नाट्यशास्त्रम् (प्रथम भाग - अभिनवभारती एवं हिन्दी टीका सहित)

LXXVI

(c) Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa has been referred to as many as eleven times.²⁰ From these he appears to be a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra. As the rasa theory of Śaṅkuka was known to have been levelled against Lollaṭa's view on the same, this latter writer flourished possibly in the middle of the 8th century.²¹

(d) Śrī Śaṅkuka. Abhinava referred to Śrī-Śaṅkuka or Śaṅkuka as many as fifteen times.²² About his time we seem to have some definite information. For he is probably identical with the author of the poem Bhuvanābhyudaya written during the Kashmīrian king Ajitāpīḍa whose date is about 813 or 816 A. C.²³

(e) Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka has been referred to as many as six times by Abhinava.²⁴ Besides explaining and elucidating the Nāṭyaśāstra, at least in part, he wrote on the Dhvani theory an independent work named the Hṛdayadarpaṇa. He has been placed between the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century.²⁵

(f) Bhaṭṭa Yantra. From the single reference to him in Abhinava's commentary it appears that Bhaṭṭa Yantra²⁶ was a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra. About him nothing more can be said except that he preceded the celebrated commentator.

7. Bhatta Abhinavagupta

Among the commentators of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Abhinavagupta or Abhinava is the most wellknown. But his fame rests also on his commentary on the Dhvanyāloka as well as numerous learned treatises on the Kashmir Śaivism. From the concluding portion of some of his books we learn a few facts of his family history, and on the strength of these he has been placed between the end of the 10th and the begining of the 11th century.²⁷ From the Abhinavabhāratī we learn that his another name was Nṛsiṃhagupta.²⁸

Although like any other work of this class it professes to explain the text, Abhinava's commentary is not always an adequate help for understanding the several difficult passages of the Nāṭyaśāstra. This drawback might be due to its defective text tradition, but a careful study of it will convince any one that all its weak points cannot be explained away on this assumption alone. There are instances of Abhinava's not being sure about the explanation offered, for example, the word kutapa is once explained as

---

²⁰ Ag. I. pp. 208, 266, 279, 299 ; II. pp. 134. 196, 415, 423, 436, 452. De's Ms p. 386.
²¹ Skt. Poetics. Vol. I. pp 38-39.
²² Ag. I. pp. 74, 217, 274, 285, 293, 298, 318 ; II. pp. 411 ; 436. De's. Ms. pp 403, 413, 437, 441, 448, 469.
²³ See Skt. Poetics, I pp 38-39.
²⁴ Ag. I. pp. 4, 26, 278, II. p. 298, De's MS pp. 500, 508.
²⁵ Skt Poetics, I. pp. 39ff.
²⁶ Ag. I. p. 208.
²⁷ Skt. Poetics, I. pp. 117ff.
²⁸ See Ag. De's. Ms. pp. 428, 511.