A HISTORY OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE CLASSICAL PERIOD -7

A HISTORY OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE

CLASSICAL PERIOD

VOL. I

General Editor and

Contributors to this Volume:

S. N. DASGUPTA

and

S. K. DE,

3. THE ORIGIN AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DRAMA

The question of the origin and individual characteristics

of the various types of literary composition comprised under the

Kavya will be discussed in their proper places ; but since drama,

like poetry, forms one of its important branches, we may briefly

consider here its beginnings, as well as its object, scope and

method^ The drama, no doubt, as a subdivision of the KavyaA

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS '43

partakes of most of its general characteristics, but since its

form and method are different, it is necessary to consider it

separately.

The first definite, but scanty, record of the Sanskrit drama

is found in the dramatic fragments, discovered in Central Asia

and belonging to the early Kusana period, one of these fragments

being actually the work of Asvagbosa. The discovery, of which

we shall speak more later, is highly important from the historical

point of view ; for the features which these fragments reveal

undoubtedly indicate that the drama had already attained

the literary form and technique which persist throughout its

later course ; and its fairly developed character suggests that

it must have had a history behind it. This history, unfortunately,

cannot be traced today, for the earlier specimens which

might have enabled us to do so, appear to have perished in

course of time. The orthodox account of the origin of the

Sanskrit drama, by describing it as a gift from heaven in the

form of a developed art invented by the divine sage Bharata,

envelops it in an impenetrable mist of myth ; while modern

scholarship, professing to find the earliest manifestation of a

ritual drama in the dialogue-hymns of the Rgvcda and presuming

a development of the dramatic from the religious after the manner

of the Greek drama, shrouds the question of its origin in a still

greater mist of speculation.

The original purpose

1 of some fifteen hymns of the Rgveda^

which are obviously dialogues and are recognised as such by the

Indian tradition,

2

is frankly obscure. Most of them, like those

of Pururavas and Urvasi" (x. 95), Yama and Yarn! (x. 10),

Indra, Indrani and Vrsakapi (x. 80), Saramfi and the Panis

(x. 108), are not in any way connected with the religious sacrifice,

1 For a summary and discussion of the various theories and for references, see Keith

in ZDMG, Ixiv, 1910, p. 534 f, in JRAS, 1911, p. 970 f and in his Sanskrit Drama (hereafter

cited as SD), p. 13 f.

2 Both Saunaka and Y&ska ay ply the term Samvada-sukta to most of these hymni, but

sometimes the terms Itihasa and Xkhyana are also employed. Even assuming popular origin

and dramatic elements, the hymns are in no sense ballads or ballad-plays.

nor do they represent the usual type of religious hymns of prayer

and thanksgiving ; but they appear to possess a mythical or

legendary content. It has been claimed that here we have the

first signs of the Indian drama. The suggestion is that these

dialogues call for miming ; and connected with the ritual dance,

song and music, they represent a kind of refined and sacerdotalised

dramatic spectacle,

1 or in fact, a ritual drama, or a Vedic

Mystery Play in a nutshell,

2 in which the priests assuming the

roles of divine, mythical or human interlocutors danced and

sang

8 the hymns in dialogues. To this is added the further

presumption

4 that the hymns represent an old type of composition,

narrative in character and Indo-European in antiquity, in

which there existed originally both prose and verse ; but the

verse, representing the points of interest or feeling, was carefully

constructed and preserved, while the prose, acting merely as a connecting

link, was left to be improvised, and therefore never remained

fixed nor was handed down. It is assumed that the dialogues

in the Kgvedic hymns represent the verse, the prose having

disappeared before or after their incorporation into the Samhita ;

and the combination of prose and verse in the Sanskrit drama

is alleged to be a legacy of this hypothetical Vedic Akhyana.

It must be admitted at once that the dramatic quality of the

hymns is considerable, and that the connexion between the drama

and the religious song and dance in general has been made clear

by modern research. At first sight, therefore, the theory appears

plausible; but it is based on several unproved and unnecessary

assumptions. It is not necessary, for instance, nor is there any

authority, for finding a ritual explanation of these hymns ; for

1 8. L6vi, Tht&lre indien, Paris, 1890, p. 333f.

2 Ij. von Scbroeder, Mysteriumund Mimus im fgveda, Leipzig, 1908; A. HilJebrandt,

Bber die Anfdnge dee indischen Dramast Munich, 1914, p. 22 f.

3 J. Hertel in WZKM, XVIII, K04, p. 59 f, 137 f ; XXIIJ, p. 273 f ; XXIV, p. 117 f.

Hertel maintains that unless singing is presumed, it is not possible for a single speaker to

make the necessary distinction between the different speakers presupposed in the dialogues of

the hymns.

< H. OMenberg in ZDMG, XXXII, p. 64 f ; XXXIX, p. 62 ; and also in Zur Geschichte

d. altindischen Prosa, Berlin, 1917, p. 63f.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 45

neither the Indian tradition nor even modern scholarship admits

the presumption that everything contained in the Rgveda is connected

with the ritual. As a matter of fact, no ritual employment

for these hymns is prescribed in the Vedic texts and commentaries.

We have also no record of such happenings as are complacently

imagined, nor of any ritual dance actually practised by

the Vedic priests; the Rgvedic, as opposed to the Samavedic,

hymns were recited and not sung; and later Vedic literature

knows nothing of a dramatic employment of these hymns. It is

true that some of the Vedic ritual, especially the fertility rites,

like the Mahavrata, contains elements that are dramatic, but the

existence of a dramatic ritual is no evidence of the existence of a

ritual drama. It is also not necessary to conceive of these

Rgvedic dialogue-hymns as having been in their origin a mixture

of poor prose and rich verse for the purpose of explaining the

occurrence of prose and verse in the Sanskrit drama from its very

beginning ; for the use of prose in drama is natural arid requires

no explanation, and, considering the epic tradition and the general

predominance of the metrical form in Sanskrit literature, the

verse is not unexpected. Both prose and verse in the Sanskrit

drama are too intimately related to have been separate in their

origin.

The modified form of the above theory,

1

namely, that the

Vedic ritual drama itself is borrowed from an equally hypothetical

popular mime of antiquity, which is supposed to have included

dialogue and abusive language, as well as song and dance, is an

assumption which does not entirely dismiss the influence of religious

ceremonies, but believes that the dramatic element in the

ritual, as well as the drama itself, had a popular origin. But to

accept it, in the absence of all knowledge about popular or religious

mimetic entertainment in Vedic times,

2

is extremely

1 Sten Konow, Das ind. Drama, Berlin and Leipzig, 1920, p. 42 f.

3 The analogy of the Yatrii, which is as much secular as bound up with religion in iti

origin, is interesting, but there is nothing to show that such forms of popular entertainment

actually existed in Vedic times.

difficult. The influence of the element of abusive language and

amusing antics in the Horse-sacrifice, as well as in the Mahavrata,

1

appears to have been much exaggerated; for admittedly it

is an ingredient of magic rites, and there is no evidence either of

its popular character or of its alleged impetus towards the growth

of the religious drama. The history of the Vidusaka of the

Sanskrit drama,

2 which is sometimes cited in support, is at most

obscure. He is an anomalous enough character, whose name

implies that he is given to abuse and who is yet rarely such in the

actual drama, who is a Brahmin and a '

high

' character and who

yet speaks Prakrit and indulges in absurdities ; but his derivation

from an imaginary degraded Brahmin of the hypothetical secular

drama, on the one hand, is as unconvincing as his affiliation to a

ritual drama, on the other, which is presumed from the abusive

dialogue of the Brahmin student and the hataera in the Mahavrata

ceremony. An interesting parallel is indeed drawn from the

history of the Elizabethan Pool, who was originally the ludicrous

Devil of mediaeval Mystery Plays ;

l{ but an argument from analogy

is not a proof of fact. The Vidusaka's attempts at amusing by

his cheap witticisms about his gastronomical sensibilities are

inevitable concessions to the groundlings and do not require the

far-fetched invocation of a secular drama for explanation. The

use of Prakrit and Prakritic technical terminology in the Sanskrit

drama, again, has been adduced in support of its popular

origin, but we have no knowledge of any primitive Prakrit drama

or of any early Prakrit drama turned into Sanskrit, and the

occurrence of Prakritic technical terms maybe reasonably referred

to the practice of the actors.

It seems, therefore, that even if the elements of the drama

were present in Vedic times, there is no proof that the drama,

1 A. Hillebrandfc, RitualUtteratuT, Strassburg, 1897, p. 157.

* Sten KonoWj op. cff., pp. 14-15. See also J. Huizioga, De Vidusaka in het indisch

tooneel, Groningen, 1897, p. 64 f, and M. Scbuyler, The Origin of the Viduaka in JAOS, XX,

1899, p. 838 f.

3 A. Hillebrandt, Die Anf&nge, p. 24 f.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS '47

in however rudimentary form, was actually known. The actor

is not mentioned, nor does any dramatic terminology occur.

There may have been some connexion between the dramatic

religious ceremonies and the drama in embryo, but the theory

which seeks the origin of the Sanskrit drama in the sacred dance,

eked out by song, gesture and dialogue, on the analogy of what

happened in Greece or elsewhere, is still under the necessity of

proving its thesis by actual evidence ; and little faith can be

placed on arguments from analogy. The application of Ridgeway's

theory

J of the origin of drama in general in the animistic

worship of the dead is still less authenticated in the case of the

Sanskrit drama ; for the performance is never meant here for

the gratification of departed spirits, nor are the characters

regarded as their representatives.

As a reaction against the theory of sacred origin, we have

the hypothesis of the purely secular origin of the Sanskrit drama

in the Puppet-play

2 and the Shadow-play'

1

; but here again the

suggestions do not bear critical examination, and the lack of exact

data precludes us from a dogmatic conclusion. While the reference

to the puppet-play in the Mahabhdrata * cannot be exactly

dated, its supposed antiquity and prevalence in India, if correct,

do not necessarily make it the source of the Sanskrit drama ; and

its very name (from putrika, puttalika) implies that it is only a

make-believe or imitation and presupposes the existence of the

regular play. The designations Sutradhara and Sthapaka need

not refer to any original manipulation of puppets by

*

pulling

strings' or 'arranging/ but they clearly refer to the original

1 Ae set forth in Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races, Cambridge,

1938, also in JRAS, 1916, p. 821 f, 1917, p. 143 f, effectively criticised by Keith in JRAS,

1916, p. 335 f

, 1917, p. 140 f .

2 R. Piachel in Die Heimat des Puppenspiels, Halle, 1900 (tra. into English by Mildred

0. Tawney, London, 1902).

3 Pischel in Das aUindische Schattenspiel in SBAW, 1906, pp. 482-602, further elaborated

by H. Liiders in Die Saubhikas : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte d. indischen Dramas IB

SBAW.WIQ, p. 698 f.

* XII. 294. 5, as explained by Nllakantha.

function of the director or stage-manager of laying out and constructing

the temporary playhouse. With regard to the shadowplay,

in which shadow-pictures are produced by projection from

puppets on the reverse side of a thin white curtain, the evidence

of its connexion with the drama is late and indefinite,

1 and

therefore inconclusive. Whatever explanation

2 may be given of

the extremely obscure passage in Patafijali's Mahabhasya (ad. iii.

1. 26) on the display of the Saubhikas, there is hardly any

foundation for the view 8 that the Saubhikas discharged the function

of showing shadow-pictures and explaining them to the

audience. The exact meaning, again, of the term Chaya-nataka,

found in certain plays, is uncertain ; it is not admitted as a

known genre in Sanskrit dramatic theory, and none of the socalled

Chaya-natakas is different in any way from the normal

drama. The reference to the Javanese shadow-play does not

strengthen the position, for it is not yet proved that the Javanese

type was borrowed from India or that its analogue prevailed in

India in early times ; and its connexion with the Sanskrit drama

cannot be established until it is shown that the shadow-play

itself sprang up without a previous knowledge of the drama.

Apart from the fact, however, that the primitive drama in

general shows a close connexion with religion, and apart also

from the unconvincing theory of the ritualistic origin of the

Sanskrit drama, there are still certain facts connected with the

Sanskrit drama itself which indicate that, if it was in its origin

not exactly of the nature of a religious drama, it must have been

considerably influenced in its growth by religion or religious

cults. In the absence of sufficient material, the question does

1 On the whole question and for references, eee Keith in SDt pp, 58-57 and 8. K. De

in IHQ, VII, 1931, p. 542 f .

* Various explanations have been suggested by Kayyata in his commentary ; by A.

W*ber in Ind. Studien, XIII, p. 488 f. ; by Le>i, op. tit., p. 315 ; by Ltiders in the work cited

above; by Winternitz in ZDMG. t LXXIV, 1920, p. 118 ff. ; by Hillebrandt in ZDMG,

LXXII, 1918, p. 227 f. ; by Keith in BSOS, I, pt. 4, p. 27 f. f and by K. G. Sabrahmanya

in JRAS, 1925, p. 502.

1 Ltiders, op. cit. supported by Winternitz, but effectively criticised by Hilltbrandt

and Keith.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 49

not admit of clear demonstration, but it can be generally accepted

from some undoubted indications. One of the early descriptions

of scenic representation that we have is that given by Patanjali,

mentioned above ; it is interesting that the entertainment

is associated with the Visnu-Krsna legend of the slaying of

Kamsa and the binding of Bali. It may not have been drama

proper, but it was not a mere shadow-play nor recitation of the

type made by the Granthikas ; it may have been some kind of

pantomimic, or even dramatic, performance distinctly carried out

by action. It should be noted in this connexion that, on the

analogy of the theory of the origin of the Greek drama from

a mimic conflict of summer and winter, Keith sees 1 in the legend

of the slaying of Kainsa a refined version of an older vegetation

ritual in which there was a demolition of the outworn spirit of

vegetation, and evolves an elaborate theory of the origin of Indian

tragedy from this idea of a contest. But the tendency to read

nature-myth or nature-worship into every bit of legend, history

or folklore, which was at one time much in vogue, is no longer

convincing ; and in the present case it is gratuitous, and even

misleading, to invoke Greek parallels to explain things Indian.

It is sufficient to recognise that here we have an early indication

of the close connexion of some dramatic spectacle with

the Visnu-Krsna legend, the fascination of which persists

throughout the history of Sanskrit literature. Again, it may

be debatable whether SaurasenI as the normal prose Prakrit of

the Sanskrit drama came from the Krsna cult, which is supposed

to have its ancient home in Surasena or Mathura ; but there

can be no doubt that in the fully developed Sanskrit drama the

Krsna cult

2 came to play an important part. The Holi-festival

of the Krsna cult, which is essentially a spring festival, is

sometimes equated with the curious ceremony of the decoration

and worship of Indra's flagstaff (Jarjara- or Indradhvaja-puja)

1 In ZDMG, LXIV, 1910, p. 534 f. ; in JRAS, 1911, p. 079, 1912, p. 411; in SD, p. 87 f.

2 On the Kfspa cult, see Winternitz in ZDMG, LXXIV, 1920, p. 118 f.

7 1343B

prescribed by Bharata as one of the preliminaries (Purva-ranga)

of enacting a play, on the supposition that it is analogical to

the Maypole ceremony of England and the pagan phallic rites of

Eome. The connexion suggested is as hypothetical as Bharata's

legendary explanation that with the flagstaff Tndra drove away

the Asuras, who wanted to disturb the enacting of a play by the

gods, is fanciful ; but it has been made the somewhat slender

foundation of a theory

1 that the Indian drama originated

from a banner festival (Dhvaja-maha) in honour of Indra. The

existence of the Nandl and other religious preliminaries of the

Sanskrit drama is quite sufficient to show that the ceremony of

Jarjara-puja, whatever be its origin, is only a form of the

customary propitiation of the gods, and may have nothing to

do with the origin of the drama itself. It is, however,

important to note that religious service forms a part of the

ceremonies preceding a play ; and it thus strengthens the

connexion of the drama with religion. Like Indra and

Krsna, Siva 2

is also associated with the drama, for Bharata

ascribes to him and his spouse the invention of the Tandava

and the Lasya, the violent and the tender dance, respectively ;

and the legend of Kama has no less an importance than that of

Krsna in supplying the theme of the Sanskrit drama.

All this, as well as the attitude of the Buddhist and Jaina

texts towards the drama,8 would suggest that, even if the

theory of its religious origin fails, the Sanskrit drama probably

received a great impetus from religion in its growth. In the

absence of decisive evidence, it is better to admit our inability

to explain the nature and extent of the impetus from this and

other sources, than indulge in conjectures which are of facts,

fancies and theories all compact. It seems probable, however,

that the literary antecedents of the drama, as of poetry, are to

be sought mainly in the great Epics of India. The references to

1 Haraprasad Sastri in JPASB, V, 1909, p. 351 f.

2 Bloch in ZDMG, LXII, 1908, p. 655.

3 Keith, SD. pp. 43-44.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 51

the actor and dramatic performance in the composite and

undatable texts of the Epics and the Hari-vamsa need not be of

conclusive value, nor should stress be laid on the attempted

derivation of the word Kusllava,

1

denoting an actor, from Kusa

and Lava of the Ramayana ; but it seems most probable that

the early popularity of epic recitation, in which the reciter

accompanied it with gestures and songs, can be connected with

the dramatisation of epic stories. How the drama began we

do not know, nor do we know exactly when it began; but the

natural tendency to dramatisation, by means of action, of a

vivid narrative (such, for instance, as is suggested by the

Mahabhasya passage) may have been stimulated to a great degree

by the dramatic recitation of epic tales. No doubt, the developed

drama is not a mere dramatisation of epic material, and it

is also not clear how the idea of dramatic conflict and analysis

of action in relation to character were evolved; but the Sanskrit

drama certainly inherits from the Epics, in which its interest

is never lost throughout its history, its characteristic love of

description, which it shares with Sanskrit poetry ; and both

drama and poetry draw richly also upon the narrative and

didactic content of the Epics. The close approximation also of

drama to poetry made by Sanskrit theory perhaps points to the

strikingly parallel, but inherently diverse, development from a

common epic source ; and it is not surprising that early poets

like Asvaghosa and Kalidasa were also dramatists. The other

1 L6vi, op. cit., p. 312; Sben Konow, op. f., p. 9. It is uob clear if the term is

really a compound of irregular formation; and the etymology /wHZ/a, '

of bad morals', is

clever in view of the proverbial morals of the actor, but farfetched. The word Bharata, also

denoting the actor, is of course derived from the mythical Bharata of the Natya-sastra, and

has nothing to do with Bharata, still less with Bhat i which is clearly from Bha$ta. The

nauie Ndja, which is apparently a Prakritisation of the earlier rooc nrt '

to dance '

(contra

D. K. Minkad, Types of Sanskrit Drama, Karachi, 1920, p. 6 f) probibly indicates that he

was originally, and perhaps mainly, a dancer, who acquired the mimetic art. The distinction

between Nrtta f Dancing), Nrty a (Dancing with gestures and feeliugs) and Natya (Drama

with histrionics), made by the Datancpaka (1.7-9) and other works, is certainly late, but

it is not uuhistorical ; for it explains the evolution of the Itupaka and Uparupaka

techniques.

literary tendency of the drama, namely, its lyric inspiration and

metrical variety of sentimental verses, however, may have been

supplied by the works of early lyrists, some of whose fragments

are preserved by Patanjali. The extant dramatic literature, like

the poetic, does not give an adequate idea of its probable

antiquity

1

; but that the dramatic art probably developed somewhat

earlier even than the poetic can be legitimately inferred

from the admission of the rhetoricians that they borrow the

theory of sentiment from dramaturgy and apply it to poetics, as

well as from the presumably earlier existence of the Natya-astra

of Bharata than that of any known works on poetics,

The extreme paucity of our knowledge regarding the impetus

which created the drama has led to the much discussed suggestion

2 that some influence, if not the en-tire impetus, might have

come from the Greek drama. Historical researches have now

established the presence of Greek principalities in India ; and it

is no longer possible to deny that the Sanskrit drama must have

greatly developed during the period when the Greek influence was

present in India. As we know nothing about the causes of this

development, and as objections regarding chronology and contact

1 Panini's reference to Nata-sutras composed by Silalin and KrSasva (IV. 3. 11.0-111) has

been dismissed as doubtful, for there is no means of determining the meaning of the word

Nata (see above), which may refer to a mere dancer or mimer. But the drama, as well as

the dramatic performance, is known to Buddhist literature, not only clearly to works of

uncertain date like the Avadana-Sataka (II. 21 >, the Divyavaddna (pp. 357, 360-61j and the

Lalita-vistara (XII, p. 178), but also probably to the Buddhist Suttas, which forbid the monks

watching popular shows. The exact nature of these shows 13 not clear, but there is no reason

to presume that they were not dramatic entertainments. See Winternitz in WZKM,

XXVII, 1913, p. 39f ; L6vi, op. cit , p. 819 f. The mention of the word Na$a or Nataka in the

undatable and uncertain texts of the Epics (including the Hari-vamta) is of little value

for chronological purposes.

2 A. Weber in Ind. Studien, II, p. 148 and Die Griechen in Indien in SBAW t 1890, p. 920;

repudiated by Pischel in Die Rezension der tfakuntala, Breslau, 1875, p. 19 and in SBA W ,

19C6, p. 602; but elaborately supported, in a modified form, by Windisch in Der griechische

Einfluss im indtschen Drama (in Verhl. d. 7. Intern. Orient. Congress] Berlin, 1882, pp. 3 f.

See Sten Konow,op. ct't., pp. 4042 and Keith, SDt pp. 57- (

38, for a discussion of the theory and

further references. W. W. Tarn reviews the whole question in his Greeks in BacLria and

Indtc, Cambridge, 1938, but he is extremely cautious on the subject of Greek influence on the

Sinikrit drama; see Keith's criticism in D. R. Bhandarkar Volume, Calcutta, 1940, p. 224 f.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTFR18TICS OO

are not valid, there is nothing a priori impossible in the presumption

of the influence of the Greek drama on the Indian. The

difficulty of Indian exclusiveness and conservatism is neutralised

by instances of the extraordinary genius of India in assimilating

what it receives from foreign sources in other spheres of art and

science, notwithstanding the barrier of language, custom and

civilisation.

But there are difficulties in adducing positive proof in support

of the presumption. The evidence regarding actual performance

of Greek plays in the courts of Greek princes in India is extremely

scanty;

1 but more important is the fact that there are no decisive

points of contact, but only casual coincidences,

2 between the

Sanskrit drama and the New Attic Comedy, which is regarded as

the source of the influence. No reliance can be placed on the use

of the device of token of recognition

3 common to the two dramas.

Although the forms in which it has come down to us do not

antedate the period of supposed Greek influence, the Indian literature

of tales reveals a considerable use of this motif ; and there

are also epic instances4 which seem to preclude the possibility of

its being borrowed from the Greek drama. It is a motif common

enough in the folk-tale in general, and inevitable in primitive

society as a means of identification ; and its employment in the

Sanskrit drama can be reasonably explained as having been of

independent origin. No satisfactory inference, again, can be

1 L6vi, op. eft., p. GO, but contra Keith, SD,p. 59.

2 Such as division into acts, number of acts, departure of all actors from the stage at the

end of the acts, the scenic convention of asides, the announcing1 of the entry and identity of a

new character by a remark from a character already on the stage, etc. The Indian Prologue

is entirely different from the Classical, being a part of the preliminaries and having a definite

character and ob.'ecfc. Max Lindenau's exposition IBeitrdge zur altindischen Rasalehre,

Leipzig 1913, p. v) of the relation between Bharafca's Natya-sdstra and Aristotle's Poetik is

interesting, but proves nothing.

3

E.g., the ring in MdlaviLdgnimitra and Sakuntala t stone of union and arrow (of

Ayus) in Vikramorvatiya, necklace iu Ratnavali, the jewel falling from the sky in Nagdnanda,

the garland in MdJatl-mddhava and Kunda-mdld, the Jrmbhaka weapons in Uttara-tarita t the

clay cart in Mrcchakatika, the seal in Mudrd-rd!fasa, etc.

4 Keith, SD, p, 63.

drawn from the resemblance of certain characters, especially the

Vita, the Vidusaka, and the Sakara. The parasite occurs in the

Greek and Roman comedy, but he lacks the refinement and

culture of the Indian Vita; the origin of the Vidusaka,

as we have seen, is highly debatable, but his Brahmin

caste and high social position distinguish him from the

vulgar slave (servus currens) of the classical comedy ; and we know

from Pataiijali that the Sakara was originally a person of Saka

descent and was apparently introduced into the Sanskrit drama

as a boastful, ignorant and ridiculous villain at a time when the

marital alliance of Indian kings with Saka princesses had fallen

into disfavour.

1 These characters are not rare in any society,

and can be easily explained as having been conceived from actual

life in India. The argument, again, from the Yavanika 2 or

curtain, which covered the entrance from the retiring room

(Nepathya) or stood at the back of the stage between the Rangapltha

and the Eangaslrsa, and which is alleged to have received

its name from its derivation from the lonians(Yavanas) or Greeks,

is now admitted to be of little value, for the simple reason that

the Greek theatre, so far as we know, had no use for the curtain.

The theory is modified with the suggestion that the Indian curtain

1 He is represented as the brother of the king's concubine; cf. Sdlutya-darpana, III, 44.

Cf E. J. lUpson's article on the Drama (Indian) in ERE, Vol. IV, p. 885.

2 Windhch, op cit., p. 24 f. The etymology given by Indian lexicographers fiom java t

1

speed

f

(in the Prakrit Javanika form of the word), or the deiivation from the root yu

'

to

cover,* is ingenious, but not convincing. There i 3 nothing to confirm the opinion that the

form Jainanika is a scribal mistake rB6thlingk and Roth) or merely secondary (Sten Konow),

for it is recognised in the Indian lexicons and occurs in some MSS. of plays. If this was the

original form, then it would signify a curtain only (from the root yam t

* to restrain, cover '), or

double curtain covering the two entrances from the Nepathya (from yama,

' twin ') ; but there

is no authority for holding that the curtain was parted in the middle. See IHQ, VII, p. 480 f.

The word YavanikS, is apparently known to Bharata, as it occurs at 5. 11-12 in the description

of the elements of the Purvarafiga. Abhinavagnpta explains that its position was between

the Kungas'Irsa and Rangapltha (ed. QOS, p. 212). The other names are Pati, Pratis'iift and

Tiraskaranl. There was apparently no drop curtain on the Indian stage. -The construction of

the Indian theatre, as described by Bharata, has little resemblance to that of the Greek ; and

Th. Blocb's discovery of the remains of a Greek theatre in the Sitavenga Cave (ZDMG,

LVITI, p. 456 f ) is of doubtful value as a decisive piece of evidence.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 55

is so called because the material of the cloth was derived from

the Greek merchants ; but even this does not carry us very far to

prove Greek influence on the Indian stage arrangement.

It will be seen that even if certain striking parallels and

coincidences are urged and admitted between the Greek and the

Sanskrit drama, the search for positive signs of influence

produces only a negative result. There are so many fundamental

differences that borrowing or influence is out of the

question, and the affinities should be regarded as independent

developments. The Sanskrit drama is essentially of the romantic

rather than of the classical type, and affords points of

resemblance to the Elizabethan, rather than to the Greek, drama.

The unities of time and place are entirely disregarded between

the acts as well as within the act. Even twelve years elapse

between one act and another, and the time-limit of an act 1

often exceeds twenty-four hours ; while the scene easily shifts

from earth to heaven. Eomantic and fabulous elements are

freely introduced ; tragi-comedy or melodrama is not infrequent;

verse is regularly mixed with prose ; puns and verbal cleverness

are often favoured. There is no chorus, but there is a metrical

benediction and a prologue which are, however, integral parts

of the play and set the plot in motion. While the parallel of

the Vidusaka is found in the Elizabethan Fool, certain dramatic

devices, such as the introduction of a play within a play

2 and

the use of a token of recognition, are common. There is no

limit in the Sanskrit drama to the number of characters, who

may be either divine, semi-divine or human. The plot may

be taken from legend or from history, but it may also be drawn

from contemporary life and manners. With very rare exceptions,

the main interest almost invariably centres in a love-story,

love being, at least in practice, the only passion which forms

1 On time'analysis of Sanskrit plays (Kalidasa and Hsrsa), ee Jackson in JAOS,

XX, 1899, pp. 841-59; XXI, 1900, pp. SB- 108.

3 As in Priyadartika, Uttara-rama-carita and Bala-ramayana See Juckson's appendix

to the ed. of the fiist play, pp. ev-cxi.

the dominant theme of this romantic drama. Special structures

of a square, rectangular or triangular shape for the presentation

of plays are described in the Ndtya-sastra,

1 but they have little

resemblance to the Greek or modern theatre and must have

been evolved independently. Very often plays appear to have

been enacted in the music hall of the royal palace, and there

were probably no special contrivances, nor elaborate stage-properties,

nor even scenery in the ordinary sense of the word. The

lack of these theatrical makeshifts was supplied by the lively

imagination of the audience, which was aided by a profusion

of verses describing the imaginary surroundings, by mimetic

action and by an elaborate system of gestures possessing a conventional

significance.

Besides these more or less formal requirements, there are

some important features which fundamentally distinguish the

Sanskrit drama from all other dramas, including the Greek.

The aim of the Sanskrit dramatists, who were mostly idealists

in outlook and indifferent to mere fact or incident, is not to

mirror life by a direct portrayal of action or character, but

(as in poetry) to evoke a particular sentiment (Rasa) in the

mind of the audience, be it amatory, heroic or quietistic. As

this is regarded, both in theory and practice, to be the sole

object as much of the dramatic art as of the poetic, everything

else is subordinated to this end. Although the drama is described

in theory as an imitation or representation of situations

(Avasthanukrti), the plot, as well as characterisation, is a

secondary element ; its complications are to be avoided so that

it may not divert the mind from the appreciation of the sentiment

to other interests. A well known theme, towards which

the reader's mind would of itself be inclined, is normally

preferred ; the poet's skill is concerned entirely with the developing

of its emotional possibilities. The criticism, therefore, that

the Sanskrit dramatist shows little fertility in the invention of

1 On the theatre see D. R. Maukad in 1HQ, VIII, 1932, pp. 480-99.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 57

plots may be just, but it fails to take into account this peculiar

object of the Sanskrit drama.

Thus, the Sanskrit drama came to possess an atmosphere

of sentiment and poetry, which was conducive to idealistic

creation at the expense of action and characterisation, but

which in the lesser dramatists overshadowed all that was dramatic

in it. The analogy is to be found in Indian painting

and sculpture, which avoid the crude realism of bones and

muscles and concentrate exclusively on spiritual expression, but

which often degenerate into formless fantastic creation. This,

of course, does not mean that reality is entirely banished ; but

the sentimental and poetic envelopment certainly retards the

growth of the purely dramatic elements. It is for this reason

that sentimental verses, couched in a great variety of lyrical

measures and often strangely undramatic, preponderate and form

the more essential part of the drama, the prose acting mainly

as a connecting link, as a mode of communicating facts, or as

a means of carrying forward the story. The dialogue is^ therefore,

more or less neglected in favour of the lyrical stanza,

to- which its very flatness affords an effective contrast. It also

follows from this sentimental and romantic bias that typical

characters are generally preferred to individual figures. This

leads to the creation of conventional characters, like the king,

queen, minister, lover and jester, who become in course of time

crystallised into permanent types ; but this does not mean that

the ideal heroic, or the very real popular, characters are all

represented as devoid of common humanity. Carudatta, for

instance, is not a mere marvel of eminent virtues, but a perfect

man of the world, whose great qualities are softened by an

equally great touch of humanity ; nor is Dusyanta a merely

typical king-lover prescribed by convention ; while the Sakara

or the Vita in Sudraka's play are finely characterised. These

and others are taken from nature's never-ending variety of

everlasting types, but they are no less living individuals. At

the same time, it cannot be denied there is a tendency to large

8-1343B

generalisation and a reluctance to deviate from the type. It

means an indifference to individuality, and consequently to the

realities of characterisation, plot and action, as well as a corresponding

inclination towards the purely ideal and emotional

aspects of theme. For this reason also, the Sanskrit drama,

as a rule, makes the fullest use of the accessories of the lyric,

dance, music, song and mimetic art.

As there is, therefore, a fundamental difference in the

respective conception of the drama, most of the Sanskrit plays,

judged by modern standards, would not at all be regarded as

dramas in the strict sense but rather as dramatic poems. In

some authors the sense of the dramatic becomes hopelessly lost

in their ever increasing striving after the sentimental and the

poetic, and they often make the mistake of choosing lyric or epic

subjects which were scarcely capable of dramatic treitment. As,

on the one' hand, the drama suffers from its close dependence on

the epic, so on the other, it concentrates itself rather

disproportionately on the production of the polished

lyrical and descriptive stanzas. The absence of scenic aids, no

doubt, makes the stanzas necessary for vividly suggesting the

scene or the situation to the imagination of the audience and

evoking the proper sentiment, but the method progressively

increases the lyric and emotional tendencies of the drama, and

elegance and refinement are as much encouraged in the drama as

in poetry. It is not surprising, therefore, that a modern critic

should accept only Mudra-raksasa, in the whole range of Sanskrit

dramatic literature, as a drama proper. This is indeed an

extreme attitude; for the authors of the Abhijnana-fakuntala or

of the Mrcchakatika knew very well that they were

composing dramas and not merely a set of elegant poetical

passages ; but this view brings out very clearly the characteristic

aims and limitations of the Sanskrit drama. There is, however,

one advantage which is not often seen in the modern practical

productions of the stage-craft. The breath of poetry and

romance vivifies the Sanskrit drama ; it is seldom of a prosaic

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 59

cast ; it does not represent human beings insipidly under ordinary

and commonplace circumstances ; it has often the higher and

more poetic naturalness, which is no less attractive in revealing

the beauty, as well as the depth, of human character ; and even

uhen its dramatic qualities are poor it appeals by the richness of

its poetry.

As the achievement of concord is a necessary corollary to the

ideal character of the drama, nothing is allowed to be represented

on the stage which might offend the sensibility of the audience

and obstruct the suggestion of the desired sentiment by

inauspicious, frivolous or undesirable details. This rule regarding

the observance of stage-decencies includes, among other things,

the prohibition that death should not be exhibited on the stage.

This restriction, as well as the serene and complacent attitude of

the Indian mind towards life, makes it difficult for the drama, as

for poetry, to depict tragedy in its deeper sense. Pathetic episodes,

dangers and difficulties may contribute to the unfolding of the

plot with a view to the evoking of the underlying sentiment, but

the final result should not be discord. The poetic justice of the

European drama is unknown in the Sanskrit. The dramatist,

like the poet, shows no sense of uneasiness, strife or discontent

in the structure of life, nor in its complexity or difficulty, and

takes without question the rational order of the world. This

attitude also accepts, without incredulity or discomfort, the

intervention of forces beyond control or calculation in the affairs

of men. Apart from the general idea of a brooding fate or

destiny, it thinks nothing of a curse or a divine act as an artificial

device for controlling the action of a play or bringing about a

solution of its complication. It refuses to rob the world or the

human life of its mysteries, and freely introduces the marvellous

and the supernatural, without, however, entirely destroying the

motives of human action or its responsibility. The dramatic

conflict, under these conditions, hardly receives a full or logical

scope ; and however much obstacles may hinder the course of love

or life, the hero and the heroine must be rewarded in the long

run, and all is predestined to end well by the achievement of

perfect happiness and union. There are indeed exceptions to the

general rule, for the Uru-bhanga

1 has a tragic ending ; while the

death of Dagaratha occurs on the stage in the Pratima, like that

of Kamsa in the Bala-carita. There are also instances where the

rule is obeyed in the letter but not in spirit; lor Vasantasena's

apparent murder in the Mrcchakatika occurs on the stage, and

the dead person is restored to life on the stage in the Nagananda.

Nevertheless, the injunction makes Kaiidasa and Bhavabhuti

alter the tragic ending of the Urvasi legend and the Rdmayana

story respectively into one of happy union, while the sublimity

of the self-sacrifice of Jimutavahana, which suggests real

tragedy, ends in a somewhat lame denouement of divine intervention

and complete and immediate reward of virtue at the end.

In the Western drama, death overshadows everything and forms

the chief source of poignant tragedy by its uncertainty and

hopelessness ; the Indian dramatist, no Jess pessimistic in his

belief in the in exorable law of Karman, does not deny death,

but, finding in it a condition of renewal, can hardly regard it in

the same tragic light.

It is, however, not correct to say that the Sanskrit drama

entirely excludes tragedy. What it really does is that it excludes

the direct representing of death as an incident, and insists on a

happy ending. It recognises some form of tragedy in its pathetic

sentiment and in the portrayal of separation in love ; and tragic

interest strongly dominates some of the great plays. In the

Mrcchakatiha and the Abhijnana-sakuntala, for instance, the

tragedy does not indeed occur at the end, but it occurs in

the middle ; and in the Uttara-rama-carita where the tragic

interest prevails throughout, it occurs in an intensive form

at the beginning of the play. The theorists appear to maintain

1 It has, however, been pointed out (Sukthankar in JBRAS, 1925, p. 141) that the

UrU'bhahga is not intended to be a tragedy in one act; it J s only the surviving intermediate

act of a lengthy dramatised version of the Mohabliarata story; the Trivandrum dramas,

therefore, form no exception to the general rule prohibiting a final catastrophe.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS

that there is no tragedy in the mere fact of death, which

in itself may be a disgusting, terrible or undignified spectacle

and thus produce a hiatus in the aesthetic pleasure. Cruelty,

murder, dark and violent passions, terror and ferocity

need not have a premium. Undigested horrors are gloomy,

depressing and unhealthy ; they are without dignity or decorum

and indicate a morbid taste ; they do not awaken genuine pity

or pathos. The Sanskrit drama generally keeps to the high

road of life and never seeks the by-lanes of blood-and-thunder

tragedy, or representation of loathsome and unnatural passions.

Grim realism, in its view, does not exalt but debase the mind,

and thereby cause a disturbance of the romantic setting. The

theory holds that tragedy either precedes or follows the fact

of death, which need not be visually represented, but the effect

of which may be utilised for evoking the pathetic. It appears,

therefore, that tragedy is not totally neglected, but that it is

often unduly subordinated to the finer sentiments and is thus

left comparatively undeveloped. The theory, however, misses

the inconsolable hopelessness which a tragic ending inevitably

brings ; and the very condition of happy ending makes much

of the tragedy of the Sanskrit drama look unconvincing.

In spite of the unmistakable tone of earnestness, the certainty

of reunion necessarily presents the pathos of severance as a

temporary and therefore needlessly exaggerated sentimentality.

There are also certain other conditions and circumstances

which seriously affect the growth of the Sanskrit drama, in the

same way as they affect the growth of Sanskrit poetry. From

the very beginning the drama, like poetry, appears to have

moved in an aristocratic environment. It^is fostered in the same

elevated and rarefied atmosphere^and^ isj^Pgcted to sbowjhe

same characte ri sties , being regardedjjoth ^yj-h^ory and practice,

as a subdivision of the Kavya, to the general aim^andTmethod

of which it was more and more approximated. In the existing

specimens there is nothing primitive ; we have neither the

infancy of the drama nor the drama of infancy. The Sanskrit

drama was never popular in the sense in which the Greek drama

was. It is essentially a developed literary drama, inspired by the

elegant poetic conventions of the highly cultured Sahrdaya, whose

recognition was eagerly coveted ; and its dominant love-motif

reflects the tastes and habits of the polished court-circle, as well

as of the cultivated Nagaraka. The court-life in particular,

which forms the theme of a number of plays on the amourettes

of philandering princes, gives an opportunity of introducing

song/ dance and music ; and the graceful manner and erotic

sentiment become appropriate. In course of time, Poetics, Erotics

and l|famaturgy conventionalised these tastes and habits ; and

refined fancy and search after stylistic effect came in with the

gradual preference of the subtle and the finical to the fervid

and the spontaneous. The graces and artificialities of poetry

become reflected in the drama, which soon loses its true

accent of passion and fidelity to life.

Although the theorists lay down an elaborate classification

of the various categories of sentiments, it is yet curious to note

that in practice the sentiments that are usually favoured are

Hhe heroic and the erotic, with just an occasional suggestion

of the marvellous. This accords well with the ideal and romantic

character of the clramn, as well as with the fabulous and sungr-

~YH ' "^ "^^

natural elements which are freely introduced. The comic, under

the circumstances, hardly receives a proper treatment. The

Prahasana and the Bhana profess to appeal to the comic sentiment,

but not in a superior form ; and the survival of an

insignificant and limited number of these types of composition

shows that they did not succeed very well. The other sentiments

are also suggested but they hardly become prominent. Even

in the heroic or lofty subjects, an erotic underplot is often

introduced ; and in course of time the erotic overshadows every

other sentiment, and becomes the exclusive and universally

appealing theme. It is true that the love-plots, which predominate

in the drama, are not allowed to degenerate into mere

portrayals of the petty domestic difficulties of a polygamic systeip,

ORIGINS AND CHABACTBKISTICS 63

but the dramatists often content themselves with the developing

of the pretty erotic possibilities by a stereotyped sentimental

scheme of love, jealousy, parting and reunion. The sciences

of Poetics and Erotics take a keen delight ex accidenti in

minutely analysing the infinite diversities of the amatory condition

and in arranging into divisions and subdivisions, according to

rank, character, circumstances and the like, all conceivable types

of the hero, the heroine, their assistants and adjuncts, as well as

the different shades of their feelings and gestures, which afford

ample opportunities to the dramatic poet for utilising them

for their exuberant lyrical stanzas. This technical analysis

and the authority of the theorists lead to the establishment of

fixed rules and rigid conventions, resulting in a unique growth

of refined artificiality.

There is indeed a great deal of scholastic formalism in the

dramatic theory of sentiment, which had a prejudicial effect

on the practice of the dramatist. The fixed category of eight

or nine sentiments, the subordination to them of a large number

of transitory emotions, the classification of determinants and

consequents, the various devices to help the movement of the

intrigue,: the normative fixing of dramatic junctures or stages

in accorflance with the various emotional states, the arrangement

of the dramatic modes (Vrttis)

1 into the elegant (Kausiki), the

energetic (Sattvati), the violent (ArabhatI), and the verbal

(Bharati), according as the sentiment is the erotic, the heroic,

the marvellous* or only general, respectively all these, no

doubt, indicate considerable power of empirical analysis arid

subtlety, and properly emphasise the emotional effect of the

drama ; but, generally speaking, the scholastic pedantry

concerns itself more with accidents than with essentials, and the

refinements of classification are often as needless2 as they are

1 Bbarata's description shows that the Vrttis do not refer to mere dramatic styles, but

also to dramatic machinery and representation of incidents on the stage.

*

E.g., classification of Naty&tamkaras and Laksanas, the subdivisions of the

Satndbyangag, etc*

confusing. Although the prescriptions are not always logical but

mostly represent generalisations from a limited number of

plays, the influence of the theory on later practice is undoubted.

As in the case of poetry, the result is not an unmixed good; and,

after the creative epoch is over, we have greater artificiality and

unreality in conception and expression. Apart from various limitations

regarding form, theme, plot and character, one remarkable

drawback of the dramatic tlicory, which had a practical effect on

the development of the drama as drama, lies in the fact that it

enforces concentration of the sentiment round the hero or the

heroine, and does not permit its division with reference to the

rival of the hero, who therefore becomes a far inferior character

at every point. The theorists arc indeed aw, ire of the value of

contrast. To preserve the usual romantic atmosphere the ideal

heroes are often contrasted with vicious antagonists. But the

possibility is not allowed of making an effective dramatic creation

of an antagonist (like Havana, for instance), who often becomes

a mere stupid and boastful villain. The Sanskrit drama is

thereby deprived of one of the most important motifs of a real

dramatic conflict.

Ten chief (Rupaka) and ten to twenty minor (Uparupaka)

types of the Sanskrit drama are recognised by the Sanskrit

dramatic theory.

1 The classification rests chiefly on the elements

of subject-matter (Vastu), hero (Nayaka) and sentiment (Rasa),

but also secondarily on the number of acts, the dramatic modes

and structure. The distinctions are interesting and are apparently

based upon empirical analysis ; they show the variety of dramatic

experiments in Sanskrit ; but since few old examples of most of the

types exist, the discussion becomes purely academic. The generic

term of the drama is Rupaka, which is explained as denoting any

visible representation ; but of its ten forms, the highest is the

Nataka which is taken as the norm. The heroic or erotic

1 For an analysis of the various types and specimens, see D. R. Mankad, Types of Sanskrit

Dramaf

cited above.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 65

Nataka, usually consisting of five to ten acts, is given a legendary

subject-matter and a hero of elevated rank; but the practice

shows that it is comparatively free from minor restrictions. The

Prakarana is of the same length and similar structure, but it is a

comedy of manners of a rank below royalty, with an invented

subject and characters drawn from the middle class or even lower

social grades, including the courtesan as the heroine and rogues

of all kind. These two types, the Nataka and the Prakarana, are

variations of the full-fledged drama ; but the details of the other

types are not clear, and some of them are hardly represented in

actual specimens. The Samavakara, in three acts, is the supernatural

and heroic drama of gods and demons, involving fight,

fraud and disturbance, but of this we have no early specimen.

For a similar want of authentic specimens, it is difficult to distinguish

it from the Pima, usually in four acts, which is inadequately

described, but which is given a similar legendary theme

with a" haughty hero, fight and sorcery, and the furious sentiment,

its name being derived accordingly from a hypothetical root dim,

'

to wound.' The Vyayoga, as its name suggests, is also a military

spectacle, with a legendary subject and a divine or human

hero engaged in strife and battle ; but it is in one act, and the

cause of disturbance is not a woman, the erotic and the

comic sentiments being debarred. The type is old, and we have

some specimens left, but they are of no great merit. We have,

however, no living tradition of the Ihamrga, the %Vithi and the

Utsrstanka. The first of these, usually extending to four acts

but allowed to have only one, has a fanciful designation, supposed

to be derived from its partly legendary and partly invented

theme of the pursuit (Iha) of a maiden, as attainable as the

gazelle (Mrga), by a divine or human hero of a haughty character ;

but in it there is only a show of conflict, actual fight being

avoided by artifice. The other two agree in having only one act

and in having ordinary heroes, but the erotic and the pathetic

sentiments (with plenty of wailings of women !) respectively

predominate. The obscure name Vlthl,

c

Garland/ is explained

9-1848B

by its having a string of other subsidiary sentiments as well.

1

The name Utsrstanka is variously explained,

2 but since one of the

explanations

8

speaks of its having a kind of inverted action, it is

suggested that it may have had a .tr.-igic ending, contrary to

ordinary practice. The Bhana, on the other hand, is fortunate

in having some old and late specimens. It is also a one-act

play, erotic in character, but with only one hero-actor, namely

the Vita ; it is carried on in monologue, the theme progressing

by a chain of answers given by him to imaginary words '

spoken

in the air/ and usually describing the love-adventures of the

hero.4 The comic is sometimes introduced in it ; and in this

feature, as well as in the ribald character of the

"

hero/

1

it has

affinity with the next type, namely, the Prahasana, the one-act

farce, the theme of which consists of the tricks and quarrels of

low characters ; but the Sanskrit farce has little appeal because of

its lack of invention and somewhat broad and coarse laughter.

As the very name Uparupaka implies, the eighteen minor

forms of the drama were evolved much later, but it is difficult

to say at what period they carne into existence. Bharata does

not deal with any Uparupaka, except the NatI (xviii. 106); and the

first enumeration of seventeen varieties, without the designation of

Uparupaka and without any discussion, occurs in the Alamkara

section of the Agni-purana (c. 9th century). Abhinavagupta only

incidentally mentions nine, and the commentary on the Daar&paha

1 B'lt the Natya-darpona suggests : vokrokti-mdrgena gamandd rithlva mfhi.

2

E.g., vtkraminonmuliha srstir jwitairi yasam ta uisritika tocantyah striyns t&bhir

ahkitatrdd ulsrstikahkah from the Natya-darpana (ed. GOS, Haroda, 1920, p. 180). Or, ViSvanatha's

alternative suggestion : natakadyantahpatyahka-paricclieriartham utsrstdhkah.

3 utsrsta viloma-rupa srstir yatra, ViSvanatha in Sahitya-darpana.

4 It is curious that in the Bhftna, Bharata forbids the Kabs'ikl mode, which gives scope to

love and gallantry and which is eminently suitable to an erotic pUy ; but the element of Lasya

is allowel,of which, however, little trace remains in the existing specimens, but which

is probably a survival in theory of what probably was a feature in practice. D. R. Mankad

(op. cit.) puts forward the attractive, but doubtful, theory that the one-act monologue play,

the Bhana, was the first dramatic type to evolve ; but in spite of its seemingly loose dramatic

technique, it is too artificial in device to be primitive, or even purely popular in origin,

the existing specimens are late and have a distinctly literary form.

ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS 67

only seven in the same way. Some of the minor forms are doubtless

variations or refinements on the original Rupaka varieties, but

there is some substance in the contention 1

that, as the Natyacame

to be distinguished from the Nrtya, the Rupaka was mainly based

onjhejjla^a and the Uparupaka on the Nrtya. It is highly

possible that while the rhythmic dance was incorporating

histrionics into itself, it was at the same time developing the

minor operatic forms, in which dance and music originally

predominated, but which gradually modelled itself on the regular

drama. The Natika, for instance, is the lesser heroic and erotic

Nataka, just au the Prakaranika, admitted by some, is a lesser

Prakarana; but in both these there are opportunities of introducing

song, dance and music. The Sattaka is only a variation of

the Natika in having Prakrit as the medium of expression ;

while the Trotaka, but for the musical element, is hardly distinguishable

in itself from the Nataka. The remaining forms

have no representative in early literature and need not be enumerated

here ; they show rather the character of pantomime,

with song, dance and music, than of serious drama. Whatever

scholastic value these classifications may possess, it is not of

much significance in the historical development of the drama,

for most of the varieties remain unrepresented in actual practice.

The earlier drama does not appear to subscribe fully to the rigidity

of the prescribed forms, and it is only in a general way that we

can really fit the definitions to the extant specimens.

In the theoretical works, everything is acholastically classified

and neatly catalogued ; forms of the drama, types of heroes and

heroines, their feelings, qualities, gestures, costumes, make-up,

situations, dialects, modes of address and manner of acting. All

this perhaps gives the impresssion of a theatre of living marionettes.

But in practice, the histrionic talent succeeds in infusing

1 Mankad in the work cit^d. The term Upartipaka is very late, the earliar designations

being Nrtyaprakara and Geyarupaka. On the technical difference between Rupaka and

Upapiipaka, see Hernacandra, Kavyanusasana, ed. NSP, Comin. p. 329 f.

blood into the puppets and translating dry formulas into lively

forms of beauty, while poetic genius overcomes learned scholasticism

and creates a drama from the conflict of types and

circumstances.

CHAPTER II

FKOM A3VAOEO?A TO KALI DASA

1. ASVAGiJOSV AND HiS bCHOOL

Fifty years ago Asvaghosa was nothing more than a name,

but to-day all his important works have been published, and he

is recognised as the first great Kavya-poet and precursor of

Kalidfisa. Very little however, is known of his personal history

except what is vouchsafed by legends

* and what can be gathered

from his works themselves. The colophons to his Kfivyas agree in

describing him as a Bhiksu or Buddhist monk of Saketa (Ayodhya)

and as the son of Suvarnaksi,

* of golden eyes/ which was the name

of his mother. They also add the style of Acarya and Bhadanta,

as well as of Mahakavi and Mahavadin. As an easterner,

Asvaghosa's admiration of the Ramayana 2

is explicable, while it

is probable that he belonged to some such Buddhist school of

eastern origin as the Mahasanghika or the Bahusrutika.8 He

makes little display of purely scholastic knowledge ; but the

evidence of his works makes it clear that he had a considerable

mastery over the technical literature which a Sanskrit poet was

expected to possess, and a much wider acquaintance than most

other Buddhist writers of the various branches of Brahmanical

learning. His Sanskrit is not strictly faultless, but his easy

command over it is undoubtedly not inferior to that of most

1 A legendaiy biography of Asvaghosa was translated into Chinese hy Kumrajlvc

between 401 and 409 A.D. ; extracts from it in W. Wassiljew, Der Buddhismus, St. Petersburg

I860, p. iJ81 f. Cf. J^ t 1908, 11, p. 65 for Chinese authorities on the Asvaghoa legend.

2 On the poet's indebtedness to the liamayana, which Cowell and Johnston deal witl

in the introductions to their respective editions of the Buddha-carita, see also A. Gawronski

Studies about the Sanskrit-Buddhist Lit., Krakow, 1'JIU, ip, 27-40; C. W. Gurner in JASB

XX11, IU'27, p. 347 f ; Wmteruitz, HJL, 1, p. 5J'2 f.

3 See Johnston, op. cit. 9 pt. II, introd., p. xxxi f.

   

Sanskrit writers. Everywhere great respect is shown toBrahmanical

ideas and institutions, and it is not improbable that he was

born a Brahman and given a Brahman's education before he

went over to Buddhism. The obvious interest he shows in the

theme of conversion in at least two of his works and the zeal

which he evinces for his faith perhaps fortify this presumption.

The Chinese tradition makes l

Asvaghosa a contemporary and

spiritual counsellor of king Kaniska. The poet did not probably

live later than the king, and it would not be wrong to put the

lower limit of his date at 100 A.D. But 'in associating with

Asvaghosa the Sarvastivadin Vibhasa commentary on the

Abhidharma, or in naming the Vibhasa scholar Parsva or his

pupil Punyayasas as having converted Asvaghosa, the tradition,

which cannot be traced further than the end of the 4th century

and which shows more amiable than historical imagination, is

perhaps actuated by the motive of exalting the authority of this

school ; for neither the date of the commentary is certain, nor can

the special doctrines of the Sarvastivadins be definitely traced in

the unquestioned works of Asvaghosa. That he was a follower

of Hinayana and took his stand on earlier dogmatism admits of

little doubt, but he was less of a scholastic philosopher than an

earnest believer, and his emphasis on personal love and devotion

to the Buddha perhaps prepared the way for Mahayana Bhakti,

of which he is enumerated as one of the patriarchs. It is not

necessary for us to linger over the question of his scholarship or

religion ;

2 but it should be noted that, while his wide scholarship

informs his poems with a richer content, it seldom degenerates

into mere pedantry, and the sincerity of his religious convictions

1 On Chinese and other Buddhist sources concerning As"vaghoa, see S. Levi in JA,

1892, p. 201f ; 1896, II, p. 444 f ; 1908, II, p. 67 f ; 1928, II, p. 193 ; M. Anesaki in ERE, IT,

1909, p. 159 f and reff. ; T. Suzuki in the work cited below. On Kaniska 's date, see Winternitz,

HJL, II, App. V, pp. 611-14 for a summary of different views.

2 The question is discussed by Johnston in his introduction. Some doctrines

peculiar to Mabayana have been traced iu As*vaghosa's genuine works, but his date is too

early for anything other than primitive Mabayana. The recommendation of Yogacara in

Saundar&nanda XIV. 18 and XX. 68 need not refer to the YogScara school, but perhaps alludes

only to the practice of Yoga in general.

A&VAGHOSA AND HIS SCHOOL 71

imparts life and enthusiasm to his impassioned utterances, and/

redeems them from being mere dogmatic tredtises or literary

exercises.

To later Buddhism A6vaghosa is a figure of romance, and

the Chinese and Tibetan translations of Sanskrit works, made in

later times, ascribe to him a number of religious or philosophical

writings, some of which belong to developed Mahayana.1 In the

absence of Sanskrit originals, it is impossible to decide Agvaghosa's

authorship; but since they have not much literary

pretensions it is not necessary for us to discuss the question.

Among these doubtful works, the Mahayana-raddhotpada-astra 9

which attempts a synthesis of Vijnana-vada and Madhyamika

doctrines, has assumed importance from its being translated into

English,

2 under the title

'

Asvaghosa's Discourse on the Awakening

of Faith/ from the second Chinese version made about 700

A.D. ; but the internal evidence of full-grown Mahayana doctrine

in the work itself puts Asvaghosa's authorship out of the question.

Another work, entitled Vajrasucl 'the Diamond-needle',

8 a

clever polemic on Brahmanical caste, has also been published,

but it is not mentioned among Asvaghosa's works by the Chinese

pilgrim Yi-tsing (7th century) nor by the Bstan-hgyur, and it

shows little of Asvaghosa's style or mentality ; the Chinese

translation, which $fp made between 973 and 981 A.D., perhaps

rightly ascribes it TO Dharmakirti. Of greater interest is the

Gandl-stotra-gatlia, a small poem of twenty-nine stanzas, composed

mostly in the Sragdhara, metre, the Sanskrit text of which

has been restored 4 and edited. It is in praise of the Gandl, the

1 A full list is given by F. W. Thomas in Kvs, introd., p. 26 f ,

2 by T. Suzuki, Chicago 1900. Takakusu states that the earher catalogue of Chinese

texts omits the name of A6vaghosa as the author #f this work. The question of several

As"vaghosas is discussed by Suzuki and Anesaki, cited above. On this work see Winternitz,

H/L,It, pp. 36162andreff.

3 ed. and trs by Weber, Uber die Vajrasuci, in Abhandl. d. Berliner Akad., 1859,

pp. 205-64, where the problem of authorship is discussed.

4 by A. Von Stael-Holateiu, in Bibl. Buddb., no. XV, St. Petersburg 1913, and

re-edited by E. H. Johnston in IA, 1933, pp. 61-70, where the authorship of Afoaghosa has been

questioned. Of. F. W. Thomas in JRAS, 1914, p. 752 f.

Buddhist monastery gong, consisting of a long symmetrical piece

of wood, and of the religious message which its sound is supposed

to carry when beaten with a short wooden club. The poem is

marked by some metrical skill, but one of its stanzes (st. 20)

shows that it was composed in Kashmir at a much later time. 1

The next apocryphal work is the Siitralamkara,

2 over the

authorship of which there has been a great deal of controversy.

8

The Chinese translation of the work, made by KumarajTva about

405 A.D. assigns it to Avaghosa ; but fragments of the same

work in Sanskrit were discovered in Central Asia and identified

by H. Liiders,

4 who maintains that the author was Kumaralata,

probably a junior contemporary of A6vaghosa, and that the work

bore in Sanskrit the title of Kalpana-manditika or Kalpanalamkrtikd.

As the name indicates, it is a collection of moral tales

and legends, told after the manner of the Jatakas and Avadanas in

prose and verse, but in the style of the ornate Kavya. Some of

the stories, such as those of Dirghayus and Sibi, are old, but

others clearly inculcate Buddha-bhakti in the spirit of the Mahayana.

The work illustrates the ability to turn the tale into an

instrument of Buddhist propaganda, but it also displays wide

culture, mentions the two Indian Epics, the Samkhya and Vaisesika

systems, the Jaina doctrines and the law-book of Manu, and

achieves considerable literary distinction. It is unfortunate that

the Sanskrit text exists only in fragments. Yuan Ghwang

informs us that Kumaralata was the founder of the Sautrantika

school and came from Taxila ; it is not surprising, therefore, that

1 A work, entitled Tridarnja-mala, is ascribed to Asvaghosa in JBORS, XXTV, 1938,

pp, 157-fiO, b-it JoLnston, ibid, XXV, 1939, p. 11 f, disputes it

2 Translated into French on the Chinese version of Kumara;iva, by Ed. Huber, Paris 1908.

3 For references Fee Tormmatsu in JA t 1931, IT, p. 135 f. Also L. de la Valise Pouasin,

VijflaptimatrasiddJn, pp. 221-24.

4 Bruchstiicke der Kalpanamanditiha des Kumaralata in Kongl Treuss Turfan-

Expeditiomn,Kleinere Sanskrit-Texte II, Leipzig 1926. The fragments are valuable, but

unfortunately they are too few in number, and the work is still to be judged on the basis of the

Chinese version. Some scholars hold that Avaghosa waa the real author, and Kumaralata

only refashioned the work ; but it is now generally agreed that A6vagho?a had nothing to do

with its composition.

 

Om Tat Sat
                                                        
(Continued...) 

(My humble salutations to Sreeman S N Dasgupta ji and Sreeman S K De ji for the collection)