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

LXXXII

study of the text as well as accession of fresh data has confirmed the writer's belief in its soundness. These additional materials are being discussed below.

1. The Geographical Data

Geographical names occur in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XIV. 36ff.) mostly in connexion with pravṛttis or Local Usages which seem to be a later conception and not at all indipensable for understanding the theatrical art as explained in the Nāṭyaśāstra. In fact the authors of the Daśarūpa and the Nāṭakalakṣaṇa, who speak of the vṛttis are absolutely silent on pravṛttis which are connected with them. Considering the fact that these works depend a great deal on the Nāṭyaśāstra their omission of this item may be taken as very significant. Geographical names occuring in connexion with the pravṛttis are found in the Mbh. and some of the Purāṇas, some of these being almost in the same sequence (see D. C. Sircar, "Text of the Puranic Lists of Peoples" in IHQ. Vol. XXI., 1945, pp. 297-314). It seems that some interpolator put them into the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra, for associating it with all the different parts of India, though the original work was an exposition of the dramatic art as it was practised in the northern India especially in the midland only. Hence the geographical data should not be used in determining the date of our text.

2. The Natyasastra earlier than Kalidasa

The argument that a particular dramatist who disregards any rule laid down in the Nāṭyaśāstra, will be earlier than it in time, will reverse the accepted chronological relation between the Nāṭyaśāstra and Kālidāsa.

(a) Though the fact has been overlooked by earlier writers on the subject, Kālidāsa too violates the rules of the Nāṭyaśāstra on the following points :

(i) Though the prescribed rule (XIX. 33) is that the king's wives should be given names connected with the idea of victory, some of Kālidāsa's royal Heroines have been named as follows : Dhāriṇī, Irāvatī (Mālavi.) Haṁsapadikā, Vasumatī (Śak,).

(ii) It is also in disregard of the rule (XIX. 34) prescribing for the handmaids (preṣyā) the names of various flowers, that Kālidāsa has Nāgarikā, Madhukarikā, Samābhṛtikā, Nipuṇikā, Candrikā, Kaumudikā (Mālavi.), Parabhṛtikā, Caturikā (Śak.) as the names of handmaids in his play. Vakulāvalikā (Mālavi.) is possibly an exception.

(iii) Though the prescribed rule (XIX. 34) is that the names having an idea of auspiciousness, should be given to the menials, Kālidāsa has Raivataka and Sārasaka (Mālavi.) as the names of servants.

(iv) The term svāmin has been used by an army-chief (senāpati) in addressing the king (Śak. II) in violation of the prescribed rule that it should be used for the crown-prince (XIX. 12).

LXXXIII

(v) Besides these, Kālidāsa has written elaborate Prologues to his plays, though the Nāṭyaśāstra does not recognize anything of this kind as a part of the play proper. These as well as the departures from the rules in Bhāsa's play, may be taken as great dramatists' innovations which as creative geniuses they were fully entitled to.

(b) Besides these there seems to be other facts which probably go to show that Kālidāsa knew the present Nāṭyaśāstra. They are as follows :

(i) Kālidāsa uses the following technical terms of the Nāṭyaśāstra : aṅgahāra, vṛtti, sandhi, prayoga, (Kumāra, VII. 91), aṅga-sattva-vacanāśrayaṁ nṛttam (Raghu, XIX. 36), pātra, prāśnika, sauṣṭhava, apadeśa, upavahana, śākhā, vastu, māyurī mārjanā (Mālavi.)

(ii) Kālidāsa mentions the mythical Bharata as the director of the celestical theatre (Vikram, III).

(iii) According to Kāṭayavema, Kālidāsa in his Mālāvi. (I. 4.0 ; 21.0) refers to particular passages in the Nāṭyaśāstra (I. 16-19 ; NŚ (C.) XXX, 92ff.)

3. The Mythological Data

In the paper mentioned in the beginning of this chapter the present writer was mistaken in his interpretation of the word mahāgrāmaṇī which does not mean Gaṇapati as Abhinava the reputed commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra opines (see notes on III.1-8.). The absence from the Nāṭyaśāstra of this deity who does not appear in literature before the fourth century speaks indeed for the great antiquity of this work.

4. The Ethnological Data

The Nāṭyaśāstra in one passage (XXIII. 99) names Kirātās, Barbaras and Pulindas together with Andhras, Dramilas, Kāśīs and Kosalas who were brown (asita, lit. not white), and in another passage (XVIII. 44) names Andhras and Dramilas together with Barbaras and Kirātas. Āpastamba the author of the Dharmaśūtra who lived at the latest in the 300 B.C. belonged to the Andhra land (Jolly, Hindu Law and Custom, p. 6 and also P.V. Kane, Hist. of the Dharmaśāstra. Vol. I. p, 45). Hence it may be assumed on the basis of these names that the Nāṭyaśāstra was in all likelihood composed at a time when a section at least of the Andhras and the Dramilas (forefathers of the modern Tamils) were still not looked upon as thoroughly civilized. Such a time may not have been much after the beginning of the Christian era.

5. The Epigraphical Data

Sylvain Lévi has discovered parallelism between the Nāṭyaśāstra and the inscriptions of the Indo-Scythian Ksatrapas like Chastana who are referred to therein as svāmi a term applicable, according to the Śāstra to

LXXXIV

the yuvarāja or crown-prince (I. Ant. Vol. XXXIII. pp. 163f). Though MM.P.V. Kane (Introduction to the SD. p. viii) has differed from him, Lévi's argument does not seem to be without its force. It may not be considered unusual for common persons who are intimate with him to show the future king an exaggerated honour by calling him svāmin a term to be formally applied to the reigning monarch only. Besides the argument put forward by Lévi, there may be collected from the inscriptions other facts too which may incline us to take 200-300 A.C. as the time of the compilation of the Nāṭyaśāstra. These are as follows :

(a) The word gāndharva probably in the sense in which the Nāṭyaśāstra uses it (XXXVI. 76) occurs in the Junagarh Rock inscription of Rudradaman, I (150 A.C.). This also mentions terms, like sauṣṭhava and niyuddha which we meet in the Nāṭyaśāstra probably in the same sense (Junagarh Inscription of Rudradaman I. See Select Inscriptions, pp. 172-173).

(b) The respect for 'Cows and Brahmins' (go-brāhmaṇa) which the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra shows at the end of his work (XXXVI. 77) has its parallel in the inscription referred to above. And respect for Brahmins also finds expression in more than one inscription belonging to the 3rd century A.C. (op. cit. pp. 159, 161, 165)

(c) The three tribal names Śaka, Yavana, and Pahlava appearing in the inscription of Vasisṭiputra Pulomayi (149 A.C.) occur in the same order in the Nāṭyaśāstra (op. cit., p. 197,) and NŚ.

The cumulative effect of all these data seems to be that they may enable us to place the Nāṭyaśāstra about 200 A.C., the time of these inscriptions.

6. The Natyasastra earlier than Bhasa

Lack of conformity to the dramaturgic rules of the Nāṭyaśāstra has sometimes been cited as an evidence of the antiquity of Bhāsa, the argument being that as he wrote before the rules were formulated, he could not observe them. This view however, seems to be mistaken. For the rules occurring in the Nāṭyaśāstra cannot, for obvious reasons, be the author's fabrication without relation to any pre-existent literature.¹ If the Nāṭyaśāstra was written after Bhāsa's plays, its rules had every chance of having been a generalisation from them as well as from numerous other dramatic works existing at the time, while the contrary being the case (i.e. Bhāsa being later than the Nāṭyaśāstra) some novelties are likely to be

---

¹ F. Hall in his Introduction (p. 12) to the Daśarūpa says : At all events, he (Bharata) would hardly have elaborated them (the rules) except as inductions, from actual compositions.

LXXXV

introduced by the dramatist in disregard of the existing rules. It is on this line of argument that the chronological relation between Bhāsa and the Nāṭyaśāstra, will be judged below.

(a) On no less than three points, Bhāsa seems to have disregarded the rules of the Nāṭyaśāstra. These are as follows :

(i) The sūtradhāra (Director) begins the plays, though according to the Nāṭyaśāstra the sthāpaka (Introducer) should perform this function (V. 167).

(ii) In contravention of the rule of the Nāṭyaśāstra (XX. 20) Bhāsa allows death in Act I of Abhiṣeka.

(iii) In the Madhyama-vyāyoga and the Dūtaghaṭotkaca, Bhāsa does not give the usual bharatavākya (final benediction) and what he gives in its stead, may be an innovation.

Hence it may be assumed that the Nāṭyaśāstra was completed before the advent of Bhāsa,.

(b) Besides this, there seems to be some good evidence in his works to show that the dramatist was acquainted with this ancient work on drama. For example, he mentions in a humorous context the Jester confounding the Nāṭyaśāstra (Avi. II 0. 38-39) with the Rāmāyaṇa. Bhāsa's mention of some technical terms as well as the acquaintance which he shows with some special rules of the Nāṭyaśāstra may also be said to strengthen the above assumption.

(i) First, about the technical terms. They are : sauṣṭhava, prastāvanā, sūtradhāra, prekṣaka, cārī, gati, bhadramukha, hāva, bhāva, māriṣa, nāṭakīyā, the root paṭha, raṅga.

(ii) The hetaera in the Cārudatta (I. 26, 38.) says within herself, "I am unworthy of being allowed entrance into the harem" (abhāiṇī ahaṁ abbhantara-pavesassa). This seems to refer to the NŚ. XX. 54. The expression, "by means of a Nāṭaka suiting the time" (kālasaṁvādiṇā nāḍaeṇa) in Pratimā. (I. 4. 7) probably points to NŚ. XXVII. 88ff.

(iii) The vocal skill of the hetaera referred to by the Śakāra (Parasite) in the Cārudatta may also be said to point to the elaborate rules regarding intonation (kāku) in the NŚ. XIX 37-8.

(iv) Besides these, expressions like "the two feet made facile in dance due to training" (nṛttopadeśa-viśada-caraṇau) and "she represents the words with all her limbs" (abhinayati vacāṁsi sarvagātraiḥ) in the Cārudatta (I.9.0, 16.0) probably relate to the elaborate discussion on dance and the use of gestures in the Nāṭyaśāstra.

On the basis of all these it may be assumed that Bhāsa was acquainted with the contents of the present text of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Hence

LXXXVI

it may be placed in the 2nd centuary A. C. i.e. one century before the time generally assigned to Bhāsa's works. (Jolly, Introduction to AŚ. p. 10, but according to Konow Bhāsa's date may be the 2nd century A. C. See ID. p. 51).

From the foregoing discussions it may be reasonable to assume the existence of the Nāṭyaśāstra in the 2nd centuary A.C., though it must not be supposed that the work remained uninterfered with by interpolators of later ages. Such an interpolation may exist more or less in all the ancient texts. For example, Aristotle's Poetics too, in its received text, has been suspected to have interpolated passages in it. There are indeed interpolated passages in the Nāṭyaśāstra and some of these have been pointed out¹ and a few more may by some chance be discovered afterwards. But this may not bring down the work as a whole to later times.

---

¹ See notes on XVIII. 6, 48; XX. 63. Besides these cases, the seventeen couplets after XV. 101 and the five couplets after XVI 169 are spurious. For these do not give any important information regarding the art of the theatre or dramaturgy and may be merely scholastic additions. The passage on pravṛttis XIV. 36-55 may also be spurious.

<!-- Blank or illustration plate: Page 84 -->

<!-- Blank or illustration plate: Page 85 -->

THE NĀṬYAŚĀSTRA

CHAPTER ONE

THE ORIGIN OF DRAMA

Salutation

1. With a bow to Pitāmaha¹ (Brahman) and Maheśvara² (Śiva) I shall explain the Canons of Drama³ (Nāṭyaśāstra) which were uttered by Brahman.

Sages question.

2-5. Once in the days of yore, high-souled sages such as, Ātreya¹ and others who had subdued their senses, approached the pious Bharata² the master of dramatic art during an intermission of studies (anadhyāya). He (Bharata) then just finished

---

1 (B. G. same). ¹ Pitāmaha (the Grand-father) is a Purāṇic epithet of the Vedic god Brahman. For, the Pitṛs (the Fathers) such as Aṅgiras, Bhṛgu, Dakṣa and Marīci and others, whose descendants peopled this earth, were their progeny. In the later literature and religion of India, Brahman gradually recedes in the background and practically vanishes. His place is taken by the extra-Vedic Śiva, and Viṣṇu in his fullfledged Purāṇic character.

² Maheśvara (the Great God) is another name of Śiva who is originally a pre-Vedic deity. Salutation to Śiva along with Brahman, is very rare in Indian literature.

³ By 'drama' in this connexion is to be understood any play in its theatrical and literary character. For on this point Ag. (I. p. 7) says that the NŚ. is meant for the producer (of a play) as well as the poet (=playwright). कविप्रयोक्तृरुपदेशपरं शास्त्रमिति.

2-5 (B.G. same). ¹ Ātreya—There are two Ātreyas. One is a disciple of Yājñavalkya (Mbh.) and another that of Vāmadeva (Brahma P.) See Vidyalankar, Jīvanī-koṣa, sub voce.

² Purāṇas except the Matsya (24. 28-30) are silent on this Bharata, the authority on the Canons of Drama.

2	THE NATYASASTRA	[ I. 5-

the muttering of prayers (japa) and was surrounded by his sons. The sages respectfully said to him, “O Brahman, how did originate the Nāṭyaveda³ similar to the Vedas, which you have properly composed? And for whom is it meant, how many limbs does it possess, what is its extent⁴ and how is it to be applied? Please speak to us in detail about it all⁵”.

Bharata answers.

6. Hearing these words of the sages, Bharata began in reply to speak thus about the Nāṭyaveda :

7-12. “Get yourselves cleansed, be attentive and hear about the origin of the Nāṭyaveda devised by Brahman¹. O Brahmins, in the days of yore when the Golden Age (Kṛtayuga)¹ᵃ passed with the reign of Svāyambhuva (Manu), and the Silver Age (Tretāyuga) commenced with the career of Vaivasvata Manu, and people became addicted to sensual

---

³ Nāṭyaveda—The ‘Nāṭyaveda’ according to Ag. is a synonym for the ‘Nāṭyaśāstra’, and is no Vedic work. He (I. p. 4) says : अत्र तु नाट्यस्य वेदः शास्त्रमिति समासः अन्यथा अध्यापनासम्भवात्.

⁴ pramāṇa=extent. Ag. takes the word in the sense of proof (pramāṇaṁ atra niścaya-janakatvam), but he cites another view as well, which takes the word to mean ‘number’ and is as follows : अन्ये तु नाट्यांगतानां रूपकादीनां पाठ्याभिनयरसगीतानां का संख्येति विभागविषयोऽयं प्रश्न इत्याचक्षते.

⁵ From the five questions put in here, it is not to be assumed that the treatment of subjects mentioned will follow the order of these.

6 (B.G. same).

7-12 (B.G. same). ¹ The reference here is to the Nāṭyaveda alleged to have been composed by Brahman in about 36000 ślokas. It is also believed that, later on a shorter work (in 12000 granthas) was based on this great work and it was in the form of a dialogue between Śiva and Pārvatī. This is considered by some to be the Ādibharata or Sadāśivabharata. The present NŚ. contains about 12000 granthas and it is supposed to include the views of the authors of the now extinct Nāṭyaveda (composed by Brahman) as well as of the Ādibharata. See Preface to NŚ. (B.) pp. 6-7. On this point Ag (I. p. 8) says: एतेन सदाशिवब्रह्मभरतमतत्रयविवेचनेन ब्रह्ममतसारताप्रतिपादनाय मतत्रयीसारविवेचनं तद्ग्रन्थसंक्षेपेण विहितमिदं शास्त्रं.

¹ᵃ A. K. Coomaraswamy has freely translated 8-17 (The Mirror of Gestures, New York, 1936, p. 16).

-I. 15 ] THE ORIGIN OF DRAMA 3

pleasures², were under the sway of desire and greed, became infatuated with jealousy and anger and [thus] found their happiness mixed with sorrow, and Jambudvīpa³ protected by the Lokapālas (guardians of the worlds) was full of gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Yakṣas, Rākṣasas and great Uragas (Nāgas), the gods, with Indra (Mahendra) as their head, (approached) Brahman and spoke to him, 'We want an object of diversion, which must be audible as well as visible⁴. As the Vedas are not to be listened to by those born as Śūdras, be pleased to create another Veda which will belong to all the Colour-groups⁵ (varṇa)'.

13. "Let it be so", said he in reply and then having dismissed the king of gods (Indra) he resorted to yoga (concentration of mind)¹ and recalled to mind the four Vedas.²

14-15. He then thought: "I shall make a fifth¹ Veda on the Nāṭya with the Semi-historical Tales (itihāsa),² which will conduce to duty (dharma)³, wealth (artha) as well as fame, will

---

² grāmyadharma—Ag. explains the word differently and as follows : ग्राम्योऽसभ्यताप्रार्थनाकीर्यदेयोचितो धर्मः स्वधर्माननुपालनलक्षणः.

³ According to ancient Indian geography the earth was divided into seven dvīpas (continents). Jambudvīpa is one of them. It included Bhārata-varṣa or Bharata-varṣa, known at present as 'India'. Viṣṇu P. (ch. 1-12). See Winternitz, Hist. of Indian Literature, Vol. I, p. 548.

⁴ On this point Ag. says : दृश्यमिति हृद्यं श्रव्यमिति व्युत्पत्तिप्रदमित्यर्थः.

⁵ This relates to the four classes such as Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra.

13 (B.G. same). ¹ Yoga has been defined in Patañjali's work as cittavṛttinirodhaḥ. It however begins with the concentration of the mind.

² After 13, B. reads one additional couplet. But G. considers this passage to be spurious and puts it in the footnote.

14-15 (B.G. same). ¹ In the early Indian literature the itihāsa alone was considered as the fifth Veda. See Chāndogya Up. VII. 1f. and 7., and Suttanipāta, II.7 (sellasutta). Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra too gives the same position to the itihāsas. See Winternitz, Vol. I. p. 313.

² On itihāsa see note below.

³ dharma also means virtue, law and custom etc.