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

( xxvi )

( xxvi )
earlier texts bears this out. Of the earlier authorities listed
by him, works of only some are available today; they are—
Bharata, Dattila, Mataṅga, Bhoja, Abhinavagupta,
Someśvara, Nānyadeva and Jagadekamalla.
It is, however, not to be surmised that Śārṅgadeva has
consolidated all that has been stated in the earlier works. He
has been extremely judicious, discriminating, and selective
in incorporating the lakṣaṇa from the earlier sources. He
has left out some portions from the works of Bharata and
others. For instance, the entire section on dhruvā-s dealt with
in N. S. has been omitted in S. R. Details regarding the
reportoire of drums described by Bharata have been left out
and instead we have the delineation of vādya-prabandha-s.
Śārṅgadeva has also chosen not to include the polemic dis-
cussion on the relation between svara and śruti given in
Bṛhaddeśī and has ignored the reference to the twelve svara-
mūrcchanā-s mentioned in it.
We shall also state here some of the points on which
Śārṅgadeva seems to have been influenced by the earlier
writers or incorproated the current tradition of lakṣaṇa lakṣya.
(i) Bharata and Dattila : Svara, śruti, grāma, mūrcchanā,
jāti, gīti, tāla (mārga-tāla), gītaka-s.
Much of the material in the Nartanādhyāya has been
based on N. S. but very little from it is reflected in the
Vādyādhyāya.
(ii) Mataṅga : (i) Names of śuddha-tāna-s.
(ii) Viniyoga of the jāti-s, mentioning of
mūrcchanā-s in them and the prastāra-s
for them.
(iii) Rāga-classification and the lakṣaṇa-s
of individual rāga-s.
(iii) Abhinavagupta : Abhinavagupta's influence on
Śārṅgadeva has been enormous. Mostly the influence has
been very subtle but sometimes it becomes obvious also.
Unlike in the case of other sources the influence is not so

---

( xxvii )

( xxvii )
much in terms of information but in terms of elucidation of
concepts. For instance, Śārṅgadeva's definition of svara¹ is
clearly seen to be based on that of Abhinavagupta.
(iv) Someśvara : Some of the topics dealt with in
the prakīrṇaka chapter could have been taken from the Gīta-
vinoda section of Mānasollāsa. e. g. gamaka-s, guṇa and doṣa
of musicians.
(v) Nānyadeva : The verbal texts accompanying
the jāti-prastāra-s, details of Kapāla-gāna-s etc. are for the
first time seen in Bharatabhāṣya. Thus it could have been
the source for Śārṅgadeva.
(vi) Contemporary tradition of lakṣaṇa—both written
and oral.
Information on sthāya-s and gamaka-s must have also
been obtained from some contemporary oral tradition. We
come across certain deśī names in the sthāya-s. Contempo-
rary works like Saṅgītasamayasāra of Pārśvadeva also list these
names. So these names must have been current at that
time in lakṣya.
Details of deśī tāla-s too must have come from some
oral tradition (if not from Saṅgītacūḍāmaṇi of Jogadekamall).
(e) Incorporation from current lakṣya
In the svara chapter very little from current lakṣya has
been incorporated. In the description of the characteristics
of aṁśa in jāti-s Śārṅgadeva adds that the aṁśa can be its
own saṁvādī, anuvādī etc.², implying that rāga-s where the
vādī has no saṁvādī (like our contemporary pūriyā, māravā
and sohanī, where neither śuddha-madhyama nor pañcama are
present), the vādī is its own saṁvādī. In the description of
sthāya-s and rāga-s also Śārṅgadeva lists some which he calls
‘adhunā-prasiddha’ probably indicating their use in the
current lakṣya.

1. S. R. 1, 3, 24cd-25ab.
2. ibid. 1, 7, 33.