the nāṭyaśāstra: the origin of the ancient indian poetics · 2021. 1. 4. · the ancient...

The Nāṭyaśāstra: the Origin of the Ancient Indian Poetics

«The Nāṭyaśāstra: the Origin of the Ancient Indian Poetics»

by Natalia Lidova

Source:Cracow Indological Studies (Cracow Indological Studies), issue: 14 / 2012, pages: 6185, onwww.ceeol.com.

http://www.ceeol.comhttp://www.ceeol.com

Cracow Indological Studies vol. XIV (2012)

Natalia Lidova(Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow)

The Nāṭyaśāstra: the Origin of the Ancient Indian Poetics

SUMMARY: The Sanskrit treatise Nāṭyaśāstra is the most ancient and authoritative Indian text on the arts. Some researchers, trying to single out the most ancient kernel of the text, dated it to the 5th century BCE. Others, meaning the concluding stage of its formation, by which the treatise had incorporated interpolations from different times, proposed much later dates up to the 7th-8th centuries CE. It is widely believed that the treatise acquired its modern form between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE. Of an encyclopaedic scope, the Nāṭyaśāstra treats a great variety of topics and comprises a manual for producers and performers, treatises on the theory of drama and aesthetics, as well as the oldest poetic theory in the Indian tradition. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the Nāṭyaśāstra as the earliest available source for the study of the Ancient Indian poetics.

KEYWORDS: Nāṭyaśāstra, poetics, vācika-abhinaya, prosody, pada, kāvya, metre

Five consecutive chapters (XV-XIX) of the Nāṭyaśāstra1 describe the laws of arranging artistic speech, forming a treatise on the theory of poetry within the book. It analyzes one of the essential categories of the theoretical system of the Nāṭyaśāstra – vācika-abhinaya, which

1 This numeration of chapters follows the one in the Calcutta edition of the Nāṭyaśāstra (MGE, I-II, further NŚ), from which the majority of cita-tions are taken. The corresponding chapters of the Baroda edition (GOS 36; GOS 68; GOS 124; GOS 145) are XIV-XVII.

62 Natalia Lidova

determined the rules of verbal performance. It was one of the four basic components of scenic representation on a par with scenic movement – āṅgika, costume, makeup, decoration of stage, etc. – āhārya, and the theatrical representation of spontaneous human emotions as, for instance, blush or tears – sāttvika.

Responsible for the verbal component of acting, vācika-abhinaya initially concerned solely scenic speech, which the performers freely improvised following a particular mythological theme. At a certain developmental stage of the theatre, it spread to the scenic text, which was no longer improvised but written by an author to be memorized and acted out. The earliest extant dramas are finished literary works2 with an elaborate structure (prologue, division into acts, interludes, etc.), written in prose or verse in Sanskrit and Prakrit literary languag-es. The drama was the first proper literary genre in the Indian tradi-tion, so it is natural that the oldest doctrine of poetic speech, arranged on specific patterns and differing from the vernacular and the schol-arly idiom alike, was formulated in connection with it to become part of the theoretical system put forward in the Nāṭyaśāstra. The part on the theory of poetics opens with the declaration of the elevated status of speech. As the treatise says through the lips of Bharata, its legendary author, who tells the Brahmins surrounding him about the essence of vācika-abhinaya,

words should be taken special care of because the word is known as the physical basis [body] of the drama, while movement, costume and makeup, and sāttvika [abhinayas merely] bring out the meaning of words. Treatises (śāstras) are made of words and are based on words. There is noth-ing greater than the word, and the word is the reason of everything.3

2 These are excerpts from three Buddhist plays found c. 1910 in Tur-fan, Central Asia, which G. Lüders dated to the Kuṣāṇa era (1st-2nd cent. CE) (Lüders 1911a; Lüders 1984, 11). However fragmentary they might be, these texts confirm that the Sanskrit literary drama had acquired fully developed forms by the first centuries of the Christian era.

3 vāci yatnas tu kartavyo nāṭyasyeṣā tanuḥ smr̥tā / aṅga-nepathya-sattvāni vākyārthaṁ vyañjayanti hi //

Access via CEEOL NL Germany

63The Nāṭyaśāstra: the Origin of the Ancient Indian Poetics

This inspired hymn glorifying the Word is characteristic of Indian culture, which regarded articulated speech as the supreme constituting element and one of the most graphic expressions of the sublime nature of the world. However, in this instance the solemn passage introduced not a description of the sacral nature or philosophy of language but an analysis of far more practical knowledge on poetics and linguistics.The Nāṭyaśāstra begins the story of artistic speech with the confirma-tion of two basic kinds of scenic recitation (pāṭhya): “Two kinds of recitation are known [in the drama] – the Sanskritic (samskr̥ta) and the Prakritic (prākr̥ta).”4 No doubt, the former was held far more important – suffice to say that related grammar rules (śabda-vidhāna) are first to be described in the text. They concerned vowels and con-sonants, the rules of euphonic combinations (sandhi), nouns (nāma), verbs (ākhyāta), prepositions (upasarga), particles (nipāta), nominal suffixes (taddhita), compound words (samāsa), case-endings (vibhak-ti), and various kinds of verbal roots and basic meanings of words.5

After their detailed analysis, the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra posed another criterion for the identification of scenic speech – in this instance according to the way of its formal arrangement. In this, they sepa-rated prosaic speech (cūrṇa) from poetic one (nibaddha). The prem-ise was followed by a description of the rhythmic structure of verse. With the exception of a number of terminological specifics, this descrip-tion on the whole corresponded to the theory of prosody characteristic of the classic Sanskrit literary period, which found reflection in poetolog-ical treatises that appeared later than the Nāṭyaśāstra (Velankar 1949).6

vāṅmayānīhaśāstrāṇivāṅniṣṭhānitathaivaca/ tasmād-vācaḥparaṁnāstivāghisarvasyakāraṇam// (NŚ XV, 2-3).

4 dvividhaṁhismr̥taṁpāṭhyaṁsaṁskr̥taṁprākr̥taṁtathā (NŚ XV, 5). 5 The analysis of this part of the Nāṭyaśāstra with detailed description

of the Sanskrit sounds (NŚ XV, 8-20) and basic grammar rules (NŚ XV, 20-35) is extremely interesting from the linguistic point of view and deserves special study.

6 The Chandaḥ-śāstra or Chandaḥ-sūtra, ascribed to the sage Piṅgala, is considered the earliest extant treatise on Sanskrit prosody (Weber 1863;

64 Natalia Lidova

Just as these treatises, the Nāṭyaśāstra dealt with a quantitative metric system based on the count of prosodically shorter and longer syllables in a line. The so-called vr̥tta was the pivotal block of Sanskrit verse and the basis of all syllabic metres. Its characteristics were deter-mined by the rhythm and the ictus, when it was used.7 The syllabic metre was a sequence of metric matrixes organizing the poetic line. The rhythmic pattern it created was clearly perceived in recitation.

Sanskrit versification saw its ideal in the stanza (padya) of four lines, compared to the cow, which personified speech, firmly stand-ing on four legs. Thus, each line of the tetrametric stanza was named “pāda” – literally, “foot” (NŚ XV. 39) – the smallest possible poetic unit.8 The Nāṭyaśāstra recommended to “know the poetic pada, as well as the prosaic one”.9 The sole difference between them was that the for-mer possessed an organized rhythm, caesuras and a regulated number of syllables, of which the latter had none. Its structure depended only on the author’s taste and semantic demand.

Piṅgala 1871-74; Piṅgala 1938). The Chandaḥ-sūtra is divided into eight chapters and describes metres considered transitional between the Vedic and classical epic metres. The precise time of its writing is unknown. Howev-er, Piṅgala’s name is mentioned in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya, so it is considered to be written no later than the 2nd century BCE. Indian tradition regards Piṅgala as a real teacher (often identified with Patañjali himself) and a mythical char-acter with the appearance of a Nāga serpent (e.g., MBh I, 1554). The part of the Nāṭyaśāstra under consideration is close to Piṅgala’s treatise. Ch. 104 of the Br̥hatsaṁhitā, the part of the Agnipūraṇa on prosody, and numerous medi-aeval treatises base on these two sources.

7 Thus, unlike the European prosodic theory, the Sanskrit doctrine refers the term “foot” not to rhythmic arrangement but to a line in a quatrain.

8 “The wise should know the prosaic pada, which consists of many lines and is unorganized, with an indefinite number of syllables and hav-ing syllables picked out proceeding from consideration for the meaning” (anibaddhaṁ padavr̥ndaṁ tathā cāniyatākṣaram / arthāpekṣākṣarayutaṁ jñeyaṁ cūrṇapadaṁ budhaiḥ, NŚ XV, 37).

9 padaṁ jñeyaṁ nibaddhaṁ cūrṇam eva ca (NŚ XV, 36).


Consequently, the author of the treatise regarded prosaic speech as less perfect than verse while regarding it as a subcase of poetic speech. Indian tradition certainly regarded metrically arranged lan-guage as a more sublime and universal phenomenon than structur-ally unorganized speech. That was why they said only a few words on prosaic speech (cūrṇa)10 to go on to the other kind of speech, based on “the verse line (nibaddha pada), (which should) be known (as) consisting of organized syllables, and possessing pauses, caesuras and a particular rhythm”.11

The introduction of the category of the poetic pada – the pivot of the tetrametric stanza – allowed to go on to the description of diverse rhythmic patterns or, literally, syllabic feet (vr̥tta) and syllabic rhythm-types or types of meters (chandas). The latter divided in three basic types: homogeneous (sama), where all the four padas were similar, semi-homogeneous (ardha-sama), in which the metres of the alter-nating even and odd lines coincided, and heterogeneous (viṣama), where all the four padas differed (NŚ XV, 41). However, according to the Nāṭyaśāstra, they all rested on the word, for “as there are no words without a rhythmic pattern, so there is no rhythmic pattern without words, and their combination is known as the luminary of the drama”.12

The difference of metres mainly depended on the number of syllables in a pada, so their number was formally unlimited. How-ever, as acknowledged by experts to whom the author of this chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra refers, not all potentially existent metres were of whatever practical use. The Nāṭyaśāstra and later works on prosody

10 “The wise should know the prosaic pada, which consists of many lines and is unorganized, with an indefinite number of syllables and hav-ing syllables picked out proceeding from consideration for the meaning” (anibaddhaṁ padavr̥ndaṁ tathā cāniyatākṣaram / arthāpekṣākṣarayutaṁ jñeyaṁ cūrṇapadaṁ budhaiḥ, NŚ XV, 37).

11 nibaddhākṣarasaṁyuktaṁ yaticchedasamanvitam/ nibaddhaṁ tu padaṁ jñeyaṁ pramāṇaniyatākṣaram // (NŚ XV, 38).

12 chandohīno na śabdo’sti na cchandaḥ śabdavarjitaḥ / tasmāt tūbhaye saṁyukte nāṭyasyodyotake smr̥te // (NŚ XV, 42).

66 Natalia Lidova

(about them see Apte 1959, 648-658) make detailed descriptions of 26 basic classes,13 with the number of syllables in a line varying from one to 26. Though mention is made of metres with even more syllables in a pada, they are not classified as separate classes and are referred to under the common name of mālāvr̥tta (NŚ XV, 49).

Each of the 26 classes included a great number of metres, which emerged through varying combinations of prosodically short (or light14) and prosodically long (or heavy) syllables in a pada. For instance, every syllable might be prosodically short or long in such a metre as gāyatrī, whose pada included six syllables, so the potential number of combina-tions made 2 to the power of 6, which makes 64, out of which no more than six metres were practically used. The uṣṇih metre, with seven syl-lables in a pada, theoretically had 128 variants, anuṣṭubh, with eight syllables 256, br̥hatī with nine 512, etc.

Further growth of the number of rhythmic variants in the relevant metres produced bizarre figures, reaching the top in the utkr̥ti metre – a breathtaking 87,108,864. To all appearances, the author of this part of the Nāṭyaśāstra fell victim to the spell of huge numbers. At any rate, they found it necessary to specify the total number of variants in all syllabic metres they analyzed. It was 134,217,726 (NŚ XV, 77-79).

This giant number has a bearing rather on the mathematical pil-lars of the universe, studied with the help of metres and rhythms,15 than

13 The Nāṭyaśāstra terms the unisyllabic metre uktā, of 2 syl-lables atyuktā, of 3 madhyā, 4 pratiṣṭhā, 5 supratiṣṭhā, 6 gāyatrī, 7 uṣṇih, 8 anuṣṭubh, 9 br̥hatī, 10 paṅkti, 11 triṣṭubh, 12 jagatī, 13 atijagatī, 14 śakkarī, 15 atiśakkarī, 16 aṣṭi, 17 atyaṣṭi, 18 dhr̥ti, 19 atidhr̥ti, 20 kr̥ti, 21 prakr̥ti, 22 ākr̥ti, 23 vikr̥ti, 24 saṁkr̥ti, 25 abhikr̥ti and 26 utkr̥ti (NŚ XV, 43-49).

14 The light or short syllable, laghu, is a syllable with a short vow-el. When the vowel is followed by several consonants, anusvāra or visarga, the syllable is considered heavy, guru, or prosodically long.

15 Sanskrit prosody was always closely connected with mathemat-ics. Even Piṅgala operated several crucial mathematic ideas that were far ahead of his time. Thus, in describing metres with prosodically short and long syllables (in modern interpretation, 0 and 1), he was the first to intro-


on practical versification. It might make a good ending of the chapter on prosody. However, the author of the treatise carries on their analy-sis of the theme to characterize another way of the rhythmic arrange-ment of speech, which describes syllabic matrixes lying at the basis of the entire vast diversity of poetic metres – the basic metric pat-terns (gaṇa). These are three‑syllabic groups, or triads (trika),16 each of which is a combination of three prosodically short (light) or long (heavy) syllables.

As the later prosodic theory, the Nāṭyaśāstra also identifies eight triads (Apte 1959, 648). They all had names and were recorded as fol-lows: the gaṇa ‘bha’ consisted of one prosodically long and two pro-sodically short syllables (— U U), ‘ma’ of three long syllables (— — —), ‘ja’ of two prosodically short ones with a long syllable in between (U — U), ‘sa’ of two prosodically short and one long (U U —), ‘ra’ of two prosodically long syllables divided by a short one (— U —), ‘ta’ of two prosodically long and a short one (— — U), ‘ya’ of one pro-sodically short and two long (U — —) and ‘na’ of three prosodically short syllables (U U U), which exhausted all possible combinations of prosodically short and long syllables in the triadic structure.17

duce binary calculus. His characteristic of metric combinations corresponds to the Newtonian binomial, contains the basic idea of the Fibonacci num-bers (which he termed mātrā-meru) and operates ideas allowing to construct the Pascal triangle (meru-prastāra), which was done by Piṅgala’s commenta-tor Halāyudha (10th cent. CE). See for details: Bag 1966, 68‑74.

16 These eight syllabic matrixes are mentioned by all the later authors writing on prosody.

17 According to the Nāṭyaśāstra, these eight basic metric patterns ascend to Brahmā: “These eight triads are known to the wise as having the nature of Brahmā” (ete hy aṣṭau trikā prājñair vijñeyā brahmasambhavāḥ, NŚ XV, 84). Corresponding to these gaṇas in Greek prosody were the follow-ing groups: dactyl (— U U), molossus or trimacrus (— — —), amphibrach (U — U), anapaest or palimbacchius (U U —), amphimacrus or cretic (— U —), antapaest (— — U), bacchius, or antidactyl (U — —), and tribrach (U U U).

68 Natalia Lidova

Being subdivided into divine (divya), semi-divine (divyetara)18 and divine-human (divyamānuṣa) (NŚ XV, 100),19 the metres bear allu-sion to the divine patrons, such as Agni (NŚ XV, 91), and are asso-ciated with different colours,20 which usually had a sacral message in the Nāṭyaśāstra context.

The next chapter, XVI, continues the theme of poetic metres though characterizing them from the practical, rather than theoreti-cal point, as it cites specific examples of the most widespread syllab-ic metres in each of the 26 types. The description of diverse metres was made according to a unified pattern. It opened with a rule, often formulated in the metre under consideration,21 next to cite verse as an example. The quoted verse followed the principal themes of court poetry (kāvya) with refined portrayal of women’s beauty, the lan-guor of the lovelorn hero, his sorrow in parting with his beloved, and the anticipation of a reunion.

Most probably, an overwhelming majority of these poetic exam-ples were not borrowed from other sources but were composed to illus-trate particular variants of a metre. At any rate, many of them includ-ed or paraphrased its name, which usually had a striking metaphoric character and appeared in the example not as a term but as a keyword, which determined the content of the quoted poem. Thus, this chapter

18 divyetara, lit.: “pertaining to deities and other (beings)”. 19 The author of the Nāṭyaśāstra regarded the following metres

as divine: gāyatrī, uṣṇih, anuṣṭubh, br̥hatī, paṅkti, triṣṭubh and jagatī. Atijagatī, śakkarī, atiśakkarī, aṣṭi, atyaṣṭi, dhr̥ti and atidhr̥ti were considered semi-divine, while kr̥ti, prakr̥ti, ākr̥ti, vikr̥ti, saṁkr̥ti, abhikr̥ti and utkr̥ti were regarded as divine-human.

20 “Thus the colours of prosodic metres, beginning with white, must be known here” (śvetādayas tathā varṇā vijñeyāś chandasām iha, NŚ XV, 94).

21 The text of the Nāṭyaśāstra in itself has a poetic form and is writ-ten, for the main part, in the śloka metre. However, in this particular chapter the stanzas keep changing, and occasionally assume the form to which the rule refers. Due to this, not only exemplary verse but also the text of the treatise itself illustrates the metre described.


of the Nāṭyaśāstra presented a sophisticated play on semantics and metres, which corresponded to the refined linguistic techniques char-acteristic of the entire classical Indian poetry.

As in the preceding chapter, the description of various metres begins with the gāyatrī, with its six syllabic padas.22 The author of the treatise regarded four metric varieties, known as tanumadhyā,23 makarakaśīrṣā,24 mālinī25 and mā-+latī,26 in this class.

The tanumadhyā metre in the gāyatrī rhythm, in which the two first syllables and the last one were prosodically long,27 was illustrated with the following example:

santyakta-vibhūṣā bhraṣṭāñjana-netrā / hastārpitagaṇḍā kiṁ tvaṁ tanumadhyā // (NŚ XVI, 3)

Thou of slim form (lit. tanumadhyā), why hast thou discarded thine adorn-ments? Why hath mascara left your eyelashes, and why art thou (pensive), resting thy cheeks on thy hands?

22 Metres with a smaller number of syllables were most probably not used.

23 Lit.: “mid‑riff”, “waist” or “torso”.24 Lit.: “the head as a makara”. Makara is a semi‑mythical water monster

combining the features of a crocodile, shark and dolphin. Sometimes it is rep-resented with an elephant’s trunk and fish’s tale. Possibly, the name of the metre is a wordplay, because the makara, of fearsome appearance, was the emblem on the banner of Kāma the love god.

25 Lit.: “garland‑maker’s wife” or “woman garland‑maker”.26 Mālatī is a variety of jasmine. Its fragrant white flowers open at night.

It is also the name of the heroine of Mālatīmādhava, early 8th century drama by Bhavabhūti.

27 It should be noted that the name of this metre can be con-sidered to reflect its metrical structure, which is “slim” in the middle (SSIISS, i.e. guru-guru-laghu-laghu-guru-guru).

70 Natalia Lidova

The makarakaśīrṣā metre, with the first four syllables prosodically short and the two last prosodically long, was illustrated with this verse:

svayam upayāntaṁ bhajasi na kāntam /bhayakari kiṁ tvaṁ makarakaśīrṣā // (NŚ XVI, 4)

O thou awesome one, why dost thou not greet thy beloved, who hath come to thee of his own (will)? Thou of a makara’s head! (lit. “makarakaśīrṣā”).

The mālinī metre, with the second of the six syllables of each pada prosodically short, and the rest prosodically long, was illustrated thus:

snāna-gandhā-sragbhir vastra-bhūṣāyogaiḥ / vyaktam evaiṣāṁ tvaṁ mālinī prakhyātā // (NŚ XVI, 6)

Aromatic ablutions, fragrances, wreaths, (elegant) attire and jewellery, all testify: thou art known (to all) as garland‑maker’s wife (lit. mālinī).

The last example of the gāyatrī metre termed mālatī, with the second and fifth syllables of each line prosodically short and the others long, was illustrated with this verse:

śobhate baddhayā ṣaṭpadāviddhayā / mālatī-mālayā māninī līlayā // (NŚ XVI, 8)

In her feigned wrath, she sparkles adorned with a jasmine garland, round which bees are hovering.28

The other most widely used metric variants received similar characteristics. The author of the Nāṭyaśāstra pointed at two rhythms

28 Lit.: “adorned by a mālatī garland pierced by bees”.


– uddhatā29 and bhramara30-mālikā31 – for the uṣṇih heptasyllabic metre. They cited as many as four metres – siṁhalila,32 mattaceṣṭita,33 vidyullekhā34 and cittavilāsita35 – for the octosyllabic anuṣṭubh, of which the widespread śloka was a variant.

Following a detailed analysis of the entire list of homogenous (sama) metres with four similar padas, up to utkr̥ti, of 26 syllables, the treatise described two other kinds of metres – the semi-homoge-nous (ardha-sama), with coinciding rhythms of the alternating (or even and odd) lines, and completely heterogeneous (viṣama), in which all the four padas differed from each other.

The irregular structure of these metres also rested on basic metric matrixes, known as gaṇas or triads, to which several syllables might be added as a new metre was made. As they described these metres, the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra retained their previous type of descrip-tion, which opened with a rule formulated, to be followed by an illus-trative example in verse.

The end of the chapter was dedicated to other types of metres, mentioned to make the analysis exhaustive because, as the theoreti-cians confessed, they could not add to the beauty of a drama, and so should not be included in it. However, they could be recommended as devices for writing the lyrics of songs (NŚ XVI, 150-151) accompa-nying the performance of literary Sanskrit dramas.

These musical metres, known as āryā,36 varied in the num-ber of syllables. There was for each of them a strictly observed fixed length of the pada, measured in mātrās or, in other words,

29 Lit.: “loud-voiced”, “excited”.30 Lit.: “bee”.31 “garland-maker” or “gardener”.32 Lit.: “lion’s play”. 33 Lit.: “The behaviour of one intoxicated with passion”. 34 Lit.: “lightning”.35 Lit.: “wit”.36 The Nāṭyaśāstra mentions five metres of the āryā type: pathyā,

vipulā, capalā, mukha-capalā and jaghana-capalā (NŚ XVI, 153).

72 Natalia Lidova

in “measures”.37 The mātrā was the minimum unit of rhythm measure-ment, roughly corresponding to the time it takes to utter a short vowel (there were two mātrās in a long vowel).

The length of the pada in the āryā metres could also be counted with a set of steady metric blocks, or gaṇas. In this case, they were not ternary but quaternary structures, which made up groups of four unary mātrās (equivalent to a prosodically short syllable) or a relevant num-ber of duplicate (prosodically long syllables) ones.38

The chapter ends with an instruction to playwrights: in keeping with the above rules and with combinations of different measures, they were to make formally perfect poetic compositions (kāvyabandha), endowed with 36 characteristic features, termed lakṣaṇa (NŚ XVI, 172). This instruction not merely summed up the lengthy chapter on metres but also allowed to pass to the next, 17th chapter, headed Kāvyalakṣaṇa – literally, “The Attributes of Poetry”.

The section opens with a long list of lakṣaṇas, which includes the ornamental quality (bhūṣaṇa), due word combinations (akṣara-saṁghāta), beauty (śobhā), example (udāharaṇa), motivation (hetu), hesitation (saṁśaya), graphic illustration (dr̥ṣṭānta), attainment (prāpti), confidence (abhiprāya), counter-argument (nidarśana), ety-mology (nirukta), success (siddhi), recognition (viśeṣana), contrast of virtues (guṇātipāta), special virtues (guṇātiśaya), persuasion through comparison (tulya-tarka), lengthy statement (padoccaya), descrip-tion (diṣṭa), apt statement (upadiṣṭa), progress (vicāra), transposition

37 The mātrā coincides with the mora of Greek prosody.38 There were five types of such gaṇas: ‘na’, of four unary mātrās, cor-

responding in verse to four short syllables (U U U U); ‘ma’, of two double mātrās, or two prosodically long syllables (— — ); ‘sa’, of two unary mātrās and one double, i.e. the verse has two short syllables followed by one long (U U —); ‘ja’ of two unary mātrās with one double between them (U — U) and ‘bha’, with two unary mātrās following one double (— U U). Thus, as with the ternary gaṇas, all possible variants of constructing quaternary metric matrixes are exhausted. The Nāṭyaśāstra does not characterize them though repeatedly referring to them (e.g., NŚ XVI, 158).


( viparyaya), slip of the tongue (bhraṁśa), mediation (anunaya), gar-land (mālā), reasonable conduct (dākṣiṇya), hypocrisy (garhaṇa), admission (arthāpatti), progress to success (prasiddhi), query (pr̥cchā), identity (sārūpya), hint at a desire (manoratha), wit (leśa), affliction (saṁkṣobha), extolling virtues (guṇa-kīrtana), vague success (anukta-siddhi) and pleasant speech (priyokti).39

The author of the treatise does not confine himself to simple enlist-ment, but defines each lakṣaṇa. The proposed definitions show that these attributes of poetry were, in fact, diverse utterances whose com-binations could make the poetic idiom beautiful and expressive (NŚ XVII, 42). Though the Nāṭyaśāstra was the first to advance the doctrine of the 36 lakṣaṇas, the treatise brought it to a complete development. However, the doctrine was not widely recognized in the later Sanskrit poetic theory. Of incomparably greater significance to it were two other categories, which the Nāṭyaśāstra was also the first to describe – the ornaments (alaṁkāra40) and merits of speech (guṇa).41 In the con-cept of the Nāṭyaśāstra, they were subordinate to the lakṣaṇas, serving to increase their euphony and make their meaning more profound.42

The Nāṭyaśāstra also formulated the principle which later became the cornerstone of classic Sanskrit poetry. That was ornamentation.

39 The list of lakṣaṇas in the mediaeval treatises on poetry differs from that of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Another exhaustive list is to be found in the Sāhitya-darpaṇa (14th cent.) and the Agni-purāṇa. For details on the concept of the lakṣaṇa and its place in Sanskrit poetics see: Raghavan 1973, 1-52.

40 The Nāṭyaśāstra analyses four alaṁkāras, which are the following poetic figures: upamā, or comparison; rūpaka, lit. “imparting the appear-ance”, or metaphor; dīpaka, lit. “luminary”; and yamaka, consonance or alliteration. A major part of this chapter is dedicated to their description. Apart from the concisely described rūpaka and dīpaka, it analyzes five varie-ties of the upamā and ten varieties of the yamaka (NŚ XVII, 42-87).

41 For details, see: De 1923. 42 This chapter characterizes another poetic category – the doṣa, whose

meaning is contrary to the guṇa. It describes the errors and drawbacks of the poetic speech (NŚ XVII, 87-93). For details, see: Jha 1959, 218-225.

74 Natalia Lidova

Indicatively, the ornamental quality (bhūṣaṇa) opened the list of the lakṣaṇas. It emerged when sophisticated verbal patterns arose from the mosaic of the figures and merits of speech.43

Thus, a large number of categories and theoretical premises of the Nāṭyaśāstra turned out to be much broader than the announced theme – a description of the artistic idiom of the literary drama. These premises became topical for the theory of poetry as a whole. Though not all genres described in the treatise were connected with the ornamental kāvya poetry,44 their artistic perfection was so superb that the subsequent tradition recognized the drama as the best kind of poetry45 (Keith 1924, 276; Pandey 1959, 1-2).

The next chapter, XVIII, continues the description of the vācika-abhinaya, characterizing the basic attributes of dramatic recital in other written languages than Sanskrit. Termed bhāṣā in the Nāṭyaśāstra, they included several varieties.46 First, these were the seven dialects known

43 “Endowed with abundant ornaments and merits, and as if oriented on decoration, this attribute of poetry is named bhūṣaṇa” (alaṅkārair guṇaiś ca iva bahubhiḥ samalaṅkr̥tam / bhūṣaṇairiva vinyastais tad bhūṣaṇam iti smr̥tam // (NŚ XVII, 6).

44 Only two of the ten genres described in the Nāṭyaśāstra – the nāṭaka and the prakaraṇa – for certain possessed the literary form.

45 We refer to the opinion of Vāmana (8th cent.). In his treatise Kāvyālaṁkāra-sūtra-vr̥tti (1.3.30), he recognized ten types of drama (rūpaka) as the most important of all literary genres.

46 There is an academic opinion that the bhāṣā varieties described in the Nāṭyaśāstra had not yet reached the degree of norm that would allow to regard them as Prakrits, or middle Indo-Aryan literary languages, devel-oped in the period of the middle of the 1st millennium BCE – 1st millenni-um CE. These were most probably local languages or vernacular dialects of various parts of India, which eventually developed distinct literary styles, used in the drama for the greater credibility. Most probably monologues in these languages were originally improvised. Later on, they were included in the texts of Sanskrit literary dramas out of reverence for tradition. As was noted more than once, the list of the deśa bhāṣā in the Nāṭyaśāstra does not include Mahārāṣṭrī, which was the basic language of classic Sanskrit poetry


as Māgadhī, Āvantī, Prācyā, Śaurasenī, Ardhamāgadhī, Bāhlikā and Dākṣiṇātyā47 (NŚ XVIII, 47). They were local dialects of Indo-Aryan origin (deśabhāṣā), later on termed languages. Second, several non-Indo-Aryan aboriginal dialects were used as languages of the dra-ma. They were termed in their totality “vibhāṣā” or “mleccha”. They comprised scenic speech ascending to the Munda languages (śabara and cāṇḍāla), Iranian (śakara), Dravidic (dramila and āndhra), and the vernacular speech of semi-savage forest tribes (NŚ XVIII, 48).

These languages were not so much truly reproduced on the stage as imitated with a number of conventional rules. In particular, the speech of heroes coming of such parts of India where Indo-Aryan dialects considered pure (śuddha) were spoken could be based on these local languages and the Śaurasenī language48 (NŚ XVIII, 45). Actors play-ing people from places where Vibhāṣā languages were spoken used not the true aboriginal speech but a far more regular idiom stylized

(the first nine chapters of the later grammar by Vararuci is dedicated to its description. See: The Prākr̥taprakaśa 1868).

47 About half of these languages – namely Āvantī, Prāchyā, Bāhlikā and Dākśiṇātyā – never occur in literature and are known solely from the Nāṭyaśāstra. Most probably, they were used on the stage in the pre-literary period of the theatre, and went out of use later. Another three languages – Śaurasenī, Māgadhī and Ardhamāgadhī – underwent literary treatment and entered the classic Sanskrit drama (see: Cowell 1875). Aśvaghoṣa’s Śāriputra-prakaraṇa is the earliest testimony to their use in the literary drama. Later on, Ardhamāgadhī went out of theatrical use while the other two varieties of the early bhāṣās acquired the status of Prakrits and joined the number of the basic literary languages of the classic Sanskrit drama. Later theoreticians mentioned more varieties of Prakrits, for example the Sāhitya-darpaṇa (VI. 159-164) refers to Śaurasenī, Māgadhī, Ardha māgadhī, Āvantī, Prāchyā, Dākśiṇātyā, Mahārāṣṭrī, Paiśācī, Śākarī, Vāhlikī, Drāviḍī, Ābhīrī and Cāṇḍālī.

48 Śaurasenī is assumed to be among the first to undergo transformation from a dialect into a literary language.

76 Natalia Lidova

and saturated with the non-Indo-Aryan vocabulary (so-called mleccha) (NŚ XVIII, 44).

The author of the Nāṭyaśāstra distinguished three types of recital in these languages: the one where pronunciation coincided with San-skritic (samāna-śabda); one with mispronounced words (vibhraṣṭa) and one that included borrowings from local languages (deśi).49 In fact, these types characterized the contemporaneous correlation between Sanskrit and other literary languages taking shape in its con-text. The first type was the closest to all these languages as it fixed everything that Sanskrit shared with the other literary and pre-literary languages. The second type described linguistic forms that underwent greater changes. As their name testifies,50 they also followed specif-ic normative laws though they had broken away from Sanskrit (NŚ XVIII, 5-24). The third and last type represented the farthest seces-sion from the Sanskritic canon as it supposed inclusion of authentic vocabulary from the dialects of many parts of India in the generally regular scenic idiom.

Indicatively, the analysis of this latter type of the bhāṣā was pre-ceded in the treatise by the introduction of another, more general classi-fication of languages, which concerned all kinds of speech in all the ten dramatic genres (NŚ XVIII, 25). According to the Nāṭyaśāstra, the dra-ma postulated the following languages: the divine language (atibhāṣā), the language of the noble (āryabhāṣā), and the clannish (or folk) lan-guage (jātibhāṣā) and the language of animals (yonyantarībhāṣā).51

It is further explained that the divine language is for the gods and that of the noble for kings. Both possess perfection and are widespread

49 In the later Prakrit grammars (Prākr̥taprakaśa 1868, Dandin 1952 et al.) these three types were respectively correlated with tatsama (lit.: “lan-guage just like (Sanskrit)”), tadbhāva (lit.: “having its (Sanskrit’s) nature”) and local languages, deśi.

50 vibhraṣṭa, lit.: “abandoned” or “deformed”.51 atibhāṣāryabhāṣā ca jātibhāṣā tathaiva ca /

tathā yonyantarī caiva bhāṣā nāṭye prakīrtitā // (NŚ XVIII, 26).


in the seven continents,52 i.e. throughout the inhabited world.The third, folk language, was considered the language of ordinary

people. It could have two forms in a drama – the dialectal one, which supposed an abundance of borrowed mleccha words, and the more authentic one, widespread in India, or Bhārata-varṣa.53

The last scenic language – the language of the unborn – trans-lated the speech of domestic animals, wild beasts,54 and birds. Howev-er, as they are speechless in reality, the theatre represented their speech not by means endowed with verisimilitude (lokadharmī) but by means of conventional scenic practice (nāṭyadharmī) (NŚ XVIII, 29).

It is noteworthy that the division of language in four parts can be regarded as one of the hallmarks of Ancient Indian culture. The ear-liest example of this is in hymn I.164.45 of R̥gveda:

Speech is measured in four fourths. The Brahmans, who are wise, know them. They do not use the three secretly made (fourths). Humans speak the fourth.55

Another text of the Vedic time, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, offers a principally different description of the four fourths of speech. It says that only one of the fourths can be understood by humans. That is the human language. The three others – the language of birds, beasts and small reptiles – are closed to human understanding

52 atibhāṣā tu devānām āryabhāṣā tu bhūbhujām / saṁskāraguṇasaṁyuktā saptadvīpapratiṣṭhitā // (NŚ XVIII, 27).

53 “Two kinds of folk language are mentioned in the performance: the one widespread in foreign countries and the one spoken in Bhāratavarṣa” (dvividhā jātibhāṣā ca prayoge samudāhr̥tā / mlecchadeśaprayuktā ca bhāratavarṣam āśritā, NŚ XVIII, 28).

54 According to the Nāṭyaśāstra, “the language of the unborn consists of the speech of domestic animals and wild beasts” (atha yonyantarībhāṣā grāmyāraṇyapaśūdbhavā, NŚ XVIII, 29).

55 catvāri vāk parimitā padāni tāni vidurbrāhmaṇā ye manīṣiṇaḥ / guhā trīṇi nihitā neṅgayanti turīyaṃ vāco manuṣyā vadanti, R̥̣V I.164.45.

78 Natalia Lidova

(ŚBr IV. 1.3.16).56 The same text also contains the division of speech in two parts, divine (daivī) and human (mānuṣī) – a division fairly widespread in Vedic literature (ŚBr VI. 2.1.34).57To all appearances, the classification of scenic languages in the Nāṭyaśāstra ascends to this very context: the first two – the divine language and the language of the noble – were closer to divine speech, while the third, folk, corresponded to human speech,58 while the last of the languages correlated with animals’ speech.We can only regret that the Nāṭyaśāstra does not contain detailed descriptions of the first two languages of the fourpart hierarchy. The treatise makes do with stressing their sublime – divine, in fact – status, as it declares their universal scope (as borne out by the occurrence of the āti and āryā bhāṣā in the seven dvīpas (continents). We cannot even say with any degree of assurance that Sanskrit was used on the stage to recreate the āti and āryā bhāṣā, though the use of Sanskrit was transparently hinted at in the mention of the special refinement of those languages. It is also vague to this day which language was used to reproduce or imitate animal speech, whose examples have not come to us in extant literary dramas.

Of all the four languages the Nāṭyaśāstra makes a detailed description of only one, the folk language, which its author considered the basis of the literary Sanskrit drama. Most probably, the three other languages had no direct bearing on it and were introduced only for complete representation of the pattern according to which Speech of the universal scope was to be seen as hierarchic and consisting of four parts. However, even if the testimony to the four languages of the drama

56 Peculiarly, to confirm this opinion in the next passage (IV.1.3.17) the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa refers to the abovequoted verses of the R̥̣V I.164.45.

57 See also: KathS XIV, 5; MaitS I, II.5; AitBr. VII, 18.13; AitAr I, 3.1. For details see: Macdonell, Keith 1912, 279280.

58 According to Bhoja, 11th century theoretician, as formulated in the Śr̥ṅgāraprakāśa, ātibhāṣā is the Vedic language, āryābhāṣā the language of epics and the purāṇas, and jātibhāṣā the human vernacular.


was mere tribute to tradition, which allowed to legalize the conven-tional linguistic practice that emerged on the Indian stage in the era of the classic theatre, and describe the language practiced on that stage, the sheer reference to this tradition is highly indicative. It shows that as they referred to the poetic idiom, the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra did not forget the ontological essence of Speech, and acknowledged that though the poetic idiom was above animal speech, it could not by far lead the linguistic hierarchy.

Thus, jāti bhāṣā, based on everyday speech, was the basic lan-guage of the Sanskrit drama. To all appearances, it reproduced, to an extent, the linguistic situation in Ancient Indian society. Indica-tively, it was spoken by the four varṇas, who used both kinds of scenic recitation at once: the Sanskrit, correlated to the more correct speech of the people of Bhārata-varṣa, and the Prakrit, or dialectal, which abounded in mleccha borrowings.59

It all created a unique linguistic interplay as none of the heroes of the Indian theatre used Sanskrit as the only language of com-munication, this regards not only secular characters but also gurus and adepts of diverse religions, whom one would expect to speak only San skrit due to their status. However, according to the Nāṭya-śāstra, San skrit was spoken on the stage only by wandering ascetics (pari vrāj), sages who took the vow of silence (muni), adepts of Bud-dha (śākya), learned Brahmins (śrotriya), and all the twice-born well versed in the Vedas, who appeared on the stage in vestments indicating their religious status (NŚ XVIII, 36).

Once these heroes appeared in disguise, they could speak other literary languages. These languages were also spoken on the stage by persons in disguise, Jain or Buddhist monks (śramaṇa), ascetics prac-tising the tapas (tapasvin), religious mendicants (bhikṣu). Peculiarly,

59 “Two kinds of recitation used in the folk speech are known: the Prakritic and the Sanskritic, both used by the four varṇas” (jātibhāṣāśrayaṁ pāṭhyaṁ dvividhaṁ samudāhr̥tam / prākr̥taṁ saṁskr̥taṁ caiva cāturvarṇyasamāśrayam, NŚ XVIII, 30).

80 Natalia Lidova

the Nāṭyaśāstra mentioned them side by side with tricky conjurers and disguised spies (NŚ XVIII, 34), possibly meaning that all those seek-ers of the truth, who did not belong to the Brāhmaṇa class and did not enjoy great respect, could also appear in such disreputable roles.

The situation of secular characters was similar. On the one hand, Sanskrit was the basic means of communication for the four types of male characters mentioned in this context – the steadfast in feroc-ity (dhīroddhāta), the steadfast in merriment (dhīralalita), the stead-fast in high-mindedness (dhīrodātta) and the steadfast in aloof-ness (dhīraśānta) (NŚ XVIII, 31).60 On the other hand, according to the Nāṭyaśāstra theory, these dramatis personae – protagonists, in fact – could not speak Sanskrit all the time. Whenever was required, they could easily switch to Prakrit. It’s a different matter that the use of lower linguistic forms was always a token of adverse circumstances. In particular, it could come because the highborn hero lost the sense of reality, intoxicated with his alleged omnipotence or, on the contrary, lost his status and fortune for a time (NŚ XVIII, 32-33).

Thus, though the use of Sanskrit or other literary languages on the stage depended on a given character’s religious or social status that was not the only factor determining the language spoken. The plot of the drama had a far greater influence – which means that the choice of language was consistently theatrical in essence.

The last, 19th chapter of the poetological part of the Nāṭyaśāstra also describes the poetic idiom of the drama as it characterizes the various

60 All these heroes figured in Sanskrit literary dramas, the only differ-ence between them lying in the treatment of their character. Thus, the fierce hero was proud, passionate, quick-tempered and blusterous, perfidious and egotistic, and excelled at witchcraft. The merry hero was an amorous, hap-py-go-lucky person, and a patron of the arts. The high-minded hero was the noblest of all – modest, resolute and purposeful. The lofty hero was usual-ly a Brahman and man-about-town, e.g., Cārudatta in Śūdraka’s Mr̥cchakaṭika or Mādhava in Bhavabhūti’s Mālatīmādhava. Characteristics of those types of heroes are prominent in Chapter XXXIV of the Nāṭyaśāstra and Chapter II of the Daśarūpa.


kinds of addresses (vākyavidhāna) accepted between Sanskrit literary drama heroes. Of the greatest interest in general information provided by this chapter is the description of devices that determined the rules of scenic poetic recital. According to the Nāṭyaśāstra, these devices based on the distinction between the seven basic musical notes (svara), three vocal registers (sthāna), four kinds of pronunciation (varṇa), two kinds of intonation (kāku), six ornaments (alaṁkāra) and a similar number of elements (aṅga) of diction (NŚ XIX, p. 102).

In this, the seven notes coincided with the seven diatonic inter-vals of the Indian scale; the three registers, just as in the vīṇā stringed instrument, were localized in the chest, throat and head; and the four manners of recital were divided into the high (udātta), low (anudātta), melodic (svarita) and vibrant (kampita) ones. Intonations were divided into apprehensive (sākāṁkṣa) and expressing an absence of anticipation (nirāsākāṁkṣa), while the six ornaments comprised the use of high‑pitched sounds (ucca), deep and colourful sound (dīpta), the use of descending (mandra) and especially low pitches (nīca), and an empha-sized speed (druta) or slowness (vilambita) of recitation.

Last but not least, the six elements of diction were the so‑called division (viccheda) during a pause (virāma); recital proper (arpaṇa), which was of a representative nature and filled the auditorium with a beautifully modulated voice; the conclusion (visarga) marking the end of a sentence; coherence (anubandha), which prevented pauses between words linked by meaning, up to the prohibition to inhale dur-ing the utterance; colourfulness (dīpana), responsible for the gradual increase of vocal power as the sounds of the three basic pitches were pronounced; and abatement (praśamana), which allowed lowering of the pitch without accompanying dissonant sounds (NŚ XIX, 38‑60).

The description of these devices backed by practical examples and instructions on their use in practice testifies to the refined and extremely sophisticated culture of recitation in the Ancient Indian the-atre. In this, a great number of attributes of this culture and, above all, its pronounced musical quality show that, most probably, it ascends to canticles and chanted hymns.

82 Natalia Lidova

This is all the more probable since the tradition of recital, pāṭhya, was not only widespread in the ritual sphere, where the uttered word bore a unique message, but also made the basis of the entire Ancient Indian system of education. According to this concept, deeply rooted in Indian culture possibly since its inception, the most important sacral texts of the class of śruti (which means “heard”) could not be record-ed and were to be passed only orally. Through centuries, recital was the only way to preserve and reproduce them. Its principles were pre-cise and reasoned thoroughly enough to pass on vast ritual knowl-edge from generation to generation without major distortions. Natu-rally, large expert schools worked at them. These schools consisted of Brahmins with special education (śrotriya), who created an elabo-rate and precise system of methods and devices. It was considered of tremendous importance not only to pronounce words correctly from the grammar point of view but also to repeat the accents and pauses with the utmost precision. In other words, one and the same mode of speech was reproduced every time to be perceived only by ear.

Apart from education proper, the verbalization of such texts always supposed a ritual context when, in particular moments of sac-rifice, the priests made a prescribed speech that acquired its full sacral status and especial impact due to none other than the matter of recital. Possibly, the influence of this tradition on the development of recita-tion in the Ancient Indian theatre was not oblique but direct and dated to the era of the inception of the theatre and its development, for some time, in the ritual context. At any rate, it is certain that the prayers of the pūrvaraṅga preceding the drama were not pronounced but chanted, i.e. recited in the melodic manner which, as this particu-lar chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra shows, eventually spread to the verse of the Sanskrit literary drama.

The description of the rules of recitation concludes the last chap-ter of the poetological part of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Its general appraisal allows us to assume that its chapters make a consistent characteristic of the process of composing a drama in verse and the basic devices of its scenic enactment. In essence, they determine the canonical linguistic


norms of the Sanskrit literary drama. Though some features of this canon reflect rather early ideas of the Word, on the whole, this part of the Nāṭyaśāstra is none other than a treatise on poetry – the first in Indian history, on which all subsequent doctrines of the arrangement of poetic speech were based to a greater or smaller extent.

References

Apte, V. S. (1959). Sanskrit Prosody. Appendix I. In: The Student’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Bag, A. K. (1966). Binomial Theorem in Ancient India. In: Indian Journal of Historical Sciences, 1: 68–74.

Cowell, E. B. (1868). The Prākr̥taprākaśa or the Prakrit Grammar of Vara-ruci with the Commentary of Bhāmaha. (2nd ed.). London.

Cowell, E. B. (1875). A Short Introduction to the Ordinary Prakrit of the San-skrit Dramas. London.

Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa with the Commentary of J. V. Bhattacharya. (1952). Madras.

De, S. K. (1923). Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, 1. London. (Rpt.: Calcutta, 1976).

Feistel, H. O. (1972). The pūrvaraṅga and the chronology of the pre-classical Sanskrit Theatre. In: Samskrita Ranga Annual, VI (Special Felicitation Volume in Honour of Dr. V. Raghavan). Madras.

Ghosh, M., (ed.) (1956). The Nāṭyaśāstra, ascribed to Bharata Muni. San-skrit Text, II (XXVIII-XXXVI). Calcutta (MGE, II).

Ghosh, M. (ed.) (1967). The Nāṭyaśāstra, ascribed to Bharata Muni. San-skrit Text, I (I-XXVII). Calcutta (MGE, I).

Jānāsrayī Chandoviciti. (1949). Trivandrum.

84 Natalia Lidova

Jha, B. (1959). Treatment of Poetic Defects in Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra. In: Journal of the Bihar Research Society, 45. Patna: 218-225.

Kale, P. K. (1974). The Theatric Universe (A Study of the Nāṭyaśāstra). Bombay.

Kane, P. V. (1951). History of Sanskrit Poetics. Delhi-Varanasi.

Kavidarpaṇa. (1950). Jodhpur.

Keith, A. B. (1924). The Sanskrit Drama in Its Origin, Development, Theory and Practice. London.

Konow, S. (1920). Das indische Drama. Berlin-Leipzig.

Lüders, H. (1984). Fragments of Buddhist Drama. In: Our Heritage, XXXII/II, July-December.

Lüders, H. (ed.) (1911a). Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen. In: Königlich-Preussische Turfan-Expedition, I. Berlin. (Kleinere Sanskrit-Texte).

Lüders, H. (ed.) (1911b). Das Śariputraprakaraṇa: ein Drama des Aśvaghoṣa. In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissen-schaften, philologisch-historische Klasse, XVII. Berlin.

Macdonell, A. A., Keith, A. B. (1912). Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, II. London. (Rpt.: Delhi, 1967).

Mylius, K. (1983). Geschichte der altindischen Literatur. Wiesbaden.

Pandey, R. Ch. (1959). Comparative Aesthetics. Vol. I: Indian Aesthetics. Varanasi.

Piṅgala Chandas-śāstra. (1938). Bombay.

Piṅgala-Chandas-Sūtra. (1871-1874). Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta (Rpt: 1987).

Raghavan, V. (1973). Studies in Some Concepts of the Alaṁkara Śāstra. Madras.

Ramakrishna Kavi, M., Pade, J. S. (eds.) (1964). Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni with Commentary Abhinavabhāratī by Abhinavaguptācārya with a Pref-ace, Appendix and Index, IV. Baroda. (GOS 145).

Ramakrishna Kavi, M. (ed.) (1926). Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni with Com-mentary Abhinavabhāratī by Abhinavaguptācārya with a Preface, Appen-dix and Index, I. Baroda (GOS 36) (4th ed. 1992).


Ramakrishna Kavi, M. (ed.) (1934). Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni with Com-mentary Abhinavabhāratī by Abhinavaguptācārya with a Preface, Appen-dix and Index, II. Baroda. (GOS 68) (2nd rev. Ed. by Kulkarni, V. M. and T. S. Nandy, 2001).

Ramakrishna Kavi, M. (ed.) (1954). Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni with Com-mentary Abhinavabhāratī by Abhinavaguptācārya with a Preface, Appen-dix and Index by M. Ramakrishna Kavi, III. Baroda. (GOS 124).

Regnaud, P. (1884a). La rhétorique Sanskrite. Paris.

Regnaud, P. (1884b). Le métrique de Bharata, texte sanscrite de deux chapi-tres du Nāṭyaśāstra publié pour la première fois et suivi d’une interpréta-tion française. In: Annals du Musee Guimet, II. Paris.

Regnaud, P. (1898). Bhāratīya-nāṭya-śāstram: Traité de Bharata sur le théâtre. Texte sanscrite, I: L-LI. Paris-Lyon.

Thieme, P. (1966). Das indische Theater. In: Fernöstliches Theater. Stutt-gart (2nd rev. Ed.: Einführung in das ostasiatische Theater, mit Beiträgen von Erich Horsten. Herausgegeben von Heinz Kindermann. Wien, 1985).

Velankar, H. D. (1949). Jayadāmana: A Collection of Four Ancient Texts on Sanskrit Metres. Bombay.

Weber, A. (1863). Piṅgala-Chandas-Sūtra. In: Indische Studien. Beiträge für die Kunde des indischen Alterthums, Bd. 8. Leipzig: Dümmler (= Ueber die Metrik der Inder: zwei Abhandlungen. Berlin: Dümmler).

the nāṭyaśāstra: the origin of the ancient indian poetics · 2021. 1. 4. · the ancient...

Documents