Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c17.s8: 8. The Shadow Play

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c17.s8

Language
English

8. The Shadow Play

c17.s8.1

It is extremely doubtful at what date the shadow-drama appeared in India; the first play which we can be certain was represented in this way is the *Dharmābhyudaya*¹ of Meghaprabhācārya, which in the stage direction mentions once clearly a puppet (*putraka*) and calls itself a Chāyānāṭyaprabandha. Unluckily the age of this work does not seem to be ascertainable with any certainty.

c17.s8.2

¹ See above, ch. ii. § 4.

c17.s8.3

It is natural to suggest, as did Pischel, that the *Dūtāṅgada* of Subhaṭa, which is styled a Chāyānāṭaka, really was a shadow play. On the other hand, Rājendralālamitra² suggested that the drama was perhaps simply intended as an entr'acte, and this may be justified on the interpretation of the term of drama in the form of a shadow: i.e. reduced to the minimum for representation in such a form. The play itself unluckily contains nothing to help us to a decision as to its real character. It was represented in A.D. 1243 in honour of the dead king Kumārapala at the court of Tribhuvanapāla, a Caulukya of Aṇahilapāṭaka, and it has come down to us in various forms. A longer and shorter recension may be distinguished, though not very definitely; in the longer form occur epic verses, and an introduction is prefixed in thirty-nine stanzas, partly placed in the mouths of Rāma and Hanumant, describing the finding of Sītā's hiding-place. The story is the simple one of Aṅgada's mission as an ambassador to Rāvaṇa to demand back Sītā; Rāvaṇa endeavours to persuade Aṅgada that Sītā is in love with him. Aṅgada is not deceived, and leaves Rāvaṇa with threats, and we learn shortly afterwards that Rāvaṇa has met his doom. The merits of the work are negligible.

c17.s8.4

² *Bikaner Catal*, p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from the *Bālarāmāyaṇa* (ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and the *Mahānāṭaka*.

c17.s8.5

We have no other play of which we can say with even the slightest plausibility that it was a real shadow-drama. There are three works by Vyāsa Çrīrāmadeva from the fifteenth century, his patrons being Kalacuri princes of Raypur. The first, the *Subhadrāpariṇayana*, produced under Brahmadeva or Haribrahmadeva, deals with the threadworn topic of the winning of Arjuna'a bride; the second, the *Rāmābhyudaya* appeared under the Mahārāṇa Meru, and deals with the conquest of Laṅkā, the fire ordeal of Sītā, and the return to Ayodhyā; the third, the *Pāṇḍavābhyudaya*, written under Raṇamalladeva, describes in two Acts Draupadī’s birth and marriage. But that these were really shadow-dramas is not indicated by anything save the title, for they resemble ordinary dramas in all other respects. The *Sāvitrīcarita* of Caṅkaralāla, son of Maheçvara, calls itself a Chāyānāṭaka, but the work, written in 1882, is an ordinary drama, and Lüders¹ is doubtless right in recognizing that these are not shadow dramas at all. On the other hand, he adds to the list the *Haridūta*, which tells the story given in the *Dūta-vākya* of Bhāsa of the mission of Kṛṣṇa to the Pāṇḍavas’ enemies to seek to attain peace. This drama, however, does not describe itself as a Chāyānāṭaka, and the argument is, accordingly, without value. But what is most significant, there is no allusion to this sort of drama in the theory which suggests that its introduction was decidedly late.

c17.s8.6

¹ SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.

Linked texts (7)