Skip to content
Browse articles

Problems of the Natyasastra

By Harihara V. Trivedi

Vol. 7 · No. 2June - 1931pp. 380–383English, Sanskrit

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.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.

Conclusion

Trivedi’s analysis challenges the view that the Nāṭyaśāstra arose only in the 2nd century CE. By demonstrating the presence of dramatical conventions and plays before that date, he argues that the treatise—or its core—must be older, perhaps compiled in the Mauryan period. The Nāṭyaśāstra likely grew through additions but was grounded in an established theatrical tradition. Recognising its antiquity affirms drama’s indigenous roots in India rather than derivation from Hellenistic models.

Key passages

Chosen by AI from the article's text. Each one is checked word for word against the text before it is shown.

  • “the Natyasastra legend about the origin of Natya is palpably a badly made table fitted to the text in a still worse manner”
  • “the word Bharata meaning nata has not been derived from any person of the same name and an enquiry seems to point to a reverse process”
  • “Silatin and Kréisva were the carliest known writers of any Natyadastra or the text book for the natas,””

Works cited in this article

  1. Samskrit Drama hy ઝિ. A. B, Keith, 20, 41, 44
  2. Keith's Samskriz Dpama

Discussed in this article

People

Texts & works

Dynasties, sects & groups

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Article order

In this issue

Vol. 7 · No. 2
214–244Origin of the Bell-CapitalAchyuta Kumar Mitra245–253Topography in the PuranasSashi Bhusan Chaudhuri253–258Dvaidhibhava in the KautiliyaNarendra Nath Law259–286Bodhisattva Pratimoksa SutraNalinaksha Dutt287–300The First Saka of CitodSubimal Chandra Datta301–308Mandana, Suresvara and Bhavabhuti : The Problem of their IdentityDinesh Chandra Bhattacharya309–318Some Notes on Skanda-KarttikeyaManmatha Mukhopadhyay319–330Kulasekhara of KeralaK. Rama Pisharoti331–333A Surya Icon from a Dasavatara Temple, PaganNiharranjan Roy334–342Vilvamangalam SvamiyarsA. Govinda Warrier343–358Early Visnuism and Narayaniya WorshipMrinal Das Gupta359–362Ganga in Ceylon and IndiaJ. C. De362–364An Early Supporter of ShivajiJadunath Sarkar365–366The Webbed Finger of BuddhaAnanda Kentish Coomaraswamy367–370A Few Evidences on the Age of the KathavatthuDwijendra Lal Barua370–371The Age of the Visnu PuranaV. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar371–376More on ManimekhalaSylvain Levi377–379Derivation of PaliS. V. Viswanatha380–383Problems of the NatyasastraHarihara V. TrivediCurrent article384–388Technical Terms in the Hindu Revenue SystemU. N. Ghoshal389–410The English Translation of the KautiliyaNarendra Nath Law410–412An Inscription dated in the Reign of Emperor Muhammad ShahDineshchandra Sircar412–412Candasutinam in the Nanaghat Cave InscriptionDineshchandra Sircar413–418The BhagavrttiKshitish Chandra Chatterjee418–419The Authorship of the AnunyasaKshitish Chandra Chatterjee420–427ReviewsAnanda Kentish Coomaraswamy, Subimal Chandra Datta428–432Select Contents of Oriental Journals433–434Bibliographical Notes

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.

Same author

More by Harihara V. Trivedi

All articles →
The Indian Historical Quarterly

New Light on the Early Rastrakuta House

By Harihara V. Trivedi

June - 1954
The Indian Historical Quarterly

A Note on the Khatvanga

By Harihara V. Trivedi

March - 1939
The Indian Historical Quarterly

A supposed Sumero‑Babylonian inscription discovered at Mohenjo-Daro

By Harihara V. Trivedi

Dec-37
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Hemakuta

By Harihara V. Trivedi

September - 1936