The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c6.s2.13

c6.s2.13

Independent support for the view of the dialogues as mystery plays *in nuce* is given by Dr. Hertel,² whose argument is largely based on the doctrine that the Vedic hymns were always sung, and that in singing it would have been impossible for a single singer to make the necessary distinction between the different speakers, which would have been possible if the hymns had not been sung. The hymns, therefore, represent the beginnings of a dramatic art, which may be compared with the form of the *Gītagovinda*.¹ But, what is more important, he seeks to find an actual drama on an extended scale in the *Suparṇādhyāya*,² a curious and comparatively late Vedic text. In his view, accordingly, the Vedic drama does not stand isolated; it is seen in the *Ṛgveda* only in its beginnings; the *Suparṇādhyāya* displays it en route to further development, and in the Yātrās we can see a continuation of the old type, which aids us in following the growth from the Vedic drama of the classical drama of India. In this regard there is a distinct divergence of view between the two supporters of the dramatic theory, for Professor von Schroeder regards the Yātrās as genuinely connected with the later drama, being developed in close connexion with the cult of Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa and Rudra-Śiva, but as representing a different development from the same root as the Vedic dialogues. Of this other side of the drama he finds hints in the traditional connexion of the Gandharvas and Apsarases with the drama, for these in his view are essentially phallic deities.