Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c20: XIII. The Theory of the Dramatic Art

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c20

Language
English

Contents

XIII. The Theory of the Dramatic Art

1. The Treatises on Dramatic Art

c20.s1.1

PĀṆINI, whose date falls doubtless before 300 B.C., alludes in his grammar to the *Naṭasūtras*, books of rules for Naṭas, compiled by Çilālin and Kṛçācva, and Professor Hillebrandt¹ has suggested that we should recognize in these works the earliest text-books of the Indian drama. But we have no other suggestion that Pāṇini knew of dramatic performances, and the only legitimate conclusion is that these rules were laid down for the guidance of dancers or, perhaps, pantomimes, and with this accords admirably the fact that the dramatic tradition knows nothing of these names, and instead makes the sage Bharata the eponymous hero of the drama. True it was Brahmā, highest of gods, himself who, at the instance of the gods, produced as a counterpart to the four Vedas, which contain the science of religion and magic, the more mundane Nāṭya-Veda, consecrated to the drama, but this Veda is not current among men. Bharata, on the other hand, whose task it was to direct the production by the Apsarases in heaven of plays for the delight of the gods and who thus had practical experience of the art, has set forth for men the principles of the drama in the *Nāṭyaçāstra* which, if not inspired, has at least a measure of sanctity, and thus supplies an authoritative basis for practice.

c20.s1.2

¹ AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31.

c20.s1.3

The legend is interesting because it precisely interprets the spirit of India towards authority; Bharata occupies in the theory of the drama a place analogous to that of Pāṇini in grammar, but unfortunately the *Nāṭyaçāstra* has fared badly in comparison with the *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, which has, through the care of its commentators, come down to us in a form but little changed from that it assumed in the hands of its author. The work, which we have under the title *Bhāratīya Nāṭyaśāstra*,¹ is extremely badly preserved in the manuscript tradition, a fact due in part to the comparatively late date of any commentary upon it. We have only a few references to an exposition of the *Nāṭyaśāstra* by Mātṛgupta, a somewhat mysterious figure with a more or less legendary connexion with Kālidāsa, with whom he has even been identified;² if we are to place any faith in his contemporaneity with Kālidāsa, he may date from the close of the fourth century A.D. It is significant that tradition makes him for a time king of Kashmir, for it is to that country we owe the commentaries of Caṅkuka, who wrote the epic *Bhuvanābhyudaya* under Ajitāpīḍa (A.D. 813-50), and of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, who belongs to the period of Caṅkaravarman (A.D. 883-902). In the same line of tradition is the great work of Abhinavagupta, the *Abhinavabhāratī*, which has been lucky enough to come to light after long oblivion, and which represents the erudition of the close of the tenth century.

c20.s1.4

¹ Ed. KM. 1894, i-xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii-xx, xxxiv in F. Hall's *Daśarūpa*; xv-xvii (xiv-xvi), in Regnaud, *Annales du Musée Guimet*, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset's Contribution à l'étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud, *Rhétorique sanskrite*.

c20.s1.5

² Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that the *Śāstra* is largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras. For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see Peterson, *Subhāṣitāvali*, p. 89. It is probable that the *Śāstra* is related to an original Sūtra in the same way as the *Kāmandakīya Nītiśāstra* to the *Arthaśāstra*. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff.

c20.s1.6

The treatise, as we have it, is elaborate, covering the whole ground connected with the drama. It deals with the architecture of the theatre, the scenery, and the dress and equipment of the actors; the religious ceremonial to be observed at every representation; the music, the dance, the movements and gestures of the actors, and their mode of delivery; the division of rôles; the general characteristics of poetry; the different classes of drama, and the emotions and sentiments which form a vital element in the drama. There is confusion, complexity, and repetition in the work, but that much of it is old cannot be doubted. It appears clearly to be based on the examination of a dramatic literature which has been lost, eclipsed by the more perfect dramas of Kālidāsa and his successors. In the description of classes of drama we seem to have hasty generalizations on insufficient material; the Samavakāra, for instance, is described in terms which, with the precise definition of the time to be occupied by the acts, can be interpreted only as based on a single drama, and the Dima seems to have a similar origin. The elaborate description of the preliminary scene or Pūrvaraṅga, which is practically non-existent in the classical drama, suggests a period of a less cultivated taste. A more definite result may be derived from comparison of the Nāṭyaçāstra with the works of Açvaghoṣa and of Bhāsa. The Prākṛits recognized by the Nāṭyaçāstra are clearly later than those of Açvaghoṣa and more akin to those found in Bhāsa; again the Nāṭyaçāstra recognizes the use of Ardha-Māgadhī, found in these two dramatists, but not later, while, like them, he ignores the Māhārāṣṭrī of the later dramas. Moreover Bhāsa expressly alludes to a Nāṭyaçāstra,¹ and it is most probable that both he and Kālidāsa had knowledge of the prototype of the present text. That Bhāsa by no means slavishly adheres to the rules of the Nāṭyaçāstra, either as regards the formal mode of terminating his dramas or the exclusion of scenes of death from the stage,² merely shows that when he wrote the Çāstra had not attained any binding force. There is nothing to contradict the date thus vaguely indicated,³ for the treatment of poetics in general is simple and early, and it is impossible to draw any conclusion as to date from the remarks on music, apart altogether from the constant possibility that incidental additions and alterations have been made in the work.

c20.s1.7

¹ Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him; Arthadyotanikā, 2.

c20.s1.8

² That in the Çāstra itself there is contradiction in this regard between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34.

c20.s1.9

³ Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third century; the Prākṛit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development; Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8.

c20.s1.10

It was inevitable that the complicated and confused work of Bharata should be superseded for many purposes by something more accessible and easy to follow, and this need was supplied by the Dāçarūpa of Dhanaṃjaya, son of Viṣṇu, and protégé of the ill-fated king Muñja of Dhārā (974-95). The work takes its name from the ten primary forms of drama recognized in the Nāṭyaçāstra, which is followed closely by Dhanaṃjaya, his deviations being unimportant and trivial, such as a new division of types of heroine or of the erotic sentiment. On the other hand, Dhanaṃjaya omits by far the greater part of the topics of his model; his four books of wooden verses treat first of the subject-matter and plot; then of the hero, the heroine, and other characters, and the language of the drama; thirdly of the prologue and the different kinds of drama; and lastly of the emotions and sentiments, thus concentrating attention on the essential dramatic features. The text is naturally often unintelligible save in the light of the *Nāṭyaśāstra* itself and of the commentary, *Avaloka*, which is ascribed to Dhanika, son of Viṣṇu, and minister of Utpaladeva, a term which is an alias of Muñja. The identity of the two writers is suggested by the fact that later writers ascribe passages of the *Daçarūpa* itself to Dhanika, and that without the commentary the work is in a sense incomplete. But, on the other hand, in a few passages the commentator more or less distinctly differs from the text, and it seems sufficient to assume that they may have been brothers. The *Avaloka* must have been completed after Muñja’s death, since it cites Padmagupta’s *Navasāhasāṅkacarita*, which was written under Sindhurāja, and this throws some doubt on the identification of Dhanika with the Dhanika Paṇḍita to whose son, Vasantācārya, a land grant was made by Muñja in A.D. 974. Dhanika quotes stanzas of his own in Sanskrit and Prākṛit and also a treatise, *Kāvyanirṇaya*, elsewhere unknown.¹

c20.s1.11

¹ Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912. Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but the difference of the name is fatal.

c20.s1.12

Of the fourteenth century in all probability are three works of unequal importance and merit. The *Pratāparudrīya*² of Vidyānātha is a mediocre compilation from the *Daçarūpa* and the *Kāvyaprakāça* of Mammaṭa, covering the whole field of poetics; it illustrates the formal rules of the drama by the composition of a wretched drama in honour of Pratāparudra of Warangal, whose inscriptions show dates from A.D. 1298 to 1314. Of much greater interest is Vidyādhara’s *Ekāvalī*;³ like Vidyānātha, the author celebrates in his illustrations of his text his patron, in this case Narasiṃha II of Orissa, perhaps A.D. 1280–1314; as a poet his merits are negligible, but he shows a lively interest in his subject and intelligence in his views. Of greater popularity than either is Viçvanātha Kavirāja, the author of the *Sāhityadarpaṇa*,¹ a general treatise on poetics. His handling of the drama is based largely on the *Daçarūpa* and its commentary, but he introduces a good deal of matter from the *Nāṭyaçāstra* in his sixth chapter, including details of the characteristics and ornaments of the drama, which the *Daçarūpa* omits. In this Viçvanātha indicates his servile character, which, however, renders his work the more valuable as an exposition of the orthodox doctrine. Of his ancestry and his own works he makes free mention, but the most definite evidence of his date is the existence in the library at Jammu of a manuscript of his work whose date appears to be A.D. 1383. The lack of order and the errors in his work are made the basis of criticism by Rūpa Gosvāmin in the early part of the sixteenth century, but his own *Nāṭakacandrikā* shows little improvement on the work of his predecessor, whence it draws much of its material; its real purpose is to eulogize the saint Caitanya, whose disciple Rūpa was and in whose honour he composed dramas of no merit. Equally dependent on Viçvanātha and the *Daçarūpa* is Sundaramiçra, whose *Nāṭyapradīpa* was composed in A.D. 1613. Many other treatises on drama are known by name or exist in manuscript, but none apparently of any great importance or repute. Of the fourteenth century also is the *Rasārṇavasudhākara*² of Ciṅga Bhūpala, lord of Rājācala and the land between the Vindhya and Çriçaila about A.D. 1330, who cites Vidyādhara.

c20.s1.13

² Ed. K. P. Trivedi, Bombay, 1909.

c20.s1.14

³ Ed. K. P. Trivedi, Bombay, 1903 cf. R. G. Bhandarkar, *Report* (1897) pp. lxviii f.

c20.s1.15

¹ Ed. BI. with trs., 1851-75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910.

c20.s1.16

² Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses the *Daçarūpa*. Cf. Seshagiri, *Report for 1896-97*, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited.

c20.s1.17

The development of a theory of drama progressed in the closest relation to the general theory of poetics, for the Indian theory of poetry does not admit any distinction in essence between the aesthetic pleasure produced by the drama and any other form of poetry. Thus we find in Abhinavagupta in full application to the drama the theory of suggestion, Dhvani, as the essence of poetry, which appeared in strength about A.D. 800 and was rendered popular by Ānandavardhana (A.D. 850) and by Abhinavagupta himself in his comment on the *Dhvanyāloka* of the former. Attacked by Mahiman Bhaṭṭa, author of the *Vyaktiviveka* (A.D. 1050), the doctrine was again developed with special care by the Kashmiriān Mammaṭa¹ at the close of the eleventh century. In slightly varied forms it appears in Vidyānātha, Vidyādhara, and Viçvanātha.

c20.s1.18

¹ For the authorship of the Kāvyaprakāça see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 103 ff.

c20.s1.19

Apart from this important development, which, however, has no special application to the drama, there is little progress in the course of the literature. The later authorities are bound by the authority of the Nāṭyaçāstra; they repeat unintelligently its descriptions of literary forms such as the Dima, the Samavakāra, the Ihāmṛga, the Vīthī, and the Aṅka, which had ceased to be in popular use, if indeed the definitions of the Nāṭyaçāstra were not merely hasty generalizations from a single play or so in every one of these cases. The most that they do is to omit or to vary details, but not in independence; normally the changes can be traced to variants in the text of the Çāstra or to maxims current under Bharata’s name, though not included in the Çāstra as we have it. Often the authors differ in the definition of terms in the Çāstra which, as often in Sanskrit technical phrases, present ambiguity and admit of various renderings. These divergences are especially frequent in the long lists of characteristics and ornaments or the different means of effecting dramatic results; the Indian love of meaningless subdivision here can indulge itself to its fullest and least profitable extent. A rich variety of such ambiguities is apparent in the verses in which the Agni Purāṇa² describes the drama, including dancing and the mimetic art, true to its aim to constitute itself a treasure-house of all learning, popular as well as divine. The chief value of the work is the occasional light which it throws on the variants in the text of the Çāstra, and its comparative antiquity, for it is cited in the Sāhityadarpaṇa and is probably some centuries older.

c20.s1.20

² cc. 337-41. On Dhvani see Keith, Sansk. Lit. ch. x.

2. The Nature and the Types of the Drama

c20.s2.1

A drama is the imitation or representation of the conditions or situations (*avasthānukṛti*)³ in which the personages who form the subject of treatment are placed from time to time, by means of gesture, speech, costume, and expression, and, one version of the definition adds, the situations must be such as to produce pleasure or pain, that is, they must be tinged with emotion. It is the presence of these ancillaries which distinguishes the drama from an ordinary poem ; a poem appeals to the ear only, a drama is also a spectacle to delight the eyes ; hence the term Rūpa or Rūpaka as applied generically to the drama, for Rūpa primarily denotes the object of vision, though the Indian tradition gives the artificial explanation that Rūpaka denotes a drama because the actors are credited with different parts.

c20.s2.2

³ Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. on Anargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR. i. 7; SD. 274.

c20.s2.3

Further light is shown on the nature of drama (nāṭya) by the discrimination of it from dance (nṛtta) and mimetic art (nṛtya), which united with song and speech serve to make up the drama.¹ The dance is based on time and rhythm ; the mimetic art is concerned with representing the feelings or emotions (bhāva), while the essence of the drama is the sentiment (rasa) which it evokes in the spectator, a fact which places it on a higher level than either of its handmaidens. But there may be dramas in which these auxiliaries take first place, and on this fact is based a distinction between the primary forms, Rūpakas, in which the poetry is the dominant element and the secondary forms, Uparūpakas. Of Rūpakas ten are distinguished, Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Bhāṇa, Prahasana, Ḍima, Vyāyoga, Samavakāra, Vīthī, Aṅka, and Īhāmṛga, which vary in regard to subject-matter (vastu), hero or heroine, and sentiment.

c20.s2.4

¹ Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f.

3. The Subject-Matter and the Plot

c20.s3.1

The scene of the plot must be laid in India, and the period must be one of the three ages succeeding the Golden Age, for pleasure and pain, essential elements as we have seen in the drama, cannot be experienced elsewhere than in Bhāratavarṣa, and even there they do not exist in the age of happiness unalloyed.² Otherwise the choice is free; the poet may take an incident familiar from tradition (prakhyāta), or may invent his plot (utpādya) or may combine both forms (miśra). But, if he follows a current legend, it is necessary that he shall not ruin the effect of it by incongruous invention ; he must confine his ingenuity to episodes, for otherwise the audience will be painfully disturbed by departure from tradition. On the other hand, it is not merely legitimate but also necessary that the dramatist should ennoble his hero, if tradition assigns to him deeds incompatible with the character which he normally exhibits.¹ The epic is not encumbered with such considerations; it can represent Duḥṣanta as merely forgetful of his vows to Ҫakuntalā, but Kālidāsa must clear the character of the king from this seeming baseness by attributing his loss of memory to a curse provoked by a negligence of the heroine herself. The Rāmāyaṇa admits, and seeks to explain, if not convincingly, the death of Vālin, king of the monkeys, at the hands of the virtuous Rāma; Māyurāja in the Udāttarāghava passes over the episode in silence, while Bhavabhūti, with greater boldness, in the Mahāvīracarita perverts tradition to represent Vālin as an ally of Rāvaṇa, and as slain by Rāma in legitimate self-defence, and exonerates Kaikeyī.

c20.s3.2

² N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27.

c20.s3.3

¹ DR. i. 15; iii. 20-22.

c20.s3.4

The subject-matter takes two forms, the principal (ādhikārika) and the incidental (prāsaṅgika) actions. The first owes its name to the fact that it is connected with the attainment (adhikāra) of the purpose of the hero, whether that be love, or some material interest, or duty, or two or all of these. In the incidental action the end achieved is not that aimed at by the hero, but it serves as a means towards the fruition of his aims.² The incidental action may take the dimension of an episode (patākā), as is the case with the exploits of Sugrīva as an ally of Rāma, or it may be a mere incident (prakarī), as in Act VI of the Ҫakuntalā the scene in which the two attendants converse.³

c20.s3.5

² N. xix. 2-6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323.

c20.s3.6

³ N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320-3; R. iii. 13 f.

c20.s3.7

An action, when developed in full, as normally it is in the Nāṭaka, the most perfect of forms of drama, involves of necessity five stages of development (avasthā);⁴ there must be as the beginning (ārambha) the desire to attain some end, which leads on to the determined effort (prayatna) to secure the object of desire; this leads to the stage in which success is felt to be possible (prāptyāҫā, prāptisambhava) having regard to the means available and the obstacles in the way of achievement; then arrives the certainty of success (niyatāpti), if only some specific difficulty can be surmounted; and finally the object is attained (*phalāgama*). Thus in the *Çakuntalā* we have the king's first anticipation of seeing the heroine, then his eagerness to find a device to meet her again; in Act IV we learn that the anger of the sage, Durvāsas, has in some measure been appeased, and the possibility of the reunion of the king and *Çakuntalā* now exists; in Act VI the discovery of the ring brings back to the king remembrance, and the way for a reunion is paved, to be attained in the following act. The *Ratnāvalī*, no less perfect an example of the minor type, the Nāṭikā, reveals to us the aims of the minister to secure the union of the heroine and the king; a definite step to this end is taken when the heroine decides to depict the face of Vatsa on the canvas; in Act II the lovers are united for the moment, but subject to the risk of discovery by the queen; then the king recognizes that his success in love depends on winning the queen's favour, which is successfully accomplished in the last act.

c20.s3.8

⁴ N. xix. 7-13; DR. i. 18-20; SD. 324-9; R. iii. 22-5.

c20.s3.9

There are also five elements of the plot (*arthaprakṛti*),¹ which the theory not very accurately parallels with the five stages of the action. The first is the germ (*bīja*), whence springs the action, as in the *Ratnāvalī* from Yaugandharāyaṇa's scheme to secure the princess for the king. The second, with change of metaphor, is the drop (*bindu*), which spreads out as oil on water; the course of the drama, which has seemed to be interrupted, is again set in activity; thus in the *Ratnāvalī*, when the festival of the god of love is over, the princess gives a decisive impulse to the motion of the drama by recognizing in him, whom she deemed the god himself, the king for whom she was destined as a bride. The other three elements are the episode, the incident, and the *dénouement* (*kārya*).

c20.s3.10

¹ N. xix. 19-21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317-19. The parallelism is faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33, admits this in effect; there is no episode in *Ratnāvalī*, III. Cf. R. iii. 22.

c20.s3.11

Based on these parallel sets is a third division of the junctures² (*sandhi*), which carry each of the stages of the action to its natural close. They are the opening (*mukha*), progression (*pratimukha*), development (*garbha*), pause (*vimarça*), and conclusion (*nirva-haṇa*), corresponding clearly and closely with the stages,¹ set out above. Thus in the *Çakuntalā* the opening extends from Act I to the point in Act II where the general departs; the progression begins with the king's confession to the Vidūṣaka of his deep love, and extends to the close of Act III. The development occupies Acts IV and V, up to the point where Gautamī uncovers the face of *Çakuntalā*; at this moment the curse darkens the mind of the king, who, instead of rejoicing in re-union with his wife, pauses in reflection, and this pause in the action extends to the close of Act VI, while the conclusion is achieved in the last Act. In the *Ratnāvalī* the opening extends to that point in Act II, where Ratnāvalī decides to depict the king as the only means of gazing on him whom she loves, but from whom she is jealously kept by the queen; the progression extends then to the close of the Act; the development occupies Act III, while the pause, due to the intervention of the queen, is brought to an end by the mock fire of the palace in Act IV, and the remaining portion of that Act gives the conclusion.

c20.s3.12

² N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11 n.) suggests *nibarhaṇa* as correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii. 26-74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in the *Bālarāmāyaṇa* is given in R. iii. 23-5.

c20.s3.13

¹ Abhinavagupta (*Dhvanyāloka*, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted in *Pratāparudrīya*, iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306-8; R. iii. 26 f.

c20.s3.14

So far there is obviously force and reason in the analysis, which, if in needless elaboration, recognizes the essential need of a dramatic conflict, of obstacles to be overcome by the hero and heroine in their efforts to secure abiding union. The classification of elements of the plot is perhaps superfluous beside the junctures; its parallelism to the other two divisions is faulty, for it is admitted that the episode is not confined to the development, as it should be, but may extend into the pause and even into the conclusion.² The episode again is credited with sub-junctures, to be fewer in number than the junctures, and even the incident is permitted on one view to have incomplete junctures.³ But far more complex is the insistence on the subdivision of the five junctures into 64 members (12, 13, 12, 13, and 14 respectively). The distribution, however, has no real value, for, though Rudraṭa⁴ asserts that the members should only be used in the juncture to which they are assigned, other authorities decline to admit this view, on the score of the usage of the dramatists, which is the supreme norm. Not all of these members need be used; it is a fault in the Veṇīsaṃhāra that the poet drags in the separation of Duryodhana from Bhānumatī in Act II for no better reason than to comply with the rules.¹ When used, they should be essentially subservient to the sentiment which the piece seeks to create;² they should either treat the subject chosen, expand the plot, increase interest, produce surprise, represent the parties in action, or conceal what should be concealed; the hero or his rival should appear in them, or at any rate they should flow from the germ and lead up to the dénouement. Some must be included in any drama, since one without any would be like a man without limbs, and, adroitly used, they may give merit to a mediocre subject-matter. But the definitions and the classifications are without substantial interest or value.

c20.s3.15

² SD. 321.

c20.s3.16

³ N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33.

c20.s3.17

⁴ N. xix. 103; SD. 406.

c20.s3.18

¹ N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407.

c20.s3.19

² SD. 342, 407.

c20.s3.20

A distinction must be made between such things as can properly be shown on the stage, and such as must only be alluded to.³ What is seen should essentially serve to produce the sentiment aimed at, and it must avoid offending the feelings of the audience. Hence it is improper to portray on the stage such events as a national calamity, the downfall of a king, the siege of a town, a battle, killing, or death, all of them painful. It is equally forbidden to depict a marriage or other⁴ religious rite, or such domestic details as eating, sleeping, bathing, or anointing the body, amorous dalliance, scratching with nails or teeth, or such ill-omened things as curses. But these rules are not without exception early or late; if Bhāsa does not hesitate as in the Ūrubhaṅga to depict death on the stage, Rājaçekhara in his Viddhaçālabhañjikā describes the marriage ceremonial in Act III, and in the following Act shows us the wife of Cārāyaṇa asleep, while the author of the Pārvatīparinaya does not hesitate to choose as his theme the nuptials of Çiva and Pārvatī. Nor do dramatists decline to represent death if the dead person is restored to life, as in the Nāgānanda.⁵ A long journey, or calling from a distance,¹ is excluded from representation for obvious reasons of practicability.

c20.s3.21

³ N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278.

c20.s3.22

⁴ The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows the performance of essential religious rites.

c20.s3.23

⁵ Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff.

c20.s3.24

¹ SD. 278, no doubt by misreading.

c20.s3.25

Such matters as are appropriate for presentation must be presented in Acts, and each Act must contain only such events as can naturally, or by skilful management, be made to occupy the duration of a single day,² a requisite which is obeyed by Bhavabhūti in his *Mahāvīracarita* and by Rājaçekhara in his *Bālarāmāyaṇa* despite the difficulties presented by the effort thus to condense the epic. But it is essential that the events described shall not be disconnected; they must flow from the same cause, or issue naturally from one another. There should be an effective development of the plot within the Act; at the time when it comes to an end by the departure of the actors—three or four at most, one of whom should be the hero—at the moment when they seemed to have attained their immediate aims, a new motive should come into play, and a fresh impetus be given to the movement of the drama. But it is neither necessary nor usual that Act should follow Act without interval; on the contrary, anything up to a year may intervene between the action of one Act and that of the next; if the events as recorded in history covered more than that time, as in the case of Rāma’s fourteen years of banishment in the forest, the poet must reduce the period to a year or less. To reveal to the audience the events during such intervals the theory permits a choice of five forms of scenes of introduction (*arthopakṣepaka*), which serve also to narrate things, whose performance on the stage is forbidden by the etiquette of the drama.³

c20.s3.26

² N. xviii. 14 f., 22-4; DR. iii. 27, 32-4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205; JAOS. xx. 341 ff.

c20.s3.27

³ N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109-16; DR. i. 52-6; SD. 305-13; R. iii. 178 ff.

c20.s3.28

Two of these are the Viṣkambha or Viṣkambhaka and the Praveçaka, which are both explanatory scenes, but between which the theory draws fine distinctions. The Viṣkambhaka is performed by not more than two persons,⁴ never of chief rank; it serves to explain the past or the future, and it may be used at the beginning of a drama where it is not desired to arouse sentiment at the outset. It is pure (*çuddha*) if the performers are of middle rank and speak Sanskrit; mixed (*saṃkīrṇa*) when the characters are of middle and inferior class and use also Prākṛit. The Praveçaka cannot be used at the beginning of a drama, and is confined to inferior characters, who use Prākṛit. Thus in the *Çakuntalā* Act III is introduced by a Viṣkambhaka, in which a young disciple of the sage Kaṇva tells us in Sanskrit of the king's stay at the hermitage, while in Act VI a Praveçaka gives the episode of the fisherman and the police. An abbreviated mode of producing the same result is the Cūlikā,¹ in which a voice from behind the curtain narrates some essential event, as when in Act IV of the *Mahāvīracarita* we learn thus of the defeat of Paraçurāma by Rāma. In the Aṅkamukha, or anticipatory scene, at the close of one Act a character alludes to the subject of the following Act; thus at the end of Act II in the *Mahāvīracarita* Sumantra announces the arrival of Vasiṣṭha, Viçvāmitra, and Paraçurāma, and these three open Act III. A different view is taken by Viçvanātha, who makes it out to be a part of an Act in which allusion is made to the subject-matter of the following Acts and the whole plot, as is done in the dialogue of Avalokitā and Kāmandakī in Act I of the *Mālatīmādhava*. This is evidently an attempt to justify the treatment of this form of scene as revealing matters which cannot conveniently be depicted on the stage, as well as to distinguish it from the Aṅkāvatāra or continuation scene, in which the action is continued by the characters in the next Act without any break, other than the technical one of the departure of the actors and their return, as at the close of Act I of the *Mālavikāgnimitra*. Such a scene obviously in no way answers the purpose of explanation, and its assignment to such an end is clearly erroneous.

c20.s3.29

⁴ Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow, ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’s *Tripuradāha*, II.

c20.s3.30

¹ R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e. g. *Bālarāmāyaṇa*, VII.

c20.s3.31

Various devices are recognized to help the movement of the intrigue, five of which are classed as internal junctures (*antara-sandhi*).² The first of these is the dream, as in the *Veṇīsaṃhāra* where Bhānumatī is terrified by a vision in which she sees an ichneumon (*nakula*) slay a hundred snakes, dread presage of the fall of the hundred Kauravas before the attack of Nakula and his brothers. The letter serves in the *Çakuntalā*, Act III, to allow the heroine to express her feelings towards the king; she reads it aloud and he overhears it and breaks in upon her; more often it serves the important end of conveying news, leading to dramatic action. A message serves the same end, as when in the *Çakuntalā*, Act VI, Mātali brings to the king Indra’s message imploring aid against the demons. A voice from behind the scene (*nepathyokti*) in Act I of that play warns Duḥṣanta not to kill the gazelle of the hermitage, and a voice in the air (*ākāça-bhāṣita*) in Act IV makes known to Kaṇva on his return the important news of *Çakuntalā*’s marriage and approaching motherhood. The *Nāṭyaçāstra*¹ ignores the term internal junctures, but has the term special junctures or divisions of junctures (*sandhyantara*) which includes the dream, the letter, and the message, among many other miscellaneous elements; two of these are akin to those already mentioned. The picture is used in the *Ratnāvalī* as the mode by which the heroine satisfies her longing for her beloved, while Vāsavadattā discovers Vatsa’s infidelity through seeing the portrait of Sāgarikā, painted beside that of the king by the mischievous Susaṃgatā. Intoxication (*mada*) may result as in the *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Act III, in the letting fall of imprudent words by an important character. Other devices might have been included in the list, such as that of assuming a disguise on the stage, a device used by Harṣa in the *Ratnāvalī* and the *Priyadarçikā* in order to secure the inconstant king uninterrupted interviews with the objects of his temporary affections. The latter play contains in Act III a good example of the embryo Act (*garbhāṅka*),² which is recognized by the theory but not classed as a species of juncture; in it Vāsavadattā causes her maids of honour to perform before her a play representing her early adventures with Vatsa. So in the *Uttararāmacarita* Vālmīki has performed by the Apsarases before Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa the adventures of Sītā since her banishment, and the events of her marriage are described in this form in the *Bālarāmāyaṇa*, Act III.

c20.s3.32

² Mātrgupta in *Arthadyotanikā*, 20.

c20.s3.33

¹ xix. 53-7, 105-9; R. iii. 95; 79-92.

c20.s3.34

² SD. 279.

c20.s3.35

Similarly the theory recognizes as a separate element the pro-episode (*patākāsthānaka*),³ an equivocal speech or situation which foreshadows an event whether near at hand or distant. The *Nāṭyaçāstra* distinguishes four kinds of equivoke. An ambiguous situation may result in bringing about the aim of the hero; thus in Act III of the *Ratnāvalī*, when Vatsa hastens to save Vāsavadattā, as he thinks, from hanging herself, he finds to his equal joy and surprise that he has rescued none other than Sāgarikā herself.¹ Or the equivocation may lie in words, whose sense the spectator alone grasps in its deeper application; thus in Act II of the *Çakuntalā* a voice behind the scene bids the female Cakravāka say farewell to her spouse, a command whose application to the case of the king and the heroine is immediately appreciated by the audience alone. Or the equivocation may be deliberately conveyed in the response of the actor, whose words apply not merely to the immediate matter in hand, but allude to the future; in the *Veṇīsaṃhāra*, Act II, Duryodhana is told of the mishap of the breaking of his standard by the fierce (*bhīma*) wind in words which presage his own fall, his thigh broken by Bhīma’s blow. Finally we may have a double entendre which later is destined to find a third application; in the *Ratnāvalī* Vatsa playfully suggests that his earnest gaze on the creeper, which has borne blossoms out of season, may cause jealousy in the queen; his words apply equally to a maiden, and in the sequel the queen is made furiously angry by his ardent gaze at Sāgarikā. The *Daçarūpa* contents itself with two species, equivocation of situation and deliberate equivocation of phrase, but there is general agreement that pro-episodes may be used in any part of the play and not merely in the first four junctures.

c20.s3.36

³ N. xix. 30-4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299-303; R. iii. 15-17, where N. is cited with variant readings.

c20.s3.37

¹ This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to Vāsavadattā’s anger to come.

c20.s3.38

Importance attaches to the conventions which enable the author to surmount difficulties inseparable from the dramatic form.² Normally, of course, the actors speak aloud (*prakāçam*), to be heard by all those on the stage as well as by the audience, but asides (*svagatam*, *ātmagatam*) are frequent, meant to be heard by the audience alone. If the need arises for making a remark to be heard by one actor only, it is made in the form of a confidence (*apavāritam*, *apavārya*), while a private conversation (*janāntikam*) is arranged by the actors holding up three fingers, the thumb and ring finger being curved inwards. Or, it is possible to avoid bringing on a person by speaking in the air (*ākāçabhāṣita*), pretending to hear the reply, and repeating it before answering it, while a similar purpose can be served by a voice from behind the scene.

c20.s3.39

² DR. i. 57-61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff.

c20.s3.40

The number of Acts which a play should contain varies according to the nature of the drama; in the Nāṭaka the number must be at least five, and may be ten; in other cases one Act suffices. Normally the Acts are simply numbered; in some cases, as in that of the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*, names are given, doubtless not by the poet.

4. The Characters

c20.s4.1

The hero owes his name, Nāyaka, to the fact that it is he who leads (*nī*) the events to the conclusion which he has set before him, in so far as such a result is permitted by human frailty and the force of circumstances. His good qualities are innumerable¹; he must be modest as is Rāma in depreciating his own prowess in comparison with that of Paraçurāma whom he has vanquished; handsome, generous like Jīmūtavāhana, prompt and skilled in action, affable, beloved of his people, of high family, ready of speech, and steadfast. He must be young, and endowed with intelligence, energy, a good memory, skill in the arts, and just pride; a hero, firm, glorious, skilled in the sciences, and an observer of law. More useful is the distinction drawn between types of hero²; all are noble or self-controlled (*dhīra*), a characteristic not universally found in heroines, but they are distinguished as light-hearted or gay (*lalita*), calm (*çānta*) exalted (*udātta*), and haughty or vehement (*uddhata*).

c20.s4.2

¹ DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff.

c20.s4.3

² N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4-6; DR. ii. 3-5; SD. 67-9; R. i. 72-8.

c20.s4.4

The light-hearted hero is one free from care, a lover of the arts, and above all a devotee of love; he is normally a king whose public burdens are confided to others, and whose one business it is to secure union with a new favourite by overcoming the obstacles interposed by the not unnatural jealousy of his queen or queens; such beyond all is Vatsa in Bhāsa and Harṣa’s dramas. The calm hero differs primarily from the light-hearted hero by reason of his birth, for he is a Brahmin or merchant, such as Mādhava in the *Mālatīmādhava* and Cārudatta in the *Daridracārudatta* and the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*; the hero of the Prakaraṇa, or comedy of manners, normally is of this class. The exalted hero is a character of great strength and nobility, firm of purpose, but free from vanity, forbearing, and without egotism. Of such a type are generals, ministers and high officials, and Jīmūtavāhana in the *Nāgānanda*. An instructive controversy rages round this description of Jīmūtavāhana; to be exalted, it is argued, implies the desire of superiority, but Jīmūtavāhana renounces every dream of empire and is a model of calm, of boundless pity, and freedom from passion save, indeed, as regards his love for Malayavatī, which is inconsistent with the general nature of his character. He should really be ranked among the calm heroes, with the Buddha himself, disregarding the meaningless convention which excludes kings from that category. Dhanika¹ effectively defends the classification of Jīmūtavāhana by insisting that he is not without desire, namely that of saving others at the cost of his own life; the desires he lays aside are wishes for personal advantage which Kālidāsa rightly censures in a king; his love for Malayavatī is wholly inconsistent with calmness, which, on the contrary, is in fact as in drama a characteristic of Brahmins, and it distinguishes him absolutely from the Buddha, who is exempt from passion. The haughty hero is a victim of pride and jealousy, an adept in magic arts and ruses, self-assertive, fickle, irascible, and boastful; Paraçurāma illustrates this character.

c20.s4.5

¹ DR. ii. 4

c20.s4.6

The chief hero in any drama must be essentially true to one or other of those types; any change would spoil the unity of the development of the drama, and, if necessary, changes must be made in the plot, as in the case of Rāma’s dealings with Vālin, to preserve the unity of character. In the case of the secondary hero there is no need for such consistency; he may change in different situations, and his lack of consistency tends merely to heighten the impression caused by the constancy of the hero. Thus Paraçurāma appears in the *Mahāvīracarita*² as exalted in his attitude to the evil Rāvaṇa, as haughty towards the untried Rāma, and as calm when he has experienced the superior prowess of that hero. It is obvious that there is difficulty in conceiving as a chief hero one of the haughty type, and the theory does not provide us with one, for Paraçurāma is only a secondary hero.

c20.s4.7

² ii, 10, 16; iv. 22.

c20.s4.8

As the Sanskrit drama deals usually with love, the theory has another division of types of hero based on their attitude to women.¹ The courteous (*dakṣiṇa*) hero is one who can find room in his heart for more loves than one; he seeks another to the deep grief of the old, but he does not cease to feel affection for his earlier love; such are the heroes of the Nāṭikā, or short heroic comedy, like Vatsa. He may not be regarded as either deceitful (*śaṭha*), or shameless (*dhṛṣṭa*), for these two types represent heroes who have ceased to love their former flame, and differ only in so far as they seek to deceive her, or are indifferent to her anger and bear open traces of the new attachment. Men like Vatsa never allow passion to dominate them; if a woman spurns them they are ready to leave her. The fourth type is the loyal (*anukūla*) lover who is faithful to one woman only, as is Rāma. As these four types are applicable to each class of hero, there are sixteen possible kinds of hero, and the theory adds the further complication that each of these may be a high class, middle class, or inferior person, giving forty-eight types.

c20.s4.9

¹ DR. ii. 6; SD. 71-5; R. i. 80-2. R. i. 79, 83-8 has a division into husbands, adulterers (*upapati*), and the connoisseur of hetaerae (*vaiçika*). For the courteous lover, see p. 205.

c20.s4.10

As if the enumeration of the general characteristics of the hero were insufficient, a set of eight special excellencies² is enumerated separately as springing from his character (*sāttvika*). These are brilliance (*śobhā*), including compassion for inferiors, emulation with superiors, heroism, and cleverness; vivacity (*vilāsa*), including a firm step and glance and a laughing voice; grace (*mādhurya*) manifested in the display of but slight change of demeanour in trying circumstances; impassivity (*gāmbhīrya*) or superiority to emotion; steadfastness (*sthairya*) in accomplishing his object despite obstacles; the sense of honour (*tejas*) which will punish insult even at the cost of life itself; lightheartedness as grace of deportment; and nobility (*audārya*) exhibited in sacrifice for the sake of the good.

c20.s4.11

² DR. ii. 9-13; SD. 89-95; R. i. 215-19; 64, 69.

c20.s4.12

The enemy of the hero (*pratināyaka*)³ is self-controlled and vehement (*dhīroddhata*); but he is also avaricious, stubborn, criminal, and vicious; such are Rāvaṇa and Duryodhana as contrasted with Rāma and Yudhiṣṭhira. On the other hand, the hero of the episode, the companion (*pīthamarda*)¹ of the hero, is to possess, but in a less degree, the qualities of the hero; he is to be intelligent, ever in attendance on the hero, and devoted to his interests, as are Makaranda in the *Mālatīmādhava* and Sugrīva in the dramas based on the Rāma legend. The term, however, is unknown to these plays, while in the *Mālavikāgnimitra* the nun Kauçikī is styled a Pīthamardikā, and serves as a trusted go-between. The theory here seems to have stereotyped a relationship commoner in an older type of drama.

c20.s4.13

³ DR. ii. 8; SD. 159.

c20.s4.14

¹ DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf. *Kāmasūtrā*, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90.

c20.s4.15

The heroine, Nāyikā,² plays a part in the economy of the drama similar to that of the hero, and not of less importance. The types of heroine depend primarily on her relation to the hero; she may be his wife (*svā, svīyā*), or belong to another (*anyā, anyastrī*) or be a hetaera. The hero's wife must be upright and of good character, but she may be inexperienced (*mugdhā*), partly experienced (*madhyā*), or fully experienced and bold (*pragalbhā*). The inexperienced wife is shy in her love and gentle in her anger with her spouse's infidelities. The partly experienced is full of the love of youth, and even faints in her passion; when angry, if self-controlled, she chides her husband with *double entendres*; if but partly controlled, she allows her tears to aid her reproaches; if uncontrolled, she adds harsh words. The bold wife is frantically in love, fainting at the first embrace; when angry, if self-controlled, she adopts an attitude of haughty reserve and indifference to the pleasures of life; if lacking in self-control, she uses threats and blows; if partly self-controlled, she employs the weapons of raillery and equivoque. A further division is possible, for each of these three kinds of heroine may be subdivided according as the lady is the earlier or later of the loves of the husband.

c20.s4.16

² DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96-100; R. i. 94-120, who takes the unusual view that Irāvatī in the *Mālavikāgnimitra* is a hetaera.

c20.s4.17

A woman, who is in the power of another, may be the wife of another man or a maiden. An amour with a married woman may not form the subject of the dominant sentiment in the play, but that for a maiden may occur as an element in the principal or the secondary action. Even when a parent or guardian is willing to permit a maiden's marriage, there may be other obstacles, as in the case of the love of Mālatī and Mādhava and in Vatsa's numerous amours. The woman who is common to all (*sādhāraṇī*) is a courtesan, skilled in the arts, bold, and cunning; she accepts as lovers the rich, the foolish, the self-willed, the selfish, and the impotent so long as their money lasts, then she has them turned out of doors by her mother, who acts as go-between. If she is a heroine, she must be represented as in love, like Vasantasenā in the *Mṛcchakaṭikā*, except in a Prahasana or farce, where she can be depicted as fleecing her lovers for comic effect; she must not figure as a heroine if the hero is divine or royal.

c20.s4.18

The heroine may occupy eight different relations to her lover.¹ She may be his absolute mistress (*svādhīnapatikā*), and he her obedient slave; she may be awaiting him in full dress (*vāsakasajjā*); she may be distressed by his involuntary absence (*virahoṭkaṇṭhitā*), enraged (*khaṇḍitā*) at discovering him disfigured by the marks of her rival's teeth and nails, or be severed from her beloved by a quarrel (*kalahāntaritā*) and suffer remorse, or be deceived (*vipralabdhā*) by a lover who fails to meet her at the rendezvous which she has named. Her lover may be absent abroad (*proṣitapriyā*), or she may have to seek him out or press him to come to her (*abhisārikā*), giving as meeting-place a ruined temple, a garden, the house of a go-between, a cemetery, the bank of a stream, or in general any dark place. The first two classes of heroine are bright and gay, the others are wearied, tearful, changing colour, sighing, and wear no ornaments as token of their dejection. A woman, who is subject to another, cannot stand in all these relations to a lover; she may be distressed at his absence, deceived, or driven to seek him out, but she cannot be enraged, for she is not the mistress of her lover, and thus the king's courtesy to Mālavikā in Kālidāsa's play is not to be treated as an effort to appease an enraged heroine.

c20.s4.19

¹ N. xxii. 197-206; DR. ii. 22-5; SD. 113-21; R. i. 121-51.

c20.s4.20

The heroine is accorded even a more generous allowance of excellencies than the hero.² The first three are physical, the first display of emotion in a nature previously exempt (*bhāva*), the movement of eyes and brows betokening the awakening of love (*hāva*), and the still more open manifestation of affection. The next seven are inherent characteristics of the heroine; the brilliance of youth and passion; the added touch of loveliness given by love, sweetness, radiance, courage, dignity, and self-control. Then come ten graces; the sportive imitation of the movements or words of the beloved one, the swift change of aspect at his arrival, tasteful arrangement of one's ornaments to increase radiance of appearance, studied confusion of ornaments, hysteria (*kilakiñcita*), in which anger, fear, joy, and tears mingle, manifestations of affection (*moṭṭāyita*) on hearing the beloved mentioned or seeing his portrait, pretended anger (*kuṭṭamita*) on the lover touching hair or lip, affected indifference (*bibboka*), born of excess of pride, a graceful pose (*lalita*), and the bashfulness which forbids speech even when an opportunity presents itself. To these twenty Viçvanātha adds eight more graces; the pride which is vain of youth and beauty, the ennui which besets the maiden in her lover's absence, the *naïveté* which displays itself in pretended ignorance and innocence, the distraction evinced by ornaments in disorder, wandering glances, and truant words, curiosity, the meaningless laugh of youth and high spirits, the tremors of fear causeless but common in the presence of the lover, and the sportive play of young affection. The same source gives us in great detail the modes in which the different types of heroine display their affection, in maidenly modesty or in shameless boldness, an analysis showing keen and deep insight into all the outward manifestations of love at an Indian court. Less praiseworthy is the perverse ingenuity which enumerates the different types of heroine, and educes first 128 from the combination of the eight forms of relationship to the lover with the sixteen kinds based on the division of wife, another's, and hetaera. These are then multiplied by three on the basis of the division of all characters as high class, middle class, and low class.

c20.s4.21

² N. xxii. 4-29; DR. ii. 28-39; SD. 126-55; R. i. 190-214, with Bhoja's views.

c20.s4.22

The same division of classes is applied to all the other characters (*pātra*) which can appear in a play, but a much more fundamental classification is that by sex, masculine, feminine, and neuter. Most of the rôles are such as are incidental to the life of a palace, for the normal drama deals with the amours of a king, and his entourage and that of the queen account for practically all the normal characters of the drama.

First 86 of 293 passages. Read on

Linked texts (77)