Indian Antiquary Vol 46

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 191

AUGUST, 1917 ]
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF ALAMKARA LITERATURE
179
writing a history of Sanskrit literature. If he mentions any word, he does so simply because he regards it as noteworthy from the grammarian's point of view. The tendency to jump from the mere non-mention of a writer by another to chronological conclusions about them has been a frequent and fruitful source of error. We wish to enter our protest against this tendency. The mere circumstance that Bharata is not referred to as a writer on dramaturgy by Pânini is not at all sufficient to place Bharata later than Pânini. We must adduce independent and positive evidence to prove the posteriority of Bharata to Pânini. We do not mean to say, however, that the extant Natyasastra is as old as the Sûtrakâras mentioned by Pânini. There are certain indications in the Natya sastra itself that point to an opposite conclusion. It often quotes verses in the Arya metre with the remark Atra Sütrânubaddhe Aryé bhavataḥ (on this point there are two Aryâs composed in conformity with a Sutra). This we interpret to mean that the extant Nâty astra was preceded by works on dramaturgy which were themselves based upon older sútra writings.
We shall now pass on to the consideration of the evidence establishing the date of the Natyaśâstra.
1. The Dasaripaka of Dhananjaya is a well-known treatise on dramaturgy. The author tells us that he composed the work at the court of Muñja. This Muñja is most probably the same as the uncle of the Paramâra king, Bhôja. If this be so, the Dasarûpaka must have been composed before A. D. 1000. Dhana jaya says at the beginning of his work that Brahmâ took the essence of the Vedas and composed the Nâlyasdstra and that Bharata gave a performance in accordance with it.10 This makes it clear that the author of the Daiarûpaka was quite familiar with the traditional origin of the Nâtyaśâstra as contained in the latter17 and that he looked upon Bharata as a semi-divine sage belonging to those far-off times when men had free access to the gods. Hence it follows that Bharata's work must have been written (not necessarily in the form in which we have it now) a number of centuries before A. D. 1000.
2. Abhinavagupta, author of the Lôchana, a comment on the Dhvanyâlôka, calls Bharata a very ancient sage and says that Yamaka and Upama were regarded by him as figures of word and sense respectively.18 Yamaka and Upama are treated of in the 16th chapter of the extant Natyasastra. Raghavabhatta, the learned author of a commentary entitled Arthadyôtanikâ on the Sakuntala, quotes at every step Bharata's dicta and oftentimes names the very chapters in which the verses occur. A careful examination of his commentary would yield very valuable material for settling the text of the Nátyasâstra. He tells us19 that Abhinavagupta composed a commentary called Abhinavabharati on the Natyaidstra of Bharata. It should be noted that Abhinavagupta does not speak of Dandin (6th century) or Bhâmaha (A. D. 700) as chirantana or as a muni. A
26 Uddhṛity-oddhitya saran yamakhila-nigaman-natyavedam Virinchis-chakre yasya prayeganis munir-api Bharatas-tangavah Nilakanthaḥ
17 See Natyalástra I. 1-4 and 11-16.
18 Chirantanair-hi Bharatamuniprabhritibhir Yamakôpame sabdarthålamkaratven-eshte.-Dhvanya. lokalôchana, p. G
19 P. 6 (Nirnayasagara, 3rd edition.) Idah padyam Abhinavaguptapádácharyair-Bharatat kayam. Abhinavabharatyán vyákhyalam. The verse referred to is Sutradharaḥ pathen-nândim (Natyasdstra V. 98). On p. 20 of the above edition, Raghavabhatta quotes a long passage rom the Natyasastra, 16th chapter and remarks Abhinavabharatyám Bharataṭikayam- Abhinava guptacharyair mahatapraban dhena bhinnatayà sthâpitani.