A Textual History of the Natyasastra

8/13/2019 A Textual History of the Natyasastra

1/28

Vtti in the "Daarpakavidhndhyya" of the "Abhinavabhrat": A Study in the History of

the Text of the "Nyastra"Author(s): J. C. WrightSource: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 26,No. 1 (1963), pp. 92-118Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/611309.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.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. 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.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup..

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 [email protected].

Cambridge University Pressand School of Oriental and African Studiesare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toBulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University ofLondon.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=soashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/611309?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/611309?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=soashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/28

VRTTI IN THE DASARUPAKAVIDHANADHYA YA OF THEABHINA VABHARATI: A STUDY IN THE HISTORYOF THE TEXT OF THE NATYASASTRA

By J. C. WRIGHTTHE translation,' included in this study, of the passages concerning vrttiin the eighteenth chapter of Abhinavagupta's commentary on theNdtyasdstrahas been used as the starting-point for an attempt to determinethe manner in which one small portion of the text and commentary reachedtheir present confused state. Abhinava's commentary contains two fairly welldefined classes of subject matter: firstly, discussions on topics of interest andcontroversy, conducted in lucid literary Sanskrit, such as that concerning thevrtti involved when a character in a play is lying unconscious; secondly,the actual gloss on the text consisting of a traditional commentary, merelyrefurbished by Abhinava as it had been by his predecessors in turn, incon-sistent and corrupt, but offering numerous clues for the unravelling of itscomplex history. Much of the argumentation is necessarily conjectural, but itseems likely that other sections of the commentarywill prove to contain similarembalmed evidence of earlier states of text and commentary, which willconfirmor modify the conclusionshere reached. At any rate it is clear that anyattempt to translate text or commentary must go hand in hand with a strati-graphical analysis of the Nt ya-dstra text. The obstacles are well known.The text of Abhinava's commentary is occasionally corrupt, and frequentlyobscure; the text of the Nt.yasastra as known to Abhinava has been well,but not perfectly, restored in the Baroda edition; the original text of theNd2tyadistraemains to be pieced together. In a preface to the second editionof the Baroda Ndtyadstra, K. S. Ramaswami Sastri opposes M. RamakrishnaKavi's contention that the manuscripts are to be divided into two separategroups or recensions,on the groundsthat while ' it is quite possible for differentrecensionsto exist in epic works ... there is no likelihood of such recensions inthe case of the works of 9astraic importance '.~ I seek to show that the portionshere examined of the Dasaripakavidhknddhydyamay be consideredto rest on asingle archetype,3 and that the alterations found in the manuscripts can beaccounted for by assuming a continual process of readjustment of the textto bring it into line with the vagaries of the various commentators, coupled

1 Some shorter passages are discussed sufficiently fully to obviate translation. The translationis intended throughout merely as a literal gloss on the Sanskrit.2 The variety of readings are attributed by him to ' scribal errors,additions and interpolationsin different manuscripts, but these can be easily detected and eliminated by critically checkingand collating the text '. It is thus astonishing that he accords (op. cit., pp. 30 ff.) high praiseto D. Subba Rao's retrograde step (J. Or. Inst. Baroda,11,2, 1952, and appendix 6 in the secondedition of the Baroda Natya'astra, vol. I, 1956) in forcing a translation from the text of the

Mandapavidhdnddhydya s printed in the Baroda edition, and accrediting this text to the author.3 I referhere to the text of the vulgate compilation from which stem the manuscripts collectedby M. R. Kavi. For evidence of an earlier recension see below, p. 98.


3/28

VRTTI IN DAgARCPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 93with valiant but misguided attempts to restore sense and consistency byemendation.At the end of this article I have listed the relatively few actual scribal andeditorial errorsoccurringin the relevant portions of the printed edition of thecommentary. All references, unless otherwise stated, are to the pages ofNdtyasdstrawith thecommentary f Abhinavagupta,Vol. II (Gaekwad'sOrientalSeries), Baroda, 1934, to the verses of the Nityasdstra as numbered therein,and to the lines of the commentary (excluding text). Verse numbersaccordingto the Kavyamdld edition are included where these differ.

P. 407 ff. Abhinava confirms v. 4 sarvesdmeva kavyanSmmt.rlkdvrttayahsmrtdh,glossing vrtti as cestd, and adding vrttyanginy api sarvakdvyesusanti.He then interprets v. 5 vrttibhedaihkivyabandhdbhavantito mean that onerfipakais distinguishedfrom another accordingto the use of vrtti and vrttyanga,and v. 6 f.... prakaranam....ndtakam eva ca sarvavrttivinispannamto signifythat nataka and prakaranaare pirna.avrttiv.rttyanga.At p. 410, 1. 5 f., we mustread pirnav.rttiv.rttyangdnamnstead of -angabhyim in view of the parallelrelative clause: yathd. . .samparn.asvarasamudiyarulpidgramadvayddvibhaga-kalpanay5 jatyanm~akdnrmnurnpurna.disvarabhedabhdjmyprasavah, evam.ndJtakaprakaran.bhydm(vibhagakalpanayd)prna.avrttivrttyangmnmy,vrttinynaS-ndrmca ripakabhedndmnmarikalpanam1 Just as the jatyamsiakas,distinguishedas pfirnasvara,apfirnasvara,etc., are derived fromthe two gramaswhich have allsvarascompleteby variousallocations(ofthe latter'sconstituents), so the rfipakastermed pilrnavrttivrttyanga (natika, etc.) and vrttinytina are constituted fromnataka and prakarana (which have all vrttis complete, by various allocationsof the latter's constituents) '.Abhinava's consistent inclusion of the concept vrttyanga is clearly not anoriginal idea; the use of the term may derive from an earlier commentator'sattempt to explain how the samavakara can be kaiSdikivrttihinav. 9),2 sincekaisiki had come to be understood as action portraying the 'rngara rasa andtrisrngara in the samavakara definition (v. 63, Kdvyamdld,v. 115) was under-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,namely the useful concept pradhanya). In fact the word kaigikiv.rttihinameantwhat it says, viz. 'with no kai'iki '.3 The term nityavrtti in the originalcompilation had no association with Arngaradibut was closely linked with theearly conception of abhinaya, which at the time of compilation comprisedvac,anga, upanga, aharya, and involved ister alia the angaharas, karanas, and

1 Otherwise the presence of ca is inexplicable. To delete ca and retain -angabhyamwoulddestroy the parallelism of the clauses. In this sentence p~rnavrttivrttyangan&m,sed of rilpakasother than ndtaka and prakarana (since they are said to be derived from these two), will doubtlessrefer to ndtikd, totaka, etc. Here vrttinyf~na s used to mean apuirnavrttivrttyanga.See below, p. 109 f.a For the probable solution to the problem posed by the designation tridrngara,see below,p. 107.


4/28

94 J. C. WRIGHTchirs. Comparethe Nftyacsstra-Blokakara'sdefinition of vrtti (ch. xx, v. 7 ff.) :bhdrat . . . vigbhih, angahdraih.. . kaisik4 vlgitaih . . .itvati, karaaih . . .drabhati,and the variant allocation in the Natakalaksan.aratnakoda(hereafterreferred to as Nlrk.)": ihiryaymkaisikydm . . . nrtyam bhavati,etc. The sub-divisions accredited to vrtti (bharati, satvati, arabhati, kaisiki) are reminiscentof the Natyadsstra-glokakara'sour nyayas (ch. x, v. 72-3: bharata, satvata,varsaganya, kai'ika); comparison suggests that three ethnic designations-bharata, satvata, kai'ika--have secondarily been made up to four, just as theethnically designated pravrttis (ritis, etc.) received on occasionvarious additionsto their number. The relevanceof the 'lokakara's nyayas to the present questionis assured by Udbhata's attestation 1 of nyaya in the sense of dramatic actionas opposed to dramatic dialogue (anyaya). It seems likely that dramatic action(nyaya) was originally classified as of three types, given ethnic names like thedivisions of dialogue (vaidarbha,paiicala, gauda) ; satvata designates a peopleof the south (Monier-Williams,Skt.-Eng. dict. s.v. satvat) and bharata andkaigika may then represent the west and east; more probably the names aretaken from mythology, and the theorists of anabhinayakavya have innovatedby variously substituting more real names (cf. avanti, pa~icalI,udhramagadhi,dksini.atya

of the Nat'ya-stra, against vaidarbha, etc., elsewhere). The originalsense of these categoriesis not certain. They arenormallyin the extant literaturefelt to convey literary styles (romantic, edifying, and epic,2 or the like), butseveral facts suggest that they earlier referredto the various vyaparas involvedin dialogue and action, dabda, artha, laksana and anga, upanga, aharya.Firstly the term vrtti applied to both sets is appropriate for these conceptsbut an improbable choice to convey ' style'. Further, the Natyagdstradefini-tions of natyavrtti give the impression of definitions of concepts related toabhinaya to which notions of style have been superadded; the dislocationmay be explained as resulting from the pseudo-etymological interpretation ofbharata and satvata as vacika and sattvika respectively, found already in ourearliest sources (resulting in the substitution of sattvika for aupangika in thelater list of abhinayas). Lastly, we may have a reflection of an earlier con-notation of vaidarbhyadi in B.na's well known formulation, which

associatesnorth, west, and south with Sabda, artha, and utpreksa (and east, somewhatincongruously, with pomposity, in accordance with the later usage). TheNatyadsstraverse (ch. xx, v. 24, Km., v. 22) which defines vrtti as vagabhina-yatmika may then be a reminiscence of an early situation where two sets ofvrtti, anyaya (the kavyavrttis, constituting bharati) and nyaya (the othernatyavrttis), were recognized,3rather than (as it appears) a somewhat incom-plete statement of the subsequent position. A possible hypothesis then is thatbhdrata became associated with vacika, and satvata generated sattvika,kai/ika was associated (e.g. in v. 9 and the Nlrk.'s source) withh4rya, and

1 See below, p. 115 f.2 Respectively kaigiki, sdtvati, rabhati, and vaidarbha, p9ficdla, gauda.3 cf. (p. 451, 11.18 f.) Udbhata's ces..ttmikdnydyavrttiranyayavrttirvdgri~pa iscussed below.


5/28

VRTTI IN DASAR OPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 95arabhata was brought in to accommodate angika. Since the Nt ya'dstra mythof the invention of the vrttis, which sought to justify this equation of bharatyadiwith the abhinayas, is based on false etymologies (bhdrati, attva,keda,drambha),it is probable that the equation is secondary, although attested for a periodpreceding that of the extant literature on poetics, the period of the originalNat.yadistracompilation (which can hardly be called extant) and of the sourceused by Udbhata and the Nlrk. Since the alamkara sistra is apparently anoffshoot of the natya d stra, and since, in the most antiquarian text, similargeneric terms (vrtti and pravrtti) are used, it is possible that the two setsrepresent a duplication of one original dramaturgical concept, whose primaryconnotation was lost since the reality to which it referred was extinct. Possiblythe terms bharata, satvata, ke'in, paiicala, etc., signifying various actors orvarious roles, had, by the passing of vernacular entertainers from the purviewof 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 thesemight acquire a semblance of sfatraicauthority.1Returning to Abhinava, we may note that on v. 8 f. he diagnoses a jfiipakareference to the existence of the other rftpakasnamed by Kohala besides theten listed by Bharata, all based on combinations and permutations of vrttiand vrttyanga.The following passage2 reads in the edition:tatra ndtakaprakarane va sarvav.rttipifrneiti niyamah, na tu viparyayah.mudrdraksasasya kaidikihinasya krtydrivanasya ca natakasya darianat,vensarmhdre a satvatyirabhatimdtramyrdyata ti kecit.anye tu tatripy avadyamvorttyantarinupravelo'sti.yadi parimitavrtti-vydpakatvdtlaksyate, 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 bethe 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 ofnydyas and vrttis.(2) From the miscellany of terms attested in the N(tyasA'stra ch. viii), the emergence of fourstandard abhinayas and the application to these, on the basis of fanciful etymology, of thenytya terms bhdrata, etc.(3) The incorporation of the philosophical concept vigvyapira, its three divisions receivingdesignations (paficala, etc.) parallel with or modelled on those of the abhinayas and classed asanyayavrttis in contradistinction to the nydyavrttis (the three abhinayas other than bhdratiwhich now belongs with the vigvydpiras).(4) The notion of' qualities ' developed and inflicted on the nydyavrttis through the influenceof the Ndtyabastra myth of the invention of the vrttis, and on the anyayavrttis aided by thetendency to interpret their designations as geographical terms. The tendency for vaidarbha toassume all qualities is presumably based as much on the influence of bharati (which as the genericanyayavrtti must receive all qualities) as on critical assessment of the literature of the south.(5) Invention of the Arngarddiasas, inevitably superimposed on both sets of vrtti.2 I am indebted to Professor J. Brough for the suggested interpretation of this passage usedin my translation and for other valuable guidance in the presentation of this article.


6/28

96 J. C. WRIGHTand takes tatra . . . sarvavrttipirnze as the expression of Abhinava's view.(Clearly iti kecit cannot refer to venisarmhdre. . . drsyate alone as the editor'spunctuation might suggest, since Abhinava has endorsed the dictum natakamsarvav.rttivinispannam.)It is likely that M. R. Kavi envisages a translation'here nd.takaprakaraneeva sarvavrttipiirnes the rule; impossible, however, isthe contrary view of certain authorities based on the occurrenceof natakas .. .'.But this besides involving a strange use of the word viparyaya, is manifestlyforced; citation of the opponents' justificatory clauses while their actualthesis is given out with the citation would be an unparalleled procedure.iti kecitrefers to the whole passage from tatra to d~ryate: 'some say that therule (given in v. 7) means " only nataka and prakaranaare complete with allvrttis " and that the converse "only rfipakas complete with all vrttis arenataka and prakarana" does not hold, for a nataka can be found which lackskaipiki . . .'. Although the curious word order and the singular number ofndtakasyasuggest that the words k.rtydrivanasyaca are interpolations, and theanacoluthon of the phrase venisamhdre . .. . d.rdyatesuggests the same for it,there is no reason to assume that Abhinava's text has been altered; we shallobserve other cases where he has transmitted the confusion of the traditionalcommentary. The refutation of the objection then follows. The iti afterpiarn.avrttikatvam(p. 411, 1. 1) closes the citation beginning anye tu. The state-ment clearly gives a view shared by Abhinava (cf. p. 452, 1.9 ff.) and coincidingwith the opinion attributed to upddhydyah.(p. 441, 1. 1);

this suggests thatupddhydya and anye are the same, thus casting doubt on K. C. Pandey'sassumption (cf. Comparativeaesthetics,I, 2nd ed., 64) that upddhyidyh4efersspecifically to Abhinava's personal teachers Bhattatauta and Bhattenduraja;the word may well refer approvingly to any previous authors. The passagecontinues :sakalngaprakriyaparviplrnatvadva natakdtprakaranamca pradhinam.tathd hi kaigcid vineyah prasiddhim anurudhyamdnodrsta iti saprasid-dhetivrttendtakevineyah. kadcittu kim etad apfirvamiti prasiddhevastunirfipakdntaram va tu taddbhisarmat sarvarmineyo'bhinavavastuvrttakautuka-paratantra iti samutpddyavastundprakaravena viniyate. vinayal casyadharmnrthakimesusarvapurusarthesvapavarge'pi ca tathd bhavati, yadi

sakalarmadupayogivyaparadrayanamsarvavydpsraksiptamprn.av.rttikatvamiti. dviv.rttitrivrttyddikama ndtakambhavati. ruipdntaramva tu tadabhdsam,tatkaidikivihinatve'pi atha drngarayogas ath5samavakdretath5 tallakysanarmvarnayigsymah.In the first sentence, nndtakamhould be read instead of natakatwhich hasbeen brought in fromp. 411, 1. 8. The next section is clearly corrupt. It appearsto contain two parallelsentences : kadcidvineyah... drsta ti ... ndtakevineyah.kadcittu ... vineyah . . . (drstah) ti . . . 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


7/28

VRTTI IN DA9ARCPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA F ABHINAVABHARATI 97repetition of the word vineyah shows that it must be qualified by a word orwords occurring after kagcit tu; this qualification must have been kim etadapifrvamiti prasiddhavastu-nirfipaka-antarah' which is other than descriptiveof a historical situation since it strikes one as unfamiliar') which was liable tobe read as prasiddhavastunirifpakintarah. This reading giving no sense, thepassage was patched up with eva tu tadabhasamtat sarvam taken from thesentence a few lines later rfipantarameva tu tadcabhasamthe occurrence ofreipakantaram n the interpolation confirms one's suspicion that the moreexplicit 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 there-fore need not have been altered since Abhinava. It is clearly, however, basedon a misunderstanding of an earlier commentary, since yathJdrngarayogastath5 samavakare is an odd way of expressing .rngarayogoyathd samavakdre,and yet it must be so understood if the passage is to make sense. It may beassumed that the earlier commentator wrote: tatkaigikivihinatve'piyathd.rngdrayogahsamavakare athe tallaksanevarnayisyamah'I shall explain whensamavakara is defined how it is that Arngarais used in samavakara evenalthough it lacks kai'iki '. A misunderstandingof the yathd... . tatM construc-

tion has doubtless led to the emendation tallaksanamas object of varnayisydmahand the insertion of a second tath5before samavakire. The passages cited anddiscussed I would translate as follows:p. 410, 1. 11-p. 411, 1. 3. 'Some say that the rule means " only natakaand prakarana are complete with all vrttis " and that the converse " onlyrfipakas complete with all vrttis are ndtaka and prakarana" does not hold,for a nataka can be found which lacks kai'iki, namely Mudraraksasa andKrtyadrvana,and only satvati and arabhati are found in Ven.samhdra. Othersreply: "Even so, the other vrttis must be present in a subordinate role.

If a rfipaka is defined by the fact that it contains certain specific vrttis, thena workwith incompletevrtti will be a rfipakaother than nataka and prakarana.Nataka and prakaranaare the principal rfipakasbecause they give a completerepresentation of all bodily activities. For if one conceives an edifying subjectwhich conforms with historical fact, it is treated in the nataka which has ahistorical 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 wonder-ment caused by a novel situation, then it is treated by the prakaranawhich hasa fictitious subject; and the edification concerns all the human pre-occupations-dharma, artha, kama, and also apavarga-if the whole playis based on the activities appropriate to these preoccupations. Possession ofcomplete vrtti results from the presence of all activities ". A play with two orthree vrttis and so forth is not a nataka but another rfipaka resembling anataka. Even when a play lacks kaisiki it may include Brngara,as in thesamavakara. We shall explain samavakara later with regardto this.'The section of the commentary so far discussed has related to verses 1-9which, unlike the rest of the chapter, are in anustubh metre. We may assume


8/28

98 J. C. WRIGHTthat the vulgate compilation of the Bharatandtyadsstranvolved in this chaptera nucleus of prescriptions in arya metre with a framework and additionalmaterial in anustubhs. The evidence of the Nlrk. suggests that Sagaranandinor his source knew a descendant of an earlier recension. Passages which appearin the vulgate as aryd verses may in the Nlrk. take the form of (i) arya verseswith readingsunknownto the extant manuscripts : e.g. 11.2780 f. differingonlyin a point of detail (ndmafor iti) from the probable archetype of v. 45 (Km.,v. 96); and 11.2803 ff. corresponding closely in points of detail with parts ofvv. 84-8 (Km., vv. 136-40) (see below) but apparently differing in the orderin which the material is presented (it is probable that the text preserved inthe Nlrk. has been altered in a manner approaching that of the progressivecorruptionof the vulgate, and not impossiblethat it derives froma text identicalwith the source of the assumed archetype of the vulgate); (ii) additionalanustubh verses: e.g. 11. 32 f. correspondingto v. 10 (here the vulgate arydhas been produced almost solely by the use of verse-fillers); (iii) prose: e.g.11. 2776iff. which might but for its incompleteness be a paraphrase of andrya correspondingto v. 47 (Km., v. 98) (see below) but is more probably,since v. 10 (its counterpart in the definition of the nataka) was not originallycast in arya form, its prose source; similarly 11.2816 f. may be the com-mentatorial source of v. 71 (Km., v. 123) rather than a summary of the aryiverse; in the case of 11. 2803 ff. the occurrence of prose (correspondingtoparts of vv. 84 and 88) in association with dryd and anustubh material (agreeingwith other parts of vv. 84-8) lends strength to the supposition that the Nlrk.cites original commentatorial matter which in the vulgate has been swallowedby the arya text (in this case, however, the diversity of the manuscriptreadingsin the vulgate indicates that the commentary may have entered the text at atime when the postulated archetype had developed into a number of separaterecensions). If, as seems likely or at least a working hypothesis, a single com-posite text of aryas and bhasya is both the basis of the recensionof arya verses,additional anustubhs, and prose used by the source of the Nlrk., and also thesource of the vulgate Dadarfipakavidhanadhydya,e may then conjecture thatthis composite text represented a bhasya on defunct natasfitras with a largeaccretion of arya karikas. This hypothesis is supported by the impressiongained that some important information has failed to achieve dryd statusand been lost, while everything that was available to the compiler in versehas been preserved, however useless. We may well assume that the natasfitrasconcerned only practical information such as that contained in the Manda-pavidhdnddhydya,Upangabhinayddhydya,tc., and were known to the compileras glokas, while the bhasya alone developed the more theoretical aspects(da'ariipakavidhana, alamkdra, laksanla,guna, etc.), but had offset the lackof a m-fla text by acquiring ry. and later sloka karikns.' The Nlrk. does not

1 Previous discussions (e.g. K. M. Varma, Seven wordsin Bharata) start from the assumptionthat 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


9/28

VRTTI IN DAgARCPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 99cite any of the anustubh framework verses of this chapter (vv. 1-9). If this issignificant, we may visualize the work of the vulgate compiler as consisting inthe invention of a gloka framework, the selection or arrangement of the aryaverses as a mailatext with the addition in aryd form of sufficient other materialfrom the bhasya to make the workrelatively independentof the commentary.Although there is reason to believe that the composition of the main bodyof verses antedates that of the glokaframework(vv. 1-9 of the present chapter),there seems to have been no differencein doctrine between the loka introduc-tion 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 laterunderstood. The Blokasdo not mention rasa, while it will be seen that thearyas mentioned only diptarasa (while Abhinava interprets this as everythingfrom raudrato ganta, for the author of gloka 113 (Km., v. 106) in ch. xvii diptawas a pathyalamkdra and for the author of 'loka 117 (Km., v. 109) in thesame chapter it was a kaku).' The references to the later conception of vrttiare spurious in both parts. The Blokasection has no variant readings of noteexcept precisely in vv. 5 f. propounding the classification of riapakason thebasis of vrtti; these verses also contain the most blatant verse-padding inthe section, and refer to nataka and prakaranaas imau before any indicationhas been given which two rfapakasare in question. In the Baroda edition theseverses run:

jatibhih drutibhig aiva svardgramatvam5gatahyathdtathdvrttibhedaih dvyabandhabhavantihi.gramaupilrnasvaraudvau tu yatha vai sadjamadhyamausarvavrttivinispannaukavyabandhauathdtv imau.The Bh manuscript 2 readsjdtibhih drutibhid

aiva svardgramatvamdgatdhyadvattathaivavrttibhyahkavyabandhah ratisthitah(v. 5).Its reading in v. 6 is not clear from M. R. Kavi's apparatus, but it is evidentthat this verse in M consists of two padas developing the idea vrttibhedaihwhich is absent in Bh, padded out with a variant readingof v. 7cd.3 The readingof Bh in v. 5 yields good sense and good Sanskrit, unlike that of M, and agreesin its primitive conception of vrtti as equivalent to abhinaya with the rest ofVarma, if any inference can be drawn from Nh. 6.8 ff., it is that, in substantial agreement withAbhinava, kirikd is a versified sfitra (v. 11 sftratah ... arthapradarini) and nirukta is versifiedbhdgya (v. 13 sthdpito'rtho bhaved yatra ... arthasi2cakam, dhStvarthavacanena). On thisterminology, what I have termed kirikds would be inuva.Ipyas; but it is far from certain thatthe terminology holds good for the (Gupta ?) period of the assumed vulgate compilation.1 In the definition of the samavakdra, trirnqgarais 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 assumethat unidentified readings are those of manuscript M, since the preface to vol. I indicates that thismanuscript 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 (dividingat the caesuras) as a, b, c, d.


10/28

100 J. C. WRIGHTthe 'loka passage. The idea that the vrttis are to be connected severally withthe rasas and parcelled out among the various r-ipakas, a conception whichhad entered the aryd text by Abhinava's time and which he sought to disposeof by using the notion pradhanya, has suggested to some commentator theconfused simile which now occupies verses 5 and 6 of the edited text. Sinceverse 6cd and its variants agreebetter with 7ab than does 7cd, which is, however,only a variation of 6cd, we may assume that 7cd is the verse-fillerand that theoriginal followed up verse 5 (with a reading close to or identical with that ofBh) with a verse

sarvavrttivinispannarmkivyabandham,ca yad bhavetjieyamyprakaranamyaiva tathandtakameva ca (vv. 6-7).More probably the difference among the manuscripts indicates that this oneverse in the original has secondarily been expanded to the three verses 5-7on the basis of a commentary on v. 4. The expression sarvavrttivinispanna-swidely attested in both 6cd and 7cd. In Bh evarmrttisusarvdsukIvyabandham.a yad bhavet s obscure and presumably an attempt to avoid the redundancyof repeated sarvavrttivinispanna-once the line had been duplicated. In Mopannau kdvyabandhauathdtv imau and in .D opannam. kavyabandharmdvayarmsmrtamreflect two independent adaptations of an original singular expressionto the new dual context. The word kavyabandha-s attested in both the dualtranspositions cited and in the singular version of Bh, while nanibandha-and nanavasthd-in v. 7cd may be explained as further substitutions to limittautology.

In verse 12, which the Baroda edition reads as follows:n.rpatrindmac caritarmndnarasabhavacestitam,bahudh&sukhaduhkhotpattikrtamhavatihi tan ntkakarmamaAbhinava in fact read ocestitaih (in agreement with the Nlrk.1). This is shownby his citation of the verse (p. 430, 1.12) with ocestitaih, and by the instrumentalin his gloss on the present passage (ydni cestitani . . . taih ...). Had he read

ocestitam (i.e. an attribute qualifyingcaritam)he would hardly have felt justifiedin giving the forced explanation of yac caritam... tan ndgtakam.. as yasmaccaritam... tasmin ndtakam ... It is probable that the reading ocestitam issecondary and stems from a copyist or commentator's emendation designed torestore the interpretation of yat . .. tat . .. as pronouns. The reading ocestitaihis, however, itself unoriginal, since the variants (Bh nanavidhabhavasarm.ritam,ninirasabhavasambhrtam)attest an expression which is more homogeneousand supplies the expected attribute of caritam. Abhinava's explanation of thecompoundis ingeniousbut impossible.He offersan interpretationwhich I shall

1 11. 37 f. The translators (Dillon, Fowler, and Raghavan, Philadelphia, 1960) contrive totranslate as though the text had ocestitamand construe yat as a relative pronoun, although theomission here of the correlative tat in d (vijiieyarm dtakaimndma) suggests that Sdgaranandinwas citing a version altered to suit the commentatorial explanation of yat as yasmiit.


11/28

VRTTI IN DAgAROPAKAVIDHANADHYAYAF ABHINAVABHARATI 101transcribe (using parentheses to indicate elements supplied by Abhinava)%ann(vydpdrasam)bhav(it)acestita(dvdra)rasayuktamhe puts it thus :bahuprakaraatra sambhavayanti sampddayanti yani cestitini natcavyd-paratmano'bhinayasair etatprahvibhavaddyakam.. bhavati.The bulk of the compound (ndnabhavacestitaih)s glossed by the words frombahu- to taih, and the element -rasais glossed by an epithet of caritamor itsalleged synonym natakam,namely prahvibhavaddyakam.This curious state ofaffairs permits an illuminating reconstruction of the history of text and com-mentary of this verse.As the most original version of verse 12 attainable on the basis of theapparatus given by M. R. Kavi we may hazard:

n.rpatmnr maccaritamndnavidhabhivasamnsritamahudhasukhaduhkhotpattik.rtameyam tanndtakarmama (v. 12).It is not possible to decide between -saym~ritamBh) and -sambhrtam (C);-sarmslritamwould be the more usual expression, and -sambhrtammay be theresult of a copyist's fondness for anuprasa. ca tatha (Bh) for bahudhi gives nosense. It is reasonable to assume that ninarasabhava- is secondary, since onecan hardly credit that the word rasa should be deleted (in Bh) where it couldpossibly be allowed to stand; ninirasa- was felt by later theorists to be theappropriate standing epithet for kavya, and a commentator would not failto point out that nandvidhabhava-mplied ndndrasa-(see furtherbelow, p. 106).The original of v. 12 thus corresponded with v. 48 (Km., v. 99) defining theprakarana,which we may read as follows:

vipravaniksacivearesthibrdhman.matyasdrthavdhandmcaritamyan naikavidham,~eyam,tatprakaranarmima (v. 48).[MS Bh reads osacivas'resthabrdhmanaofor osacivasresthibrihmanao as in v. 51(Km., v. 102) o0resthibrihmanapurohitao. Since it seems possible that purohita-in the printed text of v. 48 was an emendation 1 for corrupt ?oresthabrihmanaoand that v. 51 is based on a conflation of the original and the emended versionsof v. 48, I have assumed ?oresthibrdhmanaoas the originalreading.] From thecomparisonof verses 12 and 48 it is clearthat yat ... tat ... are relative pronounsin both, and that the reading, stylistically so poor, bhavatihi tat of the editionin v. 12 arose as a result of the interpretation of yat . .. tat . .. as conjunctions.A readingjnieyamnat is not preserved for v. 12 (D: taj jfieyam, P: vacyarmyat; Nlrk. reads vijieyam) but in v. 48 it is the general reading (again D : tajjieyam). On v. 48 Abhinava glosses naikavidham(D's reading anekavidhamis perhaps due to the same search for banal expression that motivated its tajjneyam for jn~eyam,tat in both verses) as anekarasayuktam. This doubtlessalready traditional gloss has not been inserted into the text of the prakaranadefinition, presumably since it had already been inserted in v. 47; in v. 12,

1 The more obvious emendation 8resthibrdhmazna- being avoided since kresthin was alreadyaccounted for in v. 50 (KdvyamWld, . 101).


12/28

102 J. c. WRIGHTon the other hand, it had found its way, as we have seen, into the text byAbhinava's time.Abhinava's gloss on his reading of v. 12 nrpatinJdm ac caritam,ndndrasa-bhavacestitaih. .tan nrtakarmnama is as follows:

n.rpat;ndmyac caritam iti: yad yasmdn nmrpattndnyambandhi vyut-pddydnadmmarthydn n.rpatindmevandtakam,ndmataccestitanmrahvibhdva-ddyakam bhavati, tathi h.rdayanuprave~arai~janollasanayardayamsartrarmcopdyavyutpattiparighat.titaydestayd nartayati 'natan.rtau nrtte' ity ubha-yathMhi smaranti. tad iti: tasmadd hetoh ndmasya ndtakam iti. nanupurdandidyupanibaddho'pitadarthah,kasman nat.n evedam bhdvayatityahanmneti: bahuprakard atra sambhdvayanti samp6dayanti ydni cestitaninatavydpdratmdno'bhinaydh,tair

etat prahvibhavaddyakaymrdyatamara-sdsvddasiic'idvrapraveSitamatkartavyasiltrarmh.rdayarohaaridhasauryadi-dharmaratnagrathanakarihavatrtihy uktamasakrt.P. 413, 11.7-15. 'The rfipaka in question is termed nitaka because theactivities, called nitaka (V/nat-), connected with kings in view of the suitabilityof kings as edifying 1subject matter, affect the aesthetic sensibilities, and delight

(/nrt-) the heart by action charming in its appeal to the heart, and the bodyby action consisting in the edifying devising of remedies (against misfortune);for nat- and .rt-are synonymous in the sense nrtta. To meet the objectionthat this topic forms the subject matter of pur.inas, etc., and that it is wrongto single out in this fashion characters in the drama, Bharata says (that thenataka is equivalent to the activity of kings in so far as the latter is) nndira-sabhMvacestita-: .e. by means of the actions which the manifold abhinayas(activities of the actors) portray therein, the nataka affects the aestheticsensibilities, 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 theneedle of supreme aesthetic enjoyment.'I have observed above that nandrasabhivacestitaihs here in effect glossedas bahuprakdra(vydpdrasam)bhdv(it)acestitaiasa(yuktam). Equally curiously,the only element which can be the gloss on -rasa- occurs also gratuitously inthe gloss onyaccaritam(yasmnnnrpaticestitarprahvibhdvaddyakarmhavati).Theexplanation may be found by reconstruction of the earlier commentary onthe original form of the verse :

yad iti: yan nrpatinSdmambandhicaritar taccestitamprahvibhdvaddya-karm havati, ath. . . cestayi nartayati,tan mndtakamma, ' natatan.tan.rtte'ity ubhayathdhi smaranti.

It appearsthat prahvibhhvadvyakamn Abhinava's gloss on caritamis in originthe earlier commentator's gloss on ndndvidhabhvasamiritarm ahudhksukha-dukh.khotpattik.rtam.

A subsequent commentator before Abhinava has then,1 vyutpadya: ' to be used as instructive material ' (= vineya p. 410, 11. 17 ff.) ; upayavyut-patti = updyopadeha (p. 442, 1. 2). Cf. vyutpatti and vyutpid~na 'edification' (p. 412, 1. 7and 1. 13).


13/28

VRTTI IN DA9AROPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 103

paying more attention to the commentary than to the text, understood thecommentary to contain a causal clause, and emended it in his versionto read :yad iti: yad yasman nrpatindrmambandhi .. ndtakamrdmataccestitarmprahvibhavadayakamrhavati....

Since the commentary on v. 47 and perhaps even the text of that verse by thistime stated that prakarana contained the same vrttibheddh as nataka, therewas a strong case for interpreting cestitam(in origin clearly a gloss on caritam)as a referenceto vrtti and inserting it in the text as -cestitaih,perhaps on thebasis of a commentary which read taccestitaih. Abhinava, reading nmndra-sabhavacestitaihn his text, was faced with a commentary which of the wholecompound 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 tobring it into line with the explanations of the commentators which I haveassumed in the case of v. 12 may be further exemplified by a considerationof v. 47 (Km., v. 98), which I would reconstruct:

yan nt.takemayoktamkvyadariralm rasasrayopetamtatprakarane'pikdryamyevalamutpddyavastu ydt(v. 47).This verse has been subject to considerable alteration. The second half isattested by Dh and N (ID yojyamfor kiryam, P : api hi tat nonsensically andunmetrically for sydt), and by the prose version in the Nlrk. (1.2776 ff.) asminnapi kartavyh., kevalam... vastu ... utpddyate. Abhinava's version yojyarmsalaksanam sarvasandhisutu (only the first two words are cited, but these areincompatible with any other known reading than sarvasandhisutu) shows theverse-filling tu characteristic of a portion of text which has been readjusted tofit the commentary, and his commentary has a forced explanation for thispassage (ankapravesakayor aksanayuktam). In the first half, the readingkWvyadarirams noted in N and Dh ; this is more in keeping with the authors'taste for lexical variation in view of the original appearance of vastu in thelast part of the verse. The vastusariramof Abhinava's copy (this should bewritten as one word, against the edition's vastu sariram, compare Abhinavaad loc.) is probably affected by the earliercommentary used by Nlrk. (loc. cit.)which had vastulartramcorrespondingto vastu at the end of the verse but noword correspondingto kavyasariram n the first half. This does not, however,confirm the original identity of the commentaries appended to the vulgateand to the recension known to the Nlrk., since it is probablethat the commentarycited 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 tothe dima, which is compatible with the Nlrk. reading in the definitionof dima-prakhydtandyakah-but hardly with the vulgate reading-prakhyatoddtta-ndyakah). For the remainder,the wordrasSirayopetam, am tempted to proposea restorationksami-&irayopetam' with the world as its setting ') for the original


14/28

104 J. c. WRIGHTvulgate; this would form a suitable pendant in the definition of prakarana(which consists of vipravaniksacivasresthibrahman.mityasirthavihinamcaritam)to the divyJdraya-of the nataka definition which in its original gloka formrecorded in the Nlrk. ran:

prakhydtavastuvisayarmrakhydtodattandyakamrajarsivamracaritarmathddivyJdrayotthitamv. 10).It would also account for the attested readings in v. 47 (Ph: samsdrayopetam,N P Bh: ras&drayopetam)s successive attempts to emend an ununderstoodksamJdrayopetam.It hardly seems likely that the verse was composed witha filler quite as inane as samdArayopetam,nd in view of the numerous occasionswhen the presenceof the term rasa may be shown to be secondary by a study ofthe variants and commentary (e.g. in v. 77 (Km., v. 129) ndndrasa-secondarilyreplaces sukhaduhkha- nd in v. 12 it probably replacesnrnividha-), it is neces-sary to bearin mind the possibility that the reading ras&irayopetams secondary.The expression mayoktam(attested passim except for the probably worthlessprayoktamof N) stamps the verse as later than the main body of aryas, whichdo not use the first person, and we may attribute the arya form of this verseand of its counterpart v. 10 to the compiler of the vulgate recension. If theverse is his and not a later intrusion, the analogy of the situation in v. 12 wherethe readings ndnividhabhivasarmritam, orasabhdvasambh.rtam, orasabhiva-cestitaih probably attest the successive intrusion of the concepts drngaradirasa and bharatyadi vrtti, suggests that in v. 47 the reference to rasa, oustedlater by Abhinava's text's reference to vrtti, may also be secondary. On theother hand, the term rasa as a general designation for aesthetic value is ancientand appears in several cases attributable to the original compilation. Itssporadic appearance in the rfipaka definitions precludes the supposition thatit was intended as more than a verse-filleror at most a reminder that scholarlydefinition cannot account completely for aesthetic niceties: ninarasa, nand-bandha,nandbhavaare merely substitutes for the balder ndnividha, naikavidha,bahudhafound in exactly parallel usages; similarly the various verse-fillingexpansions and combinations, e.g. nadnvidhabhavasar ritarm ahudhi (v. 12)and n anividhunayuktohdvais'a rasais ca (riidhisabdah)doubtless the originalform of v. 14ab, compare Abhinava, ad loc. with Nlrk., 1. 241). The desirablehypothesis underlying this article that the vulgate was reasonably sane andconsistent, rules out the commentators' desperate attempts to interpret rasain terms of grngaradiand rasdsraya as a reference to vrtti-the expressionrasdarayais replaced in the text by a reference to vrtti in this verse and alsoin vv. 81 and 88 (Km., vv. 133 and 140). In v. 10 divyasrayopetameans' havingdivine characters', although Abhinava is wrong in his explanation of the word(p. 412, 1.5 f.) ; this word and the Blokaversion divyadrayotthitare expansionsof a divyJdraya= divyayukta (cf. sukhaduhkhasambhavan the Nlrk. proseversion of v. 71 extended in the arya to sukhaduhkhotpattik.rta,while v. 77 hadsukhaduhkhasamJdraya,ll meaning 'having and giving sukha and duhkha ' ;


15/28

VRTTI IN DA9AROPAKAVIDH.AN.ADHYAYAF ABHINAVABHARATI 105and cf. ndmnsrayabhdvasampannand the other substitutes for ninividha).The word was probably not susceptible of interpretation as 'having a divinesetting' and begetting a ksamsArayopeta, and we may retain rasaSrayopetam= rasayuktam 'having poetic qualities' as the original filler. Whether thecompiler himself understood by the word a referenceto srngaradimust dependupon the relative chronology of the invention of the concept and its intrusioninto the text of the Ndtya~istra; the hypothesis that these were later thanthe date of compilation of the archetype seems at present justified. Abhinavacomments :

vastulariram ity ' ankapravelakddhyam vrttibheda~ ceti 'nandrasa-bhdvacestitairbahudh5 sukhaduhkhotpattikrtamiti salaksanam ity anka-pravesakayorlaksanayuktamiti.There are curious features here. vrttibheddhs cited with its ca while vastulariramis cited without its ca ; vrttibheddhs not precededby iti although the precedingword is a quotation and iti is plentifully supplied elsewhere in the passage.The inconsistency is explained if we assume that Abhinava is using the oldercommentary which had given rise to the emendations ca v.rttibheddsa andsalaksanam sarvasandhisu tu. This may have run on the following lines:

vastulariramity 'ankapravelakSdhyam' ti vrttibheda~a, rasSsrayopetamiti 'nandrasabhdvasamiritamrbahudha sukhaduhkhotpattikrtam'ti sarvesandhaya"ca, salaksanamity arthahkevalamutpidyavastv api tat.'Prakarana has the same characteristics as nataka as regards vastusarira(anka, pravesaka, vrtti) and rasa (rasa, bhava) and sandhis, except that itssubject is fictitious.' Such a gloss would have arisen by drawing on two oldercommentaries, one of which is that recorded in the Nlrk. (1. 2776: ye natakekathitahsandhayo yany angdni 2 and which may have encouraged the readingyan ndtake mayoktarm dvyasariramsamSarayopetamn v. 47ab), while theother read ... kvyasariram rasdSrayopetamnd glossed this with vrttibheddh..nrnarasabhava-. A transposition, intentional or otherwise, of iti from before toafter vrttibheda6da would account for the entry of this phrase into the text inplace of rasd.srayopetamand for Abhinava's inconsistent wording and hisdeletion of the former pratika rasJSrayopetam as a needless tautology. Thereferenceto sandhi and laksana was taken as a reference to the text and oustedfrom it the phrase kevalam utpddyavastusyat; Abhinava, or a predecessor,

1 For this earlier reading in v. 12, see above, p. 101.2 The words following angdni (lakcsanny alarmkdird arve guns4b)may result from readingsalaksanam in an early commentary as part of the text and understanding it as salarmkdramsagunzam,a better attempt than Abhinava's ankapraveBakayor aksazayuktam which reflectsthe obsoleteness of laksana in the sense 'alamkdra'. The appearance of laksana in Nirk. andAbhinava might be held to result, like sandhi and anga, from glosses on vastuBarfra,but laksanzawould be an odd choice and its appearance in a prescription which continued kevalam . . . sydtstrongly suggests that it stems from a commentator's clarification 'having the same definitionexcept that ...'.

VOL. XXVI. PART 1. 8


16/28

106 J. c. WRIGHTthen being unable to comprehend the remainder of the commentary or con-sidering it invalidated by (the clearly corrupt) v. 58 (Km., deest) substituteda makeshift gloss on salaksanam, viz. ankapravesakayoraksaynayuktam.Thefact that vrttibhedfhhad come to be (apparently) glossed ndndrasabhavasamrsritammay have played a part in the emendation of this word to ndndrasabhd-vacestitaihhere and in the text of v. 12.

The definition of natika is credited with a reference to vrtti: in v. 59(Km., v. 110) lalitdbhinayatmikauvihitangiis glossed by Abhinava kaitikiyambaddhetyarthahsusthupfirn.atay5vihitani catvaryapi kaigikyangnniyatra.In the definition of samavakara, v. 63 (Km., v. 115) contains the line

tryankastathdtrikapatastrividravahsyit tri.rngarah.Here tris.rngarawas not for the compiler of the vulgate a reference to rasaand was not the original reading of his source. The matter is of some relevanceto the topic vrtti, and may be pursuedsince it throws some light on the processof growing confusion in terminology in the period preceding the extant texts.Some commentators, including the vulgate's source if v. 72 (Km., v. 124) isoriginal (vv. 73-5 are clearly, in view of the differencesin reading, subsequentversifications of commentary), explained the term as the pursuit of the threeaims, dharma, artha, and kama.It is probable that the expression has arisen through the not infrequentconfusion1of ankawith anga. Nlrk. (11. 821 ff.) after giving the above explana-tion and an explanation in terms of narma,associates (as often by juxtapositionrather than explicit statement) vidrava, kapata, and srngarawith the vithyan-gas; the (secondarily versified) list of vithyangas (vv. 113 f., Km., vv. 166 f.,Nlrk., 11. 3910 ff.) contains the suggestive entries adhibala, chala, trigatareminiscent of vidrava, kapata, and 'tripumarthagata' rngara. The sensesascribed to these vithyangas, '.punning', etc., are due to their having becomeassociated in the same list with asatpraldpa,vakkeli, etc.-the fact that trigataclearly is connected with the common interpretation of srngara here as'tripumarthagata' confirms that all three are (metrical ?) substitutes forvidrava, etc. Comparealso the occurrenceof the vithyangas ndil and ' hasya-janana' prapafica as items of the samavakara definition, one with a differentsense (nadi) and the other a different designation (prahasana). Similarly v. 65(Km., v. 117 with probably misprinted saprasahanahand var. savithyangah)

ankastu saprahasanah avidravah akapaatahavith~kah1 We may compare the situation in the commentaries on v. 47 (Km., v. 98) where Nlrk.'ssource had a reference to anga, understood as sandhyanga, and Abhinava has a reference toanka, understood as ankapravegakidi. If, as I assume, both stem from a gloss anka or angaon the word kcvyaBarfram f the text, it is probable that the early commentator intended ankawhich alone would be comprehensible without qualification. As shown above, it is probable thatAbhinava'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 thegloss anka.


17/28

VRTTI IN DA?ARTPAKAVIDHANADHYAYAF ABHINAVABHARATI 107associates the terms with the vithyangas. If the concept vithyanga is original,we may understand vidrava, etc., as samavakarangas,responsible, along withn51d,for the introduction,when the identity of the first three as samavakarangaswas forgotten, of adhibala, chala, trigata, nali-endowed with new ad hocmeanings-to the list of vithyangas. We may explain the confusionby assumingthat an originalreadinganga, secondarilyunderstoodas vithyanga, was alteredto anka ; hence the injunction that the ' acts' should contain vidrava, kapata,and grngaraand the vithyangas (as well as nadis), as given by Nlrk. and, withprahasanain place of srngara, by v. 65 ; this then gave birth to the idea thateach act contained a certain kind of vidrava, etc. (so v. 63), involving the triplica-tion of these terms. The triple definition of vidrava (v. 70) consists of a list ofexamples arbitrarily divided into three groups. The three types of kapatahave been forced from a definition specifying two types (see below). We needhardly follow those commentators who triplicated srngara as the pursuitof the three pumarthas nor the author of the Nlrk.'s explanation as threevarieties of narma. These aremerely secondaryattempts to explain the emenda-tion tri'drngarawhich supplanted sasrngara (a reading attested in the Nlrk.and indirectly in v. 65).

The appearanceof prahasanain v. 65 and prapaficain the list of vithyangassuggests a solution to the problem which puzzled commentators, set by thedefinition of 'kaisikihina' samavakara as sasrngdra. I have sought to showabove that at an early stage kai'iki was not associated particularly with aromantic style (it may be relevant to compare Kohala's drngdrahasyakarunairiha kailiki sydt) but denoted an abhinaya, probably the one most likely to bedispensable in the minor popular rilpakas, namely aharya. It is possible thatthe early commentators visualized in the samavakara the representation ofthe love story of ' raudraprakrti' characters without the trappings of aharya.But the early connotation of .rngara reciselyas' decorative dress ', a significantaspect of aharya, suggests that there has been confusion. This is borne out bythe incompatibility of 'rngarawith the other members of the triad vidravaand kapata. Prapafica, on the other hand, with its senses 'assumption ofvarious forms, trick' would be in place. We may infer that the reading ofmanuscript Dh in v. 65 'tra suprasannahcontains a corruptionof saprapanicahin the original and that tu saprahasanahof other manuscripts is an emendationof Dh's reading based on the commentaries' explanation of the earlier readingsaprapaicah, the meaning of prapafica having been altered by its sojournamong the vithyangas. Comparing then ankas tu saprapaicah, savidravahsakapatah . . . (v. 65ab) with the developed form tryankas tathi trikapatastrividravahsydt trisd.rngirahv. 63cd; P has the better reading ankas . . .), itappearsthat drngara epresentsanother corruptionof prapaficapriorto the dateof the vulgate.In the definition of kapata v. 71 (Km., v. 123)

vastugatakramavihitoaivavadadvaparaprayuktovasukhaduhkhotpattik.rtasrividhah,kapato'travij7ieyah


18/28

108 J. C.WRIGHTwe have the definitionof a unitary concept kapata, susceptible of interpretationas enjoining two kinds (daivavasad vastugatakramavihitah and paraprayuktovastugatakramavihitah.)but hardly as originally intending three types vastu?,daivao, and parao as understood by the Nlrk. and vulgate commentators. Theword sukhaduhkhotpattikrtaefers to kapata in general (comparethe same wordused as an epithet of the nataka in general) and not to one of the subdivisionsof kapata. The Nlrk. states (1.2816 f.) : trayas ca kapatah,ekovastukramajah,anyo devakrtah, aparo'nyakrtah, sukhaduhkhasambhavah. The editor andtranslators refer the last word to anyakrta kapata alone, but clearly the Nlrk.is uncomprehendingly,or at any rate incomprehensibly, reproducing an earlycommentator's intention by keeping the word separate. Abhinava refers itimpossibly to the daivakrta variety and has to alter the order of the varietiesfor the purpose. The sentence si (van7cana kapatah) ca kasya cit sukhamanyasya duhkhamutpidayati ' daivakrta vanicana benefits some members ofthe cast and harms others' with which he glosses it is a reinterpretation of aphrase of his source; in v. 77 (Km., v. 129) the word sukhaduhkhasamdsrayais glossed (p. 441, 11.7-9) :

evam. graddhdlavodevatdbhaktdhtaddevayitraddv anena prayogend-

nug.rhyante,niranusamdhdnah.rdayh,stribdlamiikh6a ca vidravidinah.rtah.r-dayah kriyanta ity uktah. amavakirah.Here and in the case of sukhaduhkhotpattikrtahe source commentator intendedto convey that the spectacle of the ups and downs of fate is a solace to thewise and a bugbearto the foolish. In the case of v. 71 Abhinava has altered thesense 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 ndnarasa-samrrayahand it is probable that Abhinava's text had this reading since hetransmits the original gloss on sukhaduhkhasamdsrayahithout pratika; it isprobable that he considered the inconclusive nandrasao sufficiently coveredby the idea anena prayogen.dnugrhyanteto obviate further comment. TheNlrk.'s source, however, preserves the older, simpler form and sense of thesewords with its sukhaduhkhasambhavaaffording pleasure and pain to theaudience' in place of sukhaduhkhotpattik.rtain v. 71 ; this is the sense also ofthe same word in v. 12 and of the similarword in v. 77.On verses 72-5 (Km., vv. 124-7) defining trid.rngdrawith reference to thesamavakara, the commentary reads as follows:

nanv evam srngarayogekavye kaisikihinatl. kaizikyamy rttau hinaniti 2tatrasamasah,tenanarmddyangacatuskataduparai?jakagtanrtyavadyidyabhd-vat kaisikydihndntrabhavati. upadhyayastv ihuh-na kamasadbhdvamdtradeva kaisikisambhavah, raudraprak.rtinadmadabhdvdt. vildsapradhdnam.yadr7pam,sai kai1iki, na ca caritam tadr~ipnupraee'pi tadvyavahirah;pradhanyak.rto y asav ity uktam. tena tatra visaye bhcratyadivrttyantara-bhidhdnam va yuktamiti.1 Read sa ca instead of nonsensical na ca. 2 See $uddhipattriki.


19/28

VRTTI IN DA9AROPAKAVIDHIANAiHYA YA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 109K. C. Pandey (Comparative esthetics, , 2nd ed., 690) cites this passage with thereadings kdvyekatham,kaidikihinatain the first sentence and kaidikysmknd-(hMnatd-?)tra bhavati in the second. It seems probable, in view of his tacitincorporationof M. R. Kavi's conjecturalemendations elsewhere,that Pandey'skatham,kaidikyim, and hinata are all conjectural. It is possible that Abhinavawrote katham n, or at the end of, the first sentence ; equally possible that it wasalready lost in his source and that he considered its insertion unnecessary.It seems that kaisikyam has been altered to suit K. C. Pandey's unconvincingtranslation (ibid., 449) of kaidikyamr .rttauhendni and kaisikycmrhinatatrabhavati: ' in them [samavakara,etc.] the graceful action is of the lower type '.If Abhinava understoodhere an interpretation of the compoundas kaidiksivrttauhindni and proposedto reject it by a differentexplanation of the word (loc. cit.' Abhinavagupta's teachers, however, dissolved the compound as kaisikivrttyahindni, and held it to mean " without graceful action " ') he would havestated the other interpretation. Since he does not it is clear that he is concernedwith a difference of meaning and not with a difference of grammatical inter-pretation. The upadhyayah implicitly admit the sense to be 'without kaisikivrtti' and understand this as 'without kaigiki as the principal vrtti'. Thereis then the option of understandingthe second sentence as explaining the termkaisdikhinato mean (i) 'lacking kaigiki', i.e. 'lacking important features ofkaigiki' or (ii) 'lacking kai'iki ', i.e. 'lacking kaisiki altogether and hencenot drngarayoga '. The first explanation involves assuming that hina couldbe used now as ' deficient in ', now as ' lacking altogether ', although elsewherein the commentary the two senses are distinguished as nyiina and hina respec-tively, and further assuming that the absence of the kais'ikyangas also termedkai'ikibheddh)and the musical accompaniment and 'the rest' (adi) does notinvolve complete absence of kai'iki, although this can hardly fail to be thecase. It appears then that the second explanation is correct and the Barodareading kaisikya accurate for Abhinava's text.Abhinava's version of the argument must be translated as apparentlyunderstood by him following the upadhyayah, but we may note that againa minor inconsistency in the text (kaisikydm/kaisikya) may throw light onthe history of dramatic theory, in this case showing reason for the inventionof the term vrttyanga. I have noted above that Abhinava sedulously followshis predecessors n readingthe idea vrttyanga into the text of the loka introduc-tion to the present adhyaya; the matter is not pursued in the commentaryon the remainder of the adhyaya, a fact which confirms that it is an ad hocexpedient for dealing with a specific difficulty. The commentary on the lokas(pp. 409-11) uses vrttyanga to explain the simile in vv. 5 f. (tathdvrttibhedaihkavyabandhabhavanti); this explanation of the simile and the form of thesimile in the Baroda edition probably presuppose rather than gave rise to theconcept v.ttyanga. It then uses the term as a flimsy expedient to accountfor the post-vulgate postulation of apirnavrtti natakas and supernumeraryrfipakas, and enlarges on the v.tti content of nataka and prakarana; but for


20/28

110 J. C. WRIGHTthe by then unimportant question of the kaigikihina rfipakas, it merely refersforward to the passage under discussion by means of a phrase (tatkaisiki-vihinatve'pi yathad .rngdrayogastathd samavakare tatha tallaksanam varnza-yisyimah) which we have seen to be apparently borrowed by Abhinava in acorrupt state from his source. It is doubtless more than coincidence that boththe phrase referringforward to these sentences and the sentences themselvesshow signs of corruption; we may assume that they represent an early com-mentary on the term kaidikiv.rttihinaeducedto the verge of incomprehensibilityby the directionof subsequentcommentators' attention to other and less worthyapplications of the term vrttyanga. The earlier commentator cited in the secondsentence may be assumed, not disposing of the practical expedient pradhanya,to have invented the concept vrttyanga to explainhow ' trisrngara' samavakaracan be defined (v. 9) as kaidikiv.rttihina.The locative (kaidikySamrttau)musthave been originallysignificantand it seemsprobablethat the passage(originallyreading nanv evarmd.rngrayogekdvyekaidikihinatdkatham. kaisikySam rttauh7idnntitatra samisah) was intended to mean 'How can a work which thusinvolves 'rngara be kaigikihina? The compound in v. 9 means " when there iskaisiki vrtti they (samavakara, etc.) lack (certain angas of kaisikl) " '-cf.p. 409, 1. 17 f. saiva vrttih .. angaih... kvacinnyiind. The originalexplanationof this may have run : tenanarmiadyanganyiiatvdtkaidikydar.;natatrabhavati.Since already for predecessors of Abhinava, the upadhyaydh.,the compoundwas understood as kaidikiv.rttydnani, and since, as no refutation of the locativeexplanation is offered, they must have understood kaisikydimvrttau hinanias equivalent to kaidiky5ahinani (the latter explanation is implicit in thephrase kaidikyahinatdtrabhavati-the restoration hinatdbeing inevitable-andin their counter-argument),we may account for the clause tena narmadyanga-catuskataduparaiijakagktanrtyavddyddyabhivitaidikyd hinatatra bhavati as arefinement due to the upadhyayah who believed it was the intention of thesource to ban kai'iki from the samavakara, etc. It may be noted thatK. C. Pandey's reading kaisikyam is perfectly possible on the above view,but there is no reason to reject kaisiky5i f this is the manuscriptreading.Later in the passage under discussion the incomprehensiblecaritam mustbe a misreading for caritas in a sense 'acknowledged' (cf. the epic sense'Cascertained ', 'known' (Apte), and the modern sense 'customary' (Bate,Platts); this is probably confirmed by the anomalous appearance of makarainstead 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 involvessrngara the term kaidikihina has been applied (v. 9); the compound theresignifies that they (samavakara, etc.) lack kaisiki vrtti, i.e. they lack kaisikisince narma and the other angas and the supporting song, dance, and music,etc. are absent ". But the teachers reply: " Kaidiki does not appear merelythrough 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


21/28

VRTTI IN DA9ARURPAKAVIDHANADHYAYAF ABHINAVABHARATI 111to apply the term when kai'iki is present only in a minor capacity, for it hasbeen 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 otherbharatyadi vrttis ".'

In v. 81 (Km., v. 133), Abhinava probably (cf. p. 442, 1.4) read yad vydyogekdryarm e purusa vrttayo rass' caiva, sihm.rge'pi te syuh with the printededition. The fact that there is no statement regarding vrtti in the definitionof vydyoga (while kdvyarasa is referred to, but not in terms of srngarddi)shows that ye rasasrayascaiva (Bh) is probably the originalreading. It accordsbetter with v. 93 (Km., v. 145) vydyogodiptakavyarasayonihhan ye rasYdcanirdistah (.D)

which also presupposes the commentatorial interpretation ofdipta in terms of a number of Arnggardi asas (cf. p. 445, 1. 5, where dipta isinterpreted as viraraudrddydhn addition to the interpretation as ojogunayuktaand conflicting with the gloss danta on dipta ad v. 85 (Km., v. 137)). Thereading of Bh is an expression which could have been interpreted by a com-mentator as referring to vrtti (qua daraya of diptarasa), whence the wordwas precipitated into the Natyaisstra text. Abhinava's lack of pratika referenceto either reading suggests that he or a predecessor has excised the defunctpratika referenceto the earlierreading, although the earliercommentary whichno longerfitted the text was retained. The reading of Bh is weak and probablya verse-filler. It seems certain that the inconsistent and incomplete systemof definition by cross-reference is at least mainly secondary and need not beattributed to the compiler.In p. 442, 1. 5, a danda should be placed after eka evdnkah (since this isexplicit in the vyayoga definition and it is only the following prescriptionwhich is obtained by atide'a).Verses 84 f. and 88 (Km., vv. 136 f. and 140) definingdima are exceptionallyexplicit on rasa and vrtti: they prescribe karuna, raudra, vira, adbhuta,bibhatsa, bhayanaka, dipta, satvati, and drabhati. This unusual communica-tiveness is suspicious; the dima cannot have been intentionally singled outfor full definition. It is likely that it was precisely lack of authentic informationon the nature of this genre which made possible the wholesale interpolation ofbanalities, signalized by the unsatisfactory nature of the verses. The Nlrk.(11. 803 ff.) in its definition of dima omits all reference to Srngaradiand, instead

of enjoining satvati and arabhati, rejects kai'iki (supporting the view thatbh5rati is not on a par with the other vrttis). It presents the material brieflyand in an order differingfrom that of the NJt.yadsstra : the first part consistsof openings of dryi verses (corresponding o vv. 88a, 84a, 85c, 84b), the middleis 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 regardingsandhisunknown to the vulgate. Abhinava is unusually brief on this passage, a factwhich suggests that the bulk of the information supplied by the traditional


22/28

112 J. C. wRIGHTprose commentary had found its way into the text. The following might besuggested as the reading of the archetype:

(1) dimalaksan.amtu bhiiyolaksanayuktydravaksyymi// (v. 83cd)(2) prakhydtavastuvisayah,rakhydtoddttandyakasaiva/ (v. 84ab)diptarasakdvyayonis aturankovai .dimahkcryah// (vv. 85c, 84d)(3) nirghatolkapatairuparagenendusfiryayoruktah/ (v. 86ab)so1dasandyakabahulahanJdrayabhdvasampannah//vv. 88a,88d,85d)[C's reading in verse 83cd has excised the uncomprehendedbhfiyolaksana-

yuktyd. The half-verse beginning dipta? occurs complete in manuscript P,apparently separated from the half-verse prakhyita? by only one line. Thevariant of Y, D, N for the half-verse nirghdta?s perhapsan attempt to improveon the reading here accepted which is closer to the Nlrk. version. In thesection nJnM?, have used a filler employed in various forms by the manu-scripts for the same purpose; in v. 88 the edition reads as above, D and Phave tafjjiairndndsrayavisesah.DPeinaagainst the metre ; Dh, and apparentlyD also, -aih) ; in v. 85 the edition readsn&nMbhavopasampannah.minorvariants:D, N, Bh); all these may be held to arise through artificial splitting of thecompound nandSrayabhavasampannacf. nanavidhabhavasamscritan v. 12)into ndnSsrayavisesaand nadnbhava- n order to fill up two verses.]Verse 84c is taken from the early commentary on bhfiyolaksanayukty5nv. 83cd ; Ph preserves-against the metre-the readingsattrimiallaksanayuktahwhich is the original gloss on this word. The commentary was emended orcorrupted to read sadrasalaksanayuktahwhich along with its explanation(versified as drngdrahasyavarjahdesaih sarvaih rasaih, samayuktah) enteredthe text, in spite of the absence of any reference to srngaradi in the otherrfipaka definitions. The phrase yuddhaniyuddhadharsansamphetak.rtacakartavyahand its variants in v. 86cd is a frequent filler: cf. v. 79 (Km., v. 131)samksobhavidravakrtahamphetakrtah,v. 92 (Km., v. 144) yuddhaniyuddhi-dharsanasamrgharsakrtah.The reference to vrtti (one quarter-verse in M, avariant quarter-versein Bh, a half-verse in P) probably arises from a gloss onndnasrayabhdvasampannahunderstoodas vividhads'rayJ rttayoyesm,

tebhavistaih sampannah)-see p. 104. Verse 87 is based on an appended 'loka inview of the Nlrk. evidence-see above, p. 98. The Nlrk. arya fragmentshave readings differingfrom those of the vulgate manuscripts; v. 84b appearsas a verse opening and v. 86a as a verse conclusionin spite of close agreementindetails of wording. The question must remain open as to whether the Nlrk.text has suffered alterations analogous to those of the vulgate or whetherdifferent recensions of the aryas existed already at the date of compilation ofthe vulgate.Abhinava's commentary again suggests by its lack of pratikas that theexpansion of the text at the expense of the commentaryhad taken place alreadyby his time. The elements which I have rejected as secondary are associatedwith absence or transposition of the expected iti. Thus .rngarahisyavarjarm


23/28

VRTTI IN DAgAROPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 113sadrasatveand satvatydrabha.tv.rttisampannam

are not identified as a citation;and devidayo bihulyenitra sdtvatyirabhat.ti may be secondary (see below).There is no commentary on v. 87 which is identified as an accretion by itsBloka orm in Nlrk., nor on v. 86 which may owe its referenceto yuddhao to thecommentator's explanation of the word dima as vidravaor uddhatandyakitma-v.rtti. Abhinava's commentary runs:athaedimam 5ha prakhydtavastuvisayati. natakatulyamsarvam anyatkevalamsandh;ndmrasdndm,cdsamagrata a

1s.rnugrahdsyavarjam s?adrasatveparydyena sntasya prayogahsyid ity ihadiptaraseti. kavyayonihkIvyavastu.

devidayobihulyenatrasatvatyirabhat'iti. jatir apraninm ' iti kecit. satvatyS-rabhat.vrttisampannam,vrttidvayarn yatra vrttisamiihe v5 vrttisabdah sit-vaty rabhat.laksanavydvrttydsampannah.P. 443, 11.1-6. 'Now dima is defined from prakhyitavastuvisayahonwards.All is as in the nataka, the only difference is the incompleteness of sandhisand rasas. diptarasa- enjoins the use of danta since (in its normal sense) itwould be (tautological being) synonymous with the injunction that it shouldhave six rasas to the exclusion of grngaraand hasya. The word kavyayonimeans the subject matter of the work. (Santa is enjoined)since it contains manygods, etc. On the phrase sitvatyirabhati, some say " one inanimate nounmay stand for the class (hence vrtti stands for all vrttis) " (so dima is definedas a play) which contains the two vrttis enjoined by the word satvatydrabhati-vrtti or as one to which the term vrtti is applied [sampannah.]in the sense of allvrttis since a definition " containing satvati and arabhationly " is inapplicable.'Here the compound satvatydrabhativrttisampannahs interpreted as sdt-vatydrabhati(laksanavyavrttyd)v.rtti(samilha)sampannah.This forced interpreta-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 tokeep pace with the ever-changing text. Abhinava or a predecessorhas foundhimself faced with the altered gloss sadrasa-, explained as s.rngarahasyavarjam,tanding in the text beside diptarasa- and has explained the latter as Santaand to support this used the phrase devadayobahulyenatrawhich, as shownby its position, originally justified satvatydrabhat.i(whichI take to be a glosson ndndSraya?-v. supra). Adding a new pratika sdtvatydrabhatibefore iti(originallycausalbut understood as a quotation mark)since the gloss satvatyira-

bhati.had by then entered the text, he worked in his new interpretation of

sampannah. On this theory the commentary developed on these lines:(1) (ndnasTrayabhdvasampannati) devadayo bahulyendtretisitvatydra-bhattivrttisampannah.'It contains gods (and demons), etc. in plenty [a reference to vv. 87cd and88a devabhujaga.. .avakirniad a sokdaianyakabahulah]and hence involves thevrttis satvati and arabhati.'1 ca is here presumably an error for a dandta.


24/28

114 J. C. WRIGHT(2) devddayobahulyenatretiatvatydrabhativrttisampannah.jdtiraprdni-ndm' iti vrttisamuhevrttidabdah atvatydrabhatilaksanavyvurttyd.(3) devddayo... apranindmiti kecit. vrttidvayarmatra, v.rttisamuhe dv.rttidabdahatvatydrabha.tlaksanavyavrttya(4) sdtvatydrabhatiti. 'jitir aprdnindm' iti kecit. sdtvatydrabhativrtti-sampannamrvrttidvayarmatra, vrttisamiihevd vrttidabdahsdtvatydrabhapt.-kaksanavyivrttydampannah.The second explanation may be a reflexion of the view of the commentaryused by Nlrk.: kaiikiv.rttir atra nocyate which at least apparently admitsbhdrati; presumably drngirahdsyavarjamwas held to re-exclude kai'ikihere.

On v. 96 (Km., v, 148) defining the utsrstikanka, Abhinava explains sat-vatydrabhatikailikihinahas an instrumental tatpurusa containing a collectivedvandva. That this prescription regarding vrtti is also a secondary intrusionin the text from the commentary is indicated by the different formulationin Bh. There follows an analysis of the word utsrstikdnkaand a confusedpassage giving an alternative explanation. M. R. Kavi's emendation of thelatter is inadequate to make sense of the passage. It seems likely in view of theconfusion that Abhinava was reorganizingthe older commentary. The originalsense must have been that, since the element utsrstika implies lack of vrttiand this is already indicated by the specification sdtvatydrabhatikaisikthinah,the genre may be called anka alone. The source commentary may have hadwords to the effect: vrttibhirutsrstatvadveti dvitvamuddedasya,ekadedendyamanka iti nirdisto vrttdnurodhdt.Abhinava would be unable to follow the driftof this since the form anka probably no longer occurredin his text-its occur-rence in D and Dh is obviously secondary. The insertion of tritvamand theanacoluthic association with the pratika sdtvatyarabhatikaisik~hinahuggeststhat Abhinava understood the passage to mean that the three vrttis mentionedin the pratika, or the two if one considers that two of them are taken collec-tively (cf. samdhdradvandvagarbhadvandvantaran his explanation of thecompound) stand for all four by ekade'a (cf. the discussion anent dima onsatvatydrabhatv.rttitanding for all four vrttis). He says:utkramanyd srstirjivitam prarn. yisrym td utsrstikih,docantyah striyastdbhir ankita iti tathoktah. vrttibhirutsrstatvanye ad& dvitvam,ca tritvamuddesasyaikadedena.ayam anka iti nirdisto vrttanurodhat.

P. 446, 11.4-6. ' (Now the word utsrstikanka can be analysed as) utkrama-niya. .. tathoktahor as vrttibhirutsrstah, n which case the enunciation of two(vrttis) and three (stands for all) by ekadesa. (Utsrstikanka) may be referredto as anka metri causa.'After v. 110 concluding the definition of bhana, Abhinava comments (forthe textual correctionsin this section, see the list at the end of this article) :

1 Read utsrstatvtd veti instead of utsrstatvdnye add.


25/28

VRTTI IN DASARC7PAKAVIDHANA.DHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 115p. 450, 1. 13-p. 452, 1. 22. 'The following point must now be considered.Although the types of riipaka called utsrstikanka, prahasana, and bhanaare (expressly) termed ekarasa,the rest, from nataka onwards,are also ekarasa.For although all rasas can be appropriately included in them, the principalone in ndtaka and prakarana is really vira applied to dharma, artha, etc.,since all dramatic heroes are seen to practise heroism. And, although allrasas are prescribedfor use in samavakara, vira or raudra is the principal one,and similar considerations apply to .dima [for which all but srngara and hasyaare permitted] and vyayoga [viraraudrddydh4].n the Ihamrga,raudra is the

principal rasa, in the natika srngara. Thus vira, raudra, srngara (are usedthere) respectively, occurring in these works by being engendered by (theaims of the character portrayed) dharma, artha, and kama, while Santa andbibhatsa occur in connexion with moksa. But not every character can carrythe main role in this (latter) case, only the occasional saint. Although in thenataka Santa or bibhatsa may be the principalrasa when moksa is the principalgoal, this is not a common practice, so they, although engendered by thebest of human aims (the character's pursuit of moksa) are considered sub-ordinate to the other rasas-vira, raudra, and srngara. Thus the main rasaof a drama is really governed by the purusartha it portrays, but other rasasoccur in support of it as a result of the variety of subject matter included.Thus a variety of vrtti is appropriatein a drama because of the use of dramaticaction which will tend mainly to convey these rasas.'The utsrstikanka, prahasana,and bhana, however, being mainly concernedwith 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 thefollowing: Udbhata says " Three vrttis are expressly prohibited in utsrsti-kanka, and bharati cannot be its vrtti, for action is subordinate when the rasais karuna and bharati in the form of lamentation is subordinate to action.Hence we must admit a vrtti called phalasamvitti defined as the perceptionof the results of speech and action, and this is necessary, otherwise therewould be no vrtti during unconsciousness and death, etc., when speech andaction are absent. But if kai'ikI is enjoined with reference to the aim kama,one must allow two vrttis referringto dharmaand artha. Hence it is propertoallow three vrttis (in utsrstikanka)-nyayavrtti consisting of action, anyaya-vrtti consisting of speech, and phalasamvitti their results ". It has been said(by Udbhata) : " The first two have eight subdivisions (each) based on speechand action and the four human aims. Phalavrtti has sixteen subdivisionsbased 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 (Comparativeaesthetics, , 2nd ed., 465 f.) equates5dyewith arabhati and bharatibut interpretsnyaya and anyaya as 'lawful' and 'sinful'. The text clearly has conflatedtwo interpretations of ny~ya and anyaya, the first 'dramatic action' and


26/28

116 J. C. WRIGHT'dramatic dialogue' (see above, p. 94 f.), the second dharmamuddisya andartham uddisya or rather, in view of the statement purusdrthacatustayenacastavidhe which conflicts therewith, 'lawful' and 'sinful' according to acurrent conception of dharma and artha. The opponent cited subsequentlyconfirms this intention when he says na cinyiyav.rttau pumarthacatuskayogo-papattivipratisedhat. We have then another case of commentatorial confusionin terminology: the interpretation as 'action ' and ' dialogue ' is the fossil,the other the current attempt to explain the traditional account of nyayaand anyaya in terms of purusartha. In view of the statement vdkcest.bhym ...castavidhe,Udbhata must have understood his source's cest.tmika nyayavrttihand anydyavrttir vagrupi to mean 'the physical variety of nyayavrtti' and'the vocal variety of anyayavrtti'. He is attempting to interpret an oldconception which recognized three vyaparas in drama--vc, cest., tatphala-samvitti-in terms of the contemporarynotion of four vrttis, equating nydya-vrtti with 'lawful arabhati' and anyayavrtti with 'sinful bharati' whilephalasamvitti is substituted for satvati; kai'iki, which in keeping with theNdtyadsstra is not recognized in the utsrstikanka, is probably maintainedbesides, since he uses its existence to justify nyaya and anyaya; (lawful)bharati is also referredto, although disallowed in the utsrstikanka, completingthe five vrttis accreditedto him by his opponentsin the sequel. These opponentsrecognize kaisiki in the utsrstikanka (with Kohala and one of Nlrk.'s sources)and assume that Udbhata was consideringkaisiki to be covered by one of thethree vrttis which he allows in the utsrstikanka. They re-establish kai'ikiin its own right, and restore satvati in place of phalasamvitti for the situationwhere 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),t is kept separate because of its extremely pleasantquality [reading updtta with the edition] and because it contains musicallyaccompaniedvocal action, and it cannot be subsumedin anyayavrtti [rejectingthe editor's emendation] since this would conflict with the possibility of itsoccurringin connexion with the four human aims (including the lawful). Andif phalavrtti does not take the form of activity which is the common charac-teristic of vrtti, it cannot be a vrtti. If it does, it must be acknowledgedto be asubconsciousvocal and physical activity, since it is generally accepted that nomental activity subsists in the absence of vocal and physical activity. Henceeven in the case of death, unconsciousness, etc., there may be an activityof the spirit, soul, and body which is brought to mind by the presenceof musicaltempo, 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 thatthere is no perception at a conscious level (samvedana)when a state of uncon-sciousness, etc., is being enacted. Hence the vrtti in this case (i.e. during thosemoments of unconsciousness, etc., when the main vrtti-kaidiki-is not applic-able) is satvati, because, if we accept the maxim 'kavya consists for the mostpart of vrtti ', the entire play consists on the whole of vrtti even if a part of it


27/28

VRTTI IN DAAR RPAKAVIDHANADIYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATI 117lacks vytti. The opinion of those who follow Udbhata in holding that in thecase of unconsciousness, etc., there is a fifth vrtti defined as transcendentalperception and consisting of activity of the atman, to be inferred from thecessation of all actions and uninterrupted because of the (persisting) results(of the actions), namely the anubhavas depicting the state of unconsciousness-this opinion has been set aside by Bhattalollata, etc., who showed that thebhavas are perceived at a conscious level and opined that parispandawas nota single activity. Hence there is no phalavrtti and the vrttis arefour in number."'But I (Abhinava) say that this alarm is needless. If every little thingoccurring in drama must be brought under the heading of vrtti, this mightbe 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 ofthe human aims, and the vrttis are kavyasya matyrkih ince this activity isportrayed throughout and nothing can be portrayed which is non-activity.In the portrayal of a state of confusion, unconsciousness, etc., there may bethe mental activity we term satvati, and in karuna and other rasas there maybe a predominance of vocal activity, and for this reason (because of this pre-dominance) bharati is the vrtti (in utsrstikanka) ; the other vrttis are pro-hibited since their angas are (there) incomplete. And it has been repeatedlyaffirmed that there is no other activity than physical, vocal, and mentalor a combination of these. Hence when karuna is the main rasa, the vrttiis 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 activityinvolving a pleasant state of mind. Similarlythere is bharati vrtti in prahasanaand bhana when vocal activity is paramount,and no vrtti in the case of uncon-sciousness, etc., when there is no activity. For the whole of drama should notbe considered a Veda of vrtti. But enough of this.'

LIST OF TEXTUAL CORRECTIONS PROPOSED

p. 407, 1.2 from end : read canabhineyakcvyesunstead of cdnabhineyekavyesu.p. 410, 1. 5 f.: read prn.av.rttivrttyangdndmnstead of +angdbhyam.p. 410, 1. 16: read natakamfor ndtakatand kascit for kaigcit.p. 410, 1. 19: read prasiddhavastunirfipakdntarahnstead of prasiddhevastunirilpakdntaram va tu tadabhisamtat 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 hinatatrainstead 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.


28/28

118 VRITTI IN DA?AROPAKAVIDHANADHYAYA OF ABHINAVABHARATIp. 446, 1. 5: read utsrstatvidveti instead of utsrstatvdnyeadd.p. 446, 1. 7: read bahulyddeva devaihinstead of bdhulyaddevadevaih.p. 450, 1. 14: place comma after yadyapi, not before.p. 451, 1. 4: read yathasvakamnstead of yathasvamkim.p. 451, 1. 5 : place comma after etesuprayogesu,not before.p. 451, 1. 6 from end : read updttk,but delete the emendation vrttitvam.p. 452, 1. 10: read tadd bhavedetat.p. 452, 1. 12: delete the first comma.

Documents

A Textual History of the Natyasastra