A History of Sanskrit Literature: Classical Period, Vol. I c4.s8.38

c4.s8.38

It must be frankly admitted, however, that these happy features are not possessed by the ten remaining Trivandrum plays, although each of them possesses some striking scenes or remarkable characteristics. Excepting the *Pañcarātra*, which extends to three acts, the Mahābhārata plays, whose literary merit has been much exaggerated, consist of one act each, and form rather a collection of slight dramatic scenes than complete and finished dramas. But they are meant to be of a sterner stuff, and make up by vigour what they lack in finish, although a lurking fondness is discernible for mock-heroic or violent situations. The *Madhyama* has a theme of the nature of a fairy tale, of which there is no hint in the Epic; but the motif of a father meeting and fighting his own son unawares is not original, nor is the idea of the ‘middle one’, though cleverly applied, unknown, in view of the Brāhmaṇa story of Śunaḥśepa (*Ait. Br.*, vii. 15). What is original is the imagining of the situation out of the epic tale; but the possibilities of the theme are hardly well-developed within the narrow limits of one act. There is also in the Epic no such embassy of Bhīma’s son as is dramatised in the *Dūta-ghaṭotkaca*, which describes the tragic death of Abhimanyu and the impending doom of the Kurus; there is some taunting and piquancy, but no action, and the whole scene is nothing more than a sketch. The *Dūta-vākya* is more directly based on the account of the embassy of Kṛṣṇa,, described in the Udyoga-parvan; but it suffers also from the same lack of action, and the theme is exceedingly compressed and hardly completed. While the introduction of the painted scroll of Draupadī is an ingenious invention to insult the envoy effectively, the appearance of Viṣṇu’s weapons, though original, is silly in serving no useful dramatic purpose. In spite of its tragic note and simplification of the original story, the *Karṇa-bhāra*, which describes the sad end of Karṇa, is scarcely dramatic and the only feature which appeals is the elevation of Karṇa’s character; it is not only a one-act play but really a one-character play. The same sympathy for the fallen hero is seen in the *Ūru-bhaṅga*, which represent the theme of Duryodhana's tragic death somewhat differently from that of the Epic. The noble resignation of Duryodhana and the invention of the poignant passage, which brings the blind king and his consort on the scene and makes Duryodhana's little son attempt to climb on his father's broken thighs, reveal some dramatic power; but the introductory long description of the unseen fight is not happily conceived, and the play is also remarkable in having as many as sixty-six stanzas in one act alone! The *Pañcarātra*, in three acts, is longer in extent, and perhaps shows more invention and possesses greater interest. It selects, from the Virāṭa-parvan, the dramatic situation of the Pāṇḍavas in hiding being forced into battle with the Kurus; but it simplifies the epic story, the details of which are freely handled. While Trigarta's attack is omitted, Duryodhana's sacrifice, the motif of his rash promise, Abhimanyu's presence on the Kaurava side and capture by Bhīma are invented; and Duryodhana and Karṇa are represented in more favourable light, Śakuni being the only villain in the piece. The number of characters is large in proportion to its length. The play is ingeniously titled, and there are some striking dramatic scenes; but regarded as a story, it is far inferior to that of the Epic, and there is no substance in the suggestion that it is closer to the epic feeling and characterisation. The epic plays are, no doubt, of a heroic character, but they are far removed from the heroic age; their novelty wins a more indulgent verdict than is perhaps justified by their real merit.