220. 220 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

220 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

which are corrupt. On p. 153 chap. 22) a half verse of तोत is quoted न चालडकृतीनामत्र (!) लचयं महदाश्रयमिति (vol. III GOS). On नाव्यशाख 31. 513-520 (Ch. ed.) a half verse is quoted to the effect that there is no restriction about employing a particular language in a poem or as to the characters in a play, but in the context the language meant is Saindhavi (i. e. the dialect of Sindhudesa). 'यत्र भाषानियमो नोकस्तत्र प्राथम्यात्संस्कृतव, यथेच्छमित्यन्ये, स्त्रीपुंभावाश्रयत्वाद् प्राकृतमाषैवेत्यपरे, सैन्धव्येव प्रकरणादिति भट्टतोतः । यदाह काव्यकौतुके-न भाषानियमः पात्रे काव्ये स्यास्सैन्धवीमिति। (p. 503 of B. O.R. I. transcript). On p.345 of B.O.R. I. transcript काव्यकौतुकview is referred to; on p. 355 of transcript (B. O. R. I.) 'तथा च भट्टृतोतेनोक्तम्-कामावस्था न शद्गारः कचिदारसा तदझता।'. On p. 497 (B.O.R. I. transcript) there is a corrupt passage which is important : 'तथा च डोम्बिकासु स एवार्थ: प्रधानभूत इति चूडामणी स्पष्टमेवोक्तम्। चोरिभमि ... तथा च चिरन्तन्तेयं ... (gap) दयप्रवादं पएडमचूडामखिशा इति। तदेतद्रदृतोतेन काव्यकौतुके वितत्य दर्शितम् । (in chap. 31 verse 478 of Ch. ed.). The words पएडमचूडामखिशा remind one of similar words quoted on p. 197 above. In numerous places Abhinava mentions the views of his teacher with the words उपाध्याया: or गुरव: as in GOS vol. I pp.3, 107, 207, 275, vol. II. pp. 67, 386, 395, 423, 440, 441 and vol. III. pp. 3, 10, 19, 47, 71 (उपाध्यायपादाः), 163. There is no doubt that Tota exercised a profound influence on Abhinava and through him on the theory of rasa. From the several quo- tations cited above it appears that the काव्यकौतुक was mostly in verse (if not entirely), dealt with the theory of Poetry in general and rasa in particular and that it also explained relevant passages of the Natyasastra, though it cannot be said in the preseent state of our knowledge that it was a regular commentary thereon. On ch. 16. 4 (about 36 लक्षयऽ) भ्. भा. remarks 'पठितोद्देशक्रमस्तु अ्स्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागत :,' thereby making it clear that azala was the representative of a school of the interpretation of the Nātyaśāstra. It will be shown later on that Abhinavagupta's literary activity lies between 980-1020 A. D. So his teacher's activity may be placed between 950-980. Another doctrine that ala held was that the poet, the hero (of a poem) and the (sympa- thetic) reader pass though the same experience 'नायकस्य कवेः श्रोतुः समानोनुभवस्ततः' (लोचन p.34). The भौचित्य० of वेमेन्द्र (on कारिका