Problems of the Natyasastra

Summary

Harihar V. Trivedi’s article tackles controversies surrounding the authorship and chronology of the Nāṭyaśāstra, the foundational treatise on Indian drama attributed to Bharata. Scholars such as Keith argued that the Nāṭyaśāstra was composed as late as the 2nd century CE and that the origin of Sanskrit drama should be placed around the same time. Trivedi challenges this late dating by examining evidence from literature, archaeology and dramatic practices. He points out that plays attributed to Aśvaghoṣa, such as the Śāriputra‑prakaraṇa, already conform closely to the rules set out in the Nāṭyaśāstra, suggesting that the treatise must predate Aśvaghoṣa. The existence of dramatic compositions in the Mauryan and Kuṣāṇa periods further implies an earlier origin. Trivedi argues that the art of drama requires a body of rules; therefore, the Nāṭyaśāstra or its progenitors must have been compiled at least a century before the earliest plays we possess. He examines how commentators like Śīlālin and Kṛṣāśva, referenced in the text, are earlier than the Gupta period. He also discusses whether the Nāṭyaśāstra evolved over time, with successive layers reflecting the practices of different eras. The author concludes that drama was already flourishing in Mauryan times and that the Nāṭyaśāstra may have been composed in stages, beginning possibly in the early centuries BCE. He asserts that attributing the origin of Indian drama to Bharata rather than to Greek influence reflects indigenous developments. The article ends by urging caution against relying too heavily on the absence of explicit references in other texts to date the treatise.