The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c7.s3.1

c7.s3.1

We seem in fact to have in the *Mahābhāṣya* evidence of a stage in which all the elements of drama were present; we have acting in dumb show, if not with words also; we have recitations divided between two parties. Moreover, we hear of Naṭas who not only recite but also sing; we find that in the days of the *Mahābhāṣya* the Naṭa’s hunger is as proverbial as the dancing of the peacock, that it was no rare thing for him to receive blows, and that a special term, Bhrūkuṃsa, existed to name him who played women’s parts, appropriately made up.³ The *Mahābhāṣya* does not seem to recognize women as other than dancers or singers,⁴ so that it may well be that in the infancy of the dramatic art the rôles of women were reserved for men, though in the classical drama this was by no means necessarily the case. We cannot absolutely prove that in Patañjali’s time the drama in its full form of action allied to speech was present, but we know that all its elements existed, and we may legitimately and properly accept its existence in a primitive form.