________________
Vol. XXIII, 2000
REVIEW
139
century. Under 1.2. 1-7) he has given the actwise summary of the plot of the play. Under 1.3.1-9, he has given information about the nine commentaries, the last one being the Pañcikā of Visnubhatta, whose date has been precisely fixed by Dr. Bhat at 1400-1450 A.D.
Dr. Bhat observes at the end of this section that there many other commentaries on the play in existence, both published and unpublished, as detailed in the History of Classical Sanskrit Literature by M. Krishnamachary (p.639).
Under 2.1-4, he has discussed about the author of the Pañcikā, his date, the problem whether he can be identified with Purṇasarasvati, the basis for and against identificaion, differences in dates, in opinion on dramaturgy, in readings of the play proper and in explanation of words, and conclusion that the issue remains in doubt. Under 2.4-5 information about writers known by the name, and the birth details of, Visnu are traced.
Under 3 is taken up the discussion about the dramaturgical theory in the Pañcikā and the sub-topics thereof such as treatment, position and definitions of the bhūṣaṇas, treatment, treatment of sandhyantaras, the prologue in Sanskrit drama, three different views about it, its classification, use of amukha, sthāpanā and prastāvanā, krama-niyama in sandhyangas, concepts of rasa and rasābhāsa, and the extended use of the term sandhi.
Under 4 is given an assessment of the Pañcikā, wherein Dr. Bhat observes that the author of the commentary shows a propensity for grammar, that the work is noted for acuity in grammar, as has been recognised by the poet and scholar from Kerala, Melputtur Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa. Further, he notes that we have a complete dramaturgical analysis of the Anargharaghava in the Pañcikā in which various rules prescribed in different treatises on dramaturgy are applied and the structure of the play has been analysed in terms of sandhis and sandhyangas, forthe most part according to the Daśarupa and the Bhavaprakāśana, that the explanations of words and sentences from the play are clear and full, that it is detailed in its exposition of the rasas in the play, that the learning of the author of the commentary in in several branches of knowledge can be estimated from the wide range of literature, from Vedic texts to treatises on medicine and astrology cited therein, and that the commentary proves to be valuable for understanding the scholastic merits ofthe play.
