Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Sanskrit Poetics c5.s1.t1: The date of the Nāṭyaśāstra

History of Sanskrit Poetics c5.s1.t1

Language
English

Contents

The date of the Nāṭyaśāstra

c5.s1.t1.1

In the discussion about the original kernel of the Nāṭyaśāstra and its authorship some remarks have already been made which have a bearing on the date of the Nāṭyaśāstra. One matter must be made clear before starting further discussion of the date. Frequent additions have been made to the Nāṭyaśāstra and there are substantial discrepancies in the mss. of the work. Therefore, any discussion about the date of the work refers of necessity to a time when the principal structure and chapters of the work had been put up and takes no account of the insertion of some verse or verses here and there.

c5.s1.t1.2

Various dates have been assigned to the Nāṭyaśāstra. M. M. Haraprasad Shastri assigned it to the 2nd century before Christ (J. A. S. B. for 1913 p. 307). Prof. Levi, in a brilliant article translated in the Indian Antiquary vol. 33 p. 163 relying upon the use of such words as स्वामी, सुगृहीतनामन and भद्रमुख in the works on Nāṭyaśāstra as terms of address, tried to establish that the नाट्यशास्त्र of Bharata was composed about the times of the Indo-Scythian Kṣatrapas some of whom like Nahapāna and Caṣṭana are styled svāmin and bhadramukha in their inscriptions (e. g. E. I. IX. p. 274 and E. I. XVI. at p. 238). In spite of the vigour and confidence with which the arguments are set forth the theory that the Sanskrit theatre came into existence at the court of the Kṣatrapas appears, to say the least, to be an imposing structure built on very slender foundations. In the first place, स्वामी is the term of address for a Yuvarāja in the Nāṭyaśāstra (19. 12) and not for a ruling king. In the the second place, an obvious reply is that the inscriptions might have been drafted by persons thoroughly imbued with the dramatic terminology of the नाट्यशास्त्र. भद्रमुख as a term of address does not occur in the नाट्यशास्त्र but in the साहित्यदर्पण. In the Indian Antiquary vol. 46 (1917) pp. 171—183 I discussed the question of the date and arrived at the conclusion that before 300 A. D. there existed a work on नाट्यशास्त्र ascribed to भरत and dealing with the rasa theory and dramaturgy in general. Prof. Keith (in HSD. p. 13) holds that ‘we cannot with any assurance place it before the 3rd century A. D.’ More recently Mr. Manomohan Ghosh (in Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. 25, Art. 4 pp. 1—54) dealt exhaustively with the question of the date from several points of view such as the linguistic data (Sanskrit, Prakrits in ch. 18 and the Dhruvās in chap. 32), the treatment of metres, the mention of only four figures of speech, the mythology, the geographical data, and came to the conclusion (p. 52) that the date of the Nāṭyaśāstra must be placed between 100 B. C. to 200 A. D. Although I do not agree with several things that he says,¹ the date he arrives at cannot, in my opinion, be far from the truth. Dr. D. C. Sircar (ournal of Andhra H. R. Society, vol. XII. p. 108 ff) opines that the fact that the present text mentions the countries of महाराष्ट्र (in 14. 38) and नेपाल (in 14. 43) definitely points to a date later than the 2nd century A. D., since नेपाल is first mentioned in Samudragupta-praśasti in the first half of the 4th century and महाराष्ट्र is mentioned first in the महावंश (5th century) and in the Aihole inscription (of 634 A. D.). This is a strange and unconvincing argument. Names of countries do not drop down all at once from heaven nor is there anything to show that the name was first coined by समुद्रगुप्त or his panegyrist or by some one else at a particular period. If नेपाल is mentioned about 325 A. D., no reason is given why it could not have existed as a name two hundred years earlier. The same reasoning applies to महाराष्ट्र. In 634 (Aihole inscription)महाराष्ट्र was a vast territory containing three provinces and 99000 villages).¹ In the Nāṇāghāt Inscription (A. S. W. I. vol. V. p. 60) the word Mahāraṭhi occurs (about 200 B. C.) which can very well be explained as meaning an inhabitant of Mahārāṣṭra, though it must be conceded that that word is differently interpreted by several scholars.

c5.s1.t1.3

¹ For example, on p. 25 he says that दाक्षिणात्या, one of the seven भाषाs mentioned in chap. 18. 35-36 is not the महाराष्ट्री. भरत's words are : शौरसेनं समाश्रित्य भाषा कार्या तु नाटके ।... नानादेशसमुत्थं हि काव्यं भवति नाटके । मागध्यवन्तिजा प्राच्या शूरसेन्यर्धमागधी । बाहिका दाक्षिणात्या च सप्त भाषाः प्रकीर्तिताः ॥. What country, acc. to Mr. Ghosh, is meant by दाक्षिणात्या ? द्रविड and भोड are separately mentioned in v. 36. The काव्यादर्श (I. 34) mentions the भाषा of महाराष्ट्र as the best प्राकृत and states that सेतुबन्ध was composed in that language. The सेतुबन्ध

c5.s1.t1.4

was composed at the latest in the 5th century A. D. in महाराष्ट्री-प्राकृत. Even if Bharata preferred Śaurasenī, which might have been due to his being a native of शूरसेन (the country round about मथुरा) or because the art of writing dramas was very much cultivated there before his time, no reasons are forthcoming to establish that महाराष्ट्री in which such an elegant poem as the Setubandha was composed in the 5th century at the latest could not have existed as a प्राकृतभाषा at all some centuries earlier. On p. 43 he says that the avatāras of Viṣṇu are not mentioned, but in chap. 13. 152 (Ch. ed.) we read या कृता नरसिंहेन विष्णुना प्रभविष्णुना and अभिनवगुप्त explains the verse (G. O. S. XII. 154, vol. II. p. 162). His views on महाराष्ट्री as a later phase of शौरसेनी (Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. 23) have been criticized by Dr. Ghatge in an informing paper ‘on Mahārāṣṭri Language and Literature’ in Journal of the Bombay University (vol. II. part 6 pp. 19-70 at pp. 22-35). Vide also Dr. Ghatge on Śaurasenī in Journal, Bom. Un. vol. III. part. 6 pp. 44-62.

c5.s1.t1.5

1 भगमदधिपतित्वं यो महाराष्ट्रकाणां नवनतिसहस्रग्रामभाजां त्रयाणाम् ॥

c5.s1.t1.6

E. I. vol. VI. p. 1 at p. 4.

c5.s1.t1.7

The upper limit of the Nāṭyaśāstra cannot be fixed with any certainty. We can only try to fix some probable limit. The नाट्यशास्त्र mentions विश्वकर्मा on architecture and house-building (2. 7 and 12), Purāṇas (14. 46 and 27.59 in G. O. S.), Pūrvācāryas (15. 22 on शब्दलक्षण), कामतन्त्र (23.37 and 52 of G.O.S.), बृहस्पति (24.88 of GOS and 34.79 on अर्थशास्त्र), नारद (32. 1 on द्यूतs and 32. 484 on गान्धर्व), तण्डु (4. 17 on अङ्गहारs), पाशुपतs (in 13.85), शबर, आभीर and द्राविड (in 18. 36), शक (18. 40). But all these details cannot lead to any certain inference about the date of the नाट्यशास्त्र. They, however, make it probable that the present Nāṭyaśāstra is not much older than the beginning of the Christian era. The lower limit can be indicated with more assurance. The evidence for the lower limit may be briefly set out here :

c5.s1.t1.8

(a) Kālidāsa’s verse in the Vikramorvaśīya (II. 18) already noticed (p. 11) leads to the inference that before 450 A. D. at the latest Bharata had been regarded as founder of the नाट्यशास्त्र, had spoken of only eight rasas and had performed a drama before the gods. So this vouches for the existence of the legend in the first chapter and the discussion about rasas in the 6th chap. In रघुवंश 19. 21 there is a reference to खण्डिता नायिका, which reminds us of the eight नायिकाs enumerated and defined in नाट्यशास्त्र 31. 109-110 and the following verses. Similarly, in रघुवंश 19. 36 (अङ्गसत्त्ववचनाश्रयं मिथः स्त्रीषु नृत्यमुपधाय दर्शनम्) there is a conscious following of नाट्यशास्त्र 24. 1 (सामान्याभिनयो नाम ज्ञेयो वाङ्गसत्त्वजः).

c5.s1.t1.9

(b) The कुट्टनीमत speaks of the नाट्यशास्त्र as ब्रह्मोक्त (in v. 75), which is a reference to chapter one, and in verse 946 (भरतसुतै-रुपदिष्टं क्षितिपतिनहुषावरोधनारीणाम । ) there is a clear reference to the legend in the last chapter (36. 48-61) about नहुष and the sons of भरत. In numerous other places the कुट्टनीमत refers to subjects that are dealt with in different chapters of the present नाट्यशास्त्र, e. g. verses 791-92 refer to खण्डिता and कलहान्तरिता for which नाट्यशास्त्र 22. 216-217 (in vol. III of GOS.) and the following verses may be compared. Verses 881 and 928 refer to the singing of Dhruvā called Prāveśikī when the सूत्रधार is to enter the stage and the नैष्क्रामिकी ध्रुवा when all characters left the stage at the end of the 1st Act of the Ratanāvalī. This is a pointed reference to chap. 32 verses 335 and 336 where both occur and are described. Verse 805 of the कुट्टनीमत refers to सात्त्विकावस (for which see नाट्यशास्त्र 7. 93) and verse 809 (सदृशेप्यनुभावगये करुणसं विप्रलम्भतो भिन्नम्) refers to नाट्यशास्त्र VI. p. 73 where this matter is discussed. Therefore, it follows that the important chapters of the नाट्यशास्त्र from the first to the 36th existed before 800 A. D.

c5.s1.t1.10

(c) आनन्दवर्धन in the ध्वन्यालोक says ‘यदि वा वृत्तीनां भरतप्रसिद्धानां कैशिक्यादीनां’ (p. 202) and ‘यथा वेणीसंहारे विलासाख्यस्य प्रतिमुखसन्ध्यङ्गस्य प्रकृतरसनिबन्धनाननुगुणमपि भरतमतनुसरणामात्रेच्छया घटनं’ (p. 185) ; so also ‘अत एव च भरते प्रबन्धप्रख्यातवस्तुविषयत्वं प्रख्यातोदात्तनायकत्वं च नाटकस्यावश्यकर्तव्यतोपन्यस्तम्’ (p. 180) and ‘एतच्च रसादितात्पर्येण काव्यनिबन्धनं भरतादावपि सुप्रसिद्धमेव’ (p. 226). The vrttis called Kaiśikī and others are described in the नाट्यशास्त्र (chap. 20 in G. O. S. vol. III and in chap. 22 in other editions and mss.) and the anga named विलास is defined in chap. 21.61 and 78-G.O.S. vol. III. 22.15. In defining नाटक (chap. 16. 16-12-G. O. S. ed. chap. 18. 10-12) the very first half verse is ‘प्रख्यातवस्तुविषयं प्रख्यातोदत्तनायकं चैव’ (10). आनन्दवर्धन flourished in the latter half of the 9th century. The वेणीसंहार had been composed before him and the auther of that drama regarded Bharata as a paramount authority. Therefore, centuries before आनन्दवर्धन the नाट्यशास्त्र contained a treatment of rasas, heroes, वृत्तिs and such minute particulars as the anga of the प्रतिमुखसन्धि called विलास.

c5.s1.t1.11

(d) The काव्यप्रकाश quotes from Bharata the sūtra ‘विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः’ (which occurs in the 6th chap. p. 71) and gives the interpretation of that sūtra by four scholars, भट्टलोल्लट, शङ्कुक, भट्टनायक and अभिनवगुप्त. Whether all these composed commentaries on the नाट्यशास्त्र will be discussed later. It will be seen later that अभिनवगुप्त’s literary activity lay between 980-1030 A. D. and that भट्टनायक flourished between 900 and 925 A. D. शङ्कुक has probably to be identified with the poet शङ्कुक, author of भुवनाभ्युदय, mentioned in the राजतरङ्गिणी (IV.705) ‘कविबुधमनःसिन्धु-शशाङ्कः शङ्कुकाभिधः । यमुदिश्याकरोत्काव्यं भुवनाभ्युदयाभिधम्’। This would assign him to about 840 A. D. सोमेश्वर in his commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश quotes a few verses of शङ्कुक on the above sūtra of Bharata and the criticism of Bhaṭṭa Tauta thereon. The exact date of Lollaṭa cannot be determined. But as शङ्कुक, नायक and अभिनवगुप्त are mentioned in chronological order, it is not unlikely that लोल्लट precedes all three. He wrote रसविवरण and सोमेश्वर quotes from लोल्लट (folio 155 b) ‘यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदा हि रसविरोधिन्यः । अभिधानमात्रमेद्गह(ङ्?)रिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥’. This verse is qucted by नमिसाधु also (on रुद्रट III. 59) without the author’s name. Therefore, लोल्लट probably flourished before शङ्कुक i.e. between 750-800. The conclusion is that the 6th chapter of the नाट्यशास्त्र dealing with rasas had been the subject of several interpretations from the 8th century A. D.

c5.s1.t1.12

(e) भवभूति (about 700-740 A. D.) looks upon Bharata as the author of तौर्यत्रिकसूत्र (i. e. नाट्यशास्त्र) and as a contemporary of Vālmīki, the author of the रामायण (vide उत्तररामचरित IV).

c5.s1.t1.13

(f) Bāṇa in his कादम्बरी (para 71 of my edition) mentions the नृत्तशास्त्र composed by भरत as one of the branches of knowledge in which चन्द्रापीड became proficient. In the हर्षचरित also (III. para 5) he speaks of singing which followed the path laid down by Bharata.¹ In another place (हर्ष० II. 4) he speaks of actors in the आरभटीवृत्ति (रैणावर्तमण्डलीरेचकरसरम्भनर्तनारभटीनटाः). रेचक is defined in नाट्यशास्त्र (4. 240-246) and आरभटी (chap. 20. 65 of vol. III GOS ).

c5.s1.t1.14

¹ वंशानुमविवादि स्फुटकरणं भरतमार्गभजनगुरु। श्रीकण्ठविनियातं गीतमिदं हर्षराज्यमिव ।। हर्षचरित III. verse 4; as to विवादी, vide नाट्यशास्त्र for the four kind of स्वरs, viz वादि, संवादि, अनुवादि and विवादि (28. 20) and ‘विवादिनस्तु ते येषां विंशतिस्वरमन्तरम् । तथथा वृषभान्धारौ धैवतनिषादौ’ (नाट्य० chap. 28 after verse 21 p. 318). For करणs (of the hand) see नाट्य. 9. 198-207.

c5.s1.t1.15

(g) The याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृति, after stating that by reciting the Sāman-songs according to rules and without mistakes the singer reaches Brahma (i.e. realises the Supreme Reality), extends the same reward to those who instead of the Vedic songs sing the seven kinds of non-Vedic songs called² अपरान्तक, उल्लोप्यक, मद्रक, प्रकरी, ओवेणक, सरोबिन्दु and उत्तर; further provides that the repeated singing of four kinds of other songs (mentioned below) also tend to mokṣa (enabling the mind to concentrate itself on the Supreme Soul) and those who know the essence of the playing on the lute, who are experts in the knowledge of the (22) śrutis and (18) jātis and know tāla reach the road to mokṣa. It is interesting to note that the Mitākṣarā and Aparārka refer to Bharata in explaining these, while Viśvarūpa refers to Nārada and others and the Dīpakalikā to Viśākhila and others. The seven names occur in the Nāṭyaśātra 31. 287 (K. M. 31. 184) but with some variation. The Nāṭyaśāstra devotes over hundred and thirty verses to the treatment of these seven and winds up by saying that these seven promulgated by Brahmā are holy and propitiate the gods. The अभिनवभारती also (B. O. R. I ms.) devotes several pages (from p. 479 of the ms.) to the elucidation of the seven kinds of non-Vedic songs. The names of the seven acc. to the Nāṭyaśāstra are मन्द्रक, अपरन्तक, प्रकरी, रोविन्दक (for सरोबिन्दु of या.), ओवेयक, उत्लोप्यक, उत्तर. On several grounds it may be argued that the याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृति borrows from the नाट्यशास्त्र. The four early commentators are agreed that याज्ञवल्क्य has in view some work on गीतवाद्य, while the मिताक्षरा and अपरार्क refer to भरत alone. Besides, in याज्ञवल्क्य the verses are rather abruptly introduced, while their position in the नाट्यशास्त्र is natural. I am inclined to hold that the source of these verses in Yājñavalkya is the Nāṭyaśāstra. In that case the नाट्यशास्त्र will easily have to be placed not later than the first or 2nd century of the Christian era.

c5.s1.t1.16

² अपरान्तकमुल्लोप्यं मद्रकं प्रकरीं तथा । औवेणकं सरोबिन्दुमुत्तरं गीतकानि च । ऋग्गाथा पाणिका दच्चविहिता ब्रह्मगीतिका । गेयमेतत्तदभ्यासकरणान्मोक्षसंशितम् ।। वीणावादनतत्त्वज्ञः श्रुतिजातिविशारदः । तालज्ञश्च प्रयासेन मोक्षमार्ग नियच्छति ।।; compare याज्ञ० III. 113-115. Compare ऋक्तोक्तं सप्तरूपं हि समवेताद विनिःसृतम् । दैवताराधनं पुण्यमनन्तं गीतवादितम् ।।...ऋग्गाथापाणिकानां च प्रमाणनां तथैव च । अनेनैव विधानेन युग्मौजस्त्वं विभावयेत् ।। नाट्यशास्त्र 31. 419, 421; K. M. 31. 324 is somewhat similar to the last verse. Again 31. 523 is ऋग्गाथा पाणिका चैव सप्तरूपं प्रकीर्णकम् । and 32. 2 is या ऋचः पाणिका गाथा सप्तरूपाङ्गमेव च ।.

c5.s1.t1.17

(h) The Sāptaśatī of Sātavāhana (or Hāla) says in a verse 344 (Weber’s ed. 27) that embraces are the पूर्वरङ्ग of the drama of love.¹ This has in view the fifth chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra which treats of पूर्वरङ्ग. It is generally held that the गाथासप्तशती was composed between 200 to 400 A. D. Vide Prof. Keith’s H. S. L. p. 224.

c5.s1.t1.18

¹ मानदुमपरुसपवणस्स मामि सव्वंगणिवुदिभरस्स । अवऊहणस्स भद्दं रहणाड- अपुब्बरंगस्स ।। सत्तसई (सप्तशती) 344 and IV. 44 (of Nirn. ed.).

c5.s1.t1.19

(i) From Fleet’s Sanskrit and Old Canarese inscriptions (I. A. vol. X. pp. 166-167) we find that two Sanskrit verses are incised on a pillar at Paṭṭadakal (the characters being of the 8th or 9th century A. D.) which were composed by one Achala (or Acalada), the second of which may be quoted here to indicate how even in Southern India dancers instructed in Bharata’s doctrines were supposed to vanquish their competitors brought up in another or a rival school of dancing :

c5.s1.t1.20

मानदुमपरुसपवणस्स मामि सव्वंगणिवुदिभरस्स । अवऊहणस्स भद्दं रहणाड-
अपुब्बरंगस्स ।। सत्तसई (सप्तशती) 344 and IV. 44 (of Nirn. ed.).

c5.s1.t1.21

‘नटसेव्यभरतमतयुतपदतरवचनाशनिप्रपातेन । कुटिलोन्नततरौलः स्फुटितानतमस्तकः पतति ॥’.

c5.s1.t1.22

(j) All ancient writers on *alaṅkāra*, Bhaṭṭi (between 590–650 A. D.), दण्डी, Bhāmaha, उद्भट, define more than thirty figures of speech. भरत defines only four, which are the simplest viz. उपमा, दीपक, रूपक, and यमक. भरत has a long disquisition on metres and on the Prākṛts and would not have scrupled to define more figures of speech if they had been well-known then. Therefore, he preceded these writers by some centuries at least.

c5.s1.t1.23

The foregoing discussion has made it clear that the नाट्यशास्त्र cannot be assigned to a later date than about 300 A. D. This does not mean that the extant नाट्यशास्त्र has come down to us intact from that date. But what is contended is that before 300 A. D. there existed a work going under the name of Bharata containing the *rasa* theory and dealing with dramaturgy; this cannot be disputed. As there is no other extant work on the theory of Poetics and allied topics as old as 300 A. D. the नाट्यशास्त्र must be regarded in the present state of our knowledge as the oldest work on the अलङ्कारशास्त्र.

c5.s1.t1.24

धनिक in his commentary on the Daśarūpa (III. 56–60) quotess a verse from भरत ‘एतच्च ‘इदं त्रिपुरदाहे तु लक्षणं ब्रह्मणोदितम् । ततस्त्रिपुरदाहश्च डिमसंज्ञः प्रयोजितः ॥’ इति भरतमुनिना स्वयमेव त्रिपुरदाहेतिवृत्तस्य तुल्यत्वं दर्शितम् ’’. In the नाट्यशास्त्र only the latter half is found (IV. 10). The commentator on the सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण (II. p. 254 Benares ed. = Nir. ed of 1934 p 268 on कारिका 109) says that, as regards मुरजबन्ध, भरत mentions the letters to be employed ‘पाठाक्षराणि मुरजे लहकारौ तथधार्च्छमौ रेफः। नणकखगवडाश्चेत्थं षोडश भरतादि-कथितानि ॥’. There is nothing in the नाट्यशास्त्र on this point.

c5.s1.t1.25.1

We must now turn to the commentaries on the Nāṭyaśāstra. The most famous and the most erudite is that of Abhinavagupta called नाट्यवेदविवृति and also अभिनवभारती in the colophons of its mss. and by commentators of Sanskrit dramas such as Rāghavabhaṭṭa¹ on the Śākuntala. A separate section will be devoted to Abhinavagupta later on. As noted above Mr. Kavi has brought out so far only three volums of the अभिनवभारती in the G. O. S. (up to chap. 27 on सिद्धिलक्षण-विधान). For the rest I have used a recent transcript which is ms. No. 41 of 1924-28 in the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute. It is rather corrupt and incomplete, as it extends only up to chap. 32, verse 376 (ध्रुवाध्याय of Ch. edition) and then breaks off. So far as I know no complete ms. of the अभिनवभारती on the whole of the नाट्यशास्त्र is available at present anywhere. But even this incomplete commentary of अभिनवगुप्त furnishes very valuable information about the commentators of Bharata and about writers on the histrionic art. In the following I propose to give a brief account of the commentators of the Nāṭyaśāstra.¹ According to the सङ्गीतरत्नाकर of शार्ङ्गदेव the expounders of Bharata were लोल्लट, उद्भट, शङ्कुक, कीर्तिधर and अभिनवगुप्त (व्याख्यातारो भारतीये लोल्लटोद्भटशङ्कुकाः । भट्टाभिनवगुप्तश्च श्रीमत्कीर्तिधरोऽपरः ॥ I. 19). A separate section will be devoted to Udbhaṭa, but here a few words may be said about his commentary on भरत. उद्भट is mentioned by अभिनव on the following points. (1) On नाट्यशास्त्र VI.

c5.s1.t1.25.2

10 (quoted above) the views of उद्भटs are quoted and Abhinava says that लोल्लट did not accept them (vide अभिनवभारती G. O. S. vol. I. p. 266); (2) On नाट्य. 182 अ. भा. (vol. II. p. 70) notes that उद्भट read the verse differently as 'उत्तानोधस्तलश्चाग्रमधोमुख एव च । पञ्च प्रचारा हस्तस्येति भट्टोद्भटः पठति'; (3) about समवकार (a kind of रूपक) the नाट्यशास्त्र (18. 76) reads 'उष्णिगायत्र्याद्यान्यन्यानि च यानि बन्धकुटिलानि । वृत्तानि समवकारे कविभिस्तानि प्रयोज्यानि ॥'. अ. भा. notes that उद्भट reads नैव प्रयोज्यानि for तानि प्रयोज्यानि;² (4) उद्भट appears to have criticized भरत himself as to the four वृत्तis, भारती, सात्वती, वैशिकी and आरभटी. भरत (20. 99-100) defines the play called उत्सृष्टिकाङ्क as full of women's lamentations and as bereft of all वृत्तis except भारती. But in करुण when there is a swoon or death there can be no speech and no भारतीवृत्ति (which acc. to नाट्य. 22. 25 is या वाक्प्रधाना &c. or 20. 26 in GOS ed.). For this and other reasons उद्भट gives up the four वृत्तis and proposes only three वृत्तis viz. न्यायचेष्टावृत्ति, अन्यायचेष्टावृत्ति and फलसंवितिवृत्ति (for मूर्छा and मरण) or फलवृत्ति. अभिनव quotes a verse of उद्भट,¹ states that certain followers of a writer called शकलीगर्भ² held that there were five वृत्तis, the four of भरत plus the वृत्ति called आत्मसंवित्ति (or फलवृत्ति of उद्भट) and that लोल्लट refuted those views of उद्भट and शकलीगर्भ. अभिनव does not agree with all the three and sticks to the four वृत्तis of भरत; (5) In a corrupt passage (in GOS ed. अ.

c5.s1.t1.25.3

भा. reads यासावन्वेषण०) Abhinava refers to an exposition of Udbhaṭa about the 4th सन्धि called अवमर्श (नाट्य. 21. 42) and refutes it;³ (6) उद्भट explained नाट्य. 21.17 as laying down that the several sandhis and their aṅgas must appear in a drama in the same order as is stated by भरत, but A. B. rejects this view as opposed to reasoning and also to the tradition of poets.⁴ From the above it is clear that अभिनव mentions Udbhaṭa’s comments on chapters so far apart as 6, 9, 19 of the नाट्यशास्त्र (G. O. S. ed) and so probably उद्भट commented on the whole of it. It will be shown that उद्भट flourished about 800 A. D. His views about the वृत्ति called आत्मसंवित्ति were accepted by शकलीगर्भ, who was criticized by लोल्लट. So the latter must have flourished between 800 to 840 A. D. It has already been shown that he criticised उद्भट in several places (e. g. on नाट्यशास्त्र 6. 10 and 18. 112). His views on the theory of Rasa summarised on the Rasa sūtra ay अभिनव (G. O. S. vol. I. p. 274) will be dealt with in part II. Some of his other views are : (a) Acc. to लोल्लट rasas are numerous,¹ but only eight (or nine) are to be represented (on the stage) in accordance with the well-known theory of traditional works; (b) It appears that लोल्लट did not read the verse (यः कश्चित्कार्यवशाद्गच्छति पुरुषः प्रकष्टमभ्वानम् । तत्राप्यङ्कच्छेदः कर्तव्यः पूर्ववत्तज्ञैः ॥ G. O. S. 18. 32, Ch. 20. 30, K. M. 18, 34);² (c) A. B. (vol. II. p. 134) mentions the view of लोल्लट and गोपाल on ध्रुवाताल;

c5.s1.t1.25.4

(d) on नाट्य० 13. 1 अभिनव refers to भट्टलोल्लट's view; (e) अभिनव states (18. 14) that लोल्लट read the verse as अङ्क इति गूढशब्दो भावैश्च रसैश्च रोहयत्यर्थान्,' while अभिनव reads रुढिशब्दो; (f) on नाट्य० (G. O. S. 18. 60, Ch. 20. 63) A. B. mentions the view of लोल्लट that a नाटिका is षट्पदा, while शङ्कुक held that it was अष्टपदा;³ (g) on 21. 29 (Ch. ed.) Lollaṭa's view is that portions of the life and doings of the hero of a पताका are called अनुसन्धि.⁴ From the above it will be clear that Lollaṭa also must have composed a commentary on most of the chapters of the नाट्यशास्त्र such as 6, 13, 18, 21 (if not on all).

c5.s1.t1.26

¹ e. g. राघवभट्ट on शाकुन्तल (I) quotes नाट्यशास्त्र 5. 24–25 and 106–107 सूत्रधारः पठेन्दान्दीं...लङ्कृताम् ।) and remarks ‘इदं पद्यमभिनवगुप्ताचार्यैर्भरतटीकायामभिनवभारत्यां व्याख्यातम्’.

c5.s1.t1.27

¹ For some further information consult Dr. Raghavan’s paper on ‘Writers quoted in the Abhinavabhāratī’ in J. O. R. Madras, vol. VI. pp. 149-170 and pp. 199-223.

c5.s1.t1.28

² नैव प्रयोज्यानीत्युद्भटः पठति खञ्धरादीन्येव प्रयोज्यानि नाल्पाक्षरायीति स व्याचष्टे । अ. भा. vol. II. P. 441. The Ch. ed. (20. 80) reads as उद्भट does.

c5.s1.t1.29

¹ तस्मात्फलवित्तिव्याख्या वृत्तिः वाक्चेष्टयोः फलानुभव इति यस्या लक्षणं साभ्युपगन्तव्या । अवश्यं चैतत् अन्यथा मूर्छामरणादौ वाक्चेष्टयोरभावे निवर्तिततैव स्यात् ।...तस्माच्चेष्टात्मिका न्यायवृत्तिरन्यवृत्तिर्वापा तत्फलभूता फलसंवित्तिरिति त्रयमेव युक्तमिति भट्टोद्भटो मन्यते । यदाह । आद्ये वाक्चेष्टाभ्यां पुरुषार्थचतुष्टयेन चाष्टविधे । षोडशधा फलवृत्तिस्तद्यतोऽनेकधा तु रसभेदात् । A.B. vol.II.p. 451.

c5.s1.t1.30

² यच्छकलीगर्भमतानुसारिणो मूर्छादावात्मसंवित्तिलक्षणां पञ्चमीं वृत्तिं सकलकार्यनिवृत्त्यनुमेयां......आत्मव्यापाररूपां मन्यन्ते...तन्मतं भावानां बाह्यमङ्गस्वभावत्वमुपपादयद्भिः भट्टलोल्लटप्रभृतिभिः पराकृतम् । अ. भा. (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 452). The editor regards शकलीगर्भ as a name of उद्भट, but this cannot be accepted, firstly, because अ. भा. mentions the name Udbhaṭa half a dozen times and there is no reason given why a different name should be used and secondly, because the view attributed to शकलीगर्भ differs from उद्भट's view on वृत्तis noted by अ. भा.

c5.s1.t1.31

³ यदाह भट्टोद्भटः । नासान्वेषणभूमिरवमष्टिरावमर्श इति तच्चेदं व्याख्यानं लक्ष्यविरुद्धं युक्त्या च । p. 28 chap. 19 of G. O. S. ed. vol. III.

c5.s1.t1.32

⁴ पुनरेषामिति पुनःशब्दो विशेषद्योतको लक्ष्य एवार्थं क्रमो न निबन्धने इति यावत् । तेन यदुद्भटप्रभृतयो अज्ञानां सन्धौ क्रमे च नियममाहुस्तद्युक्त्यागमविरुद्धमेव p. 36 of vol. III of GOS ed.

c5.s1.t1.33

¹ तेनानन्त्येपि पार्षदप्रसिद्धैतावतां प्रयोजत्वमिति यद्भट्टलोल्लटेन निरूपितं तदवलेपनापरामृश्येत्यलम् (?) । अ. भा. vol. I. p. 299; should we read अवलेपनापरामृश्येत्यलम् ? This last would mean ‘because he (लोल्लट) was touched with vanity.’

c5.s1.t1.34

² अत एव तद्भट्टलोल्लटाचैनं पठितमेव । अ. भा. vol. II. p. 423.

c5.s1.t1.35

³ षट्पदेयं नाटिकेत संग्रहनुसारिणो भट्टलोल्लटायाः, श्रीशङ्कुकस्तु अयुक्तमेतदितिभियाष्टधेति व्याचष्टे । अ. भा. vol. II. p. 436.

c5.s1.t1.36

⁴ तथा लोल्लटापस्तु मन्यन्ते परार्थे साधयितव्ये पताकानायकस्येतिवृत्तभागा अनुसन्ध्यः । p. 17 of अ. भा. vol. III (GOS).

c5.s1.t1.37

Two verses of Lollaṭa are quoted by हेमचन्द्र in his काव्यानुशासन (chap. V. p 215) ‘यस्तु सरिद्सिागरनगतुरगपुरारिवर्णने यत्नः । कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु ॥ यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदा हि रसविरोधिन्यः । अभिमानमात्रमेतदङ्कुरिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥.’ The first verse is ascribed to आपराजिति by the काव्यमीमांसा (p. 45) and the second is quoted by सोमेश्वर from लोल्लट in his commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश (folio 105b) and by नमिसाधु on रुद्रट (III. 59) without naming the author. The का. प्र. सङ्केत of माणिक्यचन्द्र (Mysore ed. p. 82) who wrote in 1159-60 A. D. says that the details of the theory of rasa should be learnt from the रसविवरण of लोल्लट and others and on p. 147 hits off all three (लोल्लट, शङ्कुक, and नायक) as follows : न वेत्ति यस्य गाम्भीर्यं गिरितुङ्गोपि लोल्लटः । तत्तस्य रसपथोघेः कथं

c5.s1.t1.38

जानातु शङ्कुकः ॥ भोगरत्थादिभावानां मोगं स्वस्योचितं ब्रुवन् । सर्वथा रससर्वस्वमर्मा- स्वाधीन नायकः ॥

c5.s1.t1.39

लोल्लट appears to have advanced his arguments on the basis of the पूर्वमीमांसा; vide e. g. म. भा. vol. II. p. 196 ‘प्रत्येकप्रसक्तत्वाभावात् क्रमस्यापदार्थत्वात्प्रमाणकत्वान्मुख्यभूतपदार्थबाधकत्वमयुक्तं श्रुत्या वाक्यप्रमाणस्य बाधनादितितु भट्टलोल्लटोक्तं प्रकृते सिध्यति विरोधाभावात्’। Compare the wellknown sūtra of जैमिनि ‘श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थानसमाख्यानां समवाये पारदौ- र्बल्यं’ (III. 3. 14).

c5.s1.t1.40

There is a श्राद्धप्रकरण of लोल्लटाचार्य in the Ānandāśrama collection of mss. at Poona (no. 3175), which frequently cites the views of मेधातिथि in verse. The reference is probably to the स्मृतिविवेक of मेधातिथि mentioned by the latter in his मनुभाष्य. It is doubtful whether the author of the श्राद्धप्रकरण is identical with the लोल्लट that wrote on रस, as the former must be held to have flourished after 900 A. D.

c5.s1.t1.41

Śaṅkuka’s view on the theory of Rasa will be stated in part II. His date has already been given above (p. 43). He came after Lollaṭa and criticizes the latter’s theory of rasa (vide A. B. vol. I. p. 274). He appears to have been a regular commentator of the नाट्यशास्त्र. (a) On chap. III. verses 21-22, A. B. vol. I p. 75 mentions Śaṅkuka’s views on रङ्गपीठ ‘अतः चतुर्हस्तं रङ्गपीठपृष्ठे एव मण्डलमियुक्तं भवति । शङ्कुकादिभिः षोडशहस्तावकाशाभावः आसनस्त- म्भादिवशात्तस्मादकृत एव रङ्गपीठे इत्यादि वृथैव बहुतरमुपन्यस्तम्’; (b) On chap. 18. 10 (p. 411 of GOS ed.) (प्रख्यातवस्तुविषयं प्रख्यातोदात्तनायकम्) about नाटक, A. B. quotes शङ्कुक’s explanation and rejects it; (c) On the verse नृपतीनां यच्चरितं नानारसभावेष्टितं बहुधा । (18. 12 G. O. S.) Śaṅ- kuka’s explanation of what is intended by the word नृपतीनां is cited and rejected;¹ (d) Śaṅkuka’s view about नाटिका (18. 60, vol. II. p. 436) has been cited under लोल्लट; (d 1) On chap. 21. 40 (= K. M. 19. 40) अभिनव refers to the examples illustrating that verse about प्रतिमुखसन्धि given by शङ्कुक;² (e) On 21. 42 about विमर्शसन्धि (= K. M. 19. 42 the reading of which is followed by शङ्कुक)

c5.s1.t1.42

¹ श्रीशङ्कुकस्तु व्याचष्टे । विजिगीषुरिमध्यमोदासीनौ मित्रं मित्रमित्रमिति । एषां चरितमितिबहुवचनेन लभ्यते । Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 218-222 for विजिगीषु and the others; chap. 18.12 of म. भा. (GOS. II) has नृपतीनां यच्चरितं नानारसभावेष्टितं बहुधा । सुखदुःखोत्पत्तिक्कृतं भवति हि तन्नाटकं नाम । This is the verse on which शङ्कुक commented.

c5.s1.t1.43

² उद्घाटितत्वाद् बीजस्य स्तोकमात्रं तु शङ्कुकादिभिरुदाहृतं यत्तदेकदेश- लक्षणमिति द्रष्टव्यम् । p. 25 of म. भा. vol. III GOS.

c5.s1.t1.44

the A. B. mentions Śaṅkuka’s view (p. 28 of अ. भा. vol. II GOS); (f) On 21. 91 (= K. M. 19. 87) about विद्रव, one of the aṅgas of गर्भसन्धि, the A. B. gives the reading adopted by Śaṅkuka and the illustration given by him (अन्ये तु शङ्कमतसैः कृतो यः स विद्रव इत्यादि तत्र च विशेष्यपदमन्वेष्यं, समुदाय एव विशेष्य इति श्रीशङ्कः, उदाहरति च कृत्यारावणे षष्ठेके गर्भसन्धी)’ &c. (p. 52 of अ. भा. vol. III GOS.); (g) On chap. 24 (= K. M. 22 सामान्याभिनय) the views of शङ्कक are quoted at some length (p. 147 of अ. भा. vol. III GOS.); (h) On chap. 24. 3 (= K. M. 22. 3) A. B. offers the explanation that Śaṅkuka gives (अन्यतरूपमित्यादिकं प्रबन्धं श्रीशङ्ककादय इत्थं नयन्ति &c. p. 150 of अ. भा. vol. III GOS.); (i) On 24. 66-71 (=K. M. 22. 66-71) Abhinava shows how hundreds of अभिनयभेदs arise and then states that according to Śaṅkuka they come to forty thousand (ननु यथा श्रीशङ्ककेनोक्तं चत्वारिंशत्सहस्राणीत्यादि, p. 180 of अ०भा० vol. III GOS); (j) On नाट्यशास्त्र 5. 20-21 the अभिनवभारती quotes several verses from chap. 29 (Ch. ed. and 28 of the text of अभिनव )and states that शङ्कुक had different readings in some of the verses (i. e. शङ्कुक read त्रिः शम्योपरिपाणौ तालोपि क्षेप निर्दिष्टः ।... भूयः शम्यतालानुगुणादुत्तरस्तथा दिकलश्च ।, while अभिनव read तालावित्येवमेककलः and वृत्तस्तथा चैव). It may be noted that the readings in Ch. (29. 123-124) are those adopted by शङ्कुक. शङ्कुक is quoted in vol. I. pp. 293, 298, 318 on the रससूत्राध्याय. From the above it would be manifest that Śaṅkuka’s comment on several chapters from 3 to 29 being quoted it should be presumed that he commented on the whole of the Nāṭyaśāstra.

c5.s1.t1.45

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka is very frequently quoted by अभिनव, but the question whether he wrote a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra or an independent work will be discussed below separately.

c5.s1.t1.46

On the last verse (and on the word एवं therein) of chapter 4 of the नाट्यशास्त्र the view of कीर्तिधर is quoted, but it is doubtful whether the reference is to a commentary of his on the नाट्यशास्त्र. कीर्तिधर’s mention of नन्दिकेश्वरमत has already been referred to above. There is not sufficient material to establish that कीर्तिधर wrote a regular commentary on the नाट्यशास्त्र.

c5.s1.t1.47

There is an author frequently mentioned by अभिनव as टीकाकार or टीकाकृत्. He is twice quoted on the 6th chap. (vol. I. pp. 318, 328). His views are mentioned and generally rejected over a dozen times on pp. 286 (chap. 21. 3-5 = chap. 19 of अभिनव in GOS p. 3 as opposed to उपाध्याय’s view), on प्रासङ्गिक इतिवृत्त), 382 (on chap. 28 verses 8-10 on आतौद्य), 397 (on 29. 32), 399 (on 29.. 76 where his guru is said to be श्रीपाद ),¹ 420 (chap. 30 on सुषिरवाद्य), 423 (on 30. 4 one verse and a half are quoted from टीकाकार), 458 (on 31. 252). So he is mentioned on most of the chapters, if not on all. On the 12 kinds of interlocutions in the plot (22.51-53 GOS) such as आलाप, प्रलाप, उपदेश, अतिदेश, अ.भा. (p. 176) remarks that commentators have brought in tārkika and mīmāṃsaka technique in explaining upaveśa, atideśa and upamāna in the domain of sāhitya and have thereby deluded men of delicate intellect and led them astray: अत्रोपदेशातिदेशयोरुपमानस्थ च साहित्यविषये तार्किकमीमांसकविषये विशेषप्रतिपादनं यत् टीकाकारैः कृतं तत्सुकुमारमनोमोहनं वृथाभ्रमिामात्रं प्रकृतानुपयोगिहोपेच्यमेव ।

c5.s1.t1.48

¹ टीकाकृद्विस्तु सदाशिवमतादिग्रन्थान्तरालिखितं त्रयस्त्रिशदिमे प्रोक्ता अलङ्कारा इत्यादि तनं (?) लिखितं ग्रन्थान्तरपरिवर्तने अनिष्टप्रसङ्गात् श्रीपादप्रोक्तादिति स्वगुरुमताद् &c.p. 399 of B. O. R. I. copy.

c5.s1.t1.49

Bhaṭṭayantra is mentioned on p. 208 of vol. Iof अ.भा. (on नाट्य and नृत्त), Priyātithi (on the लास्याङ्ग called सैन्धवक on p. 317 of the B. O. R. I. copy), Bhaṭṭavṛddhi (Ch. chap. 32. 45 on tālas, p. 514 of B. O. R. I. copy);² Bhaṭṭa Sumanas (as explaining at great length the three verses 46-48 of chap. 31, p. 434 of B. O. R. I. copy), Bhaṭṭa Gopāla (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 134 on ध्रुवाताल and on chap. 31 verse 510 of Ch. ed., on p. 502 of B. O. R. I. copy), Rudraka (Rudraṭa ?) on chap. 31 verse 357 (of Ch. ed. on tāla) at p. 488 of B. O. R. I. copy, Bhaṭṭa Śaṅkara, a devotee of God Śaṅkara, on वृत्तप्रकरण (chap. 32. 329 of Ch. ed., p. 524 of B. O. R. I. copy), Ghaṇṭaka on नाटिकाभेदs (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 436). On the materials available it is not possible to say whether these authors wrote commentaries on some part of the Nāṭyaśāstra or whether they wrote independent works in which Bharata's views were discussed.

c5.s1.t1.50

² तथा च भट्टवृद्धतत्तादिपाखितलयभङ्गलक्षणपुस्तकेषु सर्वत्र शता इति प्रस्तावो दृश्यते । p. 514. The passage is corrupt. Should we read भट्टवृद्धतिलादिप्रणीतलय० ?

c5.s1.t1.51

Abhinava appeared to refer to Aṣṭāgama on chap.32. 360 (of Ch. ed.) at p. 529 of B. O. R. I. copy.³ The passage is corrupt.

c5.s1.t1.52

³ प्रावेशिकोमहणमुपलक्षणात् । नृणामिति चेष्टाबाहुल्यमम्भावनात् । अन्ये तु श्रियमपरत्वं व्याचक्षते तच्चाष्टागमगच्विरुद्धमित्युपेद्यमेव । p. 529. Dr. Raghavan kindly informs me that he holds that अष्टागम is a corruption by the copyist of अस्मदागम । I agree and I had already suggested it in the ed. of 1951.

c5.s1.t1.53

rupt. Aṣṭāgama may mean ‘eight authoritative or traditional works on Nāṭyaśāstra’ or the word may be a copyist’s error for अस्मदागम. An author called Rāhula is quoted several times in the अ. भा. e.g. a verse of his is quoted in which भरत is named. On नाट्य IV.267(GOS vol I, 172)37.अ.भा. says, यथाह राहुल: । परोक्षेपि हि वक्तव्यो नार्यो प्रत्यक्षवत्प्रिय: । सखी च नाट्यधर्मोऽयं भरतेनोदितं द्वयम् ॥. On p. 115 (G.O.S. vol. I) a verse of राहुलक on वैशाखरेचित is quoted. He is credited with having recognised मौग्ध्य, मद, भावविकृत, परितपन as अलङ्कारs of young ladies in chap. 24 in addition to भरत’s¹ twenty (in 24. 5-30). Abhinava once quotes मातृगुप्त on पुष्प, a technical term for a particular way of the playing of the वीणा defined in नाट्यशास्त्र 29. 93 (Ch. ed.).² He appears to have been a poet and writer on Nāṭya and Saṅgīta. The भावप्रकाशन quotes his view that, though a Nāṭaka should have a plot based on past incidents, still it should have some incidents due to the poet’s creative imagination.³ Several verses of his are quoted in about 20 different places by राघवभट्ट in his अर्थद्योततिका (commentary on शाकुन्तल) on सूत्रधारगुणs, on आर्यावर्त, on शौरसेनी being the dialect for women of all castes in dramas, on नाटकलक्षण (5½ verses), on बीज (3 verses), one verse on who were to speak Sanskrit in dramas, definition of भूषण (the first of 36 लक्षणs ofनाट्य), on definition of यवनी attendants (1½ verses), definitions of सेनापति, of हसित, of स्मित, पताकास्थानक, कञ्चुकिन्, परिचारिका, कार्य, when संस्कृत may be spoken by those who are ordinarily to speak प्राकृत. The नाटकलक्षणरत्नकोष of सागरनन्दिन् quotes several verses of मातृगुप्त on pp. 5,14,20,21,23,50. In the वक्रोक्तिजीवित (p. 52) he is referred to as a great poet whose work is full of सौकुमार्य and the औचित्यविचारचर्चा quotes his verses (e.g. on p. 142). The राजतरङ्गिणी (III. 125-323) describes at great length how मातृगुप्त was the court poet of हर्षविक्रमादित्य, how he was a contemporary and patron of भर्तृमेठ (राजतर. III. 260-262), how he became regent or king of Kashmir for about five years after हर्ष and how ultimately he became an ascetic (यति) at Benares (राजतर. III.

c5.s1.t1.54

¹ तेन मौग्ध्यमदभावविकृतपरितपनादीनामपि शाक्याचार्यराहुलादिभिरभिधानं विरुद्धमित्यलं बहुना । p. 164 of अ.भा. (vol.III GOS) on सामान्याभिनय ..

c5.s1.t1.55

² यथोक्तं भट्टमातृगुप्तेन । पुष्पं च जनयत्येको भूयोनुस्पर्शान्वित: । इति । p. 402 of B. O. R. I. copy.

c5.s1.t1.56

³ पूर्ववृत्ताश्रयमपि किंचिदुत्पाद्यवस्तु च । विधेयं नाटकमिति मातृगुप्तेन भाषितम् ॥ भा. प्र. p. 234.

c5.s1.t1.57

320). It does not appear that he was a commentator of the Nāṭyaśāstra, though one may hold that the मातृगुप्त patronized by हर्ष may have written a work in verse dealing with the topics of dramaturgy. The राजतर० ascribes two verses to him (III. 181 and 252). The नाट्यप्रदीप of सुन्दरमिश्र composed in 1613 A.D. quotes the definition of नान्दी from भरत's नाट्यशास्त्र (5.25 and 106) and then remarks ‘अस्य व्याख्याने मातृगुप्ताचार्यैः षोडशाङ्गप्रदापीयमुदाहृता’ (vide I. O. Cat. of mss. part III. p. 348 No. 1199). But this remark by a late writer need not be taken too literally. All that it means may be that मातृगुप्त in his work on dramaturgy dealt with भरत's definition of नान्दी. Dr. De (H. of S.P. vol. I. p. 33) was inclined to hold that the poet मातृगुप्त of the राजतरङ्गिणी was different from the writer on dramaturgy, but he was not probably aware, when he wrote, that अभिनव quotes a half verse on पुष्प from मातृगुप्त who writes on dramaturgy. At one time it was thought by scholars such as Dr. Bhau Dāji (in J.B. B. R. A. S. for 1861 pp. 208 ff.) that मातृगुप्त was to be identified with कालिदास, but hardly anyone now holds that view. If we rely on the राजतर०, मातृगुप्त must have flourished in the first half of the 7th century. Prof. T. R. Chintamani collected ‘the fragments of Mātṛgupta’ in J. O. R. Madras vol. II pp. 118-128. Whether Bhaṭṭa Tauta, the teacher of Abhinava in the Nāṭyaśāstra, wrote a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra will be discussed later on. Utpaladeva, who was the teacher's teacher of Abhinava in the Pratyabhijñāśāstra, is frequently quoted by the A. B. on chapters 29, 31, 32 (on ध्रुवास.). But it is difficult to say whether he wrote a commentary on these chapters or an independent work on music. On p. 436 (of the B. O. R. I. copy) Abhinava appears to differ from him (उत्पलदेवास्तु अस्मत्परमगुरवो व्याचक्षते... वयं तु मन्महे).

c5.s1.t1.58

The लोचन on the ध्वन्यालोक (p. 217) quotes from भरत the verse बहूनां समवेतानां रूपं यस्य भवेद्बहु । स मन्तव्यो रसः स्थायी शेषाः सञ्चारिणो मताः ॥ (नाट्यशास्त्र GOS. ed. 20. 76 = Ch. 22. 68 which reads सर्वेषां for बहूनां), states that it was variously interpreted and sets out the view of भागुरि ‘तथा च भागुरिरपि किं रसानमपि स्थायिसञ्चारितास्तीत्याक्षिप्याभ्युपगमेनैवोत्तरमवोचद्वाढमस्तीति’ (लोचन p. 217). भागुरि as a commentator of भरत is not yet known from any other source.

c5.s1.t1.59

A few words must be said about ancient writers on dramaturgy as their works have not yet been found. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (I.15-18) mentions many divine, semi-divine and human authors, such as सदाशिव, शिवा, ब्रह्मा, भरत, कश्यपमुनि, मतङ्ग, याष्टिक, कोहल, विशा- खिल, दन्तिल, कम्भल, अश्वतर, नारद, तुम्बर, आञ्जनेय, मातृगुम, रावण, नन्दिकेश्वर, रुद्रट, नान्यभूपाल, भोज, सोमेश्वरपरमदी, जगदेकमहीपति. Kohala is one of them and a good deal has already been said about him above (pp. 24-25). He appears to have written on all topics of नाट्यशास्त्र especially on music, acting and dance. See my paper on ‘the fragments of Kohala’ in the proceedings of the 6th Session of the All India O. Conference at Patna pp. 577-580. Mr. Kavi (in J. Andhra H. R. S. vol. III. at p. 24) says that the सङ्गीतमेरु of कोहल is not now available except the chapter on ताल and अभिनय. It was Kohala who started the definitions of Uparūpakas like सट्टक (नाट्यदर्पण p. 25 and अभिनव vol. II. p. 407). That the Aubhaṭas thought that the verse रसा भावा (नाट्यशास्त्र 6.10) puts down the elements of the histrionic art at eleven according to the view of कोहल has already veen stated (p. 24 n. 2). A. B. very frequently mentions the views of Kohala and quotes his verses also. On नाट्य 9. 4-6 (vol. II p. 26) Kohala is said to be नृत्ताचार्य (शून्यभास्वरविद्युदाभिनयविषये नृत्ताचार्यप्रवाहसिद्धः कोहललिखितोपि हस्तः सङ्गतो भवतीति). His views are mentioned on नाट्य० 9. 126 (vol. II. p. 55), on 12. 2-3 (vol. II. p.130), vol. II. p. 142 (about a ध्रुवाताल being called सुभद्र), vol. II. p. 144 (modes of moving about called नर्तनक and उत्फुल्लक in रौद्ररस), vol. II. p. 146 (a लय called जम्भटिका), vol. II. p. 151, on नाट्य 12. 113 (vol. II p. 155 about gaits called खञ्जक, हेला, विलम्बित), on नाट्य 18. 1 (vol. II. p. 407, saying that if the word प्रयोगतः is properly interpreted, then तोटक, सट्टक, रासक and other उपरूपकs will be included), on 18. 7-8 (vol. II: p. 410) Kohala separately named several varieties of plays, but they are practically included in the definitions of the ten रूपकs); on 18. 14 (vol. II. pp. 416-17, the रूपक called अङ्क is of three kinds acc. to कोहल from whom 2½ verses are quoted), on 18. 26 (vol. II. p. 421 कोहल spoke of five अर्थोपक्षेपकs), vol. p. 434 (quotes an आर्या from कोहल about विष्कम्भक), vol.. II. p. 452 (कोहल's view ‘शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणैरिह कैशिकी स्यात्’ is opposed to भरत's), vol. II p. 459 (two आर्याs of कोहल quoted on वीथी), vol. II. p. 133 (an अनुष्टुभ् of कोहल on द्विपदी is quoted. On p. 72 of अ. भा. vol. III. G. O. S. it is said that rūpakas are of many varieties, acc. to Kohala on the basis of the languages employed and that Bharata must be regarded as holding the same view since he accepts a play called Saindhavaka composed in the Saindhava speech ((तेन दशरूपकस्य यद्वापाकृतं वैचित्र्यं कोहलादिभिरुक्तं तदिह मुनिना सैन्धवा- अनिरूपणे स्वीकृतमेव)¹ On p. 146. (chap.22.) (and 24. 1 of Ch. ed.) of अ. भा. it is said that former writers who followed Kohala’s doctrines regard that सामान्याभिनय is of six kinds and a verse of कोहल is quoted.² On chap. 25. 124. अ. भा. p. 289 says that one should study also the चित्राभिनय well-known from Kohala’s śāstra and cites over thirty explanatory verses.

c5.s1.t1.60

¹ Vide नाट्यशास्त्र 31. 513 (Ch. ed.) सैन्धवीमाश्रितं भाषां ज्ञेयं सैन्धवकं बुधैः । रूपकादिसंयुक्तं सैन्धवं स्यादथोद्धतम् ॥. The corresponding verse in K. M. 31. 315 presents a better reading in the second half as ‘रूपवादादिसंयुक्तं युग्मतालकृतं तथा’.

c5.s1.t1.61

² ‘कोहलमतानुसारिभिर्वृद्धैः सामान्याभिनयस्तु षोढा भण्यते । तथाहि कोहलः । शिष्टं कामं मिश्रं वक्रं सम्भूतमेकयुक्तत्वम् । सामान्याभिनये यत् षोढा विदुरेतदेव बुधाः । इति ।

c5.s1.t1.62

The भावप्रकाशन frequently quotes Kohala’s views (vide pp. 204, 210, 236, 245, 251). मार्कण्डेय, author of प्राकृतसर्वस्व, states in the third Intro. verse³ that after studying the works of शाकल्य, भरत, कोहल, वररुचि, भामह, वसन्तराज and others he composed his work. This shows that कोहल wrote on Prakrits also, as did Bharata.

c5.s1.t1.63

³ The Vijagapatam ed. of प्राकृतसर्वस्व, 1927

c5.s1.t1.64

The रसार्णवसुधाकर of शृङ्गपाल (p. 8 verses 52-54) states that the sons of Bharata, viz. शाण्डिल्य, कोहल, दत्तिल and मतङ्ग wrote works on नाट्यशास्त्र.⁴ In the कामसूत्र (I. 1. 11, VI. 2. 55, VI. 3. 44) mention is made of दत्तक who at the request of the Gaṇikās of Pāṭaliputra expounded the वैशिक section of कामशास्त्र. The कुट्टनीमत (verses 77, 122) mentions दत्तकाचार्य (v. l. दन्तिलाचार्य). The अभिनवभारती (vol. I. p. 205, chap. 4. 326-327 on ध्रुवा) quotes a śloka from दत्तिलाचार्य. In the B. O. R. I. copy the verses of दत्तिलाचार्य are very frequently quoted on आतोद्य and ताल. Vide pp. 383 (on chap. 28. 10), 403 (chap. 29. 101 of Ch. ed.), 435, 439 (on chap. 31. 31), 442, 446, 447, 450, 478, 487, 489 (a verse on ओवेयण), 491. Mr. Kavi (in J. Andhra H. R. S. Vol. III. p. 24) stated that his work is called गान्धर्ववेदसार and is now available. दन्तिल and दत्तिल are clearly forms of the same name, but whether the दत्तक mentioned by the कामसूत्र is the same as दत्तिल of the नाट्यशास्त्र is doubtful. Matanga is mentioned as an expert in hollow musical instruments (such as a flute) by दामोदरगुप्त.¹ So he is very much older than अभिनवगुप्त. The B. O. R. I. copy of A. B. p. 420 (on chap. 30, 1 ) states that formerly the sage मतङ्ग and others propitiated the great god Maheśvara (Śiva) by means of the flute made of a bamboo, that it became well-known as वंश, that any hollow tube made even of the Khadira tree can be called सुषिर आतोद्य² and then quotes a śloka to the same effect from मतङ्ग and says later on that मतङ्ग has made it clear that even hollow metallic flutes may be used ‘तथाहि मतङ्गमुनिना ‘चत्वारो धातवो वंश इत्यादिना धातुविनियोगोपि प्रदर्शित एव.’ On chap. 30 verse 11 the B.O.R.I. copy p. 426 quotes two verses (ślokas) of मतङ्ग. The सङ्गीतचूडामणि of जगदेकमल्ल (1138-1150 A.D.) refers to मतङ्ग and भोज as great writers before him (I. H. Q. vol. 20 p. 87). The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (I. 15 ff) mentions many authors (p. 55). कल्लिनाथ on सं. र. I. 3.24 p. 38 states that मतङ्ग explained how the स्वरs called षड्ज and others are significant and on I. 3. 25 remarks ‘सरिगादीनां मतङ्गाभिमतः उद्धारक्रमः उच्यते.’ On सं. र. I. 4. 9. कल्लिनाथ says that मतङ्ग and नन्दिकेश्वर speak of twelve मूर्छनाs. On सं. र. I. 8. 19 p.146 कल्लिनाथ states the view of मतङ्ग ‘सामवेदे गीतप्रधाने आवृत्तियु अर्थो नाद्रियन्ते इति.’ On सं. र. II. 1. 7 कल्लिनाथ remarks that मतङ्ग speaks of seven गीतिs taking into account भाषाs and dialects (विभाषा), while भरत speaks of only four viz. मागधी etc.³ Mr. Kavi (J. Andhra H. R. S., vol. III. at p. 24) says that मतङ्ग is the author of बृहद्देशी about 2500 ślokas of which are now available. The बृहद्देशी has been referred to dozens of times in the भरतभाष्य of नान्यदेव (ms. 111. of 1869-70 at B.O.R.I. e. g. folios 86a, 86b, 107 &c.). Recently a work called भरतार्णव of नन्दिकेश्वर with translation in English and Tamil has been published in the Tanjore Sarasvati Mahal series No. 74 (1957). It deals with ‘नर्तन’ (Dance). The ms was incomplete and contains first fifteen chapter of over 800 verses out of 4000. विशाखिल is cited as a writer on कलाs in वामन's काव्यालङ्कारसूत्रवृत्ति (I. 3. 7.). The कुट्टनीमत (v. 123) has भरतविशाखिलनिलवृत्तायुर्वेदचित्रसूत्रेषु । पत्रच्छेदविधाने भ्रमकर्मणि पुस्तसूदशास्त्रेषु ॥. The A. B. (vol. I. p. 199 on chap. 4. 312) states that लास्यगान was expounded by विशाखिल. On नाट्यशास्त्र 28. 10 the A. B. (B. O. R. I. copy p. 383) states the view 'तथा च विशाखिलाचार्याः स्वरपतालसमवाये गान्धर्वमिति.' On नाट्य 29. 81-83, B. O. R. I. copy p. 401 makes the following remarks and thereby suggests that अभिनव thought that भरत knew विशाखिल 'एवकारेण चतुष्प्रहरसत्रिप्रहरसमङ्गुलीनां विभागो द्वे वृती समलेखा च त्रिलेखा इत्यादिकं विशाखिलाचार्यान्तरप्रोक्तं सर्वथैव ध्रुवागानस्थानवैकल्पोपयोगात् मया नोक्तमिति सूत्रयति ।.' विशाखिल is mentioned also on pp. 408, 422 (on 30. 3 अतएव शरीरवदंश्यामारोहणमिवारोहणं वेति विशाखिलाचार्यैः ।), 429, 431, 432, 497 (विशाखिलादिलक्षितं सर्वमेव लास्यगानं).

c5.s1.t1.65

⁴ Similarly, the रसरत्नप्रदीपिका (recently edited by Dr. R. N. Dandekar in the भारतीयविद्याभवन series) mentions numerous authors and works that the author of the work studied such as कश्यप, कोहल, मतङ्ग, दत्तिल, विशाखिल, नारद, तुम्बर, रावण.

c5.s1.t1.66

¹ सुषिरस्वरप्रयोगे प्रतिपादनपण्डितो मतङ्गमुनिः। कुट्टनीमत verse 877.

c5.s1.t1.67

² पूर्वं भगवन्महेश्वराराधानं मतङ्गमुनिप्रभृतिभिर्वर्णितं (वेणुना कृतं ?) ततो वंश इति प्रसिद्धः, वस्तुतस्तु छिद्रात्मकसुषिराभिव्यक्तस्वरविशेषरूपतयैवास्योपयोग इति खादिरादिनिर्मितं व्यसनं (?) भवत्येव । तथा चोक्तम् । वंशं सृष्टं यदा पूर्वं वंशसका तु वैणवी । वंशास्तु खादिरोप्पाः शंशवायत्क...इति ।

c5.s1.t1.68

³ Vide नाट्यशास्त्र 29. 76-77 अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि गीतीनामपि लक्षणम्॥ प्रथमा मागधी ज्ञेया द्वितीया चार्धमागधी। सम्भाविता तृतीया च चतुर्थी पृथुला स्मृता॥ These four are also mentioned in सं र. 1. 8. 14-16 and कल्लिनाथ says ‘अस्या मगधदेशोद्भवत्वान्मागधीति निरुक्तिर्मता.’

c5.s1.t1.69

It appears that there was a work called Vārtika on the Nāṭyaśāstra. It was composed by one Śrīharṣa or Harṣa. He is frequently referred to sometimes as simply वार्तिककृत् and sometimes as श्रीहर्ष; (1) On नाट्य. II. 97-98 (A. B. vol. I. p. 67) the views of the वार्तिककृत् on the numbers of columns (स्तम्भ) to be erected in various parts of the नाट्यमण्डप are quoted in 1½ āryās that are rather mutilated. On p. 68 there are four more āryās with gaps that are also probably from the वार्तिक; (2) on नाट्य I. 84 नेपथ्यभूमौ मित्रस्तु, A. B. (vol. I. p. 31) mentions the view of वार्तिककार which cannot be made out clearly as the passage is corrupt; (3) on नाट्य 4. 267-268 (vol I. p. 172) the वार्तिककृत् asserts that in essence नाट्य and नृत्त are not different,¹वाच्यानुगतेभिनये प्रतिपाद्ये च गात्रविक्षेपैः । उभयोरपि हि समानः को भेदो नृत्तनाट्यगतः ॥; (4) The same view is enforced by another āryā from the वार्तिक (vol. I.

c5.s1.t1.70

1. नाट्य means all dramatic performance. It comprehends drama, singing and dance. In several kinds of रूपकs drama predominates, in the other रूपकs and in उपरूपकs song and dance predominate. Sometimes a distinction is made between नाट्य, नृत्त and नृत्त. नाट्य is represented by several persons, नृत्त and नृत्त are the business of one (they are एकहार्य). नृत्त and नृत्त are also distinguished. Vide दशरूपक 1. 7-9 'अवस्थानुकृतिर्नाट्यं ...दशधैव रसाश्रयम् । अन्यद् भावाश्रयं नृत्तं नृत्तं ताललयाश्रयम् ।'. The भावप्रका-शन p. 298 says: 'पदार्थभिनयो नृत्तं डोम्बीश्रीगदितादिषु । अङ्गविक्षेपमात्रं यन्नतालसमन्वितम् ॥ तन्नृत्तं' &c.; also p. 45 नटकर्मैव नाट्यं स्यादिति नाट्यविदां मतम् । करैरहार्यैश्च नृत्तं नृत्तमुच्यते ॥. What is common to all three is अनुकृति or अनुकरण. The अमरकोश has 'तौर्यत्रिकं नृत्यगीतवाद्यं नाट्यमिदं त्रयम् ।' p. 174 एवमवान्तरवाक्यैरुपदेशो रागदर्शनीयेषु । सिंहादिवर्णकैर्वा क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तरन्यासात् ॥); (5) On IV. 331 (vol. I. p. 207) the same view is further asserted by a mutilated quotation from हर्षवार्तिक; (6) Śrīharṣa's view about the interpretation of the word पूर्वरङ्ग (नाट्य. 5. 7) and one āryā of his are quoted (vol. I. p. 211) श्रीहर्षस्तु रङ्गशब्देन तौर्यत्रिकं ब्रुवन् नाट्यप्रयोगस्य तस्यैव पूर्वरङ्गतां मन्यमानः पूर्ववासी रङ्ग इति समासममंस्त । यदाह - इष्टा येऽवस्थाथै (वस्त्वर्थे ?) नाट्य रङ्गाय पादभागाः स्युः । पूर्वं त एव यस्मिन् शुद्धाः स्युः पूर्वरङ्गोऽसौ ॥; (7) On नाट्य. 5. 8-15 which mention the aṅgās of पूर्वरङ्ग, A.B. (vol.I p. 212) quotes a prose passage from the वार्तिक which is mutilated; (8) on नाट्य. 5. 180 श्रीहर्ष is quoted in connection with the प्रस्तावना in पूर्वरङ्ग (vol. I. p. 251, यदाह श्रीहर्षः - अत एव हासो नाम कविः कस्मिंश्चि-न्नाटके 'दिवं यातश्चित्तज्वरेण कलिरित एवाभिवर्तते, अशक्यमस्य पुरतोऽवस्थातुम्' इत्यादि).¹

c5.s1.t1.71

¹ The editor suggests that भास should be read for हास but there are no grounds to do so. हास may well have been the name of a dramatist, now unknown.

c5.s1.t1.72

From the above it follows that the हर्षवार्तिक probably dealt with all the chapters, that it was composed mostly in Āryā verses with prose passages and illustrations from dramatic Literature. Mr. Kavi (Intro. p. XXIII to vol. II.) says that a large fragment of वार्तिक on अलङ्कार has been recovered. Dr. Raghavan (in his paper on writers quoted in the Abhinivabhārati in J. O. R. Madras vol. VI at p. 205) remarks ‘Here also it is quoted only in the first six chapters. Not even a single reference to it is available in the remaining bulk of the Abhinavabhārati.’ This statement argues from silence and is therefore not to be taken as deciding for certain that there was no वार्तिक on any chapter after the book. We have no comment of Abhinava on the 7th (except on the first few verses) and 8th chapters and there are gaps in other chapters also and there is no commentary after chap. 32. The भावप्रकाशन quotes a view of Harṣa that तोटक differs from नाटक in this that in the former there is no विदूषक (p. 238). Dr. Śankaran in ‘History of the theory of Rasa’ p. 13 identified the great emperor हर्ष of Kanoj with this Śrī Harṣa. But this is mere conjecture.

First 75 of 853 passages. Read on

Linked texts (89)