Their works had perished and Bharata himself probably knew* not of them. The strong testimony of Panirii at any rate makes certain their existence. This testimony is otherwise-corroborated, for a comparative study of the literature of Indian, sciences suggests the existence of a body of sutra works-preceding metrical canons. The very perfection of Bharata's* Natyasastra clearly indicates that it was the result of a long cultivation in the theory and practice of the drama. The-precise age of Bharata cannot be determined. He must have flourished far early in the centuries B, CM as he is styled a^ Muni and translated to a mythical pedestal in almost th®-earliest works on drama and rhetoric. In our opinion his-Natyasastra could not have been composed later than the sixth century B. C. Tradition assigns thirty-six chapters to the* work, of which chapters 18-20 and 34 alone have survived to us. Therein are treated the ten species of rupaka^ the five sandhis, the four vrittis and the dramatis personae. The thoroughgoing nature of his treatment clearly(shows that the science must have reached its perfection when Bharata undertook to compose his treatise.
The Science of Metric forms a part of the Vedic Exegesis.. The Rik hymns mention some names which later on appear as the techincal designations of certain metres. The Brahmanas also contain frequent allusions to them. In the Aranyakas and the Upanishads, chapters are devoted to the study of Chhandas. The first systematic arrangement of the archaic metres is referable to the Sutra period. The concluding chapters of the Sakala Pratisakhya deal with metre and are-.written in the usual style of mixed slokas. Regarding the Saraa Veda, the Nidana Sutra in ten chapters explains the nature of the verse and indexes the different known metric-ruistic appearance to the character of the