352 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [October, 1909. 
name, I must confess that it appears to me very hazardous.”’ 
But the mere mention of the Pahlavas would show that the 
verse in Manu mentioning Pahlavas cannot have been com- 
posed before the beginning of the first century B.C. 
If the above statement is entitled to any weight, the 
Th f Bharata Dbarata Natyasastra is to be placed 
Natvacnewac before the composition of the Code of 
In Manu x. 43-44, Sakas, 
anu. 
Yavanas, and Pahlavas are enumerated. From this enumera- 
tion Buhler comes tothe conclusion: ‘‘ The work seems to have 
_ been composed between the second century A.D. and the second 
century B.C.’’ But in the Bharata Natyasastra Parthians are 
mentioned along with Sakas and Yavanas as in Manu (see 
Natyasastra xxv. 89). But the Parthians are mentioned not 
as Pahlavas but as Pahravas. The Pandita editor of the Natya- 
sastra not knowing the word, and unwilling to change it, has 
scripts consulted is Pahrava. So Professor Néldeke’s objection 
does not hold here. The Parthians came to power by the mid- 
when Ramagadh caves were converted into theatres. 
An examination of a work so old, so large, and so elaborate 
as the Natyasastra is likely to prove 
exceedingly interesting. It embodies 
Contents of the Natya- 
sastra. wed ; 
traditions of the past and it reveals 
namely, Kautilya’s Arthasastra composed about 300 B.C., the 
Stage was an established fact and the KuSilavas were a nu- 
merous class. 
The book is written throughout in Sloka metre, except 
Form of the book, Whereshort ancient words are imbedded 
n 
tion between Manu and the Munis, and afterwards between 
Bhrgu and the Munis. The Mahabharata, too, is an interlocu- 
ne Proms Sititied: the. Munis.,. In. this book; As. a® 
» the principal interlocutor speaks in the first 
person. But the difference between this work and the others 
