Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c6.11

v1.c6.11

¹ I It may be noted that Abhinavagupta, immediately after the passage cited above, goes on to say: *nanu bharate tat-saṃgṛhitasyûpi punar atroddeśānirdeśe caitat krama-vyatyāsānûdityudbhaṭaḥ, neti lo llaṭaḥ . . . . . vayaṃ tvatra tattvam agre vitaniṣyāma ityûstām tāvat* (on Bharata vi 10). This difference of opinion between Udbhaṭa and Lollaṭa on a question of textual interpretation supports our conclusion that Udbhaṭa was probably familiar with the text of Bharata, as Abhinava knew it and as it has come down to us. It is not clear, however, if this evidence is sufficient to confirm the tradition, recorded by Śārṅgadeva (I. i. 19), that Udbhaṭa was one of the early commentators on Bharata. Abhinava himself refers to Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka aud Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka as