नाट्यशास्त्रम् (प्रथम भाग - अभिनवभारती एवं हिन्दी टीका सहित)
Natyashastra of Bharata Muni with Hindi Commentary (Vol 1)
भरत मुनि / आचार्य अभिनवगुप्त द्वारा
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.
LXXV
up individual topics and considered them in every possible detail and has found it necessary to repeat things for the completion of the matter in hand. This has given it diffuseness. But the adoption of this method was unavoidable in a technical work which aimed at completeness. This however may be said to have rendered it difficult to some extent. The difficulty with which we moderns are confronted in studying this ancient work, is however primarily due to its discussing an art which has pratically gone out of vogue for quite a long time. That the text was transmitted through a defective Ms. tradition is no less responsible for occasional difficulties it presents.
6. The Early Commentators
According to Śārṅgadeva (SR. I. 1. 9) the commentators who set themselves to the task of explaining or elucidating the Nāṭyaśāstra are Lollaṭa, Udbhaṭa, Śaṅkuka, Abhinavagupta and Kīrtidhara. Abhinava in his commentary refers in addition to Bhaṭṭa Yantra and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka who may be taken as commentators of the Nāṭyaśāstra, and quotes from of one Bhāṣya and one Vārtika. The Vārtika however seems to be an independent treatics on drama though the Bhāṣya an old commentary. But in the absence of suitable data our knowledge about the date of these commentators and the nature as well as the value of their work, is very inadequate. We are however discussing below whatever meagre informations may be gathered about them.
(a) Ācārya Kīrtidhara and Bhāṣyakāra Nānyadeva. Abhinava has referred to Kīrtidhara only once.¹⁴ But from the special respect shown him by the commentator who calls him ācārya, it appears that Kīrtidhara was a very early commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra, and as such he was possibly anterior to Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa and hence may be placed in the 6th or the 7th century.¹⁵ And Nānyadeva¹⁶ quoted by Abhinava as the author of the Bharata-Bhāṣya seems to be another early commentator of our text.
(b) Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa. Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa's¹⁷ opinion has been thrice quoted by Abhinava. As his views were controverted by Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa who flourished in the 8th century it is possible that Udbhaṭa was a person of the early 8th or the late 7th century.¹⁸ Though it has been doubted¹⁹ whether Udbhaṭa was really a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra, from the reference to his work by Abhinava we may be fairly certain in this matter.
¹⁴ Ag. I. p. 208. Cf. Skt. Poetics, Vol. I. p. 29.
¹⁵ Cf. Skt. Poetics, I. p. 39.
¹⁶ He should be distinguished from his namesake who was a king off Mithila in the 12th century (see JASB for 1915, pp. 407 ff.)
¹⁷ Ag. II. pp. 70, 441, 451, De's. Ms. pp. 392.
¹⁸ See Skt. Poetics, I. pp. 75ff.
¹⁹ Skt. Poetic, I. pp. 37 ff.
LXXVI
(c) Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa has been referred to as many as eleven times.²⁰ From these he appears to be a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra. As the rasa theory of Śaṅkuka was known to have been levelled against Lollaṭa's view on the same, this latter writer flourished possibly in the middle of the 8th century.²¹
(d) Śrī Śaṅkuka. Abhinava referred to Śrī-Śaṅkuka or Śaṅkuka as many as fifteen times.²² About his time we seem to have some definite information. For he is probably identical with the author of the poem Bhuvanābhyudaya written during the Kashmīrian king Ajitāpīḍa whose date is about 813 or 816 A. C.²³
(e) Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka has been referred to as many as six times by Abhinava.²⁴ Besides explaining and elucidating the Nāṭyaśāstra, at least in part, he wrote on the Dhvani theory an independent work named the Hṛdayadarpaṇa. He has been placed between the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century.²⁵
(f) Bhaṭṭa Yantra. From the single reference to him in Abhinava's commentary it appears that Bhaṭṭa Yantra²⁶ was a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra. About him nothing more can be said except that he preceded the celebrated commentator.
7. Bhatta Abhinavagupta
Among the commentators of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Abhinavagupta or Abhinava is the most wellknown. But his fame rests also on his commentary on the Dhvanyāloka as well as numerous learned treatises on the Kashmir Śaivism. From the concluding portion of some of his books we learn a few facts of his family history, and on the strength of these he has been placed between the end of the 10th and the begining of the 11th century.²⁷ From the Abhinavabhāratī we learn that his another name was Nṛsiṃhagupta.²⁸
Although like any other work of this class it professes to explain the text, Abhinava's commentary is not always an adequate help for understanding the several difficult passages of the Nāṭyaśāstra. This drawback might be due to its defective text tradition, but a careful study of it will convince any one that all its weak points cannot be explained away on this assumption alone. There are instances of Abhinava's not being sure about the explanation offered, for example, the word kutapa is once explained as
²⁰ Ag. I. pp. 208, 266, 279, 299 ; II. pp. 134. 196, 415, 423, 436, 452. De's Ms p. 386.
²¹ Skt. Poetics. Vol. I. pp 38-39.
²² Ag. I. pp. 74, 217, 274, 285, 293, 298, 318 ; II. pp. 411 ; 436. De's. Ms. pp 403, 413, 437, 441, 448, 469.
²³ See Skt. Poetics, I pp 38-39.
²⁴ Ag. I. pp. 4, 26, 278, II. p. 298, De's MS pp. 500, 508.
²⁵ Skt Poetics, I. pp. 39ff.
²⁶ Ag. I. p. 208.
²⁷ Skt. Poetics, I. pp. 117ff.
²⁸ See Ag. De's. Ms. pp. 428, 511.
LXXVII
'four kinds of musical instruments'²⁹ and next as 'a group of singers and players of musical instruments'³⁰ and then again as 'four of musical instruments',³¹ while explaining the mattavāraṇī he gives four different views³² and does not give special support to his own preference. Besides this, his explanation in some cases seem to be fanciful. For example, he explains khaṇḍana as (meaning) 'also fanning by means of a fan made of palmleaf'.³³ This evidently is wrong, for in the same context vyajanakam 'fanning' has been mentioned, and khaṇḍana may better be interpreted as 'drawing patterns or designs'.³⁴ But such instances are not many. That Abhinava had as the basis of his commentary a defective text of the Nāṭyaśāstra, is apparent from its published portion, and his text was in places to some extent different from any of the versions that have reached us. It is due to this latter fact that sometimes particular passages of the commentary cannot be connected with any portion of the text (given above the commentary) in the Baroda edition. For example, once Abhinava writes "here are four ca-kāras",³⁵ but in the text indicated by the pratīka two cā-kāras only are available. And curiously enough a part of this text quoted elsewhere³⁶ in the commentary corroborates the available reading of the text. In another place of Abhinava's commentary we have the word ālambhana explained, but we look in vain for it in the text.³⁷ The same is the case with avyatireka and āgama occuring in the commentary later on.⁴⁸ And some responsibility for its reduced usefulness must be ascribed to the fact that Abhinava had his commentary based on an imperfect text of the Nāṭyaśāstra.
There is still another reason due to which Abhinava's work does not prove to be quite adequate for our need. It is probably because he wrote the commentary with a view to help scholars of his time, whose knowledge on many things relating to the Indian drama, theatre and general literature he could easily assume, his commentary sometimes falls short of our needs.
But in spite of these limitations Abhinava's work has its value. Whenever he has to explain any theory or problem concerning the dramatic art or general aesthetics, he does it very exhaustively by quoting all possible views on the same and often cites examples from a vast number of dramatic and other works some of which have perished. Often he sums up the discussion in a masterly fashion. That he was a voluminous writer on the abstruse philosophical topics gave him some facility in handling such matters. But, for the purpose of reconstructing the theory and practice of the ancient Indian drama, such scholastic discussions are often not of much value, though students of Indian poetics and aesthetics will surely
| ²⁹ Ag. I. p. 73. | ³⁰ Ag. I. p. 65. | ³¹ Ag. I. p. 186. |
| ³² Ag. I. pp. 64-65. | ³³ Ag. I. p. 41. | ³⁴ See note 2 on IX 61-64 |
| ³⁵ Ag. II. p. 34. | ³⁶ Ag. I. p. 203. | ³⁷ Ag. II. p 34. |
| ³⁸ Ag. II. pp. 97, 225. |
LXXVIII
be profited by their perusal. But it must be said of Abhinava's commentary that it gives considerable help in understanding some difficult passages of the very old obsolete text of the Nāṭyaśāstra, and for this we should be genuinely greatful to him.
VII. Data of India's Cultural History in the Natyasastra
Besides giving all sorts of information relating to the dramaturgy and histrionics as well as the allied arts of dance and music, the Nāṭyaśāstra includes considerable other materials for the cultural history of India. The most important among these will be discussed below under their several heads.
1. Language
The Nāṭyaśāstra gives some description of Pkt. (XVIII. 1-25) and examples of Dhruvā songs in Pkt. (XXXII). From these materials it seems that the Pkt. of the Nāṭyaśāstra lie mid-way between the Pkt. of the classical dramas and that of Aśvaghoṣa's plays. Besides this there occur in this work (XVIII. 44, 48) some references about the nature of languages used by the ancient tribes like the Barbaras, Kirātas, Āndhras, Dramiḍas, Śabaras and Caṇḍālas. There are besides other interesting matters relating to the language used by men of different professions and status in life.
2. Literature
In addition to Prakrit verses given as examples of Dhruvās, the Nāṭyaśāstra cites numerous poetical stanzas in Skt. as examples of the Benediction and of the different metres (V. 108-112, 130-131 : XVI). These are very early specimens of the ancient Indian literature. It is on the testimony of these which are free from the artificiality of the later classical poetry, that P. Regnaud placed the Nāṭyaśāstra about the beginning of the Christian era (Introduction to Grosset's ed. of the NŚ. p. VII-VIII). The Nāṭyaśāastra contains also the earliest available discussion on figures of speech (alaṃkāra), and the method of criticism based on the theory of Sentiments (rasa) which became very popular amongst Indian scholars during the medieval times.
3. Art
In the Viṣṇudharmottara (II. 2. 4) it has been said that the canons of painting are difficult to understand without an acquaintance with the canons of dancing. Now the Hindu drama as we have seen before depends a great deal on dance which is in fact its mainstay. The same work similarly connects the canons of painting with the canons of image-making. Thus the three arts being connected with one another, the Nāṭyaśāstra receives an aditional importance. This view is justified by the fact that the Nāṭyaśāstra describes various male postures (sthāna) such as Vaiṣṇava,
LXXIX
Samapāda, Vaiśākha, Maṇḍala, Ālīḍha and Pratyālīḍha (XI. 50-71), and female postures (sthāna) (XIII. 159-169) such as Āyata, Avahittha and Aśvakrānta. These and the various gestures described in the Nāṭyaśāstra may also be helpful in studying specimens of the ancient sculpture and painting. It should be noted in this connection that the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra a medieval encyclopoedic work while describing the rules of making images describes (ed. GOS. Vol. II. p. 301ff) the hand gestures etc. almost in the language of the Nāṭyaśāstra.
4. Metrics
Fiftyeight varieties of metre of sama, ardhasama and viṣama types have been described in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XVI). All these are perhaps anterior in time to the Chandaḥ-sūtras of Piṅgala. One important aspect of this description is that the name of the following metres are different in the NŚ. e. g. Drutavilambita = Hariṇapluta (NŚ), Bhujaṅgaprayāta = Aprameyā (NŚ), Sragviṇī = Padminī (NŚ), Mālinī = Nāndīmukhī (NŚ), Hariṇī = Vṛṣabha-ceṣṭita (NŚ), Mandākrāntā = Śrīdharā (NŚ), Pṛthvī = Vilambita-gati (NŚ), Kusumita-latā-vellitā = Citralekhā (NŚ).
5. Poetics
The Nāṭyaśāstra enumerates (XVII. 43-106) four poetic figures (alaṃkāra), ten Guṇas and ten faults (doṣa) of a composition. In brief these may be called the earliest writings on poetics. To the theory of Sentiment (rasa) and the States (bhāva) (VI-VII) also the same remark applies.
6. Costumes and Ornaments
Detailed descriptions of ornaments, and directions about costumes to be used by characters in a play according to their social status, profession, religious faith, and tribal origin etc. are given in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XXIII. 1-67, 110-127). These may throw interesting light on the social life of the Indian people in the remote past.
7. Mythology
The Nāṭyaśāstra mentions (I-V, XXXIII-XXXIV, XXXVI) numerous gods, goddesses, demigods etc. Classified according to the system adopted by Hopkin in his 'Epic Mythology' they are as follows :
(a) Lower Mythology : Serpent, Birds, Waters. (b) Spirits : Pitṛs, Bhūtas, Rākṣasas, Asuras, Daityas, Dānavas, Yakṣas, Guhyakas. (c) The eight great gods ; The Sun-God, the Moon-God, the Wind-God, the Fire-God, the God of death, Varuṇa and Ocean, Indra, the Dikpālas (World-protector). (d) The Host of Spirits : Gandharvas, Apsarasas, Kāma, Aśvins, Maruts, Rudras, Viśvedevas, Ādityas, (e) Divine Seers : Bṛhaspati, Nārada, Tumburu. (f) Earthly Ṛṣis and Personages :
LXXX
Bala (deva), Nahuṣa, Sanatkumāra. (g) The Three Supreme Deities : Brāhman, Viṣṇu, Śiva. (h) Lesser God : Kārtikeya. (i) Goddesses : Sarasvatī, Lakṣmī, Umā, Pārvatī, Caṇḍikā, Siddhi, Medhā, Smṛti, Mati, Niyati, Nirṛti. It is probably significant that Gaṇeśa and the Avatāras of Viṣṇu are absent from this list.
8. Geography.
In its chapters XIV, XVIII and XXIII the Nāṭyaśāstra mentions some geographical names such as Aṅga, Anta (Anti) rgiri, Andhra, Avanti, Arvuda, Āvarta, Ānarta, Uśīnara, Oḍra, Kaliṅga, Kāśmīra, Kośala, Khasa, Tāmralipta, Tosala, Tripura, Dākṣiṇātya, Dramiḍa, Nepāla, Pañcāla, Pulinda (bhūmi), Pauṇḍra, Prāgjyotiṣa, Prāṁśu-pravṛtti, Plavaṅga, Bahirgiri, Brahmottara (Suhmottara), Bhārgava, Magadha, Madraka, Malavartaka, Mahārāṣṭra, Mārgava, Mālava, Mahendra, Mosala, Vaṅga, Vatsa, Vanavāsa, Vārtika (Mārtika), Vāhlīka, Vidiśā, Videha, Śūrasena, Śālaka, Sindhu, Surāṣṭra, Sauvīra, Gaṅgā, Carmaṇvatī, Vetravatī, Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Mekala, Kālapañjara, Himālaya, Vindhya, Bhārata.
9. Ethnological Data.
The names of the following tribes occur in the Nāṭyaśāstra. Kāśi, Kosala, Barbara, Andhra, Dramiḍa, Ābhīra, Śabara, Caṇḍāla, Śaka, Pallava (Pahlava) and Yavana. From the costumes and colours to be assigned to their body it may be possible to trace them historically.
10. Ars Amatoria.
The Nāṭyaśāstra mentions Kāmitantra or Kāmatantra (XXV. 38, 53-567) and Kāmaśāstra (XXXV. 46). But as it divides women into twenty-four classes, and Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra into four classes these names do not seem to relate to the Kāmasūtra which probably comes later.
11. Arthasastra.
The Nāṭyaśāstra is of opinion that "The members of the court (sabhāstāra) should be appointed after consulting the views of Bṛhaspati who thinks that the following are the qualities required for this office. "They should be always ready for work, alert, free from indolence, undaunted by hard work, affectionate, forbearing, modest, impartial, skillful, trained in polity and good manners, deeply conversant with the art of argumentation and all other branches of knowledge, and not affected by sexual passion and the like" (XXXIV-87-90). The word sabhāstāra which has been translated here as a member of the court, occurs in the Smṛti of Vyāsa who holds that this officer should hold discussion about morals (dharmavākya) for the edification of those who are present (in court). In Mbh 4.1.24, however sabhāstāra appears only as a courtier (sabhya, Nīlakaṇṭha) who is particularly interested in gambling (Jolly, Hindu law and Custom, pp. 287-288).
LXXXI
The description of the king, the senāpati, the amātya and the prāḍvivāka as given in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XXXIV. 78-87) might well have been taken from the now lost work of Bṛhaspati recognised by Kauṭilya as one of his sources. The Nāṭyaśāstra gives besides one interesting information that the inmates of a royal palace included a snātaka (XXXIV. 64-69) and that there was besides a functionary named kumārādhikṛta (XXXIV. 76-77). As the definition has been lost, it is not possible to know what his duty was. Can he be identified with the kumārāmātya mentioned in Samudragupta's inscription ?
12. Psychology.
The Nāṭyaśāstra seems to be the first in recognizing the twofold importance of psychology in connexion with the production of a play. Its classification of Heroes and Heroines according to their typical mental and emotional states (XXIV. 210ff., XXXIV. 15ff). proves its admission of the importance of psychology on the creative side of the dramatic art ; for with the complete knowledge of all possible reactions of different objects and incidents upon such Heroes and Heroines, the playwright as well as actors and actresses could attain the greatest possible success in characterisation. On the critical side also the importance of psychology was discovered by the Hindu theorists almost simultaneously. It was realised early that no strictly objective standard of beauty ever existed, and the enjoyment of a theatrical production consisted of peculiar reactions which the art of the playwright as well as that of the actors could successfully evoke in spectators of different types. It is on this assumption that the theory of Sentiments and States (VI-VII) important alike for the criticism of the theatre and the belles lettres has been elaborated by the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Such a view does not allow any kind of dogmatism in the criticism of art and literature, and will make due allowance for the views of people who may widely differ in their tastes because of their varying cultural equipment.
VIII. The Date of the Natyasastra
More than sixteen years ago, a careful investigation of the linguistic, metrical, geographical and ethnographic data, of the evidence to be drawn from the history of poetics and music, of the Kāmaśāstra and the Arthaśāstra, and from inscriptions the present writer came to the conclusion that the available text of the Nāṭyaśāstra existed in the second century after Christ, while the tradition which it recorded may go back to a period as early as 100 B.C. (The Date of Bharata-Nāṭyaśāstra", in the JDL. Vol. XXV. 1934).¹ Since this conclusion was made, a more intensive
¹ For a bibliography on the Date of the NS. see this paper p. 1,
K