Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.12

v2.c84.12

⁵ My attention is called to a passage (I owe the reference to Prof. Sovani) in the *Abhinava-bhāratī* ch. i, which appears (see Sovani’s article on the Pre-dhvani Schools in *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume*, p. 390, contra in *JRAS*, 1909, pp. 450-52) clearly to indicate that the *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa* was a commentary on the *Nāṭya-śāstra*. The passage in my MS runs thus (commenting on *brahmaṇā yad udāhṛtam* in Bharata i 1): *bhaṭṭa-nāyakas tu brahmaṇā paramātmanā yad udāhṛtam kṛta-nidarśanam.........tad anena pāramārthikam prayojanam uktam iti vyākhyānam hṛdaya-darpaṇe paryagrahīt*. This passage is indeed significant, and the relevancy of any comment on Bharata i 1 is difficult to explain in a work, which *ex hypothesi* is not a commentary on that text; but it appears to militate against those references to and passages from Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s work (prose as well as verse) which Abhinava cites and criticises in his *Locana* (pp. 11, 12, 15, 19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 33, 63, 67-68) and which consist mostly of direct criticism of the text of the *Dhvany-āloka*. Either of two explanations is possible: (1) that the *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa* was in fact a commentary on Bharata’s *Nāṭya-śāstra*, and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s criticism of the *Dhvany-āloka* might have constituted incidental discussions in it (but this does not explain the presence of verses in it which later writers, including Abhinavagupta, quote from Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka in their exposition of his views); or (2) that it was an independent work in prose and verse, consisting of Bhaṭṭa