History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.22

c6.22

He refers to two works dealing with the death of Kaṃsa and the humiliation of Bali and dramatic representations of these themes (vol. II. p. 34 and p. 36).¹ In another passage he makes a reference to the wives of actors ‘व्यञ्जनानि पुनर्नटभार्यावद्भवन्ति । नटानां स्त्रियो रङ्गं गता यो यः पृच्छति कस्य यूयं कस्य यूयमिति तं तं तव तवेत्याहुः’ (vol. III. p. 7). The महाभाष्य contains many quotations from the works of poets that went before it, some of which possess poetic charm, e.g. ‘असि द्वितीयोनुससार पाण्डवम्’ and ‘सङ्कर्षणद्वितीयस्य बलं कृष्णस्य वर्धताम्’ (vol. I. p. 426); जघान कंसं किल वासुदेवः (vol. II. p. 119); जनार्दनस्त्वमात्मचतुर्थ एव (vol. III. p. 143): प्रिया मयूरः प्रतिनर्त्तीति and यदत्त्वं नरबर नर्त्तीति हृष्टः (vol. III. p. 338); एति जीवन्तमानन्दः (vol. I. p. 277); वरतनु संप्रवदन्ति कुक्कुटाः² (vol. I. p.283). The verse³ एति etc. occurs in the युद्धकाण्ड (129. 2 where it is called लौकिकीगाथा). On the sūtra रसादिभ्यश्च (पा. V. 2. 95) the Mahābhāṣya gives the example रसिको नटः (vol. II. p. 394), thereby indicating that there were even then in the air some ideas about the relation of rasas to actors. In the days of the महाभाष्य also the face of a charming young woman was compared to the moon, since he cites the example चन्द्रमुखी देवदत्ता (vol. I. p. 397) and remarks that though the moon has many good points what is conveyed here is प्रियदर्शनता. On ‘उपमानानि सामान्यवचनैः’ पा. II. 1. 55 we have ‘चन्द्रमुखी देवदत्तेति बहवश्चन्द्रे गुणा या चासौ प्रियदर्शनता सा गम्यते (महा- भाष्य). The महाभाष्य also says ‘यदारम्भका रङ्गं गच्छन्ति नटस्य श्रोश्यामः ग्रन्थिकस्य श्रोश्यामः’ (vol. I. p. 329 on ‘आख्यातोपयोगे’ पा. I. 4. 29).¹ This example clearly shows that पतञ्जलि here refers to actors who deliver dramatic dialogues on the stage (रङ्ग), and not to any shows concerned with pantomimes. On पा. II. 4. 77 (vol. I. p. 495,) the महाभाष्य cites ‘अगासीन्नटः’ showing thereby that a नट also sang. Why the same meaning should not be taken in the case of Pāṇini’s sūtra ‘पाराशयशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः’ (IV. 3. 110) is not clear to me. Western scholars like Keith obstinately and persistently refuse to hold that the Naṭasūtra referred to by Pāṇini is some work on actors and dramaturgy (vide ‘Sanskrit Drama’ pp. 31, 291) but that all that Pāṇini meant are rules on pantomimes. No works dealing with pantomimes alone have been discovered so far.