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.