सङ्गीतरत्नाकर: प्रथम भाग (शार्ङ्गदेव - स्वरगताध्याय सविस्तार व्याख्या व अनुवाद सहित)

( xviii )
5. Commentaries on S. R.
S. R. is the only work on Saṅgītaśāstra that has to its
credit more than one commentary. The editors of the
Calcutta edition are reported¹ to speak of seven commenta-
ries, of which four are in Sanskrit, one in Hindi and two in
Telugu. M. Krishnamachariar in his 'History of Classical
Sanskrit Literature', also mentions seven commentaries. The
authors for six are mentioned as Siṁhabhūpāla, Keśava,
Kallinātha, Haṁsabhūpāla, Kumbhakarṇa and Gaṅgā-
rāma.² Of these, the commentaries of only Siṁhabhūpāla,
Kallinātha and Gaṅgārāma are available today. Reference
to the commentary of Keśava is also found in S. Sud.³
M. Krishnamachariar mentions the name of this commentary
as Kaustubha.⁴ 'Haṁsabhūpāla' seems to be a mistake for
'Siṁhabhūpāla'⁵. The name of the seventh commentary is
Candrikā but the author is not known.⁶ No details regard-
ing the Candrikā commentary or the commentary attributed
to Kumbhakarṇa are known.
(i) Siṁhabhūpāla's Saṅgītasudhākara is the earliest
commentary and is seldom critical; it almost paraphrases the
text. In the introductory verses, Siṁhabhūpāla explaining
the need for such a commentary, stated :
(a) The whole system of music expounded by Bharata
and others had been shattered before the advent
of Śārṅgadeva and it was Śārṅgadeva who consoli-
dated and now he (Siṁhabhūpāla) himself is
trying to make it understandable, out of considera-
tion for the people.⁷

1. ibid. p. x.
2. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 853.
3. S. Sud., p. 152, sl. 408.
4. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 853.
5. Kunhan Raja's Introduction to S. R. Vol. I, p. xi.
6. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 853.
7. Introductory sl, 5-7 of Siṁhabhūpāla's commentary on S. R.
   p. 6.
   ( xix )
   (b) The text of S. R. is profound (gambhīra) and
   complex (viṣama) and is intelligible to very few
   persons; he alone is competent to write a commen-
   tary on it.¹
   (c) It is difficult for one to be adept at both lakṣya and
   lakṣaṇa and hence this commentary (which relates
   lakṣaṇa to lakṣya) is nothing short of an original
   work.²
   (ii) Kallinātha's commentary 'Kalānidhi' is somewhat
   critical. Valuable references to contemporaneous practice
   are found in the rāga chapter. At the same time he leaves
   many sections uncommented, implying either that the
   sections are irrelevant or are too clear to need any com-
   mentary; however. what may have been clear enough to him
   is seldom so to the present day scholar.
   Kallinātha also refers to himself as lakṣya-lakṣaṇa-kovida
   (well-versed). He claims that he has tried to reconcile
   lakṣya and lakṣaṇa and remove the contradictions (virodha).³
   It is obvious that both Siṁhabhūpāla and Kallinātha
   feel that it is a big responsibility to connect the lakṣaṇa of
   S. R. with their contemporary lakṣya. This appears to be a
   subtle way of indicating the cleavage, that had become
   conspicuous in their time, between the two. Though they
   have tried their best to reconcile the cleavage, it becomes
   more obvious by the time of Rāmāmātya, the author of
   Svara-mela-kalānidhi.
   Some pertinent questions arise in connection with
   Kallinātha and his commentary.
   (a) In the chapter on rāga, Kallinātha cites a number
   of examples from the practice (lakṣya) of his time to
   bring out the non-conformity of the contemporary
8. ibid. sl. 11.
9. ibid. sl. 12.
10. Kallinātha's introductory verses to his commentary on S. R.
    sl. 13-14.