1. Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama Michael Lockwood Vishnu Bhat A. Part 1

Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama Second, Revised and Enlarged Edition

Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama Second, Revised and Enlarged Edition

Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama

Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama Second, Revised and Enlarged Edition

Michael Lockwood and A. Vishnu Bhat

Tambaram Research Associates

Tambaram Research Associates

MCC, Tambaram, Madras 600 059

Copyright © 2005 by Michael Lockwood

First edition copyright © 1994 by Michael Lockwood

Typeset by T.R.A. on a Macintosh ® PB G3

Printed at Sudarsan Graphics, Madras 600 017

Preface

In 1963, Lionel Abel’s book, Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form, was published. In that book Abel introduced a new term to describe what he thought was the only form possible to the contemporary playwright who wishes to treat a subject gravely. He held that tragedy, invented by the Greeks to describe pain and yet give pleasure, is unrealizable today. In the late Renaissance, a revolution occurred in human consciousness which made tragedy impossible. But playwrights such as Calderón and Shakespeare wrote ‘serious’ plays which were self-reflexive: the illusion that sustains the play worlds also sustains the world outside the plays - the so-called ‘real world’.

Abel’s theory of metatheater is not a simple one, and it is, perhaps, better to look at a later analysis of this and related terms: ‘metadrama’, ‘metaplay’, etc.

The basic idea of metatheater is of multiple ‘layers’ of illusion. The prefix, ‘meta-’, here, suggests ‘beyond’, ‘above’, or ‘within’. Metatheater, in one of its senses, can be viewed as one make-believe (dramatic) world superimposed upon another make-believe (dramatic) world. Or as one dramatic world framed within another dramatic world. The most easily understandable example of this relationship is the ‘play-within-the-play’. Of course, this idea did not first come into being in the age of Calderón and Shakespeare. The idea of multiple layers of illusion is as old as theater itself. But it is only since Abel’s book was published in 1963 that a whole area of criticism and theory has sprung up in the West under the general heading of ‘metatheater’ or ‘metadrama’.

Richard Hornby, in his book, Drama, Metadrama, and Perception (1986), has given a clear and concise analysis of different types of ‘metatheater/metadrama’:

1. The play within the play:

i) the Inset type - the inner play is secondary

ii) the Framed type - the inner play is primary

2. The ceremony within the play:

In all cultures we find plays that contain feasts, balls, pageants, tournaments, games, rituals, trials, inquests, processions, funerals, coronations, etc.

3. Role playing within the role:

i) Voluntary, ii) Involuntary, iii) Allegorical

4. Literary and real-life references:

i) Citation, ii) Allegory, iii) Parody, and iv) Adaptation

5. Self-reference:

The play directly calls attention to itself as a play, an imaginative fiction.

The question might be asked what relevance such a recent topic

of literary criticism in the West would have to a study of ancient Sanskrit

drama. Each of the essays in Part One of this book provides, we hope, an

effective answer. In our sixth essay, we translate the passage in the

Abhinavabhāratī wherein Abhinavagupta comments upon the term

'nāṭyāyita'. Remarkably, the ancient Sanskrit term is most appropriately

translated by the freshly minted English word, 'metatheater'! And it is

through an understanding of this 30-year-old English term (metatheater)

that we are able to obtain a revealing insight into what Abhinava was

saying a thousand years ago about 'nāṭyāyita', a term used in the Nāṭya-

Śāstra, in the section, Śārīra Abhinaya, and illustrated by Abhinava with

a reference to Subandhu's play, Vāsavadattā Nāṭyadhāra.

Michael Lockwood and A. Vishnu Bhat

Tambaram, 1994

Remarks on the Second, Revised and Enlarged Edition

We have added three essays to Part One, which broaden our

investigation of the role of metatheater in Sanskrit drama.

We have also revised our translation of various passages of the

two plays of King Mahēndravarman, in Part Two.

Michael Lockwood and A. Vishnu Bhat

Tambaram, 2005

PART ONE

Essays on Metatheater and Sanskrit Drama

PART ONE

PART ONE

Contents

Contents

Preface ....................... Page

Preface ....................... v

1. Sanskrit Drama - Its Continuity of Structure .......................

2. Sanskrit Drama - Its Continuity of Structure ....................... 1

3. Nāṭya-Yajña (Drama as Sacrifice) .......................

4. Nāṭya-Yajña (Drama as Sacrifice) ....................... 9

5. The Victorianization of Śākuntala .......................

6. The Victorianization of Śākuntala ....................... 17

7. Bhāsamāna-Bhāsaḥ or the Case of the Chimerical Kavi .......................

8. Bhāsamāna-Bhāsaḥ or the Case of the Chimerical Kavi ....................... 31

9. You or Us? .......................

10. You or Us? ....................... 35

11. Abhinavagupta's Discussion of Metadrama (c. 1000 A.D.) .......................

12. Abhinavagupta's Discussion of Metadrama (c. 1000 A.D.) ....................... 39

13. 'Rudra' .......................

14. 'Rudra' ....................... 47

15. Mask and Metatheater .......................

16. Mask and Metatheater ....................... 51

17. Traivikramam .......................

18. Traivikramam ....................... 57

Select Bibliography .......................

Select Bibliography ....................... 75

Key to Transliteration and Pronunciation

Key to Transliteration and Pronunciation

Vowels

अ a इ i उ u ए ē ओ ō ऋ ṛ

(mica) (fill) (rule) (prey) (go) (merrily)

आ ā ई ī ऊ ū ऐ ai औ au

(father) (police) (rude) (aisle) (owl)

Anusvāra – • = ṁ = nasal m or n

Visarga – : = ḥ = voiceless aspiration

Consonants

Voiceless Voiced

Unaspirated Aspirated Unaspirated Aspirated Nasal

क k ख kh ग g घ gh ङ ṅ

च c छ ch ज j झ jh ञ ñ

ट ṭ ठ ṭh ड ḍ ढ ḍh ण ṇ

त t थ th द d ध dh न n

प p फ ph ब b भ bh म m

Semi-vowels

य y र r ल ḷ ल l व v

Sibilants & Voiced h:

ष ṣ श ś स s ह h

x

1

Sanskrit Drama - Its Continuity of Structure*

The classical Sanskrit play develops in two major stages. First,

there is a kind of pre-natal stage, which is the prologue or

introduction. This leads directly to the second stage, the play proper.

The prologue opens with a prayer of invocation (the Nāndī), and the

play proper closes with a prayer of benediction (the Bharatavākyam).

The Nāndī must originally have been a simple prayer invoking

God's blessing and protection for the performance, performers, and

audience. However, the classical dramatists have taken this body of

verse and infused it with genetic elements of the play, itself. This

group of elements is the first source of the organic continuity in the

structure of a Sanskrit play. The elements are in the form of sug-

gestive meanings (dhvani) of words and passages which go beyond

the mere surface level. They may hint at the various characters of the

play and suggest something of the nature of the play. The Nāndī, thus,

becomes the embryo of the play, its elements difficult to distinguish.

At a first reading or hearing of the Nāndī, it would be practically

impossible for the sharpest of minds to make out the (suggestive)

significance of these elements. But as the play proceeds, it becomes

possible to grasp their meaning.

Immediately following the Nāndī, there is a little preliminary

playlet in which the Sūtradhāra continues the introduction of the play.

At this stage, he is usually joined by an actress or actor assistant, and

through their conversation, the elements hinted at in the Nāndī are

developed further. The title of the play and the author's name are

traditionally mentioned. Not only in the subject matter of their

conversation, but also in their very own persons, the Sūtradhāra and

his assistant foreshadow specific characters and situational relation-

ships in the play proper.

Besides the group of genetic elements introduced in the Nāndī,

the Sūtradhāra provides in himself a second strand of continuity which

stretches from the Nāndī to the Bharatavākyam. His participation in

all parts of the play is a thread (sūtra) which has been lost sight of

during the last thousand years. An occasional commentator or scholar

has referred to the 'ancient practice' of a major role in a Sanskrit

drama (in the play proper) being played by the Sūtradhāra, himself.

The Sūtradhāra and his assistant in Bhavabhūti's play, Mālatī-

Mādhavam, even tell the audience explicitly that the Sūtradhāra is

going to take the hero's part in the play proper. However, we believe

*This essay is based on a paper presented, on September 17, 1988,

in a meeting at the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, Madras,

under the auspices of the Institute and the Samskrita Ranga, and

published in the Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. 55 (1988-

89), pp. 41-45, and in The Madras Review of English Studies, Vol. 4,

No. 1 (July 1991), pp. 21-29.

• 2 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

that we are the first to point out the fact that this practice is not occasional, but rather is fundamental to the originally intended organic continuity in all the great classical Sanskrit plays.

To put it boldly, the Sūtradhāra necessarily becomes the leading male character in the play proper in all of the great classical Sanskrit plays. In his physical person, he carries the strand (sūtra) of continuity from the reciting of the opening Nāndī ślōka through the introduction and then through the play proper (in the leading role), and it is he who in the end recites the Bharatavākyam which brings the play to a close.

As a corollary, it follows that the Sūtradhāra's assistant (the Vidūshaka or Naṭī) necessarily is one of the major supporting actors in the play proper. In a sense, the Sūtradhāra and his assistant are 'born again' in the play proper.

The third aspect of continuity in the structure of a classical Sanskrit play follows from the previous two. The Sūtradhāra does not cease to be the Sūtradhāra when he assumes the lead role in the play proper. Strictly speaking, the flesh and blood actor takes the role of the Sūtradhāra, who in turn takes the role of the leading male character in the play proper. The leading male role of a Sanskrit drama is thus a two dimensional character throughout the play proper. Analogously, the Sūtradhāra's assistant is also a two-dimensional character in the play proper.

What we have, then, is a play within a play. The play proper is meta-drama in relation to the drama of the prologue. In one important sense, the introductory playlet does not end with the beginning of the play proper. It only ends when the play proper ends.

In the farce, Bhagavadajjukam, written by King Mahēndravarman around the beginning of the seventh century, A.D., the continuity provided by the Sūtradhāra (Director) and the dual personalities of him (Director/Mendicant) and his assistant (Buffoon/ Disciple) are clearly evident in the play proper.

In the prologue of this farce, the Director's assistant, the Buffoon, asks him which play he is going to produce. The Director answers that he is going to produce a farce. The Buffoon ironically responds that he doesn't know anything about farcical comedy. The Director then tells him that no one can understand a thing without being taught. The Buffoon (again, ironically) answers that, in that case, it is the Director, himself, who must teach him what a farce is. The Director is only too happy to oblige, and he ushers in the play proper with these words: "Since you are determined to become enlightened, follow me . . . as a disciple follows his guru."

The Director and his assistant make their exit at this point, and after a quick change in costume and make-up, they immediately come back on stage, this time in the leading roles of the Mendicant (guru) and his Disciple. It does not take too much imagination to realize that the whole play proper of Bhagavadajjukam is but an extended lesson

taught by the Director to his assistant, who proves to be an excellent,

though rebellious, and taunting pupil! It is clear from this that there

is here a play within a play. The introductory playlet which involves

the Director with the task of teaching his assistant what a farce is

does not end until the lesson ends - at the end of the play proper.

Now, there is one particular line (229) toward the end of the

play which can only make full sense if we are aware that the same

actor is simultaneously both the Vidūṣaka and the Disciple. The

“Disciple” says: “Now I’ve seen the ludicrous taken to the limit!

This is Farce!” But we know that it is not merely the Disciple part of

his split personality in the meta-drama level saying this. It is, more

significantly, the Vidūṣaka part of his personality in the Prologue level

drama acknowledging that he has now fully experienced a farcical

drama by performing it (the Play Proper) along with the Sūtradhāra.

We have identified here three principles of organic continuity

in the structure of the classical Sanskrit drama. The first principle has

been much discussed by the old commentators and by modern

scholars. The second and third principles, however, which originally

must have been so obvious as to need no comment, have, ironically,

slipped into the depths of oblivion.

We shall further illustrate the above principles by analyzing

the prologues of the two plays, Chārudattam and Mricchakatikam

(The Little Clay Cart). The Little Clay Cart has been called the most

realistic of classical Indian dramas. In its prologue, the author of the

play is identified as King Śūdraka, who died at the age of a hundred

years and ten days. Obviously, if King Śūdraka were the author of this

play, he could not have written this part of the prologue. To compli-

cate the matter further, this play appears to be a later adaptation of a

drama called Chārudattam, one of the ‘cycle’ or collection of thirteen

plays discovered by Pandit Ganapati Sastri, who ascribed them all to

an early poet, Bhāsa. Ganapati Sastri identified Bhāsa as the author of

these plays on the basis of indirect evidence, for there is no mention of

any author in the plays themselves.

The Little Clay Cart is complete, and has ten acts. The Chāru-

dattam is incomplete, and abruptly breaks off at the end of the fourth

act. Whoever it was who wrote the Chārudattam had a most inventive

mind, and was not in the least afraid of ignoring convention. The Little

Clay Cart, on the other hand, though more elegantly sophisticated in

language, is less unconventional in its structure. An understanding of

this difference can be gained by looking at the prologues of the two

plays.

Chārudattam

The prologue of Chārudattam opens without benefit of a Nāndī

ślōka. The absence of the Nāndī is surely not intentional, but rather

due to the fragmentary condition of the text.

The author of Chārudattam boldly has the Sūtradhāra speaking

Prakrit throughout the prologue. This is unique in a Sanskrit play.

• 3 -

Continuity of

Structure

• 4 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

The Sūtradhāra enters telling us how hungry he is after long

hours of rehearsing. He hopes his wife will have his morning meal

ready for him, and as he enters his house, he notes encouraging signs

of the preparation of food. This obsession with food is an element

which will be embodied by the comedian Maitrēya, in the play proper.

The Sūtradhāra's uncertainty about food in his own home anticipates

the speech of Maitrēya opening the play proper. Meeting his wife, the

Sūtradhāra asks her if there is food for him in the house. His wife, the

Actress, describes various delicious dishes. When he, near disbelief,

asks her if all this good food is really in his house, she jokingly tells

him, 'No, it is available in the market.' In frustrated anger, he calls her

'an-ārya' ('ignoble'), and curses her to be similarly frustrated in her

hopes. The dramatic irony here is that in the role of the 'anārya'

courtesan, Vasantasēnā, in the play proper, the Actress is going to

face great frustration before she finally attains her desire of becoming

the lawful wife of her lover, the noble and generous merchant,

Chārudatta (the role played by her husband, the Sūtradhāra).

To return to the prologue, when the Sūtradhāra gets angry with

his actress wife, she tries to calm him down, telling him she was only

joking about the food. In fact, all of the good things she described are

ready to be eaten. They are, she says, part of a ritual she is performing

in order to obtain a noble husband. The Sūtradhāra is quick to ask his

wife whether it is in her next birth (anya-jātiyaṃ) that she is seeking a

noble husband. Her answer is 'Yes'. The dramatic irony here is that

her Prakrit-speaking husband, the Sūtradhāra, will be 'born again' in

the play proper as the hero, Chārudatta. The Actress will be 'born

again' as the heroine, the courtesan Vasantasēnā, and she will

eventually win the noble (and Sanskrit-speaking) Chārudatta as her

husband, a man who, in another sense of the word 'jāti', belongs to a

different caste.

At the 'end' of the prologue, after his wife's exit, the Sūtra-

dhāra is on the lookout for a Brahmin to officiate at the ceremony of

his wife's ritual (the metadramatic ceremony which is actually to be

the play proper):

SŪTRADHĀRA: Now where can I get a poor Brahmin?

(Looking around) Ah! Here comes noble Maitrēya, noble

Chārudatta's friend. I'll invite him. (Walking toward him)

Sir, I invite you to take a meal at my home. . . .

(OFF-STAGE VOICE) You must invite somebody else. I am not free.

The Sūtradhāra repeats his invitation and exits. He will, later, return

on stage in the leading male role of the merchant, Chārudatta.

The Brahmin, Maitrēya, is not free to help the Sūtradhāra in the

make-believe world of the prologue because he is to be 'officiating' at

the metadramatic 'ceremony' of the play proper (where he is the close

companion of Chārudatta). This is a paradox: in not being free to

officiate at the prologue level, Maitrēya, does, in fact, officiate at the

play proper level. A number of commentators (ancient and not so

ancient) have objected to this intermingling of dramatic worlds.

We find it rather intriguing.

The Little Clay Cart

The Little Clay Cart (Mṛcchakaṭikam) is an adaptation of the

play, Chārudattam. But the poet-adapter remains anonymous and he

does not claim to be King Śūdraka, the acknowledged author of this

play. We suggest that King Śūdraka was the original author of the

play, Chārudattam, and he was no longer living when the anonymous

poet adapted his play in ten complete acts and renamed this adaptation

Mṛcchakaṭikam. The poet-adapter gives us the information that the

original playwright, King Śūdraka, died at the age of one hundred

years and ten days - something no original author could declare!

In this adaptation, the Sūtradhāra opens the prologue speaking

Sanskrit, and switches to Prakrit when he begins conversing with his

wife. Ravenous, he asks if there is anything to eat in the house. His

wife, the Actress, describes a variety of dishes. When her husband

asks whether this food is really in the house or she is joking, she tells

him that it is available in the market. Angry, the Sūtradhāra curses his

wife, saying to her, "May your own hopes be dashed, as you have

dashed mine." The Actress begs his forgiveness, and says she was

only joking. The food is there, and she is performing the ritual for

obtaining a handsome husband. The Sūtradhāra asks her whether she

seeks such a husband in this world (lōka) or the next (para-lōka).

ACTRESS: In the next, of course.

SŪTRADHĀRA: Now look at this gentlemen! (He appeals to the

audience) I have to pay for the food so she will find a noble

husband in the next world!

ACTRESS: Please, please, sir! I am doing this so you will be my

husband in the next world!

The dramatic irony here, again, is that her husband, the Sūtra-

dhāra, will be 'born again' in the play proper as the hero, Chārudatta.

The Actress will be 'born again' as the courtesan, Vasantasēnā. And

the two of them will be united in marriage at the end of the play

proper. Thus the play proper, itself, is to be viewed as constituting the

very ritual the Actress wants to perform in order to obtain a noble

husband in the 'next world'.

To recapitulate, then, one of our basic theses has been the

insistence on the identity of the person who takes the following roles:

the reciter of the opening invocation (the Nāndī), the introducer of the

play proper, the hero of the play, and the reciter of the closing bene-

diction (the Bharatavākyam).

The scholarly world, however, seems rather uncertain of these

identities. Here is a sample of views regarding the identity of the

Sūtradhāra as reciter of the Nāndī and the Sthāpaka as the introducer

of the play:

• 5 -

Continuity of

Structure

• 6 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

Sten Konow (1901), with reference to the Karpūra-Mañjarī:

. . . the sūtradhāra was not on the stage between the end of the

nāndī and that of the prastāvanā.1

A.B. Keith (1924):

. . . another person similar in appearance and qualities to the

Sūtradhāra, is to enter and produce the play, a function which

gives him the style of introducer, Sthāpaka.2

Surendra Nath Shastri (1961):

After the recitation of the Nāndī, the Sūtradhāra is supposed to

get out of the stage and another actor very much resembling him is

to enter and introduce the occasion of the enactment of the drama,

its title and the author. He is technically called the Establisher

(Sthāpaka) or the Introducer.3

Harmut-Ortwin Feistel (1972), interpreting the Nāṭya-Śāstra:

After having recited the prarocana, the sūtradhāra . . . leaves, and

another member of the troupe, imitating the sūtradhāra's costume,

gait and manners of speech, enters, the so-called sthāpaka.4

We need not labor the point further. This failure by scholars to

recognize the identity of the Sūtradhāra and the Sthāpaka is a result of

too literal a reading of the Nāṭya-Śāstra and the Daśarūpaka – and

this in spite of Abhinavagupta’s clear warning:

Sūtradhāra eva sthāpaka iti sūtradhāraḥ pūrvarangaṁ prayujya

sthāpakāḥ san praviśēd-iti na bhinnā kartṛkatā |5

The Sūtradhāra himself is the Sthāpaka. After performing the

preliminaries, the Sūtradhāra should assume the role of the

Sthāpaka and appear on the stage. This being the case, don’t

distinguish them!

H.H. Wilson, more than a hundred and fifty years ago, was on

the right track when he suggested:

It seems not unlikely that it was the intention of the original

writers, although the commentators may not have understood it,

to discriminate between the real and assumed personage of the

Sūtradhāra, who spoke the benediction in his own character or as

a Brahman, which he must have been, and then carried on the

dialogue of the prelude as the manager of the theatrical corps.6

When it comes to the question of the Sūtradhāra/Sthāpaka

taking a role in the play proper, there is recognition among some

scholars that he may often take some role:

M. Winternitz (1909-20):

The sūtradhāra was generally the main actor, who played the chief

rôle, that is the hero.7

Surendra Nath Shastri (1961):

[The sūtradhāra] is the actor-in-chief, and assumes the rôle of

some character in the play.8

H.W. Wells (1963):

The producer at times evolves into a character of the play.9

V. Raghavan (1966):

. . . on the ancient Sanskrit stage, there was the practice of the

character or characters of the opening scene of the play figuring

in the prastāvanā, as the Sūtradhāra and the Nata.10

I. Shekhar (1977):

Since the Sūtradhāra managed the entire show . . . , he had to

take any role when an artist was missing or the troupe wanted to

economise.11

All of these are qualified statements using such terms as

'generally', 'some', 'at times', etc. Shekhar would have the Sūtra-

dhāra's choice of role depend on filling in for someone missing or on

matters of economy.

In contrast, our view is that the prologue of a Sanskrit drama

is carefully crafted by the playwright so that by aesthetic design the

Sūtradhāra must take a specific leading role, and his assistant must

assume the role of a specific character in the play proper - not just

some role.

If we may be allowed to adapt Abhinavagupta's dictum:

Sthāpaka ēva pradhāna-pātra iti sthāpakah prastāvanām prayujya

pradhāna-pātras-san praviśēd-iti na bhinnā kartṛkatā |12

The Sthāpaka himself is the main character. After performing

the Prastāvanā, the Sthāpaka should assume the role of the main

character and appear on the stage. This being the case, don't

distinguish them!

From its beginning to its end, the Sanskrit play, thus, reveals

an unfolding continuity and unity in its structural development which

commentators have perceptively compared with the development of a

living organism.

• 7 -

Continuity of

Structure

Notes

1. Sten Konow (ed.), Rāja-çekhara's Karpūra-Mañjarī, Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. 4 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1901), p. 196.

2. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development & Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), p. 340.

3. Surendra Nath Shastri, The Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama, Vol. 2 (Varanasi: The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1961), p. 42.

4. Hartmut-Ortwin Feistel, "The Pūrvaranga and the Chronology of Pre-classical Sanskrit Theatre", Samskrta Ranga Annual, Vol. 6, 1972, p. 13.

5. Bharata's Nāṭya-Śāstra, with the commentary, Abhinavabhāratī, by Abhinavagupta, Vol. 1, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. 36, second edition, revised and critically edited by K.S. Rama-swami Sastri (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1956), p. 248 (see the commentary on ślōkas 162 & 163).

6. H.H. Wilson (tr.), Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, 3rd ed., Vol. 1 (London: Trübner & Co., 1871 [1st ed., 3 vols., 1826-27]), p. xxxv.

7. M. Winternitz, History of Indian Literature, Vol. 3, Part 1, of Subhadra Jha's translation in English (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1963 [1909-20]), p. 189.

8. Surendra Nath Shastri, op. cit., p. 31, n. 1.

9. H.W. Wells, The Classical Drama of India (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1963), p. 113.

10. V. Raghavan, "Kūṭīyāṭṭam - Its Form and Significance as Sanskrit Drama", The Samskrita Ranga Annual, Vol. 5, 1964-1967, p. 84.

11. I. Shekhar, Sanskrit Drama: Its Origin and Decline, 2nd ed. (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1977), pp. 86-87.

12. This is our own adaptation of Abhinavagupta's dictum quoted earlier.

2

Nāṭya-Yajña

(Drama as Sacrifice)*

Classical Indian writers considered the Nāṭaka to be the greatest form of literary achievement. The popular notion in the past was, 'mastery in dramaturgy is the final end of poetic genius': 'Nāṭakāntam kavitvam' - a statement which derives its significance from Bharata's view of the Nāṭaka as that which represents the evolutionary 'march of the three worlds': 'Trailōkyasyāsvasya nātyam bhāvānu-kīrtanam.'1 The demand on the dramatist was great. He had the difficult task of revealing creation itself within the limited frame of his plot; he had necessarily to place himself in the center of this apparently limited plot and look at the entire universe from different angles, through different eyes and minds, and thus provide a pen picture of the perennial flux of creation to his spectators.

Besides regarding the Nāṭaka as a work representing the march of the three worlds, Bharata also speaks of it as a sacrifice.2 The force of his argument in the Nāṭya-Śāstra shows that the two are in fact inseparable from each other. The march of the three worlds is at the same time a sacrificial ritual. This idea seems to go back for its support to the Puruṣa Sūkta of the Ṛg-Vēda, in which the creation of cosmic life is described in terms of a sacrifice. The Puruṣa-Sūkta describes, first, the voluntary self-sacrifice of the Impersonal Absolute (Puruṣa), which lays the foundation of creation. The voluntary self-sacrifice of the Puruṣa results in the emergence of the Cosmos, technically called Virāṭ. Out of Virāṭ there comes into being the Cosmic Person - the first born, the first Creator. Next, the gods appear. They perform a sacrifice in which the Cosmic Person is the oblation. From that sacrifice, in which is invoked the all-inclusive Supreme Person, come out all the constituent parts of the Cosmos.3

Sāyaṇa, in his commentary on the Ṛg-Vēda, interprets this sacrifice as a mental sacrifice ('mānasa-yajña') , one which is performed within a Vēdāntic frame of mind.4 It is, perhaps, for this reason that Abhinavagupta, in his commentaries on the Nāṭya-Śāstra and Dhvanyālōka notes the isomorphism of aesthetic problems to those of the philosopher whose concept of sacrifice is of something mental and philosophical in nature.5

*This essay is based on a paper presented, on October 4, 1989, at the National Symposium on Perspectives in Indian Philosophy, held at the University of Madras on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of the Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced Study in Philosophy, and published in the Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. 56 (1989-90), pp. 17-21.

• 10 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

It seems evident to us that Bharata was influenced by the sacrifice described in the Purusa Sūkta because in it the sacrifice and the march of the three worlds seem to be identified with each other.

The view expressed by Bharata in the Nātya-Śāstra is echoed by Kālidāsa, in his play, Mālavikāgnimitram, and by King Mahēndra, in his farce, the Mattavilāsa-Prahasanam. Kālidāsa writes:

Dēvānām-idam-āmananti munayah kāntam kratum cākṣuṣam |

Rudrēṇēdam-umā-kṛta-vyatikarē svāṅgē vibhaktam dvidhā |

Traigunyōdbhavam-atra lōka-caritam nānā-rasam dṛśyatē |

Nāṭyam bhinna-rucēr-janasya bahudhāpy-ēkam samārādhanam ||

Nāṭya is said by the sages to be a sacrifice which affords visual delight (even) to the gods. It is divided by Rudra into two parts in his own body which is united with that of Umā.

In it are seen the ways of the world, which evolve from the three-fold division of nature (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas), in the form of various Rasas. It is one great, sumptuous feast to the people of varied taste.

This descriptive passage is a panegyric on the great merits of Nāṭya, its association with the gods, and its utility as the foremost source and form of recreation for people of varied tastes. Implied in this passage is the idea that Nāṭya can bring about emotional integration among people of diverse tastes.

In the cultural history of classical India, every human activity was thought to have had, along with its secular purpose, a religious purpose, too. All śāstras and lore were inseparably connected with the final goal of man. Similarly, Nāṭya also had a religious element in it. It is a form of paying homage to the manifold roles of the architect of the universe.

Bharata says that Brahmā created a fifth Vēda entitled ‘Nāṭya’ for the benefit of all classes of people. For the composition of his work, Brahmā took Pāṭhya (which Abhinavagupta interprets as Vācika) from the Ṛg-Vēda, Gītā from the Sāma-Vēda, Abhinayas from the Yajur-Vēda, and Rasas from the Atharva-Vēda:

Jagrāha pāṭhyam ṛg-vēdāt-sāmabhyō gītam-ēva ca |

Yajur-vēdād-abhinayān rasān-ātharvanād-api ||

In order to make Nāṭya comprehensive, Bharata adapted music, archery, medicine, etc., from the Upa-Vēdas. The final product was not only comprehensive but also playful (lalita). Further, it contained in itself the essence of all śāstras, and served to promote the cause of all fine arts:

Sarva-śāstrārtha-sampannam sarva-śilpa-pravartakam |

Abhinavagupta’s perceptive commentary on the Vēdic ingredients borrowed by Brahmā would show that they are connected with sacrifice and thus would justify Bharata’s contention that Nāṭya is essentially a sacrifice.

It is interesting to note that the Bīja-Vinyāsa (the presentation or offering of the seed) performed by the Sūtradhāra at the introductory stage by reciting the Nāndī of a classical Sanskrit play seems to parallel the sacrificial offering of the gods mentioned above. Once the gods had offered the Puruṣa as the main oblation, they could perceive the slow unfolding of the cosmic structure as their sacrifice proceeded. Analogously, from the time the Sūtradhāra presents the Bīja in the Nāndī, the Nāṭaka can be said slowly to unfold the structure of its microcosmic world.

To go back to Kālidāsa’s śloka, the implications of its second line seem to be even more significant than the first. It associates Nāṭya with the god Śiva, the primordial Dancer. As Ardhanārīśvara, the dual manifestation of the god (a single body with its left side being female and its right side male) represents not only the two-fold aspect of Śiva’s dance, the rough, violent, fearful form of dancing, and the graceful form, but also the aspect of cosmic creation, the eternal activity of the androgynous figure. Sr̥ṣṭi (creation) is thus a perennial flow in the form of the dance of Śiva. To this effect, Mahēndravarman, in the Nāndī of his farce, Mattavilāsam, says:

Bhāṣā-vēśa-vapuh-kriyā-guna-krtān-āśritya bhēdān gatam

Bhāvāvēśa-vaśād-anēka-rasatām trailōkya-yātrā-mayam |

Nr̥ttam niṣpratī-baddha-bōdha-mahimām prēkṣakaś-ca svayam

Sa vyāptāvanī-bhājanam diśatu vō divyah kapālī yaśaḥ ‖10‖

Through the different modes of speech, dress, bodily action, and expression of nature, The representation of various emotions brought on by the arousal of the power of primal feelings, May that resplendent Kapālī of unopposed, omniscient supremacy, who’s the performer and spectator Himself of His own dance, The manifold march of evolution of the three worlds, grant you His world-bowl-filling glory!

In fact, the entire play, Mattavilāsam, is suggestively illustrative of the eternal flux (Sr̥ṣṭi).

The microcosmic world created by the dramatist within the frame of his Nāṭaka includes: (i) the semi-dramatic world (technically called the Purvarāṅga) constituted by the preliminary musical warm-up, performance, and dance, followed by the Nāndī and Prastāvanā, and (ii) the fully dramatic world of the main body of the play. The audience thus passes from the world of everyday reality, with its religious and social aspects, to the dramatic world of the play proper. The play performance achieves this transition with (a) the introduction of music and dance, (b) the aspect of prayer in the Nāndī, and (c) the hinting, within the Nāndī, at the latent seed of the plot in the suggestive speeches of the Sūtradhāra and his Assistant which indicate some of the key incidents in the main body of the play.

• 12 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

As we have pointed out in the earlier essay, the Nāndī ślōka of

a classical Sanskrit play is like an embryo.11 It contains within itself

genetic elements of the play. These elements, in the form of sugges-

tive meanings, are difficult to make out at a first reading or hearing,

but as the play proceeds, it becomes possible to grasp their meaning

retroactively. In the context of our discussion of ‘drama as sacrifice’,

the Nāndī ślōka, together with its surface level of meaning, forms a

unity analogous to the Cosmic Person. From the sacrifice (dismem-

berment) of this unity come out all the constituent parts of the Cosmos

(the microcosm of the Nāṭaka). In other words, out of the unity of the

surface level meaning of the Nāndī come the many different levels of

suggested meaning which evolve throughout the whole drama.

We also maintained that the Sūtradhāra provides in himself

a second strand of continuity which stretches from the Nāndī to the

final benedictory stanza of the play, the Bharatavākyam. We agreed

with Abhinavagupta that it is wrong to distinguish the Sūtradhāra who

recites the Nāndī and the Sthāpaka (or Introducer). They are an

identity. Bharata and Dañjay a merely distinguish this identity’s

different roles. We went further, however, to say that the Sūtradhāra/

Sthāpaka should not be distinguished from the leading character of the

play proper. The Sūtradhāra merely takes on the role of the leading

character. Similarly, his assistant assumes the role of a particular

character in the play proper. As we put it, the Sūtradhāra and his

assistant are ‘born again’ in the play proper. This unity underlying

diversity parallels the Divine Drama of the ‘real’ world. God, as the

Cosmic Person, is the Divine creation. He calls into being His alter

ego. And from the resulting duality come the many. This idea has

been expressed elegantly by the ancient poet, Bhartṛhari:

Tam-asya lōka-yantrasy a sūtradhāram pracakṣatē |

Pratibandhābhy-anujñābhyām tēna viśvam vibhajyatē ||12

It is said, He is the Sūtradhāra of, or, Himself, this Lōka-yantra

(perpetual motion machine – the Universe).

He, in the form of the Cosmos, divides Himself through disintegration

(into the many) and re-integration (of the many, while remaining One).

The third aspect of continuity in the structure of a classical

Sanskrit play, we suggested, logically follows from the previous two.

The play proper is meta-drama in relation to the drama of the

Prastāvanā or Prologue. What we have, then, in every classical

Sanskrit drama, is a play within a play. The concept of ‘plays-within-

plays’ and that of ‘roles-within-roles’ illustrate how the Sūtradhāra in

Sanskrit drama, like the Divine Sūtradhāra, divides himself into

‘many’ and re-integrates the many, while remaining ‘one’.

Certain interesting deductions can be made from our theory,

and we shall, therefore, examine the play, Chārudattam, whose

authorship has been the subject of much controversy ever since

T. Ganapati Sastri ascribed it to Bhāsa. The play is fragmentary,

with only four acts. Its Nāndī seems to have disappeared from its

proper place long ago. It will be worthwhile to consider, here, A.D.

Pusalker's comment that:

Krishnamoorthy has invited attention to a stanza in Prakrit quoted

in the Kāvyaprakāśa, which has been ascribed to Bhāsa by Sāyana

in his Alamkāra-sudhānidhi. 13

Pusalker, further, reports that, according to K. Krishnamoorthy,

this stanza looks like a maṅgala-ślōka and that, on the basis of this,

Krishnamoorthy says that Bhāsa must have written a Prakrit poetic

work of which this stanza is the maṅgala-ślōka.14

The Prastāvanā of the play, Chārudattam, is entirely in Prakrit.

As the Chārudattam is a Sanskrit play, its Sūtradhāra speaking only

Prakrit is unique, indeed. Working backwards from the Prastāvanā of

the Chārudatta, our theory would expect a Nāndī in Prakrit - not in

Sanskrit! Surprisingly, Krishnamoorthy had within his grasp the

missing Nāndī of the play, Chārudattam, but neither he nor anyone

else so far has recognized it as such! Our identification is based not

merely on the fact of the Prastāvanā's being in Prakrit, but also, most

importantly, on the implications of the Nāndī ślōka which have a

bearing on the play, Chārudattam. We, therefore, make a brief

analysis of this ślōka and examine its implications. The ślōka reads:

Yā sthaviram-iva hasantī kavi-vadanāmburuhā- baddha- vinivēśā

Jā ṭhēram 'va hasantī ka'i va'naṃburuhā-baddha-viniṅvēsā |

Darśayati bhuvana- maṇdalam- anyad- iva jayati sā vāṇī

Dāvē'i bhu'aṇa-maṇḍalam-aṇṇaṃ vi'a ja'a'i sā vāṇī ‖15

Enthroned on the lotus-face of the poet, her elderly Lord,

and as though laughing at him,

Vānī, the Goddess of Speech, triumphs

by revealing his whole world as different, transformed!

Here, the Goddess of Speech is represented as mischievously

laughing/smiling at her husband, Brahmā, who is popularly known in

the Purāṇas as Pitāmaha (Grandfather). The elderly Brahmā is

indicated by the word 'sthavira' in the ślōka. Further, the Goddess,

functioning as the voice of the primal poet (Brahmā, the Purāṇa-Kavi),

smiles/laughs from there, and triumphs by revealing the world being

created by her husband to be quite different from what he might have

expected. Note: she achieves this triumph through dhvani!

Going by our theory, we note that the Sūtradhāra of the

Chārudattam, has a strong resemblance to the 'Sthavira' being teased

by the Goddess of Speech. Like the Brahmā of the maṅgala-ślōka, the

Sūtradhāra of the play is markedly older than his wife. Further, the

wife of the Sūtradhāra of this play appears to be a replica of the

mischievous Goddess of Speech in so far as she too is adept at pulling

• 13 -

Drama as

Sacrifice

• 14 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

her husband’s leg. Her hungry husband comes back home with the

hope of getting his morning meal. The smell from the kitchen and

other food make him feel that the whole world is full of nothing

but food. When, however, he asks his wife whether there is food,

she tells him that there is plenty of food, but it is in the market! The

Sūtradhāra’s world of food is now transformed into a world of

nothingness. Like the Goddess of Speech, the wife of the Sūtradhāra,

through dhvani, also transforms the world created in her husband’s

imagination. And, again like the Goddess, she also smiles and laughs

mischievously because she has triumphed by pleasantly teasing her

husband. (Though she doesn’t take it so pleasantly.) This humorous

aspect of the transformation of the world in the Prologue is echoed

by Maitrēya’s opening speech of the Play Proper, where he describes

how his world of good food in plenty at Chārudatta’s home has been

transformed into one of famine.

There is one final idea, the implication of which runs through

the Nāndī, the Prastāvanā, and the Play Proper of Chārudattam. It is

an idea which arose in our thinking in response to a question put to us

by one of our students - a woman student: Is there ever a Sūtradhārī

(a female Sūtradhāra) in classical Sanskrit drama? It may seem

surprising, but the answer to her question is ‘yes’! In this play,

Chārudattam (and its adapted, complete version, Mṛcchakatikam),

the Natī of the Prologue should really be viewed as a Sūtradhārī.

Between the two - the Natī and her husband (the Sūtradhāra) - it is

the wife who actually takes the lead. Further, in the Play Proper, it is

the Courtesan, Vasantasēnā, who has the leading role - not Chāru-

datta. In the Mṛcchakatikam, these two ideas are explicitly revealed

by the character, Śakāra, in the prose passage immediately preceding

ślōka 51, First Act, where he refers to Vasantasēnā as “this female

stage-director [sūtradhārī] directing an unprecedented, new play”!

In the maṅgala-ślōka, which we have identified as the missing

Nāndī of the Chārudattam, it is obvious that the Goddess of Speech

takes the lead in relation to her lord, Brahmā. Thus, Vasantasēnā’s

leading role in the Play Proper is evolved metadramatically from the

Natī’s dominant role in the Prastāvanā. And, in turn, the Natī’s role

is evolved metadramatically from the Goddess’s dominance in the

maṅgala/Nāndī ślōka.

Notes

1. Nāṭya-Śāstra, ed. R.S. Nagar, Vol. 1 (Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1988), p. 34.

2. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

3. Ṛg-Vēda, x:90.6, x:90.7, and x:90.16.

4. Sāyaṇa, Rig-Veda-Samhita, Vol. 6, ed. F. Max Muller (London: Allen & Co., 1874), p. 246.

5. Abhinavagupta, Nāṭya-Śāstra, pp. 5-6, 13-14, 271-284, and Dhvanyālōka, ed. Durgaprasad (Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press, 1935), pp. 82-85.

6. Mālavikāgnimitra, ed. C.R. Devadhar (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980), pp. 9, 10.

7. Nāṭya-Śāstra, ed. Durgaprasad, p. 13.

8. Ibid., p. 12.

9. Abhinavabhāratī, Nāṭya-Śāstra, pp. 13-14.

10. The full text and translation of this play are given in Part II of this book.

11. “Sanskrit Drama – Its Continuity of Structure”.

12. Bharṭhari’s Vākyapadīyam, Trivandrum Series 116, edited by K. Sambasiva Sastri (Trivandrum: Government Press, 1935), p. 51 (Kālasamuddēsa: 4th ślōka).

13. A.D. Pusalker, Bhāsa - A Study (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1968 [1940]), p. 507.

14. Ibid.

15. Mammaṭa, Kāvyaprakāśa, Vol. 1 (Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1985), p. 166.

Addendum 2005

Addendum 2005

In this second edition of our book, we now hold, as we have held with other classical Sanskrit dramas, that the Sūtradhāra in the Chārudattam (as well as in its adaptation, the Mrcchakaṭikam) assumes the role of the hero in the Play Proper. In both of these dramas, the Sūtradhāra assumes the role of the noble merchant, Chārudatta.

The Chārudattam is a Sanskrit play, but the Sūtradhāra speaks only Prakrit (not Sanskrit) throughout its Prologue. His doing so would have been very surprising, if not shocking, to the earliest audiences. The Chārudattam is the only classical Sanskrit play where the Prologue is conducted entirely in Prakrit.

We understand from the Sūtradhāra’s speech that he and his household have been reduced to abject poverty. It seems to us, that in order to further emphasize this impoverishment, the playwright has chosen to have the Sūtradhāra speak only the common vernacular, Prakrit.

The purpose of his wife’s ritual is to bring about his becoming her husband (and a ‘handsome’ one at that) in their next rebirths. Their rebirths are to be metadramatically realized in the forthcoming Play Proper. The Sūtradhāra is ‘reborn’ as Chārudatta, and his wife, the Naṭī, is ‘reborn’ as the courtesan, Vasantasēnā. At the end of the play, as seen in the Mrcchakaṭikam, Vasantasēnā becomes Chārudatta’s second, younger (legal) wife. The Naṭī also plays the part of Chārudatta’s Brahmin wife and therefore she manages to be (theatrically) reborn as both his wives! The Brahmin wife on stage embracing (!) Vasantasēnā, is a brazen interpolation actually signed and acknowledged as such by the offending interpolator! (Cf. R.P. Oliver, Mrcchakaṭikā – The Little Clay Cart [Urbana: U. of Illinois, 1938], pp. 206–7, n. 68.) At no time in the original Mrcchakaṭikam (or Chārudattam) do Chārudatta’s Brahmin wife and Vasantasēnā appear on stage at the same time!

The ritual initiated by the Sūtradhāra’s wife (her ‘Fast for a Handsome Husband’) should therefore be viewed as creating a kind of magical spell that transforms her husband into the handsome, noble - but still poor - hero, Chāru-datta, who now recites glorious Sanskrit prose and poetry! The less noble elements of the Sūtradhāra’s character (including his speaking only Prakrit) are incarnated in the Vidūṣaka, named Maitrēya, the companion of Chārudatta.

Like the Divine Sūtradhāra who, in the form of the Cosmos, divides Himself into the Many, the character of the Sūtradhāra of both plays, Chārudattam and Mrcchakaṭikam, splits into the two roles of Chārudatta and Maitrēya, played by himself and another actor in the metadramatic world of the Play Proper. The Naṭī (the Sūtradhārī of both plays) will, herself, be taking both the roles of Chārudatta’s Brahmin wife and of his Courtesan lover.

In declining the invitation to officiate at the ritual fast of the Sūtradhāra’s wife, saying he is not free, Maitrēya, paradoxically, can be viewed as doing just what he says he can’t do, since the Naṭī’s ritual is really the production of the Play Proper. Maitrēya declines entering the dramatic world of the Prologue because he is a character already existing in the metadramatic world – the world in which he will be the ‘officiating’ Brahmin for the metadramatic characters of Chārudatta, his wife, and his second love, Vasantasēnā.

At the end of the Third Act, when Chārudatta’s wife hears that the jewels of Vasantasēnā which had been left in the safekeeping of her husband have been stolen, she wishes to offer her own family heirloom, a very valuable pearl necklace, as a replacement for the stolen jewels. However, as Chārudatta, in his impoverished state, would certainly feel too embarrassed to accept, directly from his wife, her necklace as substitute for the Courtesan’s jewels, she thinks up a scheme of indirectly getting him to accept the necklace. She tells her maid, Radanikā, to bring Maitrēya to her. She then asks Maitrēya to accept, as a ritual gift from her, the necklace, which is her most valuable possession. She explains to him that she has been carrying out a fast in order to obtain the blessing of a Brahmin, and she wants Maitrēya to be that Brahmin. Maitrēya, surprised by the great value of the gift, tells her that he hopes she is telling the truth about her ritual, as otherwise Chārudatta might discover the deception and curse her. (This curse would, in the event, be a meta-curse.) Maitrēya plays along with her little fiction, and, as instructed by Radanikā, he hands over the necklace to Chārudatta. Chārudatta does accept the necklace, though he feels cursed himself in his poverty, and declares that by his wife thus rescuing his honor, he has been turned into a woman, and she has become the man!

3

The Victorianization of Śākuntala*

'Fondling', she saith, 'since I have hemm'd thee here

Within the circuit of this ivory pale,

I'll be a park, and thou shalt be my deer;

Feed where thou wilt, on mountain or in dale:

Graze on my lips; and if those hills be dry,

Stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie',

– W.S.

The above, metaphorical passage from Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis is relatively easy for the reader to interpret. Kālidāsa, however, is not so explicit in the ślōka recited by the Sūtradhāra, early in the prologue of his play, Śākuntala; and its dhvani has, generally not been grasped:

Subhaga-salilāvagāhāḥ pāt ala-samsargi-surabhi-vana-vāt āḥ |

Pracchāya sulabha-nidrā dīvasāḥ pariṇāma-ramaṇīyāḥ ||3||

The full śṛṅgāric dimensions of this passage, as well as of the whole prologue together with the Nāndī ślōka, appear to have been lost sight of a long time ago, for Sanskrit commentators do not discuss them. Neither have W.T. Jones and later translators noted the pungent suggestiveness in the passages leading up to the play proper. The śṛṅgāra rasa is dominant in this play, and many are the words through out the prologue which are charged with dramatic irony, resonating in powerful parallelism with later erotic passages in the play proper.

Consider the opening stanza, the Nāndī ślōka:

Yā sṛṣṭiḥ sraṣṭur-ādyā vahati vidhihutaṁ yā havir-yā ca hōtrī

Yē dvē vidhē kālaṁ vidhattaḥ śruti-viṣaya-guṇā yā sthitā vyāpya viśvam |

Yām-āhuh sarva-bīja-prakṛtir-itī yayā prāṇinaḥ prāṇavantah

Pratyakṣābhiḥ prapannas-tanubhir-avatu vas-tābhir-asṭābhir-iśaḥ ||

The most potent idea introduced here is that of 'Sacrifice'.

And there are two important levels of suggestiveness. First, there is the Sacrifice dealt with in the Puruṣa Sūkta of the Ṛg-Vēda: Cosmic Creation. Second, there is also the 'sacrifice' of the sexual act: Pro-creation – also dealt with in the Ṛg-Vēda, as well as in later works.

The Nāndī begins with a reference to that which is the first, the foremost creation of the Creator ('Yā sṛṣṭiḥ sraṣṭur-ādyā . . .') – a

*This essay is based on a paper published in Kavya Bharati, No. 4 (1992), pp. 84-99.

• 18 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

clause which suggests the Waters (the Female) at the cosmic level

and Śakuntalā, the daughter of an Apsarā, at the erotic-procreative

level in this play. Next, there is a reference to that which conveys

the oblation according to rules (‘ . . . vahati vidhihutam yā havir . . .’)

• a clause which suggests Fire (the Male) at the cosmic level, and

Duṣyanta, the conveyor of the oblation (semen), at the erotic-procrea-

tive level in the play.

The Waters and the Fire, together, constitute the fundamental

creative force in the cosmos, and these two elements were visualized

by the Rg-Vedic seer as forming a mithuna (sex pair).1 The principle

of Fire at three different levels - heaven, mid-region, and the earth -

was the Male; and the Waters, at these three levels, were the Female.

Further, these two principles were visualized as uniting at each of

these three levels. The result was the fructification of the Female at

all three levels.

The first two clauses of the Nāndī of the Śākuntala are,

therefore, suggestive of the Rg-Vedic idea of the union between the

‘Waters’ and the ‘Fire’, as well as of the sacrificial aspect of sexual

‘union’ spoken of in the Brāhmaṇa texts.

Fulfilling the recommendation made in the Nātya-Śāstra that

the Nāndī should hint at the characters in the play proper, we have

noted that these two clauses allude to Śakuntalā and Duṣyanta,

implicitly identified, respectively, with the Waters and the Fire - the

two eternal creative principles.

In the second clause, which alludes to King Duṣyanta, the word

‘vidhihutam’ (‘according to rule or law’) has at this implied level of

meaning a satirical, ironic edge to it, for the king, in Act Three, is

going to try to justify his impetuous attempt to seduce Śakuntalā by

appealing to ‘the Law’! When the king catches hold of Śakuntalā’s

garment, she warns him, asking him to behave himself - there are

ascetics wandering around. But the king replies:

Bhīru alam guru-jana-bhayēna | Drṣṭvā tē viditadharmā tatra-

bhavān-na tatra dōṣam grahiṣyati kulapatiḥ | Api ca,

Gandharvēṇa vivāhēna bahvō rājaṛṣi-kanyakāḥ |

Śrūyantē parinītās-tāḥ pitṛbhiś-cābhi-nanditāḥ ||

Timid girl, enough of your fear of elders! When he learns of what

you have done, His Holiness [Kanva], a great teacher who knows

the truth of the Law, will not find fault with you. For,

Many daughters of royal sages

were wed according to Gāndharva rites

And, one hears, joyfully

accepted by their fathers.

But after mouthing these brave words, King Dusyanta, finding him-

self out in the open light, lets go of Śakuntalā and beats a retreat into

the shady cover of the forest!

We have seen, thus, how various phrases in the Nāndī ślōka

can be understood to suggest certain characters and situations in the

play proper (and, of course, in the prologue, too).

But some modern scholars have had reservations about this

mode of interpretation:

Monier Williams (in 1876) speaks thus about what one of the

'ancient' commentators had to say concerning the Nāndī of the

Śākuntala:

Śaṅkara, with far-fetched subtilty, points out how each of these

types of Śiva [i.e. forms of Śiva] is intended by the poet to cor-

respond with circumstances in the life of Śakuntalā.2

C.R. Devadhar (1934) warns that the Nāndī's

characteristic of suggesting the story of the drama has led

commentators into ingenious attempts to find out fantastic

allusions to the main elements or incidents of the drama.3

Unfortunately, failure to seek out the allusions suggested by

elements in the Nāndī ślōka and in the prologue reduces one to the

level of the more naive members of the audience (or readers) of these

inherently sophisticated works of art.

According to us, the Sūtradhāra and the Naṭī are to be 'born

again' in the play proper as the hero and heroine, and thus their

conversation in the prologue foreshadows their intense passion in the

play proper. With this metadramatic relationship kept in mind, let us

examine the dhvani in the prologue in some detail.

Immediately following the Nāndī, the Sūtradhāra's opening

speech, to his 'wife', the Naṭī ('Āryē! Yadī nēpathya-vidhānam-

avasitam, itas-tāvad-āgamyatām' – 'Lady, if you have finished

dressing, please come here'), strikes an ancient śṛṅgāric note

intertwined with itself (Speech):

Uta tvah paśyan na dadarśa vācam

Uta tvah śṛṇvan na śṛṇōtyēnam |

Utō tvasmi tanvam vivasrē jyāyēva

Patyā uśatī suvāsah ||

Rg-Vēda, x:71.4

One [man], indeed, beholding Speech has not seen her;

another hearing her has not heard her; but to another

She delivers her person in the same way a passionate

wife, beautifully attired, gives herself to her husband.

• 20 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

The Naṭī enters, and the Sūtradhāra tells her that they are going to put on a new play, ‘Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam’, by Kālidāsa, so let every actor be well prepared.

The Naṭī replies:

Suvihita- prayōgatayāryasya na kim-api parihāsyatē

Suvihida-ppa'ō 'adā 'ē ajjassa na kim 'vi parihāsyatē |

Because of your masterly ‘performance’, sir, nothing will appear ridiculous.

At one level of meaning - the obvious one - the Naṭī is praising the ‘expert directorial skills’ (suvihita-prayōga) of the Sūtradhāra. But the Naṭī (whose alter ego is Śakuntalā) is, through the same expression, also playfully praising the skills in the art of love-making possessed by the Sūtradhāra (whose alter ego is Duṣyanta). We are to witness the ‘dressed’-rehearsal of his skills in love-making toward the end of Act Three.

The Sūtradhāra's response continues the double level of meaning established by the Naṭī:

Āryē! Kathayāmi tē bhūtārtham,

Ā paritōṣād-viḍuṣām na sādhū manyē prayōga-vijñānam |

Balavad-api śikṣitānām-ātmany-apratyayami cētah ||2||

Dear, to tell you the truth,

Unless the learnèd ones are completely satisfied,

A performance cannot be considered good.

For, however expert one may be,

There still lurks in the mind a sense of diffidence. (2)

At the surface level, the Sūtradhāra is modestly deferring to the learnèd members of the audience the judgment of his directorial skills. At the implied level of meaning, however, he is expressing diffidence about his love-making skills, which are soon to be tested in his role of King Duṣyanta. And the ‘learnèd ones’ who must be completely satisfied at this level are those members of the audience who are well versed in the Kāma-Sūtra!

The Naṭī then wants to know what should be done next, and the Sūtradhāra asks her to entertain the audience by singing a song about the summer season which has just commenced,

When plunging deep into water's a pleasure,

When the trumpet flower adds to the fragrance of the forest breeze,

When deep-shade induced sleep

At the end of a playful day is heavenly. (3)

This stanza recited by the Sūtradhāra, which obviously praises the pleasures of nature in early summer, has also a frankly sexual level

of implied meaning The element 'bhaga' in the word 'subhaga' is

suggestive, especially when modifying the expression 'plunging deep

into water' (salilāvagāhaḥ). The trumpet flower (pāṭala) has its own

sexual connotation. Again, the passage, 'deep-shade induced sleep at

at the end of a playful day', has a resonance with the love 'episode'

toward the end of Act Three.

The Naṭī then sings a song:

Īṣad-īśac-cumbitāni bhramaraiḥ sukumāra-kēsara- śikhāni

Īśiśi- cuṁbí'ā'iṁ bhamarēhiṁ su'umāra-kēsara-śihā'iṁ |

Avatamsayanti dayamānāḥ pramadāś- śirīṣa- kusumāni

Ōdamsayaṁti da'amānā pāmadā'ō-śirīṣa-kusumā'iṁ ||4||

Softly, softly bees kiss

The filament's tender crest

Of the śirīṣa flower

Adorning gentle, sensuous women. (4)

This verse, at its surface level of meaning, speaks of bees, and

of śirīṣa flowers adorning women - conventionally understood as

adorning their ears.

Barbara S. Miller, in her essay introducing the plays of

Kālidāsa, has this to say about the effect of the Naṭī's song:

In the prologue of the Śākuntala, the director and the audience

are so enchanted by the actress's song of summer that they are

transported beyond mundane concerns. On awakening, the

director recognizes its effect:

The mood of your song's melody

carried me off by force,

just as the swift dark antelope

enchanted King Duṣyanta.4

Miller's observation on the effect of the actress's song ('being

transported beyond mundane concerns') appears to put the emphasis

on some transcendent aspect of the beauty of nature. But it is not just

the birds and bees which are carrying away the Sūtradhāra/Duṣyanta

and the learnèd audience. It is, in large measure, the strong current of

eroticism which runs through the prologue which has this effect.

One level of implied meaning in the Naṭī's song is easily

understood: the bee represents a passionate human lover kissing

gently his belovèd. But what exactly does the parallel suggest? Is

the lover kissing her lips? Her ear? Or the flower decorating her ear?

(Despite this seeming indefiniteness, the dramatic irony here clearly

hints at the episode in the first act, where Śakuntalā [the Naṭī] wearing

• 21 -

Victorianization

of Śākuntala

• 22 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

a flower on her ear, is pestered by a bee, and the king [the Sūtradhāra] reveals himself and comes to her rescue - and at other episodes, such as Queen Hamsavatī's song at the beginning of Act Five.)

As it is the Naṭī who first injects sexual suggestiveness into their conversation, and as the Sūtradhāra then raises this suggestiveness to a pitch in Verse 3, we feel that it is not just the above mentioned two levels of meaning in the Naṭī's song which has the effect of transfixing the mind of the Sūtradhāra, and of everyone else in Kālidāsa's theater.

The basic image of a śirīṣa flower tucked above the ear as an adornment of women has various sexually suggestive elements in it: the orifice of the ear, the flower metaphor, and the detail of its filament's tender crest (at the top of the 'ear'). The Naṭī's bee, thus, seems to be well acquainted with an advanced technique of the Kāma-Sūtra.

This multi-layered expression of erotic passion is then condensed into the word 'rāga' used by the Sūtradhāra:

Ahō! Rāga baddha-citta-vṛttir-ālikhita iva sarvatō raṅgaḥ |

Ah, your passion/melody has transfixed the mind, the whole body of this theater is motionless, as in a painting!

The dhvani condensed in the single word 'rāga', here, is amplified and expressed in two words, 'gīta-rāgēṇa', in the verse of the Sutradhara's following line:

Tavāsmi gīta-rāgēṇa hāriṇā prasabhaṁ hṛtaḥ |

Ēṣa rājēva dusyantaḥ sāraṅgēnātiraṁhasā ||5||

I have been carried away by the haunting passionate melody of your song,

As King Duṣyanta, here, by the swift running antelope. (5)

In this verse, the Sūtradhāra explains his absentmindedness - his forgetting that he is putting on the play, 'Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam'.

This forgetfulness, of course, foreshadows the curse's effect in his role of Duṣyanta.

What we wish to analyze, now, are the tenses (of verbs) used in three recent translations of the last two lines of the prologue:

Michael Coulson's (1981):

ACTRESS But you've already announced that we're to do a new play called 'Śakuntalā and the Love Token'!

DIRECTOR My goodness, so I had. For the moment I'd quite forgotten. In fact

I was as swept away

By the enchantment of your song

As King Dushyanta here

Drawn on and on by the swift-fleeing deer.5

Barbara S. Miller’s (1984):

ACTRESS: But didn’t you just direct us to perform a new play

called Śakuntalā and the Ring of Recollection?

DIRECTOR: Madam, I’m conscious again! For a moment I

forgot.

The mood of your song’s melody

carried me off by force,

just as the swift dark antelope

enchanted King Duṣyanta.6

Chandra Rajan’s (1989):

ACTRESS: Why, Sir, what you mentioned right at the beginning

• the new play entitled The Recognition of Śakuntalā.

DIRECTOR: You do well to remind me, dear lady. Indeed, my

memory failed me for an instant: because,

I was carried far, far away, lured

by your impassioned song, compelling, . . .

even as the King, Duhṣanta here,

was, by the fleet fleeing antelope.7

All three scholars have used the past tense in translating the

construction, ‘Tavāsmi . . . hṛtah’:

Coulson: ‘I was as swept away’

Miller: ‘The mood . . . carried me off’

Rajan: ‘I was carried far, far away’

But this past action must then be compared with an action

which is continuing into the present: King Duṣyanta is just about to

enter on the stage pursuing the antelope.

Therefore, all three translators falter when they are led by their

choice of the past tense in translating ‘Tavāsmi . . . hṛtah’ into also

using the past tense - or implying its use - in the second half of the

comparison:

Coulson: ‘As King Dushyanta here [was swept away]

Drawn on and on by the swift-fleeing deer.’

Miller: ‘just as the swift dark antelope

enchanted King Duṣyanta.’

Rajan: ‘even as the King, Duhṣanta here,

was [carried away] by the fleet fleeing antelope.’

The question of tense here is not just an issue of pedantic,

limited consequence. This question lies at the very heart of the

interpretative framework one uses (knowingly or unknowingly) in

the attempt to translate (or understand) this play. The Sūtradhāra

has to move from a statement of an action in the past (‘I forgot’)

to a statement of an action continuing into the present (‘As King

• 24 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

Duṣyanta, here, is being carried away’ [present continuous], ‘. . . is carried away’ [present], or ‘. . . has been carried away’ [present perfect tense])

For those readers, or translators, who do not understand that the Sūtradhāra’s alter ego is Duṣyanta, the Sūtradhāra’s ‘being carried away’ ends with his recovering his memory, and thus is an action which is interpreted and translated as past and completed (‘I was carried away’). However, our metadramatic framework of interpretation is quite different. The Natī’s song should be understood as casting a powerful, long lasting spell on her husband.⁸ This spell, as it were, transforms him into King Duṣyanta, and its effect lasts throughout the play proper, only ending when, in the capacity of the Sūtradhāra and having given up the role of king, he recites the Bharatavākyam at the close of the drama. The learnèd audience in Kālidāsa’s day would also have experienced the power of the Natī’s spell and have enjoyed this transformation of Sūtradhāra into hero, of Natī into heroine - of drama into metadrama.

We give, here, the text of these two lines, and our translation:

NAṬĪ

Naṃ ajja-missēhiṃ pudhamaṃ ēvva aṇṇattaṃ Ahiṇṇāṇa-Sa’uṃdalāṃ ṇāma apuvvaṃ ṇāda’aṃ pa’ō’ē adhikarī’adu’tti |

SŪTRADHĀRAH

Āryē! Samyaganubhōdhitôsmi | Asmiṃ-ksaṇē vismṛtaṃ khalu mayā | Kutah,

Tavasmiṃ gīta-rāgēṇa hṛdinaṃ praśabhaṃ hṛtaḥ |

Ēṣa rājēva duṣyantaḥ sāraṅgēṇātiramasā ||5||

ACTRESS

But the honorable ones have already ordered a performance of the unprecedented, new play, ‘Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam’.

DIRECTOR

Dear, it’s good you’ve reminded me. For a moment, indeed, I forgot. For,

I have been carried away by the haunting, passionate melody of your song

As King Duṣyanta, here, by the swift running antelope. (5)

To state the last ślōka more explicitly:

I have been enchanted by the haunting, passionate melody of your song (and am being transformed into) King Duṣyanta, here, enchanted by the swift running antelope. (5)

Eroticism runs through this transformation as a thread of continuity - a point which has been clearly made by Chandra Rajan:

The chase is a central motif in Act 1; the King is not merely chasing a deer, he is after a girl. The deer is closely associated with Śakuntalā through imagery and it leads the King into her world. . . . The chase motif is picked up in Act 2 where we come across several phrases pertaining to the sport of hunting: the hunter’s skill; his elation when he gets the quarry. . . . All of these phrases conveying as they do the sense of dominance over the prey and gaining possession of it, characterize the initial attitude to and relation of Duhṣanta with Śakuntalā.⁹

The importance of being aware of these metadramatic transformations, first, from Nāndī ślōka to prologue, and then from prologue to play proper, lies in the resulting revelation of such elements of continuity which run through the play. If it is seen that the element of eroticism is firmly established in embryo form in the Nāndī of the Śākuntala, and then that this element is articulated and intensified in the prologue, we should certainly expect to see it reach its full-blown form in the play proper.

Now, touching on this very expectation is one of the major debates among scholars concerning the play, 'Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam': the dispute over the relative genuineness of various manuscript versions which have come down to us. The two main contenders for the crown of authority are, today, the so-called 'Bengālī' and 'Devanāgarī' recensions.

Sir William Jones's pioneering translation of the play, published in 1789, was based on the Bengālī version. Monier Williams, nearly a century later, preferred the Devanāgarī version. Monier Williams suspected the copyists in Bengal of interpolating passages:

. . . the copyists in Bengal have been Paṇḍits whose cacoëthes for amplifying and interpolating has led to much repetition and amplification. Many examples might here be adduced; but I will only refer to the third Act of the Bengālī recension, where the love-scene between the King and Śakuntalā has been expanded to four or five times the length it occupies in the MSS. of the Devanāgarī recension.10

Barbara S. Miller, writing more recently, would give support to Monier Williams's suspicion:

. . . the most prominent difference between the two recensions [the Bengālī and Devanāgarī] is the so-called śṛṅgāric elaboration that occurs in the final scene of Act Three in the Bengali Recension (Pischel 3.29-38). This prolonged erotic dialogue between the king and Śakuntalā adds nothing to the rasa of the act, but one can imagine its insertion into the play to please some patron. The verses are not among the best of the play . . . and the entire dialogue shows a lack of subtlety.11

But other contemporary scholars, such as Chandra Rajan and Michael Coulson, who have chosen to base their translations of the Śākuntala on the Bengālī recension, think differently. Chandra Rajan writes:

One can argue that the Bengal text is more satisfying, aesthetically. The longer and more numerous prose passages and the additional verses, result in a smoother narrative and fuller characterization. The differences between the two recensions are found mainly in Act 1 and 3; they are particularly significant in the love episodes which the Devanāgarī treats in a rather perfunctory manner.12

– 25 –

Victorianization of Śākuntala

• 26 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

We agree with Chandra Rajan. And our own position is that

the Devanāgarī recension is a truncated, expurgated version of the

'original' text. The erotic elements hidden in the Nāndī-embryo,

protected by dhvani, were, in the prologue-foetus, allowed to develop

and become articulated because they were still protected by a veil of

suggestiveness. But when these elements saw the light of day, post-

partum, shorn of their protection, they suffered disfiguring amputation

at the hands of the Devanāgarī copyists.

We have intended to use the word 'Victorianization', which

appears in the title of this paper, only in its metaphorical sense, of

course. In this sense it represents a reaction which began more than a

thousand years ago and resulted in 'trimmed' texts of the Śākuntalā

and a certain 'blindness' on the part of commentators concerning the

erotic implications of various passages in the play - especially in the

Nāndī and in the prologue.

One final note: in the last three acts, eros has been tempered

by suffering and separation. Towards the end of Act Seven, when

Duṣyanta is reunited with Śakuntalā, and falls at her feet in remorse,

she asks him to rise and says to him that their suffering must have

been due to some wrong-doing of hers in a previous birth. From a

metadramatic perspective, Śakuntalā's reference to some wrong-doing

in a 'previous birth' suggests to us, at one level, the earlier period in

her life (portrayed in the first three acts and the beginning of the

fourth) when she falls in love with King Duṣyanta, submits to him,

and then in the distraction of love, unknowingly incurs the wrath of

the sage Durvāsas. Her 'wrong-doing' is hidden from her. At a

deeper metadramatic level, however, 'previous birth' may also be

taken as referring to the role of her alter ego (the Naṭī) in the pro-

logue. The irony of this implication is striking. If Śakuntalā could

only pierce the metadramatic barrier and remember the passion she

felt, and the sexually suggestive language she used, in her previous

incarnation as the Naṭī, she would indeed blush!

Notes

1. This paragraph paraphrases ideas expressed in the second paragraph on page x of Sadashiv Ambadas Dange’s book, Sexual Symbolism from the Vedic Ritual (Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1979).

2. Śākuntala, edited by Monier Williams (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1876), p. 2.

3. The Works of Kālidāsa, Vol. 1, edited by C.R. Devadhar (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986 [1934]), p. 178.

4. Theater of Memory: The Plays of Kālidāsa, edited by B.S. Miller (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), p. 38.

5. Three Sanskrit Plays, translated by Michael Coulson (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981), p. 42.

6. Miller, p. 90.

7 Kālidāsa: The Loom of Time, translated by Chandra Rajan (New Delhi: Penguin Books [India], 1989), pp. 170-71.

8. This is expressed very nicely in Heinrich Zimmer’s Philosophies of India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990 [1951]), p. 148: Kāma is of the essence of magic, magic of the essence of love; for among nature’s own spells and charms that of love and sex is pre-eminent. This is the witchcraft that compels life to progress from one generation to the next, the spell that binds all creatures to the cycle of existences, through deaths and births.

9. Chandra Rajan, p. 16.

10. Monier Williams, p. vii.

11. B.S. Miller, pp. 334-35.

12. Chandra Rajan, p. 14.

Appendix

The Prologue of

Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam

The foremost creation of the Creator;

the carrier of the oblation according to rules;

The form of the sacrificer; those two who create time;

that element which pervades the universe, whose attribute is sound;

That which people say is the source of all beings;

and that which is the very breath of all living creatures –

Through these eight perceptible forms,

may the Lord protect you! (1)

(After the Invocation, enter the Sūtradhāra)

SŪTRADHĀRA: (Looking back-stage) Lady, if you have finished dressing, please come here.

ACTRESS: (Entering) Sir, here I am.

SŪTRADHĀRA: Dear, this audience is full of learnèd people. We are going to present a new play,

'Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam', whose plot has been composed by Kālidāsa. Therefore, let every actor

be well prepared.

ACTRESS: Because of your masterly 'performance', sir, nothing will appear ridiculous.

SŪTRADHĀRA: Dear, to tell the truth,

Unless the wise are completely satisfied,

A performance cannot be considered masterful.

For, however expert one may be,

There still lurks in the mind a sense of diffidence. (2)

ACTRESS: Sir, let it be. Just give the command what should be done next, sir.

SŪTRADHĀRA: What else but delight the ears of the members of this audience.

Sing a song about the summer season that has just begun and is still enjoyable,

When plunging deep into water's a pleasure,

When the trumpet flower adds to the fragrance of the forest breeze,

When deep-shade induced sleep

At the end of a playful day is heavenly! (3)

ACTRESS: Surely. (She sings)

Softly, softly, bees kiss

The filament's tender crest

Of the śirīṣa flower

Adorning gentle, sensuous women. (4)

SŪTRADHĀRA: Well sung, dear! Ah, your melody has transfixed the mind, the whole body of this royal theater is motionless, as in a painting! . . . What play are we going to put on now to please it?

ACTRESS: But the honorable ones have already ordered a performance of the unprecedented new play, 'Abhijñāna-Śākuntalam'.

SŪTRADHĀRA: Dear, it's good you've reminded me. For a moment, indeed, I forgot. For,

I have been carried away by the haunting, passionate melody of your song,

As King Duṣyanta, here, by the swift running antelope. (5)

4

4

Bhāsamāna-Bhāsaḥ

Bhāsamāna-Bhāsaḥ

or

or

The Case of the Chimerical Kavi

The Case of the Chimerical Kavi

In the year 1909, T. Ganapati Sastri came across a palm-leaf manuscript containing a collection of ten Sanskrit plays plus a fragment of an eleventh. Subsequently, a complete version of the eleventh and two more plays of a character similar to the others were obtained by him.

Contrary to the usual practice in Sanskrit dramatic works, the author was nowhere mentioned in any of these thirteen plays. However, Ganapati Sastri attributed all thirteen to the poet Bhāsa on the basis of circumstantial evidence. His discovery and publication of the plays assumed great importance because before this no actual play of Bhāsa's had been known to have survived, and because of the universally held belief that India's greatest poet-dramatist, Kālidāsa, had praised Bhāsa as a playwright whose fame was already well established before he (Kālidāsa) ventured forth with his maiden drama, Mālavikāgnimitra.

In the face of this universal belief, we wish to propose and defend the following thesis:

Kālidāsa nowhere mentions any poet Bhāsa!

Generations of modern scholars have been assuming that Kālidāsa's statement put into the mouth of the Māriṣa, in the prologue of Mālavikāgnimitra, contains a compound expression which names three poets:

Bhāsa-Saumilla-Kaviputrādīnām

Bhāsa-Saumilla-Kaviputrādīnām

Since the later Sanskrit critical works (from the 7th century A.D. onwards) have a number of references to a great poet, Bhāsa, it was of course only natural to assume this.

We wish to point out the fact, however, that 'bhāsa' in the above compound is equivocal. Grammatically, it could be either a proper noun or an adjective. But our thesis would propose that neither Kālidāsa nor his audience knew any poet named Bhāsa (who was yet to be born, centuries later), and, therefore, Kālidāsa intended - and his audience understood - 'bhāsa' simply as an adjective.

Let us analyze the full sentence:

Prathita-yaśasām bhāsa-saumilla-kaviputrādīnām prabandhān-atikramya

Prathita-yaśasām bhāsa-saumilla-kaviputrādīnām prabandhān-atikramya

well-established fame-(possessors) reputed Saumilla Kaviputra & others works overlooking

• 32 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

vartamāna-kavēḥ kālidāsasya kriyāyāṁ katham bahumānaḥ |

present poet's Kālidāsa's work-in how prefer

How is it that the works of the reputed Saumilla, Kaviputra, and

others of long established renown, are overlooked in favor of a

play by the young poet, Kālidāsa?

Our case does not, however, rest on mere grammatical

possibility. We seek further support in evidence found in the

metadramatic relation of the prologue to the play proper of the

Mālavikāgnimitra.

As argued earlier, we have maintained that in classical Sanskrit

plays, the prologue represents one layer of dramatization, and the play

proper is metadrama in relation to its prologue.1 The play proper is a

play within a play. Further, we have maintained that the Sūtradhāra

goes on to take the role of the leading male character in the play

proper, and his assistant (the Naṭī, Vidūṣaka, or Māriṣa) takes the role

of another specific character in the play proper.

In Mālavikāgnimitra, the Sūtradhāra takes the role of King

Agnimitra. And the Sūtradhāra's assistant (Māriṣa) takes the role of

the Vidūṣaka, Gautama. The objection raised by the Māriṣa/Gautama

in the prologue ('How can poets of long established renown be

overlooked in favor of a young poet?') is thus full of dramatic irony.

The parallel situation at the metadramatic (play proper) level being

hinted at is the rivalry between Agnimitra's (older) chief queens

(Dhāriṇī and Irāvatī) on the one hand and the beautiful, talented, and

young Mālavikā on the other. (Scholars who have supposed that

Kālidāsa was unstintingly praising the old poets have failed to reckon

with the powerful irony of the Sūtradhāra's response to the Māriṣa's

objection.)

Now, the parallelism in the irony would be somewhat disjoint

if the Māriṣa lists the names of three established old poets (Bhāsa,

Saumilla, and Kaviputra) when only the two senior queens are known

by name and appear in the play proper. But the parallelism is perfect

if 'bhāsa' is an adjective and not a proper noun: Saumilla/Dhāriṇī and

Kaviputra/Irāvatī.

The response of the Sūtradhāra (Agnimitra-to-be) to the

objections raised by the Māriṣa (Gautama-to-be) is both an explicit

defense of the young poet, Kālidāsa, and an implied defense of the

young Mālavikā:

Ayē vivēka viśrantam-abhihitam | Paśya:

ah discernment lacking spoken-of look

Purānam-ity- ēva na sādhu sarvam

old thus just-because not charming all

Na cāpi kāvyam navam-ity avadyam |

neither art-work new thus unpraise-worthy

Satah parīksyānyatarad-bhajantē

true-connois. examining-other-way favor

Mūḍhaḥ para-pratyayaneya-buddhih ||2||

fool others opinions mind of

Ah! Spoken with a complete lack of discernment! Look:

Not everything is charming just because it's old.

Neither is a Work of Art unpraise-worthy simply because it's new.

A true connoisseur makes an in-depth study of them before judging,

Whereas a fool goes by the opinions of others. (2)

The dhvani in this passage paints a picture of Agnimitra (the Sūtradhāra's alter ego) as a judge of women (Works of Art) - a judge whose close examination (parīksya) is thorough and from all angles.

The Māriṣa then says: 'The honorable gentlemen will judge' ('Āryamiśrāḥ pramāṇam'). That is, the audience will be the judge.

The idea of the actual audience judging the play (Mālavikāgnimitra) is paralleled at a metadramatic level by the judging of Mālavikā's performance in the little dance drama she presents within the play proper.

(This dance drama is a drama-within-a-drama-within-a-drama.)

After the Māriṣa's remark about the members of the assembly being the judge, the Sūtradhāra is impatient to proceed with putting on the play proper:

SŪTRADHĀRAH Tēna hī tvaratām bhāvān |

then quick be-you

Śirasā prathama-grhītām- ājñām- icchāmi pariṣadaḥ kartum |

head-(bowed) at-once accepted command want-I assembly's to carry-out

Dēvyā iva dhāriṇyāḥ sēvā- dakṣaḥ pari-janōyam ||3||

goddess as Dhāriṇī's serving cleverly assistant-this

DIRECTOR Well, then, hurry up!

As an assistant cleverly serving

The goddess Dhāriṇī,2

I want to carry out at once the pariṣad's command,

Accepted with a bow. (3)

• 34 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

The Sūtradhāra has been commanded by the ‘audience’ to put on the play, Mālavikāgnimitra. The very title of the play signifies the union of the heroine, Mālavikā, with the hero, King Agnimitra. As the Sūtradhāra is going to take the role of Agnimitra, the audience’s command implies that he (the Sūtradhāra/Agnimitra) will be united with Mālavikā. His almost obsequious eagerness (expressed in Verse 3) to fulfill that command is heightened by his comparing himself to (and seeing himself as) a clever servant of Queen Dhāriṇī. The comparison immediately suggests the imminent entrance in the next scene of the maid, Bakulāvalikā, a clever servant, indeed, of Queen Dhāriṇī; but the statement also implies the almost farcical debasement throughout the play of the king in pursuit of his union with Mālavikā – he (both figuratively and literally) throws himself at the feet of his two senior queens and Mālavikā! Further, King Agnimitra, in several passages of the play proper, explicitly emphasizes his servitude to Queen Dhāriṇī (in his second line after verse 19 of Act I and his first line after verse 18 of Act V), and to Mālavikā (in verse 13 of Act III and in verse 12 of Act IV).

The plausibility of our thesis (that Kālidāsa’s ‘bhāsa’ is an adjective and not a proper noun) will thus depend on one’s assessment of the over-all metadramatic structure which we have outlined and the strength of the particular parallelism which we find between six persons: the two senior, ‘established’ pairs, Saumilla/Dhāriṇī and Kāviputra/Irāvatī; and the young ‘debutantes’, Kālidāsa/Mālavikā.

Postscript 2005

If our transformation of an ancient poet, Bhāsa, into an adjective is too far-fetched to be countenanced, there is still another reading of the passage in question which would preserve our meta-dramatic framework. Kālidāsa, in the passage, “Bhāsa-saumilla-kaviputrādīnām”, could be referring to the earlier poets Bhāsa and Saumilla and other seeming ‘sons-of-poets’ (‘kavi-putrādīnām’) – in the mode of ‘marīci-putrādīnām’. Then the parallelism found between the six persons would be the two senior, ‘established’ pairs, Bhāsa/Dhāriṇī and Saumilla/Irāvatī; and the young ‘debutantes’ Kālidāsa/Mālavikā. On either interpretation, please note, Kālidāsa’s comparison is not flattering to the older poets!

King Mahēndra’s assumption of the nom de plume ‘Bhāsa’, as we suggest in the 9th Study in this book, would then humorously be playing on the word bhāsa’s meaning of ‘appearance’ or ‘semblance’: Bhāsamāna-Bhāsah!

Notes

1. In the first and second chapters.

2. It is a conceit that a ruler has for his consort the goddess Earth – and ‘Dhāriṇī’ is also one of the names of the Earth Goddess.

5

You or Us?

Kēcid-bhagnāḥ yusmad-asmat-prakriyāsu |1|

— Bhaṭṭōji Dikṣita

Our observation is simple: in classical Sanskrit plays, it is standard practice for the Sūtradhāra, in the Nāndī ślōka (the opening verse of invocation), to address the audience directly as 'you' (plural), and in the Prastāvanā (the prologue to the play proper), to refer to the audience, but only indirectly. In the play proper, of course, there is no reference whatsoever to the audience.

This transition from direct address in the Nāndī to indirect reference in the Prastāvanā is part of the art of carrying the audience progressively from the world of everyday reality into the fully dramatic world of the play proper. If, therefore, a translator gets mixed up on personal pronouns in the Nāndī or Prastāvanā, the error will not be merely grammatical.

David Gitomer, in translating the Nāndī ślōka of “Urvaśī Won by Valor”, uses the personal pronoun 'us' instead of 'you':

. . . may Śiva, immovable god, bring us final bliss!2

The last line of the Nāndī in the original text, however, reads:

Sa sthānuḥ sthira-bhakti-yōga-sulabhō niḥśrēyasāyāstu vah ||1||3

A few lines later, in the prologue, Gitomer's translation has the Sūtradhāra directly addressing the audience:

DIRECTOR: Now, as for you worthy people, . . . 4

But the Sanskrit reads:

SŪTRADHĀRAH Yāvad-idānīm-āryamiśrān vijñāpayāmi |5

In the same publication, Edwin Gerow, in translating the Nāndī ślōka of “Mālavikā and Agnimitra”, uses 'our' and 'we' instead of 'your' and 'you':

May Śiva dispel the darkness from our sight that we may view our path aright!6

However, the last pāda of the Sanskrit text reads:

Sanmārgālōkanāya vapanayatu sa vas-tāmasīm vṛttim-īśaḥ ||1||7

That, ordinarily, the Sūtradhāra addresses the audience directly in the Nāndī, and only indirectly refers to it in the Prastāvanā, may appear to be an inconsequentially simple observation. But, in fact, the implications of this observation may be exceedingly subtle. Consider the Nāndī and Prastāvanā of King Mahēndra's play, Bhāgavadajjuka, which deviate from the norm.

• 36 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

The first word of the Nāndī śloka of the Bhagavadajjuka - the very first word which the Sūtradhāra utters on stage - is ‘tvām’ (thee), a singular form, in which the members of the audience, assuming that it was directed at them, might sense a puzzling familiarity on the part of the Sūtradhāra in his manner of addressing them.

A further surprise to the members of the audience would come from the fact that the Sūtradhāra makes no reference to them in the Prastāvanā. Neither does he follow the usual practice, in the Prastā-vanā, of announcing the name of the playwright and the title of the play which is going to be performed before the audience.

Now, we would account for these “omissions” and seeming familiarity by explaining that at the dramatic levels of the Nāndī and the Prastāvanā of this play (Bhagavadajjuka), there is, for the Sūtra-dhāra, no audience, no playwright, and no titled play! The play proper, which is to follow, is to be understood, at these introductory dramatic levels, as an extempore, private creation of the Sūtradhāra (hence no playwright and no title) used to teach his assistant, the Vidūṣaka, what a farce is.

On our interpretation, in the make-believe world of the Nāndī and Prastāvanā of this play, the Nāndī is actually addressed to a single person. The ‘thee’ (‘tvām’), at this level, is addressed to the Sūtra-dhāra’s assistant, the Vidūṣaka, and not to any audience. Hence the author’s deliberate use of the singular pronoun ‘tvām’ in the Nāndī śloka:

Tvāṁ pātu lakṣaṇādhyāḥ sura-vara-mukuṭendra-cāru-maṇi-ghṛṣṭaḥ |

Rāvaṇa-namitāṅguṣṭhō rudrāsya sadārcitaḥ pādaḥ ||1|8

At the very beginning of the Prastāvanā, the Sūtradhāra makes it clear that, for him, there is no audience. In line 3, he tells the Vidūṣaka, “If there’s no one around, I’ll tell you some pleasant news.” And the Vidūṣaka looks all around and answers, “Sir, no one is in the house, so do tell me the pleasant news.” This exchange is a humorous way of letting the unacknowledged, actual audience know that there is no audience in the Sūtradhāra’s “house” - that is, in his make-believe theater - or, shall we say, in his ‘meta’-theater.

Let us offer an analogy in order to explain the effect that the Bhagavadajjuka’s Nāndī śloka and the opening lines of its Prastāvanā would have had on the audience of Mahēndra’s day.

Imagine that your name is Perry Shudder and that you are walking on a busy city street. Someone calls out, “Hi! Perry, old boy. May God protect thee,” You turn to see who it is who is calling you and wishing you God’s protection, only to realize that you are not the ‘Perry’ being addressed, and that both the strangers are paying no attention whatsoever to you.

This analogy would indicate the kind of surprise the members

of the original audience would have felt when, after listening to the

Nāndī ślōka and wondering whether they were being familiarly ad-

dressed in the collective singular, they began to realize that the

Sūtradhāra had, in fact, not been addressing them at all in the Nāndī -

and that he now has made it clear, in the opening of the Prastāvanā,

that they 'don't exist' (in his make-believe, dramatic world)!

That the Sūtradhāra is putting on only an extempore practice

play, without benefit of an acknowledged audience, is further

reinforced in line 5, where the Sūtradhāra reports that he has just met

an astrologer who has predicted that on the seventh day from that very

day, he (the Sūtradhāra) will be putting on a play before an audience

at the royal palace.

Finally, there is a structural parallelism between the Bhagavad-

ajjuka's Nāndī/Prastāvanā transition and its Prastāvanā/play-proper

transition. This parallelism would support our contention that the

Sūtradhāra is addressing the Nāndī ślōka to his assistant, the

Vidūṣaka, while ignoring the existence of any audience.

The Sūtradhāra, in the Nāndī, says:

May the ever-worshipped foot of Rudra protect thee (tvām)!

And, immediately following the Nāndī, in the opening of the

Prastāvanā, the Sūtradhāra calls his assistant: 'Vidūṣaka! Vidūṣaka!'

The second ślōka, at the end of the Prastāvanā, parallels the

Nāndī ślōka. The Sūtradhāra addresses the Vidūṣaka, using the singular 'tvam' (thou):

Since thou (tvam) art determined to become enlightened,

a follower of the path of virtue, . . .

As a disciple, follow me!

a bull of a Brahmin mendicant, master yogi. (2)

The Sūtradhāra and Vidūṣaka then leave the stage, and in a

moment return on stage in their meta-roles of the Parivrājaka (guru)

and Shāṇḍilya (disciple) to begin the play proper. The Parivrājaka

enters the stage first, and his first words are: 'Shāṇḍilya! Shāṇḍilya!'

(calling his metamorphosed side-kick).

The above parallelism may be expressed concisely as follows:

Nāndī ślōka: 'tvām' / Prastāvanā's opening: 'Vidūṣaka! Vidūṣaka!'

Prastāvanā's ślōka: 'tvam' / play-proper's opening: 'Shāṇḍilya! Shāṇḍilya!'

In the introduction which we have written to the play Bhagavad-

ajjuka, we have argued that, indirectly, through dhvani, the Nāndī

ślōka suggests King Mahēndra as the author of the play. And we have

pointed out that, toward the end of the play, in line 229, Shāṇḍilya -

• 37 -

You or Us?

• 38 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

again indirectly, through dhvani - gives us the name of the play. In

the paragraphs above, we have argued that though the audience might

at first assume that the Nāndī is addressed to them, the Nāndī is actu-

ally being addressed, in its direct sense, to the Vidūṣaka (Shāndilya-

to-be). Thus, the reference to the audience, taken in its collective

singular sense, is given only indirectly through dhvani - creating a

paradoxical effect.

Notes

1. The full ślōka:

Kēcid-bhagnās-sudhyupāsya-prayōgē

Kēcid-bhagnāḥ yuṣmad-asmat-prakriyāsu |

Kēcid-bhagnāḥ kārakārtha-prayōgē

Sarvē bhagnāḥ yain-luñ-anta-prayōgē ||

And our translation:

A few bungle in working out the formation of 'sudhyupāsya';

A few bungle in working out (the grammatical terminations of) 'yuṣmat' and 'asmat';

A few bungle in working out the 'kārakārtha';

But everyone bungles in working out the ending of 'yai' and 'luṅ'.

2. Theater of Memory: The Plays of Kālidāsa, edited by Barbara

Stoler Miller (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984),

p. 181.

3. Works of Kālidāsa, Vol. I, Dramas, edited and translated into

English by C.R. Devadhar (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1985

[1966]), p. 2 of the text of “Vikramōrvaśīyam”.

4. Theater of Memory, p. 181.

5. Works of Kālidāsa, Vol. I, p. 2 of the text of “Vikramōrvaśīyam”.

6. Theater of Memory, p. 255.

7. Works of Kālidāsa, Vol. I, p. 2 of the text of “Mālavikāgnimitram”.

8. For our translation, see Part 2 of this book.

6

Abhinavagupta's Discussion of Metadrama (c. 1000 A.D.)

(The text is excerpted from his commentary on the Nāṭya-Śāstra – Nāṭyashāstra of Bharatamuni,

Vol. 3, Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1981, pp. 279-284.)

Samastēna śākhā-vyāpārēṇa vartanā-pradhānatayā prayuktah śākhābhinayah

'śiro-mukha-jaṅghoru' ity-ādiṣu krtaikavad-bhāvena avāntara-padasamūhena punah ślōka-dvandvena

[ślōkas 48 & 49], 'Nāṭyāyitam'-ity-ādi 'Sthāna' ity-ādi ca |

Pūrva-praviṣṭasya pātrasya tad-rūpam-udikṣamānāsya apara-pātrasya pravēśah

tad-dhruvā-gāna-tat-sūcā-parikramaṇādi kimcin-nāṭyam-aṣṭiti tat-kalē pūrvapātrēṇa yē samucitā

upacārāḥ kriyantē nāṭyāyitam-ity-ādirāryās-tāṭparyam | 3. Pūrva-praviṣṭēna saha

saṅgamaṁ vidhāyā paścāt-praviṣṭa-pātra-parikramaṇādi kālē sthānakēnaivāsīnāsya tūṣṇīṁ sthitau

prāptāyam-abhinayah tad-api nāṭyāyitam-ity-aparāryās-tāṭparyam-iti Śrī-Śaṅkukādyāḥ, tac-cāryuktam |

Anyōnyasaṅgamāvadhi yat-pātrasya cēṣṭitam tad-aparōdita-vākyārtha-sūcanōcitavāṁ vā

nir-vacanakādāv-aucitya-mātrādēvōpanataṁ vā, pūrvatra-pakṣē nivṛtti-aṅkurah uttaratrāṅkuraḥ

ity-ubhyam na nāṭyāyitam |

Tathā hi prayōga-kuśalāḥ prāhuḥ ēvam-vidhē viṣayē dharmī – 'likhati' iti, 'pālayann-āstē'

iti, tathā 'puṣpāpacayami nāṭayatī'ti | 6. Nāṭyasya sandhāna-rūpatvam ca vākyē sūcādinām-api

saṁbhavaty-ēva | 7. Na vā nāṭyēna nāṭyam sandhīyatē iti nāṭyayitaṁ – vācōyuktir- api katham |

Tasmād-ittam-ētad vyākhyātavyam – iha yadā svapnōpy-ēka-ghanō drśyatē tan-madhyata ēva ca

kimcid-drśyamānaḥ parasyā svapna ēva jāgrad-rūpatām-āpāditē 'Svapnōyam mayā drṣṭa' iti varyantē,

svapnatvam-iti tasya svapnāyita-vyavaharāḥ | 9. Ēvam-ihāpi nāṭya ēka-ghana-svabhāvē hi sthitē

tattraivāsatya-nāṭya-pātrēṣu samājikī-bhūteṣu tad-apekṣayā yad-anyaiṁ nāṭyam tasyā

tad-apekṣayā nāṭya-rūpatvaṁ parāmarthikam-iti aupacārikam tad-apekṣam tasyā

svapnatvam-iti tasya svapnāyitavyavaharō drṣṭaḥ | 10. Tac-ca dvididham

nātaka-rūpaka-niṣṭham-ēvaḥ kāryantaraniṣṭham vā tasyā kāryaṇam-āryā-dvitayēnōcyatē |

Nāṭyē yat-pravēśakair-nāṭyāntara-gatair-iva pātraih ata ēva tataḥ 'praviśa''ty-uktaiḥ saṅgamaḥ

kriyatē tan-nāṭyāyitam | 12. Kīdrśair-abhinayair-varēṇa yat-sūcanā tayōpacāraiḥ

paramārthatayōpacaryamānaiḥ | 13. Nanūbhayam-api nāṭyam kasmān-na bhavati

natv-ēka-ghanatēty-āśaṅkyaḥ kāla-prakarṣa-lakṣaṇādd-hētōr-anyōnyā-bhinnā-kālatvāt

katham tatraika-ghanatā yuktētib bhavāḥ | 14. Yāvad-iti bhūyas-taram prabandham vyāpnōti

parimitam vā tat-sarvam nāṭyāyitam-ity-arthāḥ | 15. Tathā yāvad-iti svapnē svapnāntaram

tatrāpya-anyat-svapnāntaram-ity-ādi-nyayēna vā bhavatv-ēka-ghana-svapnāyita-vṛttyā vā

sarvathā tan-nāṭyāyitam | 16. Tatrāsya bahutara-vyāpinō bahu-garbha-svapnāyita-tulyasya

nāṭyāyitasyōdāharaṇam mahā-kavi-Subandhu-nibaddhō Vāsavadattā-Nāṭyadhārākhyāḥ samasta

ēva prayōgaḥ | 17. Tatra hi Bīndusāraḥ prayōjya-vastuka 'Udayana-Carītē' sāṁjīkī-krtah,

asāv-apy-Udayanō 'Vāsavadattā-cēṣṭitē' | 18. Eṣaṁ cārthaḥ:- svasmin sūtra-rūpakē drṣṭē sujñānō

bhavati | 19. Ati-vaitatya-bhayāt-tu na pradarśitaḥ ēkas-tu pradēśa udāhriyatē tatrahy-Udayanē

sāṁjīkī-krtē sūtradhāra-prayōgaḥ – 'Tava sucaritair-ēṣa jayati' iti, tata Udayanaḥ 'Kuṭō mama

sucaritānī'ti sāśraṁ vilapati:-

'Ehy-amba kiṁ Kaṭaka-Piṅgala-pālakais-tair-bhaktōham-apy-Udayanaḥ suta-lālanīyaḥ |

Yaugandharāyaṇa manāṇaya rāja-putrīṁ hā harṣa-rakṣita gatas-tvam-aprabhāvāḥ ||'

22. Tatraiva Bindusārah sāmājikī-bhūtaḥ paramārthatām-abhimanya-mānō

"Dhanyā khalu (idṛśair-bhaktasya) pralāpaiḥ" ity-ucchvasati | 23. Pratīhārī ātmagataṁ –

"A'ñida-para-mattha-kalañēhiṁ piccha'i khu dēvō" ity-ādi |

24. Parimita-vyāpinō nir-garbhasya nātyāyitasyōdāharaṇaṁ yathā "Bālarāmāyaṇē" garbhāṅkē

'Sītā-svayamvarē' |

25. Ēvaṁ tāvan-nāṭaka-rūpaka-niṣṭhaṁ nāṭyāyitaṁ vyākhyātam |

26. Kāryāntara-niṣṭhaṁ tūcyatē | 27. Iha yadābhyantara-rasāviṣṭatā bhavati tadā

dhruvā-yōgābhinayaḥ sva-tulyatām-āpādya-mānāḥ paraspra-militākarakatāṁ kākatālīyēnōpanipātāt

(saṁbhāvyatē) | Yathā –

28. Nalinīdala'ē ṇīṡaha-sukadēhiṁ ātatāhā mucca'i |

29. Pala'i vi'abbha'ha viij'ā i haṁsī nalinī-vaṇē'vi natthijja'i ||

30. Ity-ādau | 31. Tatra hi prayōktur-ēvaṁ-abhisandhidhruvāṁ-abhinayēna darśayāmīti |

31. Kiṁ tu prāsādikya-dhruvāyāṁ "Yatra vākyēna nōktam syāt tat-tu gītaṁ prasādhyēt" (canto 32) iti

vacanāt dhruvārthas-tat-trōcita āghātah, prayōgō hī bahu-vidhāṁ madanāvasthāṁ nāṭayati iti |

33. Ēvaṁ bhūtōṅkura-svabhāvah paurvāparya-paryalōcana-vaśāt tathā-bhūta ēvōpanipatita iti,

aprayujya-mānāpi dhruva-kakatalīyēna prayōgam-upāṁśu-rūpā nāṭyam-api nāṭyam-iva śāstē iti

tathā-vidha-nāṭyatvāpādakāḥ śārīrābhinayō nāṭyāyitam-iti darśayati "Sthānē dhruvāsv-abhinayō

yaḥ kriyata" iti | 34. Bhāvair-vyabhicārībhiḥ rasaḥ sva-sthāyibhiḥ yē saṁprayuktā āviṣṭaḥ

tat-saṁpādanaika-manasāḥ prayōktāras-tair-yō dhruvāsv-iti druvārtha-viṣayōbhinayaḥ kriyatē |

35. Kathaṁ sthānē prasangē sati kākatālīya-vaśād-ity-arthaḥ | 36. Yōbhinayaḥ śārīrō nāṭyāyitam |

36. Nanu kiṁ prati-padam-abhinayatā nēty-āha harṣādibhir-iti tat-sūcakair-aṅgōpāṅga-sattvair-ity-

arthaḥ | 38. Tad-apīti na kēvalam pūrvam yāyad-idam-apīti |

39. "Yatrānyōktam vākyam sūcābhinayēna yōjayēd-anyah |

40. "Tat-saṁbandhārthaṁ katham bhavēn-nivrty-aṅkurah sōtha ||"

41. Anyōktam vākyam katham-anya-sūcābhinayē citta-vṛtti-sūcakēnaṅgōpāṅga-sattva-kramēṇa

darśayēd-ity-āśaṅkya hētum-āha tat-saṁbandham katham-iti bijādēr-nivṛttim yathāṅkurah sūcayati

ēvaṁ nivṛttē vākyē tad-aṅkurayati nivṛttyāṅkura uktah | 42. Yathā hi vidūṣakēna Vatsarājē "Avi

suhayadi dē lō'aṅāṇaṁ" iti prṣṭaḥ Sāgarikā- "Sacam jīvida-maranāṇaṁ antaram vatṭāmi" iti,

tatō rājā – "Sukhāyitī kim-ucyate" Sāgarikāyāṁ tathābhūtā saṁśayōktāṁtha-rāgōdgama-janitō

vyabhicāri-sattva-yōjitah sattvāṅgōpāṅga-parispandō dṛśya-mānō nivṛttyāṅkurō nāṭyāyitam ca

"Vāsavadattā-Nāṭyadhārē" prati-padam dṛśyatē |

Our Own Translation

1. Considering, important, the primacy of the actions rendered

by all limbs - head, face, shanks, thighs, etc. (each action being done

in an ordered succession) - the Śākhābhinaya is introduced by means

of a samāhāra-dvandva - a linguistic form which, by aggregating

closely related things, makes (them) look like (they are organically)

'one' - and (is dealt with), again, through a couple of ślōkas:

(i) 'Nātyāyita . . .' [NŚ 22.48] and (ii) 'Sthāna . . .' [NŚ 22.49].

[Previous interpretations of 'nātyāyita' ('metadrama') and

Abhinava's rejection of them:]

2. The rendering of the dhruvā song into a little dramatic action

(nāṭya) through a translation of the song into suggestive pantomimic

movements of a particular gait, etc., by the second character who

enters looking at the form of the first character, who has already

entered, as well as the formal act of (getting up and) greeting (him)

shown by the suggestive gestures of the first - that is metadrama

(nātyāyita), and that is what is meant by the first ślōka in the

Āryāmeter [NŚ 22.48]. 3. The dramatic action (abhinaya) which we

have (prāptāyam) when the first character is (once again) seated after

the second character has met him and moves away from him - even

that (tad-api) is metadrama (nātyāyita), and that is what is meant by

the second ślōka in the Āryāmeter [NŚ 22.49]. These (foregoing)

interpretations by Śrī-Śaṅkuka and others are non-sensical.

[Abhinava's counter-argument:]

4. [Cf. 48] Until the meeting between the two (characters) is over,

the 'action' of one of the characters either shows its suitability to

indicate the effect ('artha' - 'effect', that is, on one character) of any

statement that may be made by the other character, or is an action that

has occurred merely because it is suitable for a pantomimic represen-

tation ('nirvacanakād-' = 'dumb-show'); thus, (all that can be said is

that) there is nivrttyankura in the former and ankura in the latter, and,

therefore, both (examples) are not (adequate to present a

comprehensive view of) metadrama.

[A recommendation of the use of 'Nāṭya-dharmī' instead of

'Nāṭyāyita':]

5. Even so, performance experts say that, 'In matters of this kind,

(the stage direction) must be treated as (nāṭya-)dharmī (as illustrated

by such phrases as:) 'is writing', 'is expecting', 'acts out collecting

flowers', etc. 6. Continuity of action (through connecting links) is

provided by the suggestive hints (found) in the (stage direction)

statements.' 7. (Putting forth the same argument in a different way,

they say that in this context,) 'The need of bringing about organic

connection between two actions does not arise, and, therefore, how

can (one) say there is metadrama (nātyāyita) here?'

• 42 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

8. (In answer, Abhinava says:) the explanation goes like this: when a dream is experienced as one solid, continuous, organic whole, and something perceived - which is but another dream occurring in the middle of that dream - seems to assume the appearance of wakefulness, and (the dreamer) says (to himself), "I have been dreaming", then, with regard to that spectator-like dreamer, his (imagined) wakefulness is (but) the stuff of dreams; there is nothing ultimately real about that 'wakefulness'; only in an analogical sense is it wakefulness, and, as such it is (still) a state of dreaming, and, as a consequence, it is to be regarded as an instance of meta-dreaming (svapnāyita).

9. So also in (the realm of) drama (nātya), when a play (i.e., the play proper) is one solid continuous, organic whole, and when, in the middle of that nāṭya (the play proper), a 'make-believe play' ('asatya-nāṭaka' [that is, a 'play-within-a-play']) appears, and (some of) the characters of the nāṭya (the play proper) become spectators (of the make-believe play or the play-within-a-play), then, with respect to those spectators (of the play-within-a-play), the make-believe play is regarded as assuming the appearance of a real play, and, as such it is called metadrama (nāṭyāyita).

10. It (metadrama/nāṭyāyita) is of two kinds, (one of which is the superimposition of) a make-believe play (rūpaka) on the play proper (nāṭaka), and the other, the metamorphic (śārīrābhinaya) representation of the inner (emotional) drama - the definition of which (that is, of both) is given in due order, in the two ślōkas in the Āryāmeter [NŚ 22.48-49].

11. In drama, when some of the characters, having been introduced in such directions as 'then enter', pass (from the play proper) into the inner drama - their passing over is (an instance of) metadramatization (nāṭyāyita).

12. To the question as to how they act this passing over (into the inner drama), the answer is, by using suggestive pantomime (sūcābhinaya).

13. Anticipating the objection (to the use of the term 'nāṭyāyita'/'metadrama') that is likely to be raised (āśaṅkya) - "Why can't both (satya-nāṭaka and asatya-nāṭaka) together (nanūbhayam-api) be thought of as (simply) 'nāṭya' (the play proper, single-level drama)?" - (Bharata) says, "If that were done, then there would be a lack of one solid continuity (the 'eka-ghanaṫa' that is required of a simple, single-level drama)." (Continuing this line of argument, Abhinava says,) "Because there are two distinct space-time encapsulations (- 'kāla-prakarṣa' - giving rise to two distinct levels of dramatizations in the form of satya-nāṭaka and asatya-nāṭaka, despite the fact that the second level [asatya-nāṭaka] as well as the space-time encapsulation [kāla-prakarṣa] involved in it is an offshoot of the first level and is always organically related to it), how can one speak (here) of a simple single-level drama?

14. The word 'yāvat' [in ślōka 48] means whether it

(metadrama/nātyāyita) is of (the nature of) manifold permeation

(bahutva-vyāpī) or of limited permeation (parimita-vyāpī) - all

of these cases (tat-sarvam) are meta-dramatizations (nātyāyita).

15. Furthermore (tathā), the word 'yāvat' implies that, going by the

analogy of the dream-within-a-dream, and there, too, another dream

within the (second) dream (and so on), or (in other words) going by

the logic of one solid continuous dream (involving) dreams within

dreams in ordered succession, the whole thing is a meta-dramatization

(nātyāyita).

16. (As) an example of the full use of the manifold-permeating

type of metadrama which is the equivalent of a multi-wombed (multi-

emboxed) meta-'dream'-atization (bahu-garbha-svapnāyita-tulyasya),

is (the play) entitled "Vāsavadattā-Nātyadhāra" written by the great

poet Subandhu. 17. Therein, Bindusāra is made into a spectator in the

play dealing with the story of Udayana; this same Udayana (is made

into a spectator in the play) dealing with the story of Vāsavadattā.

18. This is the meaning here: on seeing himself in the role of the

Sūtradhāra, he (Bindusāra) becomes fully understanding.

19. For fear of too much elaboration, (the entire example) is

not being given; at that time, when Udayana takes the role of a

spectator (of the play-within-the-play), the Sūtradhāra (of the make-

believe play - a part which is played by the character 'Bindusāra' of

the play proper) declares, "This (performance) triumphs on account of

your virtuous qualities"; then Udayana (bursts out), "Where are my

virtuous qualities?", and he weeps and cries out:

20. "Come, Mother! [Vāsavadattā's mother] - What can the

guards, Kaṭaka and Pingala, do? - Here am I, Udayana, a

devotee (of yours [that is, of Vāsavadattā's mother's]) fit to be

treated as (your) son.

21. "O Yaugandharāyana! Bring my princess to me - Alas!

Protector of (my) happiness, (you have) vanished, along

with (your) splendor!

22. Exactly at this point, Bindusāra [the meta-Sūtradhāra]

becomes a spectator of what is 'really' going on ['paramārthatām' -

in the present context, this is 'reality' only at the satya-nātaka level!],

heaves a sigh, and remarks, "Blessed, indeed, are we by the out-

pouring of grief of such a devoted one!"

23. The Doorkeeper [a character in the play proper, the satya-nāṭaka] says, in an aside,

"It's because (the attention of) My Lord [King Bindusāra, playing the

make-believe Sūtradhāra] has been brought back to reality [by the

'spectator' Udayana's outburst] that he has spoken like that!"

• 44 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

24. An example of metadrama of (the type of) limited permeation - not of the multi-wombed type - is (found) in the Sītā-svayaṁvara (episode) in the garbhāṅka of the (play) “Bāla-Rāmāyaṇa”.

25. Thus, the metadrama (nāṭyāyita) of the type of a make-believe play (rūpaka) within the play (nāṭaka) has been commented on.

26. (Karyāntara-niṣṭham:) The metamorphic śārīrābhinaya representations of the inner (emotional) drama will be dealt with now.

27. In this world, when rasas take possession of the heart, then the dhruvā-yōga-abhinaya achieving an organic identity, as if miraculously (kākatālīyēnōpanipātāt), in the form it takes from the mutual agglomeration (paraspara-militâkāratām), is imagined (sambhāvyatē), as is illustrated by:

28. “The love-lorn she-swan swoons on the intensely pleasure-yielding lotus petals,

29. “Halts for a long time, goes around, never leaving the lotus clusters.”

30-31. In such contexts as this, the actor’s declaration (to himself) is, “I’ll show (the whole thing) by means of dhruvā-yōga-abhinaya.” 32. But then (kim tu), when the propitiatory dhruvā (prāsādikya-dhruvāyam) is sung, (on that occasion dhruvā-yōga-abhinaya) is appropriate as is justified by the statement: “Where (something) is not presented by speech (vākya), the same thing, the 'song' must present”; (furthermore) in (such a) performance, various facets of love are acted out.

33. The dhruvābhinaya which functions (in this context) is exactly of the nature of the āṅkurābhinaya (the abhinaya that follows speech), (and this is so) on account of the consideration (ālōcana-vaśāt) of appropriate organic continuity (paurvāparya); therefore, though not possessing the substantiality of 'realistic' drama, yet the (mimed) ‘play’, created, as if miraculously (kākatālīya), in the imagination (of the spectators) by acting out the meaning of the verse being sung (dhruvā), 'reflects' reality (upāṁśu-rūpa), and is as effective as 'realistic' acting; in this manner, the śārīrābhinaya [that is, the total, combined and interrelated effect of acting - through the instrument of the actor's body - employing sāttvika, vācika, and āṅgikal] gives rise to metadrama, and it is this which is described (by Bharata) in the verse: “Sthānē dhruvābhinayō yaḥ krīyatē . . .”, etc. [NŚ 22.49].

34. The abhinaya employed by those performers whose hearts are taken possession of by bhāvas, that is, by the vyabhicāri-rasas (the subordinate rasas), along with their latent faculties (sthayīs), and who with absolute concentration are determined to capture those bhāvas (in the form of abhinaya) - that is called

abhinaya done through dhruvās (dhruvāsu) or dhruvā-yōga-abhinaya.

35. How (do they do it)? - (the answer is,) through an interrelated

combination (paraspara-milana [cf. line 27]), as if miraculously

(kākatālīya-vaśāt). 36. The ‘play’ (abhinaya) which results from it is

called) ‘metadrama’ (nāṭyāyita). 37. Is there ‘dramatization’

(abhinayată) at every step? - “No”, says he (Bharata); (various forms

of) ‘dramatization’ come out of the aṅga-upāṅga-sattvas (sattvas =

essences) embodying, Happiness, Sorrow, Anger, etc., which are

suggestive of (those various forms [sthayī-bhāvas] of the inner)

'drama', this is what (the śloka) means. 38. Why (does he) say “tad-

api”? - (the answer is:) “not only the earlier one [ślōka 48], but also

this [ślōka 49].”

39-40. The meaning in the speech of one character

pantomimically reacted to by another character is

‘Nivṛttyāṅkura’. [NŚ 22.50]

41. Anticipating (a question as to) how (one should) describe

(the link between) the speech (vākyam) of one (character) and the

sūcābhinaya of another (character) - the sūcābhinaya involving all

parts of the body (aṅgōpāṅga and sattva) in related order, revealing

the mental activity of that character - (Bharata) makes a statement

of clarification (‘hētum-āha’, beginning with the question:) “Tat-

sambandham katham . . .” (“How are the two [vākya and abhinaya]

related?”): as the coming out of a sprout (aṅkura) is revealed in the

disappearance (nivṛtti) of the seed, so also the sprouting (aṅkura) of

that (the sūcābhinaya) is revealed in the disappearance (nivṛtti) of

speech (vākya) - (and this is called ‘nivṛttyāṅkura’. 42. As, for

example, when the Vidūṣaka asks the King of Vatsa (− Udayana -

about the painted portrait of Sāgarikā:) “Does what you see please

you?”; and Sāgarikā (who is hiding, and overhears, and does not know

how the king is going to answer) says (in an aside), “I feel, indeed,

that I am standing between life and death.” Then the king says (to the

Vidūṣaka), “Need you ask if it pleases me?”. 43. And (the king then)

recites (the verse): “With difficulty (kṛcchrēṇa), (my eyes) running

across (vyatītya) (her) pair of thighs (ūruyugam), (for a long time

(sucirāt) . . .”, etc. [- a verse which expresses a frank appreciation of

Sāgarikā’s physical beauty!]. 44. If (one) listened to this (conver-

sation), in its ordered progression (tasmin kramēṇākarnyamānē) (one)

would see, in Sāgarikā, (her) reaction (parispandāḥ), which (as the

sprout) is the outer, visible manifestation of the inner state

(vyabhicāri-sattva) of her feelings of doubt and anxiety, born out of

the love welling up (udgama) in her - an emotional reaction which

involves all parts of (her) body (sattvāṅgōpāṅga) - in this way,

nivṛttyāṅkura as well as metadrama (nāṭyāyita) is seen at every step

(prati-padam) in the (play.) “Vāsavadattā-Nāṭyadhāra”.

• 45 -

Abhinavagupta

7

'Rudra'*

Starting with the title of the farce, Bhagavad-Ajjuka, we note

that it represents a union of two of the main characters of the play:

the Bhagavan, who is a parivrājaka (a mendicant sannyāsi-yōgī), and

Ajjukā (a courtesan). This union is farcically consummated in the

play when the Bhagavan uses his yogic power to transfer his soul from

his body into that of the Courtesan, who has just died of a snake bite.

This union is also farcically replicated when the Messenger of Death,

who on learning that he has taken the soul of the wrong person,

returns to earth to set things right, and, on finding that the Bhagavan's

soul is occupying the young woman's body, places the soul of the

Courtesan in the agèd body of the Bhagavan.

Rudra is the deity invoked in the opening hymn (Nāndī ślōka)

of the Bhagavad-Ajjuka:

Tvāṁ pātu lakṣaṇādhyāḥ sura-vara-mukuṭēndra-cāru-maṇi-ghṛṣṭaḥ |

Rāvaṇa-namitāṅguṣṭhō Rudrāsya sadārcitaḥ pādaḥ ||1||

Of excellent attributes, being rubbed by the beautiful gem

In the crown of the foremost of gods, Indra's diadem,

And having the big toe which crushed Rāvaṇa, too,

May the ever-worshipped foot of Rudra protect you!

We would like to point out that the Viṣṇu Purāṇa records the

birth of Rudra, springing forth from the forehead of Brahmā, in the

form of Ardhanārīśvara (the androgynous form of Śiva combining him

[right half] with his consort, Umā [left half]):

Bhrakuṭī-kuṭilāt-tasya lalātāt-krōdha-dīpitāt |

Sam-utpannas-tadā Rudrō madhyāhnārka-sama-prabhaḥ ||12||

Ardha-nārī-nara-vapuh pracandōti-śarīravān |

Vibhajātmānam-ity-uktvā taṁ brahmāntardadhē tataḥ ||13||

To him (Brahmā), whose forehead was inflamed with anger and

whose brow was knit, was, then, born Rudra, who was equal to the

midday sun in splendor. That Rudra was, in body, half female and

half male. He was terrible and gigantic. Telling him, "Divide

yourself", Brahmā then disappeared.

*Based on a paper read by us at the 7th International Congress of

Vedānta, Madras University, January 5, 1996, and published in the

Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. 62 (1995-96), pp. 56-59.

• 48 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

The background of Rudra's birth is as follows. In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahmā, the Primeval Creator, had created four sages to help him with the further work of creation. But because they were stubbornly refusing to obey him and did not procreate, Brahmā became impatient and angry with them. He, therefore, seated himself in a yōgic trance, and it was then that Rudra(-Ardhanārī) was born out of his terrible anger, springing forth from his forehead.

The author, Mahēndra, has caricatured this episode in his play, Bhagavad-Ajjuka, when he has the main character, the Bhagavan (Parivrājaka/Mendicant), in the frustration of suppressed anger with his rebellious disciple, sit down, and in a yōgic trance, create out of his anger, his own 'Ardhanārī' form by transferring his soul into the body of the Courtesan!

The dhvani of Rudra as Śiva-Ardhanārīśvara is, thus, experienced at a farcical level in the play, Bhagavad-Ajjukā, by the double union of the Bhagavan and Ajjukā (his soul in her body, and her soul in his body), and, therefore, Mahēndra's play can be viewed as a parody of the above myth of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.

King Mahēndra, in addressing his invocatory hymn to the god Rudra(-Ardhanārī), is only following the three-fold example of Kālidāsa. The Nāndī ślōkas of all three of Kālidāsa's plays are addressed to Śiva/Rudra in his Ardhanārī form. Kālidāsa makes explicit the Ardhanārīśvara form of Rudra in the Nāndīs of Mālavikāgnimitra and Vikramōrvaśī, and more subtly, in that of Abhijñāna-Śākuntala.

There is a tradition in India that one should pay homage to one's mother, father, guru, and one's god. King Mahēndra has cleverly done all of this in the Nāndī ślōka of the Bhagavad-Ajjukā.

According to the surface level meaning of the Nāndī ślōka, the 'foremost of the gods' ('suravara' - that is, Indra, the King of the gods) shows his devotion to Śiva and Śiva's consort, Umā, by bowing his head at the foot of Rudra-Ardhanārī. But since King Mahēndra is named after the god Indra - the Great Indra, the word 'suravara' in the Nāndī also brings to mind the image of King Mahēndra, the poet-author, bowing his head at the foot of Rudra-Ardhanārī. We, thus, mention Mahēndra's homage to the divine couple, first.

Second, Mahēndra's father, King Simhaviṣṇu, according to historical record, conquered the Kalabhra, Malaya, Chōḷa, and Pāṇḍya kings, and also the Simhala [Sri Lankan] king who was proud of the strength of his arms.³ With this context in mind, it is easy to grasp another level of dhvani in the Nāndī ślōka: the fierce Rudra, at this implied level, is his father, Simhaviṣṇu, who crushed the historical Sri Lankan king (the alter ego of Rāvaṇa), just as the god Rudra crushed Rāvaṇa of the epics. And, with Rudra's Ardhanārīśvara form in mind, we can understand that Mahēndra is bowing at the foot of his mother at the same time that he bows at his father's foot!

Third, we know from Mahēndra's famous musical inscription at Kudumiyāmalai that the name of his music guru was Rudra Āchārya! Thus, at a third level of implied meaning, the Nāndī ślōka of Bhagavad-Ajjuka portrays Mahēndra paying homage to his guru: Rudra Āchārya. As Rāvaṇa, Lord Rāma's antagonist, was renowned as a great musician, the Nāndī ślōka suggests, at this level, that the ever-worshipped foot of Rudra Āchārya humbled even Rāvaṇa (i.e., his guru's genius surpassed that of the legendary Rāvaṇa). And let us not forget the feminine 'better half' of Mahēndra's guru: Rudra Āchārya's wife! With the god Rudra's Ardhanārīśvara form as a paradigm, we can understand that Mahēndra was also bowing at the foot of his guru's wife.

Fourth, going by Bharata's rule that the Nāndī should hint at some of the characters in the play, the word 'Rudra' in the Nāndī ślōka can also be taken to suggest two of the main characters of the play, the noisy4 and often angry Parivrājaka (Mendicant) and his better half, the Courtesan! This composite caricature of Ardhanārīśvara (the Bhagavan's soul in the Courtesan's body) is duplicated, as we have seen, and given a further twist in the 'hermaphrodite' formed by the Courtesan's soul implanted in the Bhagavan's body! In this context, the 'suravara' (plural) who bow down to this Mendicant/Courtesan 'Rudra-Ardhanārī' may be visualized as the 'foremost of the gods'. (It is said that gods and demons, animate and inanimate beings bow down before a sānyāsin who attains knowledge of the inmost Self.) That the Mendicant/Courtesan 'Rudra-Ardhanārī' should attract such honor from the foremost gods is a farcical idea. In this way, the farcical element, as the seed (bīja) of its comedy, is introduced in the Nāndī ślōka of Bhagavad-Ajjuka. This seed lies completely hidden at this earliest stage of the play. However, as the drama progresses, the connoisseur will be able to grasp the significance of this seminal dhvani.

As the root of the name 'Rāvaṇa' is traditionally taken as 'rāva' (to make a big noise), this name, with regard to the context of the play proper, may felicitously suggest the Mendicant's disciple, Shāndilya, who makes plenty of noise: crying out in fear when he mistakes a peacock for a tiger and, later, bewailing the death of the Courtesan.

Notes

1. See our translation of the whole play in Part Two of this book.

2. Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Pt. 1, Canto 7.

3. South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. 2, p. 356, v. 20.

4. Cf. Rudra-Praśna, the 5th hymn of the 4th Vaiśvadēva-Kāṇḍa of the Taittrīya Saṁhitā of the Kṛṣṇa Yajur-Vēda:

Nama uccai-ghōṣāyâkrandayatē |

Salutations to the One who roars at the top of his voice!

8

Mask and Metatheater1

Ēkaṁ sat viprāḥ bahudhā vadanti |

Brāhmins call the One Reality by different names.

−Rg Vēda

Tam-asya lōka-yantrašya sūtradhāraṁ pracakşatē |

Pratibondhābhy-anujñābhyāṁ tēna višvaṁ vibhajyatē ||2

It is said, He is the Sūtradhāra of, and is Himself, this Lōka-yantra

(perpetual motion machine - the Universe).

He, in the form of the Cosmos, divides Himself through disintegration

(into the many) and re-integration (of the many, while remaining One).

−Bhartrhari

Although the common meaning of the word 'mask' relates to a physical object held in front of the

face, Bhartrhari's verse touches the ultimate, philosophical heart of the term. The English word 'mask' is

related to the Sanskrit word 'maskarah'. According to Pāṇini, 'maskarah' has the root meaning of 'to go,

to move, from place to place, from one stage to another, from one form to another'. The physical mask

does do this, but the whole art of theater does it again and again in many different ways. For instance,

Bharata says:

Yathā jīvasvabhāvaṁ hi parityajyānya-dēhikam |

Para-bhāvaṁ prakurūtē para-bhāvaṁ samāśritah || 7 ||3

Ēvaṁ buddhāḥ paraṁ bhāvaṁ sōsmiiti manasā smaran |

Tāha vāgāṅga-lōlābhiś-cēştābhis-tu samācarēt || 8 ||3

Just as a man who renounces his own nature and body and assumes another's

nature by entering into his body [a yogic power], so the wise actor, thinking

within himself "I am he" ("sōsmi"), should represent the states of another

person by speech, gesture, and other aspects [i.e., dress and expression of nature].

−Nāṭya-Śāstra

King Mahēndravarman, the Pallava monarch who ruled south India from around A.D. 580 to 630,

was the author of Bhagavadajjuka and Mattavilāsa, the earliest extant farcical comedies in Indian litera-

ture. The opening hymn of invocation, the Nāndī ślōka, at the very beginning of the Mattavilāsa, spells out

the four traditional layers of Mask in acting:

Bhāšā-vēśa-vapuhkriyā-guṇa-krtān-āśritya bhēdān gataṁ

Bhāvā-vēśa-vaśād-anēka-rasatāṁ trailōkya-yātrā-mayam |

Nrttaiṁ nispraiti-baddha-bōdha-mahimā yaḥ prēkşakaś-ca svayaṁ

Sa vyāptāvani-bhājanaṁ diśatu vō dīvyah kapālī yaśaḥ ||1||4

Through the different modes of speech, dress,

bodily action, and expression of nature,

The representation of various emotions brought on by the

arousal of the power of primal feelings,

May that resplendent Kapālī of unopposed, omniscient supremacy,

who's the performer and spectator Himself of His own dance,

The manifold march of evolution of the three worlds,

grant you His world-bowl-filling glory! (1)

• 52 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

The four expressions in this Nāndī ślōka, 1) ‘bhāṣa’, 2) ‘vēṣa’,

3. ‘vapuhkriyā ...’, and 4) ‘guna ...’, suggest Bharata’s four masking

elements of acting: vācika, āhārya, āṅgika, and sāttvika (speech,

costumes, bodily movements, and expressions of emotion).

There is another type of transformation which may be viewed

as a mask. We have argued that, originally, the Sūtradhāra was phys-

ically present throughout a Sanskrit play.5 He, first, recited the Nāndī

ślōka, then, as the Sthāpaka, he introduced the play with an assistant

actress or actor. Next, he assumed the principal male role in the play

proper. And, finally, - he recited the closing hymn of benediction, the

Bharatavākyam. This is role within role. Each new role is a new

mask.

The progression (movement - maskara) here is as follows: a

flesh and blood actor assumes, first, the role (mask) of the ‘Nāndī’-

Sūtradhāra and recites the invocatory ślōka; then, he (the ‘Nāndī’-

Sūtradhāra) assumes the role (mask) of the Sthāpaka (the Introducer

of the play); next, the Sūtradhāra-Sthāpaka assumes the role (mask)

of the chief male character (the Hero) of the play proper; and, finally,

the Hero and Sthāpaka roles (masks) are shed when the flesh and

blood actor reverts to his principal role (mask) of the ‘bharata’ (the

‘chief actor’ - the Sūtradhāra) and recites the closing benediction, the

Bharatavākyam.

In the Bhagavadajjukam, the Sūtradhāra-Sthāpaka (a truly

competent teacher)6 takes up the task of teaching his assistant, the

Vidūṣaka, what the Farcical Comedy is. The play proper is the

Sūtradhāra-Sthāpaka’s vehicle of instruction. And the main role of

the Parivrājaka (a wandering mendicant), as a subtly fraudulent

teacher trying to instruct his rebellious, unwilling student, is his

mask. The role of the unwilling student, Shāṇḍilya, is the mask of

the Vidūṣaka.

In the previous studies, we have maintained that these various

layers (masks) in the progressive development of the play can be

viewed as various layers of metatheater. In this sense, the mask is

ubiquitous! A pun is a mask. The layers of suggestiveness in dhvani

are masks.

There is yet one more kind of mask - a very subtle one. Much

of the Upanisadic, Bhagavad-Gītā, Sāṅkhya, and Yōga phraseology

used by the Parivrājaka in preaching, as it were, a high morality and

philosophy to his wayward disciple, actually has an earthy, sensuous,

secondary level of meaning. On the surface, we have pompous

religious preaching. This dialogue, however, has an inner meaning

which is couched in the language of a ‘detached’ courtesan. The

Parivrājaka, who would put on the appearance of asceticism, thus

reveals his un-ascetic thoughts within. The paradox of the ‘courtesan’

within the sanyāsi and its converse, the ‘sanyāsi’ within the courtesan,

are made physically explicit in the play, Bhagavadajjuka, when the Parivrājaka, by means of his yogic power, injects his soul into the

body of the Courtesan, who has just died of a snake bite, and, again, when the Messenger of Death, having taken the soul of the wrong

woman, returns to earth and places the Courtesan's soul in the vacant body of the Parivrājaka!

Finally, to help clarify and illustrate the puzzling passage in the Nāndī of the Mattavilāsa, which states that the Supreme Lord is

"the performer and spectator Himself of His own dance, the manifold march of evolution of the three worlds", we would like to analyze

how the characters of the play, Bhagavadajjuka, may be understood as emanating from the Formless One, the Unmanifest Reality, through

the mask of its highest manifestation, Rudra(-Ardhanārīśvara), the deity invoked in the play's Nāndī śloka. From this deity can be

understood to emerge the mask of the Sūtradhāra and his implicit better half (the chief actress, who plays the part of the Courtesan in the

play proper), both of whom then assume the two comical 'Ardhanārī' roles (the mask of the Parivrājaka who is a "courtesan" at heart and

the mask of the Courtesan who is a "sanyāsi" at heart); and these two 'Ardhanārīs' attain a ridiculous explicitness when the Courtesan's

body incarnates the Parivrājaka's soul and the Parivrājaka's body incarnates the Courtesan's soul.

The diagrams on the next two pages will illustrate how all of the other characters of this play may also be viewed as comical chips

off the Eternally-old Block. These characters include the mixed-up Messenger of Death, the quack of a Doctor, and the Courtesan's lover-

boy, Rāmilaka, her Mother, and her two Maid-Servants. In the diagrams, the various forms of Śiva's half of Rudra-Ardhanārīśvara

on the male side are balanced by the goddess's half of Rudra-Ardha-nārīśvara on the female side. These are divine forms, representing

perfection in each aspect. The characters of the play are, more or less, ridiculous, degenerate semblances of them.

• 53 -

Mask

BHAGAVAD-AJJUKAM

BHAGAVAD-AJJUKAM

(BHAGAVĀN + ĀRYAKĀ)

I. Title:

I. Title: BHAGAVĀN ĀRYAKĀ

The ideal, Perfect Male The ideal, Perfect Female

PARIVRĀJAKA AJJUKĀ

In the play, a less than perfect ascetic! In the play, a courtesan;

he falls a victim to the temptations of the erotic. she comes to possess the soul of an ascetic.

Bhagavad-Ajjukam

Bhagavad-Ajjukam

1. The Heretic Ascetic + 2) The Ascetic Heretic

NEUTER (the Farcical, the Laughable) RUDRA = Ardha-Nārī-Nara-Vapuḥ

II. Nāndī Ślōka:

II. Nāndī Ślōka:

(A union of the two is hinted at by the two lines of the Nāndī ślōka joined together in one verse)

(Sūtradhāra & Parivrājaka)

(Sūtradhāra & Parivrājaka) 1. Parama-Guru (Parivrājaka) 2. Yōgēśvaraḥ (Parivrājaka) 3. Mahēśvara(-vyākaraṇa) (Parivrājaka & Vidūṣaka) 4. Vṛṣabhēśvaraḥ (Parivrājaka & Yamapuruṣa) 5. Mahā-Kālaḥ (Parivrājaka & Vaidya) 6. Vaidyanāthathaḷ Parivrājaka & Rāmilaka) 7. Kā mēśvaraḥ (Rāmilaka) 8. Sundarēśvaraḥ (Parivrājaka) 9. Parama-Pitā

Parama-Guru (Gaṇikā's body+Parivrājaka's soul) Yōgēśvarī (ditto) Mahēśvarī (ditto) Vṛṣabhēśvarī (ditto) Mahā-Kālī (ditto) Vaidyēśvarī (ditto) Kā mēśvarī (Gaṇikā—and her two Maids, too) Sundarēśvarī (ditto) Parama-Mātā (Mātā, the Gaṇikā's ‘mother’)

III. Prastāvanā Statement:

III. Prastāvanā PRAHASANA Statement: (The most important Rasa is the Hāsya Rasa – Life is a Farcical Comedy!)

IV. Play Proper:

IV. Play Proper: 1. a) Ślōka – two prominent themes: i) Medicine & ii) Religion The two characters are introduced in order of their importance: i) Teacher-Doctor & ii) Disciple-Patient b) Entrance of the Mendicant c) Entrance of the Disciple 2. a) Treatment of the theme of Medicine b) Treatment of the theme of Religion 3. Illustration by Parivrājaka – real identities revealed, unmasked (The audience understands the ‘masks’ for what they are!)

The Nāndī Ślōka of the play, Bhagavadajjuka:

SŪTRADHĀRAḤ:

Tvāṁ pātu lakṣanāḍhyah sura-vara-mukutēndra-cāru-manī-ghṛṣṭaḥ |

Rāvana-namitāṅguṣṭhō rudrāsya sadārcitah pādaḥ ||1||

Of excellent attributes, being rubbed by the beautiful gem

In the crown of the foremost of gods, Mahēndra's diadem,

And having the big toe which crushed Rāvana, too.

May the ever-worshipped foot of Rudra protect you! (1)

Rudra = Ardhanārīśvara (male/female: hermaphrodite) derived from

the Unmanifest Reality.7 (Of the latter nothing can be predicated.)

Śabda-rūpaṁ yad-akhilam dhattē sarvāsya vallabhā |

Artha-rūpaṁ yad-akhilam dhattē mugdhēndu-śēkharah || - Śiva-Purāṇa

All that is in the form of words comes from (his) beloved (Umā).

All that is in the form of meaning comes from the Moon-crested-one (Śiva). [Ardhanārīśvara concept]

Nityah śabdārtha-sambandhaḥ |

In the play, Bhagavadajjuka, all of the characters (both explicit and implied) devolve

from the Supreme Deity, Rudra-Ardhanārīśvara, who in turn has devolved (mythically)

from the Primeval Creator, Brahmā, and Brahmā, from the Unmanifest Source of all:

1. On the (right) male side, the Rudra-side of Ardhanārīśvara - his various manifestations:

1. Dakṣināmūrtiḥ (Parama-Guru, the god who teaches without speaking!)

[First, the SŪTRADHĀRA, who speaks! - then, the PARIVRĀJAKA, who rants!]

2. Yōgēśvaraḥ (the ascetic Lord of Yōga) [> PARIVRĀJAKA]

3. Mahēśvara(-vyākaraṇa) (the divine Source of all grammar) [PARIVRĀJAKA]

4. Vṛṣabhēśvaraḥ (the Great Jester) [> SŪTRADHĀRA > PARIVRĀJAKA;

VIDŪṢAKA > ŚĀṆḌILYA; YAMAPURUṢA > VAIDYA]

5. Mahā-Kālaḥ (Lord of Death) [> YAMAPURUṢA > VAIDYA]

6. Vaidyanāthaḥ (Lord of Medics) [> SŪTRADHĀRA > PARIVRĀJAKA;

YAMAPURUṢA > VAIDYA]

7. Kāmēśvaraḥ (the Lord of Love) [> SŪTRADHĀRA > PARIVRĀJAKA; RĀMILAKA]

8. Sundarēśvaraḥ (the Handsome Lord) [> RĀMILAKA]

9. Parama-Pitā (Supreme Father) [> SŪTRADHĀRA > PARIVRĀJAKA]

2. On the (left) female side, the Umā-side of Ardhanārīśvara - her various manifestations:

1. Parama-Guru [> GAṆIKĀ - with the Parivrājaka's soul inside her body]

2. Yōgēśvarī (Supreme Goddess of Yōga) [ditto]

3. Mahēśvarī (the divine Source of all grammar) [ditto]

4. Vṛṣabhēśvarī (the Great Jester) [ditto]

5. Mahā-Kālī (the Great Destroyer) [ditto]

6. Vaidyēśvarī (the Deity of Doctors) [ditto]

7. Kāmēśvarī (the Goddess of Love) [> GAṆIKĀ]

8. Tripura-Sundarēśvarī (the Goddess of Beauty) [> GAṆIKĀ > the two MAIDS]

9. Parama-Mātā (Supreme Mother) [> MĀTĀ]

Notes

1. This article is based on a paper we read on January 24, 1996, at the 'International Seminar on Mask and Performance' held in Madras at the Alliance Française.

2. Bharṭhari's Vākyapadīyam, Trivandrum Series No. 116, edited by K. Sāmbaśiva Śāstri (Trivandrum: Government Press, 1935), Kālasamuddēśa: 4th ślōka.

3. Nāṭyaśāstra, edited by Madhusudan Shastri (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1981), xxvi: 7 & 8.

4. Line 1 of the text of King Mahēndravarman's play, Mattavilāsa. See our translation of the whole play, in Part Two of this book.

5. See our essay, "Sanskrit Drama - Its Continuity of Structure", the first essay in this book.

6. His competency, however, paradoxically embraces the seeds of farcical incompetence!

7. Kālidāsa, in his Raghu-Vaṁśa (I.1), regards Śiva and Pārvatī as inseparable as śabda and artha. In the Vāyu-Purāṇa-Saṁhitā, it is said that Pārvatī is the form of all words (śabda) and Śiva is the form of all meanings (artha):

Śabda-jatām-aśēśaṁ tu dhattē śarvāsya vallabhā |

Artha-rūpam yad-akhilaṁ dhattē mugdhēndu-śēkharah ||

9

Traivikramam

A Dramatic Guide to the

Trivikrama Panel, Māmallapuram*

Introduction

M. Krishnamachariar, in the 22nd chapter of his monumental History of Classical Sanskrit Literature (1937, pp. 689-691), has transcribed the text of a short dramatic work entitled Traivikramam. As far as we are aware, this three-page jewel of a play has remained untranslated into English - though, of course, Krishnamachariar has given a brief summary of it in his book. Surprisingly, neither he nor anyone else seems to have noticed the extremely close resemblance the play's painted panel (as vividly described by the Sūtradhāra) has to the Trivikrama panel of the Varāha-II cave-temple at Māmallapuram.

Having written our own guide-book on the monuments of Māmallapuram (1993),1 we were perhaps understandably well-prepared to appreciate the close correspondence between the cave-temple's Trivikrama panel and the painted panel (citra-paṭa) which is graphically delineated, and whose story is narrated in the dialogue of the drama, Traivikramam.

Note that only two characters appear on stage in this play: the Sūtradhāra and his wife, the Naṭī.2 And the only required prop on stage is a large painted canvas of the Trivikrama Panel. (The Trivikrama Panel of the Varāha-II cave-temple, Māmallapuram, may be taken as the perfect prototype for any painted rendition on stage.)

The play, itself, is a dramatic narrative. The Sūtradhāra does all the narrating, humorously prodded on repetitively by the Naṭī. The prose narrative is interspersed with ten ślōkas which, originally, the Sūtradhāra would have sung in various rāgas. The mythical story of the Vāmana Avatāra (Incarnation) of Lord Vishṇu, which forms the substance of this play, exists thus as a form of narrative- and musical-metadrama (a form of nāṭyāyita3 in relation to the underlying drama which is acted out on stage by the two actors.

We give below, Krishnamachariar's summary of the plot of the narrative:

Vāmana appears before Bali, [great-grandson] of Hiranyakashipu at the close of the Ashvamēdha sacrifice performed gloriously by Bali. Bali, as customary, towards the end of any sacrifice was ready to grant any gifts and Vāmana along with Brihaspati, the minister of the Dēvas, in mortal coil, appeared before Bali and asked for a piece of land that can be measured by three strides. Bali was ready to grant the request. Samhlāda, his chief minister, pointed out that Vāmana was only Vishṇu in disguise, who killed his [great-grandfather], Hiranyakashipu, the conqueror of three worlds. Bali could not recede from his promise; such a distinguished guest ought to be satisfied; Lakshmī, the goddess of wealth, moves away from the donee to the donor; and he grants Vāmana's request by pouring water into his hands. Suddenly Vāmana grows into a Viśvarūpa, expanding to the corners of the universe. Rākshasas blinded by the Vishṇumāyā fought among themselves taking their brethren for Vishṇu. Thus, most of them perished and Bali was set as the emperor of Pātāla.4

Krishnamachariar then quotes M.R. Kavi's remark that if Traivikramam “is not the drama of Bhāsa, it may be ascribed to any of the Pallava kings, preferably to Mahēndra-vikrama or Narasimhavishṇu.” Unfortunately, Krishnamachariar does not footnote his quotations from Kavi. Surprisingly, neither does Krishnamachariar tell us where he found the text of Traivikramam!5 But as he was, otherwise, such a meticulous scholar, we accept the text as is from his pen, suggesting only a few corrections.

*This chapter (up to the section on the authorship of the play) is based on a paper presented at the American Council for Southern Asian Art's Symposium, XI, on May 8, 2004, at Harvard University.

Text of the Play:

Śrī

Traivikramam

(Nāndyāntē tataḥ praviśati sūtradhāraḥ saha priyayā |)

1

Sūtradhāraḥ: Āryē, tṛtīyē khalu citrapatē –

Daityēndra-mauli-maṇi-ghṛṣṭi-kinī-kṛtasya

pādasya yasya gaganōdgama-garvitatayā |

Traivikramam tribhuvanātatam-adbhutam yad-

bhūtair-vimuktam-akhilam் vatu-vāmanasya ||1||

Namō bhaqavatē vatu-vāmanasya | Ārya, tatas-tataḥ |

2

Naṭī: Namō bha'avadō vatu-vāmaṇassa | Ayya, tadō tadō |

3

Sūtradhāraḥ: Āryē śrūyatām daityēndram் balim vairōcaṇam் kṛtāśva-mēdham-avabhrtha-snātam்

muktā-jālālaṅ-kṛtōttamāṅgam் kṛṣṇājināvalambitōttarīyam் patnī-sahitam் vara-pradānābhimukham்

tri-daśa-gaṇa-bhūta-hitārtham-upādhyāya-rūpam் bṛhaspatim் puraskṛtya svayam் vatu-vāmanō

bhūtva vāmaḍēvyam் sāmodgāya yajñā-samṛddhim praśaṁsan-n-upasṛtō bhagavān-mahāviṣṇuḥ |

Tatas-tataḥ |

4

Naṭī: Tadō tadō |

5

Sūtradhāraḥ: Tatas-tam் dṛṣṭvaiva prahlādita-manasā balināpy-abhihitam் vṛṇīśva varam-iti |

Tatas-tataḥ |

6

Naṭī: Tadō tadō |

7

Sūtradhāraḥ: Tata ājñāpayan-n-iva mama gurōr-yajñā-karaṇārtham் trīn vikramān-icchāmīty-

uktam் bhagavatā |

Tatas-tataḥ |

8

Naṭī: Tadō tadō |

9

Sūtradhāraḥ: Tata aiśvarya-mada-garvītēna tēnāpy-avicārya-mānēna bāḍham் dadāmīty-uktam்

balinā |

• 59 -

Tatas- tataḥ |

10 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

11 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Tatō lakṣaṇair-vimala-viśāla-buddhiḥ-hrdayēna samhlāda-nāmnāmātyēna vāritam na dātavyam-iti |

Ayaṁ sa viṣṇur-manasāpy-ajēyah surāsurāṇāṁ sukha-śōka-kartā |

Vatuś-ca nāyam sakalaṁ vijētum prāptō yadi syān-na jalam prade̱yah ||2||

Api ca -

Bhitvā guruṁ tava jaghāna nr̥siṁha-rūpī

vakṣa-sthalam nakha-mukhair-niśitaiḥ purā yaḥ |

Sākṣāddhiranyakaśipuṁ sura-daitya-nātham

prāptākhilājita-vara-pravaram viriñcāt ||3||

Ity-uktah samhlādēna |

Tatas- tataḥ |

12 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

13 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Tataḥ -

Sōyam yadi syād-ahi-bhōga-śāyī śarīṅgāsi-cakrōd-gada-śaṅkha-pāniḥ |

Yuddhēśvasyahȳ yadi yācatē māṁ dāsyāmi satya-vratam-āsthitōham ||4||

Api caitad-uktam balinā -

Dēhīti yō vadati taṁ praviśaty-alakṣmīr-

nāstīti yō vadati taṁ punar-abhy-upaiti |

Tasmād-dadāmi prthivīṁ madhusūdanāya

śrīr-ēva maṁ bhajatu taṁ praviśatv-alakṣmīḥ ||5||

Ity-ēvam-uktvā visarjitah samhlādō balinā |

Tatas- tataḥ |

14 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

15 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Tataḥ khara-mura-naraka-namuci-prabhr̥tibhir-vāryamāṇaḥ pratārya mānas-tānstan-nirbhartsyātmanaḥ satya-vacanam-ēvāsthāyāsura-gaṇahita-karābhyāṁ sura-gaṇāhita-karābhyāṁ karābhyāṁ karābhyāṁ jāmbūnadamayāṁ bhr̥ṅgāram-ādāya itō bhagavān-yathēṣṭaṁ tōyaṁ grahānēty-uktam balinā |

Tatas- tataḥ |

16 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

17 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Tataḥ sura-gaṇa-hīta-karē asura-gaṇa-nidhana-karē amala-kamala-dala-sadr̥śē tasmin kara-talē prasr̥ta-mātrē tōyē dvi-guṇa-caturbhir-dōrbhir-alankrtya trailōkya-pramāṇam pravijrmbhitō bhagavān divya-mūrtiḥ |

Tatas- tataḥ |

18 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

19 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Tatō vivṛta-vadana-daṣṭauṣṭha-bhrakutī-puta-viṣamī-kr̥ta-rakta-nayanāḥ sasamrambham-aham-ahamikayā samutthitā daityēndra-saṅghāḥ |

• 60 -

Tatas- tataḥ |

20 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

21 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Tatas-tat-tējasaiva tvam் viṣṇur-ayam் viṣṇur-anyōnyam் prahrtya naṣṭā daityāḥ,

hrṣṭā dēvāḥ, āhatā dēva-dundubhayah, aty-uddhūtā vāyavaḥ, ati-tapati-smādityah, patitā vrkṣāḥ,

bhrāntā mēghāḥ, śāntam்-tva nabhaḥ, skhalitāḥ parvatāḥ, kṣubhitāḥ sāgarāḥ pralīnā vāsuki-

prabhṛtayō bhujaṅgēśvarāḥ | Kim் nu khalv-idam –

Pralayam-idam்-upētam் kim் nu māyā na vidmaḥ

prabhur-avatā harir-nō hanta hā hā hatāḥ smah |

Iti vividha-nimittair-mōham-abhy-āgātās-tē

bhuvana-patim-upēndram் sarva-lōkāḥ praṇēmuh ||6||

Tatas- tataḥ |

22 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

23 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Nārāyaṇāya harayē mura-śāsanāya

trailōkya-janma-laya-pālana-kāraṇāya |

Dēvāya daitya-mathānāya jagaddhitāya

viśvambharā-hita-karāya namō'yutāya ||7||

Ity-uktvā praṇipatitāni sarva-bhūtāni |

Tatas- tataḥ |

24 Naṭī:

Tadō tadō |

25 Sūtradhāraḥ:

Viṣṇōr-vijayam் vijayam-ity-uktvā trīn lōkām̌s-tris-sapta-krtvaḥ bhērīm̌ praharān

paryata-j-jāmbavān |

Darpāndhaḥ pāda-lagnō namucir-apasrtō yātēva gaganam்

samhlādaḥ pāda-yōgād-upala iva girēr-bhūmau nipatitah |

Niṣṭhaiṣā yasya bhūmiḥ sa-giri-vana-purā dattāiva calitā

dharma-jñāḥ satyasandhaḥ sukrta iva balir-dhairyān-na calati ||8||

Api ca –

Svargam் surēndra iva dattam-anēka-bhāgam்

pātālam-ētya sutalam் hariṇā sa daityāḥ |

Bhaktyārcayan paramayā ramatē vibhaktam்

kim் vā karōṭi mahatā na samāśrayō'yam ||9||

Ramanīyaḥ khalu kathāyōgāḥ anyam் citra- paṭam் varṇayatv- āryaḥ |

26 Naṭī:

Ramanijjō khu kahajjō'ō, amnam் citta-padam் vaṇnēdu ayyō |

[27 Sūtradhāraḥ:]

Āryē bādham் hari-pada-kathā sēyam-antam் prayātā

bhaktir-bhūyāt-tava ca mama ca śrīdharā-syāṅghri-padmē |

Naśyatv-ēvam் duritam-asakrt-paśyatām் nrtyatām̌ naḥ

svasthō rājāpy-avatu vasudhām̌ svasti gō-brāhmaṇēbhyah ||10||

(Traivikramam் samāptam் |)

Śrī

Śrī

The Three-Strides

(After the Nāndī, the Sūtradhāra then enters with his beloved)

1

1 Sūtradhāra: Dear, now in the third painted panel, Made callous by the rubbing of the Demon-King's crest jewel, the wonderful Foot of young bachelor Vāmana, rising high in the sky, Measuring with three strides the Three Worlds, is free from the influence of all evil spirits. ||1||

2

2 Naṭī: Salutations to the Bhagavān, young bachelor Vāmana! Sir, then what?

3

3 Sūtradhāra: Dear, listen! The Demon-King, Bali, son of Virōchana, having performed the ablutions at the end of the Horse-Sacrifice, adorned his head with a string of pearls, and, for an upper garment, wore the skin of a black antelope diagonally across his chest. Then, coming out with his wife, he was looking forward to giving away free gifts. At this time, there came the Bhagavān, Mahā-Vishnu, who, in order to do the gods a good turn, had assumed the form of the young bachelor Vāmana. With His preceptor Brihaspati in front of Him, Himself singing the Sāma hymns of Vāmadēva, and praising the munificent sacrifice, He met the Demon-King, Bali.

4

4 Naṭī: And then?

5

5 Sūtradhāra: Then, highly pleased with Him, Bali said, "Please ask for a boon."

6

6 Naṭī: And then?

7

7 Sūtradhāra: Then, as if commanding the Demon-King, the Bhagavān said, "For my preceptor to perform a ritual sacrifice, I require a piece of land measurable with three strides."

8

8 Naṭī: And then?

9

9 Sūtradhāra: Then, intoxicated with pride in his prosperity, and rather thoughtlessly, the Demon-King said, "I will certainly give it".

10

10 Naṭī: And then?

11

11 Sūtradhāra: Then, the minister named Samhlāda, with penetrating intellect and large-heartedness, halted the Demon-King, telling him, "Don't give! Because, "This is that Vishnu who is unconquerable, doing good to the gods and harm to the demons; He is not at all a young bachelor. "If, indeed, He has come to take away all your prosperity, then you should not give Him the water of consecration!" ||2|| And, also, "Assuming the form of Narasimha, He, with arrow-sharp claws, tore apart the chest of your great-grandfather, Hiranyakasipu, "Supreme lord of gods and demons, who had obtained from Brahmā a boon of invincibility!" ||3||

12

12 Naṭī: And then?

13 Sūtradhāra: Then, [King Bali replied.]

"If He is the One who reclines on the serpent's body, who holds the Śārṅga Bow,

Sword, Discus, uplifted Club, and Conch, who is unbearable in battle –

"If, indeed, He asks me, then I, who am committed to the vow of truth,

will certainly give what He has asked of me." ‖4‖

And, again, Bali said,

"Bad Luck will, indeed, take possession of one who says 'Give';

Bad Luck, alike, will take possession of one who says 'I don't have';

"Therefore, I shall give away the world to Madhusūdana.

Let Śrī serve me and Bad Luck take possession of Him." ‖5‖

Thus saying, Bali dismissed Samhlāda.

14 Naṭī: And then?

15 Sūtradhāra: Then, Khara, Mura, Naraka, Namuchi, and other demons who tried to prevent him were

disregarded and rebuked by Bali, who stood by his truthful word. Then, with his arms, which he

had till then been using to do good to demons and harm to gods, holding a vessel made of finest

gold extracted from the river Jambu, [Bali] said, "Please come here, Bhagavān; accept this water,

according to your wish."

16 Naṭī: And then?

17 Sūtradhāra: Then, the moment the water poured down on [the Bhagavān's] palm – that palm which

gratifies gods but deals death blows to demons, and has the splendor of a spotless lotus petal – the

divine form of the Bhagavān expanded throughout the Three Worlds and appeared full of power,

adorned with eight arms.

18 Naṭī: And then?

19 Sūtradhāra: Then, now with open mouths, now biting lips, with knitted brows and blood-red eyes,

and full of agitated haughtiness, the host sprang up – faithful followers of the Demon-King.

20 Naṭī: And then?

21 Sūtradhāra: Then, deluded by Vishṇu's dazzling splendor, the demons, crying out, "You are Vishṇu,

this is Vishṇu," struck each other in confusion and destroyed themselves. The gods were pleased,

divine drums were beaten, the winds whirled, the sun burnt intensely, trees were uprooted, storm-

clouds rumbled, the sky seemed to have disappeared, mountains were shaken, the seas, violently

agitated, and Vāsuki and other great serpents almost perished! Everyone shouted, "What is this?"

"Is this a deluge or is it Māyā? We do not know!

Alas! Alas! We are finished! May the Supreme Lord Hari protect us!"

Thus deluded by various omens, the whole world sought refuge

in Upēndra, Supreme Lord of the Earth ‖6‖

22 Naṭī: And then?

23 Sūtradhāra:

"Salutations to Nārāyaṇa, Hari, the Destroyer of Mura,

Primal Cause of Creation, Protection, and Dissolution of the Three Worlds,

"To God, the Crusher of Demons, Benefactor of the World,

The Indestructible, and the Refuge of all earthly creatures." ‖7‖

Thus saying, all the creatures prostrated themselves.

• 63 -

24 Naṭī: And then?

25 Sūtradhāra: “Real victory is the victory of Vishṇu”, thus crying out and beating a drum,

Jāmbavān encircled the Three Worlds, three times seven times.

Blinded with defiant pride, clinging to Vishṇu’s foot, Namuchi was thrown

headlong sky-high; and, grasping at His leg, Samhlāda was

rolled down like a boulder from mountain-top!

His once-steady kingdom, along with mountains, forests, towns, moved away

when given, but Bali, Knower of Dharma, performer of good deeds,

like Satyasandha, never moved from firm resolve. ‖8‖

Furthermore,

Hari then pushed Bali down to lowest netherworld, Pātāla, but later raised him

to Sutala, just as Indra was given Heaven with its variety of pleasures.

Worshipping the Lord with great devotion, Bali enjoys his share –

What will not the company of the Great help one to achieve? ‖9‖

26 Naṭī: Charming, indeed, are the threaded elements of your story. Let Sir describe another

painted panel.

[27 Sūtradhāra:*]

Dear, this story of Hari’s Foot has come to an end.

May both you and I devote ourselves to the Lotus Foot of Śrīdhara.

Destroyed, thus, are the many obstacles faced by those who see this acted out.

May our King keep good health, and let cows and Brahmins flourish! ‖10‖

(Here ends [the drama of] The Three-Strides)

−

64

−

At the beginning of this paper we stated that there is a close resemblance between the play's painted panel (citra-paṭa), as described by the Sūtradhāra, and the Trivikrama panel of the Varāha-II cave-temple at Māmallapuram.

First, as a visual basis to our discussion, here is a photograph of the cave-temple's panel:

Trivikrama Panel, Varāha-II Cave-Temple, Māmallapuram

We next borrow from our own guide book the following description of the cave-temple's Trivikrama panel:

The Trivikrama panel depicts Vishṇu as he takes his second stride up through the highest heaven.

His left leg soars up well beyond the moon, which is shown here as an anthropomorphic figure being thrust aside at the level of Vishṇu's waist.

On the other side of Vishṇu, at the same level as the moon, there is a figure of the sun, also anthropomorphic.

Both the Moon and the Sun gods have large discs carved behind their heads.

King Bali and his men are seated on the ground.

In the upper left corner of the panel, above the Sun God, is a small image of Śiva with four arms, seated on a lotus, witnessing Vishṇu's heroic feat.

In the upper right corner is a figure of Brahmā, seated on a lotus, pouring water on Vishṇu's foot.

In the mythological account illustrated by this panel, the water poured by Brahmā on Vishṇu's foot becomes the source of the heavenly Gaṅgā.

Between Vishṇu's crown and Brahmā is a figure of Jāmbavān, a bear devotee of Vishṇu, beating a drum in jubilation.

Below Brahmā, there is a figure dangling in space.6

This figure dangling in space is the demon, Namuchi, according to the play's description.

Jāmbavān and Brahmā

Namuchi

• 66 -

Taking into consideration the various elements depicted in the cave-temple's panel, we began to

think that there was, perhaps, a significant relationship between the Trvikrama panel and the Great

Penance Panel which is located only a few meters to the east of the cave-temple. As the cave-temple is

located just over the crest of the hill, behind the top of the Penance Panel, we could imaginatively link

the central cleft of the Penance Panel, as the path of the Descent of the Gaṅgā on earth, with the source

of the Gaṅgāvatarana, the water poured, in heaven, from Brahmā's kamaṇḍalu (gourd water-vessel), as

portrayed in the cave-temple's Trvikrama panel. From the cave-temple, one can, with a few steps across

the crest of the hill, arrive at a shallow, but broad channel carved in the rocky brow of the Penance Panel.

This channel for water flowing down from a presumed water storage tank on the hilltop was first noted by

A.H. Longhurst in his Pallava Architecture, Part II.7 At the brow of the hill, the channel divides in two

directions: water, in the major course, would flow a couple of meters southward and then cascade down

in front of the Nāga King and Queen;8 in the other, smaller course, turning northward, water would flow

down the crevasse behind the massive rock of the northern side of the Penance Panel.

In December (2002), at Māmallapuram, while spending some time video-taping children using the

Pallava rock-cut children's slide (which, by the way, is the world's oldest extant slide), we noted a regular

procession of adults climbing up the steps of the slide, walking in back of the carving of the monkey

family to the crevasse opening - not knowing, perhaps, how much farther they could proceed. As it now

stands, people can proceed only a few feet beyond the opening. The rubble floor of the narrow crevasse

(cemented over, in modern times) rises up at a steep angle till it joins the northern, rock-cut course of the

water channel (described in the previous paragraph). When, we, ourselves, stood inside the crevasse

opening and looked upward, we began to wonder whether, in Pallava times, there was provided a flight of

stairs from where we were standing up to the top. Then came to mind the celebrated ślōka of Kālidāsa's

Mēgha-Dūtam (The Cloud Messenger), referring to the Gaṅgā (Jahnu's daughter):

Tasmād-gacchēr-anu-kanakhalam śaila-rājāvatīrṇām

jahnōḥ kanayāṃ sagara-tanaya-svarga-sōpāna-panktim |

Gaurī-vaktra-bhrakuti-racanām yā vihasyēva phēnaiḥ

śambhōḥ kēśa-grahaṇam-akarōd-indu-lagnōrmi-hastā ||50||

From there, go to Kanakhala, to Jahnu's daughter, descending from the Mountain King,

she who served as a row of steps to heaven for the sons of Sagara,

She who, with rays of the moon as arms, is grasping Śambhu's hair

and, in her bubbling foam, laughing, as it were, at Gaurī's knitted brow. (50)

The following question arose in our minds: Had Kālidāsa's description of the Gaṅgā as 'she who

served as a row of steps to heaven for the sons of Sagara" inspired the Pallavas to build a flight of stairs

up the crevasse from bottom to top? These steps could have been made of brick and mortar - all now

reduced to the rubble which has been cemented over, today. Then a happy thought struck us: If the

Archaeological Survey of India were to provide a new flight of steps up this crevasse, with a protective

railing at the top, for public safety, then, like those of Pallava times, the pilgrims of today, emulating the

souls of the 60,000 sons of Sagara climbing up the 'steps' of the Holy Gaṅgā, could climb up these steps

to the hill-top above the panel, and then cross over to the Varāha-II cave-temple, where the Trvikrama

Panel may be viewed with its portrayal of Brahmā pouring water from his kamaṇḍalu on the sacred foot

of Vishṇu - the water which becomes the very source of the Ākāśa (heavenly) Gaṅgā.

The Play's Authorship

Contrary to the usual practice in Sanskrit dramatic works, the author of the play is nowhere men-

tioned in the Traivikramam. This is reminiscent of the same omission in all thirteen plays collected in

Kerala, in 1909 and the years following, by Ganapati Sastri, and attributed by him to a pre-Kālidāsan poet, Bhāsa, on circumstantial evidence.

We have already noted M.R. Kavi's remark, quoted by M. Krishnamachariar, that if the play Traivikramam “is not the drama of Bhāsa, it may be ascribed to any of the Pallava kings, preferably to Mahēndra-vikrama or Narasiṃhaviṣṇu.”

Without plunging into the entire, massive thicket of arguments over the ‘Bhāsa Problem’, and to limit the length of this paper, we will, with brief arguments to support it, firmly espouse the hypothesis that the author of Traivikramam was indeed King Mahēndra. Our reasoning is grounded in 25 years of evolving research on the two greatest Indian farcical comedies, Mattavilāsa-Prahasanam and Bhagavad-Ajjukam, both written by this great Pallava king.9

K. Kunjunni Raja, in the Introduction of N.P. Unni's book, New Problems in Bhasa Plays, notes that, in “Somadevasūri's Yasastilakacampu, a verse occurring in Mahendravikrama's Mattavilāsa is quoted, ascribing it to Mahākavi Bhāsa.”10 This verse is, indeed, the seventh ślōka of the Mattavilāsa:

Pēyā surā priyatamā-mukham-ikṣitavyam grāhyaḥ svabhāva-lalitō vikṛtaś-ca vēṣaḥ | Yēnēdam-idṛśam-adṛśyata mōkṣa-vartma dīrghāyur-astu bhagavān sa pināka-pāniḥ ||7||

We shall proceed on the assumption that Sōmādēvasūri knew what he was talking about, and that “Bhāsa” is but one of the several noms de plume of King Mahēndra. In short, we would attribute most of the so-called “Bhāsa” plays to Mahēndra.

Then, consider another clue from the critics. Unni notes, again, that: “The manuscript [of Dūtavākyam, one of the “Bhāsa” plays,] with No. 10696 C . . . contains a peculiar colophon which may open up interesting avenues with regard to the problem of [its] authorship:”11

Krṣṇasya pāda-kamalaika-manā bhabhūva vipraśca śaṅkara iti śrutavān jagatsu | Āsīt sutōsya jagatām parihāsa-kartā sō'ñōlikhat bhagavadajjuka-dūtavākyē ||12

There was a Vēdic scholar (vipraś-ca) renowned as a great benefactor (śaṅkara) of the world, one whose mind/heart was set on the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. To him was born a son who was wise (jñaḥ) and who used to poke fun at the [whole] world. He wrote Bhagavad-Ajjukam and the Dūtavākyam.

From the beginning of our research in the 1970s, we have held the view that King Mahēndra wrote Bhagavad-Ajjukam.13 Thus, according to this “peculiar” colophon, we learn that Mahēndra also wrote the play, Dūtavākyam, another of the so-called “Bhāsa” plays.14 Mahēndra's father, King Siṃhaviṣṇu, is praised in the above ślōka as a Vēdic scholar, a great benefactor of the world, and a firm devotee of Kṛṣṇa, one of the major incarnations of the god Viṣṇu. We do know from historical sources that King Siṃhaviṣṇu was, in fact, a great devotee of the god Viṣṇu.15

Among the thirteen plays “discovered” in Kerala by T. Ganapati Sastri, in 1909 and the years following, and attributed by him to an ancient playwright, Bhāsa, supposedly mentioned by the great poet

Kālidāsa in the prologue of his play Mālavikāgnimitram, was a play entitled Cārudattam. Unfortunately,

the Cārudattam has come down to us in an incomplete form. It breaks off abruptly at the end of the

fourth act. There is another play, Mṛcchakaṭikam, which seems to be a later adaptation of Cārudattam.

The play, Mṛcchakaṭikam, arguably the second greatest play in Indian literature (after Śākuntalam), is

complete in ten acts. The fact that its first four acts are so strikingly similar to the four acts of

Cārudattam has led to the view among many scholars that it is a later adaptation of the Cārudattam.

The prologue of the Mṛcchakaṭikam attributes the authorship of this play to a King Śūdraka, who

is said to have died at the age of 100 years and 10 days. Obviously, the original author, King Śūdraka,

could not have written this part of the prologue. The prologue must be, in fact, an adaptation. As a

radical solution to the larger enigma, we now suggest that, almost a century after Cārudattam was

originally written, the great Sanskrit poet, Daṇḍin, adapted Cārudattam, christening his adaptation,

Mṛcchakaṭikam. The new title, Mṛcchakaṭikam (The Little Clay Cart), derives from the seemingly

insignificant scene in Act VI, where Cārudatta’s little son, unhappy with his toy clay cart and wanting

something better, is given gems by the courtesan, Vasantasēnā, so that he can have a toy cart made of

gold. However, the real significance of the title is, perhaps, a suggested humble acknowledgment by

Daṇḍin (a court poet) that his adaptation was but a ‘little clay cart’ compared to the ‘golden cart’ (the

Cārudattam) - the original - written by the royal poet, King Śūdraka.

But who is this King Śūdraka? Our line of reasoning leads us to conclude that ‘Śūdraka’ is another

nom de plume of King Mahēndra. In connection with Mahēndra’s penchant for multiple names, consider

the astonishing number of more than 120 different royal titles (birudas) of his engraved on his stone

temples.16 Mahēndra had an unusual sense of humor, and delighted in several paradoxical birudas.

If historians had had no knowledge of Mahēndra’s authorship of his Sanskrit farcical drama entitled

Mattavilāsa-Prahasanam, what would they have made of his biruda, ‘Mattavilāsan’, which may be

translated as ‘Drunken sport’? At face value, it is not exactly the most complimentary royal title for a

king. Or, again, the biruda, ‘Vīrasah’, which at face value translates to ‘Tasteless’ or ‘Obscene’. Another

biruda of his is ‘Akaruṇah’, ‘The merciless’. And a final example, here, is ‘Samkīrṇnajātiḥ’, which,

again at face value, means ‘One of mixed caste’. (These negative ‘face values’ are countered by possibile

positive readings - hence, the humor.) It can thus be demonstrated that Mahēndra was, indeed, a royal

playwright who poked fun at the whole world, including himself.

We know from Daṇḍin’s autobiographical introduction to his work, Avantisundarī-Kathā, that he

was court poet to the Pallavas; and, from the evidence we have,17 he was active as such in the latter part

of the seventh century and early eighth, during the reigns of King Paramēśvaravarman-I and his son,

Narasim̐havarman-II (‘Rājasim̐ha’). Further, Daṇḍin informs us in his introductory remarks that the

connection between his family and the Pallava kings had begun a century earlier, when his great grand-

father, Dāmōdara, as an outstanding young poet, was invited by King Siṁhavishṇu to his court, and

treated there as one of the king’s own sons. The crown prince - the future King Mahēndra - must have

been Dāmōdara’s close companion and the young poet’s outstanding literary disciple!

This close relationship between Dāmōdara and the prince may suggest an answer to the question

why, contrary to tradition, the collection of thirteen plays attributed to “Bhāsa” by Ganapati Sastri all

lacked any mention of an author. The suggestion we now put forward is that they were products of a

brilliant collaboration between these two friends, Dāmōdara and the prince. A good number of the plays

are short, rather unsophisticated works, probably written toward the beginning of the prince’s literary

efforts guided by Dāmōdara. Some others, such as the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇam and Svapna-Vāsava-

dattam, rank among the best of Sanskrit dramas. The Mṛcchakaṭikam, which rivals the greatness of

Kālidāsa’s Śākuntalam, is but an adaptation by Daṇḍin of the Cārudattam, which was the original,

written almost a century earlier by the then mature king, Mahēndra, under the nom de plume of ‘Śūdraka’.

Daṇḍin, the adapter, never claims credit for the play, but, in a sense, the Mṛcchakaṭikam is a meta-

creation by Mahēndra’s teacher Dāmōdara’s great grandson, Daṇḍin!

• 69 -

Indirect Indications of Mahēndra's Authorship of Many of the So-called Bhāsa Plays

[Adapting from Appendix C, Part 2:] J.D.R. Mankad, in his book, The Types of Sanskrit Drama (1936), speaking about the passage in King Mahēndra's play, Bhagavad-Ajjukam, which reads:

. . . atha tu nāṭaka-prakaraṇādbhavāsu vārēhāmrga-dima-samavakāra-vyāyōga-bhāṇa-sallāpa-vīthy-utsṛṣṭikāñka-prahasanādiṣu daśa-jātiṣu. . . .

remarks that this passage

evidently refers to a distinct principle of division, for nāṭaka and prakaraṇa are, here, taken as the basis of the other ten types, while according to the usual theory . . . they themselves form the first two types.18

M. Winternitz, commenting, in 1925, on the same passage of the Bhagavad-Ajjukam, had said:

The list of ten Rūpakas, in all our Nātyaśāstras, includes the Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, while our author [of the Bhagavad-Ajjukam] speaks of ten kinds of plays sprung from Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. . . .19

From those early years in the twentieth century up to the present time, scholars have puzzled over the above passage in the Bhagavad-Ajjukam. It has been assumed that there are twelve types of drama which have been mentioned in it: 1) nāṭaka, 2) prakaraṇa, 3) vāra, 4) īhāmrga, 5) dima, 6) samavakāra, 7) vyāyōga, 8) bhāṇa, 9) sallāpa, 10) vīthī, 11) utsṛṣṭikāñka, 12) prahasana.

There are two problems with this assumption. First, the passage seems to be claiming that ten types of drama have 'sprung from' the nāṭaka and prakaraṇa - and thus the ten types do not include the nāṭaka and prakaraṇa! Second, nobody seems to be able to explain what type of drama 'vāra' is.

Our solution to both these conundrums is to be found in the hermaphrodite image which infuses the very title of this play, Bhagavad-Ajjukam, as well as the Rudra-Ardhanārī concept which lies at the heart of the Nāndī ślōka and of the play, itself. Just as the Bhagavan and Ajjukā are united in a single, hermaphrodite form, so also we should view 'Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa', in the above passage, as a single 'hermaphrodite' form (the Mother-Father in One) - the single parent of the other, lesser types of drama.

As for the problem of the word 'vāra', that is easily solved. 'Vāra' is not the name of any type of drama! 'Vāra' only means 'series', here, referring to the list of the nine lesser types of drama which follow, and which have 'sprung from' the hermaphrodite 'Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa' parent. In this way, we end up with the 'ten types' which are required by the text and which are themselves the ground for the various rasas. This may seem like a strange classification, but this is comedy, and the playwright is King Mahēndravarman, who poked fun at the whole world!20

The point we wish to make in this section is that this seemingly pedantic listing of the ten different types of drama may actually be a significant reference by the playwright (Mahēndra) to the fact that he (often in collaboration with Dāmōdara) had already composed plays in nine of these different genres, and that, now, he wanted to tackle the last, the prahasana (farcical comedy).

Viewing the ten forms of drama given in Bhagavad-Ajjukam from this perspective, we give the following sketch of them:

1. Nāṭaka-Prakarana - drama in its most complete form, having five to ten acts, with the śṛṅgāra or vīra rasa predominating. The Nāṭaka (sub-division) is distinguished by its plays following a well-known theme (taken from the epics or history) and having a high ranking hero (god, king, or great Brahmin) - e.g., the Svapna-Vāsavadattam, by the so-called 'Bhāsa', whereas, in the Prakaraṇa (sub-division), its plays follows a made-up plot (invented by the playwright), and have a lower ranking hero, together with other characters who are either common types or even disreputable - e.g., the Cārudattam/Mrcchakaṭikam, by 'Bhāsa', a.k.a. 'Śūdraka'.

Īhāmṛga

–

a

drama

in

which

the

hero

abducts

the

heroine

(as

in

the

Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇam

–

though,

there,

only

as

reported,

off

stage

–

the

hero

and

heroine

never

appear

on

stage!).

Dima

–

a

one

act

drama

dealing

with

an

affray

or

siege

or

some

other

violent

action

(e.g.,

the

Bālacaritam,

attributed

to

“Bhāsa”).

Samavakāra

–

a

3-act

drama

containing

a

cooperative

movement

to

a

final

resolution

of

strife

(e.g.,

the

Pañcarātram,

attributed

to

“Bhāsa”).

Vyāyōga

–

a

one-act

drama,

full

of

fighting,

heroics

–

few

female

characters

(e.g.,

the

Madhyama-Vyāyōgam,

attributed

to

“Bhāsa”).

Bhāṇa

–

a

monologue,

in

one

act,

mainly

dealing

with

love

(e.g.,

the

Padmaprābhṛtakam,

by

“Śūdraka”).

Sallāpa

–

conversational

dialogue

on

various

subjects

not

necessarily

connected

(the

Dūtavākyam

has

been

considered

a

Sallāpa,

but

the

device

of

the

‘painted

scroll’

used

in

it

would

suggest

to

us

that

it

is

better

categorized

as

a

Vīthī).

Vīthī

–

‘street

play’

–

one

act

(e.g.,

the

Dūtavākyam

and

the

Traivikramam,

attributed

to

“Bhāsa”).

Utsṛṣṭikāṅka

–

tragedy,

1-act

(e.g.,

the

Ūrubhaṅgam

&

Karṇabhāram

&

Dūta-Ghaṭōtkacam).

Prahasana

–

farce,

one

act

(e.g.,

the

Mattavilāsa-Prahasanam,

by

King

Mahēndra).

From

this

sketch

of

the

ten

different

types

of

drama

listed

in

the

Bhagavad-Ajjukam,

one

can

see

that

the

plays

attributed

to

“Bhāsa”/“Śūdraka”/Mahēndra

provide

examples

for

all

of

them.

Of

the

three

remaining

“Trivandrum”

plays

not

mentioned

above,

the

Abhiṣeka-Nāṭakam

and

Pratimā-Nāṭakam

are

Nāṭakas

–

representing

the

Nāṭaka-half

of

the

hermaphrodite

‘Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa’

parent.

The

Avimārakam

represents

the

Prakaraṇa

half

of

the

hermaphrodite

parent!

A

well-known

verse

of

Rājaśekhara’s,

recorded

in

the

Sūktimuktāvali,

reads:

Bhāsa-nāṭakācrakrēpi

chēkaiḥ

kṣiptē

parikṣitum

||

Svapnavāsavadattasya

dāhakôbhūnna

pāvakah

||

When

critics

subjected

Bhāsa’s

‘cycle

of

plays’

(‘nāṭakacakra’)

to

the

test

of

fire,

the

Svapnavāsavadattam

came

out

of

the

ordeal

unscathed.

The

term

‘nāṭakacakra’

implies

a

number

of

different

types

of

plays.

Nobody

would

call

a

collection

of

thirteen

prakaraṇas

or

of

thirteen

prahasanas

a

‘cycle

of

plays’!

And

which

playwright,

we

would

ask,

has

ever

discussed

the

‘nāṭakacakra’?

There

is

one

and

only

one

on

record:

King

Mahēndra,

in

the

Prologue

of

his

comedy,

Bhagavad-Ajjukam!

There

are

many

further

directions

research

can

take

either

to

confirm

or

disconfirm

our

hypothesis

that

King

Mahēndra

is

the

‘Bhāsa’

of

the

so-called

Trivandrum

plays

–

for

instance,

a

careful,

thorough

comparison

of

the

styles

of

the

Mattavilāsa-Prahasanam

and

Bhagavad-Ajjukam,

on

the

one

hand,

and

the

Trivandrum

plays

on

the

other.

Many

scholars

have

taken

the

various

deviations

from

the

rules

of

the

Nāṭya-Śāstra

found

in

the

plays

of

‘Bhāsa’/‘Śūdraka’/‘Bōdhāyana’

as

evidence

that

these

plays

were

written

before

that

treatise

came

into

prominence

(a

time

probably

not

later

than

the

fourth

century,

A.D.).

We,

on

the

contrary,

see

these

same

deviations

as

the

expressions

of

one

of

the

most

original

minds

in

the

history

of

Indian

literature,

a

mind

nurtured

in

a

creative,

youthful

–

and,

yes,

rebellious!

–

collaboration

with

the

young

court

poet,

Dāmōdara,

breaking

many

of

those

rules

–

the

mind

of

the

Pallava

prince

and

king,

Mahēndravikrama,

whose

life

spanned

the

years

from

mid-sixth

to

mid-seventh

century,

A.D.

Notes

1

Māmallapuram:

A

Guide

to

the

Monuments,

by

Michael

Lockwood

(Madras:

Tambaram

Research

Associates).

2

The

word

'Sūtradhāra'

is

often

translated

in

English

as

'Director'

or

'Producer'.

The

term

'Natī'

may

be

translated

as

'Actress'.

The

Sūtradhāra

and

Natī

usually

appear

only

in

the

prologues

of

Sanskrit

plays.

Their

function

there

is

to

introduce

the

Play

Proper,

which

is

to

"follow"

the

Prologue.

But

in

this

play

(Traivikramam),

there

is

no

Prologue

to

any

following

Play

Proper.

Rather,

the

dialogue

between

the

two

actors

forms

the

Play

Proper,

itself

–

a

rather

unusual

play,

a

dramatic

narrative.

Elsewhere,

in

this

book,

we

have

studied

in

some

detail

the

functions

of

the

Sūtradhāra

and

his

counterpart

characters

on

stage,

the

Natī,

the

Vidūṣaka,

or

others.

3

We

have

analyzed

such

a

form

in

our

sixth

study,

"Abhinavagupta's

Discussion

of

Metadrama

(c.

1000

A.D.).

4

History

of

Classical

Sanskrit

Literature

(Madras:

Tirumalai-Tirupati

Devasthanams

Press,

1937),

p.

5

Three

available

manuscripts

of

the

Traivikramam

are

mentioned

in

N.P.

Unni's

book,

New

Problems

in

Bhāsa

Plays

(Trivandrum,

College

Book

House,

1978),

pp.

85,

165,

&

67,

repectively:

one

manuscript,

in

the

Government

Oriental

Manuscripts

Library,

Madras

(Chennai):

MS

No.

R

3585F,

a

codex

which

contains

seven

dramas,

including

the

Traivikramam

and

five

of

the

thirteen

plays

ascribed

to

Bhāsa

by

Ganapati

Sastri;

and

two

manuscripts,

in

the

Sanskrit

College

Library,

Trippunithura,

Cochin:

MS

No.

338

C,

a

codex

which

contains

twenty

dramas,

including

the

Traivikramam

and

all

thirteen

plays

originally

ascribed

to

Bhāsa

by

Ganapati

Sastri,

and

MS

No.

338

M,

a

codex

which

also

contains

the

Traivikramam

and

all

thirteen

plays

originally

ascribed

to

Bhāsa

by

Ganapati

Sastri.

6

Māmallapuram:

A

Guide

…

,

pp.

61–63.

7

Pallava

Architecture,

Part

II:

Intermediate

or

Māmalla

Period,

being

Memoirs

of

the

Archaeological

Survey

of

India,

No.

33,

1928

(reprint:

New

Delhi:

Cosmo

Publications,

1982).

8

Or

Nāga

King

and

Princess,

according

to

Michael

Rabe,

in

his

book,

The

Great

Penance

at

Māmallapuram

(Chennai

[Madras]:

Institute

of

Asian

Studies,

2001),

pp.

69

&

142ff.

Rabe's

monograph

is

by

far

the

most

detailed

study,

to

date,

of

the

Great

Penance

Panel.

In

1982,

in

Māmallapuram

and

the

Pallavas

(Madras:

The

Christian

Literature

Society),

pp.

6ff.,

we

were

first

to

"entertain"

the

possibility

that

the

Great

Penance

Panel

could

simultaneously

portray

both

Arjuna's

penance

and

King

Bhagīratha's

penance

by

its

iconography,

in

the

graphic

art

medium,

mimicking

the

literary

Sanskrit

genre

called

dvisamdhānakāvya.

In

our

book,

we

promptly

dismissed

this

possibility.

Rabe,

however,

has,

in

the

main

thrust

of

his

monograph,

eloquently,

and

with

great

breadth

of

vision,

argued

in

its

favor.

9

Refer

to

Part

Two

of

this

book

for

our

latest

updated

translation

of

the

two

plays,

and

for

the

many

reasons

we

hold

that

both

plays

were

written

by

King

Mahēndra.

10

New

Problems

in

Bhāsa

Plays,

p.

11

Ibid.,

p.

12

Ibid.,

pp.

44–45.

13

Important

earlier

scholars

holding

this

view

include

C.

Minakshi

and

V.

Raghavan,

both

of

whom

have

translated

the

play,

Bhagavad-Ajjukam.

• 72 -

14If King Mahēndra was indeed the author of the Dūtavākyam, then its Nāndī ślōka would reveal another pointer to Mahēndra as the author of the Traivikramam!:

Pādath pāyād-upēndrasya sarva-lōkōtsavas-sa vah |

Vyāviddhō namucir-yēna tanu-tāmra-nakhēna khē ||

May Upēndra's foot protect you!

which, with nails tinged red,

Flung Namuchi headlong into the sky,

to the jubilation of all the worlds!

15E.g., from the following statement in lines Nos. 11 to 13 of the Udayēndiram Copper Plates of the Pallava King, Nandivarman-II: “Ēvamankramēna santatiparamparābhivardhamānē pallavakulē bhakty-ārādhita-viṣnuh simhaviṣnuh l”

16Refer to chapters 18 and 19 of our book, Pallava Art (Madras: Tambaram Research Associates, 2001), for a detailed study of King Mahēndra's more than 120 birudas, including the presentation of all of the facsimiles of these royal titles.

17For details, see Rabe, pp. 32ff.

18The Types of Sanskrit Drama (Karachi: Urmi Prakashan Mandir, 1936), p. 41.

19From the Preface of P. Anujan Achan's edition of Bhagavadajjukīyam (Trichur, Kerala: Mangalodayam Press, 1925), pp. viii-ix.

20In addition to the above, somewhat convoluted 'surface' meaning of the passage, there is also an important implied meaning suggested by the hermaphrodite expression 'Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa': the word 'prakaraṇa' suggests, at a meta-level, 'critical treatise(s)' and the word 'nāṭaka' (dramatic) art'. In Indian thought, that which is direct, immediate experience through the senses is represented by the creative feminine half of Ardhanārīśvara (Pārvatī), while that which involves meaning and critical faculties (requiring mediate reasoning) is represented by the masculine half of Ardhanārīśvara (Śiva). Thus, Mahēndra is, on this level, using the expression 'Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa' to needle those scholars who swear only by the authority of critical treatises (the Nāṭya-Śāstra being the most notable of these treatises) and who, thus, would ignore the creative (feminine muse) side of literary inspiration and would advise young practitioners to slavishly follow these treatises in composing their works. With regard to the Bhagavad-Ajjukam, we have noted elsewhere that this tendency to swear by authority is exhibited by the Sūtradhāra, and that it humorously anticipates the Mendicant's habit of quoting authority every now and then. Mahēndra, in his two comedies, breaks many of the rules laid down in the Nāṭya-Śāstra. In the Mattavilāsa, there is drinking of not just water, but 'liquor', portrayed on stage, and the playwright even has the Naṭī shockingly berate the Sūtradhāra in the Prologue of the play. In the Bhagavad-Ajjukam, there is a death scene, with the corpse of the Courtesan lying on the stage floor. Again, there is water used in the course of the drama. And, though there is a substantial Prologue in this play, there is an astounding deliberate ignoring of any audience present by the Sūtradhāra and Vidūṣaka (for a detailed analysis of this deviation, see Chapter 5, "You or Us?" [pp.35-38]). This willingness to let the creative muse take precedence over the rules laid down in 'critical treatises' is found again and again in the plays attributed to Bhāsa. For instance, in the Cārudattam, the Sūtradhāra enters, speaking Prakrit - not Sanskrit - though this is a Sanskrit play! And the Sūtradhāra is overshadowed by the Naṭī, who, in this Sūtradhārinī (the Naṭī) plays the part of the Courtesan, Vasantasēnā, and is its leading character - not Cārudatta! This is the only example in the whole range of classical Sanskrit drama where the leading character is a female. Even in the earlier short plays by Bhāsa (Mahēndra), there is a freshness in the different treatment of episodes taken from the epics. For instance, consider the play, Ūrubhaṅgam, the only full-blown tragedy found in classical Sanskrit drama, a genre not even acknowledged in the Nāṭya-

• 73 -

Śāstra. The unusually sympathetic treatment, in this play, of the ordinarily demonized character of

Duryōdhana may be due to the fact that the Pallava kings traced their ancestry back through Aśvatthāman

and Drōṇa (Drōṇa, the chief military preceptor of the Kauravas, and Drōṇa’s son, Aśvatthāman, who

fought on the side of the Kauravas against the Pāṇḍavas). To repeat from our paper’s closing sentence,

the thrust of our argument, in a nutshell, is that whereas many

scholars have taken the various deviations from the rules of the Nāṭya-Śāstra found in the plays of

‘Bhāsa’/‘Śūdraka’/‘Bōdhāyana’ as evidence that these plays were written before that treatise came

into prominence (a time probably not later than the fourth century, A.D.), . . . [we], on the contrary,

see these same deviations as the expressions of one of the most original minds in the history of Indian

literature . . . - the mind of the Pallava prince and king, Mahēndravikrama, whose life spanned the

years from mid-sixth to mid-seventh century, A.D.

Addendum 2005

Then Criticism the Muse’s handmaid prov’d,

To dress her charms, and make her more belov’d:

But following wits from that intention strayed,

Who could not win the mistress, woo’d the maid.

(Alexander Pope, “An Essay on Criticism”, ll. 102-5)

Our study of the ‘structure of Sanskrit drama’ had its beginning, in 1974, with our maiden effort to edit

and translate King Mahēndra’s play, Bhagavad-Ajjukam. Throughout the years that have followed, it

has been the further study of this play which most often has offered us new insights. The playwright has

truly been our teacher! This fact has brought us to the realization that in the play, Bhagavad-Ajjukam,

Mahēndra has created a dramatic critique of the concept of the ‘Prahasana’ (the Farce). Pope chose

the vehicle of poetry for his critique of the relationship between the creative Muse and the analytic ‘maid’,

‘Criticism’. Mahēndra, on the other hand, has chosen to elucidate the concept of the ‘Prahasana’ through

the medium of a stage-production. In this way Mahēndra has brought about a union of ‘Creation’

(Nāṭaka [= Rūpaka, ‘play’ - general term]) and ‘Criticism’ (Prakaraṇa). In the Indian context, this union

can be represented as the hermaphrodite, ‘Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa’ (to which, the cognomens ‘Sañkirṇajātiḥ’

and ‘Ardhanārīśvaraḥ’ may be applied)! In the Western context, the union of Pope’s Muse and her

handmaid, in his poem, would be lesbian in nature!

In the Prastāvanā (Prologue) of the play, Bhagavad-Ajjukam, the Sūtradhāra informs his com-

panion, the Vidūṣaka, that a fortune-teller has predicted that in seven days he (the Sūtradhāra) is going to

put on a play at the royal palace. When the Vidūṣaka asks him which play he is going to put on, the

Sūtradhāra answers, “I’m going to put on a farce.” The Vidūṣaka pleads ignorance of that type of

comedy:

Vidūṣaka: Sir, though I’m a comedian, I know nothing of Farcical Comedy.

Sūtradhāra: Then learn! One can’t understand a thing without being taught!

Vidūṣaka: If so, it’s you, sir, who must teach me.

Sūtradhāra: Certainly.

Since you are determined to become enlightened,

a follower of the path of virtue . . .

As a disciple, follow me!

a bull of a Brahmin mendicant, master yōgi. (2)

Mahēndra has the Sūtradhāra teaching the Vidūṣaka by means of a practical demonstration in

which the Sūtradhāra plays the role of a teacher/guru (the Parivrājaka), while the Vidūṣaka plays the role

of the taught (the disciple, Śāṇḍilya). The entire play thus has a double order of correlated references:

(1) the Sūtradhāra teaching and the Vidūṣaka learning what a Prahasana is, and (2) the Parivrājaka, with

his unripe wisdom, trying to teach Śāṇḍilya, with his total unwillingness, refusing to learn - all of

which gives rise to a Prahasana - a model of the Prahasana. In view of this double order of correlated

references, the play demands of the reader/spectator a constant awareness of the double vision, necessi-

tated by the presence of the underlying drama (the subterranean continuation of the Prologue) in addition

to that of the outer, more visible drama. How does this double vision operate? Specifically, in this way:

we see the characters of the Parivrājaka and Śāṇḍilya in their respective costumes acting out the plot of

the Play Proper, but at the same time, we are aware that we have here the characters of the Sūtradhāra and

the Vidūṣaka playing the parts of the Parivrājaka and Śāṇḍilya, acting out the plot of the Prologue - the

teaching and learning of what a 'farce' is by means of an actual 'extempore', 'private' production of one.

perception: (1) that of viewing the farcical comedy, itself: the interaction of the Parivrājaka, Śāṇḍilya, and

the other characters of the Play Proper, and (2) that of making out the interaction between the Sūtradhāra

(playing the Parivrājaka) and the Vidūṣaka (playing Śāṇḍilya) and of enjoying this demonstration of the

theoretical aspects of the farcical comedy (Prahasana).

The Bhagavad-Ajjukam is thus fit to be called a Nāṭaka-Prakaraṇa - an instance of Mahēndra's

genius, his ability to innovate. The play proper is, indeed, an exposition of the Prahasana type of drama,

and in bringing this off, Mahēndra has created a new type of play which can be called the 'Nāṭaka-

Prakaraṇa', wherein we see the hermaphroditic type of union of 'Creation' and 'Criticism'.

Theoretically, this approach could be applied to any one of the ten types of drama, and many of

the extant classical Sanskrit dramas may be viewed in this framework. But the Prahasana, as full-blown

classical dramas (as in the Bhagavad-Ajjukam and Mattavilāsa-Prahasanam), must have been a unique

creation by King Mahēndra in the theater practice of his day.

Benediction

Namahaṁ Saṅkīrṇajā tāyē! Namaḥ Ardhanārīśvarāya!

(Salutations to Saṅkīrṇajāti! Salutations to Ardhanārīśvara!)

Select Bibliography

of Works Dealing with ‘Metadrama’ and ‘Metatheater’*

This select bibliography is presented because of the conviction that the structure of classical Sanskrit plays can be better understood from a perspective which is aware of world-wide research on the topic, ‘metadrama/metatheater’, and that Sanskrit plays, themselves, provide some of the best material for such research.

This bibliography is not exhaustive, but it should enable the formation of a reasonable idea of what kind of research has been going on in the area of ‘metadrama/metatheater’ since 1963, when Lionel Abel’s seminal book, Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form, was published - a book in which, it is claimed, the term ‘metatheater’ was first coined. Of course, those aspects of drama to which the terms ‘metatheater’ and ‘metadrama’ refer were present from the very beginning of dramatic art. Abel’s contribution was the coining of a conceptual term for these aspects - and his discussion launched this important area of research in the West. (In India, the discussion of the equivalent Sanskrit terms goes back to Abhinava-gupta, c. 1000 A.D., and, before that, to the Nāṭya-Śāstra.)

BOOKS

Abel, Lionel. Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form. New York: Hill and Wang, 1963.

Blanpied, John W., (ed.). Shakespearean Metadrama. Rochester, NY: Department of English, University of Rochester, 1977.

Burckhardt, Sigurd. Shakespearean Meanings. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968.

Calderwood, James L. Metadrama in Shakespeare’s Henriad: Richard II to Henry V. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.

______. Shakespearean Metadrama: The Argument of the Play in Titus Andronicus, Love’s Labour’s Lost, Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Richard II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971.

______. To Be and Not to Be: Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.

*Based on a bibliography compiled by Michael Lockwood in 1990.

• 76 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

Colie, Rosalie. Shakespeare's Living Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.

Cope, Jackson I. The Theatre and the Dream. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

Danson, Lawrence. Tragic Alphabet. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

Edwards, Philip. Shakespeare and the Confines of Art. London: Methuen, 1968.

Egan, Robert. Drama within Drama: Shakespeare's Sense of His Art in King Lear, The Winter's Tale, and The Tempest. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.

Farrell, Kirby. Shakespeare's Creation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975.

Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. [A fundamentally important book.]

Goldman, Robert. Myth and Meta Myth: The Bhārgava Cycle of the Mahābhārata. New York, 1976.

Greene, Naomi. Antonin Artaud: Poet without Words. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Homan, Sidney. When the Theater Turns to Itself: The Aesthetic Metaphor in Shakespeare. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1981.

Hornby, Richard. Drama, Metadrama, and Perception. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1986. [A fundamentally important book.]

Krieger, Murray. Theory of Criticism: A Tradition and Its System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

Laing, R.D. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965.

______. The Self and Others. New York: Random House, 1969.

Nelson, Robert J. Play within a Play: The Dramatist's Conception of His Art: Shakespeare to Anouilh. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958.

Righter, Anne. Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play. London: Chatto and Windus, 1962.

Schlueter, June. Metafictional Characters in Modern Drama. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.

Stroup, Thomas. Microcosmos: The Shape of the Elizabethan Play. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1975.

Van Laan, Thomas. Role-Playing in Shakespeare. Toronto, 1978

• 77 -

Select Bibliography

On Metafiction:

Alter, Robert. Partial Magic: The Novel as a Self-Conscious Genre. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.

Kellman, Stephen G. The Self-Begetting Novel. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Scholes, Robert. Fabulation and Metafiction. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979.

Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London: Methuen, 1984.

BOOK ARTICLES

Butler, Martin. "Love's Sacrifice: Ford's Metatheatrical Tragedy" [pp. 201-231]. In John Ford: Critical Re-Visions. Ed. by Michael Neill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Evans, Peter W. "Calderón's Portrait of a Lady in La vida es sueño" [pp. 45-56]. In What's Past is Prologue: A Collection of Essays in Honour of L.J. Woodward. Ed. by Salvador Bacarisse and others. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1984.

Farrell, Kirby. "Imitation and Identity: Shakespeare and the Imagination of His Culture" [pp. 78-100]. In Shakespearean Metadrama. Ed. by John W. Blanpied. Rochester, NY: Department of English, University of Rochester, 1977.

Flores, Ralph. "Metatheater as Metaphorics: Playing Figures in Shakespeare's Sonnets" [pp. 95-128]. In Shakespeare and Deconstruction. Ed. by G. Douglas Atkins and David M. Bergeron. New York: Peter Lang, 1988.

Fly, Richard. "Shakespeare's Humanistic Poetics: The Metadramatic Affirmation of Aesthetic Form" [pp. 2-16]. In Shakespearean Metadrama (1977). Ed. by John W. Blanpied.

Hildebrand, Olle. "The Theatrical Theatre: Evreinov's Contribution to Russian Modernism: An Analysis of Veseleja Smert" [pp. 235-253]. In Semiotics of Drama and Theatre: New Perspectives in the Theory of Drama and Theatre. Ed. by Herta Schmid & Aloysius van Kesteren. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1984.

Holt, Marion Peter. "The Metatheatrical Impulse in Post-Civil War Spanish Comedy" [pp. 79-91]. In The Contemporary Spanish Theater: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. by Martha T. Halsey and Phyllis Zatlin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988.

• 78 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

Hornby, Richard. "Beyond the Verbal in Pygmalion" [pp. 121-127].

In Shaw: The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies 3. Ed. by

Daniel Leary. University Park: Pennsylvania State University

Press, 1983.

Huston, J. Dennis. "Totus Mundus Agit Histrionem: Shakespeare

and the Comedy of Play" [pp. 63-77]. In Shakespearean

Metadrama (1977). Ed by John W. Blanpied.

Jones-Davies, Marie-Therese. "'The players . . . will tell all,' or the

Actor's Role in Renaissance Drama" (1981) [pp. 76-85]. In

Shakespeare, Man of the Theater. Ed. by Kenneth Muir and

others. Newark, NJ: University of Delaware Press, 1983.

Kesteren, Aloysius van. "Semiotics, Drama, and a Meta-Theatrical

Performance: Apostrophes" [Vol. 1, pp. 316-319]. In

Proceedings of the Xth Congress of the International

Comparative Language Association. Vol. 1. Ed. by Anna

Balakian and others. New York: Garland, 1985 [1982].

Krieger, Murray. "Poetics Recontructed: The Presence of the Poem"

and "Shakespeare and the Critic's Idolatry of the Word". In

Shakespeare: Aspects of Influence. Ed. by G.B Evans.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.

McCloskey, Susan. "The Price of Misinterpretation in The Duchess

of Malfi" [pp. 34-55]. In From Renaissance to Restoration:

Metamorphoses of the Drama. Ed. by Robert Markley and

Laurie Finke. Cleveland: Bellflower, 1984.

Novy, Marianne. "Shakespeare's Female Characters as Actors and

Audience" [pp. 17-40]. In Shakespearean Metadrama (1977).

Overbeck, Lois More. "The Metaphor of play in Samuel Beckett's

Play" [pp. 87-95]. In The Many Forms of Drama. Ed. by

Karelisa V. Hartigan. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America, 1985.

PERIODICAL ARTICLES:

Balsari, Shefali Bakul. "Rites of Passage: A Metadramatic Reading of

The Taming of the Shrew." Dissertation Abstracts

International (1983, Nov.), Vol. 44 (5), p. 1459A.

Beiner, G. "Endgame in Love's Labour's Lost." Anglia: Zeitschrift

fur Englische Philologie (1985), Vol. 103 (1-2), pp. 48-70.

Bixler, Jacqueline E. "Self-Conscious Narrative and Metatheater in

Un hombre que se parecía a Orestes." Hispania: A Journal

Devoted to the Interests of the Teaching of Spanish and

Portuguese (1984, May), Vol. 67 (2), pp. 214-220.

_____. "Vargas Llosa's Kathie y el hipopótamo: The Theatre as

a Self-Conscious Deception." Hispania . . . (1988, May),

Vol. 71 (2), pp. 254-261.

• 79 -

Select Bibliography

Calderwood, James L. “The Master Builder and the Failure of

Symbolic Success.” Modern Drama (1984, Dec.), Vol. 27 (4),

pp. 616-636.

Cannon, Jo Ann. “The Question of the Frame in Pirandello’s

Metatheatrical Trilogy.” Modern Language Studies (1986,

Summer), Vol. 16 (3), pp. 44-56.

Casa, Frank P. “Some Remarks on Professor O’Connor’s Article ‘Is

the Spanish Comedia a Metatheater?’” Bulletin of the

Comediantes (1976), Vol. 28, pp. 27-31.

Chaudhuri, Una. “The Politics of Theater: Play, Deceit, and Threat in

Genet’s The Blacks.” Modern Drama (1985, Sep.), Vol 28 (3),

pp. 362-376.

Chellappan, K. “Meta Drama in Henry IV, Part I.” The Indian

Journal of English Studies (1981-82), New Series, Vol. 2,

pp. 61-66.

DiPuccio, Denise M. “Metatheatrical Histories in Corona de luz.”

Latin American Theatre Review (1986, Fall), Vol. 20 (1),

pp. 29-36.

Federico, Joseph A. “Metatheater: Self-Consciousness and Role-

Playing in the Dramas of Max Fisch, Friedrich Durrenmatt, and

Peter Handke.” Dissertation Abstracts International (1977),

Vol. 37, pp. 7148A-7149A.

Fischer, Susan L. “Calderón’s Los cabellos de Absalon: A Metatheater

of Unbridled Passion.” Bulletin of the Comediantes (1976),

Vol. 28, pp. 103-113.

Fly, Richard. “The Evolution of Shakespearean Metadrama: Abel,

Burckhardt, and Calderwood.” Comparative Drama (1986,

Summer), Vol. 20 (2), pp. 124-139.

Furnish, Shearle. “Metatheatre in The First Shepherd’s Play.” Essays

in Theatre (1989, May), Vol. 7 (2), pp. 139-148.

Goodwin, Robert E. “Kalidasa’s Metadrama: Mālavikāgnimitra.”

Journal of South Asian Literature (Winter, Spring, 1988),

Vol. 23 (1), pp. 119-136.

Herzberger, David K. “Shakespeare and the Creation of Fiction in

Tamayo y Baus’s Un drama nuevo.” Romance Quarterly

(1985), Vol. 32 (2), pp. 177-184.

Hornby, Richard. “O’Neill’s Metadrama.” The Eugene O’Neill

Newsletter (1988, Summer-Fall), Vol. 12 (2), pp. 13-18.

Hubert, Judd. “Molière: The Playwright as Protagonist.” Theatre

Journal (1982, Oct.), Vol. 34 (3), pp. 361-371.

• 80 -

Metatheater and

Sanskrit Drama

Kirby, Carol B. “Theater and the Quest for Anointment in El rey don Pedro en Madrid.” Bulletin of the Comediantes (1981, Fall), Vol. 33 (2), pp. 149-159.

Lane, Nancy. “Ghelderode’s La Mort du docteur Faust as Meta-Theater.” French Forum (1987, Jan.), Vol. 12 (1), pp. 93-108.

Levenson, Jill L. “Dramatists at (Meta) Play: Shakespeare’s Hamlet, II, ii, ll. 410-591 and Pirandello’s Henry IV.” Modern Drama (1981, Sep.), Vol. 24 (3), pp. 330-337.

Lipmann, Stephen. “Metatheater and the Criticism of the Comedia.” Modern Language Notes (1976), Vol 91, pp. 231-246.

Lockwood, Michael, and A. Vishnu Bhat. “Sanskrit Drama – Its Continuity of Structure.” Madras Christian College Magazine (1988-89), Vol. 55, pp. 41-45.

______. “Nāṭya-Yajña (Drama as Sacrifice).” Madras Christian College Magazine (1989-90), Vol. 56, pp. 17-21.

Lundstrom, Rinda. “Two Mephistos: A Study of Dialectics.” Modern Drama (1985, Mar.), Vol. 28 (1), pp. 162-170.

Mason, Jeffrey D. “Metatheatre of O’Neill: Actor as Metaphor in A Touch of the Poet.” Theatre Annual (1988), Vol. 43, pp. 53-66.

Mebane, John S. “Metadrama and the Visionary Imagination in Dr. Faustus and The Tempest.” South Atlantic Review (1988, May), Vol. 53 (2), pp. 22-45.

Merivale, P. “Endgame and the Dialogue of King and Fool in the Monarchical Metadrama.” Modern Drama (1978), Vol. 21, pp. 121-136.

Moore, Roger. “Metatheater and Magic in El magico prodigioso.” Bulletin of the Comediantes (1981, Fall), Vol. 32 (2), pp. 149-159.

Muratore, M.J. “The Dramatization of Play: Re-Reading Rodogune.” Cahiers du Dix-septieme: An Inter-Disciplinary Journal (1988, Fall), Vol. 2 (2), pp. 23-38.

O’Connor, Thomas A. “Is the Spanish Comedia a Metatheater?” Hispanic Review (1975), Vol. 43, pp. 275-289.

______. “La vida es sueño: A View from Metatheater.” Kentucky Romance Quarterly (1978), Vol. 25, pp. 13-26.

______. “Metatheater and the Comedia: A Further Comment.” Modern Language Notes (1977), Vol. 92, pp. 336-338.

Rao, N.M. “The Self-Commenting Drama of Our Times.” The Aligarh Journal of English Studies (1984), Vol. 9 (2), pp. 215-226.

• 81 -

Select Bibliography

Rothwell, Kenneth S. "Representing King Lear on Screen: From Metatheater to 'Meta-cinema.'" Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of Shakespeare Studies and Production (1987), Vol. 39, pp. 75-90.

Shapiro, Michael. "Role-Playing, Reflexivity, and Metadrama in Recent Shakespearean Criticism." Renaissance Drama (1981), Vol. 12, pp. 145-161.

Stroup, Thomas B. "'I see a Voice.'" Comparative Drama (1981, Spring), Vol. 15 (1), pp. 30-36.

Wilkinson, Jane. "Metatheatrical Strategy in A Dance of the Forests." Commonwealth Essays and Studies (1989), Vol. SP 1, pp. 68-78.

Zatlin, Phyllis. "Metatheatricalism and Nieva's Sombre y quimera de Larra." Gestos: teoria y practice del teatro hispanico (1989, Apr.), Vol. 4 (7), pp. 65-73.

Ziomek, Henryk. "A New View in Renaissance and Baroque Drama." Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny (1986), Vol. 33 (2), pp. 137-147.