नाट्यशास्त्रम् (प्रथम भाग - अभिनवभारती एवं हिन्दी टीका सहित)
Natyashastra of Bharata Muni with Hindi Commentary (Vol 1)
भरत मुनि / आचार्य अभिनवगुप्त द्वारा
XXIX
Pleasure, p. 408 ; 55-56. The Energetic Style, p. 408 ; 57. The four varieties of the Energetic Style, p. 408 ; 58. Compression, pp. 408-409 ; 49. Commotion, p. 409 ; 60. Raising the Theme, p. 409 ; 61-62. Conflict p. 409 ; 63-65. Styles according to Sentiments, p. 409 ;
CHAPTER TWENTYTHREE
THE COSTUMES AND MAKE-UP, Pages 410-439
1-3. Necessity of the Costumes and Make-up, 410 ; 4. Four kinds of Costumes and Make-up, p. 410. 5-8 The four kinds of model-work, pp. 410-411 ; 9. Decoration, p. 411 ; 10. Garlands, p. 411 ; 11. Four kinds of ornament, p. 411 ; 12. Piercing ornaments, Tied-up ornaments, p. 411 ; 13. Worn ornaments, Put-round ornaments, p. 412 ; 14. Ornaments according habitation and tribal origin, p. 412 ; 15. Ornaments for males : Head ornaments, Ear ornaments, p. 412 ; 16. Neck ornaments, Finger ornaments, pp. 412-413 ; 17. Ornaments of the forearm, Wrist ornaments, p. 413 ; 18. Ornaments above the elbow, Breast ornaments, p 143 ; 19. Ornaments for the entire body, Waist ornaments, p. 413 ; 20-23. Ornaments for females : Head ornaments, p. 419 ; 23-25. Ear ornaments, pp. 414-415 ; 26-27. Neck ornaments, p. 415 ; 28. Breast ornaments, p. 415 ; 29. Arm ornaments p. 416 ; 30. Finger ornaments, p. 416 ; 31-33. Hip ornaments, pp. 416-417 ; 34-36. Ornaments of the ankles, p. 417 ; 37-44. Other rules about ornaments, pp. 417-418 ; 45-51. Costume of celestial women p. 418-419 ; 52. Siddha women ,p. 419 ; 53. Gandharva women p. 419 ; 54. Rākṣasa women, p. 419 ; 55. Goddesses, p. 419 ; 56-57. Monkey females, pp. 419-420 ; 58. Human females according to their countries, p. 420 ; 59. Women of Avanti and Gauḍa, p. 420 ; 60 Ābhīra women, p. 420 ; 61. Women of the North-east, p. 420 ; 62-63. Women of the South, p. 420 ; 64. Ornaments to be worn in the right place, pp. 420-421; 65-67. Dresses to suit the condition of females, p. 420 ; 68. Painting the limbs, p. 421 ; 69. The four original colours, p. 421 ; 70. The derivative colours, p. 421 ; 71-74. The primary derivative colours, pp. 421-422 ; 75-80. The secondary derivative colours, p. 422 ; 81. Living beings, p. 422 ; 82. Lifeless objects, p. 422 ; 83. Lifeless objects in human form, p. 422 ; 84. Painting the limbs, p. 422 ; 85-87. Colour for gods, p. 423 ; 88-89. Colours for demigods, 90-92. Colours for human beings in different regions, p. 424 ; 93. Colours for Bhūtas and Dwarfs, p. 424 ; 94-98. Colours of different peoples of Bhāratvarṣa, p. 424 ; 99-101. Colours of different tribes, p. 425 ; 102. Colours of different castes, p. 426 ; 103-109. Rules for the beard, p. 426-427 ; 110-127. Rules for different costumes, pp. 427-429 ; 128. Use of masks, p. 429 ; 129-139. Three kinds of crown, pp. 430-431 ; 139-145. Rules of different hairs, p. 431 ; 146-148. The Sa jīva, p. 432 ; 148-155. The use of weapons, pp. 432-433 ; 156-158. Use of other objects, p. 433 ; 159. Indra's Banner-staff, p. 433 ; 160-167. The Jarjara, pp. 433-434 ; 167-170.
XXX
The Daṇḍakāṣṭha, p. 434; 170-180. The making of masks, pp. 435-436; 180-187. Other accessories, p. 436; 187-198. The realistic and conventional objects, p. 437; 198-208. Making of ornaments, pp. 438-439; 208-211. Use of weapons on the stage, p. 439.
C H A P T E R T W E N T Y F O U R
THE BASIC REPRESENTATION, Pages 440-482
1-2. Importance of Temperament p. 440; 3. The definition of Temperament, p. 440; 4-5. Feminine graces in the drama, pp. 440-441; 6. Physical graces of women, p. 441; 7. The origin of these graces, p. 441; 8. Feeling, p. 441; 9-10. Emotion, p. 441; 11. Passion, p. 441; 12-13. Natural Graces of women, p. 442; 14. Sportive Mimicry, p. 442; 15. Amorous Gestures, p. 442; 16. Dishabille, p. 442; 17. Confusion, p. 442; 18. Hysterical Mood, p. 443; 19. Manifestation of Affection, p. 443; 20. Pretended Anger, p. 443; 21. Affected Coldness, p. 443; 22. Lolling, p. 443. 23. Want of Response, p. 443; 24. Involuntary Graces of women, p. 444; 25. Beauty, p. 444; 26 Charm, Radiance, p. 444; 27. Delicacy p. 444; 28. Self-control, p. 444; 29-30 Courage, Dignity, p. 444-445; 31. Eight aspects of the male Temperament, p. 445; 32. Brilliant Character, p. 445; 33. Graceful Bearing, p. 445; 34. Self-possession, p. 445; 35. Tenacity, pp. 445-446; 36. Gravity, p. 446; 37. Sportiveness, p. 446; 38. Nobility, p. 446; 39. Spirit, p. 446; 40-41. Histrionic Representation through the body, p. 446; 42. Word, p. 447; 43. Sūcā, p. 447; 44. Aṅkura, p. 447; 45. Śākhā, p. 447; 46-47. Nāṭyāyita, p. 447; 48. Nivṛtyaṅkura, p. 448; 49-51. Twelve forms of the verbal Rerpesentation, p 448; 52. Accosting, Prattling, p. 448; 53. Lament, Repeated Speaking, p. 448; 54. Dialogue, Change of Words, pp. 448-449; 55. Message, Agreement, p. 449; 56. Command, Pretext, p. 449; 57. Instruction, Statement, p. 449; 58-71. Another classification of the Verbal Representation, pp. 449-451; 72-73. The basic Representation, p. 451; 74-75. Regular Histrionic Representation, p. 451; 76-77. Irregular Histrionic Representation, p. 451; 78. Lakṣaṇa defined, p. 452; 79. Practice preferred to the Śāstra, p. 452; 80. Representation of the sensual perception, p. 452; 81. Sound, p. 452; 82. Touch, p. 452; 83. Form, p. 452; 84-85. Taste and Smell, pp. 452-453; 86. Importance of the mind, p. 453; 87. The three aspects of the of the mind p. 453; 88-89. The favourable mind, p. 353; 90. The unfavourable mind, p. 453; 91-92. The indifferent mind, p. 453; 93. The meaning of "personal", and the meaning of "external", pp. 453-454; 94-95. Desire, p. 454; 95-96. Love, p. 454; 97-98. Erotic Affair, p. 454; 89-100. Various types of women, p. 454; 101-102. The woman of divine type, pp. 454-455; 103-104. The woman of Asura type, p. 455; 105-106. The woman of Gandharva type, p. 455; 107-108. The woman of
XXXII
Personal omens, pp. 473-474 ; 258. Heroine's reception of the beloved, p. 474 ; 259-264. Receiving the guilty lover, pp. 474-475 ; 264. Causes of jealousy, p. 475 ; 265-266. Depression, p. 475 ; 267-268. Mixed Feeling, p. 475 ; 269-270. Disgust, pp. 475-476 ; 271-272. Anger, p 476 ; 273-292. On treating a lover at fault, pp. 476-478 ; 293-298. Acts forbidden on the stage, pp. 478-479 ; 299-300. Endearing terms for the beloved p. 479 ; 301. Angry terms of address for the beloved, p. 479 ; 302-309. Endearing terms of address explained, pp. 479 ; 310-319. Angry terms of address explained, pp. 480-481 ; 320-328. Goddesses in human roles, pp. 481-482.
C H A P T E R T W E N T Y F I V E
DEALINGS WITH COURTEZANS, Pages 483-492.
1-2. The definition of a Gallant, p. 483 ; 3-8. Qualities of a Gallant, pp. 483-484 ; 9-10. The female Messenger, p. 484 ; 11-12. Qualities of a Messenger, p. 484 ; 13-18. Functions of the female Messenger, p. 485 ; 19. The woman overcome with love, p. 485 ; 20-23. The attached woman, pp. 485-486 ; 24-27. The hostile woman, p. 486 ; 28-29. Winning back of women's heart, p. 486 ; 30-31. Causes of hostility, p. 486 ; 32-35. Acts winning women's heart, pp. 486-487 ; 36. The three types of woman, p. 487 ; 37-39. The superior woman, p. 487 ; 40-41. The middling woman, p. 487 ; 42. The inferior woman, p. 487 ; 43. The four stages of woman's youth, p. 488 ; 44. The primary youth, p. 488 ; 45. The secondary youth, p. 488 ; 46. The tertiary youth, p. 488 ; 47-48. The quarternary youth, p. 488 ; 49. Behaviour in the primary youth, p. 488 ; 50. Behaviour in the secondary youth, pp. 488-489 ; 51. Behaviour in the tertiary youth, p. 429 ; 52. Behaviour in the quarternary youth, p. 489 ; 53-54. Five types of man, p. 489 ; 55. The excellent man, p' 489 ; 56-37. The superior man, p. 489 ; 68-59. The middling man, p. 490 ; 60-61. The inferior man, p. 490 ; 62-63. The too old man, p. 490 ; 64-66. Psychological approach to women, pp. 490-491 ; 67. Conciliation, p. 491 ; 68. Gift. p. 491 ; 69. Dissention, Chastisement, p. 491 ; 70-72. Application of Conciliation, Gift etc. p. 491 ; 73. Reading a woman's heart from her behaviour, p. 491 ; 74-80, A courtezan's mercenary treatment of men, p. 492.
C H A P T E R T W E N T Y S I X
SPECIAL REPRESENTATION, Pages 493-510
- Special Representation, p. 493 ; 2-4. Day, night, season etc. 5. Objects on the ground, p. 493 ; 6. Moonlight, happiness and air etc, p. 494 ; 7. The sun, dust, smoke etc. 8. Midday sun, p. 494 ; 9. Pleasant objects, p. 494 ; 10. Sharp objects, p. 494 ; 11. Deep and exalted feeling, p. 494 ; 12. Necklace and flowers etc, p. 494 ; 13. The idea of entirety,
XXXV
External persosn, pp. 535-536; 78-82 The king, p. 536; 82-83. The leader of the army, p. 536; 84-85. Councillors, pp. 536-537; 85-87. Judges, p. 537; 87-90. Courtiers, p. 537.
CHAPTER THIRTYFIVE
DISTRIBUTION OF ROLES, Pages 538-552
- Distribution of Roles, p. 538; 2-4. General principles of distribution, p. 538; 5-6. The role of gods, p. 538; 7-8. The role of Rākṣasas, the Dānavas etc, pp. 538-539; 9-11, The role of kings, p, 539; 12-13. The role of army leaders and councillors, p, 539; 14, The role of the Kañcukin and the Śrotriya, p, 539; 15-17, The role of minor characters, p. 539-540; 19, The role of fatigued persons, The role of persons without disease, pp, 440; 19-21. Special cases of assigning roles, p, 540; 22-23. The roles of characters with extra or special limbs, pp. 540-541; 24. The first entry of a character. p. 541; 25-26. The result of proper impersonation, p. 541; 27. The psychological preparation for impersonation, p. 541; 28. The three kinds of impersonation, p. 541; 29. The natural impersonation, p. 541; 30, The unnatural impersonation, p. 541; 31-33. Imitative representation, p. 542; 33-36. Suitability of women in some roles, 542; 37. Training for women in different roles, p. 524; 38. Result of proper assignment of roles, pp 542-543; 39-41. Result of employing women for acting, p. 543; 42. The two types of dramatic production, p. 543; 43-47. The delicate type of production, pp. 543-544; 48-53. The violent type of production, pp. 544-545; 53-59. The typical impersonation of a king; p 545; 59-62. Impersonation of the attendants of gods, p. 546; 62-68. The characteristics of a Director, pp. 546-547; 69-71. The natural qualities of a Director, p. 547; 71-72. Characteristics of an Assistant to the Director, p. 547; 72-73. Characteristics of an Actor, p. 547; 73-44. Characteristics of the Parasite, p. 547; 75. Characteristics of the Śakāra, pp. 547-548; 76. Characteristics of the Jester, p. 548; 77. Characteristics of the servant, p. 548; 78-81. Characteristics of the courtezen, p. 548; 81-83, Characteristics of the typical Heroine, p. 548; 83-85. Women disqualified to be Heroines, p. 549; 85-89. Members of the typical theatrical party, p. 549; 89-91. Characteristics of the Jester, pp. 549-550; 91-92. Characteristics of the master musician, p. 550; 92-93. Meaning of the word Naṭa, p. 550; 93-95. Benediction defined. p. 550; 96-97. Characteristics of the playwright, p. 551; 97-98. Characteristics of the Actor, p. 551; 98-99. Characteristics of the actress, p, 551; 99-100. The maker of headgears, p. 551; 100-101. The maker of ornaments, p. 551: 101-102. The maker of garlands, the costumer, the painter and the dyer, p, 551; 103-104. The Craftsmen, the Kuśīlavas, p, 552; 104-135. The other members of the party, p. 552.
XXXVI
CHAPTER THIRTYSIX
THE DESCENT OF DRAMA ON THE EARTH, Pages 553-661
1-9. Sages question, pp. 553-554; 10. Bharata's reply, pp. 554; 11-23. The Preliminaries and their uses, pp. 554-555; 24-26. The ablution of the Director on the stage, p. 555; 27-29. Bharata's sons offended the sages by caricature, p. 556; 30-36. The sages curse Bharata's sons, pp, 556-557; 37-38. Gods intercede in favour of Bharata's sons, p. 557; 39-40. Bharata's sons approach their father, p. 557; 41-45. Bharata pacifies them, pp, 557-558; 46-49. Nahuṣa invites divine artistes to the earth, p. 558; 50-51. Gods reject the request, p. 558; 52-53. Nahuṣa approaches Bharata, p. 559; 54-57. Urvaśī and the mundane drama, p. 559; 58-61. Bharata grants the request and sends his sons to the earth, pp. 659-560; 62-63. Kohala is the successor of Bharata, p. 560; 65-68, Bharata's sons come down to the earth, p. 560; 62-70, Kohala and his associates, p. 560; 71-73 Value of the Nāṭyaśāstra, p. 561; 74-77. Value of the dramatic show, and the final Benediction, p. 561.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS ... p. 562
INTRODUCTION
I. The Present Work
1. General History of the Study
Since the West came to know of the Sanskrit literature through William Jones’s translation of the Śakuntalā¹, the nature and origin of the ancient Indian theatre have always interested scholars, especially the Sanskritists, all over the world. H. H. Wilson who published in 1826 the first volume of his famous work on the subject² deplored that the Nāṭyaśāstra, mentioned and quoted in several commentaries and other works, had been lost for ever³. F. Hall who published in 1865 his edition of the Daśarūpa⁴, a medieval work on the Hindu dramaturgy, did not see any Ms. of the Nāṭyaśāstra till his work had greatly advanced⁵. And for the time being he printed the relevant chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra as an appendix to his Daśarūpa. Later on he undertook to critically edit the Ms. of the Nāṭyaśāstra he acquired; but this venture was subsequently given up, due perhaps to an insufficiency of materials which consisted of one unique Ms. full of numerous lacunae.⁶ But even if the work could not be brought out by Hall, his very important discovery soon helped others to trace similar Mss. elsewhere. And in 1874 Heymann, a German scholar, published on the basis of Mss. discovered up till that date a valuable article⁷ on the contents of the Nāṭyaśāstra. This seems to have been instrumental in attracting competent scholars to the study of this very important text. The French Sanskritist P. Regnaud published in 1880 chapter XVII⁸ and in 1884 chapter XV (in part) and the chapter XVI⁹ of the Nāṭyaśāstra. This was soon followed by his publication of chapters VI and VII in 1884.¹⁰ And J. Grosset another French scholar and a pupil of Regnaud, published later on (in 1888) chapter XXVIII¹¹ of the Nāṭyaśāstra which treated of the general theory of Hindu music.
¹ Sacontala, or the Fatal Ring. Translated from the original Sanskrit and Pracrita, Calcutta 1789.
² H. H. Wilson, Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus (3 vols), Calcutta, 1826-1827.
³ Wilson, p. 37. Grosset, Introduction, p. iij.
⁴ The Dasarupa by Dhananjaya (Bibliotheca Indica), Calcutta, 1861-1865.
⁵ Grosset, Introduction, v. iij.
⁶ See note 5 above.
⁷ Ueber Bharata's Natyasastram in Nachrichten von der Koeniglischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Goetingen 1874, pp. 86 ff. Ref. Grosset, Introduction p x, ID. pp 2-3.
⁸ Le dix-septieme chapitre du Bharatiya-natyasastra. Annales du Musee Guimet; Tome, 1. 1880, pp. 85 ff.
⁹ La metrique de Bharata, texte Sanscrit de deux chapitres du Natyasastra public pour premier fois et suivi d'une, interpretation francaise, Annales due Musee Guimet, Tome, II, 1884, pp. 65 ff.
¹⁰ Rhetorique sanscrite, Paris, 1884.
¹¹ Contribution a l'etude de la musique hindou, Lyons, 1888.
XXXVIII
But the different chapters of the work and studies on them, which were published up till 1888, though very helpful for the understanding of some aspects of the ancient Indian dramatic works cannot be said to have thrown any considerable light on the exact nature of the ancient Hindu plays, especially the manner of their production on the stage. Sylvain Lévi’s Théâtre indien (1890) in which he discussed comprehensively the contribution of his predecessors in the field and added to it greatly by his own researches, made unfortunately no great progress in this specific direction. Though he had access to three more or less complete Mss. of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Lévi does not seem to have made any sérious attempt to make a close study of the entire work except its chapters XVII-XX (XVIII-XXII of our text) and XXXIV. The reason for his relative indifference to the contents of the major portion (nearly nine-tenths) of the work, seem to be principally the corrupt nature of his Ms. materials, Like his predecessors, Lévi paid greater attention to the study of the literary form of the ancient Hindu plays with the difference that he utilised for the first time the relevant chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra,¹² to check the accuracy of the statements of later writers on the subject like Dhanañjaya¹³ and Viśvanātha¹⁴ who professed their dependence on the Nāṭyaśāstra. But whatever may be the drawback of Lévi’s magnificient work, it did an excellent service to the history of ancient Indian drama by focussing the attention of scholars on the great importance of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Almost simultaneously two Sanskritists in India as well as one in the West were planning its publication. In 1894 Pandits Shivadatta and Kashinath Pandurang Parab published from Bombay the original Sanskrit text of the work.¹⁵ This was followed in 1898 by J. Grosset's¹⁶ critical edition of its chapters I-XIV based on all the Mss. available up till that date.
Though nearly half a century has passed after the publication of Grosset's incomplete edition of the Nāṭyaśāstra, it still remains one of the best specimens of modern Western scholarship, and though in the light of the new materials available, it is possible now-a-days to improve upon his readings in a few places, Grosset's work will surely remain for a long time a landmark in the history of the study of this important text. It is a pity that this very excellent work remains unfinished. But a fact equally deplorable is that it failed to attract sufficient attention of scholars
¹² Chapters XVII-XX (XVIII-XXII of our text).
¹³ The author of the Dasarupa. See above note 4.
¹⁴ The author of the Sahityadarpana. See below.
¹⁵ Sri Bharatamuni-pranitam, Natyasatram, ( Kavyamala, 42 ) Bombay, 1894.
¹⁶ Traite du Bharata sur le Theatre. Texte sanscrit, Edition critique. Tome I. Partie, I. (Annales de l’Universite de Lyons, Fasc. 40, 1898)
XXXIX
interested in the subject.. Incomplete though it was, it nevertheless contained a good portion of the rules regarding the presentation of plays on the stage, and included valuable data on the origin and nature of the ancient Indian drama, but no one seems to have subjected it to the searching study it deserved. Whoever wrote on Hindu plays after Lévi depended more on his work than on the Nāṭyaśāstra itself, even when this was available (at least in a substantial part) in a critical edition. It may very legitimately be assumed that the reasons which conspired to render the Nāṭyaśāstra rather unattractive included among other things, the difficulty of this text which was not yet illuminated by a commentary.
Discovery in the early years of the present century of a major portion of a commentary of the Nāṭyaśāstra by the Kashmirian Abhinavagupta¹⁷ seemed to give, however, a new impetus to the study of the work. And it appeared for the time being that the Nāṭyaśāstra would yield more secrets treasured in the body of its difficult text. But the first volume of the Baroda edition of the work (ch. I-VII)¹⁸ including Abhinava's commentary, disillusioned the expectant scholars. Apart from the question of the merit of this commentary and its relation to the available versions of the Nāṭyaśāstra, it suffered from a very faulty transmission of the text. Not only did it contain numerous lacunae, but quite a number of its passages were not liable to any definite interpretation due to their obviously vitiated nature. Of this latter condition the learned editor of the commentary says, 'the originals are so incorrect that a scholar friend of mine is probably justified in saying that even if Abhinavagupta descended from the Heaven and seen the Mss. he would not easily restore his original reading. It is in fact an impenetrable jungle through which a rough path now has been traced'. The textual condition of Abhinava's commentary on chapters VIII-XVIII (VIII-XX of our text) published in 1934¹⁹ was not appreciably better.
But whatever may be the real value of the commentary, the two volumes of the Nāṭyaśāstra published from Baroda, which were avowedly to give the text supposed to have been taken by Abhinava as the basis of his work, presented also considerable new and valuable materials in the shape of variant readings collated from numerous Mss. of the text as well as from the commentary. These sometimes throw new light on the contents of Nāṭyaśāstra. A study of these together with a new and more or
¹⁷ Dr. S. K. De seems to be the first in announcing the existence of a more or less complete Ms. of Abhinava's commentary, and in recommending its publication. See Skt, Poetics, Vol I. pp. 120-121.
¹⁸ Natyasastra with the commentary of Abhinavagupta. Edited with a preface, Appendix and Index by Ramakrishna Kavi. Vol 1, Baroda 1926.
¹⁹ Natyasastra with the commentary of Abhinavagupta. Edited with an Introduction and Index by M. Ramakrishna Kavi. Vol. II, Baroda, 1934.
XL
less complete (though uncritical) text of the work published from Benares in 1929²⁰ would, it is hoped, be considered a desideratum by persons interested in the ancient Indian drama. The present work has been the result of such a study, and in it has been given for the first time a complete annotated translation of the major portion of the Nāṭyaśāstra based on a text reconstructed by the author. ²¹
2. The Basic Text
The text of the Nāṭyaśāstra as we have seen is not available in a complete critical edition, and Joanny Grosset's text (Paris-Lyons, 1898) does not go beyond ch. XIV. Hence the translator had to prepare a critical edition of the remaining chapters before taking up the translation.²² For this he depended principally upon Ramakrishna Kavi's incomplete edition (Baroda, 1926, 1934) running up to ch. XVIII (our XX) and including Abhinava's commentary, as well as the Nirnayasagar and Chowkhamba editions (the first, Bombay 1894. and the second, Benares, 1929). As the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra has been available in two distinct recensions, selection of readings involved some difficulty. After the most careful consideration, the translator has thought it prudent to adopt readings from both the recensions, whenever such was felt necessary from the context or for the sake of coherence, and these have been mentioned in the footnotes. But no serious objection may be made against this rather unorthodox procedure, for A. A. Macdonell in his critical text of the Bṛhaddevatā (Cambridge, Mass. 1904) has actually worked in this manner, and J. Grosset too in his edition does not give unqualified preference to any racension and confesses that due to conditions peculiar to the Nāṭyaśāstra his text has 'un caractere largement éclectique' (Introduction, p. xxv) and he further says 'nous n'avions pas l'ambition chimérique de tendre a la reconstitution du Bharata primitif......(loc. cit.). Conditions do not seem to have chaged much since then.
²⁰ Sri-Bharatmuni-pranitam Natayasastram. (Kashi-Sanskrit Series, Benares, 1929.
²¹ This edition will be published later on. The following chapters of the NS. have been translated into French : ch XIV and XV ( our XV and XVI ) Vagabhinaya by P. Regnaud in his Metrique du Bharata ; see note 8 above, ch. XVII ( our XVIII ) Bhasavidhana by Luigia Nitti-Dolci in her Les Grammairiens Prakrit. This has been partially ( 1-24 ) translated into English by the present writer in his Date of the Bharata-Natyasastra, See JDL, 1930, pp. 73f. Chapter XXVIII by J. Grosset in his Contribution a l'etude de la musique hindou ; see note 10 above. Besides these, ch, XXVIII by B. Breoler in his Grund-elemente der alt-indischen Musik nach dem Bharatiya-natya-sastra. Bonn. 1922, and ch. IV by B. V. N. Naidu, P. S. Naidu and O. V. R. Pantlu in the Tandavalaksanam, Madras, 1936 and chapters I-III translated into Bengali by the late Pandit Asokenath Bhattacharyya in the Vasumati, 1352 B S.
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.
XLIII
preferable and shows a superior poet, For the fable should be so construc-
ed that without the assistance of the sight its incidents may excite horror
and commisseration in those who hear them only; * * * *
But to produce this effect by means of the decoration discovers want of
art in the poet; who must also be supplied with an expensive apparatus"
(II. XIII).³
But in case of the Hindu dramas the decoration (i. e. the costumes
and make-up) mostly plays an important part. Equally with five other
elements such as gestures and postures (āṅgika), words (vācika), the
representation of the Temperament (sattva), it gives the Nāṭya its charac-
teristic form. But in the theatre of the Greeks, it was not the case. In the
performance of the tragedies, for example, they did not care much for the
spectcale, if the declamation was properly made. For Aristotle himself says
that, "the power of tragedy is felt without representation and actors"
(II. III).⁴
Another peculiarity of the Hindu dramas was their general dependence
on dance (nṛtya), song (gīta), and instrumental music (vādya). Though
the chorus of the Greek tragedy introduced in it some sort of dance and
songs, the function of these clements seem to have been considerably differ-
ent in the Hindu drama. The ancient Indian play was produced through
words, gestures, postures, costumes, make-up, songs and dances of actors,
and the instrumental music was played during the performance whenever
necessary. But these different elements did not play an equal part in all the
plays or different types of play. According as the emphasis was to be put
on words, music, or dance, a play or its individual part partook of the
nature of what the moderns would call 'drama', 'opera', 'ballet' or 'dramatic
spectacle'⁵. Due to this nature the Hindu dramas which connected them-
selves in many ways with song, dance and instrumental music, had a literary
form which was to some extent different from that of the ancient Greeks.
But it was not so much due to this literary form as to the technique of
their production on the stage that the Hindu dramas received their special
character.
After forming a general idea of this Nāṭya, from the various terms
used to denote it, one should enquire what the ancient Indian theorists
exactly meant by the term (Nāṭya) or what they regarded as being the
essence of the dramatic art as opposed to the arts of poetry, fiction or pain-
ting. To satisfy, our curiosity on this point the Nāṭyaśāstra gives us the
following passage which may pass for a definition of the Nāṭya.
"A mimicry of the exploits of gods, the Asuras, kings as well as of
householders in this world, is called drama" (I. 120).
³ Poetics (Everymans Library), p. 27.
⁴ Ibid. p. 17.
⁵ H.H. Wilson, On the Dramatic System of the Hindus, Calcutta, 1827, pp. 16,20.
XLIV
This description seems to fall in a line with Cicero's view that "drama is a copy of life, a mirror of custom, a reflection of truth". In this statement Cicero evidently takes his cue from Aristotle who considered that the art in general consisted of imitation (mimesis). But this does not help us very much to ascertain the nature of drama as an example of 'imitation'. For the Greek philosopher nowhere defines this very essentially important term. So when he declares that "epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, dythrambics as also for the most part the music of the flute and of the lyre all these are in the most general view of them imitations"⁶, one can at best guess how drama imitates. There seems to be no such difficulty about understanding the view of the Hindu theorists. The Nāṭyaśāstra lays down very elaborate rules as to how the drama is to make mimicry of the exploits of men and their divine or semi-divine counterparts. It is due to rules of representation that the Hindu drama has been called by the later theorists 'a poem to be seen' (SD. 270-271). By this term epic or narrative poetry and fiction etc. are at once distinguished from drama which is preminently a spectacle including a mimicry of activities of mortals, gods or demigods. It may now be asked what exactly was meant by the word mimicry (anukaraṇa) used by the Indian theorists. Did this mean a perfect reproduction of the reality ? For an answer to this question we are to look into the conventions of the Hindu drama.
2. The Dramatic Conventions
That the Hindu theorists turned their attention very early to the problem of dramatic representation and enquired about the exact place of realism or its absence in connection with the production of a play, is to be seen clearly from their very sensible division of the technical practice into "realistic" (lokadharamī, lit. popular) and "conventional" (nāṭyadharmi, lit. theatrical". By the realistic practice, the Nāṭyaśāstra (XIV. 62-76 ; XXIII. 187-188) means the reproduction of the natural behaviour of men and women on the stage as well as the cases of other natural presentation. But from the very elaborate treatment of the various conventions regarding the use of dance, songs, gestures and speeches etc. by different characters it is obvious that the tradition of the ancient Hindu theatre recognised very early the simple truth that the real art to deserve the name, is bound to allow to itself a certain degree of artificiality which receives its recognition through many conventions. One very patent example of this conventional practice on the stage, is speeches uttered 'aside' or as soliloquy. The advocates of extreme realism may find fault with these as unnatural, and the accusation cannot be denied, but on closer examination of circumstances connected with the construction of a play as well as its production on the stage, it will be found that if the spectators are to demand realism very
⁶ Poetics, p. 5'
XLV
rigidly then no theatrical performence of any value, may be possible. Neither the Hindus nor the Greeks ran after this kind of absurdity. Critics of ancient Indian dramas will do well to remember this and to take care to understand the scope and necessity of various conventions relating to the production, so that they may better appreciate the art of great play-wrights like Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, Śūdraka and Viśākhadatta.
3. Time and place in Drama
Hindu playwrights, unlike the majority of Greek tragedians, did never make any attempt to restrict the fictional action to a length of time roughly similar to that taken up by the production of a drama on the stage. In developing plots they had not much restriction on the length of time, provided that individual Acts were to include incidents that could take place in course of a single day, and nothing could be put in there to interrupt the routine duties such as saying prayers or taking meals (XX. 23), and the lapse of time between two Acts, which might be a month or a year (but never more than a year)⁷ was to be indicated by an Introductory Scene (praveśaka) preceding the last one (XX. 27-28).
Similarly there was almost no restriction about the locality to which individual Actors, and gods in their human roles were to be assigned, except that the human characters were always to be placed in India i.e. Bhāratavarṣa (XX. 97).
4. The Unity of Impression
In spite of having no rules restricting the time and place relating to different incidents included in the plot of a drama, the playwright had to be careful about the unity of impression which it was calculated to produce. For this purpose the Nāṭyaśāstra seems to have the following devices :
The Germ (bīja) of the play as well as its Prominent Point (bindu) was always to relate to every Act of the play and the Hero was sometimes to appear in every Act or to be mentioned there (XX. 15, 30).
An Act was not to present too many incidents (XX. 24), and such subsidiary events as might affect the unity of impression on their being directly presented, were merely to be reported in an Introductory Scene. Besides this, short Explanatory Scenes were sometimes put in before an Act to clarify the events occuring in it (XXI). 106-111. All these, not only helped the play to produce an unity of impression but also imparted to its plot a rapidity of movement which is essential for any kind of successful dramatic presentation.
5. Criticism of Drama
Indians from very early times considered plays to be essentially 'spectacle' (prekṣā) or 'things' to be visualised; hence persons attending
⁷ Bhavabhuti however violates the rule in his Uttara. in letting many years pass between Acts I and II.
XLVI
the performance of a play were always referred to (XXVII. 48-57) as 'spectators' or 'observers' (prekṣaka)⁸ and never as audience (śrotṛ), although there was always the speech element in it, which was a thing to be heard. This disposes of the question of judging the value of a drama except in connection with its production on the stage This importance of the representational aspect of a play has possibly behind it an historical reason. Though in historical times we find written dramas produced on the stage, this was probably not the case in very early times, and the dialogues which contribute an important part of the drama were often improvised on the stage by the actors⁹, and this practice seems to have continued in certain classes of folk-plays till the late medieval times¹⁰. Hence the drama naturally continued to be looked upon by Indians as spectacles even after great playwright creators like Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, Śūdraka, and Bhavabhūti had written their dramas which in spite of their traditional form were literary master-pieces.
Now, dramas being essentially things to be visualised, their judgement should properly rest with the people called upon to witness them. This was not only the ancient Hindu view, even the modern producers, in spite of their enlisting the service of professional (dramatic) critics, depend actually on the opinion of the common people who attend their performance.
The judgement of the drama which is to depend on spectators has been clearly explained in the theory of the Success discussed in the Nāṭyaśāstra (XXVII). In this connection one must remember the medley of persons who usually assemble to witness a dramatic performance and what varying tastes and inclinations they might possess. For, this may give us some guidance as to what value should be put on their judgement which appear to have no chance of unity. In laying down the characteristics of a drama the Nāṭyaśāstra has the following : "This (the Nāṭya) teaches duty to those bent on doing their duty, love to those who are eager for its fulfilment, and it chastises those who are ill-bred or unruly, promotes self-restraint in those who are disciplined, gives courage to cowards, energy to heroic persons, enlightens men of poor intellect and gives wisdom to the learned. This gives diversion to kings, firmness [of mind] to persons afflicted with sorrow, and [hints of acquiring] wealth to those who are for earning it, and it brings composure to persons agitated in mind. The drama as I
⁸ Prekṣa occurring in NŚ. III. 99. seems to be the same as 'pekkhā' mentioned in Pali Brahmajālasutta See Levi. II. p. 54. ⁹ Winternitz, Vol.I. pp. 101-102.
¹⁰ The Kṛṣṇakīrtana, a collection of Middle Bengali songs on Kṛṣṇa and Radha's love-affairs, seems to have been the musical framework of a drama. We saw in our early boyhood that extemporised dialogues were a special feature of the old type Bengali Yātras. These have totally disappeared now under the influence of modern theatre which depend on thoroughly written plays.
XLVII
have devised, is a mimicry of actions and conducts of people, which is rich in various emotions and which depicts different situations. This will relate to actions of men good, bad and indifferent, and will give courage, amusement and happiness as well as counsel to them all" (I.108-112).
It may be objected against the foregoing passage that no one play can possibly please all the different types of people. But to take this view of a dramatic performance, is to deny its principal character as a social amusement. For, the love of spectacle is inherent in all normal people and this being so, every one will enjoy a play whatever be its theme, unless it is to contain anything which is anti-social in character. The remarks of the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra quoted above on the varied profits the spectators will reap from witnessing a performance, merely shows in what diverse ways different types of plays have their special appeal to the multitudinous spectators. And his very detailed treatment of this point, is for the sake of suggesting what various aspects a drama or its performance may have for the spectators. This manysidedness of an ideal drama has been very aptly summed up by Kālidāsa who says, "The drama, is to provide satisfaction in one [place] to people who may differ a great deal as regards their tastes" (Mālavi. I.4). It is by way of exemplifying the tastes of such persons of different category that the Nāṭyaśāstra says :
"Young people are pleased to see [the presentation of] love, the learned a reference to some [religious or philosophical] doctrine, the seekers after money topics of wealth, and the passionless in topics of liberation.
Heroic persons are always pleased in the Odious and the Terrible Sentiments, personal combats and battles, and the old people in Purāṇic legends, and tales of virtue. And common women, children and uncultured persons are always delighted with the Comic Sentiment and remarkable Costumes and Make-up" (XXV. 59-61).
These varying tastes of individual spectators were taken into consideration by the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra when he formulated his theory of the Success. The Success in dramatic performance was in his opinion of two kinds, divine (daivikī) and human (mānuṣī) (XXVII. 2). Of these two, the divine Success seems to be related to the deeper aspects of a play and came from spectators of a superior order i.e. persons possessed of culture and education (XXVII. 16-17), and the human Success related to its superficial aspects and came from the average spectators who were ordinary human beings. It is from these latter, who are liable to give expression to their enjoyment or disapproval in the clearest and the most energetic manner, that tumultuous applause and similar other acts proceeded (XXVII. 3, 8-18, 13-14), while the spectators of the superior order gave their appreciation of the deeper and the more subtle aspects of a play (XXVII, 5, 6, 12, 16-17). During the medieval times the approval of the spectators of the latter kind came to be considered appreciation par