You are on page 1of 28

Vtti in the "Daarpakavidhndhyya" of the "Abhinavabhrat": A Study in the History of the Text of the "Nyastra" Author(s): J. C.

Wright Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1963), pp. 92-118 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies Stable URL: . Accessed: 07/04/2011 02:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.



By J. C. WRIGHT included in this study, of the passages concerning vrtti eighteenth chapter of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the has been used as the starting-point for an attempt to determine Ndtyasdstra the manner in which one small portion of the text and commentary reached their present confused state. Abhinava's commentary contains two fairly well defined classes of subject matter: firstly, discussions on topics of interest and controversy, conducted in lucid literary Sanskrit, such as that concerning the vrtti involved when a character in a play is lying unconscious; secondly, the actual gloss on the text consisting of a traditional commentary, merely refurbished by Abhinava as it had been by his predecessors in turn, inconsistent and corrupt, but offering numerous clues for the unravelling of its complex history. Much of the argumentation is necessarily conjectural, but it seems likely that other sections of the commentary will prove to contain similar embalmed evidence of earlier states of text and commentary, which will confirm or modify the conclusions here reached. At any rate it is clear that any attempt to translate text or commentary must go hand in hand with a stratigraphical analysis of the Nt ya-dstra text. The obstacles are well known. The text of Abhinava's commentary is occasionally corrupt, and frequently as known to Abhinava has been well, obscure; the text of the Nt.yasastra but not perfectly, restored in the Baroda edition; the original text of the remains to be pieced together. In a preface to the second edition Nd2tyadistra of the Baroda Ndtya dstra, K. S. Ramaswami Sastri opposes M. Ramakrishna Kavi's contention that the manuscripts are to be divided into two separate groups or recensions, on the grounds that while ' it is quite possible for different recensions to exist in epic works ... there is no likelihood of such recensions in the case of the works of 9astraic importance '.~ I seek to show that the portions here examined of the Dasaripakavidhknddhydya may be considered to rest on a be single archetype,3 and that the alterations found in the manuscripts can accounted for by assuming a continual process of readjustment of the text to bring it into line with the vagaries of the various commentators, coupled translation,' THE in the
1 Some shorter passages are discussed sufficiently fully to obviate translation. The translation is intended throughout merely as a literal gloss on the Sanskrit. 2 The variety of readings are attributed by him to ' scribal errors, additions and interpolations in different manuscripts, but these can be easily detected and eliminated by critically checking and collating the text '. It is thus astonishing that he accords (op. cit., pp. 30 ff.) high praise to D. Subba Rao's retrograde step (J. Or. Inst. Baroda, 11, 2, 1952, and appendix 6 in the second edition of the Baroda Natya'astra, vol. I, 1956) in forcing a translation from the text of the as printed in the Baroda edition, and accrediting this text to the author. Mandapavidhdnddhydya 3 I refer here to the text of the vulgate compilation from which stem the manuscripts collected by M. R. Kavi. For evidence of an earlier recension see below, p. 98.




with valiant but misguided attempts to restore sense and consistency by emendation. At the end of this article I have listed the relatively few actual scribal and editorial errors occurring in the relevant portions of the printed edition of the commentary. All references, unless otherwise stated, are to the pages of Ndtyasdstrawith the commentary of Abhinavagupta,Vol. II (Gaekwad's Oriental Series), Baroda, 1934, to the verses of the Nityasdstra as numbered therein, and to the lines of the commentary (excluding text). Verse numbers according to the Kavyamdld edition are included where these differ. P. 407 ff. Abhinava confirms v. 4 sarvesdmeva kavyanSm vrttayah mt.rlkd smrtdh, glossing vrtti as cestd, and adding vrttyanginy api sarvakdvyesusanti. He then interprets v. 5 vrttibhedaih kivyabandhd bhavanti to mean that one rfipaka is distinguished from another according to the use of vrtti and vrttyanga, and v. 6 f.... prakaranam ... to signify eva ca sarvavrttivinispannam we .ndtakam that nataka and prakarana are At p. 410, 1. 5 f., must pirna.avrttiv.rttyanga. read instead of -angabhyim in view of the parallel pirnav.rttiv.rttyangdnam relative clause: yathd . . gramadvayddvibhaga.samparn.asvarasamudiyarulpid kalpanay5 jatyanm~akdnrmn purnpurna.disvarabhedabhdjmyprasavah, evam. (vibhagakalpanayd) vrttinynaSca ndJtakaprakaran.bhydm as the Just prna.avrttivrttyangmnmy, parikalpanam1 jatyamsiakas,distinguished ndrm ripakabhedndmnm as pfirnasvara,apfirnasvara,etc., are derived from the two gramas which have all svaras complete by various allocations (of the latter's constituents), so the rfipakas termed pilrnavrttivrttyanga (natika, etc.) and vrttinytina are constituted from nataka and prakarana (which have all vrttis complete, by various allocations of the latter's constituents) '. Abhinava's consistent inclusion of the concept vrttyanga is clearly not an original idea; the use of the term may derive from an earlier commentator's attempt to explain how the samavakara can be kaiSdikivrttihina (v. 9),2 since had come to be understood as action the kaisiki 'rngara rasa and portraying in the samavakara definition (v. 63, Kdvyamdld,v. 115) was undertrisrngara stood as a reference to Srngara rasa (Abhinava himself agrees with others (p. 441, 1. 1) in using a different expedient to deal with the assumed difficulty, meant namely the useful concept pradhanya). In fact the word kaigikiv.rttihina what it says, viz. 'with no kai'iki '.3 The term nityavrtti in the original compilation had no association with Arngaradibut was closely linked with the early conception of abhinaya, which at the time of compilation comprised vac, anga, upanga, aharya, and involved ister alia the angaharas, karanas, and
1 Otherwise the presence of ca is inexplicable. To delete ca and retain -angabhyam would destroy the parallelism of the clauses. In this sentence p~rnavrttivrttyangan&m, used of rilpakas other than ndtaka and prakarana (since they are said to be derived from these two), will doubtless refer to ndtikd, totaka, etc. Here vrttinyf~nais used to mean apuirnavrttivrttyanga. 2 See below, p. 109 f. For the solution to the the probable problem posed by designation tridrngara,see below, a p. 107.



chirs. Compare the Nftyacsstra-Blokakara'sdefinition of vrtti (ch. xx, v. 7 ff.) : bhdrat . . . vigbhih, angahdraih. . . kaisik4 sitvati, , vlgitaih . . . karaaih . . . drabhati, and the variant allocation in the (hereafter Natakalaksan.aratnakoda The subetc. . . . referred to as bhavati, kaisikydm nrtyam Nlrk.)": ihiryaym divisions accredited to vrtti (bharati, satvati, arabhati, kaisiki) are reminiscent of the Natyadsstra-glokakara's four nyayas (ch. x, v. 72-3: bharata, satvata, varsaganya, kai'ika); comparison suggests that three ethnic designationsbharata, satvata, kai'ika--have secondarily been made up to four, just as the ethnically designated pravrttis (ritis, etc.) received on occasion various additions to their number. The relevance of the 'lokakara's nyayas to the present question is assured by Udbhata's attestation 1 of nyaya in the sense of dramatic action as opposed to dramatic dialogue (anyaya). It seems likely that dramatic action (nyaya) was originally classified as of three types, given ethnic names like the divisions of dialogue (vaidarbha, paiicala, gauda) ; satvata designates a people of the south (Monier-Williams, Skt.-Eng. dict. s.v. satvat) and bharata and kaigika may then represent the west and east; more probably the names are taken from mythology, and the theorists of anabhinayakavya have innovated by variously substituting more real names (cf. avanti, pa~icalI,udhramagadhi, of the Nat'ya-stra, against vaidarbha, etc., elsewhere). The original sense of these categories is not certain. They are normally in the extant literature dksini.atya felt to convey literary styles (romantic, edifying, and epic,2 or the like), but several facts suggest that they earlier referred to the various vyaparas involved in dialogue and action, dabda, artha, laksana and anga, upanga, aharya. Firstly the term vrtti applied to both sets is appropriate for these concepts but an improbable choice to convey ' style'. Further, the Natyagdstra definitions of natyavrtti give the impression of definitions of concepts related to abhinaya to which notions of style have been superadded; the dislocation may be explained as resulting from the pseudo-etymological interpretation of bharata and satvata as vacika and sattvika respectively, found already in our earliest sources (resulting in the substitution of sattvika for aupangika in the later list of abhinayas). Lastly, we may have a reflection of an earlier connotation of vaidarbhyadi in well known formulation, which associates Sabda, artha, and utpreksa (and east, somewhat north, west, and south with's incongruously, with pomposity, in accordance with the later usage). The Natyadsstra verse (ch. xx, v. 24, Km., v. 22) which defines vrtti as vagabhinayatmika may then be a reminiscence of an early situation where two sets of vrtti, anyaya (the kavyavrttis, constituting bharati) and nyaya (the other natyavrttis), were recognized,3rather than (as it appears) a somewhat incomplete statement of the subsequent position. A possible hypothesis then is that bhdrata became associated with vacika, and satvata generated sattvika, and kai/ika was associated (e.g. in v. 9 and the Nlrk.'s source) with ah4rya,
2 3

See below, p. 115 f. Respectively kaigiki, sdtvati, cf. (p. 451, 11.18 f.) Udbhata's

rabhati, and vaidarbha, p9ficdla, gauda. discussed below. nydyavrttiranyayavrttirvdgri~pa ces..ttmikd




arabhata was brought in to accommodate angika. Since the Nt ya'dstra myth of the invention of the vrttis, which sought to justify this equation of bharatyadi with the abhinayas, is based on false etymologies (bhdrati,sattva, keda,drambha), it is probable that the equation is secondary, although attested for a period preceding that of the extant literature on poetics, the period of the original compilation (which can hardly be called extant) and of the source Nat.yadistra used by Udbhata and the Nlrk. Since the alamkara sistra is apparently an offshoot of the natya d stra, and since, in the most antiquarian text, similar generic terms (vrtti and pravrtti) are used, it is possible that the two sets represent a duplication of one original dramaturgical concept, whose primary connotation was lost since the reality to which it referredwas extinct. Possibly the terms bharata, satvata, ke'in, paiicala, etc., signifying various actors or various roles, had, by the passing of vernacular entertainers from the purview of the courts as a result of the development of a Sanskrit classical court drama, become available for use as terms for new aesthetic concepts by which these might acquire a semblance of sfatraicauthority.1 Returning to Abhinava, we may note that on v. 8 f. he diagnoses a jfiipaka reference to the existence of the other rftpakas named by Kohala besides the ten listed by Bharata, all based on combinations and permutations of vrtti and vrttyanga. The following passage 2 reads in the edition: tatra ndtakaprakarane eva iti niyamah, na tu viparyayah. sarvav.rttipifrne mudrdraksasasya kaidikihinasya krtydrivanasya ca natakasya darianat, vensarmhdreca satvatyirabhatimdtramy drdyataiti kecit. anye tu tatripy avadyam vorttyantarinupravelo'sti. yadi parimitavrttivydpakatvdtlaksyate, apirnavrttitve'pi virilpakataiva syit. The editor apparently, since he commences a new paragraph at anye,
does not see in the sentence anye tu ... the refutation of the preceding lines,
1 The details of the development must remain vague ; a possible train of events might be the following : (1) A set of nyAyas or acting methods, termed bhirata, sdtvata, kaisika (pificila, rabhata, vdrsagana, etc. ?), whose nature can be dimly perceived from the Ndtyahtastradefinitions of nydyas and vrttis. (2) From the miscellany of terms attested in the N(tyasA'stra(ch. viii), the emergence of four standard abhinayas and the application to these, on the basis of fanciful etymology, of the nytya terms bhdrata, etc. (3) The incorporation of the philosophical concept vigvyapira, its three divisions receiving designations (paficala, etc.) parallel with or modelled on those of the abhinayas and classed as anyayavrttis in contradistinction to the nydyavrttis (the three abhinayas other than bhdrati which now belongs with the vigvydpiras). (4) The notion of' qualities ' developed and inflicted on the nydyavrttis through the influence of the Ndtyabastra myth of the invention of the vrttis, and on the anyayavrttis aided by the tendency to interpret their designations as geographical terms. The tendency for vaidarbha to assume all qualities is presumably based as much on the influence of bharati (which as the generic anyayavrtti must receive all qualities) as on critical assessment of the literature of the south. rasas, inevitably superimposed on both sets of vrtti. (5) Invention of the Arngarddi 2 I am indebted to Professor J. Brough for the suggested interpretation of this passage used in my translation and for other valuable guidance in the presentation of this article.



and takes tatra . . . sarvavrttipirnze as the expression of Abhinava's view. (Clearly iti kecit cannot refer to venisarmhdre . . . drsyate alone as the editor's

punctuation might suggest, since Abhinava has endorsed the dictum natakam It is likely that M. R. Kavi envisages a translation sarvav.rttivinispannam.) 'here eva sarvavrttipiirneis the rule; impossible, however, is nd.takaprakarane the contrary view of certain authorities based on the occurrenceof natakas .. .'. But this besides involving a strange use of the word viparyaya, is manifestly forced; citation of the opponents' justificatory clauses while their actual thesis is given out with the citation would be an unparalleled procedure. iti kecit refers to the whole passage from tatra to d~ryate: 'some say that the rule (given in v. 7) means " only nataka and prakarana are complete with all vrttis " and that the converse " only rfipakas complete with all vrttis are nataka and prakarana" does not hold, for a nataka can be found which lacks
kaipiki . . .'. Although the curious word order and the singular number of

ndtakasya suggest that the words

there is no reason to assume that Abhinava's text has been altered; we shall observe other cases where he has transmitted the confusion of the traditional commentary. The refutation of the objection then follows. The iti after (p. 411, 1. 1) closes the citation beginning anye tu. The statepiarn.avrttikatvam ment clearly gives a view shared by Abhinava (cf. p. 452, 1. 9 ff.) and coinciding with the opinion attributed to (p. 441, 1. 1); this suggests that and are the thus upddhydyah. same, h upddhydya anye casting doubt on K. C. Pandey's refers 2nd ed., 64) that upddhyidyh4 assumption (cf. Comparativeaesthetics, I, to Abhinava's and teachers Bhattatauta specifically personal Bhattenduraja; the word may well refer approvingly to any previous authors. The passage continues : eva natakdtprakaranamca pradhinam. sakalngaprakriyaparviplrnatvad tathd hi kaigcid vineyah prasiddhim anurudhyamdno drsta iti saprasiddhetivrttendtake vineyah. kadcit tu kim etad apfirvam iti prasiddhe vastuni eva tu taddbhisarm tat rfipakdntaram vineyo'bhinavavastuvrttakautukasarvarm iti paratantra samutpddyavastundprakaravena viniyate. vinayal casya dharmnrthakimesu sarvapurusarthesv apavarge'pi ca tathd bhavati, yadi tadupayogivyaparadrayanam sakalarm sarvavydpsraksiptam prn.av.rttikatvam iti. eva tu tadabhdsam, na ndtakambhavati. ruipdntaram dviv.rttitrivrttyddikamd yatha rngarayogastath5 samavakdretath5 tallakysanarm tatkaidikivihinatve'pi varnayigsymah. In the first sentence, should be read instead of natakat which has nndtakam been brought in from p. 411, 1. 8. The next section is clearly corrupt. It appears to contain two parallel sentences : kadcidvineyah ... drstaiti ... ndtakevineyah. kadcittu ... vineyah . . . (drstah)iti . . . prakaraena vinulyate.Then kadcit. .. kadcitshould be read instead of kaidcit... kadcit,and the passage kim etat... tat sarvam requires emendation; it cannot be entirely interpolated since the

k.rtydrivanasya anacoluthon of the phrase venisamhdre . .. . suggests the same for it, d.rdyate

ca are interpolations, and the



repetition of the word vineyah shows that it must be qualified by a word or words occurring after kagcit tu; this qualification must have been kim etad (' which is other than descriptive apifrvam iti prasiddhavastu-nirfipaka-antarah of a historical situation since it strikes one as unfamiliar') which was liable to be read as prasiddhavastunirifpakintarah. This reading giving no sense, the passage was patched up with eva tu tadabhasamtat sarvam taken from the sentence a few lines later rfipantaram eva tu tadcabhasam (the occurrence of reipakantaramin the interpolation confirms one's suspicion that the more explicit rflpaka- should be read in the later passage also, in place of ripa-). The last sentence can be translated as it stands, albeit forcedly, and therefore need not have been altered since Abhinava. It is clearly, however, based on a misunderstanding of an earlier commentary, since yathJdrngarayogas yathd samavakdre, tath5 samavakare is an odd way of expressing and yet it must be so understood if the passage .rngarayogo is to make sense. It may be assumed that the earlier commentator wrote: tatkaigikivihinatve'pi yathd samavakaretathe tallaksane varnayisyamah 'I shall explain when is defined how it is that Arngarais used in samavakara even .rngdrayogah samavakara although it lacks kai'iki '. A misunderstanding of the yathd... . tatM construction has doubtless led to the emendation tallaksanamas object of varnayisydmah and the insertion of a second before samavakire. The passages cited and tath5 discussed I would translate as follows: p. 410, 1. 11-p. 411, 1. 3. 'Some say that the rule means " only nataka and prakarana are complete with all vrttis " and that the converse " only rfipakas complete with all vrttis are ndtaka and prakarana" does not hold, for a nataka can be found which lacks kai'iki, namely Mudraraksasa and Others Krtyadrvana,and only satvati and arabhati are found in the other must be in a subordinate role. "Even Ven.samhdra. so, vrttis reply: present If a rfipaka is defined by the fact that it contains certain specific vrttis, then a work with incomplete vrtti will be a rfipaka other than nataka and prakarana. Nataka and prakarana are the principal rfipakas because they give a complete representation of all bodily activities. For if one conceives an edifying subject which conforms with historical fact, it is treated in the nataka which has a historical plot; and if one conceives one which, since it appears quite novel, is not descriptive of a historical situation but relies for its effect on the wonderment caused by a novel situation, then it is treated by the prakaranawhich has a fictitious subject; and the edification concerns all the human preoccupations-dharma, artha, kama, and also apavarga-if the whole play is based on the activities appropriate to these preoccupations. Possession of complete vrtti results from the presence of all activities ". A play with two or three vrttis and so forth is not a nataka but another rfipaka resembling a nataka. Even when a play lacks kaisiki it may include Brngara, as in the samavakara. We shall explain samavakara later with regard to this.' The section of the commentary so far discussed has related to verses 1-9 which, unlike the rest of the chapter, are in anustubh metre. We may assume



that the vulgate compilation of the Bharatandtyadsstra involved in this chapter a nucleus of prescriptions in arya metre with a framework and additional material in anustubhs. The evidence of the Nlrk. suggests that Sagaranandin or his source knew a descendant of an earlier recension. Passages which appear in the vulgate as aryd verses may in the Nlrk. take the form of (i) arya verses with readings unknown to the extant manuscripts : e.g. 11.2780 f. differing only in a point of detail (ndma for iti) from the probable archetype of v. 45 (Km., v. 96); and 11.2803 ff. corresponding closely in points of detail with parts of vv. 84-8 (Km., vv. 136-40) (see below) but apparently differing in the order in which the material is presented (it is probable that the text preserved in the Nlrk. has been altered in a manner approaching that of the progressive corruption of the vulgate, and not impossible that it derives from a text identical with the source of the assumed archetype of the vulgate); (ii) additional anustubh verses: e.g. 11. 32 f. corresponding to v. 10 (here the vulgate aryd has been produced almost solely by the use of verse-fillers); (iii) prose: e.g. 11. 2776 iff. which might but for its incompleteness be a paraphrase of an drya corresponding to v. 47 (Km., v. 98) (see below) but is more probably, since v. 10 (its counterpart in the definition of the nataka) was not originally cast in arya form, its prose source; similarly 11. 2816 f. may be the commentatorial source of v. 71 (Km., v. 123) rather than a summary of the aryi verse; in the case of 11. 2803 ff. the occurrence of prose (corresponding to parts of vv. 84 and 88) in association with dryd and anustubh material (agreeing with other parts of vv. 84-8) lends strength to the supposition that the Nlrk. cites original commentatorial matter which in the vulgate has been swallowed by the arya text (in this case, however, the diversity of the manuscript readings in the vulgate indicates that the commentary may have entered the text at a time when the postulated archetype had developed into a number of separate recensions). If, as seems likely or at least a working hypothesis, a single composite text of aryas and bhasya is both the basis of the recension of arya verses, additional anustubhs, and prose used by the source of the Nlrk., and also the we may then conjecture that source of the vulgate Dadarfipakavidhanadhydya, a on defunct this composite text represented bhasya natasfitras with a large accretion of arya karikas. This hypothesis is supported by the impression gained that some important information has failed to achieve dryd status and been lost, while everything that was available to the compiler in verse has been preserved, however useless. We may well assume that the natasfitras concerned only practical information such as that contained in the Mandaetc., and were known to the compiler pavidhdnddhydya,Upangabhinayddhydya, alone while the as glokas, developed the more theoretical aspects bhasya (da'ariipakavidhana, alamkdra, laksanla, guna, etc.), but had offset the lack of a m-fla text by acquiring ary. and later sloka karikns.' The Nlrk. does not
1 Previous discussions (e.g. K. M. Varma, Seven words in Bharata) start from the assumption that the Rasedhyaya must be reckoned among the oldest material in the Natyai'stra. Rasa, however, is the culmination, scarcely the starting-point of Indian aesthetic theory. Against




cite any of the anustubh framework verses of this chapter (vv. 1-9). If this is significant, we may visualize the work of the vulgate compiler as consisting in the invention of a gloka framework, the selection or arrangement of the arya verses as a mailatext with the addition in aryd form of sufficient other material from the bhasya to make the work relatively independent of the commentary. Although there is reason to believe that the composition of the main body of verses antedates that of the glokaframework (vv. 1-9 of the present chapter), there seems to have been no difference in doctrine between the loka introduction and the main body of aryas in the original version of the present chapter. It seems clear that neither referred to vrtti or rasa as these terms were later understood. The Blokas do not mention rasa, while it will be seen that the aryas mentioned only diptarasa (while Abhinava interprets this as everything from raudra to ganta, for the author of gloka 113 (Km., v. 106) in ch. xvii dipta was a pathyalamkdra and for the author of 'loka 117 (Km., v. 109) in the same chapter it was a kaku).' The references to the later conception of vrtti are spurious in both parts. The Blokasection has no variant readings of note except precisely in vv. 5 f. propounding the classification of riapakas on the basis of vrtti; these verses also contain the most blatant verse-padding in the section, and refer to nataka and prakarana as imau before any indication has been given which two rfapakasare in question. In the Baroda edition these verses run: caiva svardgramatvam5gatah jatibhih drutibhig bhavantihi. tathd vrttibhedaih yathd kdvyabandha tu vai gramau pilrnasvarau dvau yatha sadjamadhyamau sarvavrttivinispannaukavyabandhautathdtv imau. The Bh manuscript 2 reads caiva svard gramatvamdgatdh jdtibhih drutibhid tathaiva yadvat kavyabandhah vrttibhyah pratisthitah(v. 5). Its reading in v. 6 is not clear from M. R. Kavi's apparatus, but it is evident that this verse in M consists of two padas developing the idea vrttibhedaih which is absent in Bh, padded out with a variant reading of v. 7cd.3 The reading of Bh in v. 5 yields good sense and good Sanskrit, unlike that of M, and agrees in its primitive conception of vrtti as equivalent to abhinaya with the rest of
Varma, if any inference can be drawn from Nh. 6.8 ff., it is that, in substantial agreement with Abhinava, kirikd is a versified sfitra (v. 11 sftratah ... arthapradar ini) and nirukta is versified bhdgya (v. 13 sthdpito'rtho bhaved yatra ... arthasi2cakam, dhStvarthavacanena). On this but it is far from certain that terminology, what I have termed kirikds would be the terminology holds good for the (Gupta ?) periodinuva.Ipyas; of the assumed vulgate compilation. 1 In the definition of the samavakdra, trirnqgara is not a reference to rasa. See below, p. 107. As a general term denoting poetic value, the word is common. See below, p. 104. 2 Information on the manuscript readings is drawn from M. R. Kavi's apparatus. I assume that unidentified readings are those of manuscript M, since the preface to vol. I indicates that this manuscript is closest to Abhinava's pratikas at this point. I refer throughout to the four pldas of a bloka and the four divisions of an dryd (dividing at the caesuras) as a, b, c, d.



the 'loka passage. The idea that the vrttis are to be connected severally with the rasas and parcelled out among the various r-ipakas, a conception which had entered the aryd text by Abhinava's time and which he sought to dispose of by using the notion pradhanya, has suggested to some commentator the confused simile which now occupies verses 5 and 6 of the edited text. Since verse 6cd and its variants agree better with 7ab than does 7cd, which is, however, only a variation of 6cd, we may assume that 7cd is the verse-filler and that the original followed up verse 5 (with a reading close to or identical with that of Bh) with a verse ca yad bhavet sarvavrttivinispannarm caiva tatha kivyabandham, eva ca (vv. 6-7). ndtakam prakaranamy jieyamy More probably the difference among the manuscripts indicates that this one verse in the original has secondarily been expanded to the three verses 5-7 on the basis of a commentary on v. 4. The expression sarvavrttivinispanna-is vrttisu sarvdsu widely attested in both 6cd and 7cd. In Bh evarm kIvyabandham. ca yad bhavetis obscure and presumably an attempt to avoid the redundancy of repeated sarvavrttivinispanna-once the line had been duplicated. In M tathd tv imau and in opannau kdvyabandhau kavyabandharm dvayarm smrtam reflect two independent adaptations.D an original singular expression ofopannam. to the new dual context. The word kavyabandha-is attested in both the dual transpositions cited and in the singular version of Bh, while nanibandhaand nanavasthd-in v. 7cd may be explained as further substitutions to limit tautology. In verse 12, which the Baroda edition reads as follows: bahudh& yac caritarm n.rpatrindm tan bhavati hi ndnarasabhavacestitam, nama sukhaduhkhotpattikrtam ntkakarm Abhinava in fact read ocestitaih (in agreement with the Nlrk.1). This is shown by his citation of the verse (p. 430, 1. 12) with ocestitaih, and by the instrumental in his gloss on the present passage (ydni cestitani . . . taih ...). Had he read ocestitam (i.e. an attribute qualifying caritam)he would hardly have felt justified in giving the forced explanation of yac caritam ... tan ndgtakam ... as yasmac It is probable that the reading ocestitam is caritam... tasmin ndtakam.... secondary and stems from a copyist or commentator's emendation designed to restore the interpretation of yat . .. tat . .. as pronouns. The reading ocestitaih is, however, itself unoriginal, since the variants (Bh is more homogeneous C ninirasabhavasambhrtam)attest an expression which nanavidhabhavasarm.ritam, and supplies the expected attribute of caritam. Abhinava's explanation of the compound is ingenious but impossible. He offers an interpretation which I shall
1 11. 37 f. The translators (Dillon, Fowler, and Raghavan, Philadelphia, 1960) contrive to translate as though the text had ocestitamand construe yat as a relative pronoun, although the omission here of the correlative tat in d (vijiieyarm ndtakaimndma) suggests that Sdgaranandin was citing a version altered to suit the commentatorial explanation of yat as yasmiit.



transcribe (using parentheses to indicate elements supplied by Abhinava) ; he puts it thus : %ann(vydpdrasam)bhav(it)acestita(dvdra)rasayuktam bahuprakaraatra sambhavayanti sampddayanti yani cestitini natcavyd... bhavati. paratmano'bhinayastair etat prahvibhavaddyakam The bulk of the compound (ndnabhavacestitaih) is glossed by the words from bahu- to taih, and the element -rasa- is glossed by an epithet of caritam or its This curious state of alleged synonym natakam, namely prahvibhavaddyakam. affairs permits an illuminating reconstruction of the history of text and commentary of this verse. As the most original version of verse 12 attainable on the basis of the apparatus given by M. R. Kavi we may hazard: bahudha yac n.rpatmnr!m caritamndnavidhabhivasamnsritam tan nama (v. 12). jeyam ndtakarm sukhaduhkhotpattik.rtam It is not possible to decide between -saym~ritam and -sambhrtam(C); (Bh) -sarmslritamwould be the more usual expression, and -sambhrtammay be the result of a copyist's fondness for anuprasa. ca tatha (Bh) for bahudhi gives no sense. It is reasonable to assume that ninarasabhava- is secondary, since one can hardly credit that the word rasa should be deleted (in Bh) where it could possibly be allowed to stand; ninirasa- was felt by later theorists to be the appropriate standing epithet for kavya, and a commentator would not fail to point out that nandvidhabhavaimplied ndndrasa-(see further below, p. 106). The original of v. 12 thus corresponded with v. 48 (Km., v. 99) defining the prakarana, which we may read as follows: vipravaniksacivearesthibrdhman.matyasdrthavdhandm tat prakaranarm nima (v. 48). yan caritamy naikavidham, j~eyam, [MS Bh reads osacivas'resthabrdhmanao for osacivasresthibrihmanao as in v. 51 (Km., v. 102) o0resthibrihmanapurohitao. Since it seems possible that purohitain the printed text of v. 48 was an emendation 1 for corrupt ?oresthabrihmanao and that v. 51 is based on a conflation of the original and the emended versions of v. 48, I have assumed ?oresthibrdhmanao as the original reading.] From the comparisonof verses 12 and 48 it is clear that yat ... tat ... are relative pronouns in both, and that the reading, stylistically so poor, bhavatihi tat of the edition in v. 12 arose as a result of the interpretation of yat . .. tat . .. as conjunctions. A reading jnieyamn tat is not preserved for v. 12 (D: taj jfieyam, P: vacyarm yat; Nlrk. reads vijieyam) but in v. 48 it is the general reading (again D : taj jieyam). On v. 48 Abhinava glosses naikavidham (D's reading anekavidham is perhaps due to the same search for banal expression that motivated its taj tat in both verses) as anekarasayuktam. This doubtless jneyam for jn~eyam, already traditional gloss has not been inserted into the text of the prakarana definition, presumably since it had already been inserted in v. 47; in v. 12,
1 The more obvious emendation being avoided since kresthin was already 8resthibrdhmaznaaccounted for in v. 50 (KdvyamWld, v. 101).



vyutpadya patti = updyopadeha (p. 442, 1. 2). and 1. 13).

on the other hand, it had found its way, as we have seen, into the text by Abhinava's time. ndndrasaAbhinava's gloss on his reading of v. 12 nrpatinJdm yac is as follows: caritam, bhavacestitaih.. .tan nrtakarm nama sambandhi vyutyac caritam iti: yad yasmdn nmrpattndny n.rpat;ndm ndma eva prahvibhdvasmarthydn taccestitanm pddydnadm n.rpatindm ndtakam, sartrarm ddyakam bhavati, tathi hrdayam ubhah.rdayanuprave~arai~janollasanaya nrtte' ity cestayd nartayati 'natan.rtau copdyavyutpattiparighat.titayd yathMhi smaranti. tad iti: tasmadd hetoh ndmasya ndtakam iti. nanu kasman evedam bhdvayatity aha purdandidyupanibaddho'pi nmneti: bahuprakard atra nat.n tadarthah, sambhdvayanti samp6dayanti ydni cestitani tair etat prahvibhavaddyakaym hrdyatamaranatavydpdratmdno'bhinaydh, tatkartavyasiltrarm sdsvddasiic'idvrapraveSitam h.rdayarohaaridhasauryadibhavatrtihy uktam asakrt. dharmaratnagrathanakari P. 413, 11. 7-15. 'The rfipaka in question is termed nitaka because the activities, called nitaka (V/nat-), connected with kings in view of the suitability of kings as edifying 1 subject matter, affect the aesthetic sensibilities, and delight (/nrt-) the heart by action charming in its appeal to the heart, and the body by action consisting in the edifying devising of remedies (against misfortune) ; for nat- and .rt- are synonymous in the sense nrtta. To meet the objection that this topic forms the subject matter of pur.inas, etc., and that it is wrong to single out in this fashion characters in the drama, Bharata says (that the nataka is equivalent to the activity of kings in so far as the latter is) nndirasabhMvacestita-:i.e. by means of the actions which the manifold abhinayas (activities of the actors) portray therein, the nataka affects the aesthetic sensibilities, being the thread of duty on which are strung the jewels of dharma, viz. valour and the other virtues which make their abode in the heart, with the needle of supreme aesthetic enjoyment.' is here in effect glossed I have observed above that nandrasabhivacestitaih as bahuprakdra(vydpdrasam)bhdv(it)acestitai rasa(yuktam). Equally curiously, the only element which can be the gloss on -rasa- occurs also gratuitously in the gloss on yac caritam(yasmn nnrpaticestitarprahvibhdvaddyakarm bhavati). The on of the earlier reconstruction found be commentary by explanation may the original form of the verse : sambandhicaritar taccestitamprahvibhdvaddyayad iti: yan nrpatinSdm . nma, ' bhavati,tath. . cestayi nartayati,tan mndtakam karm natatan.tan.rtte' smaranti. hi ity ubhayathd in Abhinava's gloss on caritam is in origin It appears that prahvibhhvadvyakam bahudhksukhathe earlier commentator's gloss on ndndvidhabhvasamiritarm A subsequent commentator before Abhinava has then, dukh.khotpattik.rtam. 1 : ' to be used as instructive material ' (= vineya p. 410, 11. 17 ff.) ; upayavyutCf. vyutpatti and vyutpid~na 'edification' (p. 412, 1. 7




paying more attention to the commentary than to the text, understood the commentary to contain a causal clause, and emended it in his version to read : ndma taccestitarm sambandhi... ndtakamr yad iti: yad yasman nrpatindrm bhavati prahvibhavadayakamr .... Since the commentary on v. 47 and perhaps even the text of that verse by this time stated that prakarana contained the same vrttibheddh as nataka, there was a strong case for interpreting cestitam (in origin clearly a gloss on caritam) as a reference to vrtti and inserting it in the text as -cestitaih, perhaps on the basis of a commentary which read taccestitaih. Abhinava, reading nmndrasabhavacestitaihin his text, was faced with a commentary which of the whole compound apparently glossed only the element -rasa- (as prahvibhavadtyakam) and proceeded to gloss the remainder (as bahuprakirasambhdvitacestitaih), softening the blow with a metaphor. The process of continual readjustment of the text of the Ndt~yasstra to bring it into line with the explanations of the commentators which I have assumed in the case of v. 12 may be further exemplified by a consideration of v. 47 (Km., v. 98), which I would reconstruct: yan mayoktamkvyadariralm rasasrayopetam nt.take tat prakarane'pi kevalamutpddyavastusydt (v. 47). kdryamy This verse has been subject to considerable alteration. The second half is attested by Dh and N (ID: yojyam for kiryam, P : api hi tat nonsensically and unmetrically for sydt), and by the prose version in the Nlrk. (1.2776 ff.) asminn kevalam ... vastu ... utpddyate. Abhinava's version yojyarm api kartavyh., salaksanam sarvasandhisutu (only the first two words are cited, but these are incompatible with any other known reading than sarvasandhisutu) shows the verse-filling tu characteristic of a portion of text which has been readjusted to fit the commentary, and his commentary has a forced explanation for this passage (ankapravesakayorlaksanayuktam). In the first half, the reading is noted in N and Dh ; this is more in keeping with the authors' kWvyadariram taste for lexical variation in view of the original appearance of vastu in the last part of the verse. The vastusariram of Abhinava's copy (this should be written as one word, against the edition's vastu sariram, compare Abhinava ad loc.) is probably affected by the earlier commentary used by Nlrk. (loc. cit.) which had vastulartramcorresponding to vastu at the end of the verse but no word corresponding to kavyasariramin the first half. This does not, however, confirm the original identity of the commentaries appended to the vulgate and to the recensionknown to the Nlrk., since it is probable that the commentary cited by the Nlrk. had been used by a commentator on the vulgate (at pp. 443-4, for example, Abhinava refers to anye a view attributing uddhataniyaklh to the dima, which is compatible with the Nlrk. reading in the definition of dimaprakhydtandyakah-but hardly with the vulgate reading-prakhyatoddttaI am tempted to propose ndyakah). For the remainder,the word rasSirayopetam, a restoration ksami-&irayopetam (' with the world as its setting ') for the original



vulgate; this would form a suitable pendant in the definition of prakarana (which consists of caritam) to the divyJdrayaof the nataka definition which in its original gloka form vipravaniksacivasresthibrahman.mityasirthavihinam recorded in the Nlrk. ran: prakhydtavastuvisayarm prakhydtodattandyakam tathd divyJdrayotthitam rajarsivamracaritarm (v. 10). It would also account for the attested readings in v. 47 (Ph: samsdrayopetam, N P Bh: ras&drayopetam) as successive attempts to emend an ununderstood It ksamJdrayopetam. hardly seems likely that the verse was composed with a filler quite as inane as samdArayopetam, and in view of the numerous occasions when the presence of the term rasa may be shown to be secondary by a study of the variants and commentary (e.g. in v. 77 (Km., v. 129) ndndrasa-secondarily and in v. 12 it probably replaces nrnividha-), it is necesreplaces sukhaduhkhais secondary. sary to bear in mind the possibility that the reading ras&irayopetam The expression mayoktam (attested passim except for the probably worthless prayoktamof N) stamps the verse as later than the main body of aryas, which do not use the first person, and we may attribute the arya form of this verse and of its counterpart v. 10 to the compiler of the vulgate recension. If the verse is his and not a later intrusion, the analogy of the situation in v. 12 where the readings orasabhivandnividhabhivasarmritam, orasabhdvasambh.rtam, cestitaih probably attest the successive intrusion of the concepts drngaradi rasa and bharatyadi vrtti, suggests that in v. 47 the reference to rasa, ousted later by Abhinava's text's reference to vrtti, may also be secondary. On the other hand, the term rasa as a general designation for aesthetic value is ancient and appears in several cases attributable to the original compilation. Its sporadic appearance in the rfipaka definitions precludes the supposition that it was intended as more than a verse-filler or at most a reminder that scholarly definition cannot account completely for aesthetic niceties: ninarasa, nandbandha,nandbhavaare merely substitutes for the balder ndnividha, naikavidha, bahudha found in exactly parallel usages; similarly the various verse-filling bahudhi (v. 12) expansions and combinations, e.g. nadnvidhabhavasar dritarm and n anividhunayukto ca rasais ca (riidhisabdah)(doubtless the original bhdvais' form of v. 14ab, compare Abhinava, ad loc. with Nlrk., 1. 241). The desirable hypothesis underlying this article that the vulgate was reasonably sane and consistent, rules out the commentators' desperate attempts to interpret rasa in terms of grngaradi and rasdsraya as a reference to vrtti-the expression rasdaraya is replaced in the text by a reference to vrtti in this verse and also in vv. 81 and 88 (Km., vv. 133 and 140). In v. 10 divyasrayopeta means' having divine characters ', although Abhinava is wrong in his explanation of the word are expansions (p. 412, 1. 5 f.) ; this word and the Blokaversion divyadrayotthita in the Nlrk. prose of a divyJdraya= divyayukta (cf. sukhaduhkhasambhava version of v. 71 extended in the arya to while v. 77 had sukhaduhkhotpattik.rta, all sukha and duhkha ' ; and meaning 'having giving sukhaduhkhasamJdraya,



and the other substitutes for ninividha). and cf. ndmnsrayabhdvasampanna The word was probably not susceptible of interpretation as 'having a divine

= rasayuktam 'having poetic qualities' as the original filler. Whether the compiler himself understood by the word a reference to srngaradi must depend upon the relative chronology of the invention of the concept and its intrusion into the text of the Ndtya~istra; the hypothesis that these were later than the date of compilation of the archetype seems at present justified. Abhinava comments : ' vrttibheda~ ceti ' nandrasavastulariram ity ' ankapravelakddhyam ' iti salaksanam ity ankabhdvacestitairbahudh5 sukhaduhkhotpattikrtam iti. pravesakayorlaksanayuktam is cited with its ca while vastulariram There are curious features here. vrttibheddh is cited without its ca ; vrttibheddh is not preceded by iti although the preceding word is a quotation and iti is plentifully supplied elsewhere in the passage. The inconsistency is explained if we assume that Abhinava is using the older ca and commentary which had given rise to the emendations ca v.rttibhedds This have run on the
may following lines:

and begetting a ksamsArayopeta, and we may retain rasaSrayopetam

salaksanam sarvasandhisu tu.

vastulariram ity ' ankapravelakSdhyam'iti vrttibheda~ ca, rasSsrayopetam iti ' nandrasabhdvasamiritamr iti sarve 1 bahudha sukhaduhkhotpattikrtam' kevalam arthah tat. sandhaya"ca, salaksanam ity utpidyavastv api 'Prakarana has the same characteristics as nataka as regards vastusarira (anka, pravesaka, vrtti) and rasa (rasa, bhava) and sandhis, except that its subject is fictitious.' Such a gloss would have arisen by drawing on two older commentaries, one of which is that recorded in the Nlrk. (1. 2776: ye natake kathitah sandhayo yany angdni 2 and which may have encouraged the reading yan ndtake mayoktarm kdvyasariram samSarayopetamin v. 47ab), while the other read ... kvyasariram rasdSrayopetam and glossed this with vrttibheddh ... nrnarasabhava-. A transposition, intentional or otherwise, of iti from before to after vrttibheda6d ca would account for the entry of this phrase into the text in place of rasd.srayopetamand for Abhinava's inconsistent wording and his deletion of the former pratika rasJSrayopetam as a needless tautology. The reference to sandhi and laksana was taken as a reference to the text and ousted from it the phrase kevalam utpddyavastu syat; Abhinava, or a predecessor,
1 For this earlier reading in v. 12, see above, p. 101.

The words following angdni (lakcsanny alarmkdirdsarve guns4b)may result from reading in an early commentary as part of the text and understanding it as salarmkdram salaksanam sagunzam, a better attempt than Abhinava's ankapraveBakayorlaksazayuktam which reflects the obsoleteness of laksana in the sense 'alamkdra'. The appearance of laksana in Nirk. and Abhinava might be held to result, like sandhi and anga, from glosses on vastuBarfra,but laksanza would be an odd choice and its appearance in a prescription which continued kevalam . . . sydt strongly suggests that it stems from a commentator's clarification 'having the same definition except that ...'. VOL. XXVI. PART 1. 8



then being unable to comprehend the remainder of the commentary or considering it invalidated by (the clearly corrupt) v. 58 (Km., deest) substituted a makeshift gloss on salaksanam, viz. ankapravesakayorlaksaynayuktam.The fact that vrttibhedfhhad come to be (apparently) glossed ndndrasabhavasamr sritam may have played a part in the emendation of this word to ndndrasabhdvacestitaihhere and in the text of v. 12. The definition of natika is credited with a reference to vrtti: in v. 59 (Km., v. 110) lalitdbhinayatmika suvihitangi is glossed by Abhinava kaitikiyam vihitani catvary api kaigikyangnniyatra. baddhetyarthah susthu pfirn.atay5 In the definition of samavakara, v. 63 (Km., v. 115) contains the line tryankas tathd trikapatas trividravahsyit tri.rngarah. Here was not for the compiler of the vulgate a reference to rasa tris.rngara and was not the original reading of his source. The matter is of some relevance to the topic vrtti, and may be pursued since it throws some light on the process of growing confusion in terminology in the period preceding the extant texts. Some commentators, including the vulgate's source if v. 72 (Km., v. 124) is original (vv. 73-5 are clearly, in view of the differences in reading, subsequent versifications of commentary), explained the term as the pursuit of the three aims, dharma, artha, and kama. It is probable that the expression has arisen through the not infrequent confusion 1 of anka with anga. Nlrk. (11. 2821 ff.) after giving the above explanation and an explanation in terms of narma, associates (as often by juxtaposition rather than explicit statement) vidrava, kapata, and srngara with the vithyangas; the (secondarily versified) list of vithyangas (vv. 113 f., Km., vv. 166 f., Nlrk., 11. 3910 ff.) contains the suggestive entries adhibala, chala, trigata reminiscent of vidrava, kapata, and 'tripumarthagata' rngara. The senses ascribed to these vithyangas, '.punning', etc., are due to their having become associated in the same list with asatpraldpa, vakkeli, etc.-the fact that trigata clearly is connected with the common interpretation of srngara here as 'tripumarthagata' confirms that all three are (metrical ?) substitutes for vidrava, etc. Compare also the occurrence of the vithyangas ndil and ' hasyajanana' prapafica as items of the samavakara definition, one with a different sense (nadi) and the other a different designation (prahasana). Similarly v. 65 (Km., v. 117 with probably misprinted saprasahanah and var. savithyangah) ankas tu saprahasanahsavidravahsakapaatah savith~kah
1 We may compare the situation in the commentaries on v. 47 (Km., v. 98) where Nlrk.'s source had a reference to anga, understood as sandhyanga, and Abhinava has a reference to anka, understood as ankapravegakidi. If, as I assume, both stem from a gloss anka or anga of the text, it is probable that the early commentator intended anka on the word kcvyaBarfram which alone would be comprehensible without qualification. As shown above, it is probable that Abhinava's source commentary had conflated a commentary resembling that known to the Nlrk. (which will have contained the gloss in the form anga) with another which contained the gloss anka.



associates the terms with the vithyangas. If the concept vithyanga is original, we may understand vidrava, etc., as samavakarangas, responsible, along with n51d,for the introduction, when the identity of the first three as samavakarangas was forgotten, of adhibala, chala, trigata, nali-endowed with new ad hoc meanings-to the list of vithyangas. We may explain the confusion by assuming that an original reading anga, secondarily understood as vithyanga, was altered to anka ; hence the injunction that the ' acts' should contain vidrava, kapata, and grngaraand the vithyangas (as well as nadis), as given by Nlrk. and, with prahasana in place of srngara, by v. 65 ; this then gave birth to the idea that each act contained a certain kind of vidrava, etc. (so v. 63), involving the triplication of these terms. The triple definition of vidrava (v. 70) consists of a list of examples arbitrarily divided into three groups. The three types of kapata have been forced from a definition specifying two types (see below). We need hardly follow those commentators who triplicated srngara as the pursuit of the three pumarthas nor the author of the Nlrk.'s explanation as three varieties of narma. These are merely secondary attempts to explain the emendawhich supplanted sasrngara (a reading attested in the Nlrk. tion tri'drngara and indirectly in v. 65). The appearance of prahasana in v. 65 and prapafica in the list of vithyangas suggests a solution to the problem which puzzled commentators, set by the definition of ' kaisikihina' samavakara as sasrngdra. I have sought to show above that at an early stage kai'iki was not associated particularly with a romantic style (it may be relevant to compare Kohala's drngdrahasyakarunair iha kailiki sydt) but denoted an abhinaya, probably the one most likely to be dispensable in the minor popular rilpakas, namely aharya. It is possible that the early commentators visualized in the samavakara the representation of the love story of ' raudraprakrti' characters without the trappings of aharya. But the early connotation of precisely as' decorative dress ', a significant .rngara that there has been confusion. This is borne out by of aspect aharya, suggests the incompatibility of 'rngara with the other members of the triad vidrava and kapata. Prapafica, on the other hand, with its senses 'assumption of various forms, trick' would be in place. We may infer that the reading of manuscript Dh in v. 65 'tra suprasannah contains a corruption of saprapanicah in the original and that tu saprahasanahof other manuscripts is an emendation of Dh's reading based on the commentaries' explanation of the earlier reading saprapaicah, the meaning of prapafica having been altered by its sojourn among the vithyangas. Comparing then ankas tu saprapaicah, savidravah sakapatah . . . (v. 65ab) with the developed form tryankas tathi trikapatas (v. 63cd; P has the better reading ankas . . .), it trividravahsydt trisd.rngirah appears that drngararepresents another corruption of prapaficaprior to the date of the vulgate. In the definition of kapata v. 71 (Km., v. 123) vastugatakramavihito daivavadadva paraprayuktova trividhah,kapato'tra vij7ieyah sukhaduhkhotpattik.rtas



we have the definition of a unitary concept kapata, susceptible of interpretation as enjoining two kinds (daivavasad vastugatakramavihitah and paraprayukto but hardly as originally intending three types vastu?, vastugatakramavihitah.) and parao as understood by the Nlrk. and vulgate commentators. The daivao, word sukhaduhkhotpattikrta refers to kapata in general (compare the same word used as an epithet of the nataka in general) and not to one of the subdivisions of kapata. The Nlrk. states (1. 2816 f.) : trayas ca kapatah, eko vastukramajah, anyo devakrtah, aparo'nyakrtah, sukhaduhkhasambhavah. The editor and translators refer the last word to anyakrta kapata alone, but clearly the Nlrk. is uncomprehendingly, or at any rate incomprehensibly, reproducing an early commentator's intention by keeping the word separate. Abhinava refers it impossibly to the daivakrta variety and has to alter the order of the varieties = kapatah) ca kasya cit sukham for the purpose. The sentence si (van7cana anyasya duhkham utpidayati ' daivakrta vanicana benefits some members of the cast and harms others' with which he glosses it is a reinterpretation of a phrase of his source; in v. 77 (Km., v. 129) the word sukhaduhkhasamdsraya is glossed (p. 441, 11.7-9) : graddhdlavo devatdbhaktdh taddevayitraddv anena prayogendevam. rkh6a ca stribdlamii vidravidinah.rtah.rnug.rhyante, niranusamdhdnah.rdayh, ity uktah.samavakirah. dayah kriyanta the source commentator intended Here and in the case of sukhaduhkhotpattikrta to convey that the spectacle of the ups and downs of fate is a solace to the wise and a bugbear to the foolish. In the case of v. 71 Abhinava has altered the sense of the gloss sa ca 1 kasya cit sukham ... in order to apply sukhaduhkha? to daivakrta only. In v. 77, however, the Baroda edition reads ndnarasasamrrayah and it is probable that Abhinava's text had this reading since he without pratika; it is transmits the original gloss on sukhaduhkhasamdsrayah probable that he considered the inconclusive nandrasao sufficiently covered to obviate further comment. The by the idea anena prayogen.dnugrhyante the Nlrk.'s source, however, older, preserves simpler form and sense of these words with its sukhaduhkhasambhava 'affording pleasure and pain to the in v. 71 ; this is the sense also of audience' in place of sukhaduhkhotpattik.rta and of the similar word in v. 77. the same word in v. 12 with reference to the On verses 72-5 (Km., vv. 124-7) defining trid.rngdra samavakara, the commentary reads as follows: vrttau hinaniti 2 nanv evam srngarayoge kavye kaisikihinatl. kaizikyamy tatra samasah, tena narmddyangacatuskataduparai?jakagtanrtyavadyidyabhdvat kaisikydi bhavati. upadhyayas tv ihuh-na kamasadbhdvamdtrad hndntra eva kaisikisambhavah, tadabhdvdt. raudraprak.rtinadm sai kai1iki, na ca caritam tadr~ipnupra vee'pi vildsapradhdnam. tadvyavahirah; yadr7pam, hy asav ity uktam. tena tatra visaye bhcratyadivrttyantarapradhanyak.rto bhidhdnameva yuktam iti.
1 Read sa ca instead of nonsensical na ca.

See $uddhipattriki.




K. C. Pandey (Comparative aesthetics,I, 2nd ed., 690) cites this passage with the hkndreadings kdvye kaidikihinata in the first sentence and kaidikysm katham, -tra bhavati in the second. It seems probable, in view of his tacit (hMnatd-?) incorporation of M. R. Kavi's conjectural emendations elsewhere, that Pandey's katham,kaidikyim, and hinata are all conjectural. It is possible that Abhinava wrote kathamin, or at the end of, the first sentence ; equally possible that it was already lost in his source and that he considered its insertion unnecessary. It seems that kaisikyam has been altered to suit K. C. Pandey's unconvincing translation (ibid., 449) of kaidikyamr v.rttau hendni and kaisikycmrhinatatra bhavati: ' in them [samavakara, etc.] the graceful action is of the lower type '. If Abhinava understood here an interpretation of the compound as kaidiksivrttau hindni and proposed to reject it by a different explanation of the word (loc. cit. ' Abhinavagupta's teachers, however, dissolved the compound as kaisikivrttya hindni, and held it to mean " without graceful action " ') he would have stated the other interpretation. Since he does not it is clear that he is concerned with a difference of meaning and not with a difference of grammatical interpretation. The upadhyayah implicitly admit the sense to be 'without kaisiki vrtti' and understand this as 'without kaigiki as the principal vrtti'. There is then the option of understanding the second sentence as explaining the term kaisdikhina to mean (i) 'lacking kaigiki ', i.e. 'lacking important features of kaigiki' or (ii) 'lacking kai'iki ', i.e. 'lacking kaisiki altogether and hence not drngarayoga '. The first explanation involves assuming that hina could be used now as ' deficient in ', now as ' lacking altogether ', although elsewhere in the commentary the two senses are distinguished as nyiina and hina respectively, and further assuming that the absence of the kais'ikyangas(also termed kai'ikibheddh)and the musical accompaniment and 'the rest' (adi) does not involve complete absence of kai'iki, although this can hardly fail to be the case. It appears then that the second explanation is correct and the Baroda reading kaisikya accurate for Abhinava's text. Abhinava's version of the argument must be translated as apparently understood by him following the upadhyayah, but we may note that again a minor inconsistency in the text (kaisikydm/kaisikya) may throw light on the history of dramatic theory, in this case showing reason for the invention of the term vrttyanga. I have noted above that Abhinava sedulously follows his predecessorsin reading the idea vrttyanga into the text of the loka introduction to the present adhyaya; the matter is not pursued in the commentary on the remainder of the adhyaya, a fact which confirms that it is an ad hoc expedient for dealing with a specific difficulty. The commentary on the lokas (pp. 409-11) uses vrttyanga to explain the simile in vv. 5 f. (tathdvrttibhedaih kavyabandhabhavanti); this explanation of the simile and the form of the simile in the Baroda edition probably presuppose rather than gave rise to the It then uses the term as a flimsy expedient to account concept v.ttyanga. postulation of apirnavrtti natakas and supernumerary for the post-vulgate content of nataka and prakarana; but for rfipakas, and enlarges on the v.tti



the by then unimportant question of the kaigikihina rfipakas, it merely refers forward to the passage under discussion by means of a phrase (tatkaisikitathd samavakare tatha tallaksanam varnzavihinatve'pi yathad .rngdrayogas to which we have seen be apparently borrowed by Abhinava in a yisyimah) corrupt state from his source. It is doubtless more than coincidence that both the phrase referring forward to these sentences and the sentences themselves show signs of corruption; we may assume that they represent an early comreduced to the verge of incomprehensibility mentary on the term kaidikiv.rttihina the direction of commentators' attention to other and less worthy by subsequent the of The earlier commentator cited in the second term applications vrttyanga. sentence may be assumed, not disposing of the practical expedient pradhanya, to have invented the concept vrttyanga to explain how ' trisrngara ' samavakara can be defined (v. 9) as The locative (kaidikySam vrttau) must kaidikiv.rttihina. have been originally significant and it seems probable that the passage (originally vrttau reading nanv evarm d.rngrayoge kdvye kaidikihinatd katham. kaisikySam h7idnnti tatra samisah) was intended to mean 'How can a work which thus involves 'rngara be kaigikihina ? The compound in v. 9 means " when there is kaisiki vrtti they (samavakara, etc.) lack (certain angas of kaisikl) " '-cf. p. 409, 1. 17 f. saiva vrttih... angaih ... kvacin nyiind. The original explanation of this may have run : tena narmiadyanganyii natvdt kaidikydar. h;natatrabhavati. Since already for predecessors of Abhinava, the the compound was understood as no refutation of the locative upadhyaydh., hnani, and since, as kaidikiv.rttyd vrttau hinani explanation is offered, they must have understood kaisikydim as equivalent to is latter hinani implicit in the (the explanation kaidiky5a inevitable-and hinatd restoration hinatdtra bhavati-the phrase kaidikya being in their counter-argument), we may account for the clause tena narmadyangakaidikyd hinatatra bhavati as a catuskataduparaiijakagktanrtyavddyddyabhivit refinement due to the upadhyayah who believed it was the intention of the source to ban kai'iki from the samavakara, etc. It may be noted that K. C. Pandey's reading kaisikyam is perfectly possible on the above view, but there is no reason to reject kaisiky5iif this is the manuscript reading. Later in the passage under discussion the incomprehensible caritam must be a misreading for caritas in a sense 'acknowledged' (cf. the epic sense 'C ascertained ', 'known' (Apte), and the modern sense 'customary' (Bate, Platts); this is probably confirmed by the anomalous appearance of makara instead of anusvara before t, where the sakara would be regular. The passage, as intended by Abhinava, may then be translated: p. 440, 1. 12-p. 441, 1. 4. ' It is objected: " To a work which thus involves srngara the term kaidikihina has been applied (v. 9); the compound there signifies that they (samavakara, etc.) lack kaisiki vrtti, i.e. they lack kaisiki since narma and the other angas and the supporting song, dance, and music, etc. are absent ". But the teachers reply: " Kaidiki does not appear merely through the presence of erotic activity, for those with raudra natures lack it; kaidiki is that which consists mainly of dalliance. And it is not acceptable



to apply the term when kai'iki is present only in a minor capacity, for it has been stated that the term may be applied only when kai'iki is the main vrtti. Hence it is right to designate such a work with the name of one of the other bharatyadi vrttis ".' In v. 81 (Km., v. 133), Abhinava probably (cf. p. 442, 1. 4) read yad vydyoge te with the printed ye purusa vrttayo rass' caiva, kdryarm sihm.rge'pi syuh in the definition edition. The fact that there is no statement vrtti regarding of vydyoga (while kdvyarasa is referred to, but not in terms of srngarddi) shows that ye rasasrayas caiva (Bh) is probably the original reading. It accords better with v. 93 (Km., v. 145) vydyogodiptakavyarasayonihthan ye rasYdca which also presupposes the commentatorial interpretation of nirdistah in terms rasas (cf. p. 445, 1. 5, where dipta is (.D) of a number of Arnggardi dipta in addition to the interpretation as ojogunayukta interpreted as viraraudrddydh and conflicting with the gloss danta on dipta ad v. 85 (Km., v. 137)). The reading of Bh is an expression which could have been interpreted by a commentator as referring to vrtti (qua daraya of diptarasa), whence the word was precipitated into the Natyaisstra text. Abhinava's lack of pratika reference to either reading suggests that he or a predecessor has excised the defunct pratika reference to the earlier reading, although the earlier commentary which no longer fitted the text was retained. The reading of Bh is weak and probably a verse-filler. It seems certain that the inconsistent and incomplete system of definition by cross-reference is at least mainly secondary and need not be attributed to the compiler. In p. 442, 1. 5, a danda should be placed after eka evdnkah (since this is explicit in the vyayoga definition and it is only the following prescription which is obtained by atide'a). Verses 84 f. and 88 (Km., vv. 136 f. and 140) defining dima are exceptionally explicit on rasa and vrtti: they prescribe karuna, raudra, vira, adbhuta, bibhatsa, bhayanaka, dipta, satvati, and drabhati. This unusual communicativeness is suspicious; the dima cannot have been intentionally singled out for full definition. It is likely that it was precisely lack of authentic information on the nature of this genre which made possible the wholesale interpolation of banalities, signalized by the unsatisfactory nature of the verses. The Nlrk. 2803 ff.) in its definition of dima omits all referenceto Srngaradiand, instead (11. of enjoining satvati and arabhati, rejects kai'iki (supporting the view that bh5rati is not on a par with the other vrttis). It presents the material briefly and in an order differing from that of the NJt.yadsstra : the first part consists of openings of dryi verses (correspondingto vv. 88a, 84a, 85c, 84b), the middle is a slightly disrupted Bloka(v. 87acd) followed by the close of an aryi (v. 86a), the rest prose (vv. 88b, 84d) concluding with a prescription regarding sandhis unknown to the vulgate. Abhinava is unusually brief on this passage, a fact which suggests that the bulk of the information supplied by the traditional



prose commentary had found its way into the text. The following might be suggested as the reading of the archetype: tu bhiiyolaksanayuktyd (1) pravaksyymi// (v. 83cd) caiva/ (v. 84ab) (2) prakhydtavastuvisayah, prakhydtoddttandyakas caturankovai diptarasakdvyayonis kcryah// (vv. 85c, 84d) .dimah (3) nirghatolkapatairuparagenendusfiryayor yuktah/ (v. 86ab) (vv. 88a, 88d, 85d) so1dasandyakabahulah nanJdrayabhdvasampannah// [C's reading in verse 83cd has excised the uncomprehended bhfiyolaksanayuktyd. The half-verse beginning dipta? occurs complete in manuscript P, apparently separated from the half-verse prakhyita? by only one line. The variant of Y, D, N for the half-verse nirghdta?is perhaps an attempt to improve on the reading here accepted which is closer to the Nlrk. version. In the section nJnM?,I have used a filler employed in various forms by the manuscripts for the same purpose; in v. 88 the edition reads as above, D and P have tafjjiair -einaagainst the metre ; Dh, and apparently (DP D also, -aih) ; ndndsrayavisesah. in v. 85 the edition reads (minorvariants: n&nMbhavopasampannah. D, N, Bh); all these may be held to arise through artificial splitting of the in v. 12) compound nandSrayabhavasampanna(cf. nanavidhabhavasamscrita into ndnSsrayavisesaand nadnbhava-in order to fill up two verses.] in Verse 84c is taken from the early commentary on bhfiyolaksanayukty5 v. 83cd ; Ph preserves-against the metre-the reading sattrimiallaksanayuktah which is the original gloss on this word. The commentary was emended or corrupted to read sadrasalaksanayuktah which along with its explanation (versified as drngdrahasyavarjahdesaih sarvaih rasaih, samayuktah) entered the text, in spite of the absence of any reference to srngaradi in the other rfipaka definitions. The phrase yuddhaniyuddhadharsansamphetak.rtaca kartavyahand its variants in v. 86cd is a frequent filler: cf. v. 79 (Km., v. 131) samphetakrtah,v. 92 (Km., v. 144) yuddhaniyuddhisamksobhavidravakrtah The reference to vrtti (one quarter-verse in M, a dharsanasamrgharsakrtah. variant quarter-verse in Bh, a half-verse in P) probably arises from a gloss on te bhavis vrttayo (understood as vividha ds'rayJ ndnasrayabhdvasampannah 'loka in an on is based 87 Verse 104. yesm, appended taih sampannah)-see p. view of the Nlrk. evidence-see above, p. 98. The Nlrk. arya fragments have readings differing from those of the vulgate manuscripts ; v. 84b appears as a verse opening and v. 86a as a verse conclusion in spite of close agreement in details of wording. The question must remain open as to whether the Nlrk. text has suffered alterations analogous to those of the vulgate or whether different recensions of the aryas existed already at the date of compilation of the vulgate. Abhinava's commentary again suggests by its lack of pratikas that the expansion of the text at the expense of the commentary had taken place already by his time. The elements which I have rejected as secondary are associated with absence or transposition of the expected iti. Thus .rngarahisyavarjarm






are not identified as a citation; sadrasatveand be and devidayo bihulyenitra may secondary (see below). There is no commentary onsdtvatyirabhat.ti v. 87 which is identified as an accretion by its Blokaform in Nlrk., nor on v. 86 which may owe its reference to yuddhao to the commentator's explanation of the word dima as vidrava or uddhatandyakitmaAbhinava's commentary runs: v.rtti. athaedimam 5ha prakhydtavastuvisayaiti. natakatulyam sarvam anyat 1 cdsamagrataca s?adrasatve kevalamsandh;ndm rasdndm, s.rnugrahdsyavarjam kavyayonihkIvyavastu. syid ity ihadiptaraseti. parydyena sntasya prayogah devidayo bihulyenatrasatvatyirabhat'iti.' jatir apraninm ' iti kecit. satvatySvrttidvayarn yatra vrttisamiihe v5 vrttisabdah sitrabhat.vrttisampannam, vaty sampannah. rabhat.laksanavydvrttyd P. 443, 11.1-6. 'Now dima is defined from prakhyitavastuvisayahonwards. All is as in the nataka, the only difference is the incompleteness of sandhis and rasas. diptarasa- enjoins the use of danta since (in its normal sense) it would be (tautological being) synonymous with the injunction that it should have six rasas to the exclusion of grngara and hasya. The word kavyayoni means the subject matter of the work. (Santa is enjoined) since it contains many gods, etc. On the phrase sitvatyirabhati, some say " one inanimate noun may stand for the class (hence vrtti stands for all vrttis) " (so dima is defined as a play) which contains the two vrttis enjoined by the word satvatydrabhativrtti or as one to which the term vrtti is applied in the sense of all " since a definition and [sampannah.] vrttis containing satvati arabhati only " is inapplicable.' Here the compound satvatydrabhativrttisampannah is interpreted as sdtThis forced interpretavatydrabhati(laksanavyavrttyd) v.rtti(samilha)sampannah. tion, similar to that seen in v. 12 of nandrasabhivacestitaih,and the casuistry expended on the word dipta are to be explained as commentators' attempts to keep pace with the ever-changing text. Abhinava or a predecessor has found himself faced with the altered gloss sadrasa-, explained as the latter as Santa standing in the text beside diptarasa- and has explaineds.rngarahasyavarjam, and to support this used the phrase devadayo bahulyenatrawhich, as shown by its position, originally justified (which I take to be a gloss on ndndSraya?-v. supra). Adding a new pratika sdtvatydrabhatibefore iti satvatydrabhat.i (originally causal but understood as a quotation mark) since the gloss satvatyirahad by then entered the text, he worked in his new interpretation of bhati. sampannah. On this theory the commentary developed on these lines: (1) (ndnasTrayabhdvasampanna iti) devadayo bahulyendtreti sitvatydrabhattivrttisampannah. 'It contains gods (and demons), etc. in plenty [a reference to vv. 87cd and 88a devabhujaga.. ca .avakirniad sokdaianyakabahulah]and hence involves the vrttis satvati and arabhati.'
1 ca is here presumably an error for a dandta.



(2) devddayobahulyenatreti 'jdtir aprdnisatvatydrabhativrttisampannah. ndm' iti vrttisamuhevrttidabdah satvatydrabhatilaksanavyvurttyd. vd (3) devddayo ... apranindm iti kecit. vrttidvayarm yatra, v.rttisamuhe . satvatydrabha.tlaksanavyavrttya v.rttidabdah (4) sdtvatydrabhatiti. 'jitir aprdnindm' iti kecit. sdtvatydrabhativrttisampannamrvrttidvayarm yatra, vrttisamiihe vd vrttidabdah sdtvatydrabhapt.sampannah. kaksanavyivrttyd The second explanation may be a reflexion of the view of the commentary used by Nlrk.: atra nocyate which at least apparently admits kaiikiv.rttir bhdrati; presumably drngirahdsyavarjam was held to re-exclude kai'iki here. On v. 96 (Km., v, 148) defining the utsrstikanka, Abhinava explains satvatydrabhatikailikihinahas an instrumental tatpurusa containing a collective dvandva. That this prescription regarding vrtti is also a secondary intrusion in the text from the commentary is indicated by the different formulation in Bh. There follows an analysis of the word utsrstikdnka and a confused passage giving an alternative explanation. M. R. Kavi's emendation of the latter is inadequate to make sense of the passage. It seems likely in view of the confusion that Abhinava was reorganizing the older commentary. The original sense must have been that, since the element utsrstika implies lack of vrtti and this is already indicated by the specification sdtvatydrabhatikaisikthinah, the genre may be called anka alone. The source commentary may have had words to the effect: vrttibhirutsrstatvadveti dvitvamuddedasya,ekadedendyam anka iti nirdisto vrttdnurodhdt. Abhinava would be unable to follow the drift of this since the form anka probably no longer occurred in his text-its occurrence in D and Dh is obviously secondary. The insertion of tritvam and the anacoluthic association with the pratika sdtvatyarabhatikaisik~hinah suggests that Abhinava understood the passage to mean that the three vrttis mentioned in the pratika, or the two if one considers that two of them are taken collecin his explanation of the tively (cf. samdhdradvandvagarbhadvandvantara compound) stand for all four by ekade'a (cf. the discussion anent dima on standing for all four vrttis). He says: satvatydrabhatv.rtti striyas yisrym td utsrstikih utkramanyd srstir jivitam ca tritvam tdbhir ankita iti tathoktah. vrttibhir prarn.utsrstatvanyetad& 1 ,docantyah dvitvam, uddesasyaikadedena. ayam anka iti nirdisto vrttanurodhat. can be the word ' P. 446, 11.4-6. (Now utsrstikanka analysed as) utkramatathoktah or as in the enunciation of two which case vrttibhirutsrstah, niya. .. (vrttis) and three (stands for all) by ekadesa. (Utsrstikanka) may be referred to as anka metri causa.' After v. 110 concluding the definition of bhana, Abhinava comments (for the textual corrections in this section, see the list at the end of this article) :

Read utsrstatvtd veti instead of utsrstatvdnyetadd.



p. 450, 1. 13-p. 452, 1. 22. 'The following point must now be considered. Although the types of riipaka called utsrstikanka, prahasana, and bhana are (expressly) termed ekarasa, the rest, from nataka onwards, are also ekarasa. For although all rasas can be appropriately included in them, the principal one in ndtaka and prakarana is really vira applied to dharma, artha, etc., since all dramatic heroes are seen to practise heroism. And, although all rasas are prescribed for use in samavakara, vira or raudra is the principal one, and similar considerations apply to [for which all but srngara and hasya .dima In the Ihamrga, raudra is the are permitted] and vyayoga [viraraudrddydh4]. in the Thus natika vira, raudra, srngara (are used rasa, srngara. principal in these works there) respectively, occurring by being engendered by (the aims of the character portrayed) dharma, artha, and kama, while Santa and bibhatsa occur in connexion with moksa. But not every character can carry the main role in this (latter) case, only the occasional saint. Although in the nataka Santa or bibhatsa may be the principal rasa when moksa is the principal goal, this is not a common practice, so they, although engendered by the best of human aims (the character's pursuit of moksa) are considered subordinate to the other rasas-vira, raudra, and srngara. Thus the main rasa of a drama is really governed by the purusartha it portrays, but other rasas occur in support of it as a result of the variety of subject matter included. Thus a variety of vrtti is appropriate in a drama because of the use of dramatic action which will tend mainly to convey these rasas. 'The utsrstikanka, prahasana, and bhana, however, being mainly concerned with karuna, hasya, and vismaya respectively, have a pleasant principal rasa, for which reason women, children, fools, etc., are their principal characters; and the plot is simple, there is not the same variety of plot. Consider the following: Udbhata says " Three vrttis are expressly prohibited in utsrstikanka, and bharati cannot be its vrtti, for action is subordinate when the rasa is karuna and bharati in the form of lamentation is subordinate to action. Hence we must admit a vrtti called phalasamvitti defined as the perception of the results of speech and action, and this is necessary, otherwise there would be no vrtti during unconsciousness and death, etc., when speech and action are absent. But if kai'ikI is enjoined with reference to the aim kama, one must allow two vrttis referringto dharma and artha. Hence it is proper to allow three vrttis (in utsrstikanka)-nyayavrtti consisting of action, anyayavrtti consisting of speech, and phalasamvitti their results ". It has been said (by Udbhata) : " The first two have eight subdivisions (each) based on speech and action and the four human aims. Phalavrtti has sixteen subdivisions based on these two and countless subdivisions based on rasa ".' M. R. Kavi (II, xxi) equates nyaya with kaiviki and anyaya with bharati, observing the definitions cestatmika and vagrfpa. K. C. Pandey (Comparative aesthetics,I, 2nd ed., 465 f.) equates 5dye with arabhati and bharati but interprets nyaya and anyaya as 'lawful' and 'sinful'. The text clearly has conflated two interpretations of ny~ya and anyaya, the first 'dramatic action' and



'dramatic dialogue' (see above, p. 94 f.), the second dharmam uddisya and artham uddisya or rather, in view of the statement purusdrthacatustayena castavidhe which conflicts therewith, 'lawful' and 'sinful' according to a current conception of dharma and artha. The opponent cited subsequently confirms this intention when he says na pumarthacatuskayogocinyiyav.rttau papattivipratisedhat. We have then another case of commentatorial confusion in terminology: the interpretation as 'action ' and ' dialogue ' is the fossil, the other the current attempt to explain the traditional account of nyaya and anyaya in terms of purusartha. In view of the statement ... vdkcest.bhym his source's must have understood Udbhata castavidhe, nyayavrttih and anydyavrttir vagrupi to mean 'the physical variety cest.tmika of nyayavrtti' and 'the vocal variety of anyayavrtti'. He is attempting to interpret an old tatphalaconception which recognized three vyaparas in drama--vc, cest., samvitti-in terms of the contemporary notion of four vrttis, equating nydyavrtti with 'lawful arabhati' and anyayavrtti with 'sinful bharati' while phalasamvitti is substituted for satvati; kai'iki, which in keeping with the Ndtyadsstra is not recognized in the utsrstikanka, is probably maintained besides, since he uses its existence to justify nyaya and anyaya; (lawful) bharati is also referred to, although disallowed in the utsrstikanka, completing the five vrttis accredited to him by his opponents in the sequel. These opponents recognize kaisiki in the utsrstikanka (with Kohala and one of Nlrk.'s sources) and assume that Udbhata was considering kaisiki to be covered by one of the three vrttis which he allows in the utsrstikanka. They re-establish kai'iki in its own right, and restore satvati in place of phalasamvitti for the situation where a character is portraying unconsciousness, etc. Abhinava goes on: 'On this point some say: " Although kai'iki can be subsumed in satvati (Udbhata's phalasamrvitti),it is kept separate because of its extremely pleasant quality [reading updtta with the edition] and because it contains musically accompanied vocal action, and it cannot be subsumed in anyayavrtti [rejecting the editor's emendation] since this would conflict with the possibility of its occurring in connexion with the four human aims (including the lawful). And if phalavrtti does not take the form of activity which is the common characteristic of vrtti, it cannot be a vrtti. If it does, it must be acknowledged to be a subconscious vocal and physical activity, since it is generally accepted that no mental activity subsists in the absence of vocal and physical activity. Hence even in the case of death, unconsciousness, etc., there may be an activity of the spirit, soul, and body which is brought to mind by the presence of musical tempo, rhythm, and song, but we cannot admit phala(samvitti)vrtti (i.e. perception of the results of speech and action) here since it may be said that there is no perception at a conscious level (samvedana)when a state of unconsciousness, etc., is being enacted. Hence the vrtti in this case (i.e. during those moments of unconsciousness, etc., when the main vrtti-kaidiki-is not applicable) is satvati, because, if we accept the maxim ' kavya consists for the most part of vrtti ', the entire play consists on the whole of vrtti even if a part of it




lacks vytti. The opinion of those who follow Udbhata in holding that in the case of unconsciousness, etc., there is a fifth vrtti defined as transcendental perception and consisting of activity of the atman, to be inferred from the cessation of all actions and uninterrupted because of the (persisting) results (of the actions), namely the anubhavas depicting the state of unconsciousnessthis opinion has been set aside by Bhattalollata, etc., who showed that the bhavas are perceived at a conscious level and opined that parispanda was not a single activity. Hence there is no phalavrtti and the vrttis are four in number." 'But I (Abhinava) say that this alarm is needless. If every little thing occurring in drama must be brought under the heading of vrtti, this might be so. But it must not. What vrtti does the stage represent, or the mrdanga, panava, vamga, etc. ? Hence vrtti is an activity performed in furtherance of the human aims, and the vrttis are kavyasya matyrkihsince this activity is portrayed throughout and nothing can be portrayed which is non-activity. In the portrayal of a state of confusion, unconsciousness, etc., there may be the mental activity we term satvati, and in karuna and other rasas there may be a predominance of vocal activity, and for this reason (because of this predominance) bharati is the vrtti (in utsrstikanka) ; the other vrttis are prohibited since their angas are (there) incomplete. And it has been repeatedly affirmed that there is no other activity than physical, vocal, and mental or a combination of these. Hence when karuna is the main rasa, the vrtti is bharati on account of the large amount of lamentation. Kohala's dictum "kai'iki is the vrtti used in conjunction with grngara, hasya, and karuna" may be ignored as in conflict with Bharata's opinion that kai'iki is an activity involving a pleasant state of mind. Similarly there is bharati vrtti in prahasana and bhana when vocal activity is paramount, and no vrtti in the case of unconsciousness, etc., when there is no activity. For the whole of drama should not be considered a Veda of vrtti. But enough of this.'

instead of cdnabhineye 407, 1. 2 from end : read canabhineyakcvyesu kavyesu. 410, 1. 5 f.: read instead of +angdbhyam. prn.av.rttivrttyangdndm 410, 1. 16: read natakam for ndtakat and kascit for kaigcit. instead of prasiddhe vastuni 410, 1. 19: read prasiddhavastunirfipakdntarah rilpakdntarameva tu tadabhisam tat sarvam. p. 411, 1. 2 : read ripakintaram instead of rfipantaram. p. 412, 1. 7: place danda after, not before, nirantarabhaktibhivitanam. p. 439, 1. 13 : read sa ca instead of na ca. p. 441, 1. 1 : read hinatatra instead of hinatra. p. 441, 1. 2: read caritas instead of caritam. p. 442, 1. 5: place a danda after eka evankah. p. 443, 1. 2 : delete the second ca and insert a danda. p. 443, 1. 4: place a danda before satvatyarabhat.ti. p. p. p. p.

118 p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p.



tadd. 446, 1. 5: read utsrstatvid veti instead of utsrstatvdnye 7: read eva of 1. instead 446, devaih bahulydd bdhulyaddevadevaih. 450, 1. 14: place comma after yadyapi, not before. 451, 1. 4: read yathasvakaminstead of yathasvamkim. 451, 1. 5 : place comma after etesu prayogesu, not before. 451, 1. 6 from end : read updttk,but delete the emendation vrttitvam. 452, 1. 10: read tadd bhavedetat. 452, 1. 12: delete the first comma.