55. 52 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

52 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

the A. B. mentions Sankuka's view (p. 28 of ". HT. vol. II GOS); (f) On 21. 91 (= K.M. 19. 87) about विद्रव, one of the angas of गर्भसन्धि, the A. B. gives the reading adopted by Sankuka and its explanation and the illustration given by him (भन्ये तु शक्कराभयत्रासैः कृतो यः स विद्रव इत्यादि तत्र च विशेष्यपदमन्वेष्यं, समुदाय एव विशेष्य इति श्रीशङकः, उदाहरति च कृत्यारावये षष्ठेंके गर्भसन्धौ)' &c. (p.52 of भ्. भा. vol. III GOS.); (g) On chap. 24 (= K. M. 22 सामान्यामिनय) the views of शङ्कक are quoted at some length (p. 147 of श.भा. vol. III GOS.); (h) On chap. 24. 3 (= K. M. 22.3) A. B. offers the explanation that Sankuka gives (भव्यक्तरूपमित्यादिकं प्रबन्धं श्रीशङ्कुकादय इत्थं नयन्ति &c. p. 150 of भ्र. भा. vol. III GOS.); (i) On 24. 66-71 (=K. M. 22. 66-71) Abhinava shows how hundreds of अभिनयभेदs arise and then states that according to Sankuka they come to forty thousand (ननु यथा श्रीशङकुकेनोक्तं चत्वारिंशत्सहस्त्राणोत्यादि, p. 180 of अ०भा० vol. III GOS);(j)On नाव्यशाखत्र 5. 20-21 the अभिनवभारती quotes several verses from chap. 29 (Ch. ed. and 28 of the text of अभिनव)and states that शङकुक had different readings in some of the verses (i. e. शङ् कुक read त्रिः शम्योपरिपायौ तालोपि शेष निर्दिष्टः। ... भूयः शम्यातालानुगुणादुत्तरस्तथा द्विकलश्च।, while अभिनव read तालावित्येवमेककल: and व्वुत्तरस्तथा चैव). It may be noted that the readings in Ch. (29. 123-124) are those adopted by शज्कुक. शङ्कुक is quoted in vol. I. pp. 293, 298, 318 on the रससूत्राध्याय. From the above it would be manifest that San- kuka's comment on several chapters from 3 to 29 being quoted it should be presumed that he commented on the whole of the Nāțyaśāstra. Bhatta Nayaka is very frequently quoted by अभिनव, but the question whether he wrote a commentary on the Nātyaśā- stra or an independent work will be discussed below separately. On the laßt verse (and on the word ua therein) of chapter 4 of the नाट्यशासत् the view of कीर्तिघर is quoted, but it is doubt- ful whether the reference is to a commentary of his on the नाव्यशास्त्र. कीर्तिधर's mention of नन्दिकेश्वरमत has already been referred to above. There is not sufficient material to establish that कीर्तिघर wrote a regular commentary on the नाट्यशास्त्र. There is an author frequently mentioned by अभिनव as टीकाकार or टीकाकृद. He is twice quoted on the 6th chap. (vol. I. pp. 318, 328), His views are mentioned and generally rejected over a dozen times on.pp. 286(chap. 21. 3-5 = chap. 19 of अभिनव in GOS p. 3 as opposed to उपाध्याय's view., on