63. 60 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

60 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

P. 174 एवमवाम्तरवाक्यैरुपदेशो रागदर्शनीयेषु। सिंहादिवर्षकैर्वा क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तरन्या- ma n); (5) On IV. 331 (vol. I. p. 207) th same view is further asserted by a mutilated quotation from हर्षबार्तिक; (6) Śrīharsa's view about the interpretation of the word पूर्वरज् (नाव्य. 5. 7) and one arya of his are quoted (vol. I. p. 211) श्रीहर्षस्तु रक्शब्देन तौर्यंत्रिकं ब्रुवन् नाट्याङ्गप्रयोगस्य तस्यैव पूर्वरक्गता मन्यमान: पूर्वश्रासी रज्न इति समासममंस्त। यदाह-दृष्टा येडवस्थार्थे (वस्त्वर्थे ?) नाट्ये रज्ाय पादभागा: स्युः । पूर्व त एव यस्मिन् शुद्धा: स्युः पूर्वरक्गोऽसौ ॥।; (7) On नाव्य. 5. 8-15 which mention th~ angas of पूर्वर, A.B. (vol.I p. 212) quotes a prose passage from the वार्तिक which is mutilated; (8) on नाय्य. 5. 180 श्रीहर्ष is quoted in conncction with the प्रस्तावना in पूर्वरङ्न (vol. I. p. 251, यदाह श्रीहर्षः-अत एव हासो नाम कविः कस्मिश्चि- न्नाटके 'दिवं यातश्वित्तज्वरेख कलिरित एवाभिवर्तते, अशक्यमस्य पुरतोध्वस्थातुम्' इत्यादि).1 From the above it follows that the हर्षबार्तिक probably dealt with all the chapters, that it was composed mostly in Āryā verses with prose passages and illustrations from dramatic Lite- rature. Mr. Kavi (Intro. p. XXIII to vol. II.) says that a large fragment of वार्तिक on अम्हार has been recovered. Dr. Raghavan (in his paper on writers quoted in the Abhiniva- bhāratī in J. O. R. Madras vol. VI at p. 205) remarks 'Here also it is quoted only in the first six chapters. Not even a single reference to it is available in the remaining bulk of the Abhinava- bharati.' This statement argues from silence and is therefore not to be taken as deciding for certain that there was no arfefes on any chapter after the book. We have no comment of Abhinava on the 7th (except on the first few verses) and 8th chapters and there are gaps in other chapters also and there is no com- mentry after chap. 32. The भावप्रकाशन quotes a view of Harsa that तोटक differs from नाटक in this that in the former there is no विदूषक (p.238). Dr. Sankaran in 'History of the theory of Rasa' p. 13 identified the great emperor 4 of Kanoj with this Śrī Harșa. But this is mere conjecture. The भावप्रकाशन (p.238) speaks of सुबन्धु as a writer on dramatu- rgy who divided natakas into five kinds viz. पूर्ण, प्रशान्त, भास्वर, ललित, and समग्र. The नाव्यशासत्र (24.41) divides शारीराभिनय into six varieties 1. The editor suggests that भास should be read for हास but there are no grounds to do so. FTH may well have been the name of a dramatist, now unknown.