नाट्यशास्त्रम् (प्रथम भाग - अभिनवभारती एवं हिन्दी टीका सहित)
Natyashastra of Bharata Muni with Hindi Commentary (Vol 1)
भरत मुनि / आचार्य अभिनवगुप्त द्वारा
LV
obscure or difficult words, intelligible to the country people, having a good construction, fit to be interpreted with dances, developing Sentiments........ becomes fit for representation to spectators" (XVII. 119-122).
(c) Suggestive or Significant names. Another important aspect of the diction was the suggestive or significant names for different characters in a play. It has been said of Gustave Flaubert that he took quite a long time to find a name for the prospective hero and heroine of his novels, and this may appear to be fastidious enough. But on discovering that the Hindu dramatic theorists centuries ago laid down rules about naming the created characters (XIX. 30-36), we come to appreciate and admire the genius of the great French writer.
(d) Variety of languages or dialects. The use of Sanskrit along with different dialects of Prakrit (XVIII. 36-61) must be ascribed to circumstances in the midst of which the Hindu drama grew up. The dramas reflect the linguistic condition of the society in which the early writers of plays lived. As the speech is one of the essential features of a person's character and social standing, it may profitably be retained unaltered from the normal. Even in a modern drama dialects are very often used though with a very limited purpose.
IV. The Ancient Indian Drama in Practice
1. Occasions for Dramatic Performance
The Hindu drama like similar other forms of ancient art and poetry seems to have been of religious origin, and it developed probably out of dances and songs in honour of a deity like Śiva who in later times came to be styled the great dancer-actor (naṭarāja). As time passed, the dance with songs gradually assumed the form of regular dramatic spectacles, and the range of subjects treated was extended beyond the legends connected with the exploits of a particular deity. It is just possible that this development of the religious aspect came in course of time to be partially arrested, and plays began to be composed more with a purely secular character. And this change considerably loosened its original connexion with the popular deities. Possibly due to this the Hindu drama in the historic period of its career, is found to be acted sometimes for moral edification as in the case of the Buddhist plays, sometimes for the aesthetic enjoyment of the elite as in the case of Kālidāsa's works, and sometimes in honour of a deity as in case of one of Bhavabhūti's plays. In spite of various uses, the Hindu drama unlike its modern counterparts did possibly never become an ordinary amusement of everyday life. It was mostly on special occasions like a religious festival, a marriage ceremony, a king's coronation, a friend's visit that dramatic performances were held (I. 269; AD. 12-14). But among all these occasions religious festivals
LVI
were the most common for the performance of drama. It was natural that on such occasions the drama was a popular entertainment as well, the public being then in a holiday mood.
Another fact about the dramatic performances of the Hindus was that these were sometimes held in the form of contests (XXVII. 21-22, 71, 77-79). Different groups of actors vied with one another for the popular appreciation, and reward for their skill in the particular art. This drama, however does not seem to have been a regular feature of the Hindu, as was the case with that of the Greeks, and theatrical troups gave, however, performance usually for money without any spirit of rivalry towards others, and were paid by the rich people or the different guilds.
2. The Time of Performance
Except in the midnight or at noon or at the time of the Sandhyā prayers, the Hindu dramas could be performed almost at any part of the day or of the night. But this does not mean that any play could be produced at any allowable time during the twentyfour hours. Though at the command of the patron the Director of a theatrical party could overlook strict rules in this regard, the time of performance was to be regulated according to the nature of the subject-matter of the individual play. For example, a play based on a tale of virtue was to be performed in the forenoon ; a performance which was rich in instrumental music, and told a story of strength and energy, was to be held in the afternoon, and a play which related to the Graceful Style, the Erotic Sentiment, and required vocal and instrumental music for its production, was to be performed in the evening ; but in case of plays which related to the magnanimity of the Hero and contained mostly the Pathetic Sentiment, performance was to be held in the morning (XXVII. 88-99).
Though in the modern times dramatic performance is mostly held in the evening, the ancient Indian rules regarding the assignment of a play of a particular type to a particular part of the day or of the night need not be considered queer in any way. On the other hand, they appear very much to have been based on a proper understanding of the ever-changeable nature of human personalities. Even if a play based on a tale of virtue or of woe, when properly presented on the stage, could be appreciated at any time, it had better chance of impressing the spectator in the forenoon or in the morning, when after the night's sleep and rest, he could be the most receptive in regard to these Sentiments. That a play including a story of energy and strength can better be assigned to the after-noon is to be explained on the assumption that on taking rest after meals at the completion the morning's activities, one becomes psychologically more competent to appreciate stories of strength and energy presented on the stage. In a similar manner, a play with love as its principal theme (i.e. with
LVII
the Erotic Sentiment) may be more effectively presented on the stage in the evening, when after the day’s work, one is naturally inclined to enjoy the company of his dear woman, be she his wife or the hetaera.
3. The Playhouse or the Theatre
The Nāṭyaśāstra describes various types of playhouse, and their different parts have been mentioned to some extent in detail. But in the absence of evidence the like of which has been copiously available in case of the Greek theatre, it cannot be said how far the ancient Indian plays were peformed in specially constructed theatres. It may be possible that only the kings and very wealthy people owned playhouses constructed according to the Nāṭyaśāstra, while dramatic spectacles meant for the common people were held in the open halls called the Nāṭ-mandir (Nāṭya-mandira) in front of the temples, or in a temporarily devised theatre under the cover a canopy, as in the case of the modern Bengali Yātrās which seem to have some resemblance and connexion with the ancient Indian Nāṭya described in the Śāstra. One remarkable feature of the playhouses described in the Nāṭya-śāstra is that they are of a very moderate size, the largest among them (meant for mortals) being only thirtytwo yards long and sixteen yards board, capable of accommodating about four hundred (400) spectators. This is in sharp contrast with the Athenian theatre which sometimes held as many as fifteen thousand (15,000) people.
The comparative smallness of the ancient Indian theatre was a necessary consequence of the pecular technique of the dramatic production. For in a larger playhouse the spectators could not all have heard delicate points on which depended in no small measure the success of a performance. The inordinately large Athenian theatre was not much handicapped in this respect, for the Greek drama depended on a considerably different technique.
The Nāṭyaśāstra describes three main types of playhouse : oblong (vikṛṣṭa), square (caturasra) and triangular (tryasra). These again might be the large, medium or small, wlth their length respectively as one hundred and eight, sixtyfour, and thirtytwo cubits. This gives altogether nine different varities of theatres, viz. (i) the large oblong, (ii) the large-square, (iii) the large triangular, (iv) the medium oblong, (v) the medium square (vi) the medium triangular, (vii) the small oblong, (viii) the small square and (ix) the small triangular. These nine types can also be measured in terms of daṇḍas instead of that of cubits. This will give us eighteen different diamensions of playhouse. But the Nāṭyaśāstra is silent about the use of the playhouse measured in terms of daṇḍas, and the playhouse of the largest type measuring 108 cubits in length have been prohibited by the Śāstra for the mortals. And it has been mentioned before that a playhouse more in area than thirtytwo yards long and sixteen
H
LVIII
yards broad has been prescribed for them. 'This should be divided into three parts : (i) the tiring room (nepathya) (ii) the stage (raṅgapīṭha or raṅgaśīrṣa) and (iii) the auditorium (raṅgamaṇḍala). Of these the tiringroom would be at one end of the theatre and would measure sixteen yards by four yards. On the two sides of the stage there should be two Mattavāraṇīs each occupying an area of four yards by four yards and having four pillars. Thus the area to be occupied by the seats of spectators would be twentyfour yards by sixteen yards.
The tiring room (nepathya) was the place in which the actors and the actresses put on the costumes suited to the different roles, and from this place, the tumults, divine voices (daiva-vāṇī) and similar other acts proceeded. This part of the theatre was separated from the stage by two screens over its two doors, Between these two doors the members of the orchestra (kutapa) were to sit and the direction facing them was to be considered conventionally the east.
4. The Representation
To understand the technique of representation of the Hindu drama one must remember that it avoided stark realism and gave utmost scope to imagination and fancy. The one unmistakable evidence of this is the total absence of any painted scenery from the stage. This is but a negative side of it. If the Hindus avoided bringing in any kind of artificial scenery, they made positive efforts in communicating the meaning of the drama and calling forth the Sentiment (rasa) in the spectators through suggestive use of colour in the costume and make up of the actors and rhythmic movements of many kinds which have been summed up in their theory of four representations (abhinaya) such as aṅgika, vācika, āhārya, and sāttvika (VI.23).
(a) The Physical Representation
Among these, the āṅgika should be discussed first. This consists of the use of various gestures and postures of which the Nāṭyaśāstra gives elaborate descriptions. Different limbs have been named and their manifold gestures and movements described, with various significance attached to each one of them (VIII.-XII). For example, the head has thirteen different gestures which are as follows :
Ākampita : Moving the head slowly up and down.
Kampita : when the movements in the Ākampita head are quick and copious. (Uses) : The Ākampita head is to be applied in giving a hint, teaching questioning, addressing in an ordinary way (lit. naturally), and giving an order.
The Kampita head is applicable (lit. desired) in anger argument understanding, asserting, threatening, sickness and intolerence.
Dhuta and Vidhuta : A slow movement of the head is called the
I.IX
Dhuta and when this movement is quick it is called Vidhuta. (Uses) : The Dhuta head is applicable in unwillingness, sadness, astonishment, confidence, looking side ways, emptiness and forbidding.
The Vidhuta head is applied in an attack of cold, terror, panic, fever and the first stage of drinking (i. e. intoxication).
Parivāhita and Udvāhita : when the head is alternately turned to two sides it is called the Parivāhita, and when it is once turned upwards it is known as the Udvāhita. (Uses) : The Parivāhita head is applicable in demonstration, surprise, joy, remembering, intolerence, cogitation, concealment and [amorous] sporting.
The Udvāhita head is to be applied in pride, showing height, looking high up, self-esteem and the like.
Avadhuta : When the head is once turned down it is called the Avadhuta. (Uses) : it is to be applied in [communicating] a message involking a deity, conversation and beckoning [one to come near].
Añcita : When the neck is slightly bent on one side the Añcita head is the result. (Uses) : It is applicable in sickness, swoon, intoxication anxiety and sorrow.
Nihañcita : when two shoulders are raised up with the neck bent on one side the Nihañcita head is produced. (Uses) : It is to be used by women in pride, Amorousness (vilāsa), Light-heartedness (lalita). Affected Indiffirence (bibboka), Hysterical Mood (kilakiñcita). Silent Expression of Affection (moṭṭāyita), Pretented Anger (kuṭṭamita)¹ ; Paralysis (stambha) and Jealous Anger (māna).
Parāvṛtta : when the face is turned round, the Parāvṛtta head is the result. (Uses) : It is to be used in turning away the face, and looking back and the like.
Utkṣipta : when the face is raised up the Utkṣipta head is the result. (Uses) : It is used indicating lofty objects, and application of divine weapons.
Adhogata : The head with the face looking downwards is called the Adhogata. (Uses) : It is used in shame, bowing [in salutation] and sorrow.
Parilolita : when the head is moving on all sides, it is called Parilolita. (Uses) : It is used in fanting, sickness, power of intoxi-ation, possession by an evil spirit, drowsiness and the like.
The eyes are similarly to have different kinds of glances according to the States (bhāva) and Sentiments (rasa) they are to express. The eyeballs too are liable to similar changes to creat impressions of different feelings and emotions, and so have the eyebrows, the nose,
¹ For the definition of all these terms together with the preceding ones see NŚ. XXIV. 15, 18-22.
LX
the cheeks, the chin, and the neck. The hands, however, are the most important limbs in the making of gestures. Gestures and movements of hands fall into three classes, viz. single (asaṁyuta), combined (saṁyuta) and dance hands (nṛtta-hasta). Single-hand gestures and movements relate to one hand only, while combined hands to both the hands. The following are examples of the three kinds of hand gestures :—Patāka (single hand) : The fingers extended and close to one another and the thumb bent. Añjali (combined hand) Putting together of the two Patāka hands is called the Añjali. Caturasra (dance-hand) : The Kaṭakāmukha hands held forward eight Aṅgulis apart [from each other] on one's breast, the two shoulders and elbows on the same level. Besides these gestures, the hands have varied movements which are characterised by the following acts : drawing upwards, dragging, drawing out, accepting, killing, beckoning, urging, bringing together, separating, protecting, releasing, throwing, shaking, giving away, threatening, cutting, piercing, squeezing and beating(IX. 161-163).
From the foregoing discussion about the gestures it is apparent that their uses fall into two different categories, viz. realistic and conventional. Of these two types, the gestures used conventionally far outnumber those of the other kind. But this should not appear strange. For the ancient Indian dramatists and theatrical producers were fully conscious of the limited scope of realism in arts of various kinds, and hence they conceived action as something very closely allied to dance. This demanded that while moving on the stage with or without uttering any word, the actors should gesticulate rhythmically, to impart grace and decorative effect to their figure. For this very purpose another set of gestures called Dance-hands (nṛttahasta) are also to be used. As their name implies these hands were exclusively to be used in dance, but for reasons mentioned above they were sometimes utilized at the time of declamation or recitation. The lower parts of the body down to the feet are also to be similarly used. Among these, the feet are the most important. On them depend the different movements of the entire body as well as the various standing postures. The movements of the feet are of three kinds, viz. ordinary gait, Cārī and Maṇḍala, Of these, the Cārī is a simple movement of the feet (XI.) while Maṇḍala, is a series of such movements considered together (XII.) During the stage fighting the two combatants are to move with Cārīs and Maṇḍalas in accompaniment with suitable music. And the gait is very valuable for the representation of different roles. In this matter too convention plays a very considrable part. The Nāṭyaśāstra lays down elaborate rules about the width of footsteps and the tempo of the gait for different characters according to their social position, age, sex, health and feeling as well as the peculiar environments in which they might be placed (XIII. 1-157).
LXI
(b) The Vocal Representation
The second means of theatrical representation consists of the use of speech. It relates to the proper musical notes (svara) voice registers (sthāna), pitch of vowels (varṇa), intonation (kāku), speech-tempo (laya) to be used in reciting or declaiming a passage for the purpose of evoking different Sentiments (rasa) in the spectators. For example to call forth the Comic and The Erotic Sentiments a passage should be recited with the Madhyama and the Pañcama notes, and for the Heroic and the Marvellous Sentiments the Ṣaḍja and the Ṛṣabha would be the suitable notes.
To call a person staying at a distance the voice should proceed from the head register (śiras) and when he is at a short distance it should be from the chest (uras), and for calling a man at one’s side the voice from the throat register (kaṇṭha) would be proper (XIX. 43).
For any speech with the Comic and the Erotic Sentiments the prevailing pitch would be Udātta (acute) and Svarita (circumflex) while in the Heroic, the Furious and the Mervellous Sentiments it should be Udātta and Kampita.
In the Comic and the Erotic Sentiments the speech-tempo should be medium, in the Pathetic slow, and in the other Sentiments a quick tempo is appropriate (XIX. 59).
Besides the above aspects of speech, close attention was to be given in observing rhythm and cadence. And the metrical character of any passage in verse was to be fully expressed in its recitation or declamation. For this propose the Nāṭyaśāstra devotes nearly two full chapters (XV, XVI) which discuss prosody and allied topics.
(c) The Costumes and Make-up
One important element in theatrical representation now-a-days is the various stage appliances such as, painted scenery, costumes and make-up. However able the actors and actresses might be in delivering the speeches assigned to their roles, without being placed against properly painted scenery and without having proper costumes and make-up, by their acting and delivery alone they cannot create that kind of stage-illusion which is necessary for the success of a dramatic production. But in the ancient Indian stage there was no painted scenery. Hence the actors had to depend a great deal upon costumes and make-up. By the term Āhāryābhinaya the Hindu theorists understood these two items (XXIII).
Though painted scenery is considered indispensable in the modern theatre, the ancient Indians having a considerably different conception of the drama, did not require its aid for the production of a play. The wall that separated the tiring room (nepathya) and the stage (raṅgapīṭha) together with the screens covering the two doors connecting the stage and the tiring room, served as the back-ground to show off to advantage the
LXII
figures of the performers. And these, the wall and the screens, possibly did not contain anything other than the usual decorative designs. This simplicity in the character of the scenic apparatus was a nacessery concomitant of the peculiar technique of the Hindu drama, and its cause may be looked for in its early history. The introduction of magnificent scenery appears to be a later development in the history of drama. Similarly the back scene of the Shakaspearean stage consisted of a bare wall, and anything in the way of spectacular effect was created by the movements and grouping of actors
The production of an impression by means of painted scenery would have been alien to the taste of the ancient Hindus who were more or less conscious of the limitation of realism in their various arts. In order to make the spectators visualise the place and time of the dramatic story in hand, the Hindus had a different device. Numerous descriptions of place and time composed in rhythmic prose and verse, which are scattered over the classical Hindu plays, served very efficiently indeed the purpose of painted scenery. When properly read or sung, these passages very easily created an illusion of the place or the time described. The elaborate description of Vasantasenā's magnificent reisdence in the Mṛcchakaṭika was calculated to call up vividly its picture before the mind's eye. The same thing may be said of the grand description of the Daṇḍaka forest in the Uttararāmacarita. This device of making a scene lively, has been utilized by Shakespeare also. In appreciation of his very beautiful description of place and time, one critic says "The plays are full of such descriptive passages as can nullify the achievements of decorators and mechanics." It has already been mentioned that in the Shakespearean stage too painted scenery was unknown.
There being no scenery of any kind in the Hindu theatre which made no effort at realism, the spectators were required to use their imagination to the utmost. The demand on the spectator's imagination made by the ancient Indian producers of plays was further testified by their rules of conventional Zonal division (kakṣā-vibhāga) of the stage (XIV. 1-15). Some of these are as follows :
A Zone might change with the actor walking a few steps over the stage.² Any ancient Hindu play will furnish numerous examples of this convention. For example in the first Act of the Śakuntalā the king appears for the first time at a distance from Kaṇva's hermitage, but shortly afterwards he enters it by simply taking a few steps over the stage, looking around and saying. "This is the entrance of hermitage and let me enter it".
By the same kind of convention the inside and outside of a house was
² Due to this kind of convention, scenes of the Hindu plays were not clearly separated as they are in a modern drama. This puzzled F. Hall who says :
LXIII
simultaneously presented.³ The rule relating to this was as follows : According to the Zonal division, those who entered the stage earlier should be taken as being inside [a house] while those entering it later are known to be as remaining outside it. He who enters the stage with the intention of seeing them (i.e. those entering earlier) should report himself after turning to the right. To indicate going to a distant locality one is to walk a good few steps over the stage and to indicate going to a place near by, a short walk only is needed, while a walk of medium duration will indicate going to a place of medium distance, But in case a person leaves one country and goes to a distant land, this is to be indicated by closing the Act in which such an event occurs, and mentioning again the same fact in an Explanatory Scene at the beginning of the next Act.
An example of some of these conventional rules occurs in the ninth Act of the Mṛcchakaṭika where Śodhanaka appears first as being at the gate of the court of justice and enters it by making a pantomimic movement; then again he goes out to receive the judge and re-enters, the courtroom after him by simply walking over the same stage. And when the judge has started work, Śodhanaka again goes out to call for the complainants. This going out also consists of actually walking a few steps over the stage.
Though painted scenery was not in use in the Hindu theatre objects like hills, carriages, aerial cars, elephants etc, were represented on the stage by suggestive models (pusta) of these. According to the Nāṭyaśāstra the model works were of three kinds, viz. sandhima which was made up of mat, cloths or skins, wrapping cloth, or other materials wrapped round something, and vyājima which was a mechanical contrivance of some kind From Dhanika, the commentator of the Daśarūpa (II. 67-58), we learn about a model-work of an elephant for the production of the Udayanacarita, and the Mṛcchakaṭika owes its name to the toy cart which plays an indispensable role in the story.
(d) The Temperament
The fourth or the most important means of representation is the Temperament (sattva) or the entire psychological resources of a man (XXIV), The actor or the actress must for the time being feel the States that he or she is to represent, and only then will the Sentiments related to them follow. This kind of representation was indispensable for giving expression to various delicate aspects of men’s and women’s emotional nature.
So far as is known, Hindu dramas have always been parted into acts; but never have they had scenes. It is somewhat to be wondered at, that the Hindus, with their inordinate love for subdivision, should have left those uninvented. (Introduction to Dasarūpa, pp. 28-29.
³ See note 2 above.
V. Literature on the Ancient Indian Drama
1. The Early Writers
Śilālin and Kṛśāśva. Pāṇini (circa 500 B.C.) refers (IV. 3.110-111) to the Naṭasūtras of Śilālin and Kṛśāśva. As the works of these two authors have perished beyond recovery we are not in a position to have any exact idea about their contents. But Lévi and Hillebrandt have taken them to be manuals for actors (naṭa) though Weber and Konow have considered these to have been sets of rules for dancers and pantomimists, and Keith has accepted their view. Konow further thinks that the treatises of Śilālin and Kṛśāśva were absorbed in the body of the Nāṭyaśāstra (ID. p. 1)
2. The so-called sons of Bharata
After Śilālin and Kṛśāśva come the writers whose names have been included in the list of the one hundred sons of Bharata, given in the extant version of the Nāṭyaśātra. (I. 26-22). Among these Kohala, Dattila (Dhūrtila), Śālikarṇa (Śātakarṇa), Bādarāyaṇa (Bādari), Nakhakuṭṭa and Aśmakuṭṭa have been referred to and quoted by later writers as authorities on dramaturgy and histrionics. Besides these, Vātsya and Śāṇḍilya have been named as authorities on drama by some writers. Such references and quotations are our only source of knowledge of them and their work.
(a) Kohala Among the writers on drama who wrote after Śilālin and Kṛśāśva, Kohala seems to be the most important. In the extant version of the Nāṭyaśāstra (XXXVI. 63), it is given in the form of a prophecy that Kohala will discuss in a supplementary treatise all those topics on drama that have not been touched by Bharata. From quotations of his works made by Abhinava¹ and another commentator,² as well as from their references to his opinion, it appears that Kohala wrote on dance and dramaturgy as well as histrionics and music.
(b) Dattila, Śāṇḍilya, and Vātsya. Dattila seems to be identical with Dantila or Dhūrtila mentioned in the Nāṭyaśāstra (I. 26). Abhinava too quotes from one Dattilācārya³ and it is likely that he is not other than this Dattila. From these quotations it appears that he wrote on histrionics and music. Śāṇḍilya and Vātsya mentioned in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XXXVI. 63) along with Dattila (Dhūrtila) are to us nothing but mere names. It is possible that they were writers on some aspects of drama and theatre.
¹ Ag I. pp. 173, 182, 183-184 ; II p. 26, 55, 130, 133, 142, 146, 148. 151, 155, 407, 416-417, 421, 434, 438-439, 413, 452, 459 ; De' Ms. p. 413, 436, 496, 521, 680.
² BhP. pp. 204, 210, 236, 245, 251.
³ Ag. I. p. 205, Besides this Ag. quotes and refers to Dattila no less than 14 times while comenting on chapter on music. See De's Ms. pp. 544, 573, 576, 580, 583, 588, 590, 624, 625, 628, 633, 634, 640, 642, 644, 650, 655. See also Kuṭṭa sl. 123.
LXV
(c) Śātakarṇi (Śātakarna, Śālikarṇa). Śātakarṇi as a proper name is found in inscriptions from the first century B. C. to 149 A. C. Hence it is possible (though not quite certain) that Śātakarṇi the writer on drama flourished about the first century A. C.⁴ Like kings in later times who were sometimes found to take interest among other subjects in drama and poetics and to write treatises on them, this Śātakarṇi might well have been a king or a person of royal descent. From the quotations made by later writers⁵ from him it appears he wrote on dramaturgy.
(d) Aśmakuṭṭa and Nakhakuṭṭa. These two writers from their names appear to have been contemporaries, probably belonged to the same locality. Sāgaranandin⁶ and Viśvanātha⁷ quote from Nakhakuṭṭa, and Sāgara only is known to have quoted from Aśmakuṭṭa⁸, From these quotations it appears that Aśmakuṭṭa and Nakhakuṭṭa wrote on dramaturgy.
(e) Bādarāyaṇa (Bādari). Sāgara quotes from Bādarāyaṇa twice⁹ and possibly names him once as Bādari, and from the extracts quoted it seems that this early writer discussed dramaturgy.
3. Samgrahakara
Abhinavagupta once mentioned the Saṃgraha and once the Saṃgrahakāra.¹⁰ In the Nāṭyaśāstra (VI. 3, 10) itself also one Saṃgraha has been mentioned. It seems that the reference is to the identical work. From these facts it appears that the work might have been a compendium treating of dramaturgy as well as histrionics.
4. The Present Text of the Natyasastra (circa 200 A.C.).¹¹
5. Medieval Writers on Drama
(a) Nandi (Nandikeśvara) Tumburu Viśākhila and Cārāyaṇa. Besides the writers mentioned above Abhinava and Śāradātanaya refer to Nandi or Nandikeśvara¹² and the former also names Tumburu¹³ and Viśākhila¹⁴ with occasional reference to their views or actually quotations from them, and Cārāyaṇa has once been quoted by Sāgaranandin.¹⁵
(b) Sadāśiva, Padmabhū, Drauhiṇi, Vyāsa and Āñjaneya.
⁴ Select Inscriptions, pp. 191-207.
⁵ NL. 1101-1102, Rucipati's Comm. on AR. p. 7.
⁶ NL. 2768-2769, 2904-2905.
⁷ SD. 294, Nakhakuṭṭa has also been mentioned by Bahurūpa in his Comm. on Daśarūpa (Indian and Iranian Studies presented to D. Ross, Bombay. p. 201), p. 201 f.n.
⁸ 83, 437. 2766-2767, 2774-2775.
⁹ NL. 1092-1094, 2770-2771.
¹⁰ Ag. II. pp. 436, 2770-2771.
¹¹ See below sections VI. and VIII.
¹² Ag. I. p. 171, De's Ms. p. 559. This Nandikesvara may be identical with the author of the AD.
¹³ Ag. I. pp. 165.
¹⁴ Ag. I. p. 199 also De's Ms. pp. 547, 564, 573, See also Kutta, sl. 123.
¹⁵ NL. 362-363.
I
LXVI
Abhinava and Śāradātanaya once refer to Sadāśiva¹⁶ while some writers on drama, such as Padmabhū,¹⁷ Drauhiṇi,¹⁸ Vyāsa¹⁹ and Āñjaneya²⁰ have been named by Śāradātanaya only. But we are not sure whether they were really old authors or these names have been attached to some late treatises to give them an air of antiquty.
(c) Kātyāyana, Rāhula and Garga. These three writers, quoted by Abhinava and Sāgara may be counted among the medieval writers on drama. From the available extracts from his work Kātyāyana²¹ seems to have been a writer on dramaturgy. Rāhula has been twice quoted in Abhinava's commentary, and Sāgara²² has once referred to his view.²³ From these it appears that Rāhula was a writer on dramaturgy as well as histrionics. Garga as an authority on drama has been mentioned by Sāgaranandin.²⁴ In the absence of any quotation from him we cannot say what exactly he wrote about.
(d) Śakaligarbha and Ghaṇṭaka. Abhinava mentions among others the names of Śakaligarbha²⁵ and Ghaṇṭaka.²⁶ Of these two, Ghaṇṭaka seems to be a contemporary of Śaṅkuka, and as for, Śakaligarbha, we have no definite idea about his time. From the references to their views it appears that they wrote on dramaturgy.
(e) Vārtika-kāra Harṣa. Abhinava once quotes from the Vārtikakṛt²⁷ and once from the Vārtika²⁸ and next time from the Harṣavārtika,²⁹ and besides this he once refers to the views of the Vārtikakāri.³⁰ Sāgaranandin and Śāradātanaya refer to one Harṣavikrama³¹ or Harṣa.³² It seems possible that they all referred to the same author, and the name of the author of the Vārtika was Harṣa or Harṣa-vikrama. From these quotations and the references it appears that this Vārtika was an original treatise on dramaturgy and histrionics.
(f) Mātṛgupta. Mātṛgupta has been taken to be a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra by Sylvain Lévi.³³ Though this view has been accepted by authors who have written later on the subject,³⁴ from the metrical extracts³⁵ made from his work by some commentators it appears
¹⁶ BhP. 152, DR. IV. 38-31.
¹⁷ BhP. p. 47.
¹⁸ BhP. p. 239.
¹⁹ BhP. 251.
²⁰ See note 19.
²¹ NL. 1484-1485. Ag. II. pp. 245-246.
²² Ag. I. pp. 115, 172. NL. 2873-2175.
²³ NL. 3225.
²⁴ NL. 3226.
²⁵ Ag. II. p. 452. Kavi thinks that Sakaligarbha = Sakaleya = Udbhaṭa.
²⁶ Ag. II. p. 436.
²⁷ Ag. I. p. 172. This Vārtika seems to have been in original work like Kumarila's Slokavartika written in verse.
²⁸ Ag. I. p 174.
²⁹ Ag I. p. 207 also De's Ms. p. 545.
³⁰ Ag. I. p. 31.
³¹ NL. 3225.
³² BhP. 233.
³³ Le Theatre indien p. 15.
³⁴ e. g. Skt. Poetics, Vol. (p. 32-33).
³⁵ A. dy pp. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 110, 126, 230, NL. 102, 314-316, 459-471, 534, 1186 (?). BhP. p. 234.
LXVII
that he composed an original work on the subject. It is probable that in this he occasionally explained in prose the view expressed by the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra.³⁶ Interpreting in this manner one can understand the words of Sundara-miśra, who, commenting on Bharata's definition of the Benediction (nāndī), remarks that 'in axplaining this Mātṛgupta said etc'.³⁷ About the time of Mātṛgupta, we have no sufficient evidence. All that can be said is that, Abhinava quotes from his work once³⁸ and hence he was earlier than this great well-known commentator. Besides this Sāgaranandin, who is possibly earlier than Abhinava, names Mātṛgupta along with old writers such as Aśmakuṭṭa, Nakhakuṭṭa, Garga, and Bādarāyaṇa (Bādari);³⁹ hence it appears that he was not a late writer.
From the meagre information available about him scholars have identified him with the poet of that name living during the reign of Harṣa-vikramāditya of Kashmir who seems to have been the author of a work on drama called Vārtika. This would roughly place his work at the end of the 4th century A.C. or in the beginning of the 5th.⁴⁰ From the extracts made from his works it appears that wrote on dramaturgy and music.
(g) Subandhu. Śāradātanaya refers to one Subandhu who wrote on dramaturgy.⁴¹ If it is possible to identify him with the famous author of the Vāsavadattā, then he may be placed roughly in the 5th century A.C.
(h) The compilers of the Agnipuraṇa and the Viṣṇudharmottara. The Agnipuraṇa treats of nāṭya, nṛtya, and rasa, but this treatment depends considerably on the Nāṭyaśāstra. There is literal borrowing from this work as well as paraphrases of some of its metrical passages in this Purāṇa. This portion of the Agnipuraṇa is usually placed after Daṇḍin (circa. 7th century).⁴² The Viṣṇudharmottara too treats of nṛtta, nāṭya and abhinaya, and this treatment too is dependent on the Nāṭyaśāstra and does not appear to be earlier than the 8th century.
6. Late writings on Drama
(a) Daśarūpa. The Daśarūpa (Daśarūpaka) of Dhanañjaya was composed in the last quarter of the 10th century A.C. during the reign of Muñja (Vākpatirāja, II) the king of Malawa. This work, as its name implies, treats of ghe ten principal forms of dramatic works (rūpa) which constitute the subject-matter of chapter XX of the Nāṭyaśāstra, but it
³⁶ For example Sagara, (NL. 534ff.) discusses Matrgupta's view in his compilation which is written in verse and prose. It seems that this author was his model.
³⁷ Skt. Poetics Vol. I. pp. 102-103.
³⁸ Ag. De's Ms. p. 543. Dr. S. K. De thought that Matrgupta was unknown to Ag. (Skt. Poetics, Vol. I. p. 33).
³⁹ See note 23 above.
⁴⁰ Keith, Skt. Drama, p. 291.
⁴¹ BhP. p. 238.
⁴² Skt. Poetics, Vol. I. p. 102-103.
LXVIII
actually brings in a few other relevant matters scattered over other parts of this comprehensive work.
Any careful student of the Nāṭyaśāstra will easily discover that Dhanañjaya in restating the principles of dramaturgy in a more concise and systematic form has carried too far the work of his abridgment and left out quite a number of important matters. The special stress which he lays on the literary aspect of drama by his exclusion of its histrionics and other technical sides, very clearly indicates the general decadence of India's aesthetic culture at the time. With his professed reverence for the rules of the Nāṭyaśāstra (ascribed to Bharata), he seems to have misunderstood the aims and objects of its author who composed his work for the playwrights as well as the producers of plays.⁴³
But whatever be its limitation, the Daśarūpa, and its commentary Avaloka without which it was only half intelligible, attained in course of time a wide popularity and gradually superseded the Nāṭyaśāstra which seems to have become very rare with the passage of time. And the Daśarūpa so thoroughly supplanted other dramaturgic works as existed before its time, that with the exception of the Nāṭyaśāstra it is the most well-known work on the subject and very frequently drawn upon by the commentators of plays as well as later writers on dramaturgy like Viśvanātha.
(b) Nāṭakalakṣaṇa-ratnakośa. Slightly earlier than the Daśarūpa or contemporaneous with it,⁴⁴ is the Nāṭakalakṣaṇa-ratnakośa (briefly Nāṭakalakṣaṇa) of Sāgaranandin. Till about a quarter of a century ago our only knowledge of the work consisted of a few quotations from it in different commentaries. But in 1922 the late Sylvain Lévi discovered its Ms. in Nepal and published a report on its contents and other relevant matters (Journal Asiatique, 1922, p. 210). Since then the work has been carefully edited by M. Dillon and published (London, 1937). Just like Dhanañjaya, Sāgaranandin too discusses in his Nāṭakalakṣaṇa, dramaturgy in detail and mentions only incidentally certain topics connected with histrionics. But unlike the Daśarūpa the Nāṭakalakṣaṇa does not treat exclusively of dramaturgy, but refers to histrionics whenever necessary. Though the author professedly depends on no less than seven different authorities such as Harṣa-vikrama, Mātṛgupta, Garga, Aśmakuṭṭa, Nakha-kuṭṭa, Bādari (Bādarāyaṇa), and Bharata (the mythical author of the Nāṭyaśāstra) yet his dependence on the last-named one seems to be the greatest. A large number of passages have actually been borrowed by him from the same.⁴⁵ Besides these borrowings the extent of Sāgaranandin's
⁴³ Ag. I. p. 7.
⁴⁴ See R. Kavi, 'Date of Sagara-Nandin' in Indian and Iranian Studies presented to D. Ross. Bombay. 1939. pp. 198ff.
⁴⁵ See NL. pp 143-144.
LXIX
dependence on the Nāṭyaśāstra is apparent from his echoing of the numerous passages⁴⁶ of the latter.
(c) Nāṭyadarpaṇa. The Nāṭyadarpaṇa⁴⁷ of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra is the next important work on dramaturgy after the Daśarūpa. Of the two joint-authors⁴⁸ of this text, who were Jains Rāmacandra lived probably between 1100 and 1175 A.C., and he was a disciple of the famous Hemacandra. Rāmacandra wrote a large number of works including many plays. But of Guṇacandra, the collaborator of Rāmacandra, very little is known except that he too was a disciple of Hemacandra. The Nāṭyadarpaṇa which is divided into four chapters, treats of dramaturgy.
This work has been composed in Anuṣṭup couplets. Its brevity of the treatment is comparable to that of the Daśarūpa, and as in the latter many of its passages cannot be fully understood unless a commentary is consulted. Fortunately for us the joint-authors of the work have left for us a very clearly written and informative vṛtti (gloss). It is evident from the metrical text that the authors had access to the Nāṭyaśāstra and exploited it very thoroughly, And whatever could not be accommodated in the text has been added in the prose vṛtti which has utilised also Abhinava's famous commentary. Besides this the authors have occasionally criticised the views of other writers among whom the author of the Daśarūpa figures most prominently.⁵⁰ All this has given the Nāṭyadarpaṇa a unique value and some superiority over the Daśarūpa.
(d) Ruyyaka's Nāṭakamīmāṁsā. Ruyyaka alias Rucaka,⁵¹ who was a Kashmirian and flourished probably in the 12th century, was a voluminous writer on poetics. It was from one of his works (a commentary of Mahima-bhaṭṭa's Vyaktiviveka) that we learn of his Nāṭakamīmāṁsā a work on dramaturgy. No Ms. of this work has so far been discovered.
(e) Bhāvaprakāśana. Śāradātanaya, who seems to have been a Southerner and flourished in the 12th century, wrote the Bhāvaprakāśana⁵³ which dealt with dramaturgy in greater detail than either the Daśarūpa or the Nāṭyadarpaṇa. And his work acquires an additional authority from the fact that Śāradātanaya had as his teacher one Divākara who was the Director of a theatre⁵⁴ and might be taken as deeply conversant with the theory and practice of Indian drama as it was current in his time. Though Śāradātanaya depends much on earlier authors for the materials of his work, yet his approach to the subject is to some extent original. As the name of his work implies, it deals with the "expression" prakāśa of the
⁴⁶ Printed out by M. Dillon in the margin of NL.
⁴⁷ Ed. in G.O.S. Baroda, 1929. ⁴⁸ See Introduction of ND. p.3.
⁴⁹ But they have also drawn materials from older writers like Kohala, Śaṅkuka and Ag. See ND. p. 224. ⁵⁰ See ND. Introduction p. 3. ⁵¹ Skt. Poetics, p. 190ff.
⁵² Ibid. p. 186. ⁵³ Ed. G.O.S. Baroda, 1930. ⁵⁴ BhP, p. 2 also Introduction, p.6.
LXX
"State" (bhāva). Now the proper expression of the States by the actors according to the Nāṭyaśāstra gives rise to the Sentiments (rasa). Hence Śāradātanaya begins his work with the description of the States and everything connected with them. Next he passes very naturally to the discussion of the Sentiments, These being thoroughly discussed, he takes up the Heroines of different classes who are the main stay of the Sentiments. The time factor in the plot and the diction of the play which also are means of developing the Sentiments are considered next. Afterwards he analyses the body of the play and its different parts. This brings him to the consideration of the ten major and twenty minor types of play (rūpa), and finally of the miscellaneous matters connected with drama and theatre. To avoid prolixity we desist from giving here any detailed account of its contents which include all possible topics relating to dramaturgy. It may be briefly said that Śāradātanaya's treatment of the subject is in many respects more comprehensive than that of the Daśarūpa, the Nāṭakalakṣaṇa, and the Nāṭyadarpaṇa. And to attain his object Śāradātanaya has freely referred to the Nāṭyaśāstra⁵⁵ as well as the works of early writers like Kohala,⁵⁶ Mātṛgupta,⁵⁷ Harṣa⁵⁸ and Subandhu.⁵⁹ Besides this he has sometimes mentioned authors like Dhvanikṛt, Rudraṭa, Dhanika, Abhinava, Bhoja and, sometimes referred also to their views and criticised these.⁶⁰ All this adds to the great value of his work.
(f) Sāhityadarpaṇa and Nāṭakaparibhāṣā, Viśvanātha Kavirāja, who flourished about the thirteenth century⁶¹ was a poet and a scholar and in this latter capacity he wrote among other things the famous Sāhityadrapaṇa which treats all branches of the Skt. literature including drama. It was the sixth chapter of this work dealing with drama on which the early western writers of the ancient Indian drama mostly depended. For his treatment of drama Viśvanātha seems to have utilised the Nāṭyaśāstra,⁶² the Daśarūpa⁶³ and its commentary Avaloka⁶⁴ as well as the work of Rudraṭa and others.
Śiṅga-Bhūpāla's Nāṭakaparibhāṣa is known only in name. But his Rasārṇavasudhākara⁶⁵ also treats of drama towards its end, It seems that no important treatise on drama was written after all these works.
⁵⁵ Śāradātanaya's debt to NŚ has been pointed out by the editor of his work, see Introduction of BhP. pp. 64-67. ⁵⁶ See above note 1. ⁵⁷ See above notes 33-37.
⁵⁸ See above notes 31-32. ⁵⁹ See above note 41.
⁶⁰ BhP. pp. 175, 179, 95, 150, 327, 82 160, 194, 313, 12, 152, 194, 213, 216, 242, 245, 251. ⁶¹ Skt. Poetics, Vol. 1. pp. 233 ff.
⁶² See SD. 281, 306, 321, 503, 517, 537.
⁶³ See SD. Viśvanātha wrongly a ascribed to Dhanika what belongs to DR. (III. 32-33). This misled some scholars to believe that Dhanika and Dhananjaya were not different persons. ⁶⁴ See Skt. Poetics. Vol. I. pp. 242 ff.
⁶⁵ Ed. Trivandrum Oriental Series, 1916. .
LXXI
VI. The Natyasastra : The Text and its Commentators
1. Its Author
The Nāṭyaśāstra is commonly attributed to Bharata Muni.¹ But Bharata cannot be taken as its author, for in the Nāṭyaśāstra itself his mythical character is very obvious, and the majority of the Purāṇas are silent about the socalled author of the Nāṭyaśāstra², and there is not a single legend about him in any of the extant Purāṇas or the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata. The word Bharata which originally meant 'an actor' seems to have given rise to an eponymous author of the Bharataśāstra or the Naṭaśāstra (the manual of actors).
2. Its Two Recensions
Whoever might be the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra it is certain that the work itself possesses undoubted signs of great antiquity, and one of these is that its text is available in two distinct recensions. In having two partly divergent recensions the Nāṭyaśāstra can well be compared with works like the Nirukta, the Bṛhaddevatā and the Śakuntalā. The editors of these works have differently settled the claims of their shorter and longer recensions. At first sight the tendency would be to accept the shorter recension, as representing the original better, because elaboration would seem in most cases to come later. But opinion is divided in this matter: Pischel regarded the longer recesion as being nearer the orginal³, Macodonell has also given his verdict in favour of the longer recesion⁴ but he has not ventured to reject the shorter recension entirely as being late, and Lakshman Sarup has definitely suggested that the shorter recension is the ealier one.⁵ All these go to show that the problem of the relation between two recensions of any ancient work is not so simple as to be solved off-hand. So in this case also we should not settle the issue with the idea that the longer recension owes its bulk to interpolations.
The text-history of the Nāṭyaśāstra shows that already in the tenth century the work was available in two recensions. Dhanañjaya the author of the Daśarūpa quotes from the shorter recension while Bhoja, who closely follows him, quoted from the longer one.⁶ Abhinava in his commntry of the Nāṭyaśāstra, however, used the shorter recension as the basis of his work.⁷ It is likely that the long time which passed since then has witnessed at least minor changes, intentional as well as unintentional, in the
¹ See IHQ. Vol. VI, 1930. pp. 72 ff, Annals of BORI, Vol. XV, 1934, p. 90 fn.
² See NŚ.I. 2-5 note 2.
³ Kalidasa's Sakuntala, HOS. p. XI.
⁴ The Bṛhaddevatā, HOS. Vol. I. p. XVIII-XIX.
⁵ Introduction to the Nighaṇṭu and Nirukta, p. 39.
⁶ Preface to Baroda ed. of NŚ, Vol. I. p. 8.
⁷ See above, note 6.
lxii
text of both the recensions. Hence the problem becomes still more difficult. But a careful examination of the rival recensions may give us some clue to their relative authenticity. Ramakrishna Kavi who has examined no less then forty Mss of the text, is of opinion that the longer recension (which he calls B.) seems to be ancient, although it contains some interpolation (pointed at by him) going back to a time prior to Abhinava.⁸ Mr. Kavi, however, does not try to explain the origin of the shorter recension which he calls A. This view regarding the relative authenticity of the longer recension seems to possess justification. Reasons supporting it are to be found in the tests differentiating the two recensions, which are as follows :
(i) Chapters XIV and XV of the shorter recension dealing with prosody introduce the later terminology of Piṅgala (ra, ja, sa, na, and bha gaṇas etc.) while the longer recension uses terms like laghu and guru in defining the scheme of metres.
(ii) The shorter recension in its chapter XV gives definitions of metres in Upajāti, while the corresponding chapter (XVI) of the longer recension gives them in Anuṣṭup metre and in a different order. Considering the fact that the bulk of the Nāṭyaśāstra is written in this (Anuṣṭup) metre the longer recension in this case seems to run closer to the original work.⁹
Though Ramakrishna Kavi, has overlooked it, there is yet another point which may be said to differentiate the two recensions. The chapter dealing with the Nāṭyaguṇas and Alaṃkāras have nearly forty ślokas differently worded in the two recensions. These ślokas in the longer recension (ch. XVII) are written in the usual simple language of the Nāṭyaśāstra while (ch. XVI) in the shorter recension (the ślokas) betray a later polish. The opening stanzas of the chaptar (XVI) in the shorter recension are in Upajāti metre while in the longer recension (ch. XVII) they are in the śloka metre. This points to the earlier origin of the latter for the bulk of the Nāṭyaśāstra as has been pointed out before is composed in the same metre. Now the shorter recension which appears to be of later origin, does not seem to be totally devoid of worth. It appears that this has in certain cases preserved what once existed but are now missing in the longer recension. The cases in which the shorter recension gives in a different language the corresponding passages of the longer recension may be explained by assuming that the passages in question were probably written from memory of the original in the prototype of the recension.
3. Unity of the Natyasastra
Some scholars have entertained a doubt the unity are authorship of the Nāṭyaśāstra. They think that there are indications that "it (the
⁸ See above note 6.
⁹ See above note 6.
LXXIII
Nāṭyaśāstra) has been subjected to considerable rehandling in later times before it assumed the present shape........"
The alleged indications may be summed up as follows :
(i) The colophon at the the end of the KM. text of the Nāṭyaśāstra. (ii) The mention of Kohala as the future writer on certain topics in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XXXVI. 63). (iii) Bhavabhūti's reference to Bharata Muni, the socalled author of the Śāstra, as the Tauryatrika-sūtrakāra. (iv) The mention of the sūtra, the bhāṣya and the kārikā as its constituent parts in the Nāṭyaśāstra itself along with the the existence of prose passages in it. As for the first alleged indication Dr. S. K. De has tried to connect the colophon of the Nāṭyaśāstra (samāptaś cāyam Nandi-Bharata-saṃgīta-pustakam with the chapter on music only.¹⁰ He opines that the Nandi-Bharata of the colophon indicates that the chapters on music (XXVIII-XXXIII) are Bharata's original teaching on the subject as modified by the doctrine of Nandi. If we could accept the view it would have been easy to believe in the composite authorship of the Nāṭyaśāstra. But this does not seem to be possible for the following considerations :
(a) The colophon in question stands at the end of two Mss. copied from the same original and are missing in all the rest of the available Mss.
(b) The word saṃgīta occurring rarely in the Nāṭyaśāstra includes according to Śārṅgadeva (c. 1300 A.C.) gīta (song), vādya (instrumental music) and nṛtya or nṛtta (dance). Hence the colophon may be taken in relation to the entire text and not with the chapters on music alone.
(c) Nandi as a writer or authority on saṃgīta alone has not been mentioned anywheres else.
As for the prediction that Kohala will treat certain topics not discussed in the Nāṭyaśāstra, it may be said that there is nothing in it to show that Kohala is later than the author of this treatise. He was in all likelihood a predecessor or a contemporary of his.
The most important of all the alleged indications of the plural authorship of the Nāṭyaśāstra is the third one. The idea that the work was originally written in prose and was subsequently turned into verse, arose probably from a misunderstanding of the word sūtra. In spite of its traditional definition as alpākṣaram asandigdhaṃ sārvad viśvatomukham etc. there is nothing in it to show that the sūtra must always be in prose. Indeed the Nāṭyadarpaṇa-sūtra is entirely in verse, and the Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra of the Mahāyāna Buddhists is partly in verse and partly in prose. In the Maṅgalācaraṇa Ślokas of his commentary Abhinava too mentions the extant Nāṭyaśāstra as the Bharatasūtra. Thus on taking the sūtra in its oldest sense, the theory of the supposed original prose version of the Nāṭyaśāstra falls to the ground. The existence of the prose passages in the Nāṭyaśāstra does not in the least help this theory, and
¹⁰ Skt. Poetics, Vol 1. p. 24. , ¹¹ Ed. GOS. Baroda, 1929.
J
LXXIV
it may be explained on the assumption that the author found it more convenient to write certain things in prose. All this will remove the difficulty in understanding the words of Bhavabhūti who mentioned Bharata as the sūtrakāra.
4. It Scope and Importance
It has already been shown what a great variety of topics the Nāṭyaśāstra discusses in connection with its principal theme, the dramatic art. In sharp contrast with almost all the later writers on the subject its author treats of dramaturgy as well as histrionics. In justification of this two-fold aspect of this work Abhinava says that ‘it is for the guidance of the producers as well as playwrights’¹². As the drama in any form is primarily and essentially a spectacle, laws of its production should be considered indispensable for the playwrights. It is a wellknown fact that many good literary dramas often get rejected by the theatrical directors because of their construction being found unsuitable for successful and profitable repersentation in the stage. The author of the Nāṭyaśāstra was evidently conscious about this vital connection between the literary and technical aspects of a drama, and treated of both very elaborately. It is a very unique text dealing with every possible aspect of the dramatic theory and practice. It is no wonder therefore that the Nāṭyaśāstra was often quoted or referred to in later treatises on gestures, poetics, music, prosody and even on grammar, besides being often laid under contribution by commentators of different Sanskrit and Prakrit plays. And all the later writers on dramaturgy too depended greatly if not excusively on this work, and most of them expressly mentioned their debt to the Muni Bharata, the supposed author of the Nāṭyaśāstra.
5. Its Style and Method of Treatment
In style the Nāṭyaśāstra differs very largely from all the later writers on drama who professed adherence to it and formulated their rules in a concise manner. Those latter are sometimes so very brief, that without the help of a commentator they are not easily intelligible. Though some passages remain obscure without a commentary or similar help yet the major portion of the Nāṭyaśāstra is written in a simple language in the Śloka and the Āryā metres. Though composed mainly in verse, a very small number of its passages are in prose. As the work is in the form of dialogue between Bharata, its mythical author, and some ancient sages, it has some similarity with the Purāṇas. One of the charge, brought against the Nāṭyaśāstra is that it is very diffuse. This is true. On a careful examination of his method of treatment it will be found that the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra, like the famous Pāṇini, treated of the subject analytically. He has taken
¹¹ Ag. I p. 7.
¹² Haas, p. XXVIII.