नाट्यशास्त्रम् (प्रथम भाग - अभिनवभारती एवं हिन्दी टीका सहित)

XXXVIII

But the different chapters of the work and studies on them, which were published up till 1888, though very helpful for the understanding of some aspects of the ancient Indian dramatic works cannot be said to have thrown any considerable light on the exact nature of the ancient Hindu plays, especially the manner of their production on the stage. Sylvain Lévi’s Théâtre indien (1890) in which he discussed comprehensively the contribution of his predecessors in the field and added to it greatly by his own researches, made unfortunately no great progress in this specific direction. Though he had access to three more or less complete Mss. of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Lévi does not seem to have made any sérious attempt to make a close study of the entire work except its chapters XVII-XX (XVIII-XXII of our text) and XXXIV. The reason for his relative indifference to the contents of the major portion (nearly nine-tenths) of the work, seem to be principally the corrupt nature of his Ms. materials, Like his predecessors, Lévi paid greater attention to the study of the literary form of the ancient Hindu plays with the difference that he utilised for the first time the relevant chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra,¹² to check the accuracy of the statements of later writers on the subject like Dhanañjaya¹³ and Viśvanātha¹⁴ who professed their dependence on the Nāṭyaśāstra. But whatever may be the drawback of Lévi’s magnificient work, it did an excellent service to the history of ancient Indian drama by focussing the attention of scholars on the great importance of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Almost simultaneously two Sanskritists in India as well as one in the West were planning its publication. In 1894 Pandits Shivadatta and Kashinath Pandurang Parab published from Bombay the original Sanskrit text of the work.¹⁵ This was followed in 1898 by J. Grosset's¹⁶ critical edition of its chapters I-XIV based on all the Mss. available up till that date.

Though nearly half a century has passed after the publication of Grosset's incomplete edition of the Nāṭyaśāstra, it still remains one of the best specimens of modern Western scholarship, and though in the light of the new materials available, it is possible now-a-days to improve upon his readings in a few places, Grosset's work will surely remain for a long time a landmark in the history of the study of this important text. It is a pity that this very excellent work remains unfinished. But a fact equally deplorable is that it failed to attract sufficient attention of scholars

---

¹² Chapters XVII-XX (XVIII-XXII of our text).
¹³ The author of the Dasarupa. See above note 4.
¹⁴ The author of the Sahityadarpana. See below.
¹⁵ Sri Bharatamuni-pranitam, Natyasatram, ( Kavyamala, 42 ) Bombay, 1894.
¹⁶ Traite du Bharata sur le Theatre. Texte sanscrit, Edition critique. Tome I. Partie, I. (Annales de l’Universite de Lyons, Fasc. 40, 1898)