to its time, that it is, with the sole exception of the Bh., the oldest extant work in its field.
Its importance in the eyes of Indian students of the drama is further attested by the numerous citations of its rules and allusions to them in later rhetorical and dramaturgic treatises and in the native commentaries on Hindu plays. In the Pratāparudrīya, for example, we find ten quotations from the Daśarūpa,[1] the source being indicated in all but one of the cases; three other passages, also ascribed to the Daśarūpa, are not to be found in our text.[2] The Sāhityadarpaṇa, furthermore, not only refers to the Daśarūpa[3] and criticizes some of its statements,[4] but bases its treatment of dramaturgy to a great extent on Dhanaṃjaya’s work and repeats verbatim or with minor variations a large number of its sections. A similar dependence on the Daśarūpa and recognition of its value is found also in other dramaturgic treatises.
Style and method of treatment. In style the Daśarūpa differs very largely from the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra (upon which, as stated above, it is professedly based). The latter is very diffuse, abounds in transitional and introductory formulas,[5] and often uses stock phrases to fill incomplete lines.[6] The Daśarūpa, on the other hand, is extremely condensed and avoids all formulaic ‘padding’ except where it is absolutely required by the meter.[7] In many cases, however, brevity is attained at the expense of clearness, and not a few definitions would be absolutely obscure except for the help to be derived from the commentary and the
- ↑ The passages quoted are: DR. 1. 11, 15, 23 a, 27 a, 28 b, 34, 36, 115 b; 3. 4; 4. 1. (DR. 1. 115 b is quoted at Pratāpar. 3. 35, p. 124; for the others see my notes on the various sections.) DR. is mentioned also at Pratāpar. 3, p. 131.
- ↑ Pratāpar. 2, p. 46; 4, p. 221; 4, p. 228. For another pseudo-DR. rule see the com. on Anargharāghava, p. 7 (cf. Levi, pt. 2, p. 4, 24).
- ↑ See my notes on DR. 1. 50, 55. DR. 3. 37 is quoted, as by Dhanika, at SD. 316.
- ↑ Regarding these criticisms see my notes on DR. 2. 70, 71.
- ↑ Cf. Bh. 18. 3 b; 18. 40; et passim.
- ↑ Cf. Bh. 18 112 b; 19. 83, 84; et passim.
- ↑ For examples of the occasional use of transitional phrases see DR. 1. 38 (atha lakṣaṇam); 1. 67 (lakṣaṇam ca praṇīyate).
