Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c17.s7: 7. Minor Dramatic Types

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c17.s7

Language
English

7. Minor Dramatic Types

c17.s7.1

The Vyāyoga seems not to have been often written, despite the example of Bhāsa. The *Pārthaparākrama*³ of Prahlādanadeva falls in the period between A.D. 1163 and half a century later, for its author was the brother of Dhārāvarṣa, son of Yaçodhavala, and lord of Candrāvatī, whose reign ranks honourably in the records of the Paramāras of Mount Ābu. It was acted on the occasion of the festival of the investment of Acaḷeçvara, the tutelary deity of Mount Ābu with the sacred thread, and claims to exhibit the sentiment of excitement (*dīptarasa*). The story, taken from the Virāṭa Parvan of the *Mahābhārata*, is the well-known one of the recovery by Arjuna of the cows of Virāṭa, raided by the Kauravas, and the defeat of the raiders. It accords, therefore, well with the definition in the text-books, for the struggle which it describes is not caused by a woman, the feminine interest is restricted to the colourless figures of Draupadī and Uttarā, and the hero is neither a divine being nor a king. The poet, whose fame as a warrior and whose princely generosity are extolled by Someçvara, claims for his poetry the merits of smooth composition and clearness, and these may be admitted, though the play does not rise above mediocrity. Technically the play is of some interest, in so far as after the Nāndī the Sthāpaka enters, recites a couple of stanzas, and then an actor comes on the stage who addresses him, but is answered by the Sūtradhāra; apparently the two terms were here synonymous to the author of the play or the later tradition. Moreover the final benediction is allotted, not to Arjuna, the hero of the play, but to Vāsava, who appears at the close of the play in a celestial chariot in company with the Apsarases to bestow applause and blessing. Prahlādana wrote other works, of which some verses are preserved in the anthologies, and must have been a man of considerable ability and merit.

c17.s7.2

³ Ed. in *Gaekwad's Oriental Series*, no. iv. 1917.

c17.s7.3

The *Kirātārjunīya*¹ is a Vyāyoga based on Bhāravi’s epic by Vatsarāja, who calls himself the minister of Paramardideva of Kālañjara, who reigned from A.D. 1163 to 1203. Vatsarāja is interesting as a good specimen of the poet of decadence; we have from him six plays illustrating each a different type of drama. The *Karpūracaritra* is a Bhāṇa of orthodox type; the gambler Karpūraka describes in monologue his revelry, gambling, and love. The *Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi* is a farce in one act which has as its hero an Ācārya of the Bhāgavata school, styled Jñānarāçi, who professes the possession of supernatural knowledge, enabling him to trace lost articles and buried treasure, and who carries out his professions by various tricks and fooleries. He has an irresistible pupil, who is sadly lacking in respect for his teacher, and delights in interpreting literally his remarks. The *Kirātārjunīya* has no special merit, but is technically interesting; after a Nāndī celebrating Çiva's consort, the Sūtradhāra enters, immediately followed by the Sthāpaka, who insists on his reciting a further Nāndī of the trident of Çiva, on the score that the play is heroic in sentiment and should be appropriately introduced. This play was produced later than the other five, for it came out under Trailokyavarmadeva, successor of Paramardi. The other three plays, an Īhāmṛga, Ḍima, and Samavakāra will be noticed below.

c17.s7.4

¹ Ed., with the other five plays, *Gaekwad’s Oriental Series*, no. viii. 1918.

c17.s7.5

We have also a Vyāyoga by Viçvanātha, the *Saugandhikāharaṇa*,¹ of about A.D. 1316, which deals with Bhīma's visit to Kubera's lake to fetch water-lilies for Draupadī, his struggle first with Hanumant and then with the Yakṣas, and his final victory; the Pāṇḍavas meet at Kubera's home and Draupadī obtains her desired flowers. Of unknown date is the *Dhanaṃjayavijaya*² of Kāñcana Paṇḍita, son of Nārāyaṇa, which deals with the prowess of Arjuna in the defeat of Duryodhana and the Kauravas when they raid the cattle of Virāṭa, evidently a special favourite of the dramatic authors. The description of the contest in which Arjuna uses magic weapons is given by Indra and a couple of his celestial entourage; the play ends with the giving to Arjuna's son Uttarā, daughter of the king Virāṭa, in marriage. A manuscript of A.D. 1328 is extant of the *Bhīmavikramavyāyoga*³ of Mokṣāditya, while the *Nirbhayabhīma*⁴ of Rāmacandra belongs to the second half of the twelfth century A.D.

c17.s7.6

¹ Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.

c17.s7.7

² Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.

c17.s7.8

³ Bendall, Brit. Mus. Catal., p. 273.

c17.s7.9

⁴ Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.

c17.s7.10

Of the type Īhāmṛga we have a specimen by Vatsarāja in the *Rukmiṇīharaṇa*, which in four Acts deals with the success of Kṛṣṇa in depriving Çiçupāla of Cedi of Rukmiṇī, his promised bride. The play opens with a dialogue between the Sūtradhāra who enters, after a Nāndī in a couple of stanzas has been pronounced, and the Sthāpaka, which tells us that the play was performed at moonrise during the festival of Cakrasvāmin. The action of the play is languid, and the author has had trouble to spread it out over four Acts; the characters are conventional; Rukmiṇī the heroine is a nonentity, and neither Ṣiṣupāla nor Rukmin, the objects of Kṛṣṇa’s enmity, has any distinct characterization. Kṛṣṇa goes into a state of trance on the stage in Act IV to produce the presence of Tārkṣya to enable him to complete his victory. The female character, Subuddhi, uses Sanskrit in lieu of Prākṛit.

c17.s7.11

Other dramas of this type¹ are the late *Vīravijaya* of Kṛṣṇamiçra, and the *Sarvavinodanāṭaka* of Kṛṣṇa Avadhūta Ghaṭikā-çata Mahākavi.

c17.s7.12

¹ Konow, ID. p. 114.

c17.s7.13

To Vatsarāja also we owe a specimen of the Ḍima, the *Tripuradāha* in four Acts, which describes the destruction of the capital of Tripurāsura by Çiva. The idea of writing such a piece was doubtless given by the mention of a work of this name in the *Nāṭyaçāstra*, and the play is extremely insipid; the numerous figures who crowd the stage are lifeless, and the celestial weapons which overcome the Asuras lack reality; the convenances are duly observed; Kumāra in the full flight of his triumph is stayed by his father’s commands, and Çukra delightedly records this act of courtesy on the part of the god, despite his anger with the Dānavas. The play closes with the homage paid by the gods and the seers alike to Maheça, who is bashful, and the benediction is pronounced by Indra, not by the hero of the drama.

c17.s7.14

Other Ḍimas are late; thus we have one by the ubiquitous Ghanaçyāma, the *Kṛṣṇavijaya* of Veṅkaṭavarada, and the *Manmathonmathana*² of Rāma, a drama of 1820.

c17.s7.15

² Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f, 623 f.

c17.s7.16

Vatsarāja is also responsible for a Samavakāra, the *Samudramathana*, in three Acts, which again owes its existence doubtless to the naming of a work with a kindred title in the *Nāṭyaçāstra* as the model of a Samavakāra. Here again we find after a Nāndī of two stanzas the Sūtradhāra and the Sthāpaka engaged in conversation. The former and his eleven brothers seek simultaneously to attain wealth; how is this possible? The Sthāpaka suggests either homage to Paramardi or to the ocean, a statement duly caught up by a voice behind the stage, which asserts that from the ocean comes the fulfilment of wishes, followed by the entry of Padmaka. The play is based on the legend of the churning of the ocean by the gods and demons with its sequel, the winning by Viṣṇu of Lakṣmī and the gaining of other desired objects by the participators in the enterprise. The treatment fails to rise above the commonplace; Lakṣmī appears in Act I with Lajjā and Dhṛti, her companions, in the normal occupation of gazing on a picture of her beloved, who later appears also on the scene. The artificiality of the type is proved by the absence of other dramas of this kind.

c17.s7.17

The Aṅka, or one-Act play, is represented by very few specimens. The term is often applied to denote a play within a play, in the Bālarāmāyaṇa the name Prekṣaṇaka is applied generally to such plays. The same name is also given to the Unmattarāghava¹ of Bhāskara Kavi, of unknown date, though the Vidyāraṇya mentioned in it may be Sāyaṇa or his contemporary. The play is a stupid imitation of Act IV of the Vikramorvaçī; while Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa pursue the golden gazelle, Sītā, by the curse of Durvāsas, is changed into a gazelle herself; Rāma returns and wanders miserably in search of her, but finally wins her by the help of Agastya.

c17.s7.18

¹ Ed. KM. 1889.

c17.s7.19

The term Prekṣaṇaka is also applied to the Kṛṣṇābhyudaya of Lokanātha Bhaṭṭa, written for the raintime procession of the Lord of Hastigiri, Viṣṇu, in Kāñcī. A number of modern plays, which may be styled Aṅkas, are also known, while the Ҫarmiṣṭhāyayāti in the Sāhityadarpaṇa may be identical with the work of that name by Kṛṣṇa Kavi.²

c17.s7.20

² Konow, ID. p. 118.

c17.s7.21

Of the types of Uparūpaka, other than the Nāṭikā and Saṭṭaka, there are very few represented, and these only obviously written in accord with the text-book definitions. Thus Rūpa Gosvāmin has left a Bhāṇikā, the Dānakelikaumudī,³ among his varied efforts to adapt the drama to the tenets of his faith, and the Subhadrāharaṇa⁴ of Mādhava, son of the Maṇḍaleçvara Bhaṭṭa and Indumatī, and brother of Harihara, styles itself a Ҫrīgadita. As it describes itself in terms similar to those used in the Sāhityadarpaṇa, it is quite possibly posterior to that work, and, on the other hand, there exists a manuscript of A.D. 1610. The story of the play is the old legend of the elopement of Kṛṣṇa's friend Arjuna with Subhadrā, whom he meets by going to her father's house as a beggar. The presence of a narrative verse has suggested comparison with a shadow-drama, but for this there is inadequate evidence.

c17.s7.22

³ Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.

c17.s7.23

⁴ Ed. KM. 1888.

Cites (16)