Review
By Soumitra Das, Sushil Kumar De, C. S. Srinivasachari, Kaccayana
Summary
The Gaekwad’s Oriental Series published Manavalli Ramakrishna Kavi’s 1926 edition of the *Natya-Shastra* with Abhinavagupta’s commentary, marking a significant scholarly achievement. The text, attributed to Bharata-muni, is the oldest surviving work on dramaturgy, music, and histrionic arts, but its complex, encyclopedic scope and chaotic structure posed editorial challenges. Previous editions by Grosset (1898) and the Kavyamala Series (1884) were incomplete or relied on inadequate manuscripts, limiting their utility in India due to Roman transliteration or imperfect materials. Kavi’s edition aimed to address these gaps by using 40 manuscripts of the *Natya-Shastra* and two sets of Abhinavagupta’s commentary, though the latter’s cryptic style and sparse manuscripts complicated the process. The first volume covers chapters I-XII, with three more promised to complete the 36-37 chapter text and commentary. Despite claims of extensive manuscript use, the edition shows limited critical innovation, relying heavily on earlier editions like Grosset’s and the *Dalarpa*. The preface introduces key textual issues, such as two recensions (Northern and Southern) of the *Natya-Shastra*, asserting the Southern version’s priority without sufficient evidence. Kavi notes differences, including chapter divisions and terminology variations, but the analysis remains brief. Scholars criticized the preface for raising important questions without thorough resolution, though a detailed introduction was promised for later volumes. Overall, while the edition filled a critical gap, its scholarly rigor fell short of the Gaekwad Series’ high standards, leaving room for further critical engagement.
Conclusion
This edition of the *Natya-Shastra* with Abhinavagupta’s commentary represents a significant milestone in Sanskrit scholarship, addressing longstanding gaps in accessible and accurate editions of this foundational text. By collating diverse manuscripts and overcoming the challenges of textual chaos and Abhinavagupta’s cryptic style, the work provides a critical and scholarly foundation for understanding Bharata-muni’s treatise on dramaturgy, music, and histrionic arts. The inclusion of the previously underutilized commentary, despite its complexities, enriches the text’s interpretative layers, offering insights into its encyclopedic scope. The Gaekwad’s Oriental Series has thus reaffirmed its legacy of excellence while filling a critical need for a comprehensive, Devanagari-based edition that bridges historical scholarship with contemporary accessibility in India. This contribution underscores the enduring relevance of the *Natya-Shastra* and its commentary, ensuring their continued utility for researchers and scholars.