52. COMMENTARIES ON NATYASASTRA 49

COMMENTARIES ON NATYASASTRA 49

फलवृर्ति. भभिनव quotes a verse of उद्र्रट, 1 states that certain followers of a writer called शकलीगर्भ2 held that there were five वसिs, the four of भरत plus the वृत्ति called आात्मसंवित्ति (or फलवृत्ति of उन्ट) and that लोल्लट refuted those views of उद्धट and शकलीगर्भ. भभिनव does not agree with all the three and sticks to the four वशिs of भरत; (5) In a corrupt passage (in GOS ed. भ. भा. reads या सावन्वेषय०) Abhinava refers to an exposition of Udbhata about the 4th af called श्रवमर्श (नाट्य. 21. 42) and refutes it;3 (6) उद्भट explained नाट्य. 21.17 as laying down that the several sandhis and their angas must appear in a drama in the same order as is stated by mra, but A. B. rejects this view as opposed to reasoning and also to the tradition of poets. From the above it is clear that अभिनव mentions Udbhata's comments on chapters so far apart as 6, 9, 19 of the नाय्यशास्त्र (G. O.S. ed) and so probably उद्धट comment- ed on the whole of it. It will be shown that aaz flourished about 800 A.D. His views about the वृचि called भात्मसंविति were accepted by शकलीगर्भ, who was criticized by लोल्लट. So the latter must have flourished between 800 to 840 A.D. It has already been shown that he criticised saz in several places .(e. g. on नाट्यशास्त्र 6. 10 and 18. 112). His views on the theory of

1 तस्मात्फलसंवित्त्याख्या वृत्तिः वाक्चेष्टयोः फलानुभव इति यस्या लच्षयां साभ्युपगन्तव्या। अवश्यं चैतत् अन्यथा मूर्छामर खादी वाक्चेष्टयोरभावे निवं ततिकतैव स्यात् । ... तस्माच्चेष्टात्मिका न्यायवृचतिरन्यायवृत्तिर्वाग्रूपा तत्फलभूता फलसंविचिरिति त्रयमेव युक्तमिति भट्टोन्भटो मन्यते। यदाह। आाध्े वाक्चेष्टाभ्यां पुरुषार्थचतुष्टयेन चाष्टविधे। षोडशधा फलव चिस्तद्दयतोडनेकधा तु रसभेदाव् । A.B. vol.II.p. 451. 2 यच्छकलीगर्भंमतानुसारियो मूर्छादावात्मसंविततिलच्षर्यां पञ्चमों वृति सकल- कार्यनिवृत्त्यनुमेयां ...... आत्मव्यापाररूपां मन्यन्ते ... तन्मतं भावानां वाह्यग्इसस्वभावत्वमु- पपादयद्मि: भट्टलोल्लटप्रभृतिभिः पराकतम्। म. भा. (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 452). The editor regards शकलीगर्भ as a name of उद्धूट, but this cannot be accepted, firstly, because भ. भा. mentions the name Udhata half a dozen times and there is no reason given why a different name should be used and secondly, because the view attributed to शकलीगर्भ differs from उद्ट's view on वृसs noted by. अर.भा. 3 यदाह भटटोन्टः। नासान्वेषणभूमिरवमष्टिरवमर्श इति तच्चेदं व्याख्यानं लक्ष्यविरुद्धं युक्त्या च । p. 28 chap.19 of G.O.S.ed.vol. III. 4 पुनरेषामिति पुनःशब्दो विशेषदोतको लक्षय रवायं क्रमो न निबन्पने इति यावद। तेन यदुद्दटमभुतयो अक्षानां सन्धौ कमे च नियममादुस्तमुपत्यागमविरुदमेव p. 36 of vol. III of GOS ed.