365betÓéÀÖ

The manuscript catalogue gives the name of this work to be Kohalamatam. But, there is no colophon or any other reference in the manuscript to support this view. One probable reason for this work being assigned the title Kohalamatam is found within the work itself. In the section called Kohala-²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹-²õ²¹á¹ƒv²¹»å²¹, Sage ²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹ asks Kohala some questions for which Kohala replies. In this spirit, the material in this work could have been assumed to be Kohala’s opinions and views on several aspects of ²õ²¹á¹…gÄ«³Ù²¹ which might have led to the title becoming Kohalamatam. The content of Kohalamatam, on examination is seen to be more or less same as ³§±¹²¹°ù²¹³ÙÄå±ôÄå»å¾±±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa³¾. In fact, Girija Easwaran treats Kohalamatam only as an abridged version of ³§±¹²¹°ù²¹³ÙÄå±ôÄå»å¾±±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa³¾. However, in the text of ³§±¹²¹°ù²¹³ÙÄå±ôÄå»å¾±±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa³¾, the Kohala-²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹ ²õ²¹á¹ƒvÄå»å²¹ is not to be found. It is possible that during cataloguing, this particular section of Kohala-²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹ ²õ²¹á¹ƒvÄå»å²¹ was noted, which led to the naming of this work as Kohalamatam. But the name Kohalamatam has been in use for some time, and this can be gathered from V. Raghavan’s observations on a treatise called ±·Äåá¹­y²¹²õ²¹°ù±¹²¹²õ±¹²¹»åÄ«±è¾±°ìÄå^[1]. In this work there are references to Kohalamatam in the ³ÙÄå±ô²¹ section. Therefore, the title Kohalamatam has been in existence for some time. The same though, cannot be said about ³§±¹²¹°ù²¹³ÙÄå±ôÄå»å¾±±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa³¾ whose abridgement Kohalamatam is supposed to be. So, it could probably be said that ³§±¹²¹°ù²¹³ÙÄå±ôÄå»å¾±±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa³¾ is a generic title given to this work, perhaps during the process of cataloguing. This might not be the actual title of this work, Also, ³§±¹²¹°ù²¹³ÙÄå±ôÄå»å¾±±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa³¾ could be a larger, more complete version of Kohalamatam. 

In the very title is an obvious reference to Kohala as the author of this work which is also substantiated by a specific mention in the title page of the manuscript T822. It has been discussed above that the Kohala-²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹ ²õ²¹á¹ƒvÄå»å²¹ is probably one reason for this work having the title Kohalamatam and therefore as a consequence Kohala as the author. For this very reason, it can be argued that Kohala would not have been the author of this work. The reason for this lies in the Kohala-²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹ ²õ²¹á¹ƒvÄå»å²¹ itself. ²Ñ²¹³Ù²¹á¹…g²¹ requests Kohala to explain certain musical facts to him to which Kohala obliges. The whole narration seems to be done by a third party and not by Kohala himself. This could be an indication that Kohala is not the author of this work. Further, the title Kohalamatam itself appears to be indicative that this work is a compilation of the views of the Kohala school. 

Another possibility is that this work is a compilation of many ±ô²¹°ìá¹£aṇa²µ°ù²¹²Ô³Ù³ó²¹²õ and was passed under the name of Kohala in order for the work to gain prominence in the field.