66. COMMENTATORS OF NĀTYASASTRA 63

COMMENTATORS OF NĀTYASASTRA 63

either written commentaries on Bharata's work or at least had treated of Nātyaśāstra topics in their works. As the Natyasastra of Bharata was spoken of as Bharata- sutra by अभिनवगुप्त and others (vide above pp. 10-11, 26 &c.), it is natural that following the precedents of the sastras of Grammar, Logic, Vedänta and the like certain works were composed on the Nāțyaśāstra called Vārtika and Bhāșya. We had occasion above to say something about Mr. Kavi and his method (p. 14). In reply to criticisms, particularly of Dr. De, Mr. Kavi justifies his work at length in I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 558-577. Dr. De's brief rejoinder may be read In I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 786-789. Vide Dr. Raghavan's 'Number of Rasas', Adyar Library pp. 92-106 and 'Bhoja's Śrngāraprakāsa' pp.536- 543 (Karnataka Publishing House) for a revised version of the अभिनवभारती and Adyar Library Bulletin, vol. XVIII. parts 3-4 pp. 196-209 for emendations in some passages from vol. I and II of the अभिनवभारती (G.O.S. edition) 4 Medhavin. HIHT twice mentions a writer on Alankāra named Medhavin who enumerated seven faults of Upamā (a a उपमादोषा: सप्त मेधाविनोदिता: II. 40). In another place he says 'यथासं- ख्यमथोत्प्रेक्षामल क्वारद्वयं विदुः । संख्यानमिति मेधाविनोत्प्रेक्षाभिहिता कचित्॥'(II.88). The latter half as printed means 'Utpreksā has been in some places designatedIT by Medhavin.' But this does not make good sense. HeT7, we are told by Dandin, is the name given to यथासंख्य by other writers ('यथासंख्यमिति प्रोक्तं संख्यानं क्रम इत्यपि' काव्यादश II.273). Therefore the passage in Bhämaha's work seems to be corrupt.If weread मेधावी नोत्प्रेच्ा etc. then there is correspondence with Dandin's words, the meaning being 'Medhavin calls यथासंख्य by the name aIT and in some places (in some works on alankāra) उत्प्रेक्षा has not been spoken of as an Alankara.'नमिसाधु in commenting upon Rudrata's काव्यालक्कार (I. 2) says, ननु दण्डमेधाविरुद्रभामहादिकृतानि सन्त्येवालक्वारशाख्त्ायि.The question is whether मेधाविरुद is one name or whether there were two writers on Alankāraśāstra named Medhā- vin and Rudra. No work on Alankāra composed by Rudra has been referred to by another writer. The शभ्गारतिलक of रुद्रभट्ट as its contents show cannot be called a work on theअलक्वारशाख.Therefore, it is probable that the full name is मेधाविरुद्र. धर्मकीर्ति and भर्तृ हरि are often cited as कीति and हरि; s0 there is no wonder if मेधाविरुद्र be cited as मेधाविन् (vide my article in J. R.A.S.1908 at p. 545 on भामह and दविडन्). शाs० quotes a verse of मालवरुद्र (No. 1091) and of