365bet娱乐

131
why is there no reference to the former in the Natya艣膩stra?
The reason is to be found in the divine origin of the
N膩峁瓂a艣膩stra; any reference to a known dramatist would
have conflicted with its avowed antiquity and would
have lowered the work in the estimation of the public
according to the composer. Further, we can find an
indirect reference to Bhasa in Bharata N膩峁瓂a艣膩stra
(XVI. 127) where the latter criticizes the use of
ungrammatical forms in dramatic compositions.
啶氞�囙�曕�嵿ぐ啷�啶∴た啶むお啷嵿ぐ啶�啷冟い啶苦き啶苦ぐ啷嵿さ啶苦�曕�冟い啷堗ざ啷嵿�� 啶多が啷嵿う啷�-
啶�啷佮�曕�嵿い啶� 啶� 啶�啶距え啷嵿い啶� 啶侧げ啶苦い啶� 啶�啶班い啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啷嬥�椸ぞ啶� 啷�
啶�啶溹�嵿�炧�曕�嵿ぐ啶苦く啷囙�� 啶班�佮ぐ啷佮�氞ぐ啷嵿ぎ啶оぐ啷堗ぐ啷嵿ぇ啷冟い啶� 啶曕��-
啶掂�堗ざ啷嵿く啶� 啶︵�嵿さ啶苦�溹�堗ぐ啶苦�� 啶曕ぎ啶｀�嵿ぁ啶侧�佮う啶｀�嵿ぁ啶灌じ啷嵿い啷堗�� 啷�
( [cekr墨岣峣taprabh峁泃ibhirvik峁泃ai艣ca 艣abde-
yukt膩 na bh膩nti lalit膩 bharataprayog膩岣� |
yaj帽akriyeva rurucarmadharairdh峁泃膩 ke-
vai艣y膩 dvijairiva kama峁囜笉aluda峁囜笉ahastai岣� ||
(] Natyas膩stra, XVI. 127, p. 346, GOS No. 48).
has been given as an instance of such a solecism
and a similar word is found in the Avi (III. 18).
So it may safely be concluded that Bharata had Bh膩sa's
works, which abound in other grammatical mistakes, in
mind when writing the stanza.
The use of the word Bharatavakya in the MSS of
these plays need not speak of their posteriority to Bharata,
for "it is a matter of grave doubt whether the stanza was
designated by the author as Bharatav膩kya or as Prasasti.
Most probably the term has been used by some later
scribes who took liberties with the texts to bring them
into line with all other dramatic compositions of a later
age. Abhinavagupta (on Bharata Natya艣膩stra XIX.
95), S膩rad膩tanaya, and R膩macandra do not mention
Bharatavakya but speak of pra艣asti, which also shows
that Bharatavakya was meant only as a stage direction,
and its use in the MSS does not necessarily indicate a
later period than Bharata.2
Bharata's Natya艣膩stra is the oldest extant text-book
on dramaturgy; but we have indicated above that Bh膩sa
is to be placed before it; and also that he is credited
with having himself composed a Natya艣膩stra. In the
present state of our knowledge, however, it is not possible
what the books were that Bh膩sa followed either
in writing his plays or his alleged Natya艣膩stra. One of
to say
1 Mankad, IHQ, 7, pp. 187-190; at p. 187. 2 Mankad, IHQ, 7, pp.
187-190; also the articles on 'Bharata Vakya' in the Indian Historical Quarterly
by Mankad (Vol. 1 pp. 187-190), C. Chakravarti (Vol. 7, pp. 190-191; Vol. 5,
pp. 549-552); V. Jha (Vol. 6 pp. 175-178); M. Ghose (Vol. 6, pp. 485-486 ).
3 Cf. Banerji Sastri, JRAS, 1921, p. 371; also Keith, SD, p. 105.