1 AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31. 

2 Ed. KM. 1894, i–xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii–xx, xxxiv in F. Hall’s Daçarūpa; xv–xvii (xiv–xvi), in Regnaud, Annales du Musée Guimet, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset’s Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite

3 Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that the Çāstra is largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras. For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, p. 89. It is probable that the Çāstra is related to an original Sūtra in the same way as the Kāmandakīya Nītiçāstra to the Arthaçāstra. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff. 

4 Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him; Arthadyotanikā, 2. 

5 That in the Çāstra itself there is contradiction in this regard between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34. 

6 Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third century; the Prākrit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development; Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8. 

7 Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912. Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but the difference of the name is fatal. 

8 Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1909. 

9 Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1903; cf. R. G. Bhandarkar, Report (1897) pp. lxviii f. 

10 Ed. BI. with trs., 1851–75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910. 

11 Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses the Daçarūpa. Cf. Seshagiri, Report for 1896–97, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited. 

12 For the authorship of the Kāvyaprakāça see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 103 ff. 

13 cc. 337–41. On Dhvani see Keith, Sansk. Lit. ch. x. 

14 Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. on Anargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR. i. 7; SD. 274. 

15 Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f. 

16 N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27. 

17 DR. i. 15; iii. 20–22. 

18 N. xix. 2–6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323. 

19 N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320–3; R. iii. 13 f. 

20 N. xix. 7–13; DR. i. 18–20; SD. 324–9; R. iii. 22–5. 

21 N. xix. 19–21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317–19. The parallelism is faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33, admits this in effect; there is no episode in Ratnāvalī, III. Cf. R. iii. 22. 

22 N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11 n.) suggests nibarhaṇa as correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii. 26–74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in the Bālarāmāyaṇa is given in R. iii. 23–5. 

23 Abhinavagupta (Dhvanyāloka, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted in Pratāparudrīya, iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306–8; R. iii. 26 f. 

24 SD. 321. 

25 N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33. 

26 N. xix. 103; SD. 406. 

27 N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407. 

28 SD. 342, 407. 

29 N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278. 

30 The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows the performance of essential religious rites. 

31 Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff. 

32 SD. 278, no doubt by misreading. 

33 N. xviii. 14 f., 22–4; DR. iii. 27, 32–4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205; JAOS. xx. 341 ff. 

34 N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109–16; DR. i. 52–6; SD. 305–13; R. iii. 178 ff. 

35 Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow, ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’s Tripuradāha, II. 

36 R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e.g. Bālarāmāyaṇa, VII. 

37 Mātṛgupta in Arthadyotanikā, 20. 

38 xix. 53–7, 105–9; R. iii. 95; 79–92. 

39 SD. 279. 

40 N. xix. 30–4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299–303; R. iii. 15–17, where N. is cited with variant readings. 

41 This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to Vāsavadattā’s anger to come. 

42 DR. i. 57–61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff. 

43 DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff. 

44 N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4–6; DR. ii. 3–5; SD. 67–9; R. i. 72–8. 

45 DR. ii. 4. 

46 ii. 10, 16; iv. 22. 

47 DR. ii. 6; SD. 71–5; R. i. 80–2. R. i. 79, 83–8 has a division into husbands, adulterers (upapati), and the connoisseur of hetaerae (vaiçika). For the courteous lover, see p. 205. 

48 DR. ii. 9–13; SD. 89–95; R. i. 215–19; 64, 69. 

49 DR. ii. 8; SD. 159. 

50 DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf. Kāmasūtra, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90. 

51 DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96–100; R. i. 94–120, who takes the unusual view that Irāvatī in the Mālavikāgnimitra is a hetaera. 

52 N. xxii. 197–206; DR. ii. 22–5; SD. 113–21; R. i. 121–51. 

53 N. xxii. 4–29; DR. ii. 28–39; SD. 126–55; R. i. 190–214, with Bhoja’s views. 

54 N. xii. 121 f.; xxi. 126; xxiv. 106; DR. ii. 8; SD. 79; R. i. 92. 

55 N. xii. 97; xxiv. 104; DR. ii. 8; SD. 78; Kāmasūtra, p. 58; Schmidt, Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, pp. 200 ff. 

56 N. xii. 130; xxiv. 105; DR. ii. 42; SD. 81. 

57 SD. 86 f., 158. 

58 N. xxiv. 107; DR. ii. 41; SD. 82. 

59 N. xxiv. 60 ff. 

60 N. xxiv. 15 ff. The Kāmasūtra, of course, covers much the same ground. 

61 N. xxiv. 50 ff. 

62 SD. 426. R. iii. 323–38 gives very elaborate details. 

63 N. xvii. 73 ff.; DR. ii. 62–6; SD. 431 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 129, corrected JA. sér. 9, xix. 97 f.; R. iii. 306–22. 

64 A child may thus be addressed by persons of low rank, SD. 431; cf. Mṛcchakaṭikā, x. p. 160. 

65 For another style, cf. Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi, p. 124; Upādhyāya, R. iii. 309. 

66 P. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, pp. 266 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 394 f.; M. Lindenau, Beiträge zur altindischen Rasalehre, Leipzig, 1913. See N. vi. and vii.; DR. iv.; SD. iii.; R. i. 298–ii. 265. 

67 Mātṛgupta (Hall, DR., p. 33) subdivides sentiment as vācika, produced by words; nepathya, generated by appropriate garlands, ornaments, clothes, &c.; svābhāvika, produced by such natural excellencies as beauty, youth, grace, firmness, courage, &c. 

68 Ekāvalī, iii, pp. 86 ff.; Kāvyaprakāça (ed. 1889), pp. 86 ff. Cf. R., pp. 173–5. 

69 See also Abhinavagupta, Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 67 f.; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 9. 

70 The term is vyutpatti; it is explained by Abhinavagupta, op. cit., p. 70; GGA. 1913, p. 305, n. 1. 

71 The reference to Brahman shows that we have here the same fusion of doctrine as in Sadānanda’s Vedāntasāra

72 In the same sense we have rasika and bhāvaka (e.g. R., p. 170). 

73 vi. 7 ff.; Huizinga, De Vidūṣaka in het indisch tooneel, pp. 67 ff. 

74

vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ

ānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ. (iv. 1.) Cf. R. ii. 169.

75 iv. 36 ff. 

76 iv. 41; R., p. 175, l. 1. 

77 vi. 39–41. 

78 Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 68, 70. 

79 See § 6 below. 

80 iv. 33. Cf. R., p. 171. 

81 SD. 41. This possibility is denied by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. 

82 xxvi. 18 f. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, xvii. 1455 a 30. 

83 SD. 50 ff. So such a great actress as Sarah Bernhardt might feel emotion in acquiring her part, but not in the daily performance. 

84 Ekāvalī, p. 88; DR. iv. 40. 

85 Vyaktiviveka (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. v). 

86 iv. 47 ff. Cf. R. ii. 170 ff. 

87 Cf. Haas, DR., pp. 133, 150; R. ii. 178–201, where a list of twelve, with desire and eagerness prefixed, is rejected. 

88 Cf. R., pp. 189 f. 

89 Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, v. 1449 a 36. 

90 Save for a late reading in vi. 15. 

91 See Dhanika, DR. iv. 33; SD. 240; Ekāvalī, pp. 96 ff. Other sentiments are sometimes recognized, such as friendship, faith, and devotion; cf. Rasagan̄gādhara, p. 45. Bhoja admits love only. An example of calm is the Prabodhacandrodaya. Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 395; R., p. 171. 

92 N. xx. 25–62; DR. ii. 44–57; iii. 5; SD. 285, 410–21; R. i. 244–94, which expressly denies a fifth manner composed of the four. 

93 Ratnāvalī, ii. R. i. 275 gives pā pā pāhi hi hīti as an instance of comic fear exhibited in speech. 

94 Or narmasphañja

95 An alternative is love enjoyment interrupted, as in the Ratnāvalī, ii. 17; R. i. 278. 

96 A variant ascribed to Bharata is given in R. i. 279, where a hero dies and another fills his place, e.g. Rāvaṇa replaced by Vibhīṣaṇa. 

97 N. xviii. 106–16; DR. iii. 11–18; SD. 289, 293, 521–32; R. i. 164–74. 

98 The first kind is illustrated by Uttararāmacarita, i; the second by a citation from the Chalitarāma

99 As in the Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa, R. i. 168. 

100 As in the Abhirāmarāghava

101 SD. 471–503. 

102 N. xvii. 6–39; SD. 435–70; 36 bhūṣaṇāni, R. iii. 97–127. 

103 The Saṁgītadāmodara merges them in one (Lévi, TI. i. 104). Cf. DR. iv. 78. 

104 xvii. 40 ff. The Alaṁkāra doctrine later develops enormously; cf. Jacobi, GN. 1908, pp. 1 ff. 

105 xvii. 99 ff. 

106 See Weber, IS. viii. 377 ff. 

107 i. 41 ff. 

108 iii. i and 2; cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, ch. v. 

109 Kāvyaprakāça, pp. 542 ff.; Ekāvalī, pp. 147–9; Alaṁkārasarvasva, pp. 20 f. R. i. 229–43 has the ten Guṇas and komalā, kaṭhinā, and miçrā as the three names. 

110 Mammaṭa, Kāvyaprakāça, viii. 1 ff.; Ekāvalī, v.; Sāhityadarpaṇa, viii; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 7. 

111 iii. 1. 1–3. 

112 pp. 57, 60. Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 68. 

113 vi. 147. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 48 ff. 

114 Jacobi, GN. 1911, pp. 962 f.; 1912, p. 841 f. 

115 Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 74, 76. Cf. Haranchandra Chakladar, Vātsyāyana (1921). 

116 N. xvii. 31 ff.; DR. ii. 58–61; SD. 432; R. iii. 299–305. 

117 Including, of course, persons assuming such rôles, e.g. in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa and Mudrārākṣasa. For the use of Sanskrit by women, usually in verse, as by Vasantasenā in the Mṛcchakaṭikā, and by inferior characters, see Pischel, Prākrit Grammatik, pp. 31 f. 

118 R. iii. 300 assigns it as Prākṛta to low persons and Jains. He assigns Apabhraṅça to Caṇḍālas, Yavanas, &c., but admits that others give Māgadhī, &c. 

119 Grierson, JRAS. 1918, pp. 489 ff. Cf. R. i. 297 which has seven; Çabara, Dramiḷa, Andhraja, Çakāra, Abhīra, Caṇḍāla, foresters. 

120 Contrast the Aristotelian doctrine as to the use of the lyric choruses; Poetics, 1456 a 25 ff.; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 75–80; Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. v, § 6. 

121 xviii. 117–29; DR. iii. 47 f.; SD. 504–9. On gesture see the Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. R. iii. 236–48 gives other details of the Lāsya from the Çṛn̄gāramañjarī; dialect is allowed in the Saindhava. He follows N. in having Trimūḍhaka as expressing male emotions in smooth words, and has Dvimūḍhaka. 

122 Lévi, TI. ii. 18 f. For N. xxviii see J. Grosset, Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888. The hints as to musical accompaniment in Vikramorvaçī iv. and the Gītagovinda are unfortunately largely unintelligible. Cf. also Çivarāma on Nāgānanda, i. 15. 

123 v. 1 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 23 ff. 

124 These nine acts gratify the Apsarases, Gandharvas, Daityas, Dānavas, Rakṣases, Guhyakas, and Yakṣas. They are performed behind the curtain according to Konow, but cf. Lévi, TI. i. 376. 

125 N. v. 149 ff.; DR. iii. 2 ff.; SD. 283 ff. Cf. R. iii. 150 ff. 

126 An effort to discriminate Prastāvanā and Sthāpanā is made, R. iii. 158. 

127 These are more common than formerly thought; the Sthāpaka is found in various connexions in the Pārthaparākrama of Prahlādana, and Vatsarāja’s Kirātārjunīya, Rukmiṇīharaṇa, Samudramathana. But the Rasārṇavasudhākara ignores him. [342]Çivarāma’s comm. on Nāgānanda, i. 1 shows that great doubt then existed both as to the preliminaries (p. 2), and the Sūtradhāra, Sūcaka, or Sthāpaka (pp. 6, 7). Cf. p. 273. 

128 GGA. 1883, p. 1234; 1891, p. 361. Bhāsa’s use of Sthāpanā for the prologue suggests accord with the Daçarūpa

129 E.g. Tapatīsaṁvaraṇa and Subhadrādhanaṁjaya, where Sthāpanā is used. 

130 A classification of poets on the basis of their confidence in themselves as expressed in this place is given in R. i. 246 f.; Kālidāsa is elevated (udātta) in the Mālavikāgnimitra; Bhavabhūti haughty (uddhata) in the Mālatīmādhava; self assertion (prauḍha) is seen in the Karuṇākandala; modesty (vinīta) in the Rāmānanda

131 Konow, ID. p. 25. 

132 Lévi, TI. i. 135, 379; ii. 26 f., 64, 66. Cf. Harivaṅça, ii. 93; Kuṭṭanīmata, 856 ff. 

133 Lévi, TI. i. 132 f.; ii. 24 f.; Hall, DR., pp. 25 f. The Veṇīsaṁhāra has six stanzas. R. iii. 137 f. takes Pada as word, giving the Mahāvīracarita, Abhirāmarāghava, and Anargharāghava as examples of 8, 10, and 12 Padas. 

134 For a general reference see Pañcarātra, i. 1. In a Jain drama like the Moharājaparājaya, the benediction is addressed to the three Tīrthakaras; in the Nāgānanda to the Buddha. 

135 N. xviii. 10 ff.; DR. iii. 1–34; SD. 278, 433, 510; R. iii. 130 ff. 

136 Ghanaçyāma’s Navagrahacarita has three acts; Madhusūdana’s Jānakīpariṇaya (A.D. 1705) has four. 

137 N. xviii. 41 ff.; DR. iii. 35–8; SD. 511 f.; R. iii. 214–18, who gives Kāmadatta as the name of a hetaera drama. 

138 N. xviii. 57–70; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 56–61; SD. 515 f.; R. iii. 249–64. 

139 N. xviii. 72–6; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 66–8; SD. 518; R. iii. 284–8 (type Māyākuran̄gikā). 

140 N. xviii. 78–82; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 51–3; SD. 517; R. iii. 280–4 (type Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa). 

141 N. xviii. 83–5; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 54 f.; SD. 514; R. iii. 229–32 (type Dhanaṁjayajaya). 

142 N. xviii. 86–9; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 64 f.; SD. 519; R. iii. 224–8 (type Karuṇākandala) who differs. 

143 N. xviii. 93–8; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 49 f.; SD. 534–8; R. iii. 268–79 (type Ānandakoça). 

144 N. xviii. 99–101; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 44–6; SD. 513; R. iii. 232–5. 

145 N. xviii. 102 f.; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 62 f.; SD. 520. Konow (ID. p. 32) is in error as to N. R. iii. 265–70 has Mādhavī-Vīthikā

146 SD. 276. 

147 Hall, DR., p. 6. 

148 cccxxxvii. 2–4. R. iii. 218–23 denies the separate character of the Nāṭikā or Prakaraṇikā. 

149 DR. i. 8. 

150 xviii. 54–6; DR. iii. 39–43; SD. 539. 

151 SD. 554. 

152 SD. 542. Cf. the Bharhut bas-relief of a dance, Sāḍika; Hultzsch, ZDMG. xl. 66, no. 50. 

153 SD. 540. 

154 SD. 541. Cf. Hall, DR., p. 6. 

155 SD. 555. 

156 SD. 543. 

157 SD. 544. 

158 SD. 556; for the others see 546 ff. Names of plays are given, but they are lost, and were probably late. 

159 vii. 90 f.; xi. 36. 

160 ii. 18. 

161 iv. 3. 

162 Mālatīmādhava, p. 79. 

163 vi. 48, and see pp. 108 f.; Lévi, TI. ii. 38. 

164 Cf. the later view in Rome, which forbids death on the stage, Horace, Ars Poetica, 183 ff., with Aristotle, Poetics, 1452 b 10 ff., which approves the presentation of death and other acts on the stage. 

165 M. Lindenau, Festschrift Windisch, pp. 38 ff. 

166 Poetics, 1449 b sq. with Butcher’s trs. and Bywater’s notes. 

167 Poetics, 1449 b 13. For time analysis in Kālidāsa, see Jackson, JAOS. xx. 341–59; in Harṣa, xxi. 88–108.