________________
AUGUST, 1917)
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF ALAMKARA LITERATURE
177
from such secular writers as Dandin. We hope that the foregoing discussion has established that the Agni purana is not the original work on the Alankarasastra, that it is later than A. D. 700 and that it is indebted to the writings of Bharata, Dandin, Bhâmaha and possibly Bhôja.
The Natyabastra of Bharata. Bharata has a claim to be spoken of here for a twofold reason; firstly because he gives an elaborate account of the rasas which are of the essence of Kavya and secondly because his work contains the earliest extant treatment of figures of speech.
Before proceeding further, it would not be out of place if we make a few remarks upon the Sanskrit drama in general. The origin of the Sanskrit drama, as that of many other branches of Sanskrit literature, is lost in the mists of antiquity. As far as our knowledge goes, the earliest and clearest reference to the dramatic art occurs in Pâņini,8 who mentions Silalin and Krisâśva as authors of Natasútras. An objection might be raised by sceptical critics that the two sútras are spurious additions made later on. But it is not a sound one. Patañjali the author of the Mahâbhâshya takes these sutras for granted and speaks of actors that had studied the nafasútra of Silâlin.. As Pânini speaks of natasútras, it follows as a matter of course that a number of dramas must have been composed prior to the natasútras. It cannot be said that the rules on the dramatic art were first laid down and that then dramas were composed in consonance with them. The canons of dramaturgy can be laid down only when a number of dramatic works already exist. Thus a very great dramatic activity appears to have preceded Pâņini. There is a great divergence of opinion among scholars about the date of Pâņini. Most scholars concede that Pâņini did not at all events flourish later than 300 B. C. There are some who would place Pâộini in the 7th or 8th century before Christ. We make bold to avow our adherence to this latter view. The dramatic works on which the natasútras referred to by Pâņini were based must therefore have been composed some centuries earlier than 300 B. C. at the latest. Nothing beyond their bare names is known of the natasútras of SilAlin and Kțiśâéva, nor of the dramatic works on which they must have been founded. In the times of Patañjali (140 B. C.) dramatic representations appear to have been mucb in vogue. Patañjali alludes in a number of places to actors and dramatic performances. In one place Patañjali tells us that in his day the killing of the demon Kamsa and the humiliation of Bali were represented on the stage.10 In another place he talks of the wives of actors appearing on the stage and declaring themselves as belonging to him who accosts thom. 11 Although the drama thus flourished in the centuries preceding the Christian era, the Sanskrit drama appears to have had a struggle for existence. Considering the exuberant growth of almost every branch of Sanskrit literature, the number of Sanskrit dramas that have come down to us appears very small indoed. A large number
8 Mark the following sutras Páratarya-sildlibhyam bhikkhu-natasidrayoh and Karmanda-krisasvádini. (Panini IV. 3, 110-111.)
• Soe Mahabhdolya, Vol. II, p. 286. Parasaring bhikshavah sailalind nalan.
10 Iha tu kat han varlandna-kalatt Kansan ghatayali Bali bandhayati-iti chirahate kanse chirabaddhe cha Balau | Aldpi yukta katham ye idvad-ete sobhanika ndma ete pratyaksham kansan ghatayanti pratyakshanh cha Balim bandhayanti.iti Mahabhdahya (Kielhorn), Vol. II, p. 38. On the word $obhaniki, Kaiyyata romarks (he roads Saubhika) Saubhikl iti keaneddy-anula rindm natanam vydkhyanopd-dhyayah kanaanuldri nataḥ samijikaih kansabuddhya grihilah kans8 bhashye sivakshitah |
u Natanda striyð rangam gata yo yah prichchhati kasya yayan ka sya ydyari-iti tam tam tava savity-dhur. I Mahabhd shya, Vol. III, p. 7.
