The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c20.s8.7

c20.s8.7

This account of the preliminaries and the prelude presents obvious difficulties both in itself and in connexion with the actual specimens of the Sanskrit drama. The *Daçarūpa* and Viçvanātha alike give no details of the preliminaries, and the *Nāṭyaçāstra* indicates that, in addition to the complete form of Pūrvaraṅga, there might be an abbreviated form and also an extended form with additional ceremonials. There is an obvious overlapping between the Pūrvaraṅga and the rest of the performance, for the last element of the former, the giving the content of the drama in the Prarocanā, is essentially an element in the latter. We are quite definitely told by Viçvanātha that in his time there was not a complete performance of the preliminaries; when, therefore, we find in Bhāsa’s dramas that there is no mention of the name of the author or the drama in the prologue, we may safely assume that it was after his time that the practice grew up of transferring from the preliminaries, which were not a matter for the poet, the substance of the Prarocanā, and embodying it in the poet’s own work. In Viçvanātha’s time also we are told that the Sūtradhāra or director performed the whole of the work assigned in the theory to him and the Sthāpaka. But it is extremely difficult to say how far back this goes; the extant dramas with occasional exceptions,¹ such as Rājaçekhara’s *Karpūramañjarī and Mādhava’s *Subhadrāharaṇa* mention only the Sūtradhāra, and Pischel¹ suggested that it was Bhāsa who banished the Sthāpaka, in view of the reference in Bāṇa to his dramas as begun by the Sūtradhāra. It is uncertain, however, what precisely the sense of this reference is. The *Daçarūpa* expressly provides for the activity of the Sthāpaka, but then proceeds to style him Sūtradhāra, and there is agreement that he is to have the attributes of the Sūtradhāra, so that the use of the name may merely be explained by this reason. This is certainly supported by the express reference in the *Sāhityadarpaṇa* to the transfer of his functions to the Sūtradhāra and the silence of the *Daçarūpa* on this head. The point would be of importance only if it meant that Bhāsa dropped the Pūrvaraṅga as part of the drama; nothing, however, even hints at this; as we have seen, his omission to name himself or his play in the prologue tells strongly in favour of the view that the old Praro-canā was still in use.