नाट्यशास्त्रम् (प्रथम भाग - अभिनवभारती एवं हिन्दी टीका सहित)

XLII

But even when supplied with these notes, readers of this translation may have some difficulty in reconstructing from the work written in a diffuse manner the picture of the ancient Indian drama in its theatrical as well as literary form, as it existed in the hoary antiquity. To give them some help the theory and practice of the ancient Hindu drama has been briefly discussed below together with other relevant matters.

II. The Ancient Indian Theory of Drama

1. The Meaning of Natya

The word “Nāṭya” has often been translated as ‘drama’ and the plays of ancient India have indeed some points of similarity with those of the Greeks. But on a closer examination of the technique of their production as described in the Nāṭyaśāstra, the Hindu dramas represented by the available specimens, will appear to be considerably different. Unless this important fact is borne in mind any discussion on the subject is liable to create a wrong impression. As early as 1890 Sylvain Lévi (pp. 423-424) noticed that Indian Nāṭya differed from the Greek drama from which the Westerners derived their early conception of the art. Though it is not possible to agree with Lévi on all points about the various aspects of this difference and the causes which he attributed to them, no one can possibly have any serious objection against his finding that, “Le nāṭaka par se nature autant que par son nom se rapproche de la dance scenique ; le drame est l'action meme” (loc. cit). Lévi however did not for reasons stated above fully utilize in this connection the Nāṭyaśāstra which contains ample materials for clarifying his conclusion.

The essential nature of the (Nāṭya) derived from its etymology cannot by any means be called fanciful. For in the Harivaṃśa¹ (c. 200 A.C) we meet with an expression like nāṭakaṁ nanṛtuḥ (they danced a play) and the Karpūramañjarī² (c. 1000 A. C.) has an expression like saṭṭaaṁ naccidavvaṁ (a Saṭṭaka is to be danced or acted).

The terms like rūpaka or rūpa (representation) and prekṣā (spectacle), all denoting dramatic works, also characterise the Hindu dramas and show their difference from the drama of the Greeks who laid emphasis on action and not on the spectacle. Of the six parts of the tragedy, the most typical of the Greek dramatic productions, Aristotle puts emphasis on the fable or the plot and considers decoration to be unimportant. On this point the philosopher says :

“Terror and pity may be raised by decoration—the mere spectacle; but they may also arise from the circumstance of the action itself, which is far

---

¹ Viṣṇuparvan, Ch. 93. Śl. 28,
² Ed. M. Ghosh, p. 80.