THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF SANSKRIT DRAMAS

 

The dramatic representation ³naaT\yama\´ consists in the imitation of a condition or a state in life ‘AvasqaanauÌit: naaTyama\’ or of an occurrence happening in the world ‘laaokvaR<aanaukrNaM naaTyama\’. The purpose of such representation is set forth thus in Bharata’s NatyaSastra:

‘]<amaaQamamaQyamaanaaM naraNaaM kma-saMEayama\.      ihtaopdoSajananaM QaRitËIDasauKaidÌt\॥

du:Kaqaa-naaM Eamaaqaa-naaM Saaokata-naaM tpisvanaama\. ivaEaaintjananaM laaoko naaT\yamaptnmayaa Ìtma\ ॥

The dramatic representation is to be based on the activities of people of three types – high, middle and low. It must give people good instruction and provide them with cheer, pastime and pleasure. It must afford rest and diversion at the proper hour to those who are afflicted with misery and grief. All these show that the Sanskrit drama is based on actual life and has a realistic touch. When it is mentioned by Bharata that the dramatic representation is intended   to give good advice to people, to provide them with diversion, sports etc. it is suggested that people who witness a dramatic performance are to enjoy it. The individual who witnesses the drama has therefore an emotion aroused in him reaching to aesthetic pleasure.

            The theme ³[itvaR<ama\´ of a play may be based on the traditional source, on the imagination of the dramatist and on an admixture of both. The Epics and Upakhyanas have supplied much material for the dramatists. The Abhij`nanasakuntalam, Vikramorvasiyam, Venisamharam and others illustrate this. Malatimadhavam and Mrcchakatikam are social dramas. Mudrarakshasa is a political drama.

            Next to the plot, the characters come to occupy importance in the Sanskrit dramas. The division of the characters into male and female and into high, middle and low imparts reality to the plays. The heroes are of four types viz., Dhirodatta - ‘QaIraoda<a:’ Dhiroddhata - ‘QaIraowt:’ Dhiralalita - ‘QaIrlailat:’ Dhirasanta - ‘QaIrSaant:’. While heroism and fortitude are common to all, sublimity, amorous gaity, tranquillity and boisterousness are respectively their distinctive features. As lovers, they are of four types viz., Anukta, Dakshina, Dhrshta and Satha. Next to the hero, the Vidushaka plays a useful part in the drama. He is a Brahmin, foolish and is depicted as a minister of love affairs. He talks in Prakrtam. Among the women characters, the heroine occupies an important place. All women characters speak in Prakrtam.

            Next to the plot or Vastu and Neta or hero, Rasa or sentiment plays an important role in Sanskrit dramas. The sentiment of love is the subject of most of the Indian dramas and we very often find the repetition of the same dramatic motif and sometimes of the same dramatic situations in many plays. But the Indian dramatist is rarely excelled in the masterly manner in which he describes the intricate working of the lover’s heart. Rasa or sentiments are nine in number.

‘EaR=\gaarhasyakÉNaa raOd`vaIrBayaanaka:. baIBa%saad\BautSaantaSca rsaa: PaUvaO-Éda)ta:॥’

Sringara or the erotic, Vira or the heroic, Karuna or the pathos, Hasya or the comic, Raudra or the furious, Bhayanaka or the frightful, Bhibatsa or the loathsome, Adbhuta or the wonderful and Santa or the trsnquil are the nine rasas.Four different kinds of dramatic styles are prescribed in works of dramaturgy to suit the various sentiments and they are called Kaisiki, Arabhati,Satvati and Bharati. 

 

            A drama begins generally with a benediction called Nandi - ‘naandI’. The recitation of this marks the end of the observance of certain preliminary ceremonies called Purvaranga performed behind the curtain. The stage manager called Sutradhara enters the stage after Nandi is recited. In some plays he enters the stage and recites it. He then engages himself in a talk with his wife, Vidushaka or friend and makes references to the title and author of the drama. He leaves the stage with his members after announcing the arrival of a character on the stage. This portion is called Prastavana, Amuka or Sthapana. The scenes involving the presentation of death, fight etc. and those difficult and unnecessary in the context are avoided and the information about them is conveyed through five devices viz., Vishkambaka, Pravwsaka, Culika, Ankavatara and Ankasya. The first two are in the form of conversation between two or more characters. The first one is pure (Shuddha) when middle characters speaking Sanskrit take part and is mixed when low characters also speaking Prakrtam take part. The second device, which is not to be allowed in the first act of the play, is only in Prakrtam. The low characters take part in it. The Culika connects any two acts through a speech made behind the curtain. The Ankavatara is indicated by the absence of the characters at the beginning of an act thus showing it to be in continuation of the previous one. The Ankasya makes a reference to what follows in the succeeding act through the characters of the previous act.

            The Sanskrit drama does not observe the unities of time and place in the western sense. Some plays, for instance, Sakuntala cover the incident of several years. The scene of action also changes very radically sometimes from earth to heaven. The unity of action too is not observed in the strict Aristotelian sense that only one central action is to be depicted; for two or even three parallel plots are interwoven in the same play occasionally. Thus in many respects the Sanskrit drama bears greater resemblance to the Elizabethan plays than to the Greek comedy.

THEORIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE SANSKRIT DRAMAS - PART II

3. Greek Influence:

        Hellenism in Hindu culture has been for a long time favourite theme of discussion among the scholars of the East and West. Prof.Weber suggested that a certain influence might have been exerted from the Greek on the Sanskrit drama. The term ‘yavainaka’ or ‘javainaka’ meaning screen is according to him – resemblance to Ionian counterpart. It also suggests the importation of the curtain from the Greek drama along with some other material. This theory of Prof.Weber has been exploded long ago.

First of all there is a great difference between the two civilisations. Regarding the actual presentation, at the courts of Greek Princes in India, of dramatic entertainments, the evidence is very scarce. The Sanskrit drama had only an indigenous origin. It had begun to be cultivated from the 8^th Century B.C. and passed into lethargy by about 400 A.D. there is no historical evidence , which proves the relationship between the Greeks and the Hindus prior to Alexander’s invasion. Modern critics classify dramas as classical and romantic. The Greek tragedy belongs to the classical type whereas the Sanskrit dramas, by universal consent are admitted to be romantic. Had there been Greek influence on Sanskrit dramas why should the copy be so different from the original? In fact they belong to two opposite schools. The word ‘yavainaka’ or ‘javainaka’ has no special application to the curtain of the theatre. The argument that the ‘yavaina’s (Greek maidens) represented as the bodyguards of Indian Kings need not necessarily point to Hellenic impact for, the practice probably represents the fond of Indian Princes for the fascinating Greek damsels and the readiness of the Greek traders to make high profits by shipping these youthful cargos.

All the theories of Western Scholars are obviously advanced at random to dishonour the capabilities of ancient Indians and the national tendencies of their time-honoured institutions. Thus the indigenous origin of Sanskrit Dramas cannot be denied and discounted.

Indian tradition attributes divine origin to the Sanskrit Drama. At the request of the gods who desired to have something which would delight both the ears and eyes of all the created beings, the creator composed the Natyaveda taking the element of recitationfrom the RgVeda, song from the SamaVeda, gestures from the YajurVeda and sentiment from the AtharvaVeda, Shiva and Parvati contributed to the part of dance, the former giving his Tandava and the latter her Lasya. Vishnu brought forth the four dramatic styles called ‘kOiSakI’ ‘saa%vatI’ ‘BaartI’ ‘AarBaTI’. Sage Bharata was authorised to transfer it to the world and make it popular which he accordingly. This Natyaveda came to be also called the ‘Fifth Veda’.

THEORIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE SANSKRIT DRAMAS - PART I

 

1.     Religious origin:

Some scholars are of the opinion that the drama had its origin in religious solemnities and spectacles. ‘kMsavaQama\’ and ‘bailabanQama\’ twin dramas referred to by Patanjali are distinctively religious in tone, taking their source from the epics.

The religious beginning of the Sanskrit dramas can be attested to by the position occupied by the ‘ivadUYak:’ – Comedian. Generally plays were staged during religious festivals. In fact, the first drama by Brahma was staged on Indrotsava day. If, to this, we add our knowledge that almost all the Sanskrit dramas were staged during some local temple festivals, the arguments for the religious origin of the Sanskrit drama are complete.

A western scholar records that the dramas may have had their origin from the funeral ceremonies. He also claims that funeral ceremonies were at the bottom of the development of dramatic spectacles all over the world, because the gods of different races were only heroic men deified after their death. This theory is wholly wrong as applied to India. Indians were not used to arranging spectacles as part of the funeral ceremony to gratify the spirits of the departed.

2.     Secular origin:

(a)   Professors Hillebrandt and Know held that drama means some kind of diversion or amusement. But the austere Brahmin, the custodian of religion, would not have permitted such merriment and levity. The introduction of Prakrt and the ridiculous figure that the Brahmin Vidushaka cuts in the Sanskrit dramas, also pointed, according to them, to the non-brahmin authorship of Sanskrit dramas. The simplicity of the Sanskrit stage as contrasted with the pomp that characterised a sacrifice seemed also to negate the religious origin for the Sanskrit dramas.

Our traditional pundits do not approve the arguments of the two professors. They say that both of them have erred in assigning the origin of the drama completely to the non-priestly class. The use of Prakrt is just to produce mass appeal. The appearance of the Brahmin Vidushaka does not denote hatred towards priestly class but a desire to produce maximum pleasure. His clarity of expression and his correct accenting might have been the cause for his selection.

(b)   Prof.Pischel attempts to find evidence for the source of the Sanskrit drama in the “Puppet play”. The existence of the puppet play is attested to by the Mahabharata. In the Kathasarit Sagara of Somadeva we hear a damsel, daughter of the wonderful divine craftsmen Maya, who amused her companion with puppets which could speak, dance, fly, fetch water and so on. In the Bala Ramayanam of Rajasekhara, Ravana is represented as deceived by a puppet resembling Sita in whose mouth a parrot was placed to give suitable reply to his entreaties. The term ‘saU~Qaar:’ (Sutradhara) which means “the puller of the strings” and ‘sqaapk:’ (Sthapaka) which means “the arranger” add to the possibilities of the puppet play being the origin of Sanskrit Drama.

Prof.Hillebrandt has argued against this theory on the ground that the puppet play assumes the pre-existence of the dramatic technique on which it must essentially be placed. So he uses the early date of the puppet play as a proof of the still earlier existence of the Sanskrit drama.

(c)   Prof.Luders argues that the shadow-play might have been the embryo of the drama. The term occurring in the Mahabhashya has led the professor to conclude as before. The shadow plays ³CayaanaaTkma\´ available to us are not strictly speaking shadow plays. Moreover the shadow play also assumes the pre-existence of dramatic technique. Thus an earlier date for the dramatic theme can never be negative. So the argument of Prof.Luders is not convincing.

HISTORICAL KAVYAS IN SANSKRIT PART II

 

Navasāhasāṁkacharita 

Another notable historical poem written in the background of Padma Gupta's Navasāhasāṁkacharita history. Another name for this Munj is Navasahsanka. The book was written in 1005 AD during the reign of Dharadhi Pati Nabasahsanka. The subject matter of this poem is the story of marriage and love story with Shashi Prabha Navasahsanka, daughter of Shishupala Nag, with Sindhu Raj through various events. The poem is composed in the eighteenth canto. Some information about the period of Navasahsanka reign is available from this poem. The book has gained special respect in the scholarly community in Hawaii with its poetic quality.

Somapalavilasam

In the same 12^th century another poet of Kashmir by name JALHANA wrote his historical Kavya titled SOMAPALAVILASA, describing the history of the King Somapala who ruled Rajapuri in the neighbour of Kashmir.

Vemabhupala Caritam

Following the example of Bana, VEMANA BANA of 15^th century A.D. wrote his historical Kavya, Vemabhupala Caritam or Vipra Narayana Caritam Vemabhupala Caritam.  He was also called AbhinavaBhatta Bana.  In his poem he has described the life and victory of Vemabhupala or Vipranarayanan, the poet’s patron.  Himself born of Srivatsa Gotram, Vamana claims a kinship with Bana and styles himself as one who can refute the popular belief that Bana could not be equalled in writing beautiful prose.  His imitation of Bana is very close and inspite of want of originality.  Vamana’s book contains many passages of considerable merit.    

Apart from this, there are some poems written by Sandhyākar Nandi like "Ramcharit", Jaināchārya Hemchandrā's "Kumārpālcharita", Someswar Dutta's "Kirtikaumudi", Rāmabhadrāmbaa's "Raghunāthābhyudaya" etc. These poems have also enriched the repertoire of Sanskrit historical Kavya.