Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Sanskrit Poetics c5: Part I

History of Sanskrit Poetics c5

Language
English

Contents

Part I

c5.1.1

1. As in many other branches of Sanskrit Literature, so in the Alaṅkāraśāstra also, we come across many writers whose works have not come down to us and who are no more than mere names to us. राजशेखर, for example, in his काव्यमीमांसा (p.1), tells us how the science of Poetics could claim to have been proclaimed by Śiva to Brahmā, from whom it was handed down to others and how it came to be divided into eighteen sections (अधिकरणs), each of which taught in this world by a particular teacher: ‘तत्र कविरहस्यं सहस्राक्षः समाम्नासीत्, औक्तिकमुक्तिगर्भः, रीतिनिर्णयं सुवर्णनाभः, आनुप्रासिकं प्रचेतायनः, यमकानि चित्रं चित्रभटः, शब्दश्लेषं शेषः, वास्तवं पुलस्त्यः, औपम्यमौपकायनः, अतिशयं पाराशरः, अर्थं उतथ्यः, उभयालङ्कारिकं कुबेरः, वैनोदिकं कामदेवः, रूपकनिरूपणीयं भरतः, रसाधिकारिकं नन्दिकेश्वरः, दोषाधिकारिकं धिषणः, गुणौपादानिकमुपमन्युः, औपनिषदिकं कुचुमारः, इति.’ It is doubtful how far this list is authentic or whether most of the writers named are mythical. It is, however, to be noted that सुवर्णनाभ and कुचुमार appear as teachers of the सांप्रयोगिक and औपनिषदिक sections of Erotics in the कामसूत्र (I. 1. 13 and 17), while Bharata’s work dealing with Rūpakas (plays) has come down to modern times. सुवर्णनाभ is frequently mentioned by the कामसूत्र (vide I. 5. 23; II. 2. 23; II. 5. 34; II. 8. 7 &c.). Nandikeśvara is said in the above passage to have written a treatise on Rasas. This is probable.

c5.1.2

The last chapter in the Kāvyamālā edition of the Nātyaśāstra ends with the words नन्दिमतसङ्गीतपुस्तकम्. On p. X of the Introduction to the second volume of the अभिनवभारती (GOS) the editor quotes the following from Abhinavagupta's comment on chapter 29 ‘यत्कीर्तिधरेण नन्दिकेश्वरमतमत्रागमितत्वेन दर्शितं तदस्माभिः साक्षात् दृष्टं तत्प्रत्ययात् लिख्यते संक्षेपतः...एवं नन्दिकेश्वरमतानुसारेणायं चित्रपूर्वरङ्गविधिरिति निबद्धः।’ Abhinava says that he has not himself seen Nandikeśvara's work, but relying on Kirtidhara he would briefly point out what Nandikeśvara means. Abhinava knows Nandimata from which he quotes a verse on the aṅgahāra called recita ( vide GOS. vol. I. p. 171 ). The भावप्रकाशन of शारदातनय ( chap. 3 ) says that Nandikeśvara taught nāṭya to Bharata and asked the latter to teach it to bharatas (actors). A work called अभिनयदर्पण in 324 verses attributed to नन्दिकेश्वर has been edited ( with an English translation and a learned Introduction ) by Prof. Manomohan Ghosh in the Calcutta S. Series (1934). The first verse is : आङ्गिकं भुवनं यस्य वाचिकं सर्ववाङ्मयम् । आहार्यं चन्द्रतारादि तं नुमः सात्त्विकं शिवम् ॥¹. It refers to the legend of Brahmā delivering the नाट्यवेद to भरत and mentions भरतमुनि and his doctrines by name in numerous places (e. g. verses 12, 128, 149, 159, 162 &c.). This work differs from the Nāṭyaśāstra in certain particulars, but, as it mentions Bharata and his āgama frequently, it must be much later than the present Nāṭyaśāstra.

c5.1.3

A work called भरतार्णव is described in the Catalogue, vol. XII, of the Govt. mss. at the BORI at pp. 460-463. It deals with abhinaya and tāla and appears to be a compilation made from the work of Nandikeśvara by one Sumati. Kāśyapa is recognized as a muni that preceded Bharata and his opinion on rāgas is cited by Abhinava (Intro. p. X to 2nd Vol. of अभिनवभारती, G. O. S.). Three verses of Kāśyapa are quoted by कल्लिनाथ on सं. र. II. 2. 31. काश्यप is cited as an authority on metrics in Agnipuraṇa chap. 336. 22. Vide Dr. De in HSP vol. I. p. 2 note 2. In the ms. 41 of 1924-28 of the A. B. at the Bhandarkar O. Institute pp. 384-391 about 75 verses are quoted from Kaśyapamuni.² The भावप्रकाशन (I. p. 2) quotes a number of expounders of नाट्य such as सदाशिव, गौरी, वासुकि, नारद, अगस्त्य, व्यास, आग्नेय and the pupils of भरत. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (I. 15-19) mentions a host of divine, semi-divine and human authors among whom we have सदाशिव, ब्रह्मा, भरत, कश्यप, मतङ्ग, कोहल, नारद, तुम्बर, आग्नेय, नन्दिकेश्वर. नान्यदेव wrote a work called भरतभाष्य or सरस्वतीहृदयालंकारहार which is a commentary in verse on chapters 28-33 of the भरतनाट्यशास्त्र (dealing with music) and mentions मतङ्ग, विशाखिल, काश्यप and वृद्धकाश्यप, नन्दिन, दन्तिल as ancient authorities. नान्यदेव is identified with king नान्यदेव of मिथिला (1097-1133 A. D.). Vide description below of D. C. ms. No. 111 of 1869-70 described in Des. Cat. of Govt. mss. at B. O. R. I. Vol. XII pp. 377-383 and Mr.

c5.1.4

Ramkrishna Kavi's paper on the same in J. A. H. R. S. vol. I. pp. 56-63. It is possible that Parāśara in the above quoted passage of काव्यमी० means बादरायण, who is mentioned as a भरतपुत्र in the नाट्यशास्त्र I. 32 (बादरायणि in Ch. ed.) and whose views on नान्दी and तोटक are quoted by सागरनन्दिन (in ना. ल. र. को. ll. 1091, 2770, 3202-3). The हृदयङ्कमा, a commentary on the काव्यादर्श, informs us that काश्यप and वररुचि had composed works on Poetics before the काव्यादर्श - 'पूर्वेषां काश्यपवररुचिप्रभृतीनामाचार्याणां लक्षणशास्त्राणि संहत्य पर्यालोच्य' (on I. 2) and 'पूर्वसूरिभिः काश्यपवररुचिप्रभृतिभिः' (on II. 7). The com. श्रुतानुपालिनी on the काव्या० mentions काश्यप, ब्रह्मदत्त and नन्दस्वामी as the predecessors of दण्डिन. The Simhalese sija-bas-lakara, a work on rhetoric, after paying homage to ब्रह्मा, शक्र and बृहस्पति, refers to a sage काश्यप (J. R. A. S. 1905 p. 841). All these works are no longer available. Vide मत्स्यपु. X. 25 for वररुचि as नाट्यवेदपारग.

c5.2

¹ This verse occurs in सं. र. VII. 1 also.

c5.3

² ‘अत्र टीकाकारः शङ्कते योऽयं जात्यंशकानां विनियोग उक्तः स कश्यपमुनिमतादिभिर्विरुध्यते । ...अत्राहुः । काश्यपादैस्तान्मालव-कैशिकानां तत्सन्निधदृत्त्या जीवनौचित्यं दृष्ट्वा विनियोग उक्तः ।’; see अभिनवभारती on chap. 29 p. 384. Then about 75 verses follow, the last half of which is: इत्येष कश्यपाद्युक्तो विनियोगो निरूपितः ।

c5.4

The question naturally arises :-what is the most ancient extant work on the Alaṅkāraśāstra? Some comparatively modern writers on Alaṅkāra have put forward the Agnipurāṇa as the original source of all later teachings on this śāstra. Therefore, the claims of the अग्निपुराण must be carefully examined.¹

c5.5

¹ For detailed discussion of this question, vide my paper in I. A. vol. 46, 1917, pp. 173 ff.

2. The Agnipurāṇa.

c5.s1.1

महेश्वर in his काव्यप्रकाशदर्श says 'सुकुमारान्राजकुमारान् स्वादुकाव्यप्रवृत्तिद्वारा गहने शास्त्रान्तरे प्रवर्तितुमग्निपुराणादुद्धृत्य काव्यरसास्वादकमलङ्कारशास्त्रं कारिकाभिः संक्षिप्य भरतमुनिः प्रणीतवान्.' Similarly, the कृष्णानन्दिनी, a commentary on the साहित्यकौमुदी of विद्याभूषण, says 'काव्यरसास्वादनाय वह्निपुराणादिष्टतां साहित्यप्रियां भरतः संक्षिप्य कारिकाभिनिर्बबन्ध.'

c5.s1.2.1

The अग्निपुराण has been frequently printed in India (in the B. I. series, Ānandāśrama series and at the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press in Bombay). Chapters 336–346 of the B. I. edition deal with subjects falling within the province of Poetics. Chapters 336–346 of the B. I. edition correspond to chapters 337–347 of the Ānan. ed. of the Agnipurāṇa; unfortunately, the readings of the Agnipurāṇa presented in the Ānan. ed. are much worse than those in the B. I. ed. In this work the B. I. text has been followed. The edition brought out by the Veṅkaṭeśvara Press, Bombay, follows the Ānan. ed. of the Agnipurāṇa in the numbering of the chapters. It may be noted that, according to the Matsyapurāṇa 35. 28–30 and Skandapurāṇa VII (Prabhāsakhaṇḍa) 1. 2. 47–50 (यत्तदीशानकल्पस्य वृत्तान्तमधिकृत्य च । वसिष्ठायाग्निना प्रोक्तमाग्नेयं तत्प्रचक्षते ॥...तच्च षोडशसाहस्रं सर्वक्रतुफलप्रदम् ॥), the Agni is 16000 verses in extent, deals with the incidents of Īśānakalpa and is narrated to Vasiṣṭha by Agni. The extant Agni states (in chap. 271. 11) that its extent is 12000 ślokas and that it expounds all the vidyās. In the first chapter Vasiṣṭha requests Agni (verse 12) to instruct him in the essence of vidyās, by knowing which a man may become omniscient. The extant Agnipurāṇa has about 11500 verses (and not 16000). In the last chapter (382.

c5.s1.2.2

51–64) it states that all vidyās have been dealt with and it enumerates the several subjects treated of such as the avatāras, Gītā, Rāmāyaṇa, Bhārata, Harivaṃśa, the Āgamas, āśauca, prāyaścitta, rājadharma, vyavahāra, vratas & c. Chapters 122–148 contain a summary of युद्धजयार्णव. We have hardly any means for judging which parts were in the original Agnipurāṇa and which were interpolated later. The commentary of Maheśvara and that on Vidyābhūṣaṇa quoted above apparently make no distinction between Agnipurāṇa and Vahnipurāṇa. But there is a Vahnipurāṇa that is different from the extant Agnipurāṇa as Eggeling's Catalogue of India Office Sanskrit mss. part 6 pp. 1294 ff clearly shows. Vide Prof. Hazra's papers ‘On present Agni’ in I. H. Q. Vol. XII pp. 683–691, ‘Studies in genuine Āgneya alias Vahnipurāṇa’ in ‘Our Heritage’ vol. I part 2 pp. 209–245, and vol. II part 1 pp. 70–109 and ‘Discovery of genuine Āgneyapurāṇa’ in JOI (Baroda) vol. V (1956) pp. 411–416. Most of the passages quoted in the दानसागर and अद्भुतसागर of बल्लालसेन (3rd quarter of 12th century A. D.) from the Agnipurāṇa are not found in the present Agnipurāṇa, and in many extracts the interlocutors are Vasiṣṭha and king Ambariṣa (and not Agni and Vasiṣṭha as in the current Agni). It appears that the old Agnipurāṇa was recast and then it assumed the present form. Vide J. O. R., Madras, Vol. XII p. 129 at pp. 134-135 (for the paper ‘Purāṇas known to Ballālasena’). Chapter 336(=337 of Ānan.

c5.s1.2.3

ed) defines a Kāvya, classifies Kāvyas into संस्कृत and प्राकृत (of three sorts) into गद्य, पद्य and मिश्र; subdivides these and defines in particular कथा, आख्यायिका, महाकाव्य. Chapter 337 deals with topics of dramaturgy (such as twelve kinds of dramas, उपरूपकs, प्रस्तावना, the five अर्थप्रकृतिs, the five सन्धिs). Chapter 338 speaks of the rasas together with the स्थायिभावs, अनुभावs, व्यभिचारिभावs, the आलम्बन-विभाव and उद्दीपनविभाव, the various kinds of heroes and their companions and the heroines (नायिका), the eight qualities of heroes and the twelve vibhāvas of heroines. Chapter 339 speaks of the four ritis, पाञ्चाली, गौडी, वैदर्भी and लाटी and the four वृत्तिs, भारती, सात्त्वती, कैशिकी (कैशिकी?) and आरभटी. Chapter 340 contains a description of the various natural movements of the principal limbs (head, hands, feet &c.) and other parts of the body (eyebrows &c.) in dancing. Chapter 341 dilates upon the four kinds of अभिनय (acting), सात्त्विक, वाचिक, आङ्गिक and आहार्य. Chapter 342 defines and divides शब्दालङ्कारs, viz. अनुप्रास, यमक (of ten kinds), चित्र (seven varieties), 16 kinds of प्रहेलिकाs, bandhas called गोमूत्रिका, सर्वतोभद्र &c. Chap. 343 deals with अर्थालङ्कारs (such as उपमा, रूपक सहोक्ति &c, their definitions and sub-divisions). Chap. 344 is spoken of as dealing with शब्दार्थालङ्कारs, but therein are included such figures as आक्षेप, समासोक्ति, पर्यायोक्त. Chapters 345 and 346 dwell respectively upon the गुणs and दोषs of काव्य.

c5.s1.2.4

There are in all 362 verses in these chapters.

c5.s1.3

It is not possible to give here even a brief analysis of the contents of the 11500 verses of the Agnipurāṇa. It is an encyclopaedia dealing with all sorts of subjects in which mediaeval India was interested.

c5.s1.4

The evidence for determining the date of the Agnipurāṇa (and particularly of the sāhitya portion) and for examining whether it can be regarded as the oldest extant work on Poetics is as follows:—

c5.s1.5

(a) The अग्निपुराण refers to the seven kāṇḍas of the रामायण, to the हरिवंश, to पिङ्गल (327. 1, 336. 22), पालकाप्य, शालिहोत्र, धन्वन्तरि and सुश्रुत. It contains (chap. 380 ) a short summary in 58

c5.s1.6

श्लोकs of the भगवद्गीता by combining half verses of the latter. Chapters 359-366 contain lexical matter almost the whole of which is identical with the verses and portions of verses of the अमरकोश. It cannot be supposed that all these works (the गीता, अमरकोश &c.) borrowed from the अग्निपुराण. It must be supposed that the अग्निपुराण in its desire to give summaries of every branch of literature drew upon the lexicon that was most popular when the purāṇa was compiled. Various dates have been assigned to अमरसिंह. Prof. Macdonell (H. S. L. p. 433) thinks it not improbable that he flourished about 500 A. D. Max Müller says that the अमरकोश was translated into Chinese in the 6th century (India; what can it teach us? 1st. ed. p. 232). Dr. Hoernle (JRAS 1906 p. 940) places the अमरकोश between 625 and 940 A. D. rather on shadowy grounds. Mr. Oak places it in the 4th century A. D. Taking even this early date, the अग्निपुराण, if it borrowed from the अमरकोश, cannot be earlier than the 6th or 7th century A. D., as a good deal of time must have elapsed before the अमरकोश could attain a pre-eminent position as a lexicon.

c5.s1.7

(b) The अग्निपुराण says that the rīti Bhāratī was so called because it was promulgated by भरत (भरतेन प्रणीतत्वाद्भारती रीतिरुच्यते । chap. 339. 6). भरत says that he promulgated the four vṛttis by order of Brahmā and that the भारतीवृत्ति was so called after the Bharatas (मया काव्यक्रियाहेतोः प्रक्षिप्ता द्रुहिणाज्ञया ।। ...स्बनामधेयैः भरतैः प्रयुक्ता सा भारती नाम भवेत्तु वृत्तिः ।। नाट्य. 22. 23 and 25, K. M. ch. 22. 23 and 25 = GOS ed. chap. 20. 24-26. This shows that the अग्निपुराण had before it the नाट्यशास्त्र of भरत (or at least the portion dealing with वृत्तिs). Though the नाट्यशास्त्र knows works of the purāṇa class (अन्येष्वपि देशाः प्राच्यां ये पुराणे संप्रकीर्तिताः । नाट्य. 14. 46, K. M. 13. 46), yet it nowhere alludes to the अग्निपुराण.

c5.s1.8

(c) There are numerous verses in the अग्निपुराण that are identical with verses of the नाट्यशास्त्र. Compare नाट्य. 6. 36 first half and अग्नि. 338. 12; नाट्य. 6. 39 and अग्नि. 348. 7-9; नाट्य. 22. 28-29 and अग्नि. 337. 11-12; नाट्य. 17. 63-65 and अग्नि. 342. 15-17. Taking the express statement of the Purāṇa that it was to be an encyclopaedia of all vidyās and the character of the two works into consideration it will have to be conceded that it is the अग्निपुराण that borrows.

c5.s1.9

(d) The definitions of रूपक, उत्प्रेक्षा, विशेषोक्ति, विभावना, अपह्रुति and समाधि given by the अग्निपुराण (343, 23, 24-25, 26-27, 27-28).

c5.s1.10

344. 18, 13 respectively) are almost the same as those of the काव्यादर्श (II. 66, 221, 323, 199, 304, I. 93 respectively). Besides these, there are many phrases and half verses that occur in both works, e. g.—पद्यं चतुष्पदी तच्च वृत्तं जातिरिति त्रिधा (अग्नि. 336. 21 and काव्या. I. 11); सा विधा नौस्तितीर्षूणां गम्भीरं काव्यसागरम् (अग्नि. 336. 23 and काव्या. I. 12); अग्नि. 336. 29 and काव्या. I. 16; अग्नि. 336. 25 and काव्या. I. 15. It has not been possible to point out (except in two instances, viz. काव्या. II. 226, the well known verse लिम्पतीव &c. and 276 अथ या मम. &c.) that Daṇḍin borrows his definitions or even examples from others. Daṇḍin belongs, as will be shown later on, to the latter half of 7th century. So the अग्निपुराण, if it borrows from the काव्यादर्श, must be later than this date.

c5.s1.11

(e) The definitions of रूपक, आक्षेप, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, समासोक्ति and पर्यायोक्त are almost identical in भामह (II. 21, 68, III. 29, 8, II. 79) and the अग्निपुराण (343. 22; 344. 15; 344. 16; 344. 18; 344. 17). भामह distinctly states that he composed his own examples and also himself settled the definitions of figures (स्वयंत्नैव निदर्शनैरियं मया प्रक्लप्ता खलु वागलंकृतिः। भामह II. 96; गिरामलङ्कारविधिः सविस्तरः स्वयं विनिश्चित्य धिया मयोदितः। III. 58). भामह, as shown below, is not earlier than 700 A. D.

c5.s1.12

(f) It appears that the अग्निपुराण was aware of the theory of dhvani promulgated in the Dhvanikārikās and elaborately set forth in the Dhvanyāloka. It says that ध्वनि will be included in some one out of पर्यायोक्त, अपह्नुति, समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, आक्षेप; स आक्षेपो ध्वनिः स्याच्च ध्वनिना व्यज्यते यतः अदं एषामेकतमस्येव (स्यैव ?) समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः। अग्नि. 344. 14 and 18. This shows that though the अग्निपुराण knew the theory of ध्वनि it was not willing to subscribe to it. This view of the अग्निपुराण is similar to the view of भामह and उद्भट as said by the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व—'इह हि तावद्भामहोद्भटप्रभृतयश्चिरन्तनालङ्काराः प्रतीयमानमर्थं वाच्योपस्कारकतथालङ्कारपत्निक्षिप्तं मन्यन्ते। तथाहि—पर्यायोक्ताप्रस्तुतप्रशंसासमासोक्त्याक्षेप्यास्तुल्युपमेयोपमानन्वयादौ वस्तुमात्रं गम्यमानं वाच्योपस्कारकत्वेन स्वसिद्धये पराक्षेपः परार्थ स्वसमर्पणमिति यथायोगं द्विविधया भङ्ग्या प्रतिपादितं तैःः' (p. 3). Vide also ध्व० 'पर्यायोक्तेऽपि यदि प्राधान्येन व्यंग्यत्वं तद्भवतु नाम तस्य ध्वनावन्तर्भावः। न तु ध्वनेस्तत्रान्तर्भावः।' (p. 45-46): Therefore, it can be argued that the portion on Poetics in the अग्निपुराण is not much later than the ध्वन्यालोक. The latter work, it will be seen, was composed in the latter half of the 9th century. It is further to be noted that two verses (अपारे काव्यसंसारे &c. and शृङ्गारी चेत्कवि; &c.) occur in the अग्निपुराण (338. 10-11 = 339.

c5.s1.13

10-11 of Ānan. ed.) and in the ध्वन्यालोक (p. 278). In the latter these verses are introduced with the words तथा चेदमुच्यते and so it is argued that the ध्वन्यालोक is merely quoting from another work. But these verses are followed, by a brief discussion which winds up with the words ध्वनिरेव प्राधान्येन काव्यमिति स्थितमेतत् (pp. 278-9). In this connection it has to be remembered that on the very preceding page (277) the ध्वन्यालोक introduces two verses with the words तदिदमुक्तं which are explained by अभिनवगुप्त as मयैवेत्यर्थः, thereby showing that those verses are of आनन्दवर्धन himself. One fails to see any difference between तदिदमुच्यते and तदिदमुक्तम्. So the two verses on p. 278 of the ध्वन्या. should be deemed to be आनन्दवर्धन's own and it should be held that the लोचन did not add ‘by me the author of ध्वन्या.’, because it had explained two verses occurring in the same context as composed by आनन्दवर्धन and because the occurrence of च (in तथा चेदमुच्यते) at the time of quoting the two verses on p. 278 and its non-occurrence on p. 277 (तदिदमुक्तम्) indicate that the two verses on p. 278 are the author's own. Dr. De. (in H. S. P. vol. I p. 103) holds, without assigning any substantial reason, that it is Ānandavardhana that borrows from the Agnipurāṇa. Dr. De ( H. S. P. vol. II p. 255 n. ) persisted in his view that Ānandavardhana borrows the two verses on p. 278 from the Agnipurāṇa, though it was brought to his notice by the late Prof. Sovani that Abhinava expressly ascribes the authorship of one of the two verses to Ānandavardhana in his comment on the Nāṭyaśāstra VI. 36-37 (G. O. S. ed. vol. I p. 295) “कविर्हि सामाजिकतुल्य एव । तत एवोक्तं ‘शृङ्गारी चेत्कविः’ इत्याद्यानन्दवर्धनाचार्येण”. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Agnipurāṇa not only knew the Dhvani theory but actually borrowed two verses from the Dhvanyāloka. Prof. Batuknath Bhattacharya (Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. IX p. 129) states that ‘the Agnipurāṇa shows no trace of the Dhvani theory.’ But in this he is quite wrong as the above discussion will show. In chap. 339 (Ānan ed) the अग्निपुराण names the Rasas, the sthāyi-bhāvas, sāttvika-bhāvas (i. e. the रस theory) and in chap. 345. 18 it includes ध्वनि under such alaṅkāras as समासोक्ति, अपह्रुति, पर्यायोक्त ‘पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते । एषामेकतमस्यैव समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः ।’.

c5.s1.14

(g) In the 5th chap. of S. K. Ā. the first four verses present in a brief compass Bhoja's Rasa theory of one Rasa Śṛṅgāra as Ānanda-Ahaṅkāra-Abhimāna-Rasa. This is propounded at great length in the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa in chap. XI. The Agnipurāṇa (in chap. 338. 1-4) briefly touches this doctrine: अक्षरं परमं ब्रह्म सनातनमजं विभुम्। वेदान्तेषु वदन्त्येकं चैतन्यं ज्योतिरीश्वरम्॥ आनन्दः सहजस्तस्य व्यज्यते स कदाचन। व्यक्तिः सा तस्य चैतन्यचमत्कारसाहया॥ आद्यस्तस्य विकारो यः सोऽहङ्कार इति स्मृतः। ततोऽभिमानस्तत्रेदं समाप्तं भुवनत्रयम्॥ अभिमानादतिः सा च परिपोषमुपेयुषी। व्यभिचार्यादिसामान्याच्छृङ्गार इति गीयते॥ तद्भेदः काममितरे हास्याद्या अन्यनेकशः (अग्नि० 338. 1-5); vide Agnipurāṇa, 341. 3 also. But the Agnipurāṇa, caring only for presenting the essence of several theories, tries to round off the theory of Ānanda-Ahaṅkāra-Abhimāna-Rati by introducing in verses 7-9 the usual theory of eight or nine rasas based on Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra. It is not possible to believe as Dr. De does (in H. S. P vol. II p. 334) that Bhoja built his all-embracing and elaborately worked out theory on the confused verses of the Agni (chap. 338). In chap. 338. 54 and 339 (verses 1-4) the Agnipurāṇa deals with four kinds of रीतिs (styles), viz. पाञ्चाली, वैदर्भी, गौडी, and लाटी. The functions of these closely resemble what Bhoja says in the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa (vide Dr. Raghavan in J. O. R, Madras vol. X p. 768-779 wherein he criticizes some of the statements of Prof. P. C. Lahiri in I. H. Q. vol. IX pp. 448 ff, and in his Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa vol. I part I pp. 196-201). It is therefore proper to hold that the Agnipurāṇa which is not an original work on any subject but a mere encyclopaedic compilation most probably derived its inspiration from Bhoja.

c5.s1.15

It has been shown by me in my H. of Dh. vol. I pp. 170-173 that the Vyavahāra chapters (252-257) of the Agni borrow about 30 verses from Nāradasmṛti in chap. 252 and about 280 verses from the Yājñavalkyasmṛti in the other chapters.

c5.s1.16

The foregoing discussion goes to establish that the अग्निपुराण is later than the 7th century at least and that the section on Poetics was certainly compiled about or a little after 900 A. D. and probably after 1050 A. D.

c5.s1.17

It is significant that no early writer on Poetics quotes from or refers to the Agnipurāṇa. मम्मट quotes from the विष्णुपुराण but nowhere refers to the अग्निपुराण. The first Alaṅkāra writer of note who distinctly mentions the अग्निपुराण as an authority on Poetics is विश्वनाथ (14th century), who quotes अग्नि 336. 3-4 (in साहित्यदर्पण under I. 2) and 337. 7 (त्रिवर्गसाधननाट्यं), although works on धर्मशास्त्र such as अपरार्कटीका and the अद्भुतसागर of बल्लालसेन (begun in 1168 A. D.) refer to the Agnipurāṇa as an authority. But भरत's नाट्यशास्त्र is quoted with reverence by the ध्वन्यालोक, the लोचन and other early writers. Even भामह and दण्डी appear to refer to him as an authority as will be shown later on. Therefore, the अग्निपुराण is later than भरत, भामह, दण्डी, the ध्वन्यालोक and probably भोज and has no claim to be regarded as an original work on the अलङ्कारशास्त्र. Moreover, mediaeval writers, guided by their reverence for Purāṇas in general, because they were ascribed to the mythical Vyāsa, naturally looked upon the अग्निपुराण as the most ancient work on the अलङ्कारशास्त्र.

c5.s1.18

3. The Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata. For several reasons the Nāṭyaśāstra must be regarded as the oldest extant work on the theory of Sanskrit Poetics. The work contains the first exposition of the rasa theory (for which see part II) and also contains considerable information upon many topics pertaining to the Alaṅkāraśāstra.

c5.s1.19

When I wrote this history of Alaṅkāra Literature in 1923 for prefixing it as an Introduction to my edition of the Sāhityadarpaṇa the only complete edition of the Nāṭyaśāstra that was available was the one in the Kāvyamālā series. Later on in 1929 Pandit Batuknath Sharma and Pandit Baladeva Upādhyāya published in the Kashi Sanskrit Series ( often cited as the Chowkhamba S. Series ) a complete edition of the Nāṭyaśāstra based on two mss. that appear to have been different from those used for the original K. M. edition. In 1929 Mr. Ramkrishna Kavi brought out the first volume of the Nāṭyaśāstra containing chapters 1-7 together with the very important and learned commentary of Ācārya Abhinavagupta in the Gaekwad Oriental Series. The 2nd volume containing chapters 8-18 together with the commentary called Abhinavabhāratī in the colophons as well as by later writers such as Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his com. on the Śākuntala was published in 1934. The third volume containing chapters 19-27 with the Abhinavabhāratī, edited by Mr. Kavi, was published in the G. O. S. in 1954. Prof. Manmohan Ghosh has brought out a translation of chapters 1-27 of the Nāṭyaśāstra for the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1950) with a lengthy Introduction, pp. XXXV-L of which deal with the attempts of scholars to publish various chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra and the remaining pages deal with many matters such as the meaning of nāṭya, vṛttis, literary structure, kinds of plays, plot and its development, play-house, costumes and make-up, early and later writers on Drama, the two recensions and commentators of the Nāṭyaśāstra.

c5.s1.20

In this brief Introduction it is impossible for want of space to go deeply into the question of the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Certain important points alone will be noted. The mss. and the editions do not agree as to the number of ślokas in each chapter, about the number of chapters and also about their places in the book. The recent K. M. edition contains 37 chapters, while the Ch. edition contains 36, the last chap. combining into one the two chapters of the K. M. edition viz. 36 and 37. Abhinava in his 2nd Introductory verse ( षट्त्रिंशकं भरतसूत्रमिदं विवृण्वन ) and on p. 8 of vol. I ( मध्ये षट्त्रिंश्याख्यायां ) says that there are 36 chapters. Abhinava further says that the extent of the Nāṭyaśāstra is 6000 ślokas (each śloka being taken as equal to 32 syllables); further, no two corresponding chapters of the two editions have the same number of verses (except chap. 6 and chap. 19 of K. M.=21 of Ch. on Sandhyangas). Chapter IX of K. M. edition is split into two chapters IX and X in the Ch. ed. Therefore, the numbering of the chapters in the two editions differs from that stage onwards. Some of the verses of chapter 24, sāmānyābhinaya, of the K. M, edition, occur as chap. 34 in the Ch. ed. and the rest (verses 90-115) are placed in chap. 35 of the Ch. ed.

c5.s1.21

Some portions of the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra were published from time to time during the last 85 years. Hall in his edition of the Daśarūpa of Dhanañjaya (B. I. series, 1865 ) added at the end four chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra viz. 18, 19, 20 ( which correspond with chapters 18-20 of K. M. edition, the verses in Hall's edition being respectively 132, 133 and 63 as against 198, 133, 66 of the K. M. edition) and chap. 34 having 121 verses (which corresponds with chap. 24 of K. M. ed. that has only 116 verses and with chap. 34 and a portion of chap. 35 of the Ch. edition ). In Annales du Musee Guimet, vol. II pp. 69 ff. P. Regnaud published two chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra on Metrics, viz. 15th and 16th ( with 68 and 160 verses), corresponding with chapters 14 and 15 of the K. M. ed. ( with 120 and 172 verses ) and chapters 15 and 16 of the Ch. ed. ( with 119 and 169 verses respectively) and chap. 14 and 15 of the G. O. S. ed. ( with 133 and 227 verses respectively ). The same scholar published in his ‘Rhetorique Sanskrite’ (1884) the 6th and 7th chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra in Roman characters and translation in French. The verses in these two chapters of Regnaud’s edition are 84 and 123 ( while K. M. has 84 and 130 and Ch. has 83 and 124 respectively).

c5.s1.22

The above statement is quite sufficient to show that the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra is unsatisfactory and has been tampered with in almost every chapter. Those who want to go into the question of the additions and alterations made in the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra may read Mr. Kavi’s Intro. to vol. I and II of the Abhinavabhārati. Here again striking variations alone can be noted.

c5.s1.23

I. From a verse in the Vikramorvaśīya of Kālidāsa (II.18) it follows that in his day Bharata-muni was credited with having declared that the rasas in Nāṭya were eight and that he represented a play before Indra with Apsarases as actresses ( मुनिना भरतेन यः प्रयोगो भवतीष्वष्टरसाश्रयः प्रयुक्तः । ललिताभिनयं तमध भर्ता मरुतां द्रष्टुमनाः सलोकपालः ॥). The chief points of this verse are found in the extant Nāṭyaśāstra ( vide Ch. ed. chap. I for the instruction of Bharata in the Nāṭyaveda, performance of a play with the help of Apsarases, verses 47-50, the presence of Śakra and Lokapālas verses 55 ff. and chap. 6. 15 for the eight rasas ‘शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणरौद्रवीरभयानकाः । बीभत्साद्भुतसंज्ञौ चेत्यष्टौ नाट्ये रसाः स्मृताः ॥’). The Ch. edition closes the 6th chapter with the verse (एवमेते रसा ज्ञेयास्तष्टौ लक्षणलक्षिताः । 83). The काव्यादर्श ( II. 292 इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसवत्ता स्मृता गिराम् ) shows that even in the 7th century the recognized rasas were only eight. Abhinavagupta notes that some people did not recognize nine rasas but only eight and that in old mss. he found a disquisition on śānta rasa and its sthāyibhāva śama. ‘ये पुनर्नैव रसा इति पठन्ति तन्मते शान्तस्वरूपमभिधीयते । G. O. S. vol. I p. 333; and again “तस्मादस्ति शान्तो रसः । तथा च चिरन्तनपुस्तकेषु ‘स्थायिभावान् रसवमुपनेष्यामः’—इत्यनन्तरं ‘शान्तो नाम शमस्थायिभावात्मकः’ इत्यादि शान्तलक्षणं पठ्यते ।” G. O. S. vol. I p. 340. Regnaud’s edition of chap 6. reads त्वष्टौ नाट्यरसाः स्मृताः. This establishes that Śānta had not been recognised as a rasa at the time of Kālidāsa ( between 350-450 A. D. at the latest ) but had been recognized long before Abhinavagupta (i. e. centuries before 1000 A. D. ) and that Abhinava knew that there were two recensions of N. S. Udbhaṭa in his काव्यालङ्कारसारसंग्रह ( IV. 5. ) mentions nine rasas (शृङ्गारहास्य...नकाः। बीभत्साद्भुतशान्ताश्च नव नाट्यचे रसाः स्मृताः ॥). The भावप्रकाशन ( G. O. S. ed., pp. 46-48 ) appears to hold that Vāsuki added Śāntarasa. Apart from the question whether any reliance is to be placed on this piece of information, it would follow from the facts brought out above that Śāntarasa was recognized in the mss. of the Nāṭyaśāstra at some time after 400 A. D. and before 750 A. D.

c5.s1.24

II. At the end of chapter 5 about 40 verses (KM 181-220, Ch. 176-215 ) are omitted in several mss. and it is noteworthy that Abhinava does not comment on them. They were probably taken over from Nandikeśvara ( vide Intro. to vol. I p. 10).

c5.s1.25

III. Chapters 9 ( verses 207 ) and 10 ( verses 55 ) of the Ch. ed. form one chapter 9 ( verses 267 ) in K. M. edition. Abhinavagupta also puts the two as one.

c5.s1.26

IV. At the beginning of the 15th chap. on metres, Abhinava notes that there were two recensions: तत्रेहाध्याये भरतमुनिकृतमिति त्रिकर्मकारादिभिः कैश्चित् किञ्चिल्लक्षणं स्वीकृतमिति द्विविधः पाठो दृश्यते। मध्ये च चिन्तनाय (? चिरन्तनेषु ) पुस्तकेष्वयमपि पठ्यते इति। अ. भा. vol. II pp. 252-253. The original KM ed. agrees with the latter.

c5.s1.27

V. In chap. 16 of the K. M. ed., and chap. 17 of Ch. ed., the 36 Lakṣaṇas of Nāṭya are enumerated in five anuṣṭubh verses, but in chap. 16 of the G. O. S. edition the enumeration is made in four Upajāti verses. Further, the order of the 36 Lakṣaṇas is not the same in the two lists and only 17 names are common in both. A. B. remarks that Bharata himself employs other names for the Lakṣaṇas which are different from those enumerated by him, that it is due to this that in the mss. there is variation in the names and order of Lakṣaṇas and that it follows the tradition of the author's guru ( Tota ) as to the names and order ( तथा च मतान्तरेण भरतमुनिरेवान्याप्युद्देशलक्षणेन नामान्तरैरपि च व्यवहारं करोति तत एव पुस्तकेषु भेदो दृश्यते तं च दर्शयिष्यामः। पठितोऽहेश्रकमस्त्वस्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागतः। on XVI. 4, vol. II p. 298). This shows that in अभिनव's day there were two recensions of the chapter on लक्षणs. Vide Dr. Raghavan's paper on Lakṣaṇas in J. O. R. Madras, vol. VI pp. 54-82. धनिक on दशरूप 4. 78 and राघवभट्ट in अर्थद्योततिका set out the enumeration in Upajāti, while the Sāhityadarpaṇa and some others give the names as in the Anuṣṭubh verses.

c5.s1.28

VI. It has already been stated that chap. 24 of the K. M. ed. is distributed among two chapters 34 and 35 of the Ch. ed. and that chap. 36 and 37 of K. M ed. become one chapter (36) in Ch. ed. and in अभिनवभारती.

c5.s1.29

VII. In the K. M. edition there are 334 verses in chapter 31, while in the Ch. ed. there are 545 in the same chapter. The new K. M. edition notes (on p. 520) that a block of 92 verses is added in one ms. after the verse आकारवृत्तमन्यस्यात् चतुष्कं त्रिकमेव वा । (verse 293 in K. M. ed. and 397 in Ch. ed). Mr. Kavi notes (in Intro. to vol. II p. XIV) that Abhinava’s text omits only about half of these verses. Mr. Kavi (Intro. to vol. I p. 7) states that he secured 40 mss. of the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra and admits that no two of them agree completely (ibid. p. 9). He also says that there are according to him two recensions of the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra, the northern one and the southern one. The latter is, according to him, the earlier one and the former later.

c5.s1.30

From the statements Mr. Kavi makes in his two Introductions to the two volumes already published and in the footnotes in the two volumes, it appears that the mss. material for the constitution of the text of the Abhinavabhāratī is quite unsatisfactory. There is no ms. which contains the full text of the Abhinavabhāratī on the 36 chapters. The commentary अभिनवभारती itself sometimes appears in two recensions and differs from भरत himself. Vide a paper by Prof. Manmohan Ghosh in I. H. Q. vol. X pp. 161-163 for some examples. Mr. Kavi was not able to secure Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the 7th and 8th chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra (except a few passages at the beginning of the 7th). As the text of the commentary has to be constituted from different incomplete mss. found at places far apart, the text of the commentary presented would be a patched-up and eclectic one and, therefore, unsatisfactory from a critical point of view. As a portion of Abhinava’s commentary on the last verses of the 5th chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra was not available, Mr. Kavi added his own comment thereon (vol. I pp. 253-264). This has misled some scholars into thinking that it was Abhinava’s commentary, in spite of Mr. Kavi’s note at the bottom of p. 253. He should have given, if at all, his commentary in an Appendix at the end. On p. 10 of the Intro. to vol. I Mr. Kavi admits that he gave his own commentary in three other cases in the 4th chapter. This is most unfair. An unwary reader, if he has not gone carefully over the Introduction, would easily be misled.

c5.s1.31

In the circumstances described above about the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra and of the Abhinavabhāratī thereon two questions, that are rather puzzling and difficult of solution, arise, viz. what is the original Nāṭyaśāstra and who is the author.

c5.s1.32

The striking features of the extant Nāṭyaśāstra¹ are:

c5.s1.33

¹ The references are throughout made to the Ch. edition except where it is expressly stated to the contrary.

c5.s1.34

(1) There are prose passages in chapter 6th, 7th (very long ones in both), 14th (about 9 lines on प्रवृत्ति, K. M. chap. 13, p. 216), 15th (four lines on p. 170 on स्वर and व्यञ्जन, K. M. chap. 14 pp. 221-22), 19th (pp. 221-222, 224-25), 28th (several long passages on pp. 318-322 and 326, K. M. chap. 28, pp. 432-439), 33rd ( pp. 433-435, 436, 438-39 several passages of a few lines each, K. M. chap. 34, pp. 611 ff ); 35th ( p. 466 two lines on सूत्रधारगुण, K. M. chap. 24, p. 400 ).

c5.s1.35

(2) There are at least 15 ślokas and 16 āryās described as ānuvaṃśya.

c5.s1.36

(3) Several verses are introduced with the words सूत्रानुबद्धे आर्यें भवतः

c5.s1.37

(4) About 100 verses are cited with nothing more than the words भवन्ति चात्र श्लोकाः, or अत्रार्ये भवतः, or अत्र श्लोकाः.

c5.s1.38

(5) There are over 5000 verses, most of which are in the śloka metre, a few being in other metres such as āryā or upajāti.

c5.s1.39

Each of these features calls for some explanation.

c5.s1.40

(1) The prose passages resemble passages of the Nirukta and are in the sūtra and bhāṣya style. For example, the well-known Rasasūtra passage in chap. VI may be cited here : ‘विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः । को वा दृष्टान्त इति चेत्, उच्यते । यथा नानाव्यञ्जनौषधि...रसत्वमाप्नुवन्ति । ऋषय ऊचुः । रस इति कः पदार्थः । अत्रोच्यते । आस्वाद्यत्वात् ।’. Here the first sentence looks like a sūtra and what follows has the appearance of a bhāṣya. To take another example: ‘व्यभिचारिण इदानीं वक्ष्यामः । अत्राह व्यभिचारिण इति कस्मादुच्यन्ते । वि अभि इत्येतावुपसर्गौ । चर गतौ धातुः ।’ &c., chap. VII p. 84. Such passages may be compared with the Nirukta (e. g. III. 1 अपत्यं कस्मात् भवतत भवति नानेन पततीति वा 1) or with Śabara’s bhāṣya on Jaimini’s sūtras (e.g. को, धर्म: कथंलक्षण: कान्त्यस्य साधनानि कानि साधनाभासानि किं परश्चेति p. 9, Ānan. ed.). It may be noted that Abhinava-gupta calls the Nāṭyaśāstra ‘Bharatasūtra’. The extant work itself suggests (in chap. VI. 9–13 and 31) that it contains sūtras, bhāṣya, saṅgraha, kārikās, nirukta (exposition)¹ &c. Abhinava explains that ‘sūtra’ means ‘definition’ and bhāṣya means ‘investigation or examination that will make clear the sūtra’ (सूत्रं लक्षणं भाष्यं तदव्यक्किरणरूपा परीक्षा, vol. I p. 256). On the word kārikā Abhinava remarks that sūtra also may be called kārikā and the śloka, that is put down after the sūtra having relation to the latter and clarifying the meaning of the latter for easy comprehension, is also called kārikā: सूत्रतः सूत्रयेन तेन सूत्रमपि कारिका। तत्सूत्रमपेक्ष्य या अनु पश्चात्पठिता श्लोकरूपा सापि कारिका। vol. I p. 266. On सूत्रग्रन्थविकल्पनम् (VI. 31 of Ch. ed. and 34 of GOS. ed.) Abhinava says ‘सूत्रं सूत्रकं लक्षणं वक्ष्यामि। तेनैव च कारिका संगृहीता। ग्रन्थो भाष्यं तत्कृतं च विकल्पनाच्चेप्रतिसमाधानात्मकमिति परीक्षा निरुक्तशब्दवाच्या प्रतिज्ञाता। सूत्रविवरस्वभावा तु कारिका सूत्रमपि प्रकाशयन्ती बहुतरक्षेपसमाधानव्याकुलशिष्यजनस्थितिपचं निरूपयेनोपकरोतीति भाष्यस्य पश्चादस्या: पाठ:।’ vol. I. p. 273. On ‘विभावानु...निष्पत्ति:’ the A. B. remarks ‘एवं क्रमहेतुमभिधाय लक्षणसूत्रमाह—विभा०’. On ‘को दृष्टान्त:, अत्राह यथा हि’... A. B. observes ‘अत्र प्रश्ने भाष्येण प्रतिवचनमाह यथेत्यादिना आप्नुवन्तीत्यन्तेन’ vol. I. p. 289. Another example of sūtra and bhāṣya may be given. On pp. 301–302 (vol. I chap. VI) we read: तत्र शृङ्गारो नाम रतिस्थायिभावप्रभव उज्ज्वलवेषात्मक:। &c. The अभिनवभारती notes (p. 303) ‘अत्र रतिस्थायीति सूत्रभागं भाष्येण स्पष्टयति स चेत्यादिना’.

c5.s1.41

¹ विस्तरेणोपदिष्टानामनर्थानां सूत्रभाष्ययो:। निबन्धो य: समासेन संग्रहं तं विदुर्बुधा:॥ रसा भावा ह्यभिनया धर्मीवृत्तिप्रवृत्तय:। सिद्धि: स्वरास्तथातोद्यं गानं रङ्गं च संग्रह:॥ अल्पामिधानेनार्थो य: समासेनोच्यते बुधै:। सूत्रत: सा तु विज्ञेया कारिकाधं-प्रयोगिनी॥...एवमेषोल्पसूनार्थो व्यादिष्टो नाट्यसंग्रह:। अत:परं प्रवक्ष्यामि सूत्रग्रन्थ-विकल्पनम्॥ नाट्य. on VI. 9–11 and 31.

c5.s1.42

Note has to be taken of the fact that Bhavabhūti in his Uttararāmacarita (IV) refers to Bharata as ‘tauryatrikasūtrakāra.’ It should not be supposed that a sūtra work must be entirely in prose. Even such ancient works as the Aitareya and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇas contain verses and Gṛhyasūtras and Dharmasūtras² (of Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha)

c5.s1.43

² Vide for verses in Ap. Dh. Sūtra I. 4. 14. 23, I. 6. 16. 13 (two verses), I. 6. 19. 14–15, I. 9. 25. 10–11, I. 9. 27. 17–11, II. 4. 9. 13. The आश्व. गृ. (I. 3. 10 and IV. 7. 14) has verses and so has the Kauśikagṛhyasūtra 6. 34 (अत्रापि श्लोकौ), 68. 37 (तत्र श्लोकौ).

c5.s1.44

contain verses. In mediaeval times the kārikās in such works as the Kāvya-prakāśa were called sūtras. Therefore, it is quite possible that the original kernel of the Nāṭyaśāstra was in mixed prose and verse.

c5.s1.45

Next we have to consider the significance of the words ‘ānuvaṃśya’ in citing certain āryā and anuṣṭubh verses. In the first place it is important to note that verses headed by these words occur mostly in the 6th and 7th chapters and very rarely in others (such as chap. 19 verses 46-58 of the Ch. ed. and chap. 17 verses 107-119 of the K. M. edition). The expression आनुवंशश्लोक occurs very frequently in the Mahābhārata, e. g. in Ādiparva 95.9, 27, 30-31, 46. In the M. B. simply the word आनुवंशं is also used, e. g., वनपर्व 87. 16 ‘यत्रानुवंशं भगवाआमदग्न्यस्तथा जगौ। विश्वामित्रस्य तां दृष्ट्वा विभूतिमतिमानुषीम्॥’. In वनपर्व 88. 5 we have the word आनुवंश्या applied to गाथा. Vide also वनपर्व 114. 10, 192. 27-29, 193. 13-15. In वनपर्व 129. 8 we read ‘अत्रानुवंशं पठतः शृणु मे कुरुनन्दन’, which is explained by the commentator नीलकण्ठ as ‘परम्परागतमाख्यानश्लोकम्’. The मत्स्यपुराण 271.15 also has an आनुवंशश्लोक. On अत्रानुवंश्यो श्लोकौ occurring before VI. 35-36 A. B. remarks: अत्रति भाष्ये। अनुवंशभवौ शिष्याचार्य-परम्परासु वर्तमानौ श्लोकारथौ वृत्तविशेषौ सूत्रार्थक्षेपप्रकटीकरणेन कारिकाशब्दवाच्यौ भवन्तौ पठति यथेत्यादि। vol. I. p. 290. It should be noted that अ. भा. (vol. I p. 290) on the prose words preceding verses 35-36 (called आनुवंशश्लोकs) explains अत्र as भाष्ये, i. e. it regards the prose passage as भाष्य on the सूत्र ‘विभावा...निष्पत्तिः’.

c5.s1.46

From this it follows that the verses cited as ‘ānuvaṃśya’ had already been composed and had been traditionally handed down from father to son or from teacher to pupil in relation to dramaturgy and were included in the Nāṭyaśāstra, but that they were not the composition of him who composed the Nāṭyaśāstra.

c5.s1.47

As regards the words सूत्रानुविद्धे (v. l. सूत्रानुबद्धे) आर्ये भवतः, they mean that the verses are closely connected with the sūtra that precedes (अनुबद्ध) or that they contain in easy language the meaning of the sūtra (अनुविद्ध). It may be said that such verses are the composition of the author himself. A. B. remarks on ‘अपि च सुख०’ (vol. I. p. 311-12): एवं सूत्रार्थे परीदच स्थापिते तदर्थस्य सुखग्रहणार्थं सूत्रार्थविवरणरूपत्वात्सूत्रसमीप्य्युपचितपाठात् कारिकामधुना पठति अपि चेति। न केवलं सूत्रं परीछापि यावदियं कारिकेति एवं सर्वत्र मन्तव्यम्। तामेव कारिकां पठति सुखेति। These remarks may be applied also to the āryās quoted as sūtrānubaddha.

c5.s1.48

On अत्रार्या: (vol. I. p. 327-28) अभिनवगुप्त says that former teachers had composed and collected together āryās relating to rasas and matters connected with them from which Bharata took verses and inserted them at the proper places under different rasas ‘ता एता आर्या एकप्रबन्धकतया पूर्वाचार्यैर्लक्षणत्वेन पठिता:। मुनिना तु सुखसंग्रहाय यथास्थानं निवेशिता:।’ (vol. I. p. 328). Though the prevailing metre in the Nāṭyaśāstra is Anuṣṭubh it frequently uses other metres also, as e. g. उपजाति (in chap. 20. 26, 41, 53 defining वृत्तis), आर्या in 20. 64, 22. 274-279, 23. 42-62, 25. 95-103. Here G. O. S. ed. is used. Pages slightly vary in ed. of 1956.

c5.s1.49

This shows that at least according to Abhinava the Nāṭyaśāstra contains Āryās not composed by Bharata. The भावप्रकाशन quotes a verse from Vāsuki, which is entered in the extant Nāṭyaśāstra among five verses introduced with the words ‘भवन्ति चात्र श्लोका:।’ or अत्र श्लोका: in the editions and in mss. (vide Ch. ed. chap. VI. 34-38, K. M. ed. chap. VI. 35-39, and G. O. S. ed. chap. VI. 38-42). नानाद्रव्यौषधै: पाकैर्व्यंजनं भाव्यते यथा। एवं भावा भावयन्ति रसानभिनयै: सह। इति वासुकिनाप्युक्तौ भावेभ्यो रससम्भव:। (भा.प्र. pp. 36-37). In the Ch. ed. (6.35) it reads ‘नानाद्रव्यैर्बहुविधैर्व्यंजनं... यथा। एवं...सह।’; vide same verse in G. O. S. ed. vol. I. p. 294.

c5.s1.50

As regards the rest of the portion of the extant Nāṭyaśāstra it has been already shown that in some cases the number of verses varies by several hundreds in different mss. Therefore, it is very difficult to say what the original Nāṭyaśāstra contained. If a very tentative theory may be advanced I would state it as follows: The present 6th and 7th chapters, chapters 8-14 dealing with abhinaya of various kinds, movements and gaits, chap. 17 to 35 were put together at one time. The prose portions in the 6th and 7th chapters and the Āryā verses which Abhinava says were taken from older ācāryas were probably composed about 200 B. C. and were taken up into the work when the other chapters were composed. The reasons for this date are as follows: The Gautamadharmasūtra mentions (in XI. 19) Upavedas. Four Upavedas corresponding to the four Vedas are mentioned from very ancient times : viz. Āyurveda, Dhanurveda, Gāndharvaveda and Arthaśāstra (or Sthāpatya according to some).¹ In the Vanaparva (91. 14-15) it is said that Arjuna learnt from Chitrasena, son of Viśvāvasu, Gandharvaveda which consisted of *sāma* chants, singing, dancing and playing on musical instruments. The Śāntiparva 168.58 says the same thing, while Śānti 210.21 states that Nārada first propounded Gāndharvaveda. There is a difference between Gāndharvaveda and Nāṭyaveda. The first is an Upaveda of a restricted nature, while the latter as the fifth Veda meant for all varṇas (including śūdras) was far more comprehensive and, as song and dance were only a part of it, it took over the teachings of the Gāndharvaveda, as expressly stated by the Nāṭyaśāstra. The Nāṭyaśāstra states that Gāndharva which was first propounded by Nārada (as said by the Śāntiparva quoted above) has been declared by him (in chap. 32).¹ The Nāṭyaśāstra declares that Śṛngāra is excited by flowers, Gāndharva and the reading of kāvya &c.² Too much emphasis should not, therefore, be laid (as done in I. H. Q. vol. VI. pp. 72-80) upon the fact that Gāndharva and Nāṭya are separately mentioned in some places by the Nāṭyaśāstra as in chap. 36. 49, 78 (गान्धर्वं चैव नाट्यं च यः सम्यगतुपश्यति । verse 78). This separate mention is due to the सामान्यविशेषन्याय or ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकन्याय. The Nāṭyaśāstra states in the very beginning that Brahmā created the Nāṭyaveda which was connected with the Vedas and Upavedas and which had grace and tenderness as its essence (वेदोपवेदैः सम्बद्धो नाट्यवेदो महात्मना । एवं भगवता सृष्टो ब्रह्मणा ललितत्मकः ।। I. 18).

c5.s1.51

¹ Vide विष्णुपुराण III. 6. 28 for the four उपवेदs including अर्थशास्त्र and भागवत III. 12. 38 for them, the 4th being अर्थशास्त्र in

c5.s1.52

¹ गान्धर्वमेतत्कथितं मया हि पूर्वं यदुक्तं त्विह नारदेन । कुर्याच्च एवं मनुजः प्रयोगं समानमग्र्यं कुशलेषु गन्ध्रेत् ।। नाट्य० 32. 484.

c5.s1.53

² ऋतुमाल्यलङ्कारैः प्रियजनगान्धर्वकाव्यसेवाभिः । उपवनगमनविहारैः शृङ्गाररसः समुद्भवति ।। नाट्य० 6. 47.

c5.s1.54

The Hathigumpha Inscription of Khāravela styles Khāravela (the king of Kaliṅga) as ‘Gāndharvaveda-budhaḥ’ (E.I.vol. XX p. 71 at p. 79). That inscription is generally assigned to the 2nd century B. C.³ Therefore, the गान्धर्ववेद must have been recognized. the latter. अनुशासनपर्व 104.49 states:गान्धर्वशास्त्रं च कलाः परिज्ञेया नराधिप । पुराणमितिहासाश्च तथाख्यानानि यानि च ।। some centuries before Christ and the नाट्यवेद which includes its principles and practices may very well be placed about 200 B.C.

c5.s1.55

³ Dr. D. C. Sircar places the inscription at the beginning of the Ist century A. D., but his arguments are vague, unconvincing and rather subjective. Vide I. H. Q. vol. 15. at p. 41 for his views. The words of the inscription are: ततिये पुन वसे गंधर्ववेदबुधो दपनगीतवादितसदसनाहि उसवसमाजाकारापनाहि कीडापयति नगरिं. Should we read दपन० for दपन० ? रूप may mean ‘a dumb show’ as in शान्तिपर्व 295. 4 or रूप may mean a play represented on the stage.

c5.s1.56

It appears that the first chapter of the present Nāṭyaśāstra and probably the next four were added some centuries before the 5th A. D., as Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti and Dāmodaragupta refer to the legend af Bharata being the promulgator of Nāṭyaśāstra. That most of the chapters now found were in existence from at least the 3rd or 4th century A. D. follows from several considerations.

c5.s1.57

Abhinavagupta who wrote his commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra about 1000 to 1030 A. D. notes several interpreters of the N. S. He mentions that Udbhaṭa read one verse in the 9th chapter differently.¹ In the 18th chapter अभिनव reads ‘वृत्तानि समवकारे कविभिस्तानि प्रयोज्यानि’ (verse 76) and remarks that Udbhaṭa read ‘वृत्तानि समवकारे कविभिनैव प्रयोज्यानि (vol. II. p. 441).² On chap. 19 v. 42 A. B. (vol. III. p. 28) notes that Udbhaṭa speaks of vimarśa as avamarśa and explains it. In the same chap. on v. 69 A. B. (III p. 36) criticises Udbhaṭa for the order of the aṅgas in the sandhi. Udbhaṭa flourished, as will be proved below, in the latter half of the 8th century. So the 9th and 18th chapters of the present text existed long before the 8th century. On VI. 10 A. B. (vol. I. p. 266) notes that Lollaṭa criticized the view of Udbhaṭa. A. B. quotes the readings adopted by Lollaṭa several times (vide vol. II. pp. 415, 423, 452). A. B. quotes the explanation of Śaṅkuka on N.S. 3. 21-22 ( vol. I. p. 75 ), four verses from N. S., out of which two have different readings (which are, however, the same as those of Ch. ed. chap. 29 verses 123-124). A. B. quotes (vol. II. pp. 411, 414) the commentary of Śaṅkuka on 18. 10 and 12 (Ch. ed. 20. 10 and 12). Śaṅkuka is mentioned by A. B. on chap. 19-42 (vol. III p. 28). So at least in the 8th century A.D. the principal chapters of the N. S. were in existence. We can push back the existence of the principal chapters a century or two before Udbhaṭa if we consider what the Kāvyādarśa (II. 281, 283, 286) says, viz. that रति, क्रोध, उत्साह, are स्थायि- भावs of शृङ्गार, रौद्र and वीर and that what are called सन्ध्यङ्ग, वृत्त्यङ्ग and लक्षण in another tradition or authoritative work are regarded by it as alaṅkāras.¹

c5.s1.58

¹ The verse is उत्तानो वर्तुलस्त्यत्रः स्थितोऽधोमुख एव च । पञ्च प्रचारा हस्तस्य नाट्य० 9. 182 (GOS. ed.). The अ. भा. says ‘उत्तानोऽस्तलस्त्यधोऽधोमुख एव च । पञ्च प्रचारा हस्तस्येति भट्टोद्भटः पठति’ vol. II. p. 70. Vide Ch. ed. 9. 171-172 for the same verse.

c5.s1.59

² Vide Ch. ed. chap. 20. 80 which reads नैव प्रयोज्यानि.

c5.s1.60

¹ यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्त्यङ्गलक्षणागमान्तरे । व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टमलङ्कारतयैव नः ॥ काव्यादर्श II. 367. Vide नाट्यशास्त्र 21. 58-69 for 64 सन्ध्यङ्गs, 22. 25-64 for वृत्तिs and their aṅgas, chap. 17. 1-42 for 36 लक्षणs. The commentators are agreed that आगमान्तरे means भरते.

c5.s1.61

We can carry the matter back still further if we consider the implications of two verses in the Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa VII. 91 and 95.² These refer to certain verses of the 6th, 21st and 22nd chapters of the extant Nāṭyaśāstra. Accepting the first half of the 5th century as the date of Kālidāsa ( on which most scholars are agreed ), it follows that the present Nāṭyaśāstra existed at least a century or two earlier than 350-450 A. D., i. e. in the 3rd or 4th century, if not earlier.

c5.s1.62

² तौ सन्धिषु व्यञ्जितवृत्तिभेदं रसान्तरेषु प्रतिबद्धरागम् । अपश्यतामप्सरसां मुहूर्त्तं प्रयोगमाभं ललिताहारम् ॥ कुमारसंभव VII. 91; ‘प्रमथमुखविकारैर्हासयामास गूढम्’ ॥ VII. 95. The five सन्धिs are named in नाट्यशास्त्र 21. 37, the वृत्तिs in 22. 24-57 and 65 (for कैशिकी in शृङ्गार). नाट्यशास्त्र 22. 17 has the words सुललितैरहारैः. नाट्यशास्त्र VI. 44 is शृङ्गारो विष्णुदैवत्यो हास्यः प्रमथदैवतः’. So हास्य comes naturally to प्रमथs.

c5.s1.63

It may further be noted that in the drama (prakaraṇa) called Śāriputraprakaraṇa, fragments of which were recovered by Prof. Lüders, there is a remarkably close coincidence between its technique and that of the Nāṭyaśāstra. In the present state of our knowledge the only work which could have been drawn upon by Aśvaghoṣa (who flourished about 100 A. D.) must be deemed to be the Nāṭyaśāstra. Vide Keith’s H. S. D. p. 82-85 for this play and two others and Dr. B. C. Law on ‘Aśvaghoṣa’ p. 33 ff.

First 74 of 1,000 passages. Read on

Linked texts (70)