये ॥ १ ॥ मौलौ निधाय पाणी वाणीमनिशं नमस्कृत्य । पण्डित-
राजः कुरुते टीकां काव्यप्रकाशस्य ॥ २॥ इयताऽपि बुद्धिविभवेन मोहतो यदमूष्य भावशतवर्णनोधमः ।
अपि सत्सु सत्सु गुणभावगौरवादवधेहि बाणिकरवाणि साहसम् ॥३॥ वलिशादपि वक्रहृदः कुलिशादपि
कठिनकर्माण.। गरलादपि मर्मभिदो ये केचन तान्नमस्कार्मं ॥४॥ हरमौलिगलितगङ्गावीचिविचित्रिताशया
सुधिय. । मत्कृतिमतिदीर्घकृपादृक्पातसुधारसेन सिञ्चन्तु ॥ ५ ॥ प्रथमत. प्रेक्षावत्प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तत्वेन
प्रयोजनाभिधेयसम्बन्धस्याभिधातुमुचितस्यानभिधाभाद् भारतीस्तुतिमत्यात्मकमङ्गलस्य समाप्तौ व्यभि-
चारात् फलान्तरस्याभावात् ... प्रथमश्लोकमवतारयति ग्रन्थान्तरम्भ इति ।। and ends thus :
उल्लासमुपसंहरति तदेत इति । इतीति ग्रन्थसमाप्तौ ॥ इति महामहोपाध्याय श्रीमत्पण्डितराजविरचिता-
काव्यप्रकाशटीकाया दशमोल्लासः ॥ The MS. found is dated शाके १५५९ (A. C.
1637) (2) By Mahāmahopādhyāya Gokula-Nātha Upādhyāya. This
begins thus • नत्वा परमात्मानं श्रीगोकुलनाथशर्मणा रचिता । काव्यप्रकाशिकायटीका प्रीत्यै
सूनामस्तु ॥ १ ॥ कारिकानिबद्धमङ्गलश्लोकानुवचना देवानुषङ्गिकविघ्नध्वंससिद्धौ वृत्तिकारो न मङ्गलम्
प्रणीतवान् न चोपनिबबन्ध । किन्तु कारिकाप्रबन्धमारिप्समानस्य ग्रन्थकृत प्रथमम् मङ्गलमाचरतो
निबध्नतश्च निष्फलकर्मकर्तृ त्वादनवधेयवचमत्वशङ्कामपाकर्तुमवतारयन्नानुषङ्गिकमङ्गलसम्पत्तये मौल-
म्पद्यमनुवदति ग्रन्थेत्यादिना जयतीत्यन्तेत । अधिकरणसमूहः शास्त्रम् . . . ॥
The MS. found does not extend to the end.¹ (3) By Kallyāna
Upādhyāya—only fragments of this work have been found.
In a foot-note in connection with commentary No 25, the Sanskrit
Introduction says that it is by Vāchaspati Mishra, the "सर्वतन्त्रज्ञः"
I venture to point out that this is an oversight : because the Vāchas-
pati Mishra, who is generally styled 'सर्वतन्त्रज्ञ'—the author of "Bha-
matī" &c.—is much older than Mammaṭa, and further, this author
has enumerated all his works at the end of "Bhāmatī" where no
mention is made of any commentary on the Kāvya-Prakāsha. The
Vāchaspati Mishra who wrote a commentary on the Kāvya-Prakāsha,
is the legist, the author of a series of Dharmasāshstra works—Āchāra-
chintāmaṇi, &c.
[ 1. Fragment extending up to the chapter V edited by Kavi-
shekhara Badarinatha Jha and published by the Sanskrit University,
Varanasi 1961. ]

xv
translation. First among these comes Pandit Jayadeva Mishra,
Professor of Vyākaraṇa in the “Darbhanga Pāṭhashālā,” Benares, from
whom I got my first lessons in Kāvya-Prakāsha, and then Rai Bahadur
Pramadā Dāsa Mittra of Benares, already mentioned, who not only
encouraged me in the work, but also took upon himself the trouble
of correcting an important portion of it. My thanks are also due to
my honoured tutor, late Mr. Arthur Venis, M. A., Principal of the
Queen’s College, Benares, without whose encouraging words and
example, I should probably have never ventured upon literary work,
and to whose kind help is due the publication of the present trans-
lation. The last person, but not the least, whom I cannot leave un-
mentioned, is Babu Govinda-Dāsa of Benares, who has ever been the
guiding spirit of literary life
DARBHANGA $\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad$ GANGĀNĀTHA JHĀ.
April, 1918