The History of Indian Literature c9.56

Language: English

c9.56.1

Next to the epic, as the second phase in the development of Sanskrit poetry, comes the Drama. The name for it is *Náṭaka*, and the player is styled *Naṭa*, literally ‘dancer.’ Etymology thus points us to the fact that the drama has developed out of dancing, which was probably accompanied, at first, with music and song only, but in course of time also with pantomimic representations, processions, and dialogue. We find dancing repeatedly mentioned in the songs of the Ṛik (*e.g.*, in i. 10. 1, 92. 4, &c.), but with special frequency in the Atharva-Saṃhitá and the Yajus,∗ though everywhere still under the root-form *nṛit*. The prákritized form *naṭ* occurs for the first time in Páṇini, who, besides, informs us of the existence of distinct Naṭa-sútras,[^asterisk] or manuals for the use of *naṭas*, one of which was attributed to Śilálin, and another to Kṛiśáśva, their adherents being styled Śailálinas and Kṛiśáśvinas respectively. The former of these names finds an analogue, at least, in the patronymic Śailáli, which occurs in the thirteenth *káṇḍa* of the Śatapatha-Bráhmaṇa; and it may also, perhaps, be connected with the words Śailúsha and Kuśílava, both of which denote ‘actor’ (?).dagger The latter name, on the contrary, is a very surprising one in this connection, being otherwise only known to us as the name of one of the old heroes who belong in common to the Hindús and the Parsís.[^double-dagger] Beyond this allusion we have no vestige of either of these works.

c9.56.2

Páṇini further cites [§] the word *náṭyam* in the sense of ‘*naṭánáṃ dharma ámnáyo vá*.’ In both cases, we have probably to understand by the term the art of dancing, and not dramatic art.—It has been uniformly held hitherto that the Indian drama arose, after the manner of our modern drama in the Middle Ages, out of religious solemnities and spectacles (so-called ‘mysteries’), and also that dancing originally subserved religious purposes. But in support of this latter assumption, I have not met with one single instance in the Śrauta- or Gṛihya-Sútras with which I am acquainted (though of the latter, I confess, I have only a very superficial knowledge).²⁰⁹ The religious significance of dancing is thus, for the older period at least, still questionable; and since it is from dancing that the drama has evidently sprung, the original connection of the latter with religious solemnities and spectacles becomes doubtful also. Besides, there is the fact that it is precisely the most ancient dramas that draw their subjects from civil life; while the most modern, on the contrary, almost exclusively serve religious purposes. Thus the contrary, rather, would seem to be the case, namely, that the employment of dancing[^asterisk] and of the drama at religious solemnities was only the growth of a later age.²¹⁰ This does not imply, however, that dancing was excluded from those great sacrificial festivals which were now and then celebrated by princes;

c9.56.3

but only that it did not itself constitute part of the sacred rite or religious ceremony, and could only, and did only, find a place in the intervals. The name applied to the stage-manager in the dramas themselves, ‘Sútra-dhára,’ is referred, and no doubt rightly, to the original sense of '(measuring) line-holder,' 'carpenter;'¹ since it appears to have been one of the duties of the architect at these sacrificial celebrations, over and above the erection of the buildings for the reception of those taking part in the sacrifice, likewise to conduct the various arrangements that were to serve for their amusement. (See Lassen, *I. AK.*, ii. 503.) Whether the *naṭas* and *nartakas* mentioned on such occasions are to be understood as dancers or actors, is at least doubtful; but in the absence of any distinct indication that the latter are intended, I hold in the meantime to the etymological signification of the word; and it is only where the two appear together (*e.g.*, in Rámáy. i. 12. 7 Gorr.) that *naṭa* has certainly to be taken in the sense of 'actor.' Buddhist legend seems, indeed, in one instance—in the story of the life of Maudgalyáyana and Upatishya, two disciples of Buddha—to refer to the representation of dramas in the presence of these individuals.² But here a question at once arises as to the age of the work in which this reference occurs; this is the main point to be settled before we can base any conclusion upon it.

c9.56.4

Lassen, it is true, says that "in the oldest Buddhistic writings the witnessing of plays is spoken of as something usual;" but the sole authority he adduces is the passage from the Dulva indicated in the note. The Dulva, however, that is, the Vinaya-Piṭaka, cannot, as is well known, be classed amongst the "oldest Buddhistic writings;" it contains pieces of widely different dates, in part, too, of extremely questionable antiquity. In the Lalita-Vistara, apropos of the testing of Buddha in the various arts and sciences (Foucaux, p. 150), *náṭya* must, undoubtedly, be taken in the sense of ‘mimetic art’—and so Foucaux translates it; but this does not suppose the existence of distinct dramas. The date, moreover, of this particular work is by no means to be regarded as settled; and, in any case, for the time of Buddha himself, this examination-legend carries no weight whatever.