58. COMMENTATORS OF NĀȚYASĀSTRA 55

COMMENTATORS OF NĀȚYASĀSTRA 55

320). It does not appear that he was a commentator of the Natyasastra, though one may hold that the areua patronized by r may have written a work in verse dealing with the topics of dramaturgy. The राजतर० ascribes two verses to him(III.181 and 252). Theनाट्यप्रदीप of सुन्दरमिश्र composed in 1613 A.D. quotes the definition of नान्दी from भरत'S नाट्यशास्त्र (5.25 and 106) and then remarks 'अस्य व्याख्याने मातृगुप्ताचायँ: षोडशाडिघ्रपदापीयमुदाहृता' (vide I.O. Cat. of mss. part III. p. 348 No. 1199). But this remark by a late writer need not be taken too literally. All that it means may be that मातृगुप्त in his work on dramaturgy dealt with भरत's defini- tion of नान्दी. Dr. De (H. of S.P. vol.I.p. 33)was inclined to hold that the poet मातृगुप्त of the राजतरहिखी was different from the writer on dramaturgy, but he was not probably aware, when he wrote, that अभिनवquotes a half verse on पुष्प from मातृगुप्त who writes on dra- maturgy.At one time it was thought by scholars such as Dr.Bhau Dāji (in J.B. B. R. A. S. for 1861 pp. 208 ff.) that mragea was to be identified with कालिदास,but hardly anyone now holds that view. If we rely on the राजतर०, मातृगुप्त must have flourished in the first half of the 7th century. Prof. T. R. Chintamani collected 'the fragments of Matrgupta' in J. O. R. Madras vol. II pp. 118-128. Whether Bhatta Tauta, the teacher of Abhinava in the Nātya- śāstra, wrote a commentary on the Nātyaśāstra will be discussed later on. Utpaladeva, who was the teacher's teacher of Abhinava in the Pratyabhijñasastra, is frequently quoted by the A. B. on chapters 29. 31, 32 (on ETaTs.). But it is difficult to say whether he wrote a commentary on these chapters or an independent work on music. On p. 436 (of the B. O. R. I. copy) Abhinava appears to differ from him (उत्पलदेवपादास्तु अस्मत्परमगुरवो व्याचवते ... घयं तु मन्महे). The लोचन on the ध्वन्यालोक (p. 217) quotes from भरत the verse बहूनां समवेतानां रूपं यस्य भवेद्द। स मन्तव्यो रसः स्थायी शेषा: सक्वारिणो मताः॥ (नाट्यशास्त्र GOS.ed.20. 76=Ch.22. 68 which reads सर्वेषां for बहूनां), states that it was variously interpreted and sets out the view of भागुरि 'तथा च भागुरिरपि कि रसानामपि स्थायिसञ्चारितास्तीत्यात्िप्याभ्युपगमेनवोत्तर- मवोचद्वाढमस्तीति' (लोचन p.217). भागुरि as a commentator of भरत is not yet known from any other source. A few words must be said about ancient writers on drama- turgy as their works have not yet been found. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (I.15-18)mentions many divine, semi-divine and human authors, such as सदाशित, शिवा, ब्रह्मा, भरत, कश्यपमुनि, मतङ्, याष्टिक, कोहल, विशा-