26. NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA 23

NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA 23

want of space only a small part is quoted here: "एतेन 'कामजो दशको गयः' इति वर्जनीयत्वेन नाव्यस्यानुपादेयतेति यत्केचिदाशशक्किरे तदयुक्तीकृतम्। याशवलाय- स्मृतिपुराखादौ चास्य प्रशंसाभूयस्त्वश्रवराद्। न चागमादृते धर्मोनुमानगम्य इति न्यायाद। एसत्तु वृथेवास्थानभीरून् प्रति शङ्काशमनार्थमभिधीयते नाम। तथाहि नटाना ताववेतत्स्वधर्माम्नायरुपतयानुष्ठेयमेव। न चास्माकं तन्चेष्टितं विच्यार्यम्। सोमक्रयोपदेशिनो हि वाक्यस्य न तदिक्रयिब्राह्मणन्तरगतकृत्याकृत्यविचारखोद्योगो युक्त। न चाप्यस्योपदिश्यते गायेन्नृत्येदिति।". एतेन refers to नाव्यशाख 36. 74-75 which promise the same reward for those who listen to or study the Nätyaveda or who perform a drama according to its rules as for one who studies the Veda or performs sacrifices or makes gifts. ng VII. 47 speaks of ten things which men do for pleasure and asks the king not to be addicted to them, viz. मृगयाचो दिवास्वप्नः परिवादः स्त्रियो मदः । तौयंत्रिकं वृथाट्या च कामजो दराको गयः॥. Taking into consideration all that has been stated above one may say that at least sometime before the 3rd or 4th century A. D. there was a recast1 made by one man in which were included prose passages in sūtra-bhāsya style, ancient āryā verses and ślokas together with kārikas composed by the recaster. Then in different places and at different times some verses came to be added here and there by people learned in the śāstra. The problems of the text of the Natyasastra, its authorship and its date will remain puzzles and matters of conjecture till the earlier dramatic works such as those of Kohala, Nandikeśvara and the commentaries of Udbhata and others are discovered. Turning to the question of the authorship of the Natya- sastra, many difficulties arise. Long before Abhinava's day there were people who held that the first six verses of chap. onel were composed by a pupil of Bharata and that the questions and answers in the body of the work also were composed by a pupil and the text by Bharata. Abhinavagupta emphatically discards this idea and holds that the whole work is Bharata's as there is no evidence for holding that it is the outcome of composite authorship and as authors very often employ the third person for themselves.2 He further combats the view of some teachers that were foremost among nāstikas that the Nātyaśāstra was com- I Vide Dr. De's History of Sanskrit Poetics vol .. I pp. 23-36 for views on the text of the Nātyasastra. 2 एकस्य अन्थस्यानेकवक्तृवचनसन्दर्भमयत्वे प्रमायाभावात् स्वपरव्यवहारेख पूर्व- पक्षोत्तरपक्ादीनां श्रुतिस्मृतिव्याकर णतर्कादिशास्त्रेष्वेकविरचिनेष्वपि दर्शनाद्। अभिनव- भारती vol. I. p. 9.